Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed recorded votes on the House floor on Tuesday February 3, 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote #47 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 82),'' ``yea'' on rollcall vote #48 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 103), ``yea'' on rollcall vote #49 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to

Madam Speaker, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''

We all know this quote, Madam Speaker, and it is no accident that life is mentioned first. It is our most basic right given to us only by our Creator.

Every life is a gift given to us by the grace of God, and there can be no doubt that life begins at the moment of conception. But as I stand before you today, my heart breaks for the faces that are missing because they were never born.

Madam Speaker, I pray for the men and women throughout this country and the world who are expecting a child and they believe they are in an impossible situation. I hope they would understand that with God, all things are possible.

We recently saw thousands descend upon the Supreme Court to stand up for the rights of the unborn. To them, and all those who work every day to give a voice to the unborn, I say thank you and God bless.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule of H.R. 1. And it's surprising that out of the 206 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee only 11 were accepted and going to be debated here today.

Today, we will spend about 8 hours on a bill that cost about $825 billion and could potentially put our country in much more debt than we can handle.

Without a doubt, Madam Speaker, the American people are suffering. In my home State of South Carolina, the unemployment rate was about 9.5 percent in December, the highest in 25 years. Our national debt is increasing. And on Monday alone, 70,000 Americans lost their jobs.

Unfortunately, rather than focusing on job-creating measures like infrastructure and tax cuts--like I think should be in there--the Democrats have put forth legislation with billions in unwarranted and unrelated spending. I believe the government's responsibility is to ensure the actions taken are aimed at providing immediate and meaningful economic stimulus while at the same time trying to offer long-term solutions.

The Democrat plan fails to provide a swift and substantial positive impact on the economy. The Congressional Budget Office alone has estimated that much less than half of this money would be spent over the next 2 years. American families, Madam Speaker, are struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford that long to see an improvement in this economy.

In addition to having reservations regarding the effectiveness of the proposed stimulus package in the short term, I'm concerned that my Democrat colleagues have filled this bill with non-stimulative spending. The Democrat plan provides, for example, $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts, $250 million for NASA to study climate change, and $1 billion for the 2010 census package.

If Congress truly wants to stimulate the economy without damaging our future by increasing the debt, we should make real choices and cut programs in order to pay for other initiatives that truly stimulate the economy. In these challenging financial times, we cannot afford to open the door to more spending.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this fall when my colleagues and I voted to pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, our banking sector was facing an unprecedented and immediate threat that affected the ability of all American businesses, large and small, to get credit to obtain inventory, purchase needed supplies or even make payroll. Our credit markets were effectively frozen, and our economy faced extraordinary peril that required exceptional measures.

Our financial system and larger economy still have enormous problems. But the threats to our economy are shifting and rapidly evolving. The situation that we are facing today is critical and urgent. But our economy has different challenges from when we passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. And frankly, I'm not sure whether the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, is the right tool to combat these problems. It concerns me to see that TARP is spinning out of control with rapidly expanding goals. I did not vote to provide a fund to prop up failing companies or expand government interference into companies' business decisions. I supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to give us the tools to fight our immediate and critical economic threats this fall. And I'm glad that it worked to prevent even greater economic turmoil.

But now, we need to stop and reevaluate where we are. We need to take a measured approach. We need to be better stewards of the taxpayers' money. And we're talking about billions of dollars here. We need to figure out exactly what problem we are trying to fix and whether we are using the right tool.

Now yesterday, when I came down to the House floor to offer a motion to recommit that was similar in the nature of the resolution today, but with one fundamental difference, if passed by the House and Senate and signed into law, the bill as amended with my motion would have actually stopped the $350 billion from going to TARP. In his rebuttal to my motion to recommit, I was told by the distinguished Chair of the House Financial Services Committee that my Republican colleagues and I were getting our marching orders from the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal on disapproving the final $350 billion payment from TARP. Now, I can only speak for myself, Mr. Speaker, but I'm here to protect the American taxpayer. And spending this money right now is not the right thing to do.

I urge my colleagues to send a clear and convincing message to the American taxpayer that we want to stop TARP's expansion and to vote ``yes'' on disapproving of the final $350 billion to the program.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, I am.

Madam Speaker, this is a commonsense motion to recommit that is very straightforward and simple. The motion would repeal the third and final payment of the funds to the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. It will require the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a plan and a timetable for all TARP recipients to pay back the taxpayer. Let me say that again. It would require the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a plan and a timetable for all TARP recipients to pay back the American taxpayer.

Given that the Senate has already rejected this Joint Resolution of Disapproval, President Obama will receive his final $350 billion. Voting for this motion to recommit is the only way to stop a new, expanded TARP program, which has spun out of control.

Like many of my colleagues, Madam Speaker, I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to restore liquidity and stability into America's financial system, allowing American businesses access to credit that they needed to obtain inventory and purchase needed supplies and make a payroll. Simply put, the program, as it was sold to Congress, was necessary to prevent an even greater economic disaster, and I am glad we haven't seen the widespread financial turmoil that I believe was certain, had the government not taken unprecedented measures during the extraordinary times.

However, at the same time, I agree with my colleagues that the first $350 billion was spent too hastily and haphazardly and without the proper oversight. I have not yet seen that there was a credible plan in place to assure the taxpayer money was spent effectively and efficiently. I appreciate the fact that we are facing an unprecedented emergency economic situation, but trial and error, Madam Speaker, is simply not an acceptable strategy for spending taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

Now, a brand new administration is asking for more taxpayer money to see if they can do a better job. While I appreciate that we should not punish the new TARP implementation team for the poor planning of the prior group, we owe it to the American taxpayer to take our time and examine their plans more closely before we throw more money in an unsuccessful foreclosure mitigation program. I think it's only fair that we take a step back before we further expand TARP to prop up more failing businesses.

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues agree that before continuing down a path toward greater government intervention, we fully consider all of our options. We need to stop the expansion of the TARP, and considering the actions of the Senate last week, this motion to recommit is our best, the House's best, and only option.

Our economic situation, while still critical, has stabilized from where it was this fall. We now have the time and the responsibility to fully consider whether this program is the best way to get our troubled financial sector working and allow our economy to recover.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in protecting the American taxpayer by voting for this motion to recommit to stop the next $350 billion from going out the door and to make sure that we are paid back for the first $350 billion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed recorded votes on the House floor on Tuesday January 13, 2009.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on Rollcall vote No. 11 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 41), ``yes'' on Rollcall vote No. 12 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 50), ``no'' on Rollcall vote No. 13 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 43).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, before coming to Congress, I owned a small furniture store, the best and only store in Westminster, South Carolina. We sold only furniture. We did one thing, and we did it pretty good.

And before that, I was a captain in the United States Army. I had a pretty clear job title.

In both organizations, I was taught to keep operations focused and not expand our mission beyond its initials goals.

So what does this have to do with the legislation that we're talking about today? Well, unfortunately, this bill is a perfect example of Congress' bad habits of expanding its initial missions, a habit that brought us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, and guess what, the alternative minimum tax.

I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to restore liquidity and stability into America's financial system, allowing American businesses to access credit so they could obtain inventory, buy supplies, and make payroll. I supported this act to prevent what many experts called an ``economic tsunami,'' and I'm glad that we haven't seen the widespread financial mayhem that I think was certain.

We had to take extraordinary measures during those extraordinary times, but don't you think it's common sense to examine how we spent the first $350 billion before we even discuss how we're going to spend the second $350 billion? I agree with my colleagues that the first $350 billion was spent too hastily and haphazardly, and I believe there was not enough oversight or planning by the Treasury Department for how this money was to be used. However, I fully support the efforts of this bill to improve transparency, oversight and disclose exactly how the taxpayer money is being used, but I'm extremely concerned that this legislation expands the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program and brings us even further from its original mission, which did not include providing a fund to prop up failing corporations or putting politically-motivated mandates on private businesses in exchange for government funds.

This legislation will expand government interference in the private markets even more, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to oppose

Madam Speaker, we come here today in the midst of the biggest economic crisis this Nation has ever faced.

The proposal that was put forth by the administration earlier was unacceptable, no accountability, no government oversight, too much burden on the American taxpayer. But politics is the art of the possible.

This House is a place where policy and reality come together, where people solve problems. I was sitting right there when the vote was taken Monday. As soon as it went down, I turned to my colleagues and said, It's time to roll up our sleeves, it's time to solve this problem for America, and let's move forward. And we did that. I was on the phone with Treasury, with the administration, with Senate and House leadership, with the SEC. We've got suspension of mark to market. We've got increased FDIC insurance. We've got tax relief, AMT, child tax credit. This is a better bill.

But it's tough out there. I've talked to my moms, I've talked to my pops, I've talked to my corporations. No matter what we do or what we pass, there are still tough times out there. People are hurting. People are mad. I'm mad. Men and women that have fought in this House, I have fought in this House for spending regulations and tougher restraint, and we have seen what has happened and where it has led us.

Do I still have concerns about this bill? Yes. Do I still have concerns that it will affect the free market system? Yes, I do. But we have to act and we have to act now. It's our job to lead. If we don't solve these problems, not just these problems but Medicare and Social Security, if this House doesn't lead, America will fail. And if we don't get anything out of this conversation today, we need to understand that. It's about leadership. It's about moving forward.

I've had experts on both sides say, Gresham, this is a good thing, this is a bad thing.

I asked the good Lord to give me the guidance and the wisdom to make the decision. I will vote ``yes,'' and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

First off, I want to commend my colleagues, especially Minority Leader John Boehner, Roy Blunt, Eric Cantor, and certainly Ranking Member Spencer Bachus, for their hard work in improving this bill. However, Madam Speaker, after careful and agonizing consideration, I cannot support H.R. 3997 and will be voting ``no.''

I understand the need to act, and I understand the urge to act quickly. We must restore the flow of credit. I firmly subscribe to the belief that Main Street and Wall Street are inextricably linked. Instability in the financial markets leads to instability in taxpayers' personal accounts and their personal funds.

Meanwhile, that capital that flows through our financial markets is vital to the continued success of our businesses, large and small. We should all agree that a failure of our credit markets would be an enormous catastrophe, and the government does have a role in ensuring that the financial markets function soundly.

At the same time, we cannot allow the American taxpayer to become the insurance policy for financial decisions that didn't quite turn out as planned. Whether you're talking about someone from South Carolina who took a mortgage they couldn't afford or a Wall Street banker who gave that mortgage, we see just how important personal responsibility must be to the American society. And I fear that this legislation erodes this accountability and the freedom that comes with it.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, our government is in debt, and we're in a lot of it. In fact, this whole crisis is built around debt, where much bad debts has caused an inability to get new credit--otherwise known as debt. My daddy always told me that you can't borrow your way out of debt. And he was right.

There are other reasonable options that we should explore to help the markets heal themselves and that would not burden our country under even greater mounds of debt. I was pushing for a plan that would use more free market principles, such as suspension of capital gains, a repatriation of earnings to help spur economic growth by helping all Americans whose retirement accounts are invested in the stock market or own a house or business so they can jump start the flow of funds back in the system.

There is no doubt we find ourselves in a precarious situation, and the people are angry, and rightfully so. I'm angry. But we must not allow this anger to cloud our judgment and make choices that will divide this country. This is not a matter of Main Street versus Wall Street.

But when it comes time to vote on this bill, Madam Speaker, I will be voting ``no.'' I understand my colleagues for their reasoning, and I'm confident that we all want to do the best for this country. But I believe so strongly in the principles of the free market and the belief in the word ``freedom.'' That's why I'm opposing this bill.

My fear is that today the government will forever change the face of the American free market.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the House amendments to Senate amendments to H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act.

Name of Requesting Member: Gresham Barrett.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account Number: 31 0603003A Aviation Advanced Technology.

Name and address of requesting entity: The entity to receive funding for this project is Aviation Advanced Technology located in Anderson, Laurens, and Oconee counties, South Carolina.

Description of earmark including amount and spending plan: Requested amount of $1.28 million. This funding will be used to develop programs to improve transmission capabilities of military rotorcraft platforms. Such programs to enhance the performance of military rotorcraft platforms such as the Chinook, Apache, and Blackhawk would benefit significantly from the availability of a demonstrated, high performance gear material system technology. This project will develop advanced gear material systems for helicopter power transmissions. The program will quantify performance enhancements resulting from the implementation of advanced steels incorporating various technologies against the current state of the art material system. I certify that this project does not have a direct and foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interests of my spouse or me.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the House amendments to Senate amendments to H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act.

Name of Requesting Member: Gresham Barrett.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account Number: 33 0603005A Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology.

Name and address of requesting entity: The entity to receive funding for this project is TC Designs, LLC., located in Charleston and Pickens, South Carolina.

Description of earmark including amount and spending plan: I am requesting $2.0 million of funding. This funding will be used for floor protection for Humvees for increased IED countermeasure protection for US military personnel. The Humvees will receive a Tom Cat V-shaped hull with integral up armor that is less than 800 pounds. The unique design of this hull protection is specifically designed to be light enough for the Humvee, but strong enough to resist and deflect blast. I certify that this project does not have a direct and foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interests of my spouse or me.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the House amendments to Senate amendments to H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act.

Name of Requesting Member: Gresham Barrett.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account Number: 2 Darpa 0601101E Defense Research Sciences.

Name and address of requesting entity: The entity to receive funding for this project is Clemson University, located at Clemson University, South Carolina.

Description of earmark including amount and spending plan: I am requesting $1.28 million of funding for Clemson University Advanced Photonic Composites Research. This program will be used for development of the next generation of materials for use in optical and laser-based communication, health, automotive, and defense platforms. It will provide the necessary coordinated and concentrated effort to bring high information capacity, low power consuming optical technologies to the soldier. The research will continue to focus on novel active and passive materials and optical devices for advanced lighting, directed energy, sensing, and switching, as well as ways to make their performance controllably adaptive, such that one technology may now be used for a myriad of applications. I certify that this project does not have a direct and foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interests of my spouse or me.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the House amendments to Senate amendments to H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act.

Name of Requesting Member: Gresham Barrett.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account Number: 050 Field Medical Equipment.

Name and address of requesting entity: The entity to receive funding for this project is North American Rescue Products, located at 481 Garlington Road, Suite A, Greenville, South Carolina 29615.

Description of earmark including amount and spending plan: I am requesting $3.2 million of funding for Combat Casualty Care Equipment Upgrade. The funding would be used for developing equipment for navy surface ships to improve field medical equipment to meet the stringent requirements of today's counter-insurgency combat operations and littoral warfare. The state-of-the-art lifesaving medical capabilities of this program will equip navy Medical Corpsman and USMC tactical units such items as lightweight NATO compatible litters, vehicle on- board lifesaving kits, individual combat lifesaving kits, and high threat extraction kits. This program benefits U.S. military personnel through unique lifesaving and trauma-mitigating field medical equipment. I certify that this project does not have a direct and foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interests of my spouse or me.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the House amendments to Senate amendments to H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act.

Name of Requesting Member: Gresham Barrett.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account Number: 33 Cbdp 0603384Bp Chemical And Biological Defense Program, Advanced Development,

Name and address of requesting entity: The entity to receive funding for this project is Graniteville Specialty Fabrics, located at 511 Leitner Street Graniteville, South Carolina.

Description of earmark including amount and spending plan: I am requesting $2.4 million of funding for Chemical and Biological Threat Protection Coating. The objective of this program is to develop self- decontaminating chemical and biological fabric with a comfort profile necessary to maintain extended protection during pandemics. This new and advanced material can be deployed either as an individual protective garment, respiratory mask, or protective shelter. The technology

will adhere to the US DOD requirements for the Joint Chemical Agent Detector (JCAD). This program will ultimately develop advanced chemical technology for coating suits, tents, and other equipment for military and first responder personnel. I certify that this project does not have a direct and foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interests of my spouse or me.

Madam Speaker, there was an energy bill brought to the floor yesterday, but unfortunately, it was not a comprehensive bill or open for debate, and no Member was allowed to offer any amendment expanding the scope.

The bill passed restricts miles of coastal States like my State of South Carolina. It tells us what we can explore, and it prohibits the States from sharing any revenues. That's a bad deal for coastal States, and it's a bad deal for this country.

It imposes a new 15 percent renewable energy requirement on utilities, but it leaves out energy sources like nuclear, most hydro and even clean coal. South Carolina gets about 50 percent of its power from nuclear energy, and this legislation will penalize my State. So it's a bad deal for South Carolina, and it's a bad deal for this country.

Madam Speaker, what I also left out of this so-called comprehensive bill is coal-to-liquid technology, increased refinery capacity, domestic exploration in ANWR, and nuclear energy--our cleanest and safest supply of energy that we have.

Madam Speaker, the bill passed is a bad deal for America. There is a smarter way. Let's bring comprehensive energy legislation like the American Energy Act to the floor.