Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, October 1, 2007.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 924 (Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 185), ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 925 (Motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2276), and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 926 (Motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3325).

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that many homeowners around the country require affordable insurance against natural disasters. However, I also know that the Federal Government cannot afford spending at the excessive levels we are spending at. By expanding the National Flood Insurance Program, the NFIP, H.R. 3121 would put the Federal Government on the hook for even more billions of dollars.

Coming from a State prone to hurricanes, I am sensitive to those needs and to those who live in high-risk areas for natural disasters. But it would be irresponsible for the Federal Government to expand its program without fully understanding the repercussions. Unfortunately, many Americans will likely once again find themselves affected by devastating natural catastrophes such as hurricanes. The NFIP already owes the Department of Treasury around $18 billion, and it is unlikely that they will ever be able to repay this amount; $18 billion.

So should we now increase the NFIP's exposure, thus increasing the Federal Government's liability, by expanding this program to include wind insurance? To do so would be unfair to the taxpayers who would be stuck with this bill, Mr. Chairman.

Expanding this already distressed program will increase the Federal Government's liability, and will almost definitely increase government spending on a huge scale while crowding out private insurance markets.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act.

Madam Speaker, due to a family obligation, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor in the afternoon of Friday, September 7, 2007.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 862 (on agreeing to the Conyers amendment to H.R. 1908), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 863 (on passage of H.R. 1908), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 864 (on passage of the conference report H. Rept. 110-317 to

Mr. Speaker, the plan for General Petraeus' surge was designed to improve Iraq's security so that political and economic progress could follow. Stability measures implemented in violent areas in and around Baghdad and across the nation have produced recognizable results.

There is an increased security in Iraq, and optimistic reports are traveling back from Members of Congress, war critics, and, yes, even the liberal press. Areas once considered terrorist strongholds are now relatively secure. Progress. Sunni and U.S. forces are working together for victory. Progress. Tribal leaders are turning their backs on terrorist insurgents and helping American forces. Progress.

Next week, General Petraeus will deliver a comprehensive report on Iraq and what the surge has produced since he has been on the ground, and I am confident his report will be detailed and honest.

Mr. Speaker, the level of progress is evident, and I believe the continued success of the surge will pave the way for the only way out of Iraq: Victory.

Madam Speaker, one reason America has remained free of attack for the last 7 years is because we have given the tools necessary to those on the front lines, whether it be our military or our intelligence officers. Many tactics to defend and protect this country have been used, one being electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence through the FISA Act.

Madam Speaker, FISA was first implemented to assist the gathering of information during another era, well before the invention of cell phones, satellite tracking, or even the Internet. Terrorist groups and, more specifically, al Qaeda, have adapted to modern technology, and it's time the U.S. did the same. We're not talking about skirting the legal process but, rather, giving our intelligence officers the ability to gather information coming from foreign and/or known terrorists in the United States.

I urge the majority to fix this problem now and help keep our country safe.

Mr. Speaker, last week the National Intelligence Estimate report stated that al Qaeda is the most serious threat to the U.S. homeland.

On Tuesday President Bush flew to my home State of South Carolina to speak to troops in Charleston. In his speech he reminded the Nation of the threat that al Qaeda poses to our Nation and the stability of Iraq. The threat is real.

I would like to share with you a Fourth of July blog entry from Lieutenant Colonel Clarence Bowser, who is currently serving with the South Carolina National Guard in Kandahar, Afghanistan:

``I am so proud of my service here and to this Nation. I don't know the politics; I'll leave that to the politicians. But it is my prayer for their leadership and that we as a Nation do the right thing for this country and Iraq.''

Mr. Speaker, my hope and my prayer is that we as politicians have the courage to do the same: win this fight.

Madam Speaker, we must find ways to be less reliant on foreign supplies of oil and gas. And this is more than an energy issue; this is a national security issue. We cannot be beholden to our enemies for our energy supply. But the good news is we're making progress domestically to find a diverse energy supply using alternative energy sources.

South Carolina, which is becoming a front-runner in alternative energy for the Nation, received $1 million to fund cellulosic ethanol process development. These funds will support a bioethanol project that Clemson University, SC Bio, Savannah River National Lab and the Queensland University of Technology collaborated on using novel technology.

The time is now to provide a secure energy future for generations to come. And fortunately, we are working domestically to ensure that ethanol technology here at home is a permanent fix to solving our dependency on foreign energy sources.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of South Carolina for their continued support of the Rosa Clark Free Medical Clinic in Oconee County, South Carolina.

For more than 50 years, BCBS of South Carolina has worked to increase access to quality health care for all South Carolina residents with the hope of providing a higher quality of life to individuals and families across the state. The BCBS of South Carolina has shown leadership in attempting to tackle the problem of preventative health care for the uninsured. Their work is a good example of how the private sector, and not the Federal Government, is better equipped to find innovative solutions to the challenges facing our Nation.

In addition to serving nearly 1 million customers and employing 12,000 South Carolinians, BCBS of South Carolina has also awarded millions of dollars in grants to local schools and medical facilities. These philanthropic efforts facilitated the hiring of health care professionals, furthering health care education, and ensuring South Carolinians have access to affordable quality health care.

One example of this giving exists in my home district, the Third District of South Carolina. In 2006, BCBS of South Carolina contributed $100,000 to the Rosa Clark Free Medical Clinic in Oconee County, which helps provide health care to low-income residents who have no private medical insurance and are ineligible for government insurance programs. In addition, this year they are contributing an additional $34,040 to the facility as a measure of support for the clinic's ongoing mission of serving those in Oconee County.

I ask my colleagues in the 110th Congress to join me in applauding BCBS of South Carolina for being an active partner with the local community and for their ongoing efforts to help reduce overall health care costs for my constituents and our State. I also want to thank those at the Rosa Clark Free Medical Clinic in my home county for all they do to improve the lives of others on a daily basis.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this would basically eliminate funding for the Byrd Honors Scholarship program by saving about $40.6 million.

And I guess what I'm here to talk about today, Mr. Chairman, is that this program, which is certainly a merit-based scholarship program, was rated as ``results not demonstrated.'' When we talk about funding, when we talk about scholarships, when we talk about trying to make government more effective and more efficient, I think this is a perfect example, Mr. Chairman, of duplicative services.

I understand the need of helping our high school seniors, and I applaud the effort. But in a time when money is scarce and we're trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollar, doesn't it make sense, Mr. Chairman, to take programs like this, and all other associated programs, take a look at them from the bottom up and look at what is effective?

Why was this particular program rated ``results not demonstrated''? Was it because of a lack of funding, Mr. Chairman? Was it because of a lack of information that high school students didn't know what was going on? Was it because of a lack of organization on how the scholarship is administered? I don't know. I don't know these answers.

So all I'm saying is, if we're going to continue to help seniors, and I hope we do, let's try to do it in a more responsible manner. Let's just not create another government program. Let's not create a duplicative service. Let's take a look at what we're doing, how we're doing it, bring things together. It may be that this program needs to be increased, I don't know. It may be that it needs to go away and this money go to a program that is far more effective. All I'm saying is that I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

I think if we took a real hard look at all these programs, we could pull our

resources together, we could help our high school seniors much more effectively and maybe, at the same time, save $40.6 million of hard- earned taxpayers' money.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the chairman. This is a merit-based program, not a need-based program.

And I understand that we need all the education we can get. All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman is, is this the best way to spend this money? Can it not be rolled into another program or taken a look at to make sure that we're getting our best bang for the dollar, that we're spending the taxpayers' money wisely, and we're being the most effective helping our high school seniors with a higher education degree?

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I hope the chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows how much I respect him and truly love this man.

Mr. Speaker, I know of no other place than Washington, DC, where it's okay to look a man in the face, tell him we're going to give him the time, the resources and everything he needs to accomplish a mission, and then halfway through the process, say, oops, I'm sorry, time's up. We made a mistake. Mission over.

No one person I know or have known executing this war on radical Islam has more credibility than David Petraeus, a gentleman who was confirmed unanimously in the United States Senate, but instead of giving GEN David Petraeus, a man whose boots are on the ground, a fair opportunity and allowing him the time he needs to better implement the plan and report back, we once again see legislators trying to micromanage this war. The problem is, we've turned this into a political war, a war where politicians are pulling the strings, not the man we said could do it.

If anyone can pull this off, David Petraeus can. If any armed services in the world can be successful, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces can. But let them accomplish the mission. Let them continue to win. Let them bring us victory.

In recent weeks, we've witnessed in Great Britain how real the threat remains. Whether we're talking about Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the enemy is there, the enemy is real; and to ignore the threat that they pose to this Nation is unconscionable.

We owe it to our troops on the ground, to those who have served, to those who have died, and the American people to allow the plan General Petraeus developed to take effect.

Mr. Speaker, the stakes are too high. Keep this country safe. Keep this country strong. Do the courageous thing. Vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the American public asked Congress to change their spending habits and to be more responsible with the people's money. Last fall, the majority party promised Americans greater fiscal responsibility and more spending restraint. I believe Congress needs to deliver a responsible Federal budget worthy of approval of the American public.

Unfortunately, the majority has only introduced legislation that has promised the largest tax increase in history, runaway entitlement spending, and an out-of-control appropriations process.

If Congress as a whole does not pledge to change, the American public will continue to be let down by the actions of the majority party.

The Republicans are not going to let them down, Mr. Speaker. I understand the immediate need for spending restraint and the Republicans will continue to oppose excessive spending by the majority party. Therefore, I will vote against H.R. 2643, the Interior and Environment appropriations bill, later today.

Mr. Speaker, the very first reform passed by the new majority in the 110th Congress was a rule to create transparency publicizing projects earmarked for Federal money. Now the majority party is suggesting to the American people that it's okay to bury these earmarks in conference bills, which we know cannot be amended or challenged in any way.

Republicans last year brought more sunshine and transparency into this process, and instead of building on that, as promised by this new majority, Congress is taking a giant step backwards.

As a member of the House Budget Committee, I'm highly concerned that waiting until the very end of the law-making process to hide pork barrel spending is the simplest way to create a slush fund in the budget. This way of spending will lose America's trust.

Mr. Speaker, Americans have trusted us to spend their taxpayer money wisely and honestly. We have a responsibility to show them exactly how their money is being spent and defend it on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, several times I have stood here and adamantly spoken against embryonic stem cell research.

I understand that stem cells are necessary for the advancement of medical science. I am encouraged and hopeful of the promising effects stem cell research has for those struggling with debilitating diseases and disabilities, but these solutions can be found without destroying innocent life.

We no longer have to choose between medical advancement and the protection of life. In fact, stem cells derived from adults and umbilical cords have produced over 70 successful therapies, while embryonic stem cell research has produced none.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe in the wonders of science and medical research, and I am hopeful that together we can find cures to these devastating diseases and disabilities, but the end does not justify the means.

The citizens that I represent cannot stand at this podium and speak for the protection of the innocent and those unborn yet do not have a voice, so I ask my colleagues to vote against S. 5. Let's work together to advance the science that we know works and does so without using taxpayer dollars to destroy life.

Mr. Speaker, over 100 days have passed since the President's first request of additional monies for our troops, and still no money. As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to ensure men and women in our military have the resources and tools necessary to succeed. Just 2 weeks ago, we heard from nearly 3,000 of those men and women asking for our support.

Mr. Speaker, politics should never interfere with wartime decisions. Unfortunately, some have taken this opportunity to score what they believe to be political points and undermine our Commander in Chief. Our troops deserve a clean supplemental that does not embolden the enemy with language of retreat and defeat.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership should stop the rhetoric of empty promises of ``we support our troops'' by giving them the critical funds they need today so they can finish the mission we gave them and come home in victory.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to conference report S. Con. Res. 21, the Democratic congressional budget for 2008.

By not addressing the Bush tax cuts, the Democratic budget resolution conference report calls for at least a $217 billion tax hike, the second highest in American history.

This budget resolution also includes a trigger which would automatically turn the tax increase into the largest in American history.

Mr. Speaker, the government spends too much money. We have serious challenges facing this Nation and spending more money is not a solution. The conference report increases non-defense appropriations by $22 billion above

2007, and $21 billion above the President's request.

It fails to maintain emergency funds included in last year's budget resolution. Also, emergency spending is loosely defined in this budget resolution and does not prevent future abuses in emergency supplemental appropriations.

The conference report has 23 reserve funds which include the promise of more than $190 billion in additional spending which I can only assume will be paid by additional taxes.

The House Budget Committee listened to many testimonies from budget experts, indicating our Nation was facing a fiscal crisis when it comes to entitlement spending; yet the conference report does nothing to address this issue. We cannot simply raise taxes and hope our entitlement problems will solve themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I hoped at least some of the commonsense solutions put forth in the Republican substitute would have been settled, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution.