Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4840 which encourages investment and simplifies bookkeeping and tax reporting requirements for small business owners. This legislation will not only allow small businesses to continue to expense $100,000 instead of dropping back down to $25,000, but will also allow more small businesses to be eligible.

We should be encouraging small businesses to buy technology, machinery, and other equipment so they can expand their businesses and in turn create more jobs. H.R. 4840 removes some of the redtape that increases the cost of doing business.

Mr. Speaker, it is the private sector, the small businesses throughout the Nation that create jobs, wealth and innovation. In fact, small businesses are responsible for creating two out of every three net new jobs.

Low taxes and sensible regulations are essential to helping the 25 million small businesses in America; that's why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4840.

Mr. Speaker, this week the Senate is dealing with a very important issue, one that goes to the heart of our families and society. I am speaking of marriage.

In my home State of South Carolina, we are one of 42 States that have laws on the books defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. These laws were passed by State legislatures, those elected to represent the views of their constituents.

My constituents contact me on a daily basis about this one issue more than any other issue we deal with. They ask me to do everything I can to ensure marriage between a man and a woman is preserved. Yet some in this country, elected by no one, believe they have the right to supersede the wishes of my constituents and the constituents of other Members here today.

I respectfully disagree. I truly believe the only way to ensure court action does not override State law is for the House and Senate to take action.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to follow the Senate's lead on this issue and bring up this issue for a vote so we can have an open debate in the People's House.

Mr. Chairman, as a Representative of the Savannah River Site located in South Carolina's Third Congressional District, I rise today to voice my concerns regarding this bill. The Savannah River Site (SRS) is South Carolina's largest single site employer, employing approximately 13,500 workers from around the southeast region, and it serves a vital function to our nation's nuclear infrastructure. The Fiscal Year 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill in its current form potentially jeopardizes several programs at the SRS including the waste incidental to reprocessing, the Savannah River National Laboratory, the mixed-oxide fuel program, and the modern pit facility.

While I strongly commend the Committee for preventing the DOE from setting aside funding for their High-level Waste Proposal pending the outcome of the waste incidental to reprocessing issue, I respectfully disagree with the Committee's position regarding resolution of that issue. Although efforts to agree in good faith on comprehensive legislation to uniformly resolve the issue failed between the DOE, Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina, other alternative solutions should be pursued. For example, state specific solutions should be supported so long as those states retain the authority to ensure the DOE takes into consideration the state's regulations upon implementation of its nuclear cleanup program.

Moreover, failure to support agreements between each interested state and the DOE places increased risk to each site's surrounding communities and imposes greater costs to America's taxpayers. I fear the longer a delay occurs the longer period of time the residual waste will be left in its liquid form,

which poses a greater threat to the nearby rivers that may serve as a water source for surrounding communities. If single state agreements would allow sufficient environmental remediation method to proceed in a safe manner, it is unnecessary for our nation's taxpayers to incur additional costs to research and develop new, unproven cleanup methods. As a result, single state solutions, would preclude continued delay of processing waste stored at the affected sites, which would prevent undue additional risk and increased costs to cleanup the sites.

I also respectfully disagree with the Committee's support for the DOE's decision that the Salt Waste Processing Facility and the Salt Waste Process Facility Alternative are prohibited by the Idaho District Court ruling regarding waste incidental to reprocessing. On the contrary, the objectives of these facilities are approximately a mirror image of the work being conducted at the Defense Waste Processing Facility, which has been processing nuclear waste for several years and continues to do so despite the outstanding waste incidental to reprocessing issue. By the Committee's zeroing out finding for these projects in FY05, the SRS community is greatly concerned with the future job outlook that these facilities are scheduled to provide in the near and long term.

With respect to the Committee's position on the Savannah River National Laboratory, I understand the Committee's concern with the level of consultation provided by the DOE regarding the designation of the Savannah River National Laboratory. However, I am disappointed this bill fails to provide funding for one of nation's premier science labs. I believe now is the time for our nation to show its commitment to scientific research and development at our national labs to encourage young American professionals to enter a scientific field that is increasingly losing many of America's best scientists to retirement. Our national labs are a unique asset to our nation's scientific community and national security, and unfortunately, limiting the number of labs limits the opportunities we provide to America's scientific youth. As a result, I strongly support designation of the Savannah River Technology Center as our Nation's 13th national laboratory.

In regards to the mixed-oxide fuel program, the United States and Russia need to continue to expedite negations over the program's liability provisions, and I appreciate the Committee's consideration to restore the program's funding cuts should an agreement be reached in 2005.

Finally, I respectfully disagree with the Committee's decision to zero out funding for the modern pit facility (MPF), and to prohibit site selection from occurring in FY05. The MPF is crucial to sustaining the integrity of the United States nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. After 1989, the United States became the only nuclear power without the ability to manufacture plutonium pits for its nuclear stockpile. Many of the weapons in our nuclear stockpile have outlived their intended design life, and while the integrity of these weapons is not currently in jeopardy, the potential risk for functional degradation of the plutonium pit is too great not to take action. Therefore, I fully support the Administration's efforts to develop advanced nuclear concepts like the MPF to mitigate against the risk of being unable to maintain our current nuclear deterrent.

Furthermore, locating the MPF at the Savannah River site (SRS) is important for the country and the state of South Carolina. SRS is the most capable location for the mission because it has an excellent safety and security record, all necessary infrastructure requirements for any capacity size, and a proven and successful history of plutonium operations. As a result, locating the mission at SRS should save from $300 to over $500 million in taxpayer funds. Also, the mission is estimated to create 3,600 additional jobs in the private sector, which would partially offset SRS employment losses as it nuclear clean-up missions are completed. The SRS community has a long history of proudly serving our nation and fully supports the MPF. As a result, I am hopeful the Committee will remove its objections to site selection as it conferences with the Senate on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, while I support the interests of my Congressional district, I understand the enormous responsibility this Committee must endure as it considered appropriations legislation for our nation's energy programs. Although this bill does not fully provide the SRS community with the resources the Administration has requested, I do believe the Chairman and the Committee are steadfastly working in good faith to enhance our nation's energy programs, and I look forward to working with the Chairman on future issues related to the Savannah River Site and our nation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to express my strong support for comments just made by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns); and it is my hope that in conference with the Senate funding concerns for current and potential programs at the Savannah River site will be addressed.

I look forward to working with the chairman who has been so gracious with us on future issues related to the Savannah River site and would like to extend a personal invitation to the chairman to visit SRS in the upcoming months so that he can see this tremendous asset for our current and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, June 30 is not the beginning of the end of Iraq, as some would want us to believe but, rather, the beginning of their future.

There is no doubt that challenges lay ahead, but I am optimistic about Iraq's future. I am optimistic because just 15 months ago, Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and Iraqis had no voice.

Today, thanks to the brave and selfless sacrifices of American and coalition troops, Saddam is no longer in power and millions of Iraqis are shaping their own destinies by participating in Iraq's political process.

The Iraq people are showing tremendous courage as they face enemies of freedom. Neither the will of the Iraqis nor the coalition will be deterred by violence and terror.

Mr. Speaker, next week Iraq officially becomes a sovereign Nation, and I am optimistic because this is no doubt that a free Iraq will be a decisive blow to terrorism and a victory for the civilized world and the security of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, President Reagan changed our hearts with his optimistic outlook on life, the world and our place in it. He came to office at a time in our history when we were a little bruised and battered, and, simply said, he pulled us up by our bootstraps and taught us how to get back on the horse that knocked us off.

``America is too great for small dreams,'' he once said, but to Ronald Reagan these were not merely words that were used in a 30-second sound bite. These were words that went to the core of the man.

He reminded us that even though we may have our differences, our common bond as Americans sets us apart from the rest of the world. He believed in all that is good in America because he believed there is good in every American.

Ronald Reagan was a hero to me and a hero to an entire generation. He leaves a legacy of hope and prosperity that will last for generations to come.

I know there is a special place in heaven for Ronald Reagan, and I know in my heart he heard the words, ``Well done.''

Mr. Speaker, American small businesses are the bedrock of our economy and the heart and soul of this country. Yet these same businesses are also unfairly burdened by red tape regulations.

As our economy matures and expands, it is important that businesses are given every advantage to compete. The amount of time and money small businesses tie up in red tape compliance is exorbitant. Small business owners account for 80 percent of new jobs created in the U.S. economy--that's 8 out of 10 new jobs for Americans created by small businesses. Yet in 2000, the costs small businesses paid in annual regulatory burdens were close to two-thirds greater than that paid by large firms. So why is it, these same businesses carry significantly more responsibility for red tape costs? That just doesn't make sense.

I know first hand how father-son family businesses build up their communities and I know first hand how they are penalized for nothing more than their size. Small businesses should be educating their employees and expanding on ideas, not wasting precious man hours pushing pencils and paper trying to find their way through all the red tape.

Mr. Speaker, we need to release small businesses from excessive regulatory costs which hurts their ability to thrive. Reducing the burden on our small businesses is right for our workers, it is right for our businesses, and it is right for our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my esteemed colleague, Representative Doc Hastings of Washington. For over 50 years, the United Sates has stored the legacy of our Nation's nuclear weapons programs at sites throughout the Nation. For example, the Savannah River Site, which is located in my district, has 35 million gallons of radioactive nuclear waste in 49 storage tanks. Like the Savannah River Site, other facilities throughout our Nation must ensure the American public is protected against the environmental risk

posed by such waste. However, we all bear this responsibility because this waste represents a security created on behalf of all Americans. As a result, this Congress has the duty to reduce the environmental risk posed by this waste in a safe, expeditious, and cost effective manner.

A vote in favor of the Hastings amendment fulfills this obligation because it maintains the current accelerated cleanup schedules and saves the American taxpayers billions of dollars across our Nation's nuclear complexes. The problem of nuclear waste will not solve itself. There is no doubt the less priority we give to cleaning up our nuclear waste today, the greater costs we impose on the public tomorrow. The Hastings amendment responsibly places our country in a better position to fulfill its duty of expediting environmental cleanup to save costs in the long run.

I urge my colleagues to support the American taxpayer by voting in favor of the Hastings amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the policies we've put in place to support economic growth are working.

But in addition to getting and keeping the economy going, we must also control spending. It matters. If you're going to say that deficits matter, you'd better believe that spending matters. All spending must be paid for, either through taxes or borrowing--and both are burdens on the economy. And for that simple reason alone, controlling spending is itself a policy for sustaining stronger economic growth.

This budget calls for several measures to help us get our hands around what has become an unsustainable rate of spending growth. This includes holding the line on all nondefense, nonhomeland security spending.

As Chairman Nussle mentioned earlier, this won't be easy. Many of us here in Congress have gotten pretty comfortable signing off on huge spending increases, and free-flowing new spending.

But success at keeping taxes and spending down will mean a stronger economy and better standards of living for our Nation. If we don't control spending the result will be higher borrowing or higher taxes.

Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has agreed that we need to control spending, not raise taxes, if we want to make sure that we don't harm our economy and our standards of living.

Here is his quote:

Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our

looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to

economic growth and the revenue base. The exact magnitude of

such risks are very difficult to estimate, but they are of

enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close

the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from outlay

restraint.

The simple translation of what he said is that we need to restrain spending because the economy would be hurt by higher taxes. Our budget resolution does just that: it restrains spending and keeps taxes from increasing. That's good for our economy, and it's good for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that I am recorded as ``not voting'' on May 6, 2004 on rollcall #149.

I ask that the Record reflect that had my vote been recorded, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall #149 (to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 402, regarding the urgent need for freedom, democratic reform, and international monitoring of elections, human rights, and religious liberty in the Lao People's Democratic Republic).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time.

We are going to do something good today. One of the speakers earlier said

the House had not been doing anything. We are going to do something today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 4275, which preserves the 10 percent tax bracket. The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed in the Congress in 2001 created a new tax bracket at a low 10 percent rate to help lower the burden on working Americans. Because of this tax relief, the first $14,000 of taxable income is now taxed at 10 percent instead of 15 percent, a significant savings to the American worker.

If Congress fails to act, the 10 percent bracket will shrink by $2,000 next year and will completely disappear by 2011, resulting in 22 million low-income workers being pushed to a higher tax bracket, and 73 million working people paying higher taxes as early as next year.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that H.R. 4275 will provide $218 billion in tax relief over 10 years and will save the average taxpayer more than $2,400 during the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is very simple. If Congress fails to pass this legislation today, we are raising taxes on low-income, hard- working people. That just does not make common sense. I know in South Carolina they know that they can spend their money better than we can. Let us give them back their money. Let us allow them to spend it. And I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4275.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding to me and I thank him for all his work.

You know, when he was talking about being in Washington, sometimes,

coming from South Carolina and being in Washington, it seems like a millions miles away from home. Things get convoluted, things get confused, and so many times this town has a different idea about what is going on in the world or what has happened. This past week, Mr. Speaker, I got a letter from Brandon Browlee. Now, Brandon is a fourth grader at Laurens Academy in Laurens, South Carolina, and I want to share this letter with you. I want you just to take a second and listen to this.

This is Brandon talking: When I grow up I'm going to be a South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agent, a SLED agent, and a fighter pilot. I want to be a SLED agent when I'm not at war. I don't care if I die fighting for my country. My family will miss me, but at least I will die with honor and I'm protecting my country. I will send letters every day and we will stay healthy. I will always keep a picture of my family in my jet. I promise to take everybody for a ride, if I can. I will always wear a cross necklace, keep a pocket Bible by my side, and I will send letters to my wife, and she will read them to all of you.

Out of the mouth of babes, I guess we should say. Crystal clear, if you ask me. Crystal clear.

The last couple of weeks have been very trying times. We are dealing with things up here that are taking away our focus, taking away our guidance. This thing is bigger than any scandal could ever possibly be, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about 130,000-plus men and women that are fighting for democracy, fighting for freedom, and fighting for the security of this Nation every day. They are fighting for a way of life and they are fighting for everything that we know in South Carolina to be near and dear to us, and I think about it every day.

I think about my two sons. I have a son that is 14\1/2\ and a son that is 12. And if my boys Jeb and Ross are like their father and like their uncle, and like their grandfather and their grandfather's brothers, and like their grandmother's brothers, they will fight. They will wear the uniform and they will sacrifice everything they have to keep this country safe and strong. I think about it every day.

But as sure as I am standing here, as sure as I am in Washington, D.C. and standing in this room, in this hall tonight, if we do not defeat this enemy in the streets of Baghdad, in the streets of Mosul, in the streets of Tikrit, in Afghanistan and wherever, we will fight this enemy in the streets of Atlanta, Georgia, and Chicago, and San Francisco, and Columbia, South Carolina, and Washington, D.C.

When I was in the service, I had the honor of presenting one of my best friend's wives with the flag of this country. Lynn Dial died in a helicopter accident. And I will never look a husband, a wife, a son, or a daughter in the face and tell them that I did not do everything I could possibly do to keep this country safe and strong, to keep their loved ones safe and strong.

Make no mistake about it, we are going to win this war. And make no mistake about it, we will do everything within our power to keep our country safe and strong. That is what this letter that Brandon wrote did for me. It caused me to refocus. It caused me to understand exactly what is going on and exactly what the stakes are. They could never be higher, and the consequences could never be greater.

I want to thank Brandon, and I want to thank the men and women serving our country today that are giving their all; that are giving in many cases their lives for everything we know and love.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for this opportunity and I thank him for his fight. And I want him to know that there are a lot of us out there that are by your side and that will help you every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, while I believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, there is nothing wrong with allowing a moderate level of legal immigration. Immigrants have contributed greatly over the years to our Nation and our economy, and society should accommodate several hundred thousand new legal immigrants annually.

However, we can never realistically accept but a tiny fraction of the tens of millions who would love to migrate here each year, and we can no longer allow a million new legal immigrants to come and work here.

For starters, I believe that we need to reduce legal admission numbers by ending the visa lottery and the so-called extended family categories that fuel foreign worker inflow by chain immigration. A positive first step at reforming our outdated immigration laws would be to pass H.R. 775, the Goodlatte bill that repeals the visa lottery.

As a cosponsor of that bill, I urge the House of Representatives leadership and Committee on the Judiciary to act to bring the bill before the full House for action and to advance other legislation to cut down legal foreign worker inflows to more moderate levels.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 4181. There is no doubt that our society is overtaxed when we are talking about people simply because they decide to get married. The Federal Government has no business punishing people for making a choice. And that is essentially what this tax is, a punishment for choosing to get married.

Prior to 2001 the standard deduction married couples could take was less than that allowed for two single taxpayers. There is something wrong with that picture. Are we saying single people deserve more of their money back than married people? We need to do all we can to make the Tax Code fairer. Passing H.R. 4181 to extend full marriage penalty relief through 2010 and beyond so that marriage tax equity becomes a permanent law is a great first step.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people's money, not ours. Let us get it back in their pockets so they can save for a down payment on a house, buy a car, buy clothes for the kids or spend it in whichever way they see fit.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4181, to help ease the tax burden placed on hard working American families.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1779, the Guardsmen and Reservists Financial Relief Act of 2003.

We live in a different world than we did 3 years ago. We now know our borders are not secure, the oceans no longer protect us from the rest of the world. Enemies in the past needed great armies, great industrial capacities and so many other things to endanger America. Now terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and turn the power of modern technologies against us.

To defeat this, we must and will use every tool available to us: better homeland defense, law enforcement, intelligence and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing and military power.

There is no doubt that our National Guardsmen and Reservists have been an integral part of our military power since September 11. The members and their families have sacrificed so much over the past 2 years. That is why I am proud to have worked very closely with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) to come up with a way to ease the financial burdens placed on our Guardsmen and Reservists families while they serve their country.

H.R. 1779 will allow military Reservists and National Guardsmen to make penalty-free withdrawals, listen to me now, penalty-free withdrawals, from their IRAs if they have been called for an extended duty time of more than 179 days. Reservists and Guardsmen will then be able to repay these withdrawals, penalty free, penalty free, within 2 years after the end of their duty.

It is my hope that this legislation will give some relief to the families who sacrifice day to day. You have seen them, and I have seen them. They are in everybody's district.

We want to help them to ensure our national security so we can defend our freedom. H.R. 1779 is just one way our Nation can thank them for what they do, each and every one of them every day. My thoughts and prayers remain with those who stand in harm's way, and may God bless each and every one of them.