Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, May 4, 2009.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 229 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 230), and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 230 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 111).

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, April 27, 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 207 (Motion to suspend the rules and Agree to H. Res. 329), ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 208 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.R. 1746), and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 209 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 335).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, tonight I rise in opposition to this budget, a budget that will hurt the American people. People who live in the real world, people who work for a living understand that you can't spend money that you don't have. These people don't need to hear from us about sacrifice. They sacrifice every day--the mother and father who sacrifice by cutting back at home to make sure their daughter has the school supplies that she needs, the business

owner who sacrifices to make sure that she can meet this month's payroll. They're making tough decisions and are living off bare bones budgets, but they look up here to Washington, and they see we're spending more money than we ever have.

So it's no wonder that they're angry. It's no wonder that they're fed up with wasteful spending. They should be mad. They know it and so do we.

This budget taxes too much, borrows too much and spends too much. This budget is just another example of how Democrats fail to understand the commonsense values that Americans use every day. The worst thing you can do in a recession is raise taxes. John F. Kennedy knew it and Ronald Reagan knew it. Apparently, the current President doesn't get it because raising taxes is exactly what President Obama's budget does to the tune of well over $1.5 trillion, much of which will be placed squarely on the shoulders of my State's number 1 job creator--the small businessperson.

The truth is that, despite all the claims to the contrary, this budget won't create new jobs back home. It won't grow our economy. It will pass on debt to children because of bad decisions and bad debt. People back home deserve better, Madam Speaker. My children, as do yours, deserve better, Madam Speaker. I urge my colleagues to vote against this Democrat budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Not only is the gentleman from Iowa a stalwart when it comes to the conservative cause in this House, he is a classmate of mine and a dear friend. So I certainly thank him for all the fights he has been in in the past and will continue to be in in the future.

H.R. 1913, the Hate Crimes bill, this legislation is wrong and I oppose it because it creates a special class of victim, suppresses religious freedom, and criminalizes thought.

I ask you tonight why does Lady Liberty wear a blindfold? Isn't it because our Constitution demands equal, not special, but equal protection under the law?

Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. It will depend on a victim's race, gender, or sexual orientation. This legislation would allow for different penalties to be imposed for the exact same crime.

While I'm not a constitutional scholar probably like my friend from Iowa, it's abundantly clear to me that this bill would violate the 14th amendment by creating a special class of victims who deserve some type of special protection under the law. More importantly, I fear this legislation would unwind a key thread to our judicial system by placing higher value on one life or lifestyle over another.

In addition to creating a special class of victims, this legislation could allow for criminal prosecution of religious leaders or members of religious groups who express their beliefs of their respective faiths. Pastors, imams, rabbis, people from across the country would now be forced to question the legality of the words that they preach. Consequently, this bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society. A scary thought.

Unfortunately, constitutionally protected speech is not the only freedom jeopardized by the Hate Crimes bill. This legislation would go so far as to guess what? Criminalize thought. No matter how fervently we disagree with what someone thinks, we cannot punish them for thinking it. It is the criminal action that merits swift justice. The action, not the thought or the motivation.

I fear that H.R. 1913 is a step in the wrong direction. When I think about justice, I think about justice for all no matter who you are in the United States of America. And I would urge all my colleagues tomorrow to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1913 because I certainly will be.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding. I thank him for weighing in on this fight.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I missed recorded votes on the House floor on Tuesday, April 21, 2009.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Rollcall vote No. 193 (Motion to suspend the rules and Agree to H.R. 388), ``nay'' on Rollcall vote No. 194 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.R. 411), ``aye'' on Rollcall vote No. 195 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.R. 1219).

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to this budget resolution. People who live in the real world who work for a living, who build houses, wait on tables, they understand you can't spend money you don't have. They know you can't spend your way out of an economic crisis. They are cutting at home and at work. They are cutting out the extras. There is no fluff in their budgets, and there shouldn't be in any in ours.

But the Democrat budget fails to reflect the commonsense values of Americans every day. This budget spends too much, it borrows too much, and guess what, it taxes too much.

John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both knew that the worst things that you could do during a recession is raise taxes. But unfortunately, that's exactly what President Obama's budget does, to the tune of well over $1.5 trillion, much of which will be placed squarely on the shoulders of my State's number one job creators, small businesses.

The truth is that despite the claims to the contrary this budget won't create new jobs in places like Westminster, South Carolina, and Due West, South Carolina, and New Ellenton, South Carolina. It will crush them. In the long run, this budget will saddle future generations of Americans with mountains of unsustainable debt.

This budget finances the present by mortgaging our children and our grandchildren's future.

The people back home deserve better, Madam Chairman. The next generation

deserves better, Madam Chairman. And that's what the Republicans are going to give this House tomorrow.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' to the Democrat budget, vote ``no'' against higher spending, vote ``no'' against higher taxes, and vote ``no'' against borrowing.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, March 30, 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Present'' on rollcall vote No. 163 (on motion to table H. Res. 295), ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 164 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.R. 20), ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 165 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.R. 479).

Madam Speaker, we are facing serious economic challenges. In my home State of South Carolina, the unemployment rate is right at 11 percent. We all know someone who has been personally affected by these tough times, a friend, a neighbor, a family member. We have all seen the ``going out of business'' signs hanging in the front doors of local shops and stores.

The people we represent are looking to Congress for answers, Madam Speaker. But the so-called solutions coming from the Washington Democrats call for more spending, more borrowing, and more taxing. The President's budget increases taxes by nearly $2 trillion, doubles the national debt in less than 6 years, and spends $4 trillion alone this year. And, of course, who can forget all of the wasteful spending in the stimulus bill: $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $300 million for green golf carts, and $30 million to

protect a mouse in San Francisco. And that is just to name a few.

Taxpayers have had enough. Across our State and across this country, they are gathering together to voice their outrage. Inspired by our Nation's early patriots, thousands of taxpayers are gathering at hundreds of modern-day tea parties to protest Washington's wasteful spending, the Democrat-written stimulus package, the housing bailout, and President Obama's budget. A recent tea party in Greenville, South Carolina, attracted more than 2,000 participants, and a similar rally in Cincinnati drew more than 4,000 dissatisfied taxpayers.

I want to let the people know that I hear what they are saying, and, Madam Speaker, I am doing something about it. Today I am introducing the Taxpayer Empowerment and Advocacy Act, the TEA Act.

Over the next 5 years, the TEA Act will save taxpayers over one-half trillion dollars by reducing spending, restricting the growth of government, and strengthening the definition of emergency spending to close loopholes and prevent abuse.

Across South Carolina, around kitchen tables and behind the small business counters, individuals are making tough decisions about their budgets. But Congress has refused to do the same, and it is time for that to change. I believe the TEA Act is a start to setting Congress on a new, more accountable course, and to protect the taxpayers' best interest. Enough is enough.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and protecting the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 252.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the House passed version of H.R. 1105.

Requesting Member: Congressman J. Gresham Barrett

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Provision: Division I, Title I Department of Transportation, Account: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Clemson University

Address of Requesting Entity: 300 Brackett Hall Box 5702 Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634

Description of Request: The purpose of this appropriation is to provide $285,000 in funding for roadway improvements aimed at addressing current safety concerns for the Clemson University Advanced Materials Center in Anderson County, SC. Funds will be used principally for signage and road visibility, particularly at night and during inclement weather. These improvements are important to the continued development of the Center, which is dedicated to the research and development of advanced materials, technology transfer thru IP migration from the laboratory to the boardroom for everything from commercial to military applications, and also to support existing industry. This request is consistent with the intended purpose of ensuring efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade for the Federal Highway Administration's Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program as authorized under Section 1117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-203). The State of South Carolina has committed $4 million to this project and private industry has committed an additional $5.3 million.

Madam Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I unfortunately missed one recorded vote on the House floor on Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall vote No. 84 (On Ordering the Previous Question to H. Res. 184).

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed recorded votes on the House floor on Friday, March 6, 2009.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on Rollcall vote #107 (on approval of the journal), ``Aye'' on Rollcall vote #108 (Motion to Recommit with instructions to H.J. Res. 38), ``Nay'' on Rollcall vote #109 (on passage of H.J. Res. 38).

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the House passed version of H.R. 1105.

Requesting Member: Congressman J. Gresham Barrett

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Provision: Division B, COPS Law Enforcement Technology Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: County of Anderson, SC

Address of Requesting Entity: 101 S. Main St, PO Box 8002, Anderson,

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1106 because I believe the bill is unwise, unproductive, and most of all, unfair.

My heart goes out, Mr. Chairman, to anyone facing foreclosure. It's never easy to hear the stories of families losing their homes. But allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages is not the right solution for our economy or for our housing market.

The provisions in this bill allow bankruptcy judges to cram down principal in mortgages on primary residences, and it will have long- lasting adverse and unintended consequences on our housing market. I offered an amendment that would take out these cramdown provisions, but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't even allowed to come to the floor.

This legislation is unfair to Americans who have made difficult decisions to cut back their spending in order to pay for their mortgages. By further tightening the credit market, this bill forces homebuyers to pay more for their mortgages.

Allowing judges to rewrite mortgage contracts will effectively increase the cost and reduce the availability of credit to homebuyers. No matter how narrow the mortgage cramdown provisions are, allowing these mortgages to be modified in bankruptcy courts will create additional uncertainly in the housing market. America needs certainty right now, Mr. Speaker, and this bill moves us in the wrong direction.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1106 to protect responsible homeowners.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule to this conference report between Democrats to H.R. 1. This backroom-written Democrat spending bill costs too much money, doesn't fix the problem fast enough, and fails to make enough good jobs.

In the long run, Madam Speaker, this bill will cost working families over $1 trillion. After today, each American household will owe $100,000 to pay for government debt. What's even scarier, in this conference report Democrats took what little bit of tax relief was in there away from families and small businesses so they could increase spending on pet projects like $50 million to the National Endowment of the Arts and $300 million for green golf carts.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that less than half the money in the Democrat stimulus plan will be spent in the next 2 years. Madam Speaker, folks in South Carolina and across this country are losing their jobs today. American families are struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford to wait 2 years to see a potential improvement in their economy.

The real problem, Madam Speaker, is Democrats have lost their faith in the American people. They don't see what I see. I look at the people back home in South Carolina, and I know that they are the key to moving America forward. The barbershop on the corner, the hardware store down the street, they're the driving force of the economy, not the bureaucrats in Washington.

And it's because of my faith in the American people that I support the House Republican economy recovery plan. This plan allows small businesses, the heart and soul of our economy, to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income, a deduction that will allow small businesses to hire new employees, to grow. In South Carolina, this plan will create 34,000 jobs more than the Democrat plan and will cost half.

It's my sincere hope that the spending bill fails, and we in Congress can debate a bill that won't put a crushing burden on our children, won't take 2 years to work, and will rely on our small businesses. Vote ``no'' on this plan.