Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Monday, February 3, 2014, due to Flights #4634 and #4065 being cancelled out of Charleston International Airport, and Flight #1750 being subsequently cancelled out of Charlotte International Airport. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 1791: Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act: Yes. H.R. 357: GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Jeffrey Cheatham, who died on October 3, 2013, at the age of 51. His mother and my friend, Patricia McVay, tells me that his life was full of adventure and love, and he will be missed by many. As I thought about how challenging this time is for Jeff's family and friends, a few thoughts struck me.

First, I couldn't help but think of the parable of the talents, and how that story reminds us that we ought to make the most out of what we are given each and every day. The parable describes a master who traveled away and left his money with his servants. Upon his return, he discovers that two of his servants invested and doubled the value of their portions, while one servant hid the money and protected it. The master rewarded the two who made the most of their time and his wealth, and punished the one who didn't take advantage of the opportunity. The bigger picture here is simple--we all have limited time, and we have to make the most out of what we are given.

I think Jeff's approach to life and those around him is a good example of that. From what I've been told, Jeff lived a life that was truly in service to others, and he made the most out of his time. His good attitude, jokes

and infectious smile were known to many, and I was told several stories of how he took a friend's parents to chemo then treated them to a lunch after, or how, when he was in school, he gave lunch money to a classmate, or even just how his smile could really light up a room. The gift of life is significant, and there can be an even greater gift in truly living and making the most of your time--as Malcom Forbes' tombstone says: ``While alive, he lived.''

Second, Jeff's passing should also serve as a reminder of the many challenges and difficulties faced by those who choose to put on the military uniform. Coming from a military family and serving four years in the Air Force, Jeff was no stranger to those challenges, and as such, we should honor and remember the sacrifices he and all our service members make.

I have no doubt that Jeff leaves behind many fond memories with his friends and family, especially his three children, Jenna, Kylie, and Phillip. I join his family in being saddened by this loss, but I'm comforted in knowing that there are many people out there who got to experience Jeff's kindness, and who will miss him dearly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Timothy Michael Reese, Jr. He was a sophomore at Clemson University, I am told a great brother, an even greater son, and a best friend to our son Landon. He lived a short, but remarkable life and in attempting to portray it let me just tell you one story.

I flew home Tuesday afternoon to attend his funeral and in the late afternoon after doing so, but before my flight, I joined maybe a hundred or more close friends to the family in warm remembrances of Michael's life over a meal. It was a perfect South Carolina late afternoon, the sun was light and the sky was blue. There was a light breeze in from the ocean there on Sullivan's Island, and despite the tragedy of a life cut short, there was a mood of peace and warmth and even happiness as we in our different ways reflected on Michael's impact in each of our own lives.

In that setting Tim, his dad, stood up and gave a really special talk about Michael, about God, faith, friendship and love. He talked about after days of tears and grieving, he had come to the point of peace because of his faith and as the crowd in the backyard listened to each word, three thoughts hit me.

One, there are few things in life more extraordinary than the love between a father or mother to a son or daughter. It's ultimately a reflection of God's model of love toward each one of us as a heavenly Father, and that's probably something I've not taken enough time to be appreciative of whether in heavenly or earthly form.

Two, it hit me how significant the gift of life really is . . . and how there can be an even greater gift and inspiration that comes in truly living it. In that regard, Michael, during his nineteen years set the bar. He was infectious in his enthusiasm for life. In the wake of the funeral I had spoken with Landon about Michael and he made the point that Michael was always positive. That he always added humor or laughter. That as a friend he didn't fight or argue, but instead looked for ways to build up Landon or others around him as they were beginning this journey called life.

He was not only positive, but also had this spectacular sense of adventure that I think would serve as an example for those double, three times or four times his age. Many frankly never find a sense of adventure like his regardless of their chapter in life. This manifested itself in back flips off the dock at our farm, Coosaw. It showed itself in ski jumps out West that frightened me on occasion. It even served as the origin for new words as the boys created ``terragoning'' as they pulled skateboards behind golf carts at the grandparents' home in Florida. I could give another hundred examples, but I would summarize the thoughts with what I remember reading many years ago on the front cover of Forbes magazine upon the death of Malcolm Forbes. It said simply, ``While alive--he lived.'' Indeed Michael Reese did and in so doing, I believe serves as a vital reminder to every one of us who have been blessed by our Creator with this thing called life, to make the very most of it--and each day in it.

Finally, I was struck by the genuine sense of community. We all yearn for connection. I believe both to those around us and to God above. Sometimes I don't know that we would describe it in those terms, but I believe that the yearning is there in each one of us. This sense of community is as well something with spiritual overtones that I think tie back to being one's brother's keeper. I saw it there in South Carolina that night. Part of it I suspect comes from a local community that's maybe not as transient as some parts of the world, and as a result there are many multi-generational ties that have been there for all the many ups and downs that come with life. There is something special about that kind of community and I am proud to call it home. Maybe it was a reflection of the Reese family. Their roots not only run deep in the community, on a daily basis they've showered it with blessings based on their own warmth and grace. Maybe still another explanation was the spiritual component to what Tim talked about as his prayer and conversation really set the tone for the whole group assembled. So I suspect I could ascribe many different reasons for the sense of community I felt on Tuesday night, October 29th, but I just know that sense of community is vital. It is a reminder to me that if we could get it right in that backyard, we could get it right in my State and in this country and here, even in the halls of Congress.

So Michael Reese has left me with many things to ponder, but more than anything a life that was well and joyously celebrated in each day over his nineteen years of life, and that gives me something to strive for over the next nineteen of mine. My prayer, Mr. Speaker, is that it will do the same for you and for those who hear my voice. Godspeed, Michael. I know Tim and Frannie, Annie, McLean and Baker will miss you. Landon and I along with the rest of the Sanford gang will too, but we will see you soon.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, due to the death of a very close family friend. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

H.R. 2374--``To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide protections for retail customers, and for other purposes,'' Amendment No. 1. Vote: ``no''

Motion to Recommit H.R. 2374, with Instructions: Vote: ``no''

H.R. 2374--``To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide protections for retail customers, and for other purposes.'' Vote: ``yes''

I thank the chairman. I thank him and the other members of the committee for their work on this important bill, because it is certainly about cost. I mean, you can't do anything efficiently if you have got a 15-year permitting process.

It is certainly about competition. We are in a competition for jobs, capital, and way of life, and our ability to get product in and out depends on a vital and healthy infrastructure system. Ports like Charleston ultimately are not State ports, not regional ports, but ultimately national ports given how important, for instance, port depth will be.

But I think ultimately there is a much bigger consideration, which is a constitutional question on the balance of power. To me, what this bill fundamentally is about is reclaiming some

authority that has been ceded to the executive branch that is fundamental to the overall balance of power that is so important to conservatives across this Congress, or across this Nation. Ultimately, that consideration, I think, employs even far greater weight than the cost of infrastructure and components that are important as well.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Monday, October 7, 2013, due to Flight #4205 being delayed in leaving Hilton Head Island Airport and arriving late into Charlotte Douglas International Airport, such that I missed my connecting Flight #2896 to Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair--Vote: ``yes.''

H.J. Res 77--Food and Drug Safety Act--Vote: ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I came down to this well yesterday to talk about how for 20 years I have run back and forth to the Lincoln Memorial and how the day before yesterday I was shocked to run down there and see the place in chains. I had planned on making a run last night, and then tragically this shooting occurred here yesterday.

But it turns out there's some things that I didn't know about the Lincoln Memorial. In this shot, I had become so agitated, I had asked a tourist to take a picture. And it is an amazing picture of, again, the Lincoln Memorial without people, because what I have come to learn is that it has always been a place with people.

I didn't realize that in the last government shutdown, President Clinton elected not to close down the Lincoln Memorial. I didn't realize there had been 17 shutdowns in this country since 1976, and not one President elected to close down the Lincoln Memorial. That means President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton each, when given the discretion in how they would handle a shutdown, chose not to hold Americans hostage in somehow gaining political favor by a shutdown that would hurt them on their tour to Washington, D.C. In fact, what I came to learn is that in the history of the American Republic, the Lincoln Memorial has never been shut down.

So, my simple question would be: Why?

I think it's interesting that Dr. Martin Luther King came to its steps, and he talked about how the American Dream for many pieces of America and many people in America was in chains. And yet this President, for some reason, chooses to chain the Lincoln Memorial in a way that has never been done in the history of our Republic.

I don't know why he would do so, but what I can say is that it turns out he has a history of holding people hostage in a political equation that I think is very, very harmful, because in the sequester, he chose to end public tours to the White House. That means an eighth grader who may be making their one trip to Washington, D.C., over the course of their life is no longer afforded the chance to visit the White House as school groups have done, literally, since the time of Jefferson. Always that has been the people's house--not a palace, but the people's house.

What I came to learn here that I didn't know over the last 24 hours is that the White House, as it turns out, spends $277,000 on a calligrapher. Now, you can either keep the White House open for tours for eighth graders across this country or you can spend $277,000 on calligraphers. Now, what's a calligrapher? A calligrapher is a person who writes in very fancy prose on a very fancy invitation to rich folk to come to the White House. That's what a calligrapher is. And he would elect to do that? Or to take an extra trip on Air Force One? Or not to raise private money to open up the White House for tours?

It turns out, I've come to learn, in many cases, it's costing more to chain these public, open-air monuments, whether the World War II monument, whether the Lincoln Memorial, whether the Jefferson, in many cases costing more to rent barricade equipment than it is to take people out of furlough to have them there in ways that have never been okay.

So it is okay to agree that we disagree. It's okay to say you want to spend more, the House wants to spend less. Harry Reid wants to spend more, we want to spend less. I think the Congressional Budget Office numbers are on our side. What they show is that in just 12 years, we're going to be at a point in this civilization where there will only be enough money to pay for interest and entitlements and nothing else. And in that regard, what we see is simply a prelude to much greater problems in this country if we don't get our financial house in order.

So it's okay to disagree on those things, but it is not okay to try and inflict political pain to the American citizen as a way of somehow scoring a political point, particularly when this House has sent four different bites at the apple in terms of trying to keep government open, and particularly when this House has sent a bill over that would keep the national parks open, that would keep groups like NIH open, Guard and Reservists, go down the list.

So, I would come back and ask of you, Mr. Speaker, that we look for some way of, again, unchaining monuments that have never been chained in the history of this Republic, because I think they represent very silly political games by this President.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a runner all my life. I ran in high school and college, and it has always been my way of sort of clearing my head. Sometimes I clearly haven't run enough.

Over the years, during my roughly 20 years in and out of Washington, I have made it a tradition of running down the Mall, down to the Lincoln Memorial. I have been down at the Lincoln Memorial on those runs in the dead of night when there was not a soul down there. I have been down there at sunrise when there was nobody there. I have been there on a summer afternoon when it seemed like every tourist from this country and every tourist from around this world was gathered there.

But yesterday I went for an evening run after votes, and I saw something I have never seen before, because as I ran down the Mall, I got to the World War II Memorial and it was chained up. Mind you, this is an open-air rock memorial dedicated to the sacrifice of so many soldiers there in World War II, an open-air rock memorial.

But I continued only with my run, and I got down to the Lincoln Memorial, and to my amazement that thing was chained up too. I was so agitated in seeing this that I turned to a tourist and I said, You got to be kidding me. Would you take a picture of that? And it was actually a family from Shanghai, China, here halfway around the world. They took the picture, and they emailed it to me last night and it is an amazing shot.

As you can see there, the Lincoln Memorial, two guards. Now, mind you, I have been there many times when nobody was there, no security guard, nobody. And yet in this instance you have chains around it, two police cars, simply to keep people out of one of the great memorials to freedom in our country.

It just strikes me that that is a picture of political gamesmanship and hostage taking, and I would say respectfully, Mr. President, you have gone too far on this one. At the time of the sequester, you ended school tours to the White House. Now, mind you, not since Jefferson's time and war has the people's House, the White House, been shut down for public tours. But you used that as a political tool to somehow gain advantage in the sequester that still exists so kids from 8th grade may take their one trip to Washington, D.C., and can't go to the White House because you think it will gain political favor. And I see the same thing going on with this.

So let's agree that we disagree. We agree that we as Republicans think we ought to be spending less. You and Harry Reid think we ought to be spending more. I think the Congressional Budget numbers are on our side. They say that in just 12 years we are only going to have enough money to pay for interest and entitlements and nothing else, and in that regard this is just a sneak preview of much more damaging things to come if we don't get our financial house in order.

But I would say it is okay to have disagreements, but it is not okay to hold, I guess, citizens hostage and try to maximize and inflict pain in their ability to do normal things, particularly when the House has offered four different bites at the apple in keeping the government open and particularly when just last night bills were sent to Harry Reid that would have kept government open, would have kept the Park Service open, would have kept groups like NIH open.

I think this is really important. Reagan once said there at the Brandenburg Gate to Mr. Gorbachev, tear down

this wall; and I would say to you Mr. President, take down the chains. Take down the walls to these open-air memorials to freedom. This is not the National Archives where things could be taken or stolen. These are open-air memorials. This is ridiculous political gamesmanship. I was Governor for eight years. I have been an executive. I know that you can do this, and I would ask that you do so.

I am going to go for my evening run, 5:30, 6 o'clock. I would invite every one of you all up there in the gallery to come join me at the Lincoln Memorial. I would ask listeners out there to join me at the Lincoln Memorial. I will talk to Representative Palazzo from Mississippi and Michele Bachmann and others who gathered there at the World War II Memorial. This has gotten out of control with regard to this degree of political gamesmanship by Harry Reid and by the President.

So I would just ask that you take another look at that picture, think about what it means, think about the sacrifice that has been made that is ultimately about what these memorials are founded on, and why can't we do something about it, Mr. President. I would ask you to do so.

I would invite folks for a 5:30 or 6 o'clock run down at the Lincoln Memorial.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a shutdown, which is to say that we are in a challenging time.

My prayer, I think, is joined by so many other Republican colleagues for families that have been affected. It is something that we very much wanted to avoid in any way possible. That's why the multitude of different options were offered here by this House to the Senate, but they were ultimately rejected.

I think that the bigger question, though, in any challenging time is: What does it mean, and where do we go from here? In that light, I'd just like to offer a little bit of context as to what all of this means and what's going on.

Quite simply, I'd say that there is real value--real wisdom--in different perspectives. I don't think it's lost on any of us as Republicans in the House that two beats one in the world of politics. You have here a President who has said, I'll negotiate with Syrians, and I'll negotiate with Putin. You have Harry Reid, who has been anything but wanting to work with the Republicans in the House--he has been awfully dismissive--when what Republicans have been trying to say is, Wait a minute. Let's pause for just a second. There is a different perspective that we are hearing from folks back home on the implications in the implementation of so-called ``ObamaCare'' in going forward.

The first is an issue that, frankly, has been lost in this whole debate, which is the constitutional issue on, ultimately, the balance of power and the separation of power. Our Founding Fathers were very deliberate in setting up a system wherein the Congress was to create laws; the judiciary was to interpret them with a thumbs up or thumbs down on constitutionality; and the executive branch was to administer. But what you have in this particular instance is a breach of that separation of power, because you have a President that is sort of unilaterally picking and choosing that which is to be implemented.

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton or George Bush were to selectively decide the way in which the Tax Code might be implemented? We're just going to enforce it on poor folks but not on rich folks. To a great degree, that's what is happening here, and it is a constitutional issue that sets precedent in going forward, in essence, on the very separation of powers as deliberated and laid out in the Constitution;

Secondly, I think it is a big issue and worthy of debate because, in this instance, you have 1,200 bigger businesses that were granted waivers before, ultimately, it was absolved for all large corporations while individuals were still stuck dealing with the law. You had an exemption for Members of Congress but no exemption for individuals across this country. That idea of selectively implementing, I think, is very, very dangerous ground because, ultimately, I would say a good part of the glue that has held our Republic together for over 200 years has been this notion of fairness, or equity. People believe that you may not like some of the laws, but, ultimately, they were administered fairly, evenly. That is not what is taking place at the onset of the Affordable Care Act, and I think you are playing with real dynamite when you begin to selectively implement a law.

Thirdly, as has been noted by a number of speakers earlier, I would say there are real cost considerations. We are at something of a tipping point as a civilization as to what our Nation can afford, and we are looking at an awfully big, new bill that will come with this particular bill.

Fourthly, I would say we are looking at some real unintended consequences that, I think, are worthy of the pause, simply the delay, that if you're going to have the selective implementation of a bill, it warrants the delay of that bill because, in this case, you have entities as disparate as the University of Virginia, where I went to graduate school, or UPS, saying, We are no longer going to offer health care to spouses and dependents. You have unintended consequences in terms of businesses cutting employment at 50, or you look at the number of hours that one works, saying, Okay, we're going to tap you below 30 hours.

There are very serious, unintended consequences that, again, I think, warrant the House's position of simply saying, Should we pause for a year since the President, himself, has decided to give pause to any number of parts to this bill?

One last thought on context, and that is that the media would have you believe that this is a fight of epic proportions, of epic consequences, of epic nature. In fact, if you look at what has happened with shutdowns in the past--and this is in no way to minimize their effect or the significance of where we are--there have actually been 17 shutdowns here over, basically, the last 35 years. I was here for the last one back in the mid-1990s. If you look at those 17, 12 occurred while Tip O'Neill was sitting in your Speaker's chair, Mr. Speaker. In many cases, it was a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate, with a Democratic House, wherein they disagreed on whether or not we should produce a nuclear carrier or how we were going to fund abortion or how we were going to fund some other portion of government.

So I think that what we have here is a simple disagreement that has ground to a halt right now, but there is a larger context that, I think, is very, very important that the Republicans are trying to advance, which is: how we move forward in a way that doesn't hurt the American public.

I thank both of you for what you're doing tonight.

Mr. Speaker, as we well know, there are many heroes from across this country. Most recently we've seen them here in the Capitol with the tragedy of the Naval Yard. But I think that you all are doing something very special by recognizing military heroes in their different acts of heroism and courage over the years.

I'd like to single out a resident from my home State of South Carolina, Major General James Everett Livingston. And his story's an interesting one, as are so many of the stories that you've read.

But back on May 2 of 1968, he found himself as a young captain in the most unenviable of positions, in that a Marine company had been, basically, partitioned and was separated, and he and other men courageously went in to basically extract that Marine company.

In the process, he was hit twice by grenade shrapnel, but he, himself, declined medical help until they were able to go in, extract those Marines, and get them out.

I think it's in keeping with the military tradition of never leaving a man or a woman behind, and it says a lot about his personal courage, that he would, again, keep in the fight, even after withstanding personal injury, until those Marines were, again, up, out and extracted.

And so with that, I would simply like to single out his 33 years in the Marines, single out his wife, Sara, and his daughters, Melissa and Kimberly, for what they know, which is they have a hero for a dad and, indeed, a recipient of the Medal of Honor.

Thank you again for what you all are doing.

Honoring Lieutenant Joseph R. Kerrey

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment to eliminate five regional commissions that waste taxpayer dollars. These programs were initially formed with the mandate to improve the lives of those who live in impoverished areas. However, they have instead veered from this mandate by routinely allocating funds to projects that not only fall under state and local responsibilities, but also projects that benefit only those who live in more economically developed areas.

For example, the Northern Border Regional Commission has granted: $250,000 to construct a tower to improve cell phone coverage in New Hampshire, $250,000 to construct a 93-mile, four-season, multi-use trail across northern Vermont and $160,000 to promote and raise awareness of the maple syrup industry in New York.

These examples of government waste are not just confined to the Northern Border Regional Commission. A similar organization called the Delta Regional Commission, which spans from Mississippi to Southern Illinois, granted: $150,000 to build a tornado safe room in a Missouri hospital and $47,000 for updating a sprinkler system at a business incubator in Illinois. While there may be a need for these projects, they do not fall under the original mandate of these commissions. I believe that for government programs to be effective, they must be focused.

The problem is that these projects do not help those that the regional commissions were originally created for--Americans living below the poverty line. The Obama administration, along with the Government Accountability Office, has identified these programs as wasteful and duplicative while possessing no track record of success.

Madam Chair, eliminating these programs will save American taxpayers $90 million and work towards reducing the national debt by targeting wasteful spending.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, due to Flight #4042 being delayed by approximately four hours before departing Charleston International Airport. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

H.R. 2383--To designate the new Interstate Route 70 Bridge over the Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri, and southwestern Illinois as the ``Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge.'' Vote: ``yes.''

H.R. 1092--To designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center.'' Vote: ``yes.''

I rise in support of the rule because I think that this illusion of energy independence has, in any case, been postponed by the very actions that work against this rule would represent because we're talking here about 5 years of postponement. And I think to have real energy solutions here in the United States means, first off, using the energy solutions that are represented in this continent.

I think it is by no means a fix, it's by no means a cure--in deference to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--but it is an important step in the right direction. I think as well it represents a step toward energy independence, which is also about national security.

I think it's a step toward jobs, which are vital in this country and needed at this time--more than 20,000. And I think ultimately it's a pocketbook issue. Where, as you think about driving time coming this summer and the number of people who will be filling up their tanks, this is a step in the right direction toward energy independence, energy security, and ultimately jobs. For that reason, I rise in support of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising today to congratulate Lowcountry native and St. Helena Island's own Candice Glover on winning the title of ``American Idol.'' She is the daughter of John and Carole Glover. Candice is a graduate of Beaufort High School.

I think that her story ultimately is inspirational, because what she does is she teaches and reminds every one of us on the importance of this simple notion of trying, trying, and trying yet again. Because it was, in fact, on her third attempt that she actually made it, and it made all the difference.

I was there for ``hero's welcome'' just a couple of weeks ago in Beaufort, South Carolina, and I can only imagine the welcome that she will now receive. She was then one of three. She won it this week.

Her career is one that started at Oaks True Holiness Church back home at the age of 4 when she was singing literally to the Lord. It was only the beginning. And as South Carolina's new congressman from the First Congressional District, I speak for many who could not be more proud of Candice for, indeed, the way that she reminds every one of us of the importance of trying, trying, and trying yet again.

Congratulations, Candice.

I rise with a chorus of others in this whole notion of repealing ObamaCare primarily because of its financial impact. At the end of the day, if you look at the Government Accountability Office numbers, what they show is that there's $6.2 trillion of cumulative impact here over the next 10 years. If you look at the Congressional Budget Office numbers, what they show is increasing numbers in $800 billion increments. And, in fact, if you look at American tax reform studies, what they show are 20 new or raised levels of tax that go with this bill.

I think, more importantly, it turns on its head this whole notion of the Hippocratic Oath, which has been a 200-year tradition in this country of doctors working directly for a patient.

And finally, and I'd say most importantly, it turns upside down this American tradition of not having the government force on the consumers the notion of the purchase of a product. It's for that and many other reasons that I join again with a chorus of others in urging repeal of this bill.