J. Gresham Barrett

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, in recent days and weeks, some have suggested we need a specific timeline or a date that indicates when our troops will begin to withdraw from Iraq. I would like to read an e-mail that one of my staffers received a few weeks ago from a friend currently serving in Iraq. The major says, ``I know there are growing doubts, questions, and concerns by many regarding our presence here and how long we are going to stay. For what it is worth, the attachment hopefully tells you why we are trying to make a positive difference for the future of this country.'' This is the attachment right here. Mr. Chairman, a picture truly does speak a thousand words. He went on to end his e-mail by saying, ``I hope to head home in 80 days with the feeling that I contributed something and made this world'' not Iraq, but ``made this world a better place for these guys.'' Look at this. This is what it is all about. To quote Prime Minister Singh who was on this very floor yesterday, he said, ``We must fight terrorism wherever it exists because terrorism anywhere threatens democracy everywhere.'' Mr. Chairman, any date for withdrawal would be arbitrary. We must allow our plan to go forward and not abandon it halfway through. It is not about their future; it is about our future. Let us not talk about an exit strategy, let us talk about winning, let us talk about freedom, let us talk about victory. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Ros-Lehtinen amendment.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that one of my votes yesterday, Thursday, June 23, 2005, was not recorded by the electronic device. I ask that the Record reflect that I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote #307 (On Agreeing to the Bradley Amendment to H.R. 3010).

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, we have been talking a lot about Iraq, and a lot of people have different ideas and different thoughts about what we are doing over there. In recent days and weeks, some have suggested we need a specific timeline or date that indicates when our troops will begin to withdraw from Iraq. I would like to read an e-mail that one of my staffers received at the end of last week from a friend of hers currently serving in Iraq. The soldier says: ``I know there are growing doubts, questions and concerns by many regarding our presence here and how long we should stay. For what it is worth, the attachment hopefully tells you why we are trying to make a positive difference in this country's future.'' This is the attachment, Madam Speaker, and a picture truly is worth 1,000 words. The soldier went on to say in ending his e-mail: ``I hope to head home in 80 days with a feeling that I contributed something and made this world a better place for these guys.'' Madam Speaker, any date for withdrawal would be arbitrary. We must allow our plan to go forward and not abandon it halfway through. This is not just about their future, it is about the future of all of us. Let us not talk about an exit strategy; let us talk about victory.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, due to family obligations in South Carolina, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, May 23, 2005. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 200 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 744--Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2005), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 201 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 29--Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 202 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H. Con. Res. 149--Recognizing the 57th Anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel).

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Hobson for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor, and I also thank him for his continued commitment to the Yucca Mountain project. As a fiscal conservative, I share his concerns regarding the federal government's liability as result of project delays, and I would like to work with the Committee to ensure the Department of Energy (DOE) fulfills its statutory and contractual obligation to accept spent fuel for disposal. To resolve this issue the Committee has recommended the Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative (Initiative), which links interim storage to reprocessing. I strongly believe interim storage of commercial spent fuel should not take place a DOE sites like Savannah River. However, I do agree that interim storage is an issue Congress and the DOE should examine. One argument posed by opponents of this Initiative is that interim storage would create a ``de facto'' permanent repository, which undermines our national policy of disposing high-level radioactive waste in a permanent deep, geologic repository. While I share the concern, this argument only has merit if interim storage is dealt with as a separate issue. But, the Committee's report expressly states the Initiative has ``linked'' interim storage to reprocessing. Moreover, this bill fully funds the Yucca Mountain project. These facts read together clearly imply that the DOE implementation of the Initiative's core elements should not undermine Yucca Mountain. As a result, I strongly believe the DOE should carefully examine any unintended consequences in its implementation report to ensure the Initiative supports our national policy on nuclear waste disposal as set forth by the Nuclear Waste Disposal Act. Examining the merits of this Initiative also requires us to review its other core element--reprocessing commercial spent fuel. The Committee correctly notes prior to the mid-1970's, the Federal government encouraged the reprocessing of commercial spent fuel and even developed reprocessing facilities in several states including South Carolina. Although opponents often cite proliferation concerns as a reason not to reprocess spent fuel, the report states ``there is no evidence that current [European] reprocessing operations pose a significant proliferation risk.'' Equally as important, I agree with the Committee that reduced volumes gained through reprocessing could avert the need to expand Yucca or site a second repository. Finally, reprocessing can also reduce the radiotoxicity of high-level waste, which makes licensing Yucca Mountain a simpler proposition. As a result, there is no question it is time for our nation to reexamine this issue, and I believe the Savannah River Site's existing reprocessing infrastructure should be considered as potential resources that could be utilized for this purpose. Although I agree the Committee's Initiative presents our nation a possible solution to finally shipping high-level waste out of states like South Carolina more quickly than anticipated, I do not believe the Initiative could be implemented without further Congressional authorization. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the DOE's authority to store commercial spent fuel on an interim basis at existing DOE facilities expired January 1, 1990. Moreover, the NWPA does not allow the DOE to construct a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility until Yucca Mountain receives a construction license. Thus, if the DOE desires to implement the core elements of the Initiative, I along with the Committee request the DOE provide to Congress any necessary authority it may need to execute it. I have no doubt Chairman Hobson's intentions with this Initiative are to support the nuclear power industry by ensuring we have a permanent repository for commercial spent fuel, and he is to be commended for bringing this matter to the 109th Congress' attention. The issue of nuclear waste disposal is complex, and it will require big ideas for safe disposition of our high-level waste. The Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative is one of those ideas, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and my constituents to ensure it is the best policy to pursue.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this issue is more than facts and figures. For me it is personal. It is about my children, Madison, Jeb and Ross Barrett. It is about my nieces and my nephews, Hayden and English and Jason and Andrew. They are not just names, they are living, breathing human beings. They are people I care about, they are people I love. It is my family. And they began life as an embryo. Let us be clear, embryonic stem cell research is completely legal. What we are talking about today is whether taxpayer dollars should be used to destroy potential life, and, for me, life must supersede all other considerations, especially for the purpose of medical experimentation. Life is so precious, Mr. Speaker, and as long as I am a United States Congressman, I will do everything I can to protect it.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, due to obligations in South Carolina, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, May 16, 2005. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 171 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 627--Linda White-Epps Post Office), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 172 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H. Res. 266--Peace Officers Memorial Day), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 173 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2107--National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund).

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations, I unfortunately missed a recorded vote on the House floor on Thursday, April 28, 2005. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on Rollcall vote No. 150 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H. Res. 210--Supporting the goals of World Intellectual Property Day, and recognizing the importance of intellectual property in the United States and worldwide).

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the first 100 days of the 109th Congress have been very successful, but there is still a lot of work we have got to do. One item at the top of the list is our need to strengthen Social Security. I was honored to accompany President Bush to my home State of South Carolina as he addressed the general assembly regarding the issue of Social Security. I have found that for the most part people understand that Social Security is safe for today's seniors and those nearing retirement, but is still very dangerous for our younger workers; and they know the facts as they relate to the problem. What they want is for Congress to present clear and concise ideas on a permanent fix. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward a solution in the coming weeks and months to fix once and for all the Social Security system. The time is now. The opportunity is now. The future is now.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 748 and the rule that we have in front of us this afternoon. I commend the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for introducing this legislation, legislation of which I am a proud cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, I find it unacceptable that under the current law any person in this country can take a pregnant minor to another State for the purpose of having an abortion without parents' knowledge and/or consent. As the father of a teenage daughter myself, it is a frightening scenario. I am particularly happy to see that this bill will require abortion providers to inform a minor's parent or legal guardian within 24 hours before carrying out an abortion procedure. Parental notification is not a new idea. I have three children, and my wife and I have to sign a parental consent form when our children go on a field trip. But what we are talking about today is the most serious of subjects, and I strongly believe no parent should find out after the fact that such a procedure has been performed on their child. When it comes to such a serious medical procedure being performed on a minor, we cannot leave that notification up to a scared child. Every parent or legal guardian has a right to know, and this legislation ensures that right. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on H.R. 748 which ensures that right.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And, yes, I say to the gentleman, they are from South Carolina, and I see them every day. Mr. Speaker, I rise today against the Pomeroy substitute and in full support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005. The death tax defies common sense and is fundamentally unfair, Mr. Speaker. Prior to 2001, the top death tax rate was 55 percent. Today, the top rate is 47 percent, and these are unbelievably high tax rates, especially when the tax is imposed after a lifetime of hard work. The death tax is also a job killer, Mr. Speaker. Resources that could be used to expand businesses and hire new employees are instead used inefficiently to plan for the impact of the death tax. The Joint Economic Committee noted that the death tax reduces the stock in the economy, listen to this now, approximately one-half of $1 trillion. Mr. Speaker, the permanent repeal of the death tax will not only ensure that small businesses and family farms are not subject to these unfair rates of taxation, but also simplify the tax law and facilitate long-term financial planning. The 2010 sunset date for the death tax repeal makes it nearly impossible for taxpayers to make long-term financial decisions as they relate to the tax. Enactment of the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act promotes fairness and simplification by giving taxpayers the certainty they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pomeroy substitute amendment.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 135) providing for the establishment of a commission in the House of Representatives to assist parliaments in emerging democracies.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for introducing this legislation. I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our distinguished ranking Democrat member, as original co-sponsors. Last week, the Committee on International Relations unanimously agreed to ask the chairman to seek immediate consideration of this resolution by the whole House under suspension of the rules. I would like to thank the leadership for moving so expeditiously to schedule this debate. I would also like to remember the role played by one of our long-time colleagues, the very distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, Doug Bereuter. Prior to his retirement last year after nearly 26 years in the House, Mr. Bereuter worked closely with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) on this initiative. Doug Bereuter was a strong believer in helping to spread democracy to former dictatorships, a mission that he has continued to champion in his new role as President of the Asia Foundation. His commitment to interparliamentary relations was underlined by his service as president of the 26-nation NATO Parliamentary Assembly. This resolution, in part, is of his legacy of the House of Representatives and to the expansion of democracy around the world. Mr. Speaker, in his second inaugural address, the President of the United States, Mr. Bush, declared: ``The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world . . . So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and the institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.'' The resolution before us would enable the House of Representatives to directly and personally answer the President's call to support the growth of democratic institutions in every nation. House Resolution 135 creates the House Democracy Assistance Commission. This commission will allow Members and staff of the House of Representatives to work directly with their counterparts in new democracies around the world to help those parliaments play an independent and substantive role in the legislative process and government oversight. This commission would build on the legacy of the Frost-Solomon task force of the 1990s when the House worked with democracies then emerging in Central and Eastern Europe, helping their parliaments become independent, effective legislatures. Today, with democracies spreading throughout the world, the House Democracy Assistance Commission would allow Members to personally undertake what President Bush called ``the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments.'' Through the House Democracy Assistance Commission, Members and their staffs from the House of Representatives will personally advise their counterparts from the parliaments of new democracies around the world both in their home capitals and here in Washington. Many of these parliaments need assistance in areas like committee operations, government oversight, constituent relations, parliamentary procedure, bill drafting, and establishment of research services and legislative information systems. In addition, when the commission identifies needs in developing countries, it can recommend that the U.S. Agency for International Development provide office equipment for information technology to enable those parliaments to become more efficient and transparent. Creation of the House Democracy Assistance Commission will enable the House of Representatives to personally answer the President's call to support the growth of democratic institutions in every nation. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), sponsor of H. Res. 135, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 101) urging the European Union to add Hezbollah to the European Union's wide-ranging list of terrorist organizations, as amended.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 101.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 101 urges the European Union to add Hezbollah to its terrorist list. I strongly support this measure, which was passed by voice vote during a subcommittee mark-up and by unanimous consent before the full Committee on International Relations. Hezbollah is a Lebanon-based extremist organization that has a network of cells located throughout the world. Its primary sources of political, financial, and organizational support stem from Iran and Syria. According to the most recent State Department ``Patterns of Global Terrorism Report,'' Hezbollah is dedicated to the elimination of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in Lebanon. Hezbollah is also a strong supporter of the Syrian presence in that country, a position clearly at odds with both the desires of the international community and the Lebanese people. Hezbollah has been known or suspected to have been involved in numerous terrorist attacks against Americans, including the suicide truck bombing of the United States Embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the embassy annex in Beirut in 1984. Three members of Hezbollah are on the FBI's list of the 22 most wanted persons for the hijacking of a TWA flight in which an American Navy diver was killed. Elements of the terrorist organization have also been involved in the kidnapping of Americans and other Westerners. In past years, Hezbollah has increasingly supported groups that have already been designated by the EU as terrorist organizations. It defies logic that the EU would classify these other groups as terrorist organizations and not include Hezbollah, a group that is among the most lethal terrorist organizations in the world. The manager's amendment includes changes based on comments received on the resolution from the State Department and some changes communicated to me by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe of the House Committee on International Relations. The amendment is designed to clarify some of the language contained in H. Res. 101. In addition, the amendment adds a clause recognizing that the European Parliament voted on March 10 on a resolution that stated that ``clear evidence exists of terrorist activities on the part of Hezbollah'' and that the Council of the EU ``should take all the necessary steps to curtail them.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for introducing H. Res. 101. This legislation has strong bipartisan support with over 70 co-sponsors. I urge the passage of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the author of the legislation.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, in the past few years, we have witnessed an explosion of interstate class-action lawsuits being filed in our State courts, particularly in certain ``magnet'' jurisdictions. These ``magnet'' courts routinely approve settlements in which lawyers receive large fee awards and the class members receive virtually nothing. The result is a growing number of class-action lawsuits that are losing propositions for everyone involved, except the lawyers that bring them. Madam Speaker, later this morning, we will be debating the Class Action Fairness Act. This legislation closes a loophole in the system by creating Federal jurisdictions over large, multi-State class-action cases. It puts an end to various tricks currently used by some lawyers to stay out of Federal court. And, in addition, this legislation creates several provisions specifically designed to ensure that class members, not their attorneys, are the primary beneficiaries of the class-action process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense, bipartisan plan.