Gulf1-E-Miller

Congressman Jeff Miller's Newsletter for April 10, 2011

This week was supposed to be all about the long-term budget for the United States.  Tuesday, House Republicans proposed a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution that would cut federal spending by more than $6 trillion over ten years.  It includes necessary entitlement reform and returned non-security discretionary spending to 2006 levels.  It simplifies the tax code by lowering rates and reducing tax credits.  In short, the Republican budget would put America back on the path to prosperity. 

Instead, because Senate Democrats refused to pass last year’s funding bill, the government narrowly averted a shutdown.  Instead of looking at long-term solutions, Senate Democrats refused to cut spending this year.  Instead of funding our military for the rest of the year, Senate Democrats refused to pay our troops. 

But in the end, while the process was ugly, we were successful.  We were successful in cutting federal spending by $38.5 billion this year.  We were successful in averting a painful government shutdown that would have damaged a fragile economy and forced troops to work without pay.  And most importantly, in the face of tremendous opposition, we made a significant down payment on the spending cuts we promised you.

Partisanship aside, House Republicans offered plan after plan to avoid the shutdown.  In February, we passed a year-long continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the entire government for the rest of the year.  It made significant spending cuts at time when they are not only wanted, but required.  When the Senate refused to pass their own bill, we passed an extension to give them more time to consider a compromise.  Then we passed a second extension.  Five weeks passed, and Senate Majority Leader Reid did not bring a single bill to the Senate floor that would fund the government. 

So Thursday, 24 hours before the shutdown, House Republicans passed a one-week extension that would give more time for negotiations and would pay our military for the rest of the year.  But before the bill was even passed by the House, the President said he would veto it, and the Senate said it was dead on arrival.  We have members of the military across the world who stand in harm’s way, but would not have been paid for their service. 

This was absolutely, unequivocally unacceptable.
 
It is unacceptable that Senate Democrats would have rather haggled over a few billion dollars than pay our military.  It is unacceptable that the President would show up at the last minute in the negotiations and not take a leadership role on spending cuts.  And it is unacceptable that Senate Democrats would ask our U.S. Armed Services to fight in three wars without pay.

On Friday night, after we continued to press for funding cuts and for our conservative values, we achieved success.  Republicans and Democrats reached an agreement to cut $38.5 billion in government spending, $79 billion less than the President wanted in his budget.  There will not be taxpayer funding for abortion in D.C., and we will have an up or down vote on Obamacare and Planned Parenthood in the Senate.

This was pure and simple a fight over the federal budget.  And, at the end of the day, we achieved our goal to dramatically cut government spending.
 
Make no mistake, this is only the beginning of the debate over the future of our country.  This is only the first step in our long-term goal to reform the size of the government.  House Republicans made our position known, and we will continue to draw a line in the sand for a smaller, more responsible federal government. 

As we continue to move forward on the FY2011 and FY2012 budget, which tackles America’s long-term financial future, I will continue to uphold the values and freedom you elected me to defend.  We must take a stand on the future of our country, and the time to make that stand is now.

Jeff Miller Offers Legislation To Provide Economic Recovery To The Gulf Coast

Washington, D.C. – Congressmen Jeff Miller (R-FL-01) and Steve Southerland, II (R-FL-02) today introduced legislation that would require a portion of the fines paid by BP for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be used for economic development along the affected shores of the Gulf Coast.  The Gulf Coast Economic and Tourism Restoration Act, or H.R. 1333, would distribute 40 percent of the BP fines to the local communities and states directly impacted by the oil spill for use in economic restoration and tourism promotion.

“The Gulf Coast continues to feel the economic impacts of the Gulf oil spill, and BP must be held accountable,” Miller said.  “Florida businesses are struggling, the real estate market has slowed, and individuals are still looking for work.  My bill would ensure the fines paid by BP for their mistake would be returned to our area and promote the economies of the local communities still reeling from last year’s disaster.”

Under the Clean Water Act, BP is expected to pay between $5 billion and $21 billion in fines, based on estimates of the flow of oil from the Macondo well.  Miller’s and Southerland’s bill would distribute 40 percent of these fines to the five Gulf states affected by the spill and further require each governor to send 75 percent of their allocation to the local communities directly impacted.  A key component of the legislation is its focus on the economy, requiring that any funds spent be used specifically for economic development or tourism.

“North and Northwest Florida’s economy is heavily dependent upon Gulf Coast wildlife, fisheries, tourism, and real estate,” Southerland said.  “This legislation is a critical step forward in ensuring that coastal families and small businesses receive the support they so desperately need to recover from the Deepwater Horizon spill.”

Congressman Jeff Miller's Newsletter for April 3, 2011

The situation in Libya has been evolving constantly since unrest emerged there in February, following similar uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and other Arab states.  Muammar Gaddafi—the man President Ronald Reagan called the “Mad Dog of the Middle East” for his sponsorship of terrorist activity against the United States and her allies—responded violently to opposition protests and threatened to treat protesters like “dogs” and to “show no mercy.” 

When the opposition took up arms to challenge Gaddafi and his oppressive regime, President Obama was silent.  When the opposition had the initiative, marching toward Tripoli, President Obama was silent.  And when Gaddafi regained the initiative, beat back the opposition military forces, and threatened to slaughter his own citizens, President Obama was silent.  For three weeks the President remained silent while the world waited for some sign of American leadership, some indication of America’s intentions.  The President offered no such leadership and no such intentions. 

Nor during those three weeks, did the President approach the Congress—as the Constitution requires—to seek approval to take our nation to war.  Instead, who did the President consult?  The Arab League and the United Nations. 

Two weeks have now passed since President Obama initiated his war in Libya without seeking the approval of the Congress, yet serious questions about the United States’ involvement in that war remain unanswered.  Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to question Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen during their testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.  Unfortunately, their responses did little to assuage my concerns or those of my colleagues.

When one Member asked Secretary Gates to define “success” in Libya, he responded that the removal of Gaddafi from power is an important part of success.  This perplexing response comes after repeated assertions from the administration that regime change is not an objective of the military operations in Libya.  How can it be that Gaddafi’s removal from power is one part of the administration’s definition of success, when that element has been ruled out as an objective of the war?  This is but one of the many contradictory policies and statements advanced by the Obama administration in defending its decision to go to war.

When asked about the composition of the Libyan opposition, Secretary Gates repeatedly stated that he has no idea of its composition, its key players, or its political objectives.  He even admitted that the term “opposition” is a misnomer because there doesn’t seem to be any true structure to the disparate groups opposing Gaddafi.  I don’t believe there should be any discussion of arming the opposition until our leaders can speak with confidence about the sympathies, intentions, and affiliations of those groups.  As history has shown us, we must remember that the enemy of our enemy is not always our friend.

I was especially bothered by Admiral Mullen’s inability to project the length of our commitment to the NATO operations in Libya.  This is perplexing, given the fact that the President and his administration have declared that our military objectives have been achieved.  Perhaps it is the President’s failure to clearly articulate his near-, mid-, and long-term goals for Libya that has contributed to the confusion of his Military leaders.  Until those goals are articulated, the American people will continue to bear the ever-increasing costs of this operation.  As of this week, more than $550 million have been spent on this foray into Libya, and the Defense Department estimates that it will cost an additional $40 million per month to sustain our support to the NATO mission.  I remain unconvinced that this is an expense we should shoulder at a time when our Nation bears the burden of a $14 trillion debt.

Finally, despite the policy failings of the administration, our men and women in uniform deserve our highest thanks for their loyalty, patriotism, and professionalism.  They have executed these operations with the skill and focus we demand; however, we must remember that we already demand much from these brave warriors and their families.  At a time when our servicemembers deploy at historically high rates, the President and the Congress must work together—within the bounds of the Constitution—to ensure that our Nation commits to war only when we must.