Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we wish to extend our best wishes to the King of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej, today on his birthday. For more than half a century, King Bhumibol Adulyadej has applied technical ingenuity and resources to build his vision of a modern, prosperous Thailand. He has continually sought to improve the lives of the Thai people.

King Bhumibol's philosophy of a ``sufficiency economy,'' developed and refined since the 1970s, provides guidelines for individuals and businesses on how to conduct themselves in life. The King's philosophy emphasizes moderation, responsible consumption and resiliency. In 2006, in recognition of King Bhumibol's contributions to sustainable, human- centered development, the United Nations Development Programme awarded him its first-ever Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award.

Thailand has been America's friend since 1833 and our oldest Treaty ally in Asia. Our economies are tied together, our militaries train together, and our people-to-people ties have never been stronger. Again, on behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we are pleased to join our friends in Thailand as its people celebrate the Seventh Cycle Birthday Anniversary of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej on December 5, 2011.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3010. I reiterate what I said yesterday regarding regulatory legislation, that when critics accuse those of us who support it and furthermore accuse us of being willing to compromise health and safety standards: not guilty. But we are guilty of trying to reduce the number of redundant, excessive regulations--bad, onerous regulations. To that, I do plead guilty.

As I meet with representatives from industries in my congressional district and other districts here in Washington, one message is imminently clear: our regulatory process is out of control. There's enormous uncertainty over what actions agencies will take, there's uncertainty over which agencies have jurisdiction, and there's concern about the actions of independent agencies.

It is important to note that these perceptions are not a part of a larger campaign to discredit the Republican or Democratic agendas. They highlight a growing perception that our government is simply out of touch. The process is missing checks and balances, which are the cornerstone of our democracy, while regulators have virtually limitless resources and power. The result has enabled special interests to impose their will on certain areas of our regulatory system after clearing few hoops and low hurdles. This was not the intent of the Administrative Procedures Act and explains a legacy of executive orders requiring that agencies issue narrowly tailored, less costly alternatives that began with the Reagan administration.

Other costs continue to hit close to home, Mr. Chairman. They drive businesses to other countries, costing thousands of jobs. Many will argue that regulations create jobs. That may well be true of good, sound regulations; but ask many of the employers who have relocated their manufacturing facilities, and they will tell you it's in large part due to our regulatory government. Every industry in America is concerned about our regulatory regime, and there is little doubt that bad regulations have driven American jobs to other countries.

The solution is not more regulation, Mr. Chairman. It's better and more effective regulation, which is exactly what H.R. 3010 is intended to create, much like H.R. 527, the small business regulatory reform bill that we approved yesterday.

When the Administrative Procedure Act was implemented, few imagined that our government would issue a regulation that would threaten the viability of an entire industry. Today, unfortunately, many would say this has become the routine practice. Prime examples are the EPA Cement MACT rule, OSHA's Noise Guidance, and HHS's grandfather plan rule. Some describe them as misguided. Others would say they're downright reckless.

H.R. 3010 addresses the situation by implementing new requirements that would give stakeholders a legitimate opportunity to improve regulations as they are proposed, promulgated, and ultimately implemented. In fact, most of the reforms included in this legislation simply codify President Obama's Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.

Finally, the bill will not change any existing regulatory standard or requirement.

The overwhelming view from my congressional district is that Federal regulations are driving American ingenuity and opportunity to other countries. Improving our regulatory process may be one of the most significant legislative considerations that we can provide

to help preserve our safety and provide economic opportunity for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, we continue to hear, Jobs, jobs, jobs, echoed from shore to shore, border to border. This is a good piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for having yielded to me.

Mr. Chairman, those who oppose H.R. 527 insist that those of us who support it are willing to compromise health and safety standards. Since criticism is not justified, we simply are refining the process. Excessive regulations and bad regulations serve no good purpose.

My district is not unlike many others. We are still suffering from the recession. While we once claimed many manufacturing and producing distinctions, much of our manufacturing has either disappeared or has gone to other places. Bad regulations don't help matters. They create unnecessary costs, uncertainty for employers, do not improve public health or safety, and they are particularly burdensome for small businesses.

Two critical laws that help ensure regulators will take into account the impact of proposed regulations on

small businesses are the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. In essence, these laws require agencies to conduct economic impact analyses of proposed rules on small businesses. Unfortunately, regulators routinely utilize waivers and exceptions from both laws and promulgate regulations without taking into account their economic impacts on small businesses.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act do not block the flow of Federal regulation. They, rather, help guide it. We need regulations and small businesses need regulations, but the regulations must be effective and efficient or they could do more harm than good.

H.R. 527 will improve future regulations by requiring agencies to conduct the economic impact analyses of proposed regulations on small businesses before they are implemented. In doing so, it will enhance the basic requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and it will extend the advocacy review panel requirements to all agencies, including to all of the independent agencies.

The Administrative Procedure Act was not intended to create a regime whereby executive agencies could implement a regulation without recourse. Unfortunately, there are countless situations in which agencies have implemented rules and regulations that are unnecessary, redundant, or unjustifiably costly. H.R. 527 will help ensure that agencies do not overlook the critical interests of small businesses, and it will help prevent agencies from promulgating wasteful regulations.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that H.R. 527 will cost $80 million between 2012 and 2016. Although there may not be a quantifiable means to assess the benefits of H.R. 527, from the perspective of a small business, they are, indeed, priceless. Also, it's important to note that, among many others, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Association of Independent Business, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers have endorsed H.R. 527.

H.R. 527 is critical for small businesses, Mr. Chairman, and it will not impede the ability of agencies to promulgate regulations. This is good government legislation. We do not need more regulation. We need better regulations, which is exactly what H.R. 527 will achieve; so I urge support in the final passage of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 822.

Conceal-and-carry permits may be one of the most scrutinized permits for gun owners to receive. Unfortunately, the manner in which these permits are recognized by various States is confusing and inconsistent. H.R. 822 will help resolve this dilemma, Mr. Chairman.

For example, in my home State of North Carolina, conceal-and-carry permits from South Carolina and Georgia are recognized, but not permits from New Mexico.

Meanwhile, New Mexico readily recognizes conceal-and-carry permits from North Carolina. If enacted, there would be no discrepancy over which permits are valid. Another reason for supporting H.R. 822 is that it protects State sovereignty. States are not required to issue conceal-and-carry permits, and State laws regarding the use and ownership of firearms are explicitly preserved.

I firmly believe that the Second Amendment confirms a constitutional right for individuals to own a firearm, Mr. Chairman. I also believe that ownership and use of a firearm carries a special level of personal responsibility.

This bill promotes both of these ideals; and if enacted, it will help make America safer, which probably explains why this bill has 245 cosponsors.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, pardon my immodesty, but as the only Member of the United States Congress who is also a Coast Guardsman, I can speak with some credibility regarding the Coast Guard. It is my belief that the American taxpayer has more bang for his buck from the United States Coast Guard than from, probably, any other Federal agency.

It continues to do more with less: be it the search and rescue program, which is endless; be it the drug interdiction that appears to be endless as well; be it the Aids to Navigation program with which the Coast Guard continues to stay on top of the play; be it the ice patrols in the Arctic, the Antarctic, the Great Lakes, and others. The Coast Guard stands always ready.

I am thankful of the comments surrounding this dialogue, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the bill authorizing the Coast Guard during this time.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, wireless communications have become a mainstay of modern day Americana. There are now over 290 million wireless subscribers in the United States. As mobile phones become more common and available, they have also become more critical to their users. You don't have to look far in Washington to find someone talking or texting on a mobile device, or, for that matter, in my home in Greensboro, North Carolina. They're everywhere. They are ubiquitous. While

most of this is the result of sheer demand, the Federal Government has taken important steps to ensure that we have quality mobile service that is accessible to everyone.

Unfortunately, some State and local taxing authorities have begun to impose higher taxes on wireless services than on other goods and services. Often times, these taxes are arbitrary and go unnoticed because they're passed on to consumers as another line item at the bottom of their monthly wireless phone bill.

Although States and local governments should not be prohibited from taxing wireless services, they also should not use wireless as a revenue cow. The Wireless Tax Fairness Act would impose a 5-year moratorium on any new discriminatory wireless taxes. Current wireless tax rates, even if higher than taxes on other services, would not be changed or affected by this bill. Thus, State and local revenue projections from wireless taxes will not be affected.

This bill would give States breathing room to reform their wireless tax policies at the State and local level, which they have admitted they need to do.

I'm pleased to support this legislation and again thank the gentleman from Arizona for having yielded.

Mr. Speaker, at one time, North Carolina's Sixth Congressional District was one of America's manufacturing power houses. Over the years, our manufacturing strength has been compromised by discriminatory trade practices that unfairly benefit overseas competitors.

Unfortunately, the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) is a critically flawed trade proposal. With respect to textiles, South Korea has a highly sophisticated and vertically integrated industry. In 2010, South Korea was America's 8th largest supplier of textiles and apparel by volume. For example, yarns and fabrics, the largest component of the U.S. industry, South Korea was America's 2nd largest source of imports this past year.

The U.S. textile industry is staunchly opposed to the KORUS agreement due to the fact that it provides Korean textile exporters with instant, duty-free access for virtually all textile and apparel products, while giving U.S. producers no time to adjust. At the same time, KORUS has a number of non-reciprocal tariff phase-outs that favor the South Korean textile industry in key product areas.

We also understand that China could exploit the KORUS agreement by utilizing business relationships in South Korea to reach U.S. markets.

Our manufacturers are competing against foreign trade barriers, high tariffs, export subsidies, state-ownership of enterprises, and currency manipulation. The goals of this Congress should be to prioritize fixing U.S. trade policy, stopping manufacturing job loss, and closing the trade deficit.

South Korea and its people are true allies of the United States, and I value our diplomatic relations. As a Korean War-era veteran, I have witnessed first-hand how relations between our two great nations have improved dramatically over the years.

Unfortunately, I cannot support KORUS because it will do real harm to the North Carolina textile industry. I am sure that our two countries will continue our harmonious relations, but I am hopeful that we can reach a trade deal someday that is fair and equitable to both trading partners.

On the other hand, trade with Colombia and Panama does not pose similar threats to the textile industry in the United States generally and North Carolina's Sixth Congressional District specifically. In fact, textile trade among these great nations is healthy and balanced-- we trade raw materials, value added materials and finished goods. Furthermore, agreements with Colombia and Panama are far less likely to be exploited by countries such as China or Vietnam.

Colombia and Panama are strategic diplomatic partners with America in Central and South America. Free trade agreements with these countries will boost our economy, according to the International Trade Commission. A deal with Colombia will boost exports of goods by $1.1 billion and add $2.5 billion to our Gross Domestic Product. An agreement with Panama will greatly improve the export of American agricultural goods, manufactured goods, specialized services, and support other diplomatic efforts to close a notorious tax reporting loophole that involves money laundering and tax cheating.

The agreements with Colombia and Panama show the way fair trade agreements should be written. My hope remains that a similar deal can be reached with Korea in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 764 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I join with many others to congratulate our good friends, The Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan), on their 100th anniversary, which will take place on October 10, 2011.

Relatively speaking, America is not much older than Taiwan. The United States has only been around for 235 years, and like Taiwan, is young in comparison to many of the countries of the world. To the people of Taiwan, October 10th is revered as much as July 4th in the United States. As many remember, we had a huge celebration for our bicentennial in 1976.

Just to put in perspective how long ago the United States celebrated our 100th anniversary in 1876, our president was Ulysses S. Grant, Alexander Graham Bell made his famous first phone call to Watson, and the United States only had 37 states at the beginning of that year.

Just as we have progressed in our second 100 years, Taiwan has greatly changed in its first 100 years, as well. One of the most exciting changes is that Taiwan has become a full-blown democracy over the last 15 years having its first actual direct elections for president in 1996. Since then, Taiwan has had three successful transfers of power from one party to another, showing the fairness and legitimacy of its elections.

Taiwan is a beacon of democracy in Southeast Asia, and we look forward to our continued friendship for many years to come. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we offer our congratulations to Taiwan on its centennial celebration.

Mr. Speaker, as Major League Baseball begins its post- season push, the professional minor leagues are concluding their seasons. The citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina are celebrating the first championship since 1982 of the Greensboro Grasshoppers of the South Atlantic League.

The Hoppers--as their fans affectionately call them--were a dramatic, come-from-behind team all season. It took the final games of the season for the Hoppers to even qualify for post-season play. Greensboro split the first two games at home in the best-of-five championship series against the Savannah Sand Gnats. When the series moved to Savannah, the Hoppers lost game three to the Sand Gnats. It has been 11 years in the ``Sally League'' since a team leading two-games-to-one failed to clinch the championship. With Savannah needing only one more win to capture the South Atlantic League title, the Hoppers were facing the end of their season, when they pulled out a heart-stopping, 11-inning win to force a fifth and deciding game.

Even in the championship game, Greensboro fell behind 2-0 early before cruising to 7-3 win to capture its first South Atlantic League championship in almost three decades. Hoppers Manager Andy Haines told the Greensboro News & Record that he could not pick a Most Valuable Player for the series. ``There's no way I could name anyone,'' Haines told the newspaper. ``We had a lot of guys contribute. It was someone different every night.''

All of the Grasshoppers can be proud of the regular season, along with the dramatic run to the title. Among those who were part of Greensboro's first championship since 1982 included: pitchers Michael Brady, Alex Caldera, Jordan Conley, Grant Dayton, James Leverton, Miguel Mejia, Robert Morey, Gregory Nappo, Mike Ojala, Chris Shafer, Rett Varner, Kyle Winters, and Brett Zawacki. The catchers were Aaron Dudley, Wilfredo Gimenez, and Jacob Realmuto. The infielders included Daniel Black, Joe Bonadonna, Mark Canha, Ryan Fisher, and Noah Perio. The outfielders were lssac Galloway, Marcell Ozuna, James Wooster, and Christian Yelich. Only one of those on the disabled list, Zachary Neal, made it onto the post-season roster, but the others contributed during the year and they included Kevin Cravey, Alan Oaks, Jay Rogers, Adam Veres, and Sean Watson.

Greensboro is one of the best-run minor league teams in the entire United States and it is because of an outstanding front office. This championship caliber group includes: Donald Moore, President/General Manager; Katie Dannemiller, Vice President, Baseball Operations; Jimmy Kesler, CFO; Tim Vangel, Assistant General Manager, Sales and Marketing; Jake Holloway, Assistant General Manager, Head Groundskeeper; Erich Dietz, Director of Ticketing; Todd Olson, Sales Associate; Murray White, Sales Associate; Joey Burridge, Sales Associate/Ticket Representative; Rosalee Brewer, Sales Associate; John Redhead, Executive Director of Business Development; Laura Damico, Director of Community and Event Development; Shawn Russell, Director of Promotions/Production; Amanda Williams, Director of Creative Services; Yunhui Bradshaw, Director of Merchandise; Chad Green, Assistant Director of Stadium Operations; Kaid Musgrave, Assistant Groundskeeper; and Bob Perry, Clubhouse Director.

Championship Skipper Andy Haines was ably assisted by Pitching Coach Willie Glen and Hitting Coach Kevin Randel. The players were kept in championship form all season long by Athletic Trainer Masa Fujimoto and Strength and Conditioning Coach Cody Clark.

On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we congratulate Greensboro Grasshoppers owners Cooper Brantley, Wes Elingburg and Len White and everyone affiliated with the Hoppers on providing its fans with so many dramatic moments during a memorable season. All of us who love the Hoppers are basking in the glow of the first South Atlantic League Championship since 1982. We may see some of today's Grasshoppers playing for the parent club--the Florida Marlins-- in the near future, but none of us will forget the 2011 season when Greensboro came from behind numerous times to win it all.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2633) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the time limits for appeals in civil cases to which United States officers or employees are parties, as amended.

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.R. 2633, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the ranking member of the Courts Subcommittee, Mr. Cohen, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, for their having cosponsored the bill.

I introduced the bill, H.R. 2633, at the behest of the United States Judicial Conference. It addresses a small problem that must be fixed or attended to prior to December 1 of this year.

Under the existing Rules Enabling Act, the Judicial Conference may develop changes to existing Federal rules of procedure and evidence. The Supreme Court submits any agreed-upon amendments to Congress no later than May 1 of a given calendar year. The changes take effect on December 1 unless Congress intervenes during the interim.

This year, as part of its rules package, the Supreme Court submitted proposed amendments to Appellate Rule 4 that clarify the treatment of the time to appeal in civil cases involving a United States officer or employee. Because the time to appeal in a civil case is set not only by Appellate Rule 4 but also by section 2107 of title 28 of the U.S. Code, the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules has proposed that the Judicial Conference seek legislation to make the same clarifying change to section 2107.

Appellate Rule 4 and section 2107 currently provide that the time to appeal is 30 days for most civil cases, but that the appeal time for all parties is 60 days when the parties to the case include ``the United States,'' a United States ``officer,'' or a United States ``agency.'' The problem is that current law is not clear concerning the applicability of the longer period in cases in which the Federal party is a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity. The proposed amendments in H.R. 2633 simply clarify that the longer period applies to such an individual or employee, just as it does to the United States Government or a United States agency.

A lawsuit against a Federal officer or employee under these conditions requires the Federal Government to decide whether to represent that individual. This requires time, as the government must evaluate the case, determine whether an appeal should be taken, and ultimately obtain the Solicitor General's approval.

The proposed revisions to Appellant Rule 4 are on a glide path to December 1. It's important to promote the consistency between the rules and title 28 by ensuring that we enact H.R. 2633, which also takes effect on December 1.

The only change to the bill as reported by our committee is the inclusion of ``findings'' language developed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The main point of this text is to clarify that the 60-day period applies to cases involving article I litigants, including Members of the House of Representatives and Senators. This addition is entirely consistent with the legislative history of the bill and is fully supported by the Judicial Conference. This will also help to expedite passage of H.R. 2633 by the other body.

Mr. Speaker, this is bipartisan legislation devoid of controversy. It treats Federal litigants fairly under the Appellate Rules and assists the courts in correctly interpreting those rules. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2633, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my friend from Michigan for his kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I also yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1059) to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes.

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 materials on H.R. 1059 currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I support H.R. 1059 and again thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for having sponsored it. I also thank the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for having served as cosponsors.

H.R. 1059 promotes an important goal--providing security for Federal judges. Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure reports. This requirement increases public confidence in government officials and better enables the public to judge the performance of those officials.

However, recognizing the nature of the judicial function and the increased security risks it entails, Congress also enacted legislation that allowed the Judicial Conference to redact statutorily required information in a financial disclosure report where release of such information could possibly endanger the filer or his or her family.

Those seeking to harm or intimidate Federal judges might use a disclosure form to identify where someone's spouse or child works or goes to school on a regular basis. However, individuals targeting judges for harassment have also been known to file false liens on properties owned by judges and their families. Harassers could use judicial financial disclosure reports to more easily identify such property.

The Judicial Conference delegated to its Committee on Financial Disclosure the responsibility for implementing the financial disclosure requirements for judges and judicial employees under the Ethics in Government Act. The committee monitors the release of financial disclosure reports to ensure compliance with the statute. In consultation with the U.S. Marshals Service, the committee also reviews and approves or disapproves any request for the redaction of statutorily mandated information where the filer believes the release of the information could endanger the filer or his or her family.

Under the Judicial Conference's regulations, no redaction will be granted without a clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which a redaction is sought. The law has worked well through the years and has been reauthorized twice since 2001. But it expires at the end of this calendar year if we fail to act--an outcome that is unacceptable. Last year, the Marshals Service investigated and analyzed almost 1,400 threats and inappropriate communications to judicial officials--nearly three times as many threats recorded in 2003. There were more than 3,900 ``incidents'' and arrests at U.S. court facilities in 2010.

Financial disclosures are an important part of maintaining an open and transparent government, Mr. Speaker. But government transparency should not come at the cost of personal security for government officials. Judges and other judicial employees perform important work that is integral to our democratic system of government. In order to preserve the integrity of our democracy, we must protect the integrity of our courts. And that means ensuring the security of judges and other judicial employees from intimidation and threats.

In conclusion, there's no evidence that the law is being abused. I support H.R. 1059 and urge my colleagues to extend the redaction authority permanently.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 612, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, many Members of recent sessions of Congress have not been known as practitioners of fiscal discipline.

Balanced budget amendment philosophy has well served thousands of governmental entities and hundreds of thousands of households. Now is the time for the Congress to embrace a balanced budget amendment which will then set us upon a course where fiscal discipline is not merely an option but a necessity. Only then, Mr. Speaker, will the Congress balance its own budget.

I urge support of this worthwhile and commonsense piece of legislation and would like to see it enacted, although that probably will not be the conclusion.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to express strong support for H.R. 2018. I commend Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for their hard work in crafting a bill that brings back a sane balance between the States and Federal regulators.

By the EPA's own admission, Mr. Chairman, current regulations will cost the United States $109 billion by the end of year 2020. In areas of the Sixth District of North Carolina, EPA currently has the ability to second-

guess or delay the State's Clean Water Act permits, even though it has already approved the State's program.

It is furthermore important to note that the American Farm Bureau Federation, as the gentleman from Ohio previously mentioned, strongly supports this legislation that I believe we need to keep the EPA off the family farm.

Current EPA regs will have a disastrous effect on farmers and quarry owners and will add tremendous costs and delays to commercial, residential, and infrastructure projects.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of H.R. 2018.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.