Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Lieutenant Colonel John L. Coombs who has served this great Nation in the U.S. Army since 1989, most recently as the Acting Director of Operational Contracting Support and Policy with the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement.

John L. Coombs enlisted as a Private and began his Army career as a Light Infantryman with the 7th Infantry Division in Fort Ord, California. He was soon recommended for and

graduated from the Officer Candidate School where, in 1992, he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Chemical Corps. As a Chemical Officer, he served as a Battalion and Brigade Chemical Officer in artillery, cavalry, and aviation battalions and brigades for the 1st Armored Division in Germany and the 1st Cavalry Division in Texas. In 1995, he deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina as the nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance platoon leader. There he developed tactics, techniques, and procedures to detect environmental hazards at industrial sites occupied by U.S. forces, leveraging the capabilities of the mobile mass spectrometers installed in the nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance vehicles.

In 2001, Captain Coombs was accessed into the Acquisition Corps, attended the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California and in 2002 graduated with a Master of Science in Business with an emphasis on federal contracting. From 2002 to 2005, as the Contracting Division Chief in the Wiesbaden Contracting Center for the U.S. Army Contracting Command, Europe, Captain Coombs supervised more than 30 contracting officers who awarded and administered more than $400 million in annual contract awards. He deployed to Kosovo for six months as the Chief of a Joint Contracting Center, where he led a joint military staff, U.S. civilians and Kosovar nationals to procure $5 million in annual contract awards. While in Kosovo, his work helped to improve multi- national relations when he negotiated a complex settlement for damages to a hotel occupied by NATO forces. The following two years, Major Coombs served as the Deputy Chief of Office in the Italy Regional Contracting Office for U.S. Army Contracting Command, Europe. He oversaw high visibility procurements including letter contracts to lease properties supporting the 2006 Winter Olympics security operations in Torino. He was named the Army Europe Contracting Officer of the year in 2005. An Army fellowship at the RAND Arroyo Center in Santa Monica, California brought this Hamilton, Ohio native back to the U.S. There he developed RAND's recommended acquisition strategy for Future Combat Systems to balance cost control for the Army and risk to the contractor. Since 2008, Lieutenant Colonel Coombs has been assigned to Army Headquarters at the Pentagon. He has served as the Executive Officer, Deputy Director and several senior positions in the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement. His expert knowledge of operational contracting policy for military operations, natural disasters and humanitarian relief has been invaluable.

Mr. Speaker, for more than two decades, Lieutenant Colonel John L. Coombs has faithfully served our Nation as a dedicated steward for American taxpayers. As he enters this next phase of his life with his beloved wife Kellie and their four children; Lyndsay, Adam, Emily and Jesse; I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Lieutenant Colonel John Coombs upon his retirement and thank him for his service in the U.S. Army.

I would like to thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Smith of Texas) for yielding the time. He explained it much better than I can, but I'll take a stab at it myself.

H.R. 4086 is really a straightforward bill which would better clarify the relationship between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Since 1965, the Immunity from Seizure Act has provided the executive branch with authority to grant foreign artwork and other objects of cultural significance immunity from seizure by U.S. courts. The purpose of this was to encourage loaning and sharing exhibitions between U.S. and foreign museums.

However, there is now a conflict between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that has interrupted this friendly exchange. Essentially, a provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over foreign governments when their artwork is temporarily imported into the U.S., putting foreign artwork and artifacts at risk of seizure.

Unfortunately, this has led, in many instances, to foreign governments declining to import into our country artwork and cultural objects for temporary exhibitions. In order to maintain the exchange of government-owned artwork and artifacts, Congress should clarify the relationship between these two acts in question.

This bill would do just that, ensuring that American museums like the Cincinnati Museum Center and the Cincinnati Art Museum, two in my district, can continue to enjoy international artwork and cultural artifacts. Enacting this legislation will remove a major obstacle to foreign loans and exchanges to American museums.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4086, and I would also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their leadership and their support in this effort.

I thank our distinguished chairman for yielding the time.

Mr. Chairman, when I talk to small business owners back in my district in Cincinnati in southwest Ohio, I continue to hear the same thing over and over again. Overbearing regulations are crushing their ability to grow and create jobs, and that's what we are supposed to be about is getting this economy moving and getting people back to work again; but the regulations are just crushing them.

Over the last year, however, the Obama administration has enacted more than 3,500 new rules and regulations, and they have another 4,000 pending. So rather than reduce the regulations, they are talking about putting on even more.

Mr. Chairman, small businesses in this country are struggling. Unemployment is at record levels and our economy is showing little or no signs of improvement.

We must pass legislation that reduces redtape and repeals burdensome regulations. This bill will reform the rulemaking system and provide much needed regulatory relief to small business.

If President Obama is serious about job creation, then he must sign this bill. Small businesses are struggling to keep up with the overwhelming costs of compliance that his administration has put on our Nation's job creators.

If Congress wants to give the American people a gift this Christmas season, let it be regulatory relief and the jobs that will result.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, our national debt has reached a staggering $15 trillion. We're currently borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that's spent here in Washington. Think of it, 43 cents on a dollar. A trillion dollars had to be borrowed from China. Our very sovereignty is at risk when you look at numbers like that. It's outrageous.

Our great Nation is on a dangerous path of fiscal irresponsibility directed by a reckless addiction to spending here in Washington. Research has consistently shown that the American people want a balanced budget amendment. In fact, a recent survey found that 81 percent of those polled support the requirement that the Federal Government balance its budget each year, just like American families have to do.

Today, each of us will have the opportunity to choose sides, casting an ``aye'' vote and standing with the American people on this issue, or casting a ``nay'' vote and opposing what the American people are demanding.

The balanced budget amendment is a game-changer. It will hold Congress' feet to the fire, forcing us to live within our means just as every American family and every American business must do every year. It has become commonplace for Washington to spend money it doesn't have for projects it doesn't need. This is an unacceptable position for us to be in. Our constituents deserve better.

Washington's spending binge has put a wet blanket over our economy. Small businesses are struggling to stay afloat, and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a staggering 26 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for a job altogether.

Small business owners tell me that the uncertainty that they're going through right now makes it so they won't hire people because they don't know how much money they're going to have. What we're doing here in Washington puts those small businesses at risk. That's why they're not hiring.

Passing H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment, would be a huge step in the right direction, and in my opinion is the only thing that will actually work over the long run to get our spending under control here in Washington.

You know, it's interesting. The President recently weighed in on this, and one of the things that he said about the American people is that they're lazy. I mean, what an incredible comment to make. That's absolutely not true. That's not what the problem with the economy is. The problem is that the government sector is sucking up so much of the funding now that the private sector has no funds to invest or go out and hire people and create jobs. That's the problem, not, as the President said, that the American people are lazy. That's absolutely not true. It's outrageous.

This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. This is an American issue. I had the opportunity to weigh in on this amendment back in 1995, when it was last voted on here in Congress. I voted for it, alongside most of my Republican colleagues as well as 72 Democratic Members of the House. I would urge them to vote with us today. Let's pass this. It's in the interest of the American people.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: ``The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''

In this modern age when it is very common for people to travel to work or for pleasure, it has really become routine, and the National Right-to-Carry Act is a commonsense solution to adapt to today's needs.

This legislation allows people with valid, State-issued permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other State that has essentially the same laws. To be clear, this legislation does not create a national licensing scheme or agency. It does not supersede the laws for firearms use in any other State.

The right of self-defense is a fundamental one and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Second Amendment dictates that the appropriate way to fight crime is to target criminals, not law-abiding gun owners. Today we have an opportunity to clearly recognize the right to bear arms for our citizens and to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise freedom without restrictive barriers. Let's take that opportunity today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

This amendment would effectively gut the bill, though the intent is actually somewhat unclear.

As written, the amendment allows a visitor to carry a handgun under the provisions of the bill only in States that require applications to be completed and submitted in person; however, few States have such a requirement for nonresidents.

This amendment would create unnecessary confusion. For example, Florida accepts applications by mail, but the State of Washington does not. If this amendment were adopted, a Virginia resident who held a valid permit could carry a handgun in Washington, which requires everyone to apply in person, but not in Florida, which has no concerns about issuing permits by mail.

It is possible that the amendment was intended to allow interstate carry under the bill's provisions only for holders of permits that were issued in person. The problem is that isn't how the amendment is drafted. If it were, it would still effectively gut the bill because so few States require in-person application.

The fact is that any application or fingerprinting requirements for a resident or a nonresident to obtain a concealed-carry permit are in addition to all the other requirements, including a national instant- background check that the applicant must go through first to legally purchase the gun.

Despite what some opponents of H.R. 822 would have you believe, not everyone who owns a gun is a criminal. And, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence to show that concealed-carry laws have resulted in lower crime rates in most States. Typically, most criminals don't bother with legally purchasing a gun and then making sure they have a valid permit before they carry it concealed; they just do it. That's why we call them criminals.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to offer my enthusiastic congratulations to Army Specialist Thomas Hauser for being named the Army's 2011 Soldier of the Year.

Specialist Hauser is a native of my district, Ohio's First Congressional District. He is a 2008 graduate of Colerain High School and is the son of Colerain Township residents Kim Ranson Hauser and Michael Hauser.

Without question, Specialist Hauser has distinguished himself as the best of the best. This Army-wide competition culminated in a final round of 12 soldiers being tested on a wide array of skill sets, to include physical fitness, urban warfare tactics, a day and night land navigation course, battlefield scenario tests, and a variety of drills.

Specialist Hauser serves his country as a proud member of the 563rd Military Police Company, of the 91st Military Police Battalion, and of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York.

Congratulations to Specialist Thomas Hauser on this great accomplishment. You've made all the folks back home in Cincinnati proud.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a cosponsor of H.R. 1380.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary have until 5 p.m. on Thursday, October 20, 2011, to file a report to accompany H.R. 822.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, October 18, 2011; that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, October 21, 2011; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, October 24, 2011.

On October 5, civil rights legend Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth passed away while residing in Birmingham, Alabama. From 1961 to 2007, Reverend Shuttlesworth lived in Cincinnati, and when I first came here in '95, I had the distinct pleasure of representing him here in Congress.

Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth defied death numerous times while fighting against violent segregationists, even surviving the blast from 16 sticks of dynamite that were planted by unknown assassins. So devoted to this cause was he that he pledged to ``kill segregation or be killed by it.'' From freedom rides and sit-ins to pastor and founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Reverend Shuttlesworth was a tireless and fearless civil rights hero, who not only talked the ``talk'' but who walked the ``walk'' in places where few others were willing to go.

The enormity of Reverend Shuttlesworth's achievements and contributions to American history cannot be overstated. Even Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. once referred to him as ``the most courageous civil rights fighter in the South.'' Let us forever remember this great man of faith and the legacy he leaves for America.

God bless you, Reverend Shuttlesworth, and may God bless the Shuttlesworth family.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Our national debt stands at a staggering $14.3 trillion and we currently borrow more than 40 cents on every dollar we spend, and our President and Democrats in the other body say that a balanced budget amendment is ``dead on arrival.''

Fifteen years ago, the balanced budget amendment passed the House with a bipartisan vote only to lose by one vote, one vote in the Senate. A constitutional amendment is the only way

to ensure that future Congresses live within their means and end the spending binge.

Our colleague, Congressman McClintock, might have summed it up best in a Washington Times op-ed earlier this week. He said: Imagine a family that earns $50,000 a year but is spending more than $88,000 a year and has a credit card balance of $330,000 a year.

That's us. We're bankrupt, and Washington is broken.

Why are Senate Democrats and the President so afraid of making a commitment to balance our budget?

Stop the spending. No more empty promises. No more excuses.

Our national unemployment rate is stuck at over 9 percent. We're currently borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that's spent around here, and our national debt stands at a staggering $14.5 trillion. The American people are demanding that we in Congress provide real solutions to these serious problems. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act does just that.

The debate today is not whether we should make good on our current obligations. We're all in agreement that we must pay our bills, but the spending in Washington is out of control and it has to stop. We have to cap future spending, and passing a balanced budget amendment is critical to doing that; because, let's face it, historically Congress has shown no will or the ability to stop its addiction to spending.

Right now, back in my district in Cincinnati, hardworking Americans are making tough decisions, tightening their belts, and making sacrifices to pay their bills. They expect us to do the same.

Now let's do the right thing and pass this critical bill.

I thank the distinguished chair for yielding. Israel has no greater friend than Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida.

Despite some progress that has been made toward ensuring Israel's continued security, critical challenges still exist. Rejectionist elements within the Palestinian leadership still refuse to sit and negotiate in good faith even as Israel repeatedly expresses its commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state. These elements spurn Israeli overtures and seek to establish a Palestinian state unilaterally through a vote of the U.N. General Assembly.

Although short-term security may be achievable unilaterally, peace is not. Palestinian rejectionism, whether by Hamas or Fatah, must be abandoned. U.S. taxpayer money should, under no circumstances, go to the Palestinian government, whose members do not all abide by the Three Quartet principles: recognizing the state of Israel's right to exist; renouncing terrorism; and abiding by previous agreements.

And just as the U.S. should not support a Palestinian government whose very composition is anathema to peace, so, too, should it not support an institution that offers an easy alternative to genuine peace through negotiations. That is why I recently introduced a resolution calling on the administration to cut all funding to the U.N. General Assembly should it vote to recognize a Palestinian state in direct defiance of the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. Charter. True Israeli-Palestinian peace will only be made between two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, and not the 191 other members of the General Assembly.

Israel, like the United States, welcomes those who would make peace even as it fights those who would make war. Time and again, Israel has demonstrated its commitment to a Palestinian state living as its neighbor in peace and security, but there are no shortcuts on the path to this outcome, and there is no getting around the hard concessions that will have to be made. The U.S. must now stand with Israel and against those who would obstruct rather than advance the cause of peace.

I urge the adoption of this resolution.

I first want to thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Goodlatte for their leadership in getting us to the point that we are on this important legislation here this evening.

Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress shall have power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' The Constitution clearly grants Congress the authority to grant patent rights to inventors, and it defers to the discretion

of Congress how best to procedurally award these rights to the inventor.

I rise in support of H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act. The first- inventor-to-file provision shifts us to a system used by all other modern, industrial nations. This system would end the need for expensive discovery and litigation over priority dates and would put an end to expensive interference proceedings that small entities overwhelmingly lose.

This provision also ensures that inventors can establish priority dates by filing simple and inexpensive provisional applications. This is a much needed change, which former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey indicated would be both constitutional and wise. Congress has the right, in fact the duty, to protect those who invent or discover.

Through in-depth studies conducted by former U.S. PTO commissioners, the first-to-file system has been found to be faster and cheaper in resolving disputes among inventors. The current system creates an environment for exorbitantly expensive litigation. It has also become cost prohibitive for small businesses and independent inventors to fight the claims filed by larger corporations which can cost over half a million dollars just to litigate.

In the past 7 years, only one independent inventor out of 3 million patent applications filed has successfully proved an earlier date of invention over the inventor who filed first. However, with the new first-inventor-to-file system, a bold timeline of filing dates will allow these small businesses and independent inventors to more easily defend and settle their disputes over the rightful patent holder.

Lastly, the Supreme Court has never held that first-to-file is an unconstitutional procedure. We are now simply returning to the system that our Founders originally established. It is a commonsense procedure that will spur more rapid innovation, yield new jobs, and stimulate the economy; and I think as we all know if we ever needed to get this economy moving and get America back to work, we're in that time right now.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

A majority of Americans have made it clear that they oppose the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions, and it's time that we permanently extend the Hyde amendment, which bans this irresponsible practice. Particularly in our current budget situation, the Federal Government should not be subsidizing abortions.

Additionally, this bill permanently extends important legal protections for doctors and other health care providers who refuse to perform abortions to which they are morally opposed. Every doctor and health care provider deserves the right to act according to his or her own conscience, and this important legislation will ensure that he or she is not punished for doing so.

Madam Speaker, the American people support this legislation. They do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortions. Let's stand together today and do the fiscally and morally responsible thing--vote to pass H.R. 3.