The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1), commonly referred to as the stimulus, was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009.  I opposed passage of the measure because I concur with the many established economists who felt H.R. 1 was too light on economic incentives and infrastructure investment and too heavy on long-term social programs.  While the measure purported to create a stimulus for our economy, in reality it created unprecedented federal spending financed by future generations.

Unfortunately, implementation of the stimulus has been less than successful.  Dollars have been spent on questionable priorities, the jobs promised have not materialized, and accountability has been lacking.  This has led the House leadership to consider a subsequent measure in their attempt to stimulate the economy, the Jobs for Main Street Act.

This second stimulus would invest an additional $75 billion in infrastructure, funding highways projects, transit agencies, Amtrak, school renovations, and housing programs.  It would provide funding to states and localities to maintain public service jobs for teachers, firefighters and police officers, and would also extend assistance to the unemployed by continuing unemployment payments and healthcare opportunities.  The bill totals $150 billion and would be funded via a two-pronged approach.  The infrastructure funding would be offset by redirecting $75 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the remainder would be deemed emergency spending.

The Jobs for Main Street Act is, in my opinion, more of the same failed policies put forth by the Democratic leadership and the Obama Administration.  I question if spending these dollars is truly an emergency, given almost $800 billion in emergency spending that was injected into the economy via the stimulus last February with little positive impact.  The Jobs for Main Street Act will only exacerbate the debt we have created for our children and grandchildren.  Even more troubling is the prospect of using unspent TARP funds for purposes other than paying down the national debt.  TARP was designed to be a temporary program aimed at ensuring liquidity in credit markets, not a funding mechanism for unrelated government programs. 

I realize Congress must do more to sustain and grow our economy.  I believe we should do this by prioritizing government spending, making responsible decisions, paying down our debt, and implementing policies that embolden the marketplace, such as tax cuts.  I do not believe we can spend our way out of our economic troubles, but unfortunately the Jobs for Main Street Act, much like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, continues this misguided approach.

On December 11, 2009, the House passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 4173).  As you may know, this legislation aims to respond to the financial crisis of last year by reforming lending practices, implementing new consumer protections, and regulating derivatives.  Specifically, H.R. 4173 would create a permanent $150 billion fund to sustain the temporary bailouts enacted last year, paid for by an assessment on large financial institutions.  In addition, the bill would create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate all financial products, including loans, credit or repayment plans.

Conceptually, I support efforts to implement laws to protect American taxpayers from the financial collapse that continues to plague our economy. 

That said, unfortunately, the measure put forth by the Democratic leadership goes far beyond these parameters and, in my opinion, creates too much government intervention in our free market society.

 I opposed passage of H.R. 4173 because it will restrict access to credit, cripple small businesses, and overwhelm federal regulators.  Further, I oppose efforts to make the temporary bailout policies enacted last year permanent via the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  It is my hope that as the bill moves forward that Congress will enact balanced policies that protect consumers and facilitate safe and reliable lending.

In addition to financial regulatory reform, we still face significant problems in the mortgage markets that continue to harm the overall economy.  While the federal government and the Federal Reserve stepped in to ensure that banks remained solvent, mortgage lending has continued to decline as banks tighten underwriting standards.  This has created financial hardship for numerous individuals and businesses. 

In my opinion, the federal government is cognizant of the importance of the mortgage industry and seeks to ensure that it remains viable.  That said, I am also sympathetic to the arguments of those who feel that government should not meddle in private markets or reward those who made poor financial decisions.  A major cause of the stress in the mortgage markets was caused by the lax lending standards of government-backed lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and notably, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act remains silent regarding reform of these institutions.

I strongly believe that the Founding Fathers did a remarkable job safeguarding our liberties through the Constitution of the United States, and I would do nothing to weaken the Bill of Rights. As you know, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress (and the states) from making any laws "respecting establishment of religion." In recent years, however, judges and other government officials have interpreted the Establishment Clause in a manner that discourages or even disallows religious expression. For example, the Supreme Court has struck down prayers overlapping with a school activity, even "when observance on the part of the students is voluntary."   Not only does the First Amendment restrict the government's ability to impose religious beliefs on its citizens, but it also prohibits government from denying its citizens the right to observe their religious heritage. The First Amendment goes on to explicitly state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." I believe an individual's right to freely practice his or her religion must be preserved and protected. Further, I believe that no one should be denied the right to observe his or her heritage, nor should anyone be forced to practice a religion they do not follow. Although I do not support policies and legislation that would attempt to force people to conform to the teachings and practices of Judeo-Christian authority, I do believe that moral teachings need to be instilled in our nation’s youth in order to redirect our country to a future of moral growth and prosperity.  

As you may know, I strongly support the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control issues can be very emotional, and while I recognize the need to ensure public safety, the Second Amendment clearly provides a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.   Simply creating new gun regulation does little to curb violent crime in our country. Criminals will still have access to guns, while responsible citizens may be put in harm’s way without the ability to defend themselves. At the same time, I also believe that the right to bear arms must be exercised responsibly.

The Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act (H.R. 3221) would reform federal student financial aid programs.  Specifically, the measure would abolish the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.  In lieu of the FFEL program, H.R. 3221 would expand several other higher education financial programs, including the Federal Pell Grant program and the William Ford Federal Direct Loan Program.

While I acknowledge that more must be done to help students seeking assistance to attend college, I do not believe that a federal takeover of the student loan industry is a panacea.  Instead of implementing reforms aimed at protecting students and encouraging lending in the federal and private markets, the House voted to expand the scope of the federal government by taking over student aid programs.  I believe this is the wrong approach as it compromises the private market and competition.

I have long stated that we must secure our borders because, until we do that, we will never fully solve our immigration crisis.  In addition to gaining full control of our borders, which I view as the basic requirement in any immigration reform measure, I favor mandatory verification of fraud-proof documents for all employees.

I am opposed to amnesty, but I remain mindful that industries, whether large or small, must have a seasonal and unseasonal workforce that American labor is not filling.  This workforce, of course, includes those who labor in industries such as agriculture, landscaping, fisheries, meat processing, hospitality, restaurants, and construction. For many years, this nation has not had a temporary visa program capable of keeping pace with the escalating demand for workers, and, therefore, such a program must be created. That said, we must be able to track where the workers go, how long they stay, and whether they leave the U.S. in accordance with the terms of their visa. Tracking technology exists now. Before making these jobs available for foreign workers, however, U.S. workers must get first choice.

Any immigration bill that reaches the full House for consideration will likely also contain provisions for increasing the number of visas available for highly skilled and educated foreign workers.  Many skilled and educated American professionals are finding work in industries that previously sought foreign skilled workers, thus reducing the number of foreign workers who are sought each year.

While we may decide to accommodate the need for foreign workers who possess exceptional skills and knowledge because they help improve our lives and the lives of our children, we simply cannot afford to offer permanent legal status to people who are here illegally.  We cannot reward those who entered our country illegally by giving them a head start above those who are playing by the rules and trying to become American citizens through proper and legal channels.

I will continue to resist efforts to force amnesty for illegal aliens on taxpayers.  Our focus must remain on funding for border security, immigration law enforcement and electronic document verification (e-Verify) so that employers have reliable and easy-to-use mechanisms to determine whether they are hiring authorized workers.

I remain hopeful that my colleagues who have direct involvement in drafting reform legislation will come forward with workable solutions on what I consider an important domestic issue.

The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1409) would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board to certify a bargaining unit or union, without holding an election, if a majority of employees have agreed to union representation.  Many refer to this process as  “card check.”   It would also mandate binding arbitration between management and unions during contract disputes. 

In my opinion, H.R. 1409 puts too much power into the hands of union organizers and will have the effect of exposing employees to intimidation and coercion by union officials.  I also believe that the right of a secret ballot for union formation should be protected - so much so that I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 1176, the Secret Ballot Protection Act.  Additionally, North Carolina is a “right-to-work” state, which preserves and protects the free choice of individual employees to form, join or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.  It is my belief that H.R. 1409 would compromise this designation

Americans are living longer partly due to successes in medical research and the development of pharmaceuticals that have countered the fatal effects of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and obesity.  Many of us know cancer victims who are alive today because a specific drug was developed to stop the growth of this disease.  These achievements are costly, and the pharmaceuticals are often priced in the unaffordable range.

A few years ago, Congress enacted the Medicare Modernization Act which included the creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.  While a vast majority of seniors are reportedly satisfied with the program, others are unhappy with aspects of it such as the coverage gap which is reached when the individual’s drug purchases total $2,830.  Coverage resumes when drug purchases total $4,550(in 2010).  At that point, catastrophic coverage starts and Medicare covers more than 90 percent of the cost for the remainder of the calendar year.

Out-of-pocket costs can become more affordable with the purchase of generic pharmaceuticals when a substitute for a named brand is available.  The Medicare drug card also entitles seniors to the discounted price that their drug plan negotiates with the drug’s manufacturer.

Medicare beneficiaries who are not enrolled in a Medicare-sponsored drug plan can reduce their drug costs by taking advantage of such non-government programs as the Partnership for Prescription Assistance (PPA).  PPA can be reached toll-free by calling 1-888-477-2669 or on the Internet at www.pparx.org.  This program is available to qualifying individuals of all ages. 

The annual Social Security Trustees Report will be updated in April 2010.  It is anticipated that the accelerated loss of payroll taxes due to steadily increasing unemployment these past years will reflect an earlier date when the Social Security program costs will exceed revenues.  The primary reasons for the projected long-term inadequacy of financing under current law relates to changes in the demographics of the United States: 80 million baby boomers approaching retirement age, retirees living longer, and birth rates well below historical levels.

Democratic leaders in both chambers must begin as soon as possible to address these solvency concerns.  The committees on which I serve do not have jurisdiction over the Social Security program.  Committees, as you know, have the responsibility to craft a legislative measure for consideration by the full House.

I still believe that smaller government and lower taxes are the most effective economic policies. Working Americans now pay more in taxes than at any other time in history. If you add up the costs of federal, state and local taxes, the average citizen pays more than half of his/her income to the government.  We should meet the most pressing needs of the government by cutting waste, fraud and inefficiency – not by letting Washington make another grab into the taxpayers' pockets.

It is my opinion that stimulating the economy through tax relief restores consumer confidence, spurs capital investment, and creates new jobs, which are critical components of economic growth.  I supported both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which lowered taxes on all Americans, including families in the Sixth District.  I believe it is important for these tax cuts to be made permanent so families and small businesses are allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money.

The estate tax was repealed on December 31, 2010, but will revert to pre-2001 levels in one year.  This sunset provision prompted the House to consider legislation to permanently address the estate tax.  During previous sessions of Congress, the House has passed legislation three times, with my support, which would provide for permanent estate tax relief.  None of those bills became permanent law. 

The estate tax amounts to a double tax.  This tax punishes American families who have worked diligently to provide for themselves and want to pass along their success to their children – whether it is property or a small business.  We firmly believe that death should not be a taxable event.

Most recently, the House considered legislation extending certain tax credits as well as a permanent fix to the estate tax.  I voted against this package because it did not provide for the full repeal of the estate tax, and I will continue to support legislation that achieves that goal.   

I strongly oppose transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay detention camp to the United States for criminal prosecution.  Our federal criminal system is not designed to prosecute international terrorists.  Although it is true that we successfully prosecuted Zacarias Moussaoui, the allegations in the Moussaoui case were based on his actions in the United States.  The United States has never successfully prosecuted an international terrorist in federal court and most legal scholars argue that it would be very difficult to do.

Meanwhile, we have created a constitutional process whereby detainees can be tried by military commissions.  These commissions afford defendants rights that are analogous to those of criminal defendants; they are efficient, safe and they have been successful.  Oddly enough, the Obama Administration has announced that 5 detainees who are also 9/11 suspects will forego the military commissions and be prosecuted by the Department of Justice in federal court system.

The decision to transfer these detainees for criminal trial to highly visible locations in the United States is an enormous mistake.  This will embolden our enemies, the accused will become martyrs, and the various locations required to conduct these trials will be overwhelmed with security complications.

As a longtime supporter of the domestic textile and manufacturing industries and Co-Chair of both the Congressional Textile and Furniture Caucuses, I understand the devastating impact foreign competition and trade has had on the livelihoods of many of our workers at home.  Over 100,000 textile jobs have already been lost in the region due to unfair trade agreements, and I cannot turn a blind eye to the glaring trade imbalances between the U.S. and low-cost producing countries such as China.

While some continue to blame NAFTA for the loss of textile jobs in North Carolina, the real reason for these job losses are cheap imports from Asia.  The fact that many textile manufacturers built plants in Mexico represents a simple reality that these companies are cutting costs wherever they can in an effort to compete with Asia.  With or without NAFTA, these jobs would have been lost because of our unbalanced trade agreements with most Asian countries, especially China.

I fully support any and all efforts made by Congress and the Obama Administration to require that China revalue its currency and adhere to the standards of the World Trade Organization.  In fact, I have added my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2378 (the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act), a bill that would designate a country’s use of currency misalignment as an actionable illegal subsidy under U.S. countervailing duty law.

If you are familiar with my record, I support very few free trade agreements.  My votes against certain trade agreements such as CAFTA and Vietnam reflect my concerns about these deals, which all too often contain loopholes and provisions benefiting others at the expense of the domestic industry and our workers at home.

I do, however, continue to seek opportunities to strengthen existing trade accords.  We cannot turn our backs on the global economy.  As a supporter of Andean Trade Preferences, fair trade must not be compromised under the free trade mantle.  This trade relationship has garnered strong support from the U.S. textile and apparel industry, particularly in an environment where the industry must continuously compete with imports from low-cost producing nations such as China.  On that same token, it is all the more crucial for the industry to have a predictable and stable duty-free platform in the hemisphere.

While I will continue to fight against liberal trade policies, the unfortunate reality is that some jobs will still be lost.  For this reason, it is crucial that we invest in programs that can help provide the tools needed to adjust to and thrive in the changing economic landscape.  For instance, I have supported legislation that would extend trade adjustment assistance (TAA) to displaced textile and apparel workers.  In addition, I am a vocal supporter of funding for the National Textile Center (NTC) and Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation (TC[2]), the NC State University research consortium that works to advance the competitiveness of the U.S. textile and apparel industry complex.

In the 111th Congress, we have actively worked to pass a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) that will lower or eliminate import tariffs on many textile products used by companies in the Sixth District.  The companies that will benefit from the MTB have worked hard to maintain operations in the U.S., and we believe it is important that they are able to import raw materials and stay competitive with foreign competition.

My responsibility to do what I believe is right for the Sixth District and North Carolina as a whole is not something I approach lightly when addressing trade issues.  My mama was a textile worker and protecting that industry will remain a very important issue for me.

Highways and Transit - The Highways and Transit subcommittee marked up a draft version of our nation’s highway funding bill on June 24, 2009.  The measure would authorize more than $500 billion during the life of the reauthorization – including $337 billion for highways, $99 billion for public transit, $12.6 billion for safety programs, and $50 billion for high-speed rail.  In addition, the measure aims to transform the Department of Transportation in an effort to improve efficiency, streamline numerous programs, and create coherent strategies for moving forward.

The major impediment to moving forward on a new highway bill remains how to fund the measure. Dedicated federal gas tax revenue is insufficient to do the job.  This is evidenced by congressional efforts to infuse funds to the trust fund as a temporary fix to ensure solvency while Congress debates reforms.  To date, items discussed as an option include an increase in the gas tax, a vehicle miles traveled tax, a tax on energy speculators, a national infrastructure bank, increased tolling, or other alternatives not yet detailed.

It remains to be seen what, if any, action will take place in the coming months to move a highway bill forward or provide certainty in the interim.  I firmly support infrastructure investment, as I believe it is a vital part of our economy, but determining a funding mechanism is vexing given the current economy.  To date, highway funding has operated via a series of extensions of the current law.

Aviation - The overarching intent of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization (H.R. 915) is to update our nation’s aviation laws and modernize the air traffic control system.  Currently, the system operates via ground based radar, but the FAA is in the process of moving the system to a satellite-based system that utilizes global positioning technology.  In addition, H.R. 915 reauthorizes the aviation trust fund, which finances programs that develop and maintain aviation infrastructure. I fully support efforts to reauthorize our nation’s aviation laws and the aforementioned goals.

There are, however, a number of provisions in H.R. 915 that precluded my ability to support final passage.  First and foremost, H.R. 915 includes language that would require inspection of foreign repair stations.  This provision could violate existing bilateral trade agreements and trigger retaliatory action by foreign governments and ultimately cost the United States aviation maintenance jobs.  Some of my colleagues and I attempted to offer a bipartisan amendment to ensure that this provision does not violate bilateral trade agreements, but the House Rules committee did not make the amendment in order.  In addition, H.R. 915 contains a section that would sunset airline alliance antitrust immunity.  This provision could prevent U.S. based airlines from forming partnerships with other foreign-based airlines and negatively impact consumers who utilize alliances. 

I am very concerned about the quality of our veterans programs, particularly considering the large number of injured veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.  Improving our veterans programs will continue to be a priority for the 111th Congress, and I expect funding for veterans programs will continue to increase.

I strongly oppose any increase in TRI-CARE fees and am happy to report such proposals have been unanimously rejected by Congress. I supported changing the prohibition on concurrent receipt in 2004 and permitting retirees with more than 50 percent disability to receive full retirement and disability payments.  As you may know, I am a veteran eligible for military benefits and do not participate in the lavish congressional pension.

Finally, I will listen to reports from veterans and continue to work with the congressional oversight committee and VA officials to ensure that our veterans’ hospitals in Salisbury and Durham remain efficient and responsive to veterans’ needs.

One of my top transportation priorities is replacement of the Yadkin River Bridge, which spans I-85 between Davidson and Rowan counties. The bridge is classified as "structurally deficient and functionally obsolete." The communities affected have long sought assistance in replacing the structure due to its impact on highway congestion and the economy of the area.

On July 30, 2009, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) applied to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for a discretionary grant program authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to replace the bridge. Specifically, the state sought $300 million (the maximum permissible) to replace the bridge, restructure the approaches on I-85, and alter the rail track that runs in conjunction with the bridge. The North Carolina delegation, with my support, sent a letter to DOT in support of NCDOT’s application.

On February 17, 2010, DOT announced NC’s application was awarded $10 million that can be used to support additional credit assistance. Unfortunately, this amount is insufficient and means that we must continue to find alternative funding and highlight the urgent need to repair this bridge. As a senior member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I will continue to work to identify resources and advocate policies that will assist the efforts of NCDOT and local stakeholders to replace the Yadkin River Bridge.