The Farm Bill governs federal farm and food policy including, commodity price and income support, farm credit, conservation, research, rural development and foreign and domestic food programs.  Typically, these programs are reauthorized every five years, and on July 27, 2007, the House debated consideration of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007.

Generally speaking, the House measure would limit subsidies to farmers over a certain income, modify loan rates and target prices among commodities, fund fresh fruit and vegetable projects for all states, and expand bioenergy programs.

I remain supportive of our nation’s farmers and support the premise and balance achieved in the underlying House bill.  That said, I opposed final passage of the legislation as Democrats coupled the measure with a tax increase on foreign companies which have U.S. subsidiaries.  I could not support this because despite my desire to promote U.S. companies, we cannot ignore the impact and contributions that these companies and their employees have upon our economy.  H.R. 2419 passed the House by a vote of 231-191 and was referred to the Senate for further consideration.  

The Senate bill takes a similar approach to the House version, but does include several different provisions.  Specifically, its bill would create a permanent disaster program for agriculture and dramatically expand conservation efforts.  The Senate bill also utilized tax provisions to fund an expanded farm bill, albeit a different approach.

To date, the House and Senate continue to negotiate amongst themselves and with the White House on an overall allocation for the Farm Bill and how to offset funding above the baseline. These issues have yet to be resolved. 

Recently, Budget Chairman John Spratt and I authored a letter of support for the Economic Adjustment Assistance program that was signed by 21 of our colleagues.  If enacted, the provision would fund a 4-cent subsidy to textile mills from the cotton title.  The measure would encourage usage of U.S. cotton and is mutually beneficial to cotton producers and textile mills.  I remain hopeful the provision will be included in the final version of the Farm Bill as it is vitally important to both the cotton and textile industries in North Carolina.

Replacing the Bracera program that supplied labor to farmers during World War II, the H-2A visa program is solely for the needs of the agriculture industry.  This program is poorly designed, and it fails to meet the needs of farmers in a timely fashion.  On orders from President Bush, the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security have proposed regulatory changes to this visa program, and these agencies are following established protocols before such changes are implemented.  While some of the needed changes may require a legislative remedy, it is unclear when the House will take action and what the measure will include.

While I believe that the agriculture industry will continue to rely on foreign labor, I do not believe that an amnesty provision should be part of the labor shortage solution.

Congress is also in the midst of reauthorizing our aviation laws.  Much like our highways, our skies are clogged with planes of all shapes and sizes.

The House has completed consideration of a measure that would update and modernize our aviation laws.  Broadly speaking, the intent of the measure is to update the air traffic control system from a ground-based radar system to satellite enabled technology similar to the GPS system prevalent in many of our cars. 

I remain committed to working to modernize our aviation laws because of the impact that it has on our economy and quality of life, but also because of the vibrant and growing aviation community in North Carolina and its impact. 

Nearly 320 miles of fencing has been completed; 670 miles will be completed by December 2008.  DHS added technology to include cameras, sensors, ground-based radar, and unmanned aerial systems.  Due to rough and hilly terrain in sectors of the U.S.-Mexico border, it is not feasible to construct fencing.  In those areas, surveillance systems, other technology, and an infusion of additional Border Patrol agents are needed.

Achieving these goals requires the enactment of legislation that authorizes and appropriates your tax dollars for specific purposes.  With this focus, I have supported a number of border security and interior enforcement measures including, but not limited to, the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act (H.R. 4088), the Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008, and the CLEAR Act.  In addition, I supported the discharge petition to force consideration of the SAVE Act by the full House. 

If you are familiar with my record, you will know that I have historically opposed pay increases and excessive benefits for Members of Congress.  I fight hard to ensure your tax dollars are spent wisely.  As a fiscal conservative, I have repeatedly voted against pay raises for Members of Congress.  Since the 1983 reforms to federal pension programs, the congressional pay raise has been automatic unless the House passes legislation prohibiting the increase.

During consideration of the Fiscal Year 2005 Treasury-Transportation Appropriations bill (H.R. 5025), I voted against the rule to bring the bill to the floor because the rule did not allow for an amendment to be offered to block the congressional pay raise.  Notwithstanding my vote, the rule for the bill passed, as did the appropriations bill itself.  Currently, I am a cosponsor of legislation (H.R. 31), introduced by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), that would nullify last year’s pay raise for Members.  H.R. 31 has been referred to the House Committees on House Administration and Government Reform. 

In case you did not know, I have refused to participate in the congressional pension program.  I have labeled it a taxpayer rip-off.  It is a much bigger abuse of the taxpayers than is a pay raise.  I do not think you owe me a retirement package just because I decided to go into public service.  I also refused to participate in the legislative retirement plan when I served in the N.C. General Assembly in Raleigh. 

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 requires that by February 18, 2009, over-the-air, full-power television broadcasts must be transmitted by digital signal.

As a result, any households which utilize over-the-air analog signals will no longer be able to receive television signals unless they take action.

To continue to receive broadcast signals, consumers with analog signals may need to purchase a digital-to-analog converter box.  Coupons are available to defray the costs of a transmitter and may be requested by calling 1-888-388-2009 or visiting www.dtv2009.gov .

Additionally, consumers may purchase a digital television or an analog television that is equipped with a digital tuner. 

Finally, consumers who subscribe to cable, satellite or telephone company television services are unlikely to need to take additional action as the provider will likely convert the signal prior to transmission.  Interested individuals should confirm with their service providers that they do not need to take action to ensure signal transmission.

For additional information, please visit the National Telecommunications and Information Administration website at www.ntia.doc.gov .

As you know, there has been considerable debate about transparency in how federal dollars particularly for earmark or special projects are spent.  As a fiscal conservative, I have always worked hard to make sure your tax dollars are spent wisely and, in order to do this, we must cut waste, fraud and inefficiency from the system.  I support earmark funding reform including legislation that would establish a joint select committee on earmark reform as well as an earmark moratorium.

It is my belief, however, that there are many valuable projects and programs that need federal dollars in order to grow and thrive.  Further, as a public servant, I feel it is my job to promote these projects if I find they would likely enrich the lives and opportunities of those who reside in my district.  I must reiterate that my desire to do this is driven solely by what is best for my constituents and not by a hidden agenda for personal gain.  Moreover, I fully support the notion that the actions of the federal government should be as open and transparent as possible, and that taxpayer dollars should never be used for dishonest or dubious purposes. 

Unethical and fraudulent behavior should never be tolerated.  To those of us in Congress, it is our duty to adhere to the standards of ethical propriety and to punish those who abuse the rules and laws that govern these standards.  Moreover, I feel it is important to make the actions of our politicians and our government as open and honest as possible, and I will continue to support efforts that would achieve these goals. 

President Bush signed into law a $152 billion economic stimulus package, which primarily consists of individual tax rebates and business tax incentives.  The package provides working individuals with up to $600 in rebates, married couples up to $1,200, and $300 for each child.  In addition, those who earn at least $3,000 (but who do not pay income taxes) receive a $300 rebate.  It also provides $300 rebates to seniors, veterans and veterans’ widows who can show $3,000 in Social Security or veterans’ disability benefits in 2007.  Eligibility for these rebates is phased out for individuals earning over $75,000 and couples earning over $150,000. 

While I am pleased that the stimulus package extends relief to low-income seniors and disabled veterans, I did not support it because rebates alone are not a strong, long-term plan to strengthen our economy.  With our national debt in excess of $9.2 trillion, I do not believe that deficit spending on short-term fixes will have any long-term impact on our economy. 

We must approach our economic problem with a broader outlook.  Our economy is driven by job growth and spending.  Too much taxation can stymie growth and reduce spending.  Considering the historic low lending rates which also stimulate the economy, I would support a tax-based stimulus package that provides long-term relief for individuals and incentives for businesses, particularly for industries that are bearing the brunt of our ballooning trade deficit – another area of enormous concern.     

For those wanting more information about the rebates, please visit the Internal Revenue Service web site at www.irs.gov .

NCLB represents a significant investment on behalf of the federal government in our nation’s education system.  The law aims to build on principles of accountability for results, local control and flexibility, expanded parental choice, and increased funding resources.  Simply stated, NCLB holds schools accountable for educating our nation’s children and providing results.

NCLB has been the subject of much debate, misinterpretation, and frustration since enactment.  Having said that, the measure has also increased test scores and narrowed achievement gaps in education.  Many have contacted our office to express their concerns with the funding of NCLB, however it continues to be a priority of Congress and the Bush Administration, despite dramatically different funding priorities as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks.  I look forward to floor consideration of the reauthorization and hope that core principles are maintained while also addressing the overwhelming concerns voiced by schools administrators, teachers, parents and students.

Higher Education Act Reauthorization   

The House recently passed the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007.  This legislation (H.R. 4137) would reform the higher education system and boost competitiveness.  Specifically, H.R. 4137 would encourage colleges to refrain from increasing costs and provide consumers with additional information regarding price, restore integrity to the federal student loan program and simplify the federal student aid application process.  In addition, the measure would expand access for the low-income and minority students, increase aid for veterans and military families, strengthen the Pell Grant program, and make textbook costs more manageable.  Finally, H.R. 4137 would boost campus safety and disaster readiness plans. 

While the measure contained what I view as a number of duplicative new federal programs, I felt that overarching intent of H.R. 4137 merited my support.  Specifically, I believe that it is important that the federal government do its part to assist families and students who face fluctuating college costs and make difficult choices about whether they should pursue or continue their education.

Faith-based organizations play an integral role in our society.  I serve on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, which has been reviewing issues dealing with gang violence and prison overcrowding.  Hands down, faith-based organizations have been the most effective deterrent to both problems.  These organizations exist in virtually every community of every state, and while I agree there should be a clear distinction between religion and functions of government, I see no problem with supporting and utilizing these effective resources. 

The synergy between illegal drug use, gang violence, and recidivism is alarming.  Federal, state and local governments continue to increase funding for jails and law enforcement but this has had little impact on drug use, gang violence, and recidivism. 

To that end, I am a chief proponent of the Second Chance Act, H.R. 1593.   This legislation authorizes $165 million to fund re-entry programs, many of which are also faith-based organizations, for the next two years to help reduce recidivism. 

I have said for several years that prison overcrowding is a ticking bomb waiting to explode and I hope that the Second Chance Act will serve as a first step in addressing recidivism and empowering faith-based organizations. 

During the 108th Congress, FDA regulation of tobacco products was debated as a part of a larger debate on a federal tobacco buyout.  The House passed a bill that included provisions that provided for a tobacco buyout funded by diverting revenues from the current excise tax on tobacco.  The Senate bill paired a manufacturer-subsidized tobacco buyout with provisions to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco.  The final bill signed into law in 2004, provided a buyout of tobacco, subsidized by manufacturers, but did not provide FDA the authority to regulate tobacco. 

The Health subcommittee recently marked up and passed legislation (H.R. 1108) to regulate tobacco.  H.R. 1108 may be considered by the full committee in the coming months.  The measure gives the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products, including labels, advertising and ingredients.  Companion legislation has been introduced and reported from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Senate (S.625). 

While I certainly support efforts to keep tobacco out of the hands of minors, I do not believe that FDA regulation of tobacco would help us reach this goal.  There are currently a variety of programs sponsored by health groups, businesses and even tobacco companies to educate youth about the effects of tobacco products.  I believe such programs should continue and be expanded where needed.  Further, tobacco is a legal product for persons over the age of 18 and is currently monitored in some capacity by the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, United States Department of Agriculture, Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, Office of the Surgeon General, and the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health.   Finally, each package of cigarettes contains a warning label that alerts users to health risks associated with tobacco use. 

Additionally, I have sponsored legislation (HR 5513) which would strengthen and improve programs aimed at deterring youth smoking.  The bill would also encourage states to use Master Settlement Agreement payments for tobacco related measures, instead of funding unrelated programs, and strengthen consumer education programs.  

As I have stated on many occasions, I feel that allowing FDA to regulate tobacco in any capacity would inevitably lead to FDA regulating the family farm.  Tobacco manufacturers employ many hard-working North Carolinians, including more than 2 , 000 people in Greensboro, North Carolina.  I remain concerned that FDA regulation of tobacco could affect the employees of these companies, as their jobs may be jeopardized should this authority be granted.

All surveillance conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) must be approved by the FISA Court.

Our homeland security experts and the Director for the Office of National Intelligence have been very clear that while they can identify terrorist suspects who pose a significant threat to the United States, they cannot conduct surveillance on these people because the suspects either move or change phones before the FISA Court can issue a warrant, or the suspects use phones that are connected to phone networks in the United States.  Some courts have held that because these networks are in the United States, the communications – foreign-to-foreign calls – are protected by the Fourth Amendment. 

The President and Intelligence Director have requested long-term authority to conduct surveillance on foreign-to-foreign calls, an expedited FISA warrant process, and immunity for telephone companies that agree to work with our homeland security experts.  The House leadership has blocked repeated attempts to force the House to consider a bill that would satisfy the request of the President and Intelligence Director. 

I am deeply concerned that politics have overtaken common sense and the result has left our intelligence experts without the tools they need to prevent a future terrorist attack. 

Like you, I am concerned by the rising costs of both oil and natural gas.  It is important to understand what has driven these increases.  Uncertainty in oil rich areas, such as the Middle East, Africa and Venezuela, has created a strain on supply.  This reality is exacerbated by increasing demand from China and India, which is beginning to exceed supply.  

Generally, I believe that it is important for Congress to enact policies to deter the effect of climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  That said, I also support these policies being coupled with increased authority to permit exploration within our borders, promote alternative fuels, expand refinery capacity, and create incentives to actually deter harmful emissions.  Many are unaware that our top trading partners for oil and natural gas are Canada and Mexico, whose governments permit exploration.  It is my belief that exploration of oil in places such as Alaska, the outer continental shelf, and even the mid- W est can be done in an environmentally friendly manner.  

Further, I believe we must continue to encourage investment in infrastructure which promotes mass-transit options such as rail and bus.  Unfortunately, there is no short-term solution to this problem, as oil development and infrastructure, and even alternatives, do not occur overnight and are costly to implement.   As consumers, we must either reduce our dependence on oil or increase supply. 

Recent oil company profits, coupled with the price at the pump, have raised concern for both consumers and lawmakers.  It is important to note that these companies, like all businesses, operate in cyclical markets which are determined by supply and demand.   If consumers feel that they are being gouged, they should be aware the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), at President Bush’s direction, continues to monitor gas prices to ensure that companies are not colluding to keep prices artificially high. 

This Congress, legislation has been enacted (H.R. 6) that would increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE), which will increase the fuel economy of cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would be responsible for administering the increase.  In addition, the measure would mandate the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022.  The measure also provides a variety of grants for the production of biofuels and infrastructure.  I supported H.R. 6 because while not perfect, I believe that it is an important first step to reduce the impact of global warming and to promote fuel alternatives.  President Bush signed the measure into law on December 19, 2007.

Previous versions of H.R. 6 coupled an increase in CAFE standards with the repeal of almost $20 million in manufacturing deductions for large oil companies while freezing rates for others.  I have consistently opposed passage of these provisions as it is my belief that any new taxes on oil companies will be passed onto consumers and result in higher gas prices.

The cost of health care is one of the greatest concerns in America.  The development of new life-saving drugs protected by patent, the increased utilization of improved diagnostic technologies, the increased prevalence of chronic diseases such as diabetes, the unhealthy dietary choices made by much of our population, and the growing uninsured population are a few reasons health insurance costs continue to rise. 

As health care consumers, we have the power to reduce health care expenditures by following healthy choice guidelines, and when prescription drugs are necessary, we can ask our physicians to prescribe a generic or off-brand drug.  In addition, private sector programs such as the Partnership for Prescription Assistance can ease the cost of prescription medicines for those who qualify.  This program is available to the working poor, those who are jobless, seniors and retired people who do not have prescription drug coverage, students, families, and single people.  Enrollment instructions can be accessed by calling1-888-477-2669.

Recent congressional action expanded the ranks of border patrol agents to 15,000, and by the end of 2008, the number will grow to 18,000 agents. 

Priority is given to catching illegal border-crossers and returning them to their home countries, locating and deporting absconders (illegal immigrants who have been ordered deported but ignored the order and blended into our society), and illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes.  Because of the limited detention bed space, it is not feasible for every illegal immigrant to be incarcerated while they are processed for deportation. 

In 2007, DHS removed more than 276,500 illegal aliens from the U.S., which is a new record, arrested more than 3,300 illegal alien gang members, secured more than $30 million in fines against employers, made 863 criminal arrests and 4,077 administrative arrests in worksite enforcement actions.

I voted to give President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with the international community, he refused to address repeated violations of sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, and he openly supported terrorist organizations. 

That said, after our troops masterfully invaded Iraq and conquered the Iraqi Army, I was alarmed by the chaos that ensued.  It appeared that our military leaders had not formulated a proactive, post-entry strategy. This has resulted in many setbacks in Iraq, and I feel is the reason the new Iraqi government is facing an emboldened insurgency.

The time has come for Iraq to assume responsibility for its own security. I have not voted to limit funding for the war because this transition of power should be managed by our military commanders on the battlefield in Iraq, not by politicians in Washington, D.C., but it should be done as soon as possible.    

As you may know, I did not vote in support of the President’s plan to send a surge of troops to Iraq to help provide security.  My vote was partly based on former military leaders who were familiar with the battlefield in Iraq and did not support the surge.  These leaders included General George Casey, a four-star General, who once commanded our military operations in Iraq; former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell; former Commander of the United States Central Command, General Joseph Hoar; and General John Abizaid, the most recent former Commander of U.S. Central Command.

Our troops have performed valiantly and have exceeded all expectations.  They served with distinction and liberated a repressed country.  Now, Iraq and its neighbors must embrace the new government to ensure that peace and prosperity can return to this region of the world, which is something that we cannot guarantee.

House Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over the federal courts, the Administrative Office of United States Courts and the Judicial Conference, all federal criminal law and law enforcement issues, the United States Department of Justice, immigration law and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), constitutional law, administrative law, bankruptcy law, antitrust law, intellectual property law, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the United States Copyright Office.  More information about the committee can be found at:  http://judiciary.house.gov/

Here are some highlights from the two Judiciary subcommittees on which I serve:

Subcommittee on the Courts, Internet, & Intellectual Property:  

I have the honor and privilege to serve as the Ranking Member on the subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the federal courts, patent law, trademark law, copyright law, and related matters as they pertain to the Internet.

Patent Reform: I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1908, which was approved by the House and is currently pending approval by the Senate.  The bill is intended to address a growing backlog of pending patent applications at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, improve the quality of patents issued by the USPTO, move our patent system closer to international standards which will improve U.S. patent protection throughout the global economy, and establish new damage criteria for infringement cases that will prevent extreme awards.  

Anti-Counterfeiting:   I am a sponsor of H.R. 4279, the “Prioritizing Resources And Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007,” which was approved by the subcommittee with my support.  H.R. 4279 enhances criminal penalties for prohibited counterfeiting activities, creates a new office to oversee Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) enforcement, and creates a new IPR Czar to coordinate government efforts to apprehend and prosecute counterfeiters.  

Copyright Reform:  The subcommittee has focused on illegal downloading on college campuses.  While this has not resulted in legislation, colleges identified for illegal downloading have begun implementing policies prohibiting illegal downloading, including software designed to block this unauthorized activity.  I feel very strongly that students and college administrators should be held to the same standards as all other copyright users.

Judicial Salaries:  The subcommittee may consider a proposal to increase the salary for federal judges, which I oppose.  Federal judges receive a salary similar to Members of Congress, as part of their pension they receive this salary and health care benefits for the rest of their life, but can only be removed through impeachment.  In case you did not know, I have refused to participate in the congressional pension program.  I have labeled it a taxpayer rip-off, and I do not think you owe me a retirement package just because I decided to go into public service.  I also refused to participate in the legislative retirement plan when I served in the N.C. General Assembly in Raleigh.  Also, I oppose increasing salaries for Members of Congress.

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security:

While I had the honor of serving as the subcommittee Chairman in the 109th Congress, many of the initiatives spearheaded during my tenure as Chairman are still being considered by the subcommittee.

I strongly support H.R. 1593, the Second Chance Act, which was signed into law by President Bush on April 9, 2008.  This law authorizes $400 million from 2008-2012 to fund state and local re-entry programs. 

The synergy among illegal drug use, gang violence and recidivism is alarming.  Federal, state and local governments continue to increase funding for jails and law enforcement but this has had little impact.  I have said for several years that prison overcrowding is a ticking bomb waiting to explode, and I hope that the Second Chance Act will serve as a policy changing first step in addressing the growing crisis in our prisons. 

I am deeply concerned by the decision of the U.S. Sentencing Commission to retroactively reduce the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenders.  While the subcommittee may consider legislation to address disparities between crack and powder cocaine offenders, I feel very strongly that the Commission should not have retroactively changed the sentencing guidelines for convicted crack cocaine felons without the consent of Congress.   I, along with many other Members of Congress wrote commission members, prior to the vote, urging them not to take this action.  While the Commission has the authority to amend sentencing guidelines, this authority was delegated by Congress to the Commission with the understanding that the Commission would work with Congress, not to undermine congressional jurisdiction over our criminal laws or sentencing guidelines.  

The H-2B visa program allows 66,000 temporary foreign workers into the United States each year.  These visas are allocated at the rate of 33,000 twice a year: October 1 and April 1. 

North Carolina is home to multiple small businesses that supplement their workforce under the H-2B visa program with temporary labor from nearby countries such as Mexico and Jamaica because efforts to hire local help through the Employment Security Commission’s job bank have failed to meet their need for a reliable local workforce.  Owners and operators of businesses such as local plant nurseries that supply the gardening centers for the spring and summer planting season have been able to stay in business with the help of a few reliable foreign workers.  Resorts such as Pinehurst and the Biltmore supplement their local workforce with temporary foreign workers so that they can maintain the high quality standards vacationers expect.  While not located within the Sixth Congressional District that I represent, coastal commercial fisheries cannot find local employees who are willing to “pick” crabs for canning and distribution to such places as restaurants and supermarkets.  They rely on foreign workers to do the work that keeps these small businesses viable.  Small businesses such as these are owned and operated by hard working Americans who struggle to meet the needs of their families, too.  They remind us of the many other businesses, box and pallet makers for example, that thrive when their businesses survive. 

Some have difficulty understanding why these small businesses could need foreign workers at a time when many jobless North Carolinians need work.  The clarification is rooted in our unemployment policies and the general expectations of individuals who had earned a fairly good salary in their former employment.  American workers are reluctant to accept the starting salaries paid to foreign workers who perform “unskilled” labor.  Consider also that older workers who are unemployed have health problems that prevent participation in work that is so physically demanding.  While these industries employ younger workers, many young people are uninterested in work that is seasonal or temporary.

In my opinion, when these foreign workers comply with the terms of their visas, which require workers to depart the United States each year, they should be allowed to return the following season to the same employer without counting toward the 66,000 annual cap.  To do otherwise, jeopardizes the viability of the small business employers who need them.

As you may know, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows other states to refuse to recognize such marriages.  This law, however, has been undermined by same-sex couples who travel to jurisdictions that ignore DOMA and approve same-sex marriages.  These same-sex couples now expect their home jurisdictions to recognize their marriages.

In response, several bills were introduced and considered during the 108th Congress to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and preserve the rights of states to implement and enforce marriage laws, which I supported but were not enacted.  In the 109th Congress, I, along with a majority of members, voted in favor of a constitutional amendment, H.J. Res 88, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but the amendment failed to garner the two-thirds majority that is required to amend the Constitution.  Another bill, H.R. 1100, the Marriage Protection Act of 2005, would reserve the rights of states to implement and enforce marriage laws, has not been considered.  I voted in favor of a similar bill during the 108th Congress. 

I believe the authority of states to determine, implement and protect their own marriage laws should be preserved.  I also do not believe that defining traditional marriages as being a union between one man and one woman does anything to discriminate against homosexuals.  Several bills have been introduced to achieve these goals but have not been considered. 

The Bush Administration has initiated several voluntary programs to prevent the downturn in the housing industry from further affecting the economy.  These programs couple lenders with government agencies and individuals to create solutions for those who face losing their homes due to their mortgage rates resetting.

Constituents may contact the hotline by calling 1-888-HOPE-NOW.

Additionally, provisions were included in the recently-passed stimulus package that would increase the ability of government sponsored enterprises to make loans, particularly in high costs areas. 

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 that feel government should not meddle in private markets or bail out homeowners who overextended themselves.

Finally, I feel the government should prosecute and prohibit any illegal lending activity. 

Our office has heard from constituents voicing various concerns with the USA PATRIOT Act.  As you may know, I supported the PATRIOT Act, which the House overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 357 to 66. The Senate subsequently passed an identical bill by a vote of 98 to 1, and it was signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001.   Several provisions of the PATRIOT Act are scheduled to sunset in FY09 unless they are extended by Congress. While I am a staunch supporter of the rights granted to all Americans under the Constitution, unfortunately I am also aware that the enemy we are now facing knowingly and mockingly abuses these sacred rights to bring harm to innocent, law-abiding citizens. In my opinion, those who perpetrate acts of war against us, on our soil, do not and should not be granted a platform from which to ridicule our inalienable rights and promote terrorism. That said, I believe reasonable steps may be taken to ensure our national security without unduly infringing on our civil liberties. The purpose of the PATRIOT Act is to grant law enforcement and homeland security officials with the necessary tools to identify and apprehend terrorists.  All requests for information must be approved by a federal judge or magistrate and be linked to international terrorism or espionage.  Nothing in this law undermines our constitutional protections, particularly the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures or the First Amendment.

Since enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, both the House and Senate Judiciary committees have exercised their oversight authority with the Justice Department and will continue to do so.  As a senior member of this committee and former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, I am very interested in the implementation of anti-terrorism bills and believe it is imperative that Congress continue to monitor the actions and policies of the DOJ, our homeland security officials, and all law enforcement personnel. As I stated earlier, we did not pass this legislation blindly, nor do we intend to ignore our responsibility to oversee its implementation.

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 $2,510.  Coverage resumes when drug purchases total $4,050 (in 2008).  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. 

In 2017, Social Security program costs will exceed payroll tax revenues, and, in 2041, the combined retirement and disability accounts will be exhausted according to projections by Social Security’s Chief Actuary.  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.

Possible reform alternatives being discussed – singularly or in combination with each other – are (1) increasing payroll taxes, (2) slowing the growth in benefits, (3) using general revenues or (4) increasing expected returns by investing, at least in part, in private securities through either personal accounts or direct investment of the trust funds.

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, but in this presidential election year, action is not expected.

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 a low-cost producing country 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 Bush 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. 2942 (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.  T his 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. 

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.

I have long argued that we must invest in our infrastructure.  It is important from an economic and quality of life perspective.  We should, however, look at a variety of modes and alternatives to come up with a solution to this crisis.  Simply building more highways is not the answer, we need a multi-faceted solution.

Much of our infrastructure, both traditional and alternative, has grown woefully inadequate.  Part of this may be attributed to increased usage and congestion, while some infrastructure is simply obsolete and unsafe. 

The last highway reauthorization authorized a commission to study the way forward in transportation which could be used as a baseline for the upcoming reauthorization which will be considered next year. 

Broadly speaking, the report endorsed bold changes in transportation policy and funding.

They include:

• Increased role in federal surface transportation
• Increased investment in all levels of government and the private sector
• More effective use of funding
• Restructured programs based on performance and effectiveness, and
• Reformation of existing programs to eliminate waste and delays in program delivery

The item that warranted the most attention was the recommendation of an annual investment of between $225 and $340 billion per year in infrastructure.  This would include federal, state and local investment, and utilize private dollars. 

To fund this investment, the majority of commissioners endorsed raising the gas tax by 25 to 40 cents above the current federal tax of 18.4 cents.  This is almost a 200% increase in the gas tax when prices are already at record highs.   Transportation Secretary Mary Peters adamantly opposes new gas taxes and as a result did not endorse the report. 

It is my hope that the upcoming reauthorization will create a vehicle that aims to mitigate congestion and its impact on each of us, fund a variety of alternatives so that people have a choice (such as mass transit and light rail), increase returns to the states via the donor state formula, and continue to address inflexible departmental policies. 

Further, it is important to promote policies that sustain the flow of commerce through a variety of ways, including trucks, rail and shipping via our waterways.

Congress approved $63.9 billion for veterans’ programs in FY08, which is a $6.6 billion increase from FY07 and the largest in the history of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  The Veterans Health Administration estimates it will treat more than 5.8 million patients in 2008, including more than 263,345 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.  In addition, this funding will be used to assist homeless veterans, address mental health and substance abuse, research and treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury, conduct Prosthetic research, improve medical facilities, and fund 3,100 new claims processors. 

That said, 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 110th 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.  While Congress may consider expanding this to include all disabled veterans, there are inequities in other benefits such as survivor benefit plans, sole survivors and the GI Bill that also require attention.  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. 

The Water Resources Development Act (H.R. 1495) is legislation intended to provide federal investment in the conservation and development of water resources.  In addition, the bill authorizes Army Corps of Engineers involvement in numerous rivers and harbors of the United States. The bill is slated to be reauthorized every two years, but the measure has not been implemented since 2000. 

Last year, the House and Senate agreed upon legislation to reauthorize the bill that was sent to the White House.  President Bush vetoed H.R. 1495 because he felt the beach restoration projects, navigation improvements, and dam and levee projects included in the bill were excessive and the overall cost was too large.  While I respect ed the President’s fiscal concerns, I felt that the merit of the bill, coupled with the fact it represent ed the pent-up demand of three previous versions, warranted my support of an override of his veto.  The bill became law (P.L. 110-114) on November 9, 2007.

Additionally, legislation (H.R. 2421) has been introduced that would amend the Clean Water Act to replace the term “navigable water” with the term “waters of the United States.”  As such, if enacted the bill would apply the Clean Water Act to all waters of the United States, regardless of size.  The bill is intended to overturn a number of court decisions which sought to limit the scope of the Clean Water Act. 

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a series of hearings on the legislation in July, though the bill has not been marked up by either the subcommittee or full committee.  The committee has heard from environmental groups that support the measure, but also from agriculture and industry -r elated stakeholders who have grave concerns about the ramifications of such a change.