Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, and I wish we could go through life and never have to close a Coast Guard station. Mr. Chairman, I told this story, you all bear with me, in the committee, but I think it is pertinent. Coast Guard stations, where we used to call them lifeboat stations in the old days, the old salts, small boat stations now, but they have a way of becoming very personally involved in the communities where they are located, particularly sparsely settled communities. Coast Guard stations become not unlike churches, schools, the country store, the volunteer fire department, and the communities involved warmly embrace them. I was having an evening meal in the home of a retired Coast Guardsman and his wife on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, Mr. Chairman, about two decades ago. At that time there was a proposal to decommission or to shut down one of the lifeboat stations along the Outer Banks. This Coast Guard wife said to me, with tears in her eyes, if they shut down that Cost Guard station, things will never be the same along the Carolina cost. What she was saying, without using the words, she was saying the Coast Guard is not going to be able to respond. If we shut down that station, the Coast Guard is ineffective. That had not been the case at all. In fact, the Coast Guard probably has been more effective through modernization. Now, if any entity in this country and in our society places a high value upon life, it is the U.S. Coast Guard, and I am confident that no loss of life is going to result from this. But I think, like my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], said $2 million; the Coast Guard indicates $6 million. Let us indicate for the sake of argument $6 million are involved. By Washington standards, $6 million is not a lot of money, the way we blow money on this Hill. To me it is a lot, but by Washington standards, it is not. Let us use the late Everett Dirksen's line, well-known to all of us. I think he was reported to have said a million here and a million there, boys, and then we are talking about real money. So we must make a start. The Coast Guard is streamlining, and in order to do that effectively, they are going to have to be able to perform some sort of self-assessment. And it is they, better than any, who know what bases and what stations can best be closed. I am confident, Mr. Chairman, and I say to my friend from Ohio, I am confident that safety is not going to be compromised. We have been told earlier today that at some of these small boat stations, some Coast Guard men and women are working 90 hours a week. I think that may well be another reason to downsize. We are in an era now, Mr. Chairman, of downsizing, not just with Government but in the commercial arena. And oftentimes downsizing does not mean less effectiveness or less efficiency. Conversely, many times it means an enhanced quality of efficiency and response time. As much respect as I have for my good friend from Ohio, I must oppose him on this amendment and urge it be defeated.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation to benefit a small business located in Burlington, North Carolina, which is part of my congressional district. The company is called D&S International, and it actively engages in overseas trade. My bill is virtually identical to other legislation I have sponsored during the previous two terms at the behest of D&S. In fact, last year's bill, H.R. 1318, was included in the House version of the GATT-implementing language. By way of background, D&S imported four German-made warp knitting machines in the fall of 1988. ``Warp knitting machines'' are classified under HTS 8447.20.40 and are not dutiable. D&S subsequently sold the machines to a Venezuelan company, which reserved the right to return them to D&S if certain conditions were not met. This, in fact, did occur, and the buyer shipped the machines back to D&S. The Customs ``Entry Summary'' lists an entry date for this transaction of July 12, 1989, at the port of Charleston. Here is where the problem arose. The entry documentation classified the machinery as a reentry of goods of U.S. origin. This misclassification was then changed to a second misclassification in which the goods were listed as ``knitting machines'' under HTS 8447.90.90--dutiable at 4.4 percent. Upon discovery of the additional duties, D&S contacted its freight forwarder and the U.S. Customs Service. This was done at the customs level by letter and office memorandum. Instead of correcting the classification at this point, however, Customs engaged D&S and the freight forwarder in a series of discussions and exchanges of information. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514, such duty protests must be filed within 90 days of liquidation (i.e., the time at which Customs classifies an imported good and gives notice to the importer). While D&S conveyed the necessary information in a timely manner to Customs, the company did not do so by using the technical agency method of documentation, called ``Form 19.'' Since D&S did not use Form 19 within this 90-day period, Customs did not and will not recognize the company protest. The inequity of the situation is therefore manifest: the other correspondence, while accomplishing the same goal as Form 19, is considered worthless for the purposes of protesting a misclassification. The bottom line is that D&S owes approximately $28,000 in duty with interest accruing daily, effectively inhibiting the ability of the company to do business. Litigation is not a viable alternative, as it will only add to these costs. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which simply instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to treat the reentry of the four machines from Venezuela as a duty-free occurrence; and to refund any duties and interest which D&S has paid as a result of the misclassification. In closing, I should note that the Department of Treasury informed the Ways and Means Committee last year of its support for H.R. 1318. I am also inserting in the Record a copy of a March 15, 1994, correspondence from the General Counsel's office at Treasury which states that failure ``* * * to grant relief would cause the importer-- D&S--an justice.'' I thank the Speaker. Department of the Treasury, Washington, March 15, 1994. Hon. Dan Rostenkowski, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter expresses the views of the Department of the Treasury on H.R. 1318, ``To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of a certain entry of warp knitting machines as free of certain duties.'' The bill would authorize the refund of duties mistakenly imposed. Although the Department generally opposes the enactment of private relief bills where the importer failed to make a timely claim for refund under applicable Customs regulations, the Department does not object to the enactment of H.R. 1318 because not to grant relief would cause the importer an injustice. D&S International of North Carolina (D&S) imported four warp knitting machines from Germany duty free and sold them to a Venezuelan company. The Venezuelan company then returned the machines to D&S. Upon reentry, Customs mistakenly classified the machines as a reentry of U.S. goods and applied a rate of duty of 4.4 percent. Although D&S timely protested the duty, Customs ruled that the protest was not properly made. As a result, D&S now owes approximately $25,000 in duties on goods which should have been re-entered duty free. The Senate companion legislation to this bill is S. 1009. A similar letter has been transmitted to the Senate Committee on Finance. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the transmittal of this report to your Committee. Sincerely, Jean E. Hanson.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, there is championship fever at a high school in our congressional district these days, because for the first time in its history, Eastern Guilford High School in Greensboro, NC, won its first state title in any sport. This distinction was accomplished by the wrestling team when it captured the North Carolina 1A/2A team championship on February 25 in what was called the closest championship match in state history. Now that the Wildcat wrestlers have won the first state crown, all of the other teams at Eastern Guilford are trying to win championships, too. Athletic Director Leigh Hebbard told the Greensboro News & Record that, ``There has been some talk among our athletes in other sports that they want to get the next one. I think this has stirred up a little desire in our other athletes.'' Most of the credit for stirring things up must go to Head Coach Robbie Harris and his wrestling squad. They completed an outstanding season with an exciting win in Charlotte. Going into the final match, Eastern Guilford held a 4\1/2\-point lead over Mount Pleasant High School. If the Mount Pleasant wrestler had secured a major decision (five points) or a pin (six points) in the heavyweight title match, the Wildcats' championship would have been lost. But the Mount Pleasant wrestler could only salvage a tie in his match, thus securing the victory for Eastern Guilford. Congratulations for this title goes to each member of the Wildcat wrestling squad: Hugh Armstrong, Alan Aufderhar, Mike Baker, Kevin Bowman, Nick Campell, Travis Coleman, Richard Mai, Thien Mai, Braxton McIntyre, Cory Phoenix, Anthony Poole, Tony Taylor, Matt Tolbert, Paul Vanness, Brooks Williams, Garrett Williams and Roy Wilson. Additional thanks for their assistance goes to the Eastern Guilford Wrestlerettes/ Mat Maids: Cassa Allison, Crystal Barfield, Kristi Bettini, Erica Busick, Amber Cunningham, Amy Frazier, Sharon Garrett, Christina Hughes, and Katie Tolbert. Special thanks also goes to athletic trainer Cher Frauenhoffer and to student trainers Tracie Peeples and Jamie Russell. To all of Eastern Guilford's students, faculty, staff, families and friends, we say thanks for your support of the Eastern Guilford High School wrestling champions. Everyone from Principal Jane Teague to Athletic Director Leigh Hebbard to Head Coach Robbie Harris should be praised for bringing the first state high school championship to Eastern Guilford High School.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, for the second time in 3 years, a school in the Sixth District has captured the 1994-95 North Carolina high school 1A/2A dual team wrestling championship. What makes it even more special, is that it is the same team which won both titles. School won the State 1A/2A dual team wrestling championship with a 28- to-25 sudden-death overtime victory against Mount Pleasant High School. Head Coach Bobby House, who has guided East Davison wrestling to an outstanding 159-33 dual team record over the last 11 seasons, told the Thomasville Times that this year's squad was special: This is a different group of kids. That group in '93, I wouldn't trade 'em for nothing. And I wouldn't trade these kids for nothing. They're fantastic. These parents here work crazy for us and do everything we ask them to do. The booster club gave us a great practice facility. I mean, what can I say? Danny Ward, the A.D., has done everything for us we could possible ask. All the coaches participate in doing things. It's just a fantastic situation to be involved with-- a chance to win a state title. Coach House would be the first to note that it takes a total team effort to compile a record of 24-1 as the Golden Eagle did this season. Special notice must be given, however, to heavyweight wrestler Jeremy Perry who scored an escape point with 4 seconds remaining in overtime to seal the win for East Davison. Sophomore David Children who led the Golden Eagles with 29 wins against only 3 losses this season, told the Times it was only fitting that Perry clinched the championship. ``He said at the beginning of the year he didn't want anything but a state championship, and that's the man to have on the mat when it happened. So, I'm glad it was him.'' We are glad for all of the members of the East Davidson wrestling squad. Congratulations to Head Coach Bobby House, Assistant Coach Brian Lingerfelt, and each member of the team. Best wishes to Doug House (103), Michael Tucker (112), Jeff Lowman (119), Brad Moore (125), Chris Burkhart (130), Tony Peters (135), John Musser (140), Shane Sebastian (145), Chris Waddell (152), Daryl Childress (160), David Lackey (171), Tim Daut (171), Jay Rollins (189), and Jeremy Perry (heavyweight). Special thanks is also given to managers David House and C.J. York and to the ``Wrestlerettes'' Lori Blake, Megan Gordon, and Jamie Fleming. To Principal Ben Terrell and Athletic Director Danny Ward, and to all of the students, faculty, staff, families, and fans of East Davidson High School, we offer our congratulations on capturing the State of 1A/ 2A dual team wrestling championship. The entire Sixth District of North Carolina is proud that you have won this title 2 out of the last 3 years.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and I commend the gentleman from the land of the palmetto for the lead role he has played regarding this issue. Mr. Chairman, the Congress by its inaction and inaccessibility has invited the anxiety that surrounds the term limit issue. The best course is for constituents to determine the number of terms their Members of Congress serve. But considering the chaos that dominates our lives, it has not worked well, and I, therefore, support term limits with this thought: Let's try change even though it may be wrong. This reflects my frustration and the frustration of the American people. I find it intriguing, Mr. Chairman, that this issue, which was so evasive during decades of Democrat control, has incredulously found its way to this House floor for a vote under Republican leadership in less than 3 months. The 12-year proposal applicable to Senate and House in my opinion is the best plan before us. The 6-year House plan and the 12-year Senate plan is inconsistent on its face and affords me little comfort even though I may vote for it. I voted in favor of the retroactive proposal just before us, and I will vote for final passage on the bill left standing. The majority of American people, Mr. Chairman, favor term limits, and it is a major plank in the Contract With America. Let us enact this day some sort of term limit proposal.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the Contract With America. I think it has served most Americans well. I think most Americans are embracing it warmly. That is not to say that I endorse all of the provisions of the contract. In fact, I have some problems with the bill that will be before us tomorrow. I do intend, however, to vote in favor of the rule now before us. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I voted in favor to bring this bill to the full House because this issue deserves to be debated fully and openly in the House, not in the insular environs of a committee. This bill, as we all know, has been adeptly denied admittance to this floor for years. Many times in the House, Mr. Speaker, Members who have no interest in legislation will indifferently reply ``I have no dog in that fight.'' I have nothing but dogs in this fight, friendly dogs all: the insurance community, the business community, the medical community, the trial lawyers, and individual constituents throughout my district; this compounds the complexity of this issue, parties with whom I enjoy harmonious relationships, but who find themselves at odds with each other on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by what we are proposing here, because it is my belief that the law of torts and surrounding issues thereto which usually involve the insurance industry directly or indirectly are more appropriately addressed in the 50 State legislatures and/or the 50 offices of State insurance commissioners. I am not comfortable, Mr. Speaker, extending the tentacles of the Congress into an area that has traditionally been administered and regulated at the State level. I, too, am uneasy about the proposal of capping the amount of damages. The awarding of damages, in my opinion, is best determined by the juries, the tryers of the fact in lawsuits. When we begin tampering with damages, this inevitably constitutes an invasion of the province of the jury. That province should be invaded only very infrequently, and only under extremely rare circumstances. There are extreme examples of jury awards that are applied in defense of each side of this argument, Mr. Speaker, but extreme examples do not serve as valid reasons for dramatic change, nor for immediate reform. Finally, during debate in the House Committee on the Judiciary it was implied that this issue pits rich against poor. That was indeed unfortunate, because this is not opulence on the one hand and poverty on the other. There are wealthy, poor, and middle class represented on each side of this very emotionally charged issue. Perhaps some adjustment, some fine-tuning, if you will, is needed, but I fear the steps proposed by the bill at hand are giant steps when deliberate baby steps might be more appropriate.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I just came onto the floor. I have heard none of the debate, but I say to you that many people have blamed this chaos on NAFTA. NAFTA has nothing to do with it. This involves sloppy fiscal mismanagement in Mexico and should be cleaned up there. I have referred to this episode as Pesogate. And I think the time has come to open wide Pesogate to allow us to closely examine every minute detail surrounding it. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her work in this effort.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. I will simply say, Mr. Chairman, that I was in favor of the Burton amendment, a good sound amendment, but I believe the Spratt-Coble- Ballenger-Payne amendment extends the propriety thereof and I think it extends it in areas that are needed. Sanctions against transshipments and other forms of quota violations, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, are epidemic and I think we need this additional amendment to address that. Textile and apparel workers, my mom used to be one, worked at a hosiery mill, was a machine operator. I represent thousands of employees who earn their living to this day in textile miles, a very significant cog in the American wheel of industry. I think this is an amendment that is needed. I think it will address areas that in my opinion the Burton amendment does not address, and furthermore, I think will do harm to no one. I think it will enhance America's role, in fact, not just in the textile and apparel area but otherwise. I urge support of the amendment and I thank the gentleman for having yielded time to me.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, last week the Paralyzed Veterans of America were in town, and I attended the reception they hosted. I hope many of my colleagues did as well. The reception room was filled with paralyzed veterans confined to wheelchairs. But as I spoke with North Carolinian Cater Cornwell and the other paralyzed vets, I heard not one veteran who was griping, not one who was complaining. All were smiling and pleasantly welcoming us to their reception. As I was leaving the reception, a veteran said to me from his wheelchair, ``You Congressmen deserve praise for what you do.'' I looked around the reception room and the paralyzed veterans therein and with a tear in my eye, I replied, ``No, sir, it is you and your fellow members of the PVA who are most deserving of praise.'' Let us not casually dismiss the sacrifices made for us by the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will: Force Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget--we have done this. It goes on to state that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we have done this; unfunded mandates legislation--we have done this; line-item veto--we have done this; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we are doing this now; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for families to lift Government's burden from middle-income Americans; national security restoration to protect our freedoms; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; Government regulatory reform; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for his courtesy. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken very infrequently during this 104th session of the Congress, but I have done a powerful lot of listening. I think this must be, Mr. Speaker, probably the most loquacious legislative body in the world. A lot of my colleagues, and good friends thought they might be, I think they find complete ecstasy in the particularly like the sound of my voice, as evidenced by my previous reticence, so I will be brief today. Mr. Speaker, I want to direct attention to section 11 of H.R. 728, and specifically to the advisory board and what constitutes membership thereof. Under the present prescription of the bill, members to the advisory board must be representatives from police or sheriffs, No. 1; a local prosecutor, No. 2; a local court, No. 3; the public school system, No. 4; and a local community organization, charitable or otherwise. In that fifth category, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be advisable for someone subsequently to seriously consider the input of the various parks and recreation departments throughout the country. To begin with, parks and recreation officials serve an essential component of any crime reduction strategy, as well as being uniquely cast in their respective communities to be able to attract the generated assistance from the private sector, financial and otherwise. The reason I emphasize this second feature, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that every program that surfaces necessarily has to be sanctioned, endorsed, subsidized by the Federal Government, which, of course, means subsidized by taxpayers. I met last week with officials from parks and recreation facilities throughout the country, and perhaps other Members did as well, and they are vitally interested in this. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, as the day advances, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], who has replaced the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], I may want to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida to indicate the importance of the input of parks and recreation, and perhaps maybe have language or a statement of the managers in conference to emphasize and to illustrate the significance of the input that would be felt if parks and recreation officials are to be considered. I realized that they are not precluded under the present bill, but neither are they specifically identified, Mr. Speaker. Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, and again, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for his kindness, I hope that parks and recreation people, who do contribute very obviously to reducing crime, will get more than a fair shake as we finalize this bill. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will say that Members may not hear from me again for some time to come, but I assure the Members I will be listening.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I was not present on the floor when the rollcall vote for H.R. 666 was taken, the Alien Deportation Act. Had I been present and on the floor, Mr. Speaker, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak on this matter. I sit with the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentleman from Michigan on the House Committee on the Judiciary, I am proud to say, but I heard other speakers come to the podium, and I feel obliged to insert my oars into the water, if you will. Mr. Chairman, no one on this floor is trashing the Constitution, as far as I am concerned. I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 666. In doing so, am I guilty of trashing the fourth amendment? Indeed not. The gentleman from Georgia, I believe, who preceded me here, he used a key word that many are either conveniently or unintentionally avoiding, ``reasonableness,'' and ``good faith.'' Those are words you do not hear kicked around too much. Now, I am not suggesting that every police officer and every law enforcement officer in this country is a model citizen. I am suggesting, however, Mr. Chairman, that most police officers and most law enforcement officers in this country are good people, and most of them do their jobs orderly and properly and most of them do their jobs, in my opinion, at least speaking for the law enforcement officials in my district, they do their jobs laced very generously with good faith. I think it is a shame that we are hearing those of us who are speaking in favor of this piece of legislation as being guilty of trashing the Constitution. I resent such charges. They are not well founded. I urge passage of H.R. 666.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will take the lead from the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman], and I will insert some civility. I am sure the Chair and my colleagues will be delighted to know that I was giving a speech at Fort Myer a few moments ago. I was unavoidably detained when the vote on the amendments offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], rollcall No. 32, was cast. Had I been present, Mr. Chairman, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Claremont, CA, for having yielded me this time. Reform the House? We Republicans have previously engaged in this exercise of attempting to reduce the number of staff positions and the number of committees. So this is not a case of first impression. But each time we proposed these reductions, they fell upon deaf ears, and the Democrat leadership rejected our attempts to streamline the Congress, and in so doing serve as better stewards for taxpayers. During this session, pending passage of this proposal today, there will be 25 fewer subcommittees, 3 fewer standing committees. This will save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am advised that we have eliminated 80 positions on one committee alone. I am not uncaring nor insensitive about this result, but these positions should never have been created in the first place. In applying retroactive psychology, Mr. Speaker, if our Democrat leadership friends had accepted our previous proposals which would have saved taxpayers millions of dollars, we Republicans may not be in the majority today. But in this town, pride of authorship is jealously guarded, and many people are reluctant to permit any good change unless they can claim the credit therefor. Today we Republicans again are offering proposals of change which we have previously attempted to no avail. On this day, Mr. Speaker, we will, indeed, prevail.