Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it gives me absolute pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend and neighbor, who lives right up the road from me in Columbia.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It has been a long 4 hours on four bills. We stayed on the subject for about 2 hours. These four bills are very important, I believe, for the small business community in the country. I realize that the labor union kingpins do not like these four bills, but I promise labor union workers who are out there in small businesses will like these bills. There have been some outlandish statements that need to be corrected for the record. Number one, there is nobody on our committee, including myself, any of us who made these bills, that believe for one minute any of these bills are going to harm the workplace safety or health factor. It is simply not going to do that. Somebody said, oh, gosh, if we pass these bills, workers will have more injuries. Members can have that opinion; it does not make it right. That is simply not true. Somebody said, if you pass these four bills, you are going to weaken OSHA. That is not true either. We are going to help make OSHA work a little better. Lastly, I want to mention to my friend who said OSHA is a Federal cop. That is the problem. If you believe they are a bunch of police over there, we never will get anywhere with OSHA because until we get this Federal agency working with people in small businesses who want to have a safer workplace rather than a bunch of cops who come around and beat people up, this is never going to work. I had this happen just yesterday in my own district where this female came in, and her badge was bigger than her brain. It was just ridiculous. Until we get a different attitude and not feeling that OSHA is a Federal cop, it is not going to get better. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, next week I will introduce legislation that received wide bipartisan support in the last Congress, the Clear Law Enforcement for Removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens Act, better known as CLEAR. This bill seeks to address a major crisis in our country: the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws. The CLEAR Act makes clear that State and local law enforcement can and should help Federal agencies enforce these laws. We have no problem asking local law enforcement to help enforce Federal drug laws. We have no problem asking local agencies to help in Federal manhunts for murderers and terrorists. We even have no problem with deputy and police enforcing Federal laws against cigarette sales to minors. Yet when the issue of immigration enforcement arises, so do the squeals that immigration is a Federal responsibility and should not be pushed off on the States. They are right. It is a Federal responsibility. The problem is that the Federal Government is not taking their responsibility very serious. Mr. Speaker, the catastrophe of illegal immigration has already been pushed off on the States by the Federal Government flatly refusing to do its duty of enforcing the law. Our police and deputies spend billions combating illegal immigrant crime, including organized foreign gangs. This could have been prevented by vigorous Federal enforcement at the border. Our local jails are full of criminal illegal aliens, costing the States billions per year. This could have been prevented by vigorous Federal enforcement at the border. Our local hospital emergency rooms are full of indigent illegal aliens who drive up the cost of health care to a point that hardworking Americans can basically no longer afford it. This could have been prevented by vigorous Federal enforcement at the border. Our local schools are filled with children of illegal immigrants who pay little or no local taxes, but drive up property taxes for hardworking American families to cover the skyrocketing costs of bilingual and special education. This could have been prevented by vigorous Federal enforcement at our borders. Our police routinely find illegals, including those with criminal records. They call the Federal Government, which does nothing other than force our police to release these criminals back on to our streets. There are about 500,000 of them out there. This has got to stop, and this is a fair bill, and it is intended to stop that. Washington had its chance to enforce the law, and it has failed the Nation. Now it is time we stop putting obstacles in the way of our police, deputies, and State patrol helping to get this job done. Under the CLEAR Act, local law enforcement is authorized to not only arrest illegal aliens but to transport them to the nearest Federal detention centers, including across State lines; and if DHS does not pick them up immediately, under CLEAR, the Federal Government pays the tab for that, as appropriate. CLEAR authorizes new Federal resources to support local law enforcement, including immigration law training, 20 new Federal detention centers and more if they are needed. The CLEAR Act makes illegal immigration a criminal offense, not just a civil offense. Repeat offenders will face serious jail time, not a free ride back to the border. Mr. Speaker, next week this House will have a chance to start getting serious about fighting our national crisis of illegal immigration. I urge every Member in this House to join us as an original cosponsor.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. 44. Lance Corporal Russell P. White 45. Private First Class Daniel B. McClenney 46. Lance Corporal Juston Tyler Thacker 47. Staff Sergeant Robert K. McGee 48. Specialist Julie R. Hickey 49. Specialist Juan Torres 50. Sergeant Bobby E. Beasley 51. Staff Sergeant Craig W. Cherry 52. Sergeant Daniel Lee Galvan 53. Staff Sergeant Robert S. Goodwin 54. Staff Sergeant Tony B. Olaes 55. Specialist Wesley R. Wells 56. Staff Sergeant Alan L. Rogers 57. Staff Sergeant Brian S. Hobbs 58. Specialist Kyle Ka Eo Fernandez 59. Corporal William M. Amundson Jr. 60. Airman First Class Jesse M. Samek 61. Corporal Billy Gomez 62. Specialist James C. Kearney III 63. Sergeant Michael C. O'Neill 64. Corporal Dale E. Fracker Jr. 65. Corporal Jacob R. Fleischer 66. Lieutenant Colonel Michael J. McMahon 67. Chief Warrant Officer Travis W. Grogan 68. Specialist Harley Miller 69. Specialist Isaac E. Diaz 70. Sergeant First Class Pedro A. Munoz 71. Sergeant Jeremy R. Wright 72. Specialist Richard M. Crane 73. Petty Officer First Class Alec Mazur 74. Staff Sergeant Shane M. Koele 75. Captain Michael T. Fiscus 76. Master Sergeant Michael T. Hiester 77. Specialist Brett M. Hershey 78. Private First Class Norman K. Snyder 79. Sergeant Major Barbaralien Banks 80. Master Sergeant Edwin A. Matoscolon 81. Sergeant James Shawn Lee 82. Captain David S. Connolly 83. Specialist Chrystal Gaye Stout 84. Sergeant Stephen C. High 85. Chief Warrant Officer Clint J. Prather 86. Chief Warrant Officer David Ayala

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a second to speak to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and he is my friend, but I think he is wrong when he says human rights issues are something that we just do not get. Well, that is wrong. I think we do get it. I think it is fairly clear to the Members of this body, it is fairly clear to the people of this country, that many of you Democrats are very interested in human rights of the prisoners down in Guantanamo Bay, people who would kill your children, who would kill your families and destroy your homes. And we are interested in getting information in a reasonable manner from prisoners or terrorists in order to save the lives of American people, to save the lives of our military. So it is a simple matter. It comes down to whose side are you really on? Are you on the side of the terrorists so you can be against President Bush, or are you on the side of the American people and the American families?

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I came to have a little chat with the Members about immigration, and I intend to do that. But I cannot help but point out from the previous speaker that torture means many things. Perhaps the people who can best define torture would be prisoners of war in Vietnam, in Korea, and World War II. And I can say to the mothers of America that the people that we are accusing of torturing are people who want to kill their children as fast as they can. I would say to the fathers of America that the soldiers we are accusing of torturing are people that would like to kill their family as fast as they can. And I can assure the Members, having been in Vietnam, that pouring water on somebody, playing loud music, and lowering the air conditioner is not torturing anybody. It, though, however, may save an American GI. Mr. Speaker, like most of the Members of the body, on October 24, 2001, I voted for the U.S. PATRIOT Act, which passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 357 to 66. At the time many of us had concerns about whether or not the bill crossed the line on infringing on our constitutional liberties. We were assured that it did not. And when the new protections against terrorism were in place, we could actually see for ourselves that it did not. So we approved that bill, based on the fact that our Nation had just suffered 3,000 dead in New York and Washington at the hands of illegal immigrant terrorists. Since then we have put up with library and bookstore records examined by Federal agents. We have endured having our personal e-mail scanned by intelligence agents. We have seen our grandmothers forced to take off their shoes at airports, with no probable cause other than they have chosen to travel. All of these things are aggravating. We have been willing to put up with it as patriots if it means we can better defend ourselves against another 9/11. But we have also seen nearly 200,000 American troops sent to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where over 1,800 of them have given their lives. All the while we have seen the administration and the Congress turn a blind eye to the continuing hordes of millions of illegal immigrants pouring across our northern and southern borders. There is no amount of eavesdropping, searches, or overseas military actions that will protect us against another 9/11 while we leave our borders wide open to terrorists with suitcase nuclear weapons or biological agents. We can secure our borders within months. We can secure our borders within months with a simple executive order or an agreement between our border State Governors and the Secretary of Defense. Congressional investigators say somewhere between 36,000 and 48,000 troops would do the job. The Secretary of Border Control and Immigration says maybe it will take 50,000. Since we are in agreement on needing somewhere between 36,000 and 50,000, there is no reason not to start deploying these forces soon. And that is just the first step. We then need to build up our border patrol to a level at which we do not need help and we can send our troops back home. We ought to be able to do that over the next 5 years, as an adequate number of new border patrol agents are trained and placed on duty and we get new fencing, lighting, sensors, and other improvements in place. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see us get to a point where we do not need the PATRIOT Act. We can let it quietly expire as we did with other internal security measures enacted during previous wars. But I would like for the Speaker and this Congress not to ask me to vote for any new so-called ``guest worker'' program while this outrage at our borders continues. The Members can count on me for a ``no'' vote right now. When our borders are secure and we have absolutely stopped the invasion of our Nation by illegal immigrants, then and only then can we sit down and discuss how to solve this problem. This week the Minutemen volunteers are heading back out into the Southwest desert to do the job the Federal Government is supposed to do. I do not want them to have to do that. As a matter of fact, they do not want to have to be doing that. But until Congress starts enforcing the immigration laws of this country, they will continue in growing numbers. Mr. Speaker, protecting Americans against terrorists begins with illegal immigrants at our borders, not with our own citizens here at home.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times on this floor concerning the need to secure our borders. We must do so if we are going to have any kind of responsible immigration policy and retain our national sovereignty. We know with somewhere between 36,000 and 50,000 additional enforcement personnel on our southern borders, we can catch virtually all of the potential terrorists and drug dealers trying to enter this country illegally. But we now find that other-than-Mexican illegals, or OTMs as they are referred to by our Border Patrol, have discovered a large loophole in our law. Under this loophole, OTMs can cross our border illegally and be apprehended by our border patrol. The border patrol is then forced to give them paperwork allowing them to bypass all other immigration checkpoints and virtually release them into our country. This criminal scheme is not the fault of some quirk in U.S. law. It is being forced on our border patrol by international law which we are allowing to undermine our rule of law, national immigration policy, our Constitution, and our sovereignty. International law says illegal immigrants must either be deported to their country of origin or placed in detention. If there is no room in detention, they must be released on bail with a promise that they return later for trial. There is never any room in detention any more for the millions of illegals violating our southern border every year. And since these illegals are not Mexican, our border patrol is required to buy them airfare back to Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, China, Iraq, and on and on. So they sign an agreement to show in court in 30 days and are released. With that paper in hand, they can pass legally through all other border patrol checkpoints and vanish into cities in America. We have caught 90,000 OTMs since October 1, 2004, and 98 percent have failed to show back up in court. Once hidden in large immigration communities inside our country with new false identification, it becomes virtually impossible to apprehend them. Mr. Speaker, I have stood here before and called for deploying 36,000 troops to our border to effectively close it. But with this situation in place, we could send 1 million troops to our borders, and it would not make any difference. Border patrol says these people swim across the Rio Grande and come looking for our officers with a demand ``permiso,'' for the warrant that gives them a free pass into our Nation illegally. Mr. Speaker, we need a new law right now. Anyone who crosses our border with Mexico illegally should be considered a citizen of Mexico for enforcement purposes. They should be returned there or incarcerated here immediately. This is not the United Nations or WTO. We represent the people of our districts. We are responsible to the people of the United States and are sworn to defend our Constitution. We have an inherent God-given right to national sovereignty, and this House must not stand by while foreign nations undermine our laws and our independence. Mr. Speaker, I will be back next week to further this conversation.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this month a bill to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants was introduced in the United States Senate. I think we should send a very clear message to the other body not to waste their time or ours on any bill dealing with the status of illegal immigrants until we first secure our borders. What good does it do to try to address the problems of 11 to 16 million people who are here illegally if we do not address the gaping wound that allowed them in this country to start with? The majority of illegals simply walk across our woefully undermanned 2,000-mile border with Mexico. We could deport them back to their country of origin, and millions would be pouring back across that same border within hours. We could turn our backs on justice and the rule of law and declare everyone here as now to be legal. Within hours we would have millions more illegal immigrants walking across that same border, encouraged by the fact that they could laugh at our laws with impunity. Either extreme, or anything in between, is pointless while we let our border continue to bleed. Trying to defend 1,951 miles of border against 4 million illegal immigrants a year with just 10,817 border patrol officers is a mathematical impossibility. This month Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner told the House Committee on Government Reform that we could secure the border, that we could secure the border, with an additional 50,000 auxiliary officers. That figure is in very close agreement with the draft field research by the Immigration Reform Caucus that was reported this week by the Washington Times, CNN's Lou Dobbs, and Fox News, which estimates 36,000 auxiliaries may accomplish the same purpose. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Governor Rick Perry of Texas can order their National Guard, with support from other States through the National Guard Bureau, to secure their section of their border today. We have already authorized the Secretary of Defense to pay the cost of that deployment in last year's Defense Authorization Act. In addition, we are bringing home 70,000 Federal troops from around the world, where they have been guarding other nations' borders for the past 60 years. A simple executive order from the President would allow them to relieve our National Guard and have 20,000 men and women to spare. All it takes, Mr. Speaker, is will. We have the manpower and we have the money. Mr. Speaker, on May 5 the American people responded to a Zogby nationwide poll on this issue. They approve using Federal troops to secure our border by a 53 to 40 percent margin. They approve using State and local law agencies to help secure our border by an 81 to 14 percent margin. They oppose an amnesty plan like that proposed in the Senate by a 56 to 35 percent margin. This week, after the border patrol draft reported by caucus investigators was released, CNN online polls were running 92 percent in favor of using our military to control our borders. In response, the Mexican Government this week spoke out against us securing our border with our troops. The American public demands we do so. Now is the time for every Member of this body to choose whose side we are on.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I actually did not know who to come to talk to because we did not know who would be leading against this amendment. If I may, it is a very, very simple drafting error in the bill on line 7 where we are saying that law enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of a State are fully authorized to apprehend and detain. Then it goes on to say ``or remove.'' ``Or remove'' should not have been in there. And so we are just asking unanimous consent at this point to take that out and it will help the bill, and we are going to get it out somewhere anyway.

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, the Norwood amendment would definitely clarify the existing authority, existing authority of State and local law enforcement personnel in assisting in the apprehension, detention, and transport of illegal aliens in the routine course of their daily duties. This last phrase, ``in the routine course of duty,'' is critical because the language ensures that law enforcement has certainty when they come in contact with illegal aliens that are breaking our laws. My amendment also would require DHS to establish a training manual and pocket guide for law enforcement and set forth simple guidelines for making training available. Madam Chairman, I need to make this perfectly clear. This authority for State and local law enforcement already exists, though there is some confusion. But law enforcement officers and agencies need some assurance from us that they can take appropriate action with authority when the laws are broken. Any confusion about what to do when law enforcement meets with lawbreakers needs to end. Some will argue law enforcement does not have adequate resources. That is clearly just not the case. We passed yesterday over $4.5 billion for homeland security, including $690 million for custody management, funds to dramatically increase detention bed space, $88 million for the Institutional Removal Program, there is $211 million for transportation and removal of undocumented aliens, and a good amendment today authorizes another $40 million to help willing States and local law enforcement. There is also $6 billion in the pipeline for first responders, and many of them are from law enforcement. Imagine if a State or local law enforcement did not enforce Federal drug laws, or if a highway patrolman was confused about the speed limits on Federal interstates. Would Congress allow States and local law enforcement to not enforce Federal laws on bank robbers or kidnappings or fraud? In the wake of the 9/11 terror, porous borders are a major security concern. Madam Chairman, I sponsored a bill with nearly identical language last Congress, so this is not just thought up today. It was endorsed by the National Sheriffs Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, and the 9/ 11 Families For a Secure America. In addition, endorsements came from chiefs of police in Illinois, Iowa, Georgia, Indiana; and sheriffs from a slew of States endorsed similar language previously, including California, Michigan, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Washington, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and in nearly a dozen more. Colleagues, the only area of law that State and local law enforcement are not enforcing because they are unsure about what can be done is the immigration law. That should change. It must change. And this is the right time and the right bill to correct this critical matter. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, and say just because you say something is so does not mean it is so. This is a voluntary bill in which nobody is massing anywhere, nor does it imply that anywhere in this bill. It is totally voluntary, and local law enforcement are asked to work in line of duty. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to close the debate for this side.

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I just want to point out to the ranking member that I started this debate off saying there was a drafting error and we wanted to remove two words: ``or remove.'' Your side would not allow that to be removed. That would have solved the problem. We are going to get it solved even if it is in conference. We are going to get it done despite you, but we gave you the opportunity to do something about it.

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds and would point out there is no intention in this bill for local law enforcement to be able to deport anybody. In fact, if you had not objected to our amendment, that would have been clarified easily in this bill. And at the end of the day, that is simply not going to be the case. Also, this bill is asking for training to help local law enforcement. I would simply say to my colleague that if he thinks local law enforcement ought not to help with this law because they do not know what they are doing, then maybe we ought to ask them not to help with any drug enforcement law because they do not know what they are doing. We are in that every day helping them. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to remind the gentleman that if there are chiefs of police or State patrols in any particular State that do not want to be bothered by helping their Nation rid itself of terrorists, this is all voluntary. The gentleman can write them back and say we have passed a law, but you do not have to be involved. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. In response to the last speaker, number one, had the gentlewoman been here earlier, the gentlewoman would have heard about why this is not an unfunded mandate. Number two, if the gentlewoman believes local law enforcement should not help the Federal Government find terrorists in this Nation, which people who cross our borders illegally they are amongst, I ask the gentlewoman to drop a bill so that local law enforcement does not help the Federal Government in bank robberies and murders and drug enforcement and everything else that local law enforcement helps the Federal Government do. It is ridiculous to say that the 750,000 local law enforcement people should not be involved in this Nation trying to find some of the people who, for example, committed terror in this country on 9/11. Yesterday we passed over $4.5 billion for homeland security, including $690 million for custody management, funds to dramatically increase detention bed space, $88 million for an institutional removal program, $211 million for transportation and removal of undocumented aliens, and an earlier amendment today authorized another $40 million to help willing State and local law enforcement. There is also $6 billion in the pipeline for first responders. Many of them are local law enforcement. And this is voluntary. If the City of Houston does not want to play, they do not have to. But the rest of us need our law enforcement people to help us get these terrorists out of this country, and there are somewhere between 10 and 15 million that have come across our borders because we have failed to do anything about it for nonsensical reasons. It is time for this to come to an end. If Members are for correcting immigration in this country, vote for this. If Members are against immigration corrections and do not think it needs reform and want an open border, vote against it. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I simply ask the gentleman to reconsider our unanimous consent to remove two words that would, I think, make an amendment that is going to pass better in your mind.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that today we heard some very important testimony on workplace safety during a hearing we had in the Subcommittee on Workplace Protections. We wanted to hear from safety advocates in the small business community on how well voluntary employer compliance programs are working to improve workplace safety while at the same time protecting jobs and small businesses from unnecessary red tape and lawsuits. I have heard employers say many times, and know from my own firsthand knowledge, that OSHA regulations are simply too complex and too difficult to understand. It is a red-tape nightmare, Mr. Speaker. That is a good description for the piles of OSHA rules, regulations, guidance documents, and interpretive letters that employers must dig through to try to determine the right thing to do in the business place to come into compliance. Mr. Speaker, I do not think they ought to be spending their time bringing their workplace into compliance with OSHA red tape. They ought to, instead, be spending their time making their workplace safer. Small businesses want to comply with our Nation's health and safety laws for many reasons, one of which is it simply pays for them to do so. From the testimony we heard today, it is evident that OSHA's past ``gotcha'' enforcement scheme of fines and lawsuits is actually leading to a less safe workplace, as small business owners are forced to hunker down to protect themselves instead of seeking out help to improving their workplace safety. Fortunately, OSHA has already recognized the need for compliance assistance, and Secretary Chao is to be commended for her vision and leadership in this regard. Now we are actually starting to see the results of her efforts over the last 5 years, and those results are positive and encouraging. The Government Accountability Office, fondly known as GAO, has found that the companies involved in voluntary OSHA compliance programs have contributed to the safest workforce in our Nation's modern history. GAO asked for more data from Congress on how well these programs are working, and we need to provide that just as soon as possible. But one overall fact we already know is that encouraging OSHA to help businesses instead of prosecuting them is having far better results in creating safer workplaces, and this is especially true with small businesses. We can continue this process with some powerful force multipliers with OSHA, through voluntary employer efforts to work with private consultants and industrial safety specialists to foster a safer workplace. OSHA will never have the resources to visit every American work site to ensure compliance, but this exciting new compliance tool can ensure that workplaces that would never see a visit from an OSHA inspector will have access to world-class safety specialists. At the same time, our business owners should be encouraged to invite OSHA to their work site and engage the agency in compliance assistance without fear of reprisal from Federal bureaucrats. In the process, we can continue to maintain the safest workplace in the world where our businesses can continue to compete in a global economy. There are still the last holdouts from the failed ways of the past who would like to see Federal bureaucrats spread out across the country to harass and punish people who are trying to make a living. In order to do that, we would have to have 108,000 new inspectors at OSHA, and even then they could only visit our businesses every 2 years. That will never happen, and it is not going to work. Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of winning a great victory for workplace safety by expanding voluntary compliance programs. Let us resolve to defeat the naysayers. If we succeed, we can create a 21st- century OSHA that will be far more effective in creating a safe workplace for every American worker, no matter how small or remote their place of business. We can continue teaching Federal bureaucrats a lesson in manners when dealing with their fellow citizens, and, in fact, their employers.