Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, over the past 1\1/2\ years, we've seen this President take away a lot of our freedoms with big spending and a big health care plan. I want to talk about another risk to American freedom today, and that is the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, also known as the Small Arms Treaty.

I'm profoundly disappointed, but, frankly, not surprised, that this administration is joining the United Nations in crafting this dangerous treaty designed to curtail our Second Amendment rights.

Parties in the negotiations about the treaty are talking about banning civilian possession of firearms, decreasing the ability for trade in firearms, and heavily restricting the rights of Americans to carry their firearms. Each one of these directives, if implemented, would clearly violate individual rights as ensconced in our Constitution.

The Senate should not ratify this treaty. We must never turn our national sovereignty over to anyone, most especially the United Nations.

As a former soldier who dearly loves his M250 caliber machine gun and loves his firearms as a civilian as well, I know that we have that right. We've got to stand up and protect it, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate not to ratify this treaty.

Offered By: Mr. Pompeo

Amendment No. 38: Page 127, line 25, strike ``from manure

management systems''.

Offered By: Mr. Pompeo

Amendment No. 39: Page 65, line 19, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $6,246,000)''.

Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $6,246,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Pompeo

Amendment No. 40: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, President Obama has systematically and recklessly attacked the general aviation industry. It's one of America's last remaining great manufacturing industries, employing over 1.2 million people and contributing $150 billion in economic activity each year. He has demonized its users and drawn a line in the sand for higher taxes.

And whom is President Obama hurting? Bill Gates? Warren Buffett? No. He's hurting line workers in Wichita, Kansas, and all over the country. He's hurting small business owners trying to get from Topeka to Des Moines to close a business deal.

These attacks on our industry are only a diversion, a distraction from the failed economic policies of this administration. His policies have left us with a $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone and a loss of over 2 million jobs during his time in office.

Mr. Speaker, the aviation industry is not asking for a bailout like he gave the auto guys. Just leave us alone. Get out of the way. We have a community that just wants to create jobs and grow our economy. That may not be your agenda, Mr. President, but it is certainly mine.

Mr. Speaker, on July 18th, I missed rollcall votes numbered 601 and 602 because I was in Kansas on official business.

Rollcall No. 601 was a vote on passage of H.R. 33, to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to specify when certain securities issued in connection with church plans are treated as exempted securities. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 602 was a vote on the Approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, last night this body passed a piece of legislation that takes a first good step toward fixing America's spending problem, toward taking on our spending addiction and addressing the enormous deficits and debt that our Nation faces.

But we all know there's a second component to making sure that we solve this deficit and debt crisis, and that's economic growth. It's jobs. It's allowing the American entrepreneur, the American consumer to have affordable products, and in the case of Kansas, the American farmer and agriculture producer to survive, to continue to do the things that they need to do to feed the world.

I've been in Congress just 6 months now, and I've watched this administration's Environmental Protection Agency act with respect to our agriculture community with radical indifference or, worse, outright hostility. These are folks who are providing affordable food for our entire world, and yet this administration--this administration--seeks to regulate it. It seeks to harass it. It seeks to impose burdens which will cause this great source of wealth for our Nation to leave. I want to talk about that because it's so important for the growth of our Nation and the success of our Nation to continue to have that industry thrive, and I want to talk about some of the things I've seen in just these 6 months.

The American farmer needs energy. The American farmer needs affordable energy. In this morning's Wichita Eagle, our primary utility in western Kansas and south central Kansas said that the utility rules that this administration is about to impose will put them in a place where they cannot comply. Now, I'm not talking about increased costs. We know that this administration has driven higher electricity rates. We're talking about a utility that will not be able to comply with a set of regulations this administration is putting in place. That's not good for the agriculture community in Kansas. They rely on affordable energy.

The examples go on. This administration, under the Clean Air Act, has attempted to regulate dust. Now, I don't know about folks that live out further this way, but in Kansas, on a dry day like today when it's 110 degrees, there's a little bit of dust when you drive your truck down the road. Yet they want to say, no, that's a regulated particulate matter. Where's the common sense?

Today they're changing the clean air rules to take a set of chemicals that are already regulated under a set of regulations that have been in existence for decades and saying, no, we want to add another layer. We want you to now have to be permitted to have these chemicals that have already been demonstrated to be safe in their use in agricultural production.

We've seen what they've tried to do with greenhouse gas regulation as well. We saw this body respond by not giving the President cap-and- trade, and I'm thankful for that. But we've now get the Environmental Protection Agency that's trying to do the same through regulatory fiat. And now the Department of Transportation is chiming in as well, trying to regulate trucks, farm equipment under rules that are normally intended for cross country truckers and trying to regulate them in the same way, putting an additional burden on the agricultural community that has been operating their farm equipment in south central Kansas in an incredibly safe way for decades.

I hope that this administration will reconsider. We cannot continue to drive costs. We cannot continue to regulate the Kansas agricultural community. We cannot harass it into its leaving our country. We know this is important. If we drive up the cost of food, we'll drive up inflation. That's good for no one.

I hope this administration will reconsider, that they'll use some common sense. Our farmers, our agriculture producers want clean air. They make it happen. They need clean water. They ensure that it happens every day. We do not need this administration to harass them into leaving the very profession that is so important to our country.

Madam Speaker, this past week, a great American family retired from service to our Nation. Lieutenant General Bob Durbin and his wife, Diana, spent 36 years in service to our country in the United States Army working with soldiers and their families. On behalf of the United States, I want to thank them both for that service.

This is also something I can speak to personally. Twenty-five years ago, General Durbin was my instructor in leadership at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He taught me there that it's always right to do the harder thing and not take the easier path. He reminded me that when times get tough, as they are here in America today, that real leaders can make real change. And Diana taught me that families with Christ in their hearts can make real changes in our world.

Bob had many assignments during his 36 years in the Army, including command of Kansas' own Big Red One at Fort Riley, Kansas. He was also the first general assigned the daunting task of training the Afghanistan army and police force so that Afghanis may live in peace and security as we do in America.

Bob and Diana, thank you for your service to our Nation. There is no higher praise I can give you than to say, ``Job well done.''

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I just want to say a couple of things quickly.

I had a chance to hear, speaking before me, the gentleman from Oklahoma, who was talking about drilling and service companies. Until just over 6 months ago, I ran one of those small companies. It created energy jobs in Kansas and in Oklahoma and in Midland, Texas, and in Kilgore, Texas, and in all the places where American energy can be produced for American consumers. It's not that hard. This President just makes it so. We know we can have safe, clean, affordable energy produced here in America by American innovators, American businesses and American jobs if we will just do the simple things and get the Federal Government out of the way.

Just a few minutes ago, my colleague from Kansas spoke about a power plant in his district in Kansas that we've been trying to build with clean coal technology. We've been trying to build it for years. It's cleaner than the plant that exists today. It will reduce overall emissions in the State of Kansas; yet this administration and our previous Governor, who is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services, just says, No. Don't produce that energy. Don't

produce that affordable energy so we can build things here in America.

I was just talking to my colleague from Colorado about that very same power plant and what it does to his State, the State of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

I know we're wrapping up here tonight, but I want to talk about one more thing and how the President's policies and his Environmental Protection Agency are destroying jobs in Kansas.

In Kansas' Fourth Congressional District, we build an awful lot of airplanes. They need an awful lot of electricity to build those planes and to run those plants. Our agriculture community also depends on having the EPA out of the way. Today, I sat in a hearing where the Democrats continued to say we need tighter utility regulations, that we need a set of utility rules that will make it almost impossible to build a new utility plant in America. We need that energy. When we don't have that energy, prices and costs for our farmers go up, and that translates very directly. It translates into the cost of food at the table.

When I talk to seniors, they say, Mike, we know what we spend money on. We spend it on the simple things. We spend it on food and energy to heat our homes.

If we keep these policies up, we will be pricing our seniors into a place no one wants them.

It doesn't have to be. We have American energy; we can get it.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I presented would decrease the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by $45.6 million and the funding for DOE's Vehicle Technologies Program.

While I am certainly 100 percent behind innovation and the development of domestic sources of energy and new vehicle technologies, this program is simply not the way to do it. We shouldn't take money from one set of citizens to subsidize companies that, frankly, have had subsidies for too long in the development of new energy vehicle technologies.

Look, it's a subsidy program, plain and simple. The program is part of this present administration's liberal agenda to replace the free market with government bureaucrats in determining which energy sources we ought to use to propel our vehicles and for transportation.

You know, we are already seeing tremendous advances in hybrid technology and electric vehicle technology. In the State of Kansas, we have got folks coming up with wonderful, great, innovative ideas. They are seeking private capital markets to make that innovation happen. We have enormous venture capital firms that have made significant investment in these technologies. Why would the government use taxpayer money to compete with those ventures? They don't need the subsidies. They'll make these things work.

This is a quarter billion dollars in an R&D subsidy in a sector that has received subsidies for decades, and they no longer need that. They are far

along. They can make the progress. They can make these vehicles work. And the market will also choose them when they provide a technology that provides a cost-effective solution for folks who want to drive their vehicles and for companies that want to move their products and goods all across our Nation.

You know, these subsidies come in lots of forms, and I have opposed them in every form. They come in our Tax Code. They come in the form of grants. They come in the form of other programs. Both the House and the Senate have recently rejected tax subsidies for specific fuel purposes already this year. This Vehicle Technologies Program should be no different.

The President today said that we need to eat our peas. I suggest that he was suggesting that we need to do some difficult things. I happen to like peas. But he said we should do some difficult things. This is an easy thing. I would just as soon see this entire technology subsidy go away, but my suggestion here in this amendment is only this: that we return to spending levels from 2008, just 2 short years ago. I, for one, certainly don't believe, and I don't think the folks in Kansas and across this country believe, that we spent too little money on vehicle technology subsidies in 2008.

So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Pompeo

Amendment No. 42: Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $45,641,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $45,641,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Pompeo

Amendment No. 24: Page 62, after line 2, insert the

following new section:

Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to carry out the Vehicle Technologies Program of the

Department of Energy.

Offered By: Mr. Pompeo

Amendment No. 1: Page 62, after line 2, inset the following

new section:

Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to carry out the Vehicle Technologies Program of the

Department of Energy.

Offered By: Mr. Pompeo

Amendment No. 2: Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $254,000,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $254,000,000)''.

I rise in support of this amendment.

As a former business owner, compliance with senseless government regulations was one of my biggest frustrations and, honestly, one of the primary reasons I ran for Congress. But it is impossible to comply with regulations when you get two different interpretations from two different agencies, and that's what we have here with this intellectual property rule.

The PTO and the FDA have established two different standards, and this amendment simply seeks to fix that, to give an identical outcome from two different agencies that resulted from different interpretations of the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984.

Inventors shouldn't have to guess. We can make a clean deadline. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.