Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 24: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 25: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Thank you, Congressman Reed. It is a very timely topic.

I come from western Kansas, and big skies and big dreams, and big visions; and I tell you, we can see an approaching storm brewing sometimes hundreds of miles away. You can see the dark clouds. You can feel the gusting winds. Though the skies are wide open, sometimes it's hard to predict which path the storm will take.

We've heard tonight, and I'll say it again, there is a storm brewing here in Washington that may seem like miles, perhaps hundreds of miles, away; but it's not. Unlike our Kansas storms, it's pretty evident this storm is going to hit America unless this Congress and this President act.

Every American will pay higher taxes next year. Let me rephrase that. Every tax-paying American--because you know half of Americans pay no Federal income taxes. So I'm talking about the half that actually pay. Income and the capital gains rates will go up; the death tax will go up as well. The child tax credit and the standard deduction will decrease. All of this is certain to happen unless we act.

It's been mentioned that this would be the biggest tax increase in American history. I think it actually might be the biggest tax increase in human history. It could be. We'll look forward to those figures. Our economy is just starting to show signs of life again, however weak. Can you imagine what it will mean for the economy if taxes go up at the end of the year? Can you imagine where the stock market is going to go in the final quarter if Congress goes home before the election without acting to extend the lower capital gains rate?

I know my colleague, Colonel West, noted the President might not be a great student of history. Actually, all he has to do is study his own comments and go back less than 2 years ago. The President said, ``You don't raise taxes in a recession.'' That's President Obama, the President of our country, if he could study his own history. I agree with him. I don't agree with him on a lot of things. But he said you don't raise taxes in a recession.

Sure, we might have emerged from a formal definition of a recession, but I

don't think there is anyone out there who believes the economy is growing by leaps or bounds, and I don't think you can shoehorn a massive tax increase onto an already overburdened American economy. You just can't.

America needs and deserves a Tax Code that's not premised on pitting American versus American in a class warfare struggle. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only real solution this President has. The so- called Buffett rule is just a gimmick trying to distract the American people from the reality that he wants the biggest tax increase in American history, and he's going to get it unless we can change this before the end of the year.

I have proposed a bill called the American Opportunity and Freedom Act, which would make permanent the Bush-Obama tax cuts. Yes, the Bush- Obama tax cuts. Look back at history. This President extended the tax cuts. He signed them. They are the Bush-Obama tax cuts.

Remember, he called those tax cuts ``a substantial victory for middle class families.'' This was President Obama out on the campaign trail, today I believe, saying we have to extend these tax cuts. I agree.

I also support comprehensive reform, including the Fair Tax. I think my colleague from Georgia is going to visit about that, I hope. I've cosponsored the Jobs Through Growth Act and numerous other proposals to make our Tax Code fairer, flatter, and more simple.

The bottom line is we need to do something now. Our Tax Code should not outpace the Bible in number of words. It certainly doesn't outpace the Bible in wisdom, and families shouldn't have to read 100-page booklets to fill out their tax return. I'm told if you call the IRS one hour, you call the next hour, you call another hour later, you will get a different answer every time you call in, because even the folks who are implementing the Tax Code, they don't know what the answer is.

Americans out there are just trying to do the right thing, trying to do their fair share, Mr. President. Your IRS agents can't even tell them the right or same answer.

The most fundamental purpose of the Tax Code is to raise enough revenue in order to fund essential functions that fall within the purview of government.

I just got off a Skype phone call with fourth and fifth graders in Peoria, Kansas. They had a lot of great questions. I thought the best question was from a young man who said, Why are taxes so high? Of course, he probably doesn't pay much taxes. He probably heard that at home. The answer I gave him was this: because we spend too much money, and on top of that, we borrow another $1.1 trillion under the Obama budget. So not only are taxes high; they're still borrowing money so they can spend it. It comes down to how much we spend.

I think we can agree that Washington's problem isn't not enough revenue, it's too much spending.

Washington has created this storm. But unlike the tornadoes that sweep across the plains, we have an opportunity to avoid the devastating consequences of the approaching storm that's coming at the end of this year.

I'm excited to be here to talk about that because I must tell you, I am optimistic. We can solve this problem. We can take advantage of the approaching storm, actually do comprehensive tax reform that can change the future for all Americans. We can pull this economy out of the doldrums, go back to the days when the economy actually grew, when jobs were being created.

But in today's environment, the uncertainty created by this administration and by a tax law that's not permanent, that is dragging down our economy. We can't avoid that, and we can do much better. I'm happy to be here tonight to talk about that.

If I might ask you a question, Have you read the entire Tax Code?

It would probably be my guess that there isn't a colleague of ours that has read this Tax Code. Now, there are probably some special attorneys in this town that claim to have read that whole Tax Code. As you mentioned, how many pages?

Seventy thousand pages. It's my understanding it's 3\1/2\ times the size of the Bible perhaps, longer than all of Shakespeare's works, and it's all about to be centralizing power in Washington.

We have a grand opportunity, I agree. With challenges come opportunities. We have a tremendous opportunity, and it will have to be a bipartisan opportunity. I agree with you. We have to have the President propose a solution and his only solution right now is let's just raise taxes.

If he does nothing, if he refuses to help us make America more competitive, if he refuses to help us, we'll have, as you mentioned, the single largest tax increase in American history. We can't stop it if he's not willing to help out, but I think the American people are demanding comprehensive tax reform. They're demanding us to get this right because we cannot afford the massive tax increases in the current law. I am very fearful about that, but I am optimistic that we can and will do the right thing.

I've got a friend of mine in Junction City, Kansas. I met him at a town hall. His name is Tom, and he's a small business owner. He said, You know, I'm going to start a small business--or I would--but because of those tax increases at the end of the year, I'm not going to do that. He said, I would have hired seven people. Those seven people not hired in Junction City, Kansas, don't show up on any list, but they show up in Junction City as seven more people--seven families--that don't have the income they need, and they probably end up having to have some government assistance or having to get help from their churches and their neighbors. Those are the things that get lost.

We can't forget in this town that it's not about us, that it's not about special interests. It's about the American people and about getting this economy going again. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about that. The common goal of those of us sitting in the Chamber tonight is to get this economy moving again and to actually be competitive internationally. I appreciate your leadership on that, Congressman Reed. You are doing a fantastic job here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my frustration with ABC News' muckraking ``journalism'' that has forced the closure of a plant employing more than 200 people in my district.

What we have before us is a perfect example of mainstream media completely disconnected from reality. In a quest for accolades and attention, reporters, talking heads, and morning talk show hosts at ABC have made it their intention to drive Beef Products, Inc. (BPI) out of business. And they may have succeeded. Despite developing a process that adds approximately $15 of value to each head of cattle processed, and providing safe, healthy, lean meat for more than 300 billion meals, BPI is being forced to close the doors of its plant in Finney County, Kansas.

But while the reporters, producers, and executives at ABC move on to their next ``public interest'' story as questions of finely textured lean beef fade into the background, the same cannot be said of employees at BPI. It is ironic that a perfectly good ``public interest'' story for them to cover is the loss of hundreds of jobs for people in my district and from the three other BPI plants across the country. But doing so would bring too much attention to ABC's role in causing these people to lose their jobs.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker--finely textured lean beef is just that: beef. In terms of meat content, it is no different from the steak being served at Charlie Palmer's, or the hamburger at Five Guys. It's not scrap, filler, or substitute. It's beef.

And it's safe to eat. While much has been made of the use of ammonia to treat the meat once it is processed, it has not been, and should not be a safety concern. This process has been approved by the USDA on a whole host of food products, including meat, cheeses, chocolate, pudding, condiments, and beverages to prevent food-borne diseases.

Not once, in nearly 20 years of production, has there ever been a report of e.coli or other food-borne illness resulting from finely textured lean beef. It is safe, healthy and only being vilified because someone thought it might win them an award.

It is my hope that the American people will not be so easily fooled in the future, and will explore the facts for themselves, rather than allowing a news organization, on a crusade to win awards, take down a safe, successful company providing good jobs for hundreds of Americans.

I appreciate the hard work of my colleague from New Jersey.

Today I rise in proud support of the RSC budget that we're discussing here today. This budget offers a clear vision for fiscal responsibility and limited government as well as a path toward accomplishing that vision.

In just 3 days, the United States will have the highest corporate business tax rate in the world. In a matter of months, every American, every business owner and every investor will be subject to higher taxes as a result of the expiration of the Bush-Obama tax cuts. That's right, the Bush-Obama tax cuts will expire.

This budget addresses these looming challenges not only by proposing to lower tax rates, but it also includes the ticket to make them a reality with reconciliation instructions that require Congress to vote before September 15 on comprehensive tax reform that will actually create jobs in America.

On another note, this budget vastly improves Medicare and helps our most needy. The costs of this program are consuming our already cash- strapped Federal and State coffers. In many States, it's not uncommon to spend more on Medicaid than on K 12 education. In converting Medicaid to a block grant program, we will enhance State-level accountability, respect the 10th Amendment, and give States the freedom, flexibility and, yes, accountability they need in order to serve their citizens better at the local and State level.

I urge all my colleagues to support this budget as the answer to accomplishing America's priorities of cutting spending, keeping taxes low, creating jobs, and balancing our budget in a matter of years, not decades.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to the budget offered by my colleague, Mr. Van Hollen.

Then-Senator Obama, when campaigning for President, called President Bush unpatriotic for raising our national debt by $4 trillion in 8 years, a figure he has surpassed in less than 4 years.

When then-Senator Obama voted against a debt limit increase he said, Leadership means the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I agree with Senator Obama. If he believes this type of leadership was a failure and unpatriotic, then certainly so too should he think that about his budget and this budget here, for this budget would leave the U.S. with nearly $25 trillion of debt by the end of 2022, despite a massive tax increase of $1.7 trillion.

And despite the increase, this budget does not balance within the next 10 years, the next 20 years, and not even in 75 years. We can't wait. We can't wait, Mr. Chairman. We can't wait to balance the budget for 75 years.

Now more than ever, America needs leadership. As Senator Obama said, we cannot put the failures of today on the backs of the next generation. I agree, Senator Obama. So I reject this budget for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Thank you, Congressman. It's a pleasure to stand with you today. It is a pleasure to be here. But it is a real shock to see what is happening today.

I would agree with the comments of my colleague and many others. I must admit--and I guess in today's environment it is an admission. I must admit I am Roman Catholic. This issue is not about what faith you call your own. This issue is about our religious freedoms, whichever we choose.

Who would have thought of an administration that would identify and select a certain group and say, We are going to violate their conscience? We knew this was coming. We knew this was coming.

I'm reminded of a few quotes that I've heard in the last few months-- actually, in the last few years--a famous quote that was already used previously, that we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it, the former Speaker of this House. We're finding out what was in it. We found out many things that we did know were in it.

Actually, when this was debated on the Senate side, there was an attempt by our leadership, Republican leadership, that said, no, let's make certain that this doesn't happen. This was anticipated by this administration, I believe, to attempt to violate the conscience of millions and millions of Americans, and yet they continued forward with that.

We also found out that, once we read the bill and it was passed--or passed and then read it--that this administration, the HHS Secretary who we talk about, Kathleen Sebelius, began to give waivers and said, well, it applies to some groups and not others. If you happen to know the Secretary or happen to be from the right district or happen to work for the right company, you can find a waiver, and I remember speaking out about it. What I didn't anticipate was having to ask a waiver to actually have your beliefs, still hold those in America. Who would have thought that we'd have to get permission from the President of the United States and his Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, for permission to believe what I believe? That's shocking.

As I mentioned, I am a Catholic, and Pope Benedict XVI a few months ago said that freedom of religion is the most American of all freedoms. And I think about the thousands of folks that have served in this Chamber, that have walked up here and fought for our freedoms and spoke on the floor for them; they would have never guessed that if you are of a particular group--in this case, Catholic, and others that disagree with this administration--you would have to pay a fine to actually disagree with them.

Congressman, you have showed a real civil rights leader in the history of our country, Martin Luther King. One of his other tremendous quotes was that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That didn't just apply to his beliefs. He thought it applied to all Americans. But what is shocking to me is that we have a President who disregards basic American freedoms and is willing, somehow--it's just shocking to me that he's willing to risk his election, to alienate folks because of what he's attempting to impose. But that's what we expect from ObamaCare. That's what we expect from his health care plan, because it is government mandates. It is government control.

As the Attorney General of Virginia said, the President's health care plan, the debate over that is not about health care. The fundamental issue is liberty. And that's what we're finding out right here.

I call upon this President, I call upon Kathleen Sebelius, please, reach deep down into your soul, and also think about your next election. Because we know if this rolls back, it's about the next election. But we don't care about the next election. Americans care about their freedoms and liberties.

I want to thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention. We've been fighting this on many routes, and I think it's just absolutely critical. I thank you for your efforts, and, hopefully, we will recall those words: An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

That is an excellent idea I guess we would expect from

the administration, but, fundamentally, that is favoritism. That is picking who gets to believe what. And as previous colleagues talked about escaping, immigrants that came to this country came here for this particular reason, to avoid paying a fine for what they believed. That's exactly what we are being forced to do.

Do we get permission from the President not to pay the fine? Do we get a waiver? Well, how do we accommodate religious freedom, Mr. President? How do we accommodate that, Secretary Sebelius? How do we balance? It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution we're going to balance what you want with our freedoms.

The First Amendment is very clear. And the first part of the First Amendment is the freedom to believe in the God as we choose. And I appreciate and thank you for that.

I'll do this. Let's ask for a waiver for everybody in America to actually get a waiver so we can believe what we want to believe. I would ask for that as well.

So thank you, Congressman, for your leadership, and we will continue to join you in this effort.

Madam Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act.

The first step in treating an addiction is admitting you have a problem. An addict has to be honest with himself before he can overcome his dependence. In that same vein, Washington needs to be honest about its addiction to overspending, and this bill will force Washington to do just that. It will force Washington to be honest, not only with itself but, more importantly, with the American people.

By bringing Fannie and Freddie on budget, Washington will be honest that these expensive programs have become the financial responsibility of the Federal Government. By requiring risk to be assessed and accounted for in loans or loan guarantees, Washington will be honest about the gains or losses taxpayers can anticipate. And by requiring every agency to post their budget requests online, Washington will have to be honest with the American taxpayers about where their money goes.

A lot of honesty is needed now, Madam Chairman, but a little bit will go a long way in restoring the trust of the American people and the fiscal discipline of Washington.

Can we restore the trust of the American people? Yes, we can. Can we restore fiscal discipline in Washington? Yes, we can. Yes, we will, with passage of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. Just yesterday, the Budget Committee had the opportunity to question the CBO Director about the impact of the President's stimulus on the economy. A few months earlier, his office and mine had a very public debate about the impact of government spending on the economy. When asked to identify a single program, one single program that positively impacted the economy, the CBO could not identify one program.

Then, during the Budget Committee hearing, I asked the Director, is it fair to say that the massive spending of 2009 did not benefit the economy? He said, and I quote: ``The extra government spending from the Recovery Act in 2009 boosted the economy in the short term, but we believe, unless there are offsetting changes, the economy will be worse off.'' From the CBO.

Legislation like the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act will require the CBO to undertake a full analysis of every major legislation, including impacts on the employment and labor supply. Had the previous Congress been able to review the long-term impacts and consequences of a $1 trillion stimulus boondoggle, perhaps our economy would be better off today. Perhaps the more than 20 million Americans--that's right, 20 million Americans--who are unemployed or underemployed would actually have a job.

Those who care solely about the short-term concern themselves with political gain at the expense of the future. Today I ask my colleagues to support this legislation because they care about the long term, about the next generation, even if it means their short-term political gains cannot be realized.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the resolution offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Florida. The jaws of the people I represent drop when I inform them that 1,000 days have passed since the Senate actually passed a budget; 1,000 days since Democrat Harry Reid allowed a budget to actually be debated. They can't believe that such a failure of duty has occurred, yet alone that it can occur.

Two weeks ago I hosted a town hall in Clay Center, Kansas, and a constituent asked: How is it possible for the Senate to not pass a budget? As the constituent correctly pointed out, you can't run a city, a State, or a business this way. Washington seems to be the only place in the world where reality doesn't apply. Perhaps it's fitting that the President traveled to the most magical place on earth--Disney World-- last week. He is complicit with allowing the Senate Democrats to live out a fairy tale in which fiscal policy is carried out on a whim.

Not only do cities, States, and businesses not function without budgets, but American families cannot get ahead without them. Families who face mountains of debt, like Washington does, never erased the red ink without a plan to pay it down or a plan to stop adding to it. Families who want to save and invest for the future cannot do so without a budget. Families who want to leave a legacy for their children and grandchildren come up with a blueprint to do so. And in the same regard, we should be focused on the legacy Washington is leaving for our children and grandchildren, Mr. President and Mr. Reid. We cannot wait.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to raising the debt limit again and again and again.

Last week, I traveled across the First Congressional District of Kansas to host seven town hall meetings. Kansans reiterated the same thing I heard in 70 town halls last year--overspending, over- regulation, and yes, overtaxing must end now.

Kansans are not concerned about the next election, like most in Washington seem to be. They are worried about the next generation.

Between the first day this President took office and today, debt has grown by $4.6 trillion. As a comparison, it took from George Washington to Bill Clinton to build up that much debt. And now the President wants another $1.2 trillion. But unfortunately, the real battle to prohibit this $1.2 trillion mortgage on our children's future was lost 5 months ago when the House passed the Budget Control Act. Since the Budget Control Act passed, the Congress has failed to produce any cuts from the supercommittee. We have failed to pass a balanced budget amendment. And Senator Reid not only refuses to pass but even to consider a budget.

However, those recent failures don't paint the picture. The culture of overspending in Washington for the past half century has led us to where we are today. Every President has refused to balance the budget. Every Member of Congress who advocated for their pet projects, every bureaucrat who practiced a use-it-or-lose-it mentality, every special interest who came to us, everyone, they are all to blame for where we stand today.

Our national debt is equal to our GDP. When this debt limit is reached, every man, woman, and child in America will have their own debt to pay to Washington of $50,000, and this doesn't take into account the mountains of debt we face for future runaway entitlement programs.

I look around this body, this is not about us. This is about our children and grandchildren who will have to pay this back. Unless and until Washington can get its grip on reckless spending and borrowing, the future of our country will remain on the line.

Mr. Speaker, as I have traveled across the First District of Kansas to host more than 70 in-person town hall meetings during my first 10 months here in Congress, constituents have reaffirmed our shared belief that Washington cannot be everything to everybody and nor should it be. They have told me they can and want to do more with less. They know that the more Washington spends today, the more their children and grandchildren will have to pay back in the future, and likely to a foreign nation.

And while they scale back their expectations, they want Washington to scale back what it asks them to do. The ever-tightening grip and imposition of the Federal bureaucracy's expensive, counterproductive, and unnecessary burdens are killing America's agriculture industry. Today, I will introduce the FARM Act of 2011--Freeing Agriculture to Reap More Act. I am unveiling it today in light of the pending ag discussions we hear are occurring in the supercommittee.

The FARM Act reflects the conversations I have had with constituents and farm groups all across the First District and addresses their concerns about the economic impacts of overregulation. In essence, the FARM Act adds a regulatory title to the farm bill. Given the consequences of overregulation, it merits its own title amid others like trade, research, conservation, or farm credit.

Farmers and ranchers arguably pay some of the largest costs for Washington's crushing burden of overregulation. Whether it is on youth involvement on family farms, pesticide application permits, greenhouse gases, farm dust, farm commercial vehicles, fuel hauling limitations for farm equipment, or livestock emissions taxes, the Federal Government continues to insist that it control the intricate, day-to- day affairs of America's agriculture community. The FARM Act prohibits this regulatory overreach.

Kansas' family farms do not need Washington writing detailed instruction manuals for them on how much fuel they can or cannot put in their tractors. They do not need Washington prohibiting them from teaching their own children the value and importance of hard work by allowing them to work a few hours on the farm. And they most certainly do not need Washington imposing taxes on them for supposed greenhouse gases emitted by their livestock. No, they need Washington to let them run their operations in the safe and responsible, yet productive, ways they have done for generations. The FARM Act allows our family farms to continue the family tradition without fear of expensive and unnecessary regulations.

Like the families that live and the farms that operate in rural America, small towns in the First District of Kansas also have no need for additional instruction from Washington. That is why the FARM Act prohibits funding for the newly established White House Rural Council. Rural communities are the embodiment of family and entrepreneurial freedom, and this council seeks to replace that freedom with centralized planning schemes. We simply cannot afford more of the President's failed approaches.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the FARM Act of 2011. It's time to stop the overregulation of America's farmers, ranchers, ag communities, and rural America. It's time to put an end to Washington's distrust of America's growers, ranchers, and producers, as well as all of rural America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today, as the father of four adopted children, to offer my strong support for the Protect Life Act.

Opponents of this bill allege it is unconstitutional, and that is simply not true. While the Supreme Court has wrongfully decided abortion is a constitutional right, they have also clearly upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment and the language in this bill.

Madam Speaker, this is not revolutionary, earth-shaking legislation we are considering. I would like to see Congress go much further in protecting life.

We should not be funding the abortions in the District. We should be protecting conscience rights for health care providers. We should stop giving money to organizations like Planned Parenthood. We should be ending the practice of abortion in America.

This bill is an important step, but more certainly needs to be done. I urge my colleagues to protect life and support this bill in honor of all adopted children, their birth families, and their adoptive families.

I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you on the floor today.

Every day that goes by without these agreements is a missed opportunity. Hundreds of missed opportunities have passed because of years of delay, which is why we cannot afford to waste one more day. The fact is, today in South Korea, for example, beef costs nearly $24 a pound. Pork costs nearly $10 a pound. These facts can only work to the mutual benefit of both U.S. producers and Korean consumers.

When America is starved for jobs and economic growth, agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea present an occasion for Washington to address these challenges. Up to a quarter million new jobs and a hundred billion-dollar boost to the country's GDP are glimmers of hope in what is otherwise a bleak economic outlook. And not a dime of taxpayer money has to be spent to create good American jobs.

For America to be part of the 21st-century economy, it is not enough to simply buy American. We have to sell American. America's safe and efficient ag, energy, and manufacturing production makes the U.S. an attractive trading partner. Americans can compete, and we can win.

When the Ambassador of Vietnam to the United States toured a hog farm in my district in August, he was both impressed and astonished by the safety and cleanliness of our facilities. That signaled to me that America, and Kansas in particular, has much to offer the world.

In sum, these agreements are an opportunity for a nation seeking more affordable and safe goods and an opportunity for our Nation to benefit with jobs and economic growth. I urge my colleagues to move quickly and join me in supporting this rule and the underlying agreements. We need the jobs, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky yielding to me on this very important legislation.

At a time when 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, the last thing Washington needs to be doing is making it more difficult to grow the economy. But that seems to be the operating question of this administration. The question is this: They ask, how can we make it more challenging for America's job creators to hire?

America's energy sector is under direct assault. Energy companies looking to meet the rapidly growing energy needs of our Nation are either being forced to put on hold their efforts or are self-imposing barricades on future construction or expansion as a result of new or anticipated regulatory requirements.

It has been reported recently that 351 stalled energy projects cost the Nation $1.1 trillion in GDP and 1.9 million jobs, yes, jobs. On this list is the Sunflower Electric Power Plant in Holcomb, Kansas. Sunflower Electric is a rural co-op that with a needed expansion can provide many new jobs in western Kansas.

Most importantly, this expansion will allow Kansas to have the energy it needs in order to prevent brownouts, which are a very real possibility and a threat to our part of the country. Not

only do families, schools, and hospitals depend on this energy production but. So does our agriculture sector, which is a key and vital component of rural Kansas.

Sunflower faces considerable, unnecessary, and excessive regulatory scrutiny, not only for its existing operations but for the planned expansion in Holcomb as well. Whether it is the cross-State pollution rule, the MACT rule or many others, each one of these has a major impact. But the bigger problem--and that is what the TRAIN Act wants to demonstrate--is that these rules will be devastating and expensive to America's energy industry and all Americans.

The President came before this House a few weeks ago and talked about the need for America to improve its infrastructure. Power plants in America are the very type of infrastructure that our country needs, particularly when energy consumption is growing rapidly in our Nation. These private companies, private companies, are willing to add to the country's infrastructure and create jobs, all without the help of the Federal Government. In fact, all they need is for Washington to take a step back.

A Kansas business leader summed up this administration's guilty- until-innocent approach to regulation. He said, ``We have a regulatory environment that assumes businesses are crooks, and government must catch them at it. This only raises the costs on business and makes it more difficult to operate.''

I think his analysis says it all.