Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I appreciate the good job of leadership that he is providing on this issue.

I think a question seems to be resonating here and that is, who is going to look out for U.S. jobs? I think that is a very good question. Here we have on one side Westinghouse, who is working as an American company, a conglomerate, with other corporations trying to build some of the product to be able to export that product in order to create jobs here in America and provide something to China that they are going to get one way or another.

What are the options of that? Well, we can ignore the opportunities we have for American jobs. We can say, let us give the jobs to France. France is also bidding on this. Let France have the jobs.

We have a good example of how France is gaining ground on us in the aircraft industry. They have a government that is willing to do what is necessary in order to move the aerospace industry in France forward. And here we have an opportunity to move forward with the technology that we happen to have that other countries want. So we can either create the jobs here or we can allow them to be created in France. Or there is the other Russia company that is bidding on it as well. We could let the jobs be created in Russia.

So who is looking out for U.S. jobs? This supply of finance from the Export-Import Bank would meet all the guidelines that have been established and it would provide the funding for an American company to move forward and make jobs for here in America. And that is a good motive. But the overall question is, what is Congress going to do about United States jobs?

We hear a lot about outsourcing American jobs. Nobody ever stops to say, why are we outsourcing American jobs? We keep putting barriers in place for American jobs to be created. Here is a good example. We could have Westinghouse jobs or we could have French and Russian jobs. But it goes beyond that.

Congress has created barriers over the last generation that have driven this economy to a very difficult point. Our trade deficit was $670 billion last year. Our Federal deficit is going to be about $300 billion this year. And we are seeing the loss, the outsourcing of high- quality, high-paying jobs.

If you look at what we have done here in Congress, we have created barriers that have made it difficult for people who create jobs. Health care policy, driven largely by Medicaid and Medicare, is a socialist health care policy that has driven a whole lot of paperwork and a whole lot of unnecessary practices. For example, the Hospital Association in Kansas says for every hour of health care it takes an hour of paperwork to comply with it.

We have litigation here that drives up the cost of building products here. We have regulation that costs $8,000 for every American worker, 12 percent of every product driven up by Congress' rules, and that pushing jobs overseas.

Our tax policy ends up on the bottom line of our products. Our energy policy, that cannot to make law. We could create 700,000 American jobs but we cannot get an energy bill through the Senate. We have trade policy that is unenforced. When there is a violation of our trade policy, we do not get the proper support.

The one thing that we have a surplus of in this country that we do not export is lawsuits. The only way you export lawsuits is through trade policy. You have got to have a trade policy in place to do that.

We also need to improve our research and development and our lifelong learning, but we have got to protect American jobs and this is one way to do that.

I just want to finish this up by saying, we could do a lot in Congress to create an environment here in the U.S. that would keep and create jobs, but we put barrier after barrier in place, and here is one more opportunity for us to drive jobs to France, give the jobs to France.

Let's say no, let us not do it this time. Let us oppose this amendment. Let us support Westinghouse. Let us do something for an American company for once. Just because it has the name China as the destination for the product we shouldn't go into shock. That is not the point.

The point is American jobs, either you will have them in Westinghouse, or you will have them in Russia or you will have them in France. I say bring the jobs back to America. Let us remove these barriers that we have put in place. Let us create jobs in America. We can do it and we can do it today by defeating this amendment.

I thank the Chairman Kolbe for doing a fine job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2475, ``The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006''. I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan for yielding me this time.

For almost 4 years, the U.S. Intelligence Community has been at the forefront of the Global War on Terror. Working long hours, under often primitive conditions, the men and women of the Intelligence Community have performed spectacularly under the most stressing of operational tempos. The legislation before us today authorizes the funding necessary to support the men and women of the Intelligence Community and to keep our country safe. However, a sufficient balance must be maintained between fighting terror and maintaining global awareness of emerging threats. Therefore, the legislation before us lays the budgetary and programmatic groundwork that will ensure that the U.S. Intelligence Community is prepared and able to face the challenges and national security threats of the future.

First and foremost, this legislation provides the appropriate balance between technical, human and open source collection.

This bill provides sufficient funds to ensure that the U.S. retains its technical collection edge for the next 20 years. It also increases the resources necessary to provide a strong, global human and open source intelligence collection capability. Achieving this balance required some hard choices on several highly regarded technical collection systems, however, the Committee was able to reach bipartisan consensus on the need to eliminate some redundant or outdated systems.

Second, this legislation strengthens innovation across the Intelligence Community.

The legislation includes a significant increase in the resources devoted to advanced research and technology development including increased funding for new sensors and platforms, data mining and information assurance technologies. To ensure that these resources are used wisely, this legislation also strengthens the authorities and responsibilities of the Intelligence Community's Chief Scientist.

Third, this legislation revitalizes our intelligence analysis and production capabilities.

Our intelligence community analysts are frequently asked to turn fragmentary and seemingly random puzzle pieces into a coherent picture. To help bring the picture into focus, this legislation provides for improved training opportunities (particularly for languages), new analytic tools, increased personnel and better tools to enable information sharing.

Fourth and finally, this legislation continues the efforts begun in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to strengthen and define the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence.

The Intelligence Community is our first-line of defense against an elusive and unstructured threat that has shown willingness to harm America. It is vital that this community has the resources and authorities necessary to effectively target both the terrorist threats of today as well as new threats of tomorrow. H.R. 2475 provides those resources.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation in the bipartisan manner that our national security efforts demand.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman Hunter's amendment upholding religious freedom at the United States Air Force Academy. Protecting the religious freedom of our military cadets and service members is critically important to me, and should be critically important to this Congress.

During full committee consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Ranking Member Obey inserted a provision condemning the Air Force, the Air Force Academy and its Cadets. The allegations on which this provision is based have not been substantiated by any credible source. They are simply rumors advanced by a very few disgruntled individuals.

Nonetheless, the Air Force has taken these allegations very seriously since they were made in late April. First, the Academy established a new mandatory course to encourage respect for all religions. Second, the Air Force launched several investigations. These investigations are still ongoing and a report is expected shortly. The task force charged with looking into these allegations has been directed to assess:

(1) Air Force and USAFA policy and guidance on the subject of religious respect and tolerance.

(2) The appropriateness of relevant training, for the cadet wing, faculty, and staff.

(3) The religious climate and assessment tools used at USAFA.

(4) The effectiveness of USAFA mechanisms to address complaints on this subject, to include the chain of command, the Academy's Inspector General and the Military Equal Opportunity office.

(5) The practices of the chain of command, faculty, staff or cadet wing that either enhance or detract from a climate that respects both the ``free exercise of religion'' and the ``establishment'' clauses of the First Amendment.

(6) The relevance of the religious climate at the USAFA to the entire Air Force.

Additionally, the Task Force's final assessment will include an Air Force Inspector General report on the removal of Air Force Captain Melinda Morton from her position at the Academy.

The Air Force has made progress to ensure that no one feels pressure from religious groups, and is continuing these efforts. This final report should be released in the next couple of weeks. I have full confidence that this report will provide a thorough and complete report as to the truth of these rumors.

Congress must reserve judgment until all of the facts are revealed. The Air Force has yet to tell its side of the story. Until they do, we do not know what actually happened in Colorado Springs. For this House to condemn the Air Force and the Academy at this time, before all the information is available, is wrong. This provision simply has no place in an otherwise tremendous bill.

The Obey provision is all the more disappointing because men and women in our Nation's Air Force have sacrificed immeasurable blood and treasure to protect the principles of freedom and liberty. Today, we are engaged in a global war on terrorism--aimed directly at our Nation's democracy and core values. Our young men and women are fighting and dying for these freedoms. It is wrong for Congress to chip away at the very freedoms these heroes are shedding their own blood to protect.

When a young man or woman stands up to fight for this country, he or she does not surrender his or her Constitutional rights. The men and women of our military have the right to freely practice their religion, and Congress has a solemn duty to fight to protect their rights.

I would ask my colleagues to join me in support of Chairman Hunter's amendment. The Obey provision is wrong. It is bad policy, and it is misguided, and it is inappropriate. Congress should wait to act until we have all the facts. Please stand up for the Air Force, the Academy, the Cadets, and the First Amendment that guarantees every American the freedom of religion. Vote to the Hunter Amendment.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter

Mr. Speaker, today America has the number one economy in the world. It is the envy of the world. But there are dark clouds in the West, and an economic storm is brewing.

Last year our trade deficit was over $670 billion, our Federal deficit was over $300 billion, and our economy lost many high-quality, high-paying jobs. Many in Congress have blamed big corporations for letting profits outweigh people. They have called the CEOs Benedict Arnold CEOs.

Mr. Speaker, I think these Members are wrong and misguided. There are two divisions of costs for those who keep and create jobs in America. Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, small businesswomen and CEOs have costs they can control and costs they cannot control. It is the costs that they cannot control that have been driven by Congress. Barriers have been created by Congress over the last generation. Good intentions resulting in bad regulation has caused us to lose many of our jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I am forming the Economic Competitive Caucus to deal with these issues by removing these barriers. With my colleagues' help, we will remove the barriers, bring back jobs, and make America competitive well into the future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just take a few minutes to tell you that I had intended to offer and withdraw an amendment today. It is brief, but very important for the future of the United States. The amendment would have simply said none of the funds made available in this act should be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of the effects of such regulations on the competitiveness of American business.

The reason this is important is because today the American economy is number one in the world, and it is the envy of the world. But there are some troubling signs. We have a trade deficit last year of $670 billion. This year's Federal deficit is down, but it is still over $300 billion.

We have seen high-paying, high-quality jobs move overseas. Now, these signs should concern Members of Congress, but should not surprise them, because over the last generation, legislation has been passed on the floor of this House that has put our number one standing in jeopardy and caused us to struggle to keep our economy as number one in the world, and clearly it is in jeopardy.

Legislation that has become law and then become regulation is forcing this struggle to occur within our economy. Regulations are one of the eight issues that we hope to address this year to help make America more competitive. These issues are actually barriers that keep us from keeping and creating jobs here in America. In addition to the regulations, we also want to address health care issues, education issues, research and development issues, energy policy issues, trade policy, tax policy and lawsuit abuse issues.

Today, though, I wanted to focus on regulations because it drives such a burden and barrier to our economy. First, though, I want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and acknowledge what a great job the gentleman has done on this bill to make sure our competitiveness is addressed.

First of all, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) placed the National Science Foundation as a priority in the tight fiscal year with an increase of $44 million above the President's request.

The report language says America's advantage in science, math and technology is slipping. Our systems of basic scientific research and education are in crisis. While our countries are redoubling their efforts, the United States can remain the world's technology leader if it makes the commitment to do so.

It also has $3 million for the International Trade Administration and the Department of Commerce for the Office of China Compliance. And we need to continue our efforts to make sure that there is no antidumping policies going on through the Chinese Government.

With this bill we give the agencies with oversight of our science and technology policy and trade policy, commerce and small business development the tools to help American employers improve their competitiveness. Now we need to make sure they follow through with policies that reflect Congress' priorities.

It is my hope that each and every Federal agency should take into consideration the proposed policies on competitiveness of U.S. business and be held accountable for those effects.

To give you just a small idea how difficult it is because of regulations to start a business in America, I went to the Small Business Administration Web site, and I just listed some of the things that they have as what you need to consider before you start a business. First you need to get a business license; that could be your State, county or city. You should go to their Web site.

There is then a certificate of occupancy. That is also a city and county zoning problem. There is business organization, whether you are a sole proprietor, a partnership, a corporation, or a limited liability company. Then you have to register your trade name.

Then you have to apply for trademarks, patents, and copyrights. If it is a trademark, it is a State registration and a Federal registration through the Department of Commerce. If it is a patent issue, it is to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. If it is a copyright, you go to the U.S. Library of Congress. If it is tax information, you have Federal taxes, you have State taxes, you have local taxes. There is also self-employment tax. There is business insurance, sales tax numbers; and it just goes on and on, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to tell my colleagues it is difficult to start businesses here. We have to stop creating barriers and remove them so that America can be competitive in the future and so that we can retain our number one standing.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we have the number one economy in the world. It is the envy of the world. But we are looking at some signs that I think indicate a long-term problem. Where will this economy and this country be 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now? We have a lot going on around the world as far as other countries trying to develop a stronger economy, looking forward, eliminating the barriers that were created by their own governments, so that they can keep and create jobs in their own country and outside the United States.

Last year our trade deficit was $670 billion. This year it looks like our Federal deficit is going to be down from the projected $375 billion to down around $300 billion. But still that is a lot of money. Even though we have seen some good things happen because of the tax relief that President Bush pushed and was passed by the House and Senate, we still need to look forward and see how we are going to create a strong economy, not only in the agricultural area, but in all facets of the United States.

Right now we know that in the agricultural community regulatory costs are creating problems down on the farm. We already know that less government regulation not only means granting freedom to allow Americans to pursue their dreams; it also means providing the space for businesses to thrive in agricultural areas and creating more jobs in those same areas communities. Instead, our Federal Government has become a creeping ivy of regulations that strangle enterprise and that makes it more difficult to keep and create jobs in rural America.

Unrealistic and unnecessary prohibitions, along with burdensome mandates, are creating difficulties for our farmers, ranchers, and those involved in the agricultural industry. How can we expect our agriculture economy to develop and grow when bureaucracy prevents farm businesses from starting or expanding? With the decreasing numbers of farms and the growing average age of farmers, we need to be doing everything we can to eliminate the barricades farmers and ranchers face so that, as they provide the food to feed our Nation and the world, they can do so in an easier fashion.

One area where the United States Department of Agriculture has an opportunity to reduce burdens for the private industry is in the area of national animal identification. I know there is concern among private industry that implementing a national system to track cattle and other animals will end up creating huge costs that will get passed on back to the producer. There is even greater concern among the private industry that there will be no value added to the end product, despite the increased costs associated with implementing an animal identification program.

As the Department of Agriculture looks at implementing national animal ID, I think they should work closely with industry to find a private solution to help pay for the costs associated with creating such a vast and complex system.

While working with State governments and universities is an important process, I hope that USDA will be forward-thinking in forging public- private partnerships to pursue market solutions that will help producers recover costs associated with implementing technology needed for animal identification.

I believe that anytime that we can provide support through private initiatives that will deliver objectives sought by the Federal Government, I

think we should jump at the opportunity to forge these partnerships and create a win-win-win situation, for the government, for the taxpayer and for industry.

Each and every Federal agency should take into consideration the effect proposed policies will have on competitiveness of U.S. businesses, including farms and ranches.

I plan to withdraw this amendment today because I am very encouraged by the forward thinking of our subcommittee chairman on agriculture in appropriations, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla). I believe we can work together and strengthen farmers and ranchers and agriculture businesses financially through less regulation.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in this legislation, the Military Quality of Life and VA appropriations, much of the work, especially for construction and maintenance, are governed by rules and regulations. A good example of the problem this can create occurred in Wichita, Kansas, not too long ago

when OSHA targeted the Wichita area building and construction industry.

Through the threat of citations and fines, they literally shut down all of the work going on in the area of home building. What I did was go back to the Wichita area and I met with OSHA and the area home builders, and I found out they both had the same goal. That goal was to see that the workplace was safe. So by bringing them together, they worked out an agreement that they would work together, instead of assessing fines and citations, and create a better work environment, a safe work environment, and they were successful.

Only recently have I found that the OSHA department here in Washington wants to renege on that agreement and can no longer sustain the concept of working together to have a safe workplace. Instead, they are going to continue on an adversarial relationship. That brings me to the point that I want to stress with this amendment, and that is if we would work together, the Federal Government and the private sector, we could be much more successful in achieving the goals that both want.

Mr. Chairman, less regulation and working together means granting the freedom to allow Americans to pursue their dreams. It also provides the space for businesses to thrive and create more jobs. Regulations promulgated by the Federal Government often become a creeping ivy of regulations that strangle enterprise. The unrealistic and impractical environment that OSHA mandates create are literally driving our industries and small businesses and our health care system to a grinding halt.

How can we expect our economy to develop and grow when bureaucracy prevents businesses from starting and expanding. It is estimated today that the total regulatory burden is about $850 billion a year. That is $850 billion that could go toward creating more jobs instead of stifling growth.

As we approve spending allocations on this bill and other bills, we need to remind regulators about the importance of their actions with that funding.

Regulations can help create jobs or strangle them. Each and every Federal agency should take into consideration the effect of proposed policies on competitiveness of United States business. Each agency should be held accountable for those effects.

Other countries are preparing for tomorrow's economy. Countries like Ireland are reducing regulations, working hand in hand with businesses. They have lowered their taxes, and they have changed their educational system to prepare their workers to be part of a technical economy.

We are working in the opposite direction.

My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that we are going to be a third-rate economy within 10 to 20 years if we do not change the environment that helps us keep and create jobs. That means having some common-sense regulations that work with our industries instead of against them.

Mr. Chairman, I have complete confidence that Chairman Walsh is going to be working together with us to make a better America, a more competitive America and to prepare us for the economy, because we all know that if we do not, we are going to have a third-rate economy.

With that hope in mind, I am going to respectfully withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Madam Speaker, in a recent Washington Times technology section, Fred Reed gives us good evidence while America is on the path towards a third-rate economy.

First, in 2001 through the end of the last school year, New York City 8th graders' failure rate in history and government grew from 61 percent to 81 percent. That is four out of five students.

Second, 22 percent of the students entering college in Indiana needed remedial math.

Third, this year's top U.S. university finished in 17th place in an international collegiate programming contest.

We are not preparing for tomorrow's economy. The world is getting more and more technical, and we are falling behind. While China is creating 350,000 engineers every year, while India is creating 80,000 software engineers every year, we are putting more and more of our students in remedial math. We have to change the educational environment in America if we are going to avoid becoming a third-rate economy.

Education is just one of the issues the Economic Competitive Caucus will be addressing this year so we can prepare for tomorrow's economy.

Mr. Speaker, 58 to zero. Today we are asked to sear our conscience and harden our heart towards human life so we can experiment on fertilized human embryos because we are told it holds such great promise. The results from testing are far from promising, though. They are very disappointing.

But there is an alternative. The adult stem cell research has been very successful compared to embryonic stem cell research, and this success was accomplished without the destruction of human life.

In fact, more than 58 diseases have been treated using adult stem cells in contrast to no diseases having been treated by using living embryonic stem cell research. Fifty-eight to zero.

Mr. Speaker, how do we know the score? Well, embryonic stem cell research is being conducted in America with private funding, but that funding is lacking. So the labs have come to us for more money. Apparently, venture capitalists invest only in projects that are profitable, and you can see it is far from profitable here: 58 to zero.

So now we are asked to support embryo stem cell research because it is so promising, when the facts are it is not promising: 58 to zero.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the United States has the number one economy in the world, and it is the envy of the world. We also have the most powerful military in the history of the world, but I believe we are headed down the wrong path.

Our trade deficit last year was $670 billion. Our Federal deficit exceeded $400 billion. And we saw the loss of many high-quality, high- paying jobs. While other countries are preparing for the future, the current trends in the United States should be of concern to us all, because I believe we are on the path towards a third-rate economy.

Our health care costs are growing too fast and forcing companies to withdraw these benefits from many of our employees. Our education system lags behind the developing world and needs to be revamped. Our trade policy fails to enforce many of the policies that we have in place. Our tax system punishes success. Our energy policy relies on imports rather than natural resources we have here in America, along with renewable energy resources that we have here in America. Our research and development policy needs to be enhanced. Lawsuits plague those who keep and create jobs here in America and that slows our economic growth.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that none of the funds available in this act should be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of the effects of such regulations on the competitiveness of American businesses, because that, Mr. Chairman, means more jobs. If we are going to succeed in the future, we have to create an environment here in America that encourages competition and does not discourage growth. Regulatory costs are killing our jobs. Less government regulations not only means granting the freedom to allow Americans to pursue their dreams, it also means providing the space for business to thrive, which means more jobs for working Americans.

Instead, our Federal Government has become a creeping ivy of regulations that strangle enterprise.

It is estimated today that the regulatory burden as of 2000 was $843 billion. That has cost us U.S. jobs. The regulatory compliance burden on U.S. manufacturers is the equivalent of a 12 percent excise tax.

Mr. Chairman, if we could cut the regulatory burden in half, we would be 6 percent more competitive. As we approve spending allocations for the Department of Energy and other related agencies, we need to remind them of the importance of their actions and what they do with the funding that we give them.

Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and I have complete confidence that he will help us make America more competitive in the future. I plan to withdraw this amendment tonight, but I do not plan to retreat from this fight to reduce the barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Ohio will work with me to help us create an environment to bring more jobs back to America.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of H.R. 540. This bill would authorize the Equus Beds Aquifer recharge project in my district that will help meet the water needs of nearly 500,000 people in Kansas. This is an environmentally beneficial plan that will help ensure the City of Wichita, surrounding smaller communities, agriculture irrigators and local industry will have a clean and plentiful water supply for decades to come.

I want to thank Chairman Pombo for his leadership in working with me on this important project. Seeking federal authorization for the recharge of the Equus Beds Aquifer is something I have worked on for many years, and I am grateful to the Chairman and his staff for including language contained in my original bill into H.R. 540.

I also want to thank City of Wichita officials for their efforts in helping this project move forward. Their vision to ensure our community's water needs are met both now and in the future is extremely important. Leadership from Mayor Carlos Mayans along with City Council members Carl Brewer, Sue Schlapp, Jim Skelton, Paul Gray, Bob Martz and Sharon Fearey will continue to be needed for this project to be a success.

Wichita Water and Sewer Director David Warren and Water Supply Projects Administrator Gerald Blain have been especially helpful to me and my staff over the years in navigating the details of the recharge project. I appreciate their dedication to public service.

Nearly half a million people depend on the Equus Beds Aquifer and Cheney Reservoir to meet their water needs. Without water from the Equus Beds, Wichita and surrounding communities would face a serious water shortage.

The Equus Beds Aquifer is the body of water beneath portions of Sedgwick, Harvey, McPherson and Reno counties within the boundaries of Groundwater Management District Number 2. The aquifer lies under 900,000 acres, and annual withdrawals from the aquifer average 157,000 acre feet. Approximately 55 percent of the water is used for irrigation; 39 percent is used for municipal needs in Wichita, Halstead, Newton, Hutchinson, McPherson and Valley Center; and six percent is used by local industry.

The Equus Beds Aquifer recharge project involves taking floodwater from the Little Arkansas River and depositing that excess water into the aquifer through water supply wells after going through a filtration system.

Since the 1950's, water levels in the aquifer have dropped 40 feet because water rights and pumpage exceed the aquifer's natural recharge rate of six inches per year. Due to this over usage, saltwater from the southwest and oilfield brine from the northwest are threatening the aquifer. When the aquifer levels were higher, the elevated levels created a natural barrier that kept the contamination at bay. Now that the water levels have dropped, the natural barrier is no longer there. If the aquifer is not replenished, the maximum chloride levels will eventually exceed what is permitted for both agricultural and municipal usage.

This aquifer recharge project is a win-win project for all the communities who depend on its water. The City of Wichita and surrounding municipalities benefit because water can be safely stored to meet short-term and long-term water supply needs.

Agriculture irrigators also benefit because the risk of saltwater contamination is reduced. Without the natural barrier of an elevated water level in the aquifer, the water would eventually become contaminated to the point where it would be unsuitable for use even on crops. Irrigators should also see reduced costs associated with pumping since the water level will rise.

The Little Arkansas River and its ecosystem also benefit. During times of drought, a natural discharge from the Equus Beds Aquifer into the river will occur creating a more stable base flow.

Under the language contained in H.R. 540, the City of Wichita will be required to maintain and operate the recharge project, which ensures the federal government will not bear costs associated with its ongoing operation costs.

Recharging the Equus Beds is the most cost-efficient means to provide water for the greater Wichita area. And it is the best option available to keep salt and oilfield brine out of this critical water supply without greatly restricting water usage.

In 2004, Gerald Bain with the City of Wichita testified before the House Committee on Resources on the need for federal authorization of the recharge project. I am including his testimony with my remarks because I think it tells of the water needs faced by our community and the many benefits that will come with a recharge of the Equus Beds.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting for H.R. 540. This is a good bill that will greatly benefit the people in south-central Kansas.

The 2004 testimony by Gerald T. Blain, P.E.:

The City of Wichita, Kansas has had water supply wells in the Equus Beds Aquifer for over 60 years, and the aquifer has been a major source of the City's drinking water. However, because of excess pumping from the aquifer by municipal and agricultural users, water levels in the aquifer had declined up to 40 feet from their pre-development levels by 1992. Because of this over development, the Equus Beds aquifer is threatened by saltwater contamination from two sources. One source is natural saltwater from the Arkansas River located along the southwest border of the City's wellfield. The other source is oilfield brine contamination left over from the development of oil wells in the Burrton area in the 1930's, located northwest of the wellfield.

Groundwater modeling by the Bureau of Reclamation indicates that the chloride levels, which are an indicator of salinity, could exceed 300 mg/l in much of the wellfield by the year 2050. This would be above the 250 mg/l standard for drinking water. In order to protect the water quality of the area, steps must be taken to retard the movement of the salt-water plumes.

In 1993 the City of Wichita began implementation of a unique Integrated Local Water Supply Plan that is intended to meet the City's water supply needs through the year 2050. By the year 2050 it is projected that the City's water supply needs will almost double what they are now. The City's Plan uses a variety of local water resources to meet water needs, rather than requiring the City to transfer water from a remote reservoir in Northeast Kansas. A key component of the Plan includes an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) project to recharge the City's existing wellfield in the Equus Beds Aquifer.

The excess pumping from the aquifer, and the resulting water level decline, has created a storage volume of almost 65 billion gallons that can be used to store water. The basic concept of the City's ASR project is to capture water from the Little Arkansas River and use it to recharge the aquifer. Computer modeling, and past experience at other sites throughout the country, has found that by recharging the aquifer a hydraulic barrier can be created that would retard the movement of the salt-water plumes. In addition, the 65 billion gallons that could be stored in the dewatered portion of the aquifer could be used as a component of the City's water supply.

Unfortunately, all of the ``conventional'' water rights in the Little Arkansas River have already been allocated. However, excess flows in the river, which occur only after it rains or snows, have not been allocated. Computer modeling has predicted that there are enough days of excess flow that enough water can be captured to allow the aquifer to be recharged and become a valuable component of

the City's water supply. The modeling predicts that if the City builds an ASR system with the capacity to capture up to 100 million gallons per day, that it would still capture only a fraction of the water flowing down the river, and it would not have a negative impact on the river.

The City intends to capture water from the river using two techniques, either by using ``bank storage'' wells or by pumping directly from the river. ``Bank Storage'' wells take advantage of a unique geological condition that occurs along the river. As the river rises above the base flow, water is temporarily stored in the river's banks, but as the flow in the river declines, the water in the banks discharges back into the river. The City intends to drill wells adjacent to the river that will capture ``bank storage'' water and induce river water to replace the water pumped.

The City recognized that some of the concepts included in the proposed ASR project have not been done before, so to prove the feasibility of those concepts the City completed a 5-year Demonstration Project. During the Demonstration Project, which was done in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation and the US Geological Survey, the City constructed a full-scale well adjacent to the Little Arkansas River, a river intake and a water treatment plant, and a variety of recharge facilities. To prove that the recharge project was safe, over 4,000 water samples were collected and analyzed for up to 400 different potential contaminates. During the Demonstration Project over one billion gallons of water were successfully recharged into the aquifer, and the City was able to prove that excess flows in the Little Arkansas River could be captured and recharged, and that it can be done without harming the aquifer.

The full-scale ASR project, which will be constructed in phases, will capture and recharge up to 100 million gallons per day, and will cost approximately $137 million. All of the water that will be recharged into the aquifer must meet drinking water standards, and will be monitored and regulated by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Normally, when surface water is developed for a water resource, it requires the construction of a reservoir. A reservoir that would provide the same storage as this ASR project would probably consume around 25,000 to 30,000 acres of prime farmland. It is projected that the ASR project will use less than 400 acres of farmland.

The City of Wichita and others believe that the ASR project is a Win- Win project, because it appears that all of the stakeholders receive benefits from the projects. As a result of this project:

The City develops a water supply source that will allow it to meet its water supply needs through the year 2050.

The water quality of the wellfield is protected from salt-water contamination.

There is no requirement to curtail irrigation to restore water levels and protect water quality.

Irrigators will have lower pumping costs because water levels will be higher.

Low flows in the Little Arkansas River will improve, because additional water will ``leak'' from the Equus Beds back into the river.

The project uses less land than any other surface water development project.

The City has already implemented some components of the Integrated Local Water Supply Plan, including implementation of a water rate structure designed to reduce water consumption, and a greater emphasis on using water from Cheney Reservoir, and a corresponding reduction in water pumped from the Equus Beds. That alteration in water use has already allowed water levels in the Equus Beds to rise over 20 feet in some areas.

Phase I of the ASR Project, which is currently being designed, will have the capacity to capture and recharge up to 10 million gallons per day of water from the Little Arkansas River by using Bank Storage wells. The location of the first recharge facilities is intended to begin the formation of a hydraulic barrier to the movement of salt- water plume from the Burrton area. It will take almost 10 years to construct the entire full-scale project.

The City believes that this project represents a new approach to developing water resources, while at the same time protecting an existing water resource from contamination. The City of Wichita therefore urges support for federal assistance for this unique project.

Mr. Speaker, last year our trade deficit was $670 billion, our Federal budget deficit was about $300 billion, and our government made it more and more difficult last year to keep and create jobs here in America. Barriers have been created and erected by Congress, and the results have been the wrong environment for the current day economy.

The world is changing. The world is getting more and more technical, and we, as a country, are not measuring up, and we are headed towards a third rate economy.

What a third rate economy means to our national security, to the future of our children is rather startling, and it is something we need to start preparing today to change. We must change the environment for keeping and creating jobs here.

In 10 to 20 years from now, we are looking at countries like China, currently with 1.3 billion people, India with 1 billion people, add that to Southeast Asia, and they get a group of about 3 billion people. Currently, they are in talks with trying to create an Asian Union, similar to the European Union, with the yuan as the currency of choice. This would be a very strong economy. It would be very difficult for America, who currently has the strongest economy in the world and the envy of the world, to compete with that.

Last year, China graduated 350,000 engineers. India graduated 80,000 software engineers alone. They are preparing for the future.

Today, a columnist for MSNBC wrote an article called, ``Can China build its own Silicon Valley? Beijing's recipe for technological success.'' In this article, China lays out what China's doing in their Zhongguancun district to create an environment to develop new technological businesses. They have already quite a few small high-tech companies in that area, and they also have the prestigious Tsinghua University, which is creating a lot of research and development to go along with this world-class technology incubator.

They are also providing business support, venture capital, legal services, property management and health care. It is a total package, a culture, if you will, to try to develop new ideas.

Dr. Meng Mei at the university said, ``We need a culture that gives small companies the confidence to succeed.'' It sounds like something we need to do here in America. What they are giving them is an infrastructure, an entrepreneurial infrastructure, so that they can go out and create new technology, driving the leading edge, something that America has been doing for the last several decades. In China, the amount of money they spend on research and development has tripled between 1991 and 2001, according to the article.

In the meantime, what have we been doing here in America over the last generation? Well, starting in the 1960s, Congress started writing more rules and regulations and passing laws with good intent but terrible consequences.

We have come up with burdensome regulations that keeps new companies from starting up. We have a litigation system that works against success. We have health care costs that are rising faster than small employers can keep up with. We have got a tax policy that punishes success instead of rewarding success. We have an energy policy that is dependent on foreign sources. We have a trade policy that too often goes unenforced, and our research and development sometimes gets spent in wasteful ways instead of looking forward to the future. Our education system, sadly, is lagging behind, especially in math, science and engineering.

At the end of this article, it says, ``While the number of U.S. science and engineering graduates declines, year after year, China's numbers are surging. China already graduates more English-speaking electrical engineers than does the U.S. Last month the U.S. came in 17th in an annual international collegiate programming contest; a team from Shanghai University came in first. And U.S. middle school math and science scores continue to lag behind those of other developed Nations.''

We are on a path to a third rate economy that has worldwide implications for our future, for our kids, for our national security, and we have to change that environment.

This is the debate that we should be having today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. This is how we are going to create the environment, by changing these rules and regulations, so that we can create new jobs, create new technology and prepare for the oncoming challenges of the future.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last year our trade deficit surpassed $670 billion. Our Federal budget deficit was more than $300 billion, and we saw too many high- quality, good-paying jobs go overseas. It has become more and more difficult to keep and create jobs and small businesses here in America. And when we look around at what the world is doing, unless we change the environment here in America we are going to become a third-rate economy.

Over the last generation, starting in the 1960s, Congress has created barriers to keeping and creating jobs. We must remove those barriers.

Mr. Chairman, one of those barriers created by Congress is bureaucratic red tape. Others are rising health care costs, education policy, research and development policy, energy policy, unenforceable trade policy, tax policy, and lawsuit abuse. My amendment goes to the heart of the problem centered around the unnecessary bureaucratic red tape.

My amendment is designed to require an outside audit to determine that science is used to develop regulations at the EPA that are unbiased and well substantiated. At a minimum major rules by the EPA should go through a Science Advisory Board and rules should then be audited by a neutral third party to ensure that our environmental regulations are based on scientific facts and not emotional theory.

There are reporting rules promulgated by the EPA that do nothing to protect the environment or the health and well-being of the citizens but cost American businesses hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

One example of an unnecessary burden to the American small businesses is the EPA's toxic release inventory lead rule. The rule requires that businesses report annually on how much lead is used. Not how much lead is emitted into the atmosphere, but how much lead the business uses. In June, 2002, a small business owner from Baltimore, Maryland testified before the Regulatory Reform and Oversight Subcommittee of the Committee on Small Business on how this particular EPA reporting rule causes harm to her business. We can see how ridiculous and wasteful this EPA rule is to our economy without making our air any cleaner. Nancy Klinefelter is president of Baltimore Glassware Decorators. Her small business specializes in printing

small quantities of custom glass and ceramic ware for special occasions. Some of Nancy's work can even be found in the House gift shop and some is sold in the EPA's gift shop. When they print mugs or glasses for customers, they sometimes use lead-bearing colors on the outside surface. These colors are expensive, so they use a minimum amount of paint, just that which is needed to color the surfaces and they try to reduce waste. And the finishing process ensures that none of the lead leaches out. So their products are safe for anyone who uses them.

But because of the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory lead rule, Nancy's business is forced to compile daily records on how much color is used for the mugs because the color contains a very small amount of lead. Each year her small business has to report to the EPA how much lead has been used. It costs her about $7,000 annually and across the Nation about $70 million every year. And what do the Americans get for the millions that are spent? Cleaner air? No. Less lead being used? No. Less exposure to lead by children? No. The answer is none of these. But all the American people get from these thousands of reports are estimates on how much lead is being consumed, but our air is not any cleaner.

Mr. Chairman, with the hopes of working during the conference committee report, I intend to withdraw this amendment because I know it is subject to a point of order. I hope that we can work together with the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) in the conference report to try to remove some of these unnecessary regulations.

So, in conclusion, we must not move forward with our government to implement regulatory burdens like this on the American public because it drives jobs overseas, it increases the trade deficit, it reduces the Federal revenue, and it moves us toward a third-rate economy.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, last year's trade deficit reached $670 billion. Our Federal deficit was over $300 billion. Top-rate jobs have gone overseas. How did we get in this situation? How did we get in this position?

Mr. Speaker, over the last generation Congress has passed laws with good intent, but with terrible consequences. Our government has created barriers to creating jobs, and the results have not been good.

Other nations are rising to the challenge of tomorrow's economy. China is graduating 350,000 engineers every year. India graduated 80,000 software engineers last year. While we are reducing the number of visas for creative talent in America, other countries are developing their talent.

Mr. Speaker, we have to change the environment in America and remove the barriers created by Congress. If we are going to avoid becoming a third-rate economy in the future, we have to pass legislation like the Central America Free Trade Agreement so we can create jobs, strengthen our economy, balance the trade deficit, balance the Federal budget right here in America. We can do it by passing this legislation along with others, Mr. Speaker; and as we lead the challenge for competitiveness in America, we hope that our colleagues will join with us from the other side of the aisle.

Offered By: Mr. Tiahrt

Amendment No. 8: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: