Butch Otter

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and also for offering some time and providing us the opportunity tonight to speak to the energy bill. I also compliment the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for the insights that they have given us tonight into the whole concept of the energy bill. We are not talking about a few of the hot points that the news media like to talk an awful lot about. I cannot go through the process that we did last week in formulating this energy bill without thinking of a childhood poem, and it goes like this: ``I saw a group of men in my hometown, I saw a group of men tearing a building down. With a heave and a ho and a mighty yell, they swung a beam and a sidewalk fell. ``So I said to the foreman, `Hey, are these men skilled, you know, the kind I'd hire if I wanted to build?' And he laughed and said, `Why, no, indeed, common labor is all I need. For with common labor I can tear down in a day or two what it took a builder 10 years to do.' And so I thought to myself as I walked away, Which of those roles am I going to play?'' The 109th Congress, Madam Speaker, is deciding now what role we are going to play. Are we going to build an energy future? Are we going to build an economic future for this great Nation of ours and for future generations? Are we going to put in place today a public policy that will serve this Nation in our competitive efforts with the rest of the world? I can tell you there is no other place in the world that this argument is going on, of whether or not we are going to energize our natural resources, energize our native creative genius in order to provide the cheapest and the most abundant and most reliable energy source that we possibly can. Yet this is a heartfelt debate. Fortunately for us, with the leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), we were able to come out of the committee with a great energy bill and in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, I myself have voted on this energy bill. Although I have only been in this Congress for 4 years and 4 months, I have voted on the energy bill four times, with the great hope that was going to be one thing as a Member from Idaho's First Congressional District I could leave as a legacy. Yet 4 years and 4 months later, we are still wanting and still faced with those who will tear down rather than build up. I would like to talk about something that has not gotten, I believe, the attention that it needs. As the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) mentioned early on, we have not built a refinery in this Nation in nearly 30 years. Garyville, Louisiana, was the last refinery we built in this Nation, and yet every day we continue to consume more and more refined gas. So our capacity to consume is increasing, yet our capacity in relationship to produce and to refine is dwindling. Thus, we are counting more and more and more for yet another strategic part of our value-added energy on some foreign country. Madam Speaker, last fall I went down to Venezuela and visited Hugo Chavez. One of the reasons I did that was because there are several Idaho concerns down there probably mining more coal than any place else in the word, and mining more silver and gold than any place else in the world. There is an exploration company that is environmentally responsible in their exploration and in their research and development for Venezuela's natural resources. One of the other reasons I went down there was to see where we are importing a million, 800,000 barrels of refined fuel a day. We import 14 million barrels a day. We use 21 million barrels a day. So for two-thirds of our consumption, we are now relying on some other country that may be friend or foe, and Mr. Chavez has already suggested he is not going to be really friendly towards us. Yet we are still relying for two-thirds of the strategic element for our economy on some other nation. We are relying on their labor, their tax base. We are relying on building up their economy in order to support our own rather than doing that ourselves. Part of this bill we are looking at today is environmentally streamlined permitting. We heard many, many times in the committee, as the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) will be able to attest to, we heard many times from the opposition, those who would not build but rather tear down, that there is not one permit that is waiting to go through the bureaucratic process, not one permit in the United States. I would suggest there ought to be a reason and that we need to take a look at that. One of the reasons nobody gets a permit is they have been denied for so long. They are so expensive and have been denied for so long. One thing I found out in Caracas, Venezuela, every U.S. oil company that owns a refinery in the United States is down there today asking for a permit to build one in Venezuela. There are permits being given throughout the world and permits being requested. Unfortunately, they are being requested where they find a friendly permitting process, or a permitting process. And I asked the fellows at lunch that day, are you telling me it is easier to get a permit down here? They said, no, environmentally speaking, we have to obey the same laws. Safety-wise we have to obey the same laws. They are no different than the United States except it happens. It happens. In the United States you can sit around for months and years, and then decades before you finally get a permit. And that is just too lengthy and too costly a process. They said, we come down here and we can get a permit in 6 to 8 months. We have to bond it and do everything we do in the United States. The thing is, these people are working with us. That is why we are here permitting. The other thing that this bill looks to is something that a lot of people in the United States do not realize. If a refinery today, one in Garyville, Louisiana, should happen to come across some new technology and that new technology would say they could increase their efficiency or their production capacity or their yield, and it happens to be more than 10 percent, they do not want to do it. The reason they do not want to do it is our environmental laws authorized by the Environmental Protection Agency would say that new 10 percent is new source. What new source means is you have to go back and permit the whole plant, not just the 10 percent increased, but you have to go back and permit 100 percent of the plant's production. So they may have increased since 30 years ago when the last one was permitted, they may have increased 6 or 7 percent, but they do not want to go beyond that or it will be very expensive to go on. For our economy and for the jobs that are increased and energized and permitted, refinery capacity would do that for this country of ours. For all of the good that could happen, I would say it is time for us, and we will be deciding tomorrow who they are that want to build and who they are that want to tear down. I am proud to say that all the folks that you have listened to tonight are the ones that want to build. I am amongst them, and I am sure the majority will be tomorrow.

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to review some of the facts and figures that we have in the committee. I appreciate the gentleman's question, that is, the amount of jobs of course that would be created. I am saying high-paying professional jobs, not only for the construction phase of building a new refinery which is millions and millions of dollars, but certainly for the operation phase. As we operate these refineries, we have more and more technology and we call upon these professionals for a higher degree of professionalism. As a result of that, we are not talking about some of these jobs that can simply be replaced at a moment's notice. So one of the things that we have to do, along with the construction of the refinery, along with the potential operation of the refinery, is we have to prepare educating the chemical engineers in our colleges, and there have not been really jobs, at least in the United States that have been forthcoming because of the lack of appreciation, if you will, for the refinery business in the United States and for the gas and oil business in the United States. A lot of these high-paying jobs have gone overseas, as well as the education opportunities. We are going to have to incentivize our education system to gear up not only for the construction of the plants but for the potential operations of them. When you look down the road at it, it has got tremendous possibilities of what it can do for our economy.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to an individual from my district whose initiative and vision might well be paying dividends in Idaho from years to come. Through hard work and passion, Jason Crawforth gathered support from many medium and large technical institutions throughout my great state in support of a promotional effort in the Wall Street Journal on behalf of Idaho's outstanding business environment. Companies such as Jason's own Treetop Tech, Micron Technology, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and Extended Systems are just a few of America's top technology businesses that have chosen to locate large operations in Idaho over the years. Anyone who spends even a short time in Idaho soon comes to realize the enormous potential of my State and its people, and the great benefits of doing business there. From the low cost of living and absence of urban congestion to the overall quality of life, Idaho has a lot to offer the technology industry. Jason Crawforth is one of Idaho's greatest advocates, and leaders like him are among our most valuable assets. I hope the House will join me in acknowledging Jason's contribution.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act. Rural communities across my state and elsewhere are being unfairly burdened by Environmental Protection Agency regulations that have questionable benefit. While we all want to ensure a clean, safe drinking water supply for our communities, we must remember that fiscal restraints sometimes require tradeoffs and accommodations. Many small communities believe that EPA regulations will do more harm than good by wasting limited public health funds complying with standards that do little to advance the interests of public health. For those of you who may have forgotten the arsenic debate of just a few years ago, let me refresh your memory. The Safe Drinking Water Act was used in the past to clean up pollution caused by previous business practices. Now the EPA is using the act to clean up Mother Nature herself. Arsenic is a naturally occurring component in the soil and water of many Western states, including Idaho. Using questionable science, the EPA has committed to ensuring all domestic water systems meet the arbitrary 10 parts-per-billion standard for arsenic--no matter how small those systems are. This is down from the 50 parts-per-billion standard set in 1975. When the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed, Congress provided flexibility for EPA to determine whether it is economically or technologically feasible to obtain a certain level of reduced contamination. Essentially, the act states that if it's too expensive, smaller systems simply need to get as close to the standard as they reasonably can. Unfortunately EPA has decided not to use that flexibility. EPA has determined that paying $1,000 per year per user for the smaller water systems to meet the arsenic standard is affordable. We know that many of our rural communities have low-income residents who make difficult decisions each month. They must choose which bills to pay and which to put off. These folks aren't worried about the cable bill; they're worried about being able to cover their heat, food, power and even prescription drug costs every month. And when faced with those choices, they'll choose to pay their water bill first. But the EPA--in its infinite wisdom--has decided to place a higher priority on marginal reductions in arsenic level than such basic needs as food and shelter. That is unacceptable, which is why I am introducing legislation today to allow small and rural communities, those under 10,000 in population, to choose whether they want EPA to enforce regulations on naturally occurring contaminants. If the eligible community determines it is too costly to comply with the rule, it can request an exemption from the regulation, which EPA must grant. No one is talking about removing all the arsenic from the water. We are talking about removing parts per billion, which is removing a very small amount of something that is barely even there. There is no bright line of concentration at the parts-per-billion level beyond which arsenic becomes unsafe. EPA views 9.9 parts-per-billion as safe and 10.1 as unsafe, despite the fact that there is little health difference between such small differences. EPA can't determine how much arsenic ingestion above the federal standard is harmful. While EPA has said that arsenic concentrations above its standard don't necessarily present an unreasonable risk to health, concentrations above 10 parts- per-billion do create a significant financial burden for small communities. This mandate doesn't consider the unintended consequences and it can't balance competing local priorities. Local communities are in the best position to determine where their scarce resources need to go. EPA is not going to the communities and suggesting ways they can comply or technology they can use. Rather than being a good partner, EPA is once again just an enforcer, and is waiting until 2006 to impose fines on communities that are not in compliance. Such one-size-fits-all government ``solutions'' do nothing to make the water cleaner. They only provoke bitterness and stifle cooperation. One small community in Idaho already has had to lay off its only police officer in order to afford studies and other requirements related to complying with the arsenic regulation. Now we are asking people to choose between real public safety and a theoretical health benefit. Further compounding the problem for this rural community, the EPA recently denied its request for a compliance extension, as provided for in the agency's own regulation. Community leaders know they can't comply by 2006 and are trying to do the right thing--but EPA refuses to help them. We are supposed to have a democratic process here in the United States. In this case, the EPA is overriding the will of local citizens. I believe it's time to put the power back into the hands of those most impacted to determine what truly is best for them. I remain concerned that this regulation will have very adverse economic impacts on thousands of rural communities across the nation, without addressing legitimate human health concerns. Since there is no economically feasible way for small communities to meet this standard and the standard may result in no health benefits, I support allowing each eligible rural community to decide whether to comply. I encourage you to join me in cosponsoring the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the hope that a scientific review article may spur research that could benefit public health. Specifically, Douglas L. Archer, Ph.D. authored a paper titled, ``Freezing: An underutilized food safety technology?'' which was published in the January 15, 2004, International Journal of Food Microbiology. The article has attracted attention over the past year, including a presentation today by Dr. Archer for the House Frozen Food Caucus, of which I am co-chairman. I would like to submit for the record the abstract of Dr. Archer's article, and emphasize its conclusion: ``Through research, it seems possible that freezing may in the future be used to reliably reduce populations of food-borne pathogens as well as to preserve foods.'' Mr. Speaker, I call this article and this opportunity for improving public health to the attention of my colleagues and to the research community. [From the International Journal of Food Microbiology, 2004] Freezing: an Underutilized Food Safety Technology? (By Douglas L. Archer) Freezing is an ancient technology for preserving foods. Freezing halts the activities of spoilage microorganisms in and on foods and can preserve some microorganisms for long periods of time. Frozen foods have an excellent overall safety record. The few outbreaks of food-borne illness associated with frozen foods indicate that some. but not all human pathogens are killed by eommercial freezing processes. Freezing kills microorganisms by physical and chemical effects and possibly through induced genetic changes. Research is needed to better understand the physical and chemical interactions of various food matrices with the microbial cell during freezing and holding at frozen temperatures. The literature suggests that many pathogenic microorganisms may be sublethally injured by freezing, so research should be done to determine how to prevent injured cells from resuscitating and becoming infectious. Studies on the genetics of microbial stress suggest that the induction of resistance to specific stresses may be counteracted by, for example, simple chemicals. Research is needed to better understand how resistance to the lethal enact of freezing is induced in human pathogens and means by which it can be counteracted in specific foods. Through research. it seems possible that freezing may in the future be used to reliably reduce populations of food-borne pathogens as well as to preserve foods.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the academic achievement and great promise of graduate student Toby Gass, who is studying Forest Resources at the University of Idaho. Toby is being honored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as recipient of a prestigious Science To Achieve Results, or STAR fellowship, through the EPA's Greater Research Opportunities program. She is only the second Idaho student ever to win such an award, and the first since 1999. Only 22 graduate students nationwide are receiving STAR-GRO fellowships for 2004, and I am extremely proud that one of them is from Idaho's 1st District. The EPA's STAR graduate fellowship program is the only federal program exclusively for students pursuing advanced degrees in environmental sciences. It is highly competitive, with only 7 percent of applicants being awarded fellowships. Toby and the other STAR fellowship recipients clearly are the best and brightest of America's future environmental scientists. These brilliant men and women will lead the way to unimaginable advances in more efficiently managing our natural resources and protecting human health and safety. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Toby Gass and all the STAR-GRO fellowship winners for their achievement, and thank them for their groundbreaking work, from which we all will benefit.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. I thank my colleague and my good friend from Idaho for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I had quite a few prepared remarks, but most all of the information that I was going to impart to this body has already been said time and time again about the overload of the courts; the workforce themselves; how many additional judges have been added; and the fact that we almost have twice as many judges now in the Ninth Circuit as there are in the next closest circuit; the geographic size and obviously the population all present tremendous problems for those of us in the Ninth Circuit. It was said earlier that, when Congress does not like something, and especially we have been investing and assigning all manner of responsibility and all manner of attitude to why we want to divide up the Ninth Circuit, I would remind the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from Texas that, if you read article III of the Constitution, it says very clearly that the judicial system shall be invested in the Supreme Court and such other inferior courts as Congress may from time to time deem necessary. So these courts are indeed a creature of this Congress, and so then it falls to our responsibility, I think, as the gentleman from Montana clearly pointed out, that when we need to reapportion because of size and because of geography that is involved and the amount of people that are involved, it is necessary for this Congress to take action and this action is long overdue. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment my friend from Idaho is offering to split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It's no surprise that the outcome of many of the Ninth Circuit's decisions is inconsistent case law that results in uncertainty among litigants. After all, the Ninth Circuit encompasses nearly 40 percent of the land in the United States, stretching from Canada to Mexico and from Alaska to Guam. That means the Ninth Circuit must represent one out of every five Americans, even though there are eleven circuit courts handling appeals throughout the country. The number of people who call the Ninth Circuit home and the distance it takes to travel across the massive geographic area already places a huge burden on this court. On top of that, the Ninth Circuit has more appeals filed than any other court. And with each new appeal the time it takes to get a decision increases. It's become an administrative nightmare, Mr. Chairman, but it results in more than just a paperwork backlog. The Ninth Circuit is simply too large to do an effective job, so it leaves people in my state and throughout the West without an effective voice in our nation's legal system. It's a liability that deserves serious consideration by us today. An effective and efficient court system is essential to protecting the freedoms that we as Americans hold dear. The checks and balances that safeguard our liberties are meaningless without timely rendering of justice. We must not let bureaucracy and administrative stagnation undermine development of coherent and consistent case law. This is an instance when bigger absolutely does not mean better, and it is important that we address this issue now. My friend Mr. Simpson's amendment would create two new circuit courts and split the up the Ninth so that each of the three courts are better represented both proportionally and regionally. By focusing on a smaller geographic area with a smaller population base, the court would have the opportunity to develop a body of law based on consistency, constitutionality and rational public policy. This simple solution would enable the judicial system in the West to render fair decisions in a timely manner and start clearing the enormous court backlog throughout our region. I'm proud to be working with Congressman Simpson on his continued effort to reshape the court system in the West and restore some commonsense and judicial reality to the federal appeals process. I strongly encourage you to vote for this amendment.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I always try to apply a personal ``Three C'' test to questions of public policy. First I ask myself whether it's constitutional. Then I consider whether it's something my constituents want. Finally, I examine my own conscience. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act passes that test with flying colors. What's more, the existing policy of denying basic second amendment rights to the people of the District of Columbia not only fails the ``Three C'' test, it also is offensive to the very principles on which our nation was founded. The second amendment clearly states that ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' It does not say the right to keep and bear arms applies only to people who live within the jurisdiction of a State. It does not say the right to keep and bear arms is subject to the wrong-headed whims of social engineers. And it does not say the right to keep and bear arms may be infringed in misguided response to violent crime. The second amendment was designed to empower the people--the source of American sovereignty--to protect themselves, their families, and their homes. Instead, unreasonable restrictions and outright prohibitions on firearms in the District of Columbia have emboldened criminals to prey on innocent and unarmed citizens. The result is that America's Capital City has been consistently and needlessly turned into America's Murder Capital. The record is clear: Twenty-eight years of keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia has contributed to the most pervasive culture of violent crime in America. The American people are most secure and most confident in their personal safety when their constitutional rights are protected. Mr. Speaker, just as it's my right as a citizen to protect my home and family, it is my responsibility as a Member of Congress to protect our citizens' constitutional rights. Let's focus our law enforcement efforts on preventing and punishing real violent crimes rather than denying second amendment rights to honest Americans--whether they're from Idaho or the District of Columbia.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to relate an inspiring story of support from the people of Idaho, from a community in my district, for our brave troops being deployed to Iraq. On August 17, I had the opportunity to visit with some of my constituents at a business in the community of Meridian. The Michaels of Oregon plant in Meridian is a quality manufacturer of gun cleaners, holsters and related equipment for law enforcement personnel and other first responders. During my tour, General Manufacturing Manager Brian Schroeder handed me a manila envelope. It turns out the employees knew I would be coming out to the plant, so they took up a collection and asked that I get the money in that envelope to the USO to help our troops in the Idaho National Guard's 116th Cavalry Brigade. As I walked through the plant, I also met Michaels employee Sandra Zimmer, whose son had just returned from Kuwait, and Michelle Carskaddon, whose father was in Iraq. Everyone I met wanted me to pass on to our men and women in uniform just how proud they are of our troops and how proud they are to be Americans. Let me tell you, I never had a more meaningful visit, and I was never prouder to be an Idahoan. But the thing is, the folks at Michaels are not unique. Meridian, Idaho--like communities all across America--is filled with individuals who care about each other, care about those who serve in our Armed Forces, and care about our country. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor and privilege to represent people like that here in the United States House of Representatives. Please join me in thanking the good people at Michaels of Oregon. They are to be commended for their citizenship, patriotism and generosity.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 2004 Miss Idaho, Elizabeth Margaret Barchas of Boise. Elizabeth will be proudly representing the Gem State in this weekend's Miss America pageant in Atlantic City, NJ. Elizabeth received her bachelor's degree from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. She then studied abroad and received her master's degree from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and was a Fulbright Scholar. She has been accepted to Harvard Law school; however, she has deferred her matriculation for one year to pursue her duties as Miss Idaho. Elizabeth's platform is understanding individuals with disabilities, and I am very proud of her continued commitment of community service for Idaho and across the globe. I am confident that Elizabeth will do an outstanding job in representing Idaho, as I am pulling for her to be crowned the next Miss America. I wish Elizabeth, and the entire Barchas family all the best for this weekend's pageant.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary life and peerless achievements of Robert Smylie, the only governor in Idaho history to serve three consecutive full terms. He died Saturday at the age of 89. Please join me in extending the sympathies of the House of Representatives to Governor Smylie's wife Lucille and their entire family. Bob Smylie was an Iowa native educated at my alma mater, the College of Idaho in Caldwell, and then at the George Washington University law school here in the nation's capital, where he attended classes while working as a member of the Capitol Police Force. For 8 years as Idaho's attorney general and 12 years as governor, Bob Smylie proved time and again that he was a man of talent, vision and courage. He saw the modern challenges facing state government and understood intuitively that they required bold actions. As is the case with many people of intellect and audacity, his genius was not fully appreciated in his lifetime. Governor Smylie was a pillar of fiscal responsibility. Yet he was far ahead of his time in recognizing that demands for government services would increase geometrically within his lifetime, that education and transportation are investments no state can afford to short-change, and that the public's business is worthy of our best efforts and brightest minds. Most of all, Governor Smylie was a tough and committed public servant who accepted nothing less from his colleagues and contemporaries. His example is one of uncompromising devotion to the good of Idaho, America, and our people. Mr. Speaker, we have lost an American original, a man whose influence and example will live on for years to come. He set the stage for the growth and progress that mark Idaho today. My state mourns his passing, but we all are better for having had Robert Smylie in our lives.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address what I believe to be a fatal flaw in the way we administer our foreign aid. We cannot truly be effective either domestically or in our role on the world stage when our foreign policy forces us to support our friends while at the same time indiscriminately doling out money to our and their enemies. All the efforts we put into promoting peace and cooperation is meaningless without requiring accountability from the recipients of our assistance. U.S. foreign aid should be based upon a recipient's demonstrated willingness to support our ideals and our aspirations for their region. When we provide aid to a country, we should be able to expect a marked change in that country's behavior in keeping with our goals. Let me give a specific example of what I am talking about here. When they were much younger, I gave my children a monthly allowance. Unlike gifts of money or money that they earned themselves, this allowance came with some strings attached. It came with an understanding that I could expect certain behavior from them. On occasion they would forget about our bargain, and their behavior would not reflect the expectations that we had established. But when they did not receive their allowance, the next month they were quick to fix the problem so that we could peacefully live together. Foreign aid is like an allowance which the United States is not obligated to offer and which should not come without certain strings attached. And yet we continue to treat it as if we are required to hand out money to nations and people who actively oppose the principles that we try to advance. Today we have a golden opportunity to change the way we address the issues on foreign aid. As part of his road map to peace, President Bush recommended giving foreign aid to the Palestine Authority for the first time in almost a decade. In light of that request, we should act now to infuse any aid with common sense and accountability so that we can advance the realistic goals that the President has set for the Middle East. In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require that any aid that we give to Palestine would only be given every quarter. In other words, it would be broken up into four payments over a year's period. And only 25 percent would be given in any one quarter. So January, February and March, at the end of March, the Palestine's would receive some aid. At the end of June, the Palestinians would receive some aid. At the end of September, same and just before Christmas once again. The reason I approach it this way is because then the Secretary of State would be required to verify that in the previous quarter there had been no acts of terrorism, no human bombs that had ventured into Israel or had ventured into some other area, that the Palestinians had indeed not engaged in any acts of terrorism anywhere in the world. And so every quarter, once every 3 months, once that is verified by the Secretary of State, then the Palestinians would receive some money. More like an allowance instead of alimony, that we treat it today as though we owed it to folks. Such a commonsense approach to accountability is the first step to reforming our foreign policy. It will provide, I believe, a powerful incentive for the recipients of this money in order to promote the kind of democracy and the kinds of values that we have in hopes for them. The President is working to achieve a lasting peace in this region, realistically and in good faith, and I applaud his efforts. But if we are to see a change in the Middle East, our approach to foreign aid must change as well. What better time than now to implement a policy based upon behavior and responsibility, with the expectations that we offer at the same time that we offer the money. I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to assist in the peace process by making sure that our assistance carries with it the same weight as our principles would. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

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

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address some of the important provisions contained in H.R. 4759, United States-Australia Free Trade Implementation Act. While I am unable to support this agreement due to concerns over the impact it could have on dairy farmers and cattle ranchers in my district, I am very supportive of some provisions of this agreement and feel it is important to address those issues. I am pleased the United States and Australia, through this Free Trade Agreement, have each recognized and addressed the importance of protecting private intellectual property. The entertainment industry in the United States is a valuable part of our national economy and the zero tariffs provisions addressing technology and entertainment products will ultimately debit our Nation's import/export trade column. By protecting creative works produced in the United States, we are ensuring the long-term vitality of the American entertainment and technology industries, as well as, reinforcing our Nation's recognition of, and commitment to protecting private property. The increases in criminal and civil protections against piracy contained in this bill will certainly prove a valuable deterrent against electronic pirates. These kinds of private property protections are the only way to ensure creative genius is rewarded. In fact, Abraham Lincoln said, ``The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius,'' thus leading us to understand that the protection of invention and creation, including private intellectual property, is the only way to promote further artistic creation and innovation. Again, while I am unable to support the agreement as a whole, I felt strongly that the measures aimed at preventing creative and digital piracy should be recognized and applauded.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his leadership and for once again bringing this amendment before us. Last year I believe if we had this amendment before us when we had the Otter amendment and several others relative to the PATRIOT Act, we would have had and should have had at least 309 votes for this amendment as we did the Otter amendment. I would just like to speak to a couple of things. I know my office and several other offices have received calls regarding a veto threat on this amendment. This is the ninth such amendment that we have received a veto threat on. Well, I would tell you that if there is that much consideration, if there is that much concern on this bill as a whole, then maybe we ought to take the bill back to committee and reconsider the bill itself rather than just the amendment. There is no greater threat to this Nation in terms of terrorism than the drugs that are on our streets today. There is no greater threat and no greater form of terrorism against our children than the pornographers in this country, and there has been no greater threat in the past on a civil and law-abiding society than organized crime. Yet, rather than add ``domestic terrorism'' to this list, we have taken domestic terrorism and elevated it above those three elements with special laws. We continue to say we are doing the same thing with domestic terrorism as we have done with pornography, as we have done with drugs and as we have done with organized crime. Not so. Not so, Mr. Chairman, because what we have done with domestic terrorism is we have removed judicial oversight and that most important role that the judiciary plays--shining that bright constitutional light into the dark shadows of probable cause. And so I would like to join the gentleman from Vermont. I would like to join others who are prepared to say we think that these other acts of terrorism against our children and against our civil society as a whole are no less important to fight against than domestic terrorism, and, in fact, have probably taken, no, have taken, Mr. Chairman, many more lives than were lost on 9/11.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, the freedom to read what we want--it may not be the first thing that comes to mind when we talk about those basic, unalienable rights for which generations of American heroes have fought and died. The idea of a government controlling what we read is the stuff of history books and horror stories about tyrants and dictators. It is not something we expect to face here in America--the Land of the Free. That was before the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 215 of that law has given Americans reason to wonder whether the government might be looking over their shoulders when they check out books and materials from their local library. It has dangerously undermined the people's confidence in their government and threatens the precious freedoms we enjoy under the First amendment. That's why I support this amendment today. I fully recognize the need to provide our law enforcement officers with the tools necessary to combat terrorism and keep Americans safe. However, security bought at the price of the freedoms on which our Nation was founded is no real security at all. Certain parts of the Patriot Act, including Section 215, may have seemed understandable in the short term, but they are intolerable over time. We need to set things right before our precious constitutional rights are eroded beyond recognition. We sacrifice something much more dear than our physical safety when we fail to be diligent in defending our freedoms. Once lost, they seldom if ever are regained. And whether the tyranny that robs me of my liberties comes from abroad or starts here at home makes no difference. It is equally unwelcome. I am just as committed to protecting Americans from their own government's excesses as from the violence of foreign extremists. The degree to which that commitment has captured America's imagination and has found growing support here among my colleagues is one of the most gratifying experiences in my public life. A vote for this amendment is a vote to restore Americans' confidence in the ability of Congress to protect the freedoms they hold dear.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, earlier today on another amendment, we heard the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee mention that we should leave the PATRIOT Act and my amendments there up to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and up to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Mr. Chairman, we did not leave the PATRIOT Act up to the Committee on the Judiciary, up to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and up to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as was discussed and has never been refuted. This PATRIOT Act that we have been having to deal with for the last 3 years was snuck in at the very last minute. So the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who the chairman now wants to turn over the jurisdiction for the PATRIOT Act, never got a chance to take a final look at the actual PATRIOT Act itself. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an amendment that, I believe, renews an important balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our Nation. I understand that the language is subject to a point of order, and I am prepared to deal with that. However, this issue drives to the core of who we are, or who I hope we are as Americans. And I believe it is important to address today. The fourth amendment which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures by government came from a firsthand experience of our Founding Fathers. Then King George III called it what it really was, writs of assistance, and before that it was also mentioned in the Magna Carta. So what we have done with the PATRIOT Act and sneak-and-peek provisions of search warrants has destroyed many, many years of efforts by freedom fighters throughout the decades. This idea of individuality, that each person is created unique, is something unique to the United States and cannot and should not be taken away, especially not by its own government. If we cannot trust our own government to not make war on its own people, how can we trust this same government to make war with our enemies? That is why I am so concerned about the way we have expanded the power of government to do sneak-and-peek searches. The issue at hand is not when or where or how often these warrants may be executed or may be used; the fact that government has the power at all should be something of great concern to all of us. I do not doubt that the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that address sneak-and-peek were well intended. It is important to know that we are safe and secure within the borders of this country. Mr. Chairman, we cannot, we will not be safe in this country unless we are secure under the fourth amendment to the privacy of our own person and our own property. I understand that the sneak-and-peek warrants were used before the passage of the PATRIOT Act. We discussed that earlier. There were certain provisions which the authorities had to go through before they could simply waltz into somebody's home. By broadening the use of the sneak-and-peek warrants and making them the standard rather than the exception, the PATRIOT act threatens our liberties that were given us by our Creator and are now protected by the Constitution. That is why I am offering this amendment today. As Americans, I believe our fundamental belief that each of us is ultimately responsible for safeguarding ourselves. It is our obligation and our duty as citizens to this great Nation to see to it that we are secure in our own liberties, and it is our responsibility first and then the government's. We would be justifiably enraged if some individual or a group acted to destroy our Constitution, all at once to wipe away in one terrible moment the centuries of struggle and countless lives sacrificed to winning the liberties we hold so dear. It is equally important that we jealously guard against allowing our freedoms to be chipped away piece by piece before our eyes, that we do all we can to hold back those small, but insignificant, strokes of tyrannical erosion which can in time fell even the greatest of our institutions, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I am not the first to have these concerns. Those before me have said it more eloquently than I. James Madison recognized the importance of guarding our individual liberties with constant vigilance when he said: ``Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.'' Ben Franklin was already quoted today. And Thomas Jefferson, cautioning us against relinquishing our inalienable rights to even a well-meaning government said: ``A freedom government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind those we are obliged to trust with power. So in questions of political power, speak to me not of confidence in men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.'' Mr. Chairman, this is the deepest root in our tree of liberty and that is the rights of individuals to be free to exercise under the fourth amendment and to be secure in their own homes and their own privacy. A vote for the people and not the government is a vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). (Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate what the good chairman has said relative to my amendment and its being out of order. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for his comments. Whether or not this is the proper place to make this correction, I think it is terribly important that the correction be made. The dual banking system in our Nation has a long and very productive and rich history. It has played a major role in making ours the strongest and most confirmed banking system in the world. The balance between the State-chartered banks and the national banks provides critical fuel to our economy, fosters innovation and competition, and provides Americans with a safe and sound banking system as a whole. I am deeply concerned that the OCC's preemptive rules would take that balance and put it into jeopardy. These rules could radically change our financial regulation structure, and overriding State law enforcement authority and the State laws for national banks can have serious repercussions on our Nation's banking economy and on the consumers in the State of Idaho. We do not have to look back very far in history, Mr. Chairman, to see the long-reaching effects of preempting State financial laws. Let us take, for example, the savings and loan or the thrift industry. Until 1980, State-chartered thrifts outnumbered those of Federal charters. But in 1980, the Federal regulator issued a preemptive policy similar to the OCC's recent rulings. As a result, we have watched the number of State-chartered thrifts decline until they now make up less than 10 percent of all of the thrifts in the country. Until 1980, in my State of Idaho we had five State-chartered thrifts. Today, all thrifts in Idaho have national charters. None have State charters. Since 1980, 14 banks have received new State commercial bank charters, but there has not been a single thrift chartered in the past 24 years. Our economy in Idaho depends on small community banks. These banks serve the members in their communities and constantly improve the way we do business in America and through innovation and diversity. If we allow the OCC to tip the balance toward the national banks, we put consumers at risk. State and local agencies in Idaho are better equipped than any Federal bureaucracy to meet the needs and address the problems of Idahoans. Allowing our banking system to be dominated by a single Federal regulator would harm consumers and our economy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment. My apologies to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), because if this is the wrong place to make this correction, I would like to work with the chairman to make that correction in the proper place.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his leadership and once again for bringing forth, I think, a very important doctrine relative to our policy here in the Western Hemisphere. I rise today in support of this amendment, with great concern about the more than 40 years of failed American policy towards Cuba. We talk a lot about bringing democracy to Cuba and other parts of the world, especially for those who have suffered under the cruel fist of Communist tyranny for decades. Yet for decades we have worked to shut off their access to their very best hope for freedom, and that is to experience it by conversing with people who are free, or at least were free up until June 30, when once again we adopted another tyrannical national policy toward Cuba. Instead of bringing about positive change for the people of Cuba, this decrepit policy has hurt ordinary Cubans. It has hurt their families and has deprived ordinary Americans of the opportunity to become ambassadors of freedom. The new restrictions that were put into effect last month only cripple our ability to see change come to the Cuban people. We say we are trying to help the Cuban people, but by imposing even stricter limits on how Cuban Americans can help their family members in Cuba, these changes hurt not only the Cuban Government but ordinary Cuban citizens who are struggling under that very dictatorship that we try now to depose. These new restrictions and the underlying policies are unreasonable and fly in the face of what everyone knows is the best way to make people hungry for change, and that is to show them the benefits of what they are missing and the benefits of what they will gain by changing. Is anyone surprised, then, that in 4 decades we have seen little change in the Cuban political climate? How can we claim to support families while our policies encourage the breakdown of family units by limiting the support of Cuban Americans that can provide family members while they struggle in Cuba? How can we claim to value our God-given freedoms, while denying American citizens the right to move about the world as they please? And how can we claim to want a free and democratic Cuba while refusing the Cuban people the opportunity to see freedom in action and at its best? Our failed Cuban policies toward Cuba cannot continue. Making them tougher only makes them worse. If we truly seek to end ruthless and brutal human rights violations in Cuba while showing the Cuban people the way toward social and economic freedom, we must begin by changing our own policies of restriction and denial. I urge the support of this amendment. And let me just say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that I wonder, because I have heard tonight about the iron fist, the restrictions, the suppression, and government directed. Is that not what we are talking about in our directions toward Americans and their want of travel to Cuba? Is that not what we are talking about in our government restricting the activities and relationships between families? Is that not what we are talking about with our religious associations and the lack of our ability to have our religious associations go to Cuba? Is that not what we are talking about when we are afraid, for some reason, to expose the Cuban people to another form of political thought? I wonder from where that iron fist and that tyrannical hand comes into play?

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act. Rural communities across my state and elsewhere are being unfairly burdened by Environmental Protection Agency regulations that have questionable benefit. While we all want to ensure a clean, safe drinking water supply for our communities, we must remember that fiscal restraints sometimes require tradeoffs and accommodations. Many small communities believe that EPA regulations will do more harm than good by wasting limited public health funds complying with standards that do little to advance the interests of public health. For those of you who may have forgotten the arsenic debate of just a few years ago, let me refresh your memory. The Safe Drinking Water Act was used in the past to clean up pollution caused by previous business practices. Now the EPA is using the act to clean up Mother Nature herself. Arsenic is a naturally occurring component in the soil and water of many Western states, including Idaho. Using questionable science, the EPA has committed to ensuring all domestic water systems meet the arbitrary 10 parts-per-billion standard for arsenic--no matter how small those systems are. This is down from the 50 parts-per-billion standard set in 1975. When the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed, Congress provided flexibility for EPA to determine whether it is economically or technologically feasible to obtain a certain level of reduced contamination. Essentially, the act states that if it's too expensive, smaller systems simply need to get as close to the standard as they reasonably can. Unfortunately EPA has decided not to use that flexibility. EPA has determined that paying $1,000 per year per user for the smaller water systems to meet the arsenic standard is affordable. We know that many of our rural communities have low-income residents who make difficult decisions each month. They must choose which bills to pay and which to put off. These folks aren't worried about the cable bill; they're worried about being able to cover their heat, food, power and even prescription drug costs every month. And when faced with those choices, they'll choose to pay their water bill first. But the EPA--in its infinite wisdom--has decided to place a higher priority on marginal reductions in arsenic level than such basic needs as food and shelter. That is unacceptable, which is why I am introducing legislation today to allow small and rural communities, those under 10,000 in population, to choose whether they want EPA to enforce regulations on naturally occurring contaminants. If the eligible community determines it is too costly to comply with the rule it can request an exemption from the regulation, which EPA must grant. No one is talking about removing all the arsenic from the water. We are talking about removing parts per billion, which is removing a very small amount of something that is barely even there. There is no bright line of concentration at the parts-per-billion level beyond which arsenic becomes unsafe. EPA views 9.9 parts-per-billion as safe and 10.1 as unsafe, despite the fact that there is little health difference between such small differences. EPA can't determine how much arsenic ingestion above the federal standard is harmful. While EPA has said that arsenic concentrations above its standard don't necessarily present an unreasonable risk to health, concentrations above 10 parts- per-billion do create a significant financial burden for small communities. This mandate doesn't consider the unintended consequences and it can't balance competing local priorities. Local communities are in the best position to determine where their scarce resources need to go. EPA is not going to the communities and suggesting ways they can comply or technology they can use. Rather than being a good partner, EPA is once again just an enforcer, and is waiting until 2006 to impose fines on communities that are not in compliance. Such one-size-fits-all government ``solutions'' do nothing to make the water cleaner. They only provoke bitterness and stifle cooperation. One small community in Idaho already has had to lay off its only police officer in order to afford studies and other requirements related to complying with the arsenic regulation. Now we are asking people to choose between real public safety and a theoretical health benefit. Further compounding the problem for this rural community, the EPA recently denied its request for a compliance extension, as provided for in the agency's own regulation. Community leaders know they can't comply by 2006 and are trying to do the right thing--but EPA refuses to help them. We are supposed to have a democratic process here in the United States. In this case, the EPA is overriding the will of local citizens. I believe it's time to put the power back into the hands of those most impacted to determine what truly is best for them. I remain concerned that this regulation will have very adverse economic impacts on thousands of rural communities across the nation, without addressing legitimate human health concerns. Since there is no economically feasible way for small communities to meet this standard and the standard may result in no health benefits, I support allowing each eligible rural community to decide whether to comply. I encourage you to join me in cosponsoring the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act