Mike Pompeo

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, and I want to thank Congressman Pitts for his hard work on this legislation. Kansas has long been on the front lines of defending life, and I join most other Kansans in acknowledging that life begins at conception. Nearly all Kansans understand that Federal taxpayer dollars should never be used for abortions. I know the history here. For a very long time, there was bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment and for legislation that said that taxpayer money should not go for abortions; but today, the left has moved so far that they object to this simple, commonsense measure which will protect taxpayers from their money going to a procedure which they find abhorrent. Simply put, we must end what ObamaCare did, and we must stop subsidizing abortions with Federal taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to support both this rule and H.R. 358 and to protect the life of the unborn.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, since coming to Congress 9 years ago, I have sadly relearned that the government in Washington D.C. only grows and grows and grows. When Democrats and many Republicans, too, come to the floor of the House and talk about spending cuts, they are often talking simply about slowing the rate of growth of government. There is seldom, if ever, any real discussion about cutting the size of the Federal Government or about eliminating an entire program or agency. But today, with $14.8 trillion in debt, we can't continue to simply slow the rate of growth. We've got to cut it, and we've got to get rid of some things. As a first step this week, I will proffer a bill that will eliminate the Economic Development Agency. It's part of the Department of Commerce and was established in 1965 as an element of President Johnson's Great Society. For over 45 years, the EDA has spent billions on local projects, not national projects, trying to pick winners and losers amongst various projects by region, industry, and community. Much like a stimulus bill or earmarks, the EDA provides loans and grants to pet projects of the administration in power. In 2008, the EDA spent $2 million on the Harry Reid Research and Technology Park at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Just last year, it spent $25 million on the Global Climate Mitigation Incentive Fund. This year, the agency will spend almost $300 million of taxpayer dollars. Now, this might not sound like a lot of money sometimes here in Washington, D.C., but in Newton, in Independence, in Wichita, and in Goddard, Kansas, that's still a lot of money. I want to take just a minute to talk about the EDA. Most folks in Congress and most folks back in Kansas will have never heard of it. I had not before I entered Congress. It provides these grants and loans to projects it selects all over the country. At its very core, the EDA is nothing more than a giant wealth redistribution machine. It takes money from people in one place and at one time and redistributes it all across the country for inherently local projects. For example, it gave $2 million to the ``culinary amphitheater,'' wine tasting room, and gift shop in Washington State. It gave $350,000 to renovate a theater in Colorado. In 2011, it gave $1.4 million to build infrastructure development so that a steel plant of $1.6 billion could be built in Minnesota. Like the vast majority of projects, that steel plant would have been built without Federal taxpayer dollars. It was a $1.6 billion project helped by the Federal Government to the tune of only $1.4 million. Our even bigger problem, however, is with EDA. It's duplicative. It's just one of at least 80 Federal economic development agencies. HUD and Ag and HHS all have economic development grants as well. Second, it's ineffective. It typically provides a very small part of any given project. The GAO reports that most of its financing did not have any significant effect on the success of projects and produced, at best, inconclusive results and, in some cases, may even detract from a more flexible workforce. Third, this is an incredibly wasteful agency. It was identified by GAO as one of the agencies that ought to go away. Indeed, a recent inspector general audit of 10 projects totaling $45 million showed that 29 percent of the grant money had been wasted due to various violations of EDA grant requirements. Four of the 10 projects EDA funded in that group were never completed. Finally and perhaps more importantly, this is not the role of the Federal Government. As the Cato Institute has written, the Federal Government has no business trying to direct economic activity through politicized subsidy vehicles like the EDA. We've seen that with bad outcomes, like with Solyndra, only too recently. Every great journey starts with a single step. This is a small agency, but it's time for the first time in decades that we eliminate an entire program, an entire agency, so that it cannot continue to grow and grow and grow as part of our Federal Government. I would ask my colleagues to support the EDA Elimination Act.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise in support of the TRAIN Act, H.R. 2401. This bill provides a commonsense approach that addresses a series of EPA regulations that will cost jobs and cripple our Nation's economy. TRAIN requires a commission simply to study the cumulative impact of EPA's regulations, but it would also delay two incredibly expensive regulations--the Utility MACT rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The impact of these two EPA regulations on Kansas would be enormous. The Sunflower Electric Cooperative has been trying to build an 895- megawatt coal plant in Holcomb, Kansas, for years. Holcomb 2 will increase our Nation's energy supply, utilizing environmental controls to reduce air missions. It's a win-win that is good for jobs for Kansas, good for the economy, and good for the environment. But now this project is in serious jeopardy because of these EPA rules. The Kansas Attorney General has now stepped in, filing a lawsuit in the D.C. Court of Appeals trying to slow down and stop this rule because it will be physically impossible for Kansas utilities to comply with these rules. The problems in Kansas are the same problems all Americans face because of EPA's refusal to consider the real economic costs of these regulations. Passing the TRAIN Act saves jobs. Let's do it.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Speaker, I came to Washington, D.C., 9 months ago with the hope that we would restore a little bit of common sense and a whole lot of spending control to Washington, D.C. I also came to Washington, D.C., having never heard of an eco-ambassador. Now I had heard of ambassadors and I am familiar with the environment, but I had never heard of an eco-ambassador. Indeed, I had never heard of an eco-ambassador until just a few short weeks ago when our Environmental Protection Agency that has done so much damage to our economy, so much damage to our Kansas' Fourth Congressional District, our farmers, our manufacturers, and our families, our Environmental Protection Agency decided at this time of massive Federal deficits that we needed a new program to create eco- ambassadors--eco-ambassadors, each of which will be given $6,000 of your money, eco-ambassadors which, in exchange for that money, will come to Washington, D.C., and go back to their home places and work for 20 weeks--20 weeks for $6,000--part-time at that--for their internship program. When you read the requirements to be eligible to receive an eco- ambassador internship position, you will be fascinated to see that it is an ideologically driven program. Students who apply must have a strong interest in environmental justice, social justice issues, and other issues relating to environmental health disparities in health, volunteer, or employment settings. This is a liberals-only policy. The Environmental Justice internship is of course administered with your taxpayer dollars. We don't need a program like this at any time; we certainly don't need it at this time. So I have offered a bill, H.R. 2876, the EPA Student Nondiscrimination Act. It simply says that when you apply for employment with the Federal Government, we're not going to seek to find out whether you agree with this administration's radical environmental agenda. We're not going to seek to find out if you have worked as a community organizer. All we're going to ask is that you are qualified for the position. Now, there are many efforts and many concerns about environmental disparities across the country. I share those concerns, but our EPA and our Justice Department already have many remedies for folks who feel like they have been discriminated against. What we don't need is yet another Federal program aimed at trying to solve a problem that we know can't be solved in Washington, D.C. I'll close with this thought: this is a small program. The total dollars expended in the scale of our massive Federal deficit are very, very small; but it is symptomatic of a place, Washington, D.C., that has become completely disconnected from America and commonsense values, the values that we all have in Kansas. We don't need eco-ambassadors. We don't need this program. And I would ask my colleagues to support my legislation to eliminate it.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about how our President has systematically and relentlessly attacked the general aviation industry. You know, this is one of the few last great manufacturing gems left in America. It creates $1.2 million jobs--the gentleman before me was speaking about jobs--1.2 million jobs in America and $150 billion worth of income and a tremendous amount of exports. This industry is enormously important to my district, but not just my district, the air capital of the world, but all across the country. These are good jobs. These are middle class jobs. They are jobs for machinists and welders and riveters and managers and purchasing people who make some of the finest airplanes in the world. But instead of supporting the general aviation industry and welcoming those jobs, the President has attacked it. At the very least, he could just leave it alone. But this is part of his larger class warfare effort. He demonizes general aviation users. He calls them corporate fat-cat jet owners at every turn. But it's not impacting the folks who use those as business tools; it's impacting the people who build these airplanes. They are productive. They are working to grow their businesses, and they are growing jobs. His rhetoric kills sales of American manufactured goods and, with them, the jobs that are created when those airplanes are built. You know, he has attacked it in multiple ways. Most recently the Department of Transportation issued something called BARR. It's a program which has long ensured basic privacy rights for general aviation users by allowing them to opt out of being tracked by everybody with an Internet connection. But on August 2, the FAA changed that rule and said, no, now anyone with an Internet connection can find out and violate the privacy rights of anybody who decides to fly in an airplane all across the country unless they specifically opt out and can state a valid security threat. This is an unprecedented step. It will facilitate serious violations of privacy, and it doesn't help create jobs in America. I have introduced a piece of legislation called the BARR Preservation Act, along with Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, and I would urge my colleagues to support that legislation. It will create jobs in America. Now the President most recently announced, as part of his efforts to reduce the deficit, user fees on general aviation aircraft, over $100 per flight, not to mention the enormous bureaucracy it will take to collect this set of taxes. At a time when America has got unemployment of one in six or more, it's no time to add taxes on folks who are trying to fly their airplane around this country to get from Topeka to Des Moines, to get to small towns to support American manufacturing. This President wants to put taxes on general aviation users. Finally, let me just talk for a moment about the taxes and the rhetoric. Mr. President, this industry is not asking for a handout. This President mistakes hardworking people for folks who are looking for something from the Federal Government. All we ask is to be left alone. We don't want the bailouts that the city of Detroit received and that the automotive folks received. We're not asking for tax favoritism. All we're asking is that you respect the hardworking people of Kansas and all across America who build the finest airplanes in the world. This is, Mr. Speaker, failed leadership. We have $4 trillion in additional debt and a loss of 2 million jobs under this President. Don't give us a bailout; don't give us a handout. We don't want special favors. Simply leave us alone to grow and create good, middle class, hardworking people's jobs right in Kansas and right in America. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his hard work on this important piece of legislation. In Kansas, we build airplanes with American workers. The Boeing Company has a big facility there. Indeed, last night, on a telephone town hall, I had a worker from Boeing call in. He was very worried about his continued employment right in Wichita, Kansas, and in America. He was worried because this administration has taken actions to destroy manufacturing and aviation manufacturing here in America. I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation because the NLRB has no business telling The Boeing Company, who wants to invest hundreds of millions of its own dollars--not taxpayer dollars, its own dollars--creating jobs in South Carolina. What next? An attack on Kansas? An attack on aviation workers all across America? We need to pass this piece of legislation immediately and ask the President to sign it. It's too important to American workers to allow the NLRB to continue the Big Government policies of this administration.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, throughout history, great change has mostly come from steady, determined hard work performed over long, long periods of time. Think of our Revolution. It took years. Think of the war that freed the slaves and the progression towards racial equality. It has taken years. Think of the continued long march against radical Islamic terrorism that continues today. Today, the challenge we face is a frightening economic challenge. We must put people back to work. We've got to grow our economy so we can pay off the crushing debt that has been heaped upon the next generation over the past 40 years. It is the fight of my generation. There are two world views to tackle this problem that threaten our Republic. The first, offered by the President and those who control Washington, D.C. today, is more government, more spending, more redistribution of wealth, and more physical and spiritual dependence on government. The American people rejected this world view on November 2, 2010. Then there is a second view. It is one that offers liberty and freedom from government instead of control by government. It recognizes that the left's morally misguided policies will expand government, suffocate growth, further depress job creation, and push millions of people farther away from any hope of rising out of poverty. These policies negatively impact American culture by squelching individual responsibility and initiative and work ethic. America has always had a cultural bias in favor of productive work, and has disapproved of the easy acceptance of charity and welfare payments when these are not necessary and when one can provide for oneself. These competing visions of America frame the debate over reducing our Nation's spending addiction. It is the fight we're having today. So, today, I will vote for a bill that for the first time in decades begins to turn the tide against the radical job-killing spending of our current President. Now, it's true that the election of President Barack Obama in 2008 and the Democratic retention of the Senate in 2010 continue to have consequences, so this bill is necessarily insufficient. It does not complete the mission. If this plan is all we ever do, we plainly will have failed the task that the new class of freshmen was sent to Washington, D.C. to take on. But it is not all we'll do. We will continue to execute the will of the American people, and we will hold this Republic together by ending this spending addiction that has afflicted this town for decades. This bill is the Lexington and Concord of the American Revolution. It is Antietam to our Civil War. It is D-day to World War II. It is the first skirmish in a very long battle. That great Kansan, General Eisenhower, did not declare victory on June 6, 1944, after America successfully commenced its liberation of Europe. Rather, he acknowledged a good day, that the battle had been joined, and he had a deep recognition that he needed to continue to execute his battle plan. The American people spoke on November 2, 2010, and we now begin to do what they demand that we do. This bill we vote on today honors that commitment. We said we would not raise taxes. This bill does not do that. Our President complains. We said we would not increase the debt limit beyond the amount of spending reductions that we undertake. This bill does that. Our President complains. These were bold commitments we made to the American people, especially when Washington, D.C. continues to be controlled by liberal Democrats. How could we be sure that a rump group of Republicans could accomplish this? It had never been done before--but today, we have an opportunity as this monumental struggle begins. How big will our Federal Government be? Will our country return to its constitutional role of having bounded government? In Kansas, I know that the battle sometimes looks messy--big challenges often look that way. Today, however, I can say clearly that we have stopped a President intent on growing government, and we have begun to head down a path towards prosperity for our Nation and our freedom. It's a good day.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be very brief. I certainly care deeply about clean air, so do all the businesses in Kansas, so do all the agriculture people. We want clean water, but we know how to do it and we're doing it. You said this was the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment. I would prefer to call it the ``jobs are a good thing'' amendment. When things get mischaracterized--I'm not suggesting we abolish this. There is still $6.2 million available for the Greenhouse Gas Registry. That's as much as was available in 2009. This is a simple, modest amendment that many on your side voted for when I offered it before, and I hope many of them will continue to do that. I thank you for yielding.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying thank you to the committee chairman for running a great piece of legislation. I think this bill will go a long way towards creating a pro-growth economy. We've done a great deal of work to reduce spending on this bill, and I stand here this afternoon hoping to help out even just a little bit more. The amendment I offer I offered during H.R. 1. It passed. It passed with votes from both sides of the aisle. The Senate failed to act on it, so I'm here today again to offer this amendment one more time, and I hope it will pass again with bipartisan support, and that we will, once again, move towards a smaller, more humble Federal Government that does only those things that it's intended to do. The amendment I offer today seeks to reduce by $6.2 million the amount of money available for the EPA's greenhouse gas registry program. If I had my druthers, I'd probably prefer to see the program go away. But I offer a more modest amount today. This amendment only reduces spending for this program back to the levels from 2009. Now, this is very consistent with the legislation that we're acting on, the bigger bill which takes us back to 2009. This is a program that currently stands, without this amendment, 95 percent higher than the funding for the greenhouse gas registry in 2009. I think we can all agree that we weren't spending too little money in 2009 regulating greenhouse gases in America. We know the EPA says that this registry is just about data collection. We'd just like a little bit more information. But those of us in Kansas who are trying to operate businesses and make a go of it know that there's an agenda far beyond that. This is an agenda that is job-killing. This is an agenda that will destroy jobs, not only in Kansas, but will drive up the cost of energy for every American. And so I urge my colleagues today to support this amendment. If we simply restore funding back to the 2009 level we will roll back, I hope, again with bipartisan support, and we'll create jobs and keep EPA doing those things it ought to be doing. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, over the past 1\1/2\ years, we've seen this President take away a lot of our freedoms with big spending and a big health care plan. I want to talk about another risk to American freedom today, and that is the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, also known as the Small Arms Treaty. I'm profoundly disappointed, but, frankly, not surprised, that this administration is joining the United Nations in crafting this dangerous treaty designed to curtail our Second Amendment rights. Parties in the negotiations about the treaty are talking about banning civilian possession of firearms, decreasing the ability for trade in firearms, and heavily restricting the rights of Americans to carry their firearms. Each one of these directives, if implemented, would clearly violate individual rights as ensconced in our Constitution. The Senate should not ratify this treaty. We must never turn our national sovereignty over to anyone, most especially the United Nations. As a former soldier who dearly loves his M250 caliber machine gun and loves his firearms as a civilian as well, I know that we have that right. We've got to stand up and protect it, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate not to ratify this treaty.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has systematically and recklessly attacked the general aviation industry. It's one of America's last remaining great manufacturing industries, employing over 1.2 million people and contributing $150 billion in economic activity each year. He has demonized its users and drawn a line in the sand for higher taxes. And whom is President Obama hurting? Bill Gates? Warren Buffett? No. He's hurting line workers in Wichita, Kansas, and all over the country. He's hurting small business owners trying to get from Topeka to Des Moines to close a business deal. These attacks on our industry are only a diversion, a distraction from the failed economic policies of this administration. His policies have left us with a $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone and a loss of over 2 million jobs during his time in office. Mr. Speaker, the aviation industry is not asking for a bailout like he gave the auto guys. Just leave us alone. Get out of the way. We have a community that just wants to create jobs and grow our economy. That may not be your agenda, Mr. President, but it is certainly mine.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, last night this body passed a piece of legislation that takes a first good step toward fixing America's spending problem, toward taking on our spending addiction and addressing the enormous deficits and debt that our Nation faces. But we all know there's a second component to making sure that we solve this deficit and debt crisis, and that's economic growth. It's jobs. It's allowing the American entrepreneur, the American consumer to have affordable products, and in the case of Kansas, the American farmer and agriculture producer to survive, to continue to do the things that they need to do to feed the world. I've been in Congress just 6 months now, and I've watched this administration's Environmental Protection Agency act with respect to our agriculture community with radical indifference or, worse, outright hostility. These are folks who are providing affordable food for our entire world, and yet this administration--this administration--seeks to regulate it. It seeks to harass it. It seeks to impose burdens which will cause this great source of wealth for our Nation to leave. I want to talk about that because it's so important for the growth of our Nation and the success of our Nation to continue to have that industry thrive, and I want to talk about some of the things I've seen in just these 6 months. The American farmer needs energy. The American farmer needs affordable energy. In this morning's Wichita Eagle, our primary utility in western Kansas and south central Kansas said that the utility rules that this administration is about to impose will put them in a place where they cannot comply. Now, I'm not talking about increased costs. We know that this administration has driven higher electricity rates. We're talking about a utility that will not be able to comply with a set of regulations this administration is putting in place. That's not good for the agriculture community in Kansas. They rely on affordable energy. The examples go on. This administration, under the Clean Air Act, has attempted to regulate dust. Now, I don't know about folks that live out further this way, but in Kansas, on a dry day like today when it's 110 degrees, there's a little bit of dust when you drive your truck down the road. Yet they want to say, no, that's a regulated particulate matter. Where's the common sense? Today they're changing the clean air rules to take a set of chemicals that are already regulated under a set of regulations that have been in existence for decades and saying, no, we want to add another layer. We want you to now have to be permitted to have these chemicals that have already been demonstrated to be safe in their use in agricultural production. We've seen what they've tried to do with greenhouse gas regulation as well. We saw this body respond by not giving the President cap-and- trade, and I'm thankful for that. But we've now get the Environmental Protection Agency that's trying to do the same through regulatory fiat. And now the Department of Transportation is chiming in as well, trying to regulate trucks, farm equipment under rules that are normally intended for cross country truckers and trying to regulate them in the same way, putting an additional burden on the agricultural community that has been operating their farm equipment in south central Kansas in an incredibly safe way for decades. I hope that this administration will reconsider. We cannot continue to drive costs. We cannot continue to regulate the Kansas agricultural community. We cannot harass it into its leaving our country. We know this is important. If we drive up the cost of food, we'll drive up inflation. That's good for no one. I hope this administration will reconsider, that they'll use some common sense. Our farmers, our agriculture producers want clean air. They make it happen. They need clean water. They ensure that it happens every day. We do not need this administration to harass them into leaving the very profession that is so important to our country.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on July 18th, I missed rollcall votes numbered 601 and 602 because I was in Kansas on official business. Rollcall No. 601 was a vote on passage of H.R. 33, to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to specify when certain securities issued in connection with church plans are treated as exempted securities. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 602 was a vote on the Approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Speaker, this past week, a great American family retired from service to our Nation. Lieutenant General Bob Durbin and his wife, Diana, spent 36 years in service to our country in the United States Army working with soldiers and their families. On behalf of the United States, I want to thank them both for that service. This is also something I can speak to personally. Twenty-five years ago, General Durbin was my instructor in leadership at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He taught me there that it's always right to do the harder thing and not take the easier path. He reminded me that when times get tough, as they are here in America today, that real leaders can make real change. And Diana taught me that families with Christ in their hearts can make real changes in our world. Bob had many assignments during his 36 years in the Army, including command of Kansas' own Big Red One at Fort Riley, Kansas. He was also the first general assigned the daunting task of training the Afghanistan army and police force so that Afghanis may live in peace and security as we do in America. Bob and Diana, thank you for your service to our Nation. There is no higher praise I can give you than to say, ``Job well done.''

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I just want to say a couple of things quickly. I had a chance to hear, speaking before me, the gentleman from Oklahoma, who was talking about drilling and service companies. Until just over 6 months ago, I ran one of those small companies. It created energy jobs in Kansas and in Oklahoma and in Midland, Texas, and in Kilgore, Texas, and in all the places where American energy can be produced for American consumers. It's not that hard. This President just makes it so. We know we can have safe, clean, affordable energy produced here in America by American innovators, American businesses and American jobs if we will just do the simple things and get the Federal Government out of the way. Just a few minutes ago, my colleague from Kansas spoke about a power plant in his district in Kansas that we've been trying to build with clean coal technology. We've been trying to build it for years. It's cleaner than the plant that exists today. It will reduce overall emissions in the State of Kansas; yet this administration and our previous Governor, who is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services, just says, No. Don't produce that energy. Don't produce that affordable energy so we can build things here in America. I was just talking to my colleague from Colorado about that very same power plant and what it does to his State, the State of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. POMPEO. I know we're wrapping up here tonight, but I want to talk about one more thing and how the President's policies and his Environmental Protection Agency are destroying jobs in Kansas. In Kansas' Fourth Congressional District, we build an awful lot of airplanes. They need an awful lot of electricity to build those planes and to run those plants. Our agriculture community also depends on having the EPA out of the way. Today, I sat in a hearing where the Democrats continued to say we need tighter utility regulations, that we need a set of utility rules that will make it almost impossible to build a new utility plant in America. We need that energy. When we don't have that energy, prices and costs for our farmers go up, and that translates very directly. It translates into the cost of food at the table. When I talk to seniors, they say, Mike, we know what we spend money on. We spend it on the simple things. We spend it on food and energy to heat our homes. If we keep these policies up, we will be pricing our seniors into a place no one wants them. It doesn't have to be. We have American energy; we can get it.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I presented would decrease the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by $45.6 million and the funding for DOE's Vehicle Technologies Program. While I am certainly 100 percent behind innovation and the development of domestic sources of energy and new vehicle technologies, this program is simply not the way to do it. We shouldn't take money from one set of citizens to subsidize companies that, frankly, have had subsidies for too long in the development of new energy vehicle technologies. Look, it's a subsidy program, plain and simple. The program is part of this present administration's liberal agenda to replace the free market with government bureaucrats in determining which energy sources we ought to use to propel our vehicles and for transportation. You know, we are already seeing tremendous advances in hybrid technology and electric vehicle technology. In the State of Kansas, we have got folks coming up with wonderful, great, innovative ideas. They are seeking private capital markets to make that innovation happen. We have enormous venture capital firms that have made significant investment in these technologies. Why would the government use taxpayer money to compete with those ventures? They don't need the subsidies. They'll make these things work. This is a quarter billion dollars in an R&D subsidy in a sector that has received subsidies for decades, and they no longer need that. They are far along. They can make the progress. They can make these vehicles work. And the market will also choose them when they provide a technology that provides a cost-effective solution for folks who want to drive their vehicles and for companies that want to move their products and goods all across our Nation. You know, these subsidies come in lots of forms, and I have opposed them in every form. They come in our Tax Code. They come in the form of grants. They come in the form of other programs. Both the House and the Senate have recently rejected tax subsidies for specific fuel purposes already this year. This Vehicle Technologies Program should be no different. The President today said that we need to eat our peas. I suggest that he was suggesting that we need to do some difficult things. I happen to like peas. But he said we should do some difficult things. This is an easy thing. I would just as soon see this entire technology subsidy go away, but my suggestion here in this amendment is only this: that we return to spending levels from 2008, just 2 short years ago. I, for one, certainly don't believe, and I don't think the folks in Kansas and across this country believe, that we spent too little money on vehicle technology subsidies in 2008. So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. I rise in support of this amendment. As a former business owner, compliance with senseless government regulations was one of my biggest frustrations and, honestly, one of the primary reasons I ran for Congress. But it is impossible to comply with regulations when you get two different interpretations from two different agencies, and that's what we have here with this intellectual property rule. The PTO and the FDA have established two different standards, and this amendment simply seeks to fix that, to give an identical outcome from two different agencies that resulted from different interpretations of the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984. Inventors shouldn't have to guess. We can make a clean deadline. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. POMPEO. I rise in opposition to the Welch amendment and in strong support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, a piece of legislation that would create jobs in America and American energy for American consumers. The Welch amendment requires a company applying for a permit to provide data on ``oil subsidies provided by the Federal Government.'' Mr. Chairman, this is an absolute red herring. There's no definition of ``oil subsidy.'' That's intentional. The gentleman who proffered this amendment is an attorney. He ought to know better. I don't know what oil subsidies to which he's referring. Section 199, manufacturing deduction, which goes to all businesses whether they produce oil or otherwise, so long as they're engaged in manufacturing. Maybe he's referring to the writing off of intangible drilling costs and claiming tax credits for employing American workers. If those qualify as American Government giveaways, that should absolutely be something that I would think that he would support. These folks are paying royalty taxes and giving great revenue to the United States Treasury. This piece of legislation, without this amendment, will create many jobs and revenue for the United States Treasury. What Mr. Welch is really interested in, Mr. Chairman, what this amendment really does is it attempts to punish oil companies for producing American energy and American jobs. This piece of legislation, H.R. 2021, will do just that, and this amendment attempts to stop it. If there were subsidies that applied only to the oil industry or specifically benefited folks who purchased traditional oil and petroleum, I'd be the first to rise and say, You're right; that's a subsidy. We ought to get rid of it. But that's not what this amendment attempts to do. Rather, this amendment attempts to stop a piece of legislation that will create energy; will lower the price of gasoline for American consumers; will, again, add jobs all over our country; and, once again, provide American energy so that American consumers may benefit. I'd like to urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Welch amendment and support the underlying Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on May 26th, I missed rollcall vote No. 376 because I was in Kansas for a funeral. Rollcall No. 376 was a vote on the Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``yes.''

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to come to the floor today and thank Chairman Rogers and the ranking member for the great work they've done. I do not sit on this committee, but I did have the opportunity to serve in uniform our country. We witnessed what happened in the capture of the world's greatest terrorist, and we saw the great military feats which took place, but we also know all of the enormous work that our intelligence community did to make that happen. I served in a unit that patrolled the East German and Czechoslovakian border. Every day, we relied on the fact that our intelligence community was providing our military with the finest information and the finest data in as near realtime as it possibly could to make sure that we knew how to deploy our forces and knew the things that needed to be done to keep America safe. So I want to applaud the efforts of the Intelligence Committee. I want to urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and the intelligence community, which keeps everyone in America safe.