Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise today for two reasons, one is to commend Chairman Lewis and the Appropriations Committee for completing their work on the appropriations process today, June 20. This is quite an achievement. It has taken a lot of hard work by the committee. Both the Republican and Democrat members have worked very hard, applied themselves, had strenuous debates, and now we have completed our action, and we are looking forward to the action on the House floor for all of these bills, including today's defense bill. The second reason I rise is to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their consideration for the young men and women that serve this great country. One of the significant additions to this bill is an additional $500 million for the National Guard. National Guard soldiers, as you know, give up their jobs, their time with their family, make sacrifices to make sure this country is safe. Their equipment has been used and used hard, needs to be replaced. And thanks to these two gentlemen, we have $500 million to do just that. I think this is a very good bill. It does take consideration for young men and women who make sacrifices to serve this country and carry out the will of this Nation, and I hope that we can pass this quickly and get through the amendment process quickly as well.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, I suggest you pursue your bill then, because what you are doing here absolutely ties the hands of the Federal Government from protecting us, and it does not rewrite FISA. Now, let me also make this argument that FISA is a very narrow portion of our law. There is a much broader scope that is applicable to the situation necessary to protect this country. So focusing on one portion of the law is tying our hands and trying to make the whole world comply with this one narrow segment of law, in my view, it ties our hand, and I don't think we should do it. What I would suggest is that you withdraw this amendment, pursue your bill, along with the Republican cosponsors, because this does tie our hands. It gives us an opportunity to be less safe, and I suggest the gentleman withdraw his amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5504, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, KS, as the ``Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building.'' Edward Lawrence ``Larry'' Winn, Jr. represented Kansas's Third Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1967 to 1985. He was born in Kansas City, MO, on August 22, 1919. He was an Eagle Scout who attended public schools and graduated with a B.A. from the University of Kansas in 1941. Before his election to Congress, Winn spent 2 years with a radio station in Kansas City, 2 years with North American Aviation, and 2 years as a private home builder. From 1950 to 1966 he served as vice president of Winn-Rau Corp. Winn also spent 14 years as national director of the National Association of Home Builders and is a past president of the Home Builder's Association of Kansas City. Winn was elected as a Republican to the 90th and to the eight succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1967-January 3, 1985) and did not seek reelection to the 99th Congress. In Congress, Winn served 18 years on the Space Science and Applications Subcommittee and served on the Technology Assessment Board of the Office of Technology Assessment. He also spent 4 years on the District of Columbia Committee and 14 years on the Foreign Relations Committee. Winn served as a member of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations in 1979 and served as ranking Republican on the European and Middle East Subcommittee. Winn also served as a member of Canadian Interparliamentary Group and as a member of U.S.-European Interparliamentary Group. He was the first congressional spokesman for Value Analysis Engineering and a strong supporter of Peace Corps and Agency for International Development. Winn received the Treasury Department's ``Bulldog Award'' for fiscal responsibility all 18 years. Winn was the original sponsor of the legislation for the Tallgrass Prairie National Park in Kansas and after his retirement, the bill was managed by Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum and Representatives Pat Roberts and Dan Glickman. The bill was passed, and today the park is a reality. He also is a recipient of the Paul Harris Fellowship Award for Rotary International. After retirement from Congress, Winn was elected to the Board of Directors of Kansas City Life Insurance Company. He married Joan Elliott in 1942 and has five children. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Larry Winn and his 18 years of service to the Third Congressional District of Kansas by voting for H.R. 5504.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this is an important week for us to have this debate on the necessity of the global war on terror, a war that we did not ask for, but a war that came to us. The gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out that after Beirut, we left. We did not react to it. Several other instances like that occurred during the 1990s. We were attacked at the Khobar Towers; we did not react. We were attacked at the Kenya embassy; we did not react. We were attacked the first time at the World Trade Center; we did not react. The Tanzania embassy was bombed; we did not react. The USS Cole was bombed; we did not react. What did it yield us? A continuing battle against terror around the globe. I would remind my fellow colleagues that one such incident of attacking Americans happened in the Philippines when Gracia and Martin Burnham were kidnapped, along with a constituent from Representative Bono's district. The leader of the Abu Sayyaf Group, ASG, was trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That training occurred because we did not respond to these prior attacks. We left them alone. In the Indonesian al Qaeda training papers they found, they said one of the things that America is vulnerable about is they don't follow up. You can attack them, and they withdraw. They withdrew from Vietnam, they withdrew from Beirut, they withdrew from the Cole, the Kenya embassy, and Khobar Towers. They did not react the first time when they attacked the World Trade Tower. We have continued to make ourselves vulnerable by not responding to the worldwide war on terror. Thanks to American training and intelligence aid, the Philippine Government was able to rescue Gracia Burnham. Martin Burnham died in the rescue attempt. It was probably because we couldn't get close enough into the fight. But the important thing that we need to remember is if we back off now, according to the paper, or the letter that was written from al Zawahiri to the now-deceased al Zarqawi, it will be considered a victory for al Qaeda if we leave. Al Qaeda is the one that has decided to bring this war to Iraq and to fight Americans. That information is available on their Web sites and in the information that we collect. It is what the captives tell us when we interview them. They want to take this fight to the Americans in Iraq. I tell you, if we are going to have to fight terrorists, I would rather fight them at a place where every American carries a gun rather than on the streets of New York or Washington or Wichita because they have brought the fight to us. It is not we who decided to do this. I think it is very important as we pursue this worldwide battle against terrorism that we insist on doing it with our full resources, with full dedication, and that we disrupt their finances, that we disrupt their places of safe haven, that we disrupt the countries that are providing protection for them, and that we go to the terrorists and we find the root causes of this terrorism and sever the root. I think the reason we have seen so much money from al Qaeda going to Iraq, the reason that they have sent so many weapons into Iraq, the reason so many foreign fighters have gone into Iraq is because that is where they want to fight this battle. If we leave now, it would be giving them a victory and we would be once again putting another picture on the board here saying we should have fought harder; we should have stopped it back in 2006.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is relatively simple. It says that none of the funds in this bill will be made available for an income tax electronic preparation and filing system at the IRS, being prepared by the IRS. Now this is a stopgap measure for just 1 year until we thoroughly review before the authorizing committee acts upon this. The IRS is attempting to do a return-free tax system where they would write the software and administer the software so people could have their taxes prepared by the IRS. They first tried to do this in 1998. They announced it during their annual software developers conference. We tried to stop it. Congress was successful. They did not move forward with it. In 2000, once again, they tried to propose a tax software business inside the IRS. Congress protested and the IRS backed off. In 2001, they tried a different avenue through the U.S. Postal Service. Again, Congress weighed in and the plans were again dropped. In 2002, the IRS used its e-government project and EZ tax filing system. Once again the government backed off after Congress intervened. In 2004 and 2005, they tried through the return-free tax filing system. We intervened and once again they backed down. Last year Chairman Knollenberg, along with myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) had a colloquy clarifying the House's intention to stop the IRS going into the tax preparation business. The reason why we are opposing this is stated very well by Mr. Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He believes that the prohibition should be supported. He says, number one, that the current Treasury Secretary, the IRS Commissioner, as well as President Clinton's last IRS Commissioner, are on record of opposing such a plan, and for very good reasons. I am going to quote Mr. Alford. He said, ``It is extremely difficult to fathom that a government agency whose primary responsibility is tax collection and tax compliance would not be biased against helping the individual taxpayer when it comes to maximizing deductions. The IRS and State tax collectors are under constant pressure from lawmakers to maximize revenue intake.'' He said that they would likely do everything legally possible to minimize deductions on those tax returns if they prepared them. Following what Mr. Alford said, those that would be impacted most are minorities because they are usually single, one-job, wage-only type taxpayers that use the 1040 EZ form. They would be the ones at greatest risk. It is not the wealthier Americans who spend money to have their taxes prepared by an expert, but it would be more likely that the IRS would minimize the deductions of lower income earners. Also, Mr. Chairman, it is not really apparent how much this system would cost. The IRS says just to design the system would cost $300 million, and administering, keeping upgrades and maintaining the software is not included in that. And the private sector already has those products. Software is available. I use Tax Cut software to prepare my own taxes. This is where the government is trying to compete with the private sector. I think it is inefficient. I think that it is difficult for us to believe that they would try to maximize deductions for taxpayers, especially those in lower income levels and those that are minorities. Number five, lastly, is polling. The Wall Street Journal recently in an on online poll of 3,000 respondents, 70 percent of them said we should oppose the IRS getting into the business of preparing individual tax returns. Mr. Chairman, I realize that this would be subject to a point of order under clause 5 because of the way our House rules are written.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment not because I believe it is necessary, but because it is under a point of order; but will carry on the battle to make sure that the IRS does not get into the business of competing with the private sector and taking advantage of those in lower income levels.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 318 which promotes responsible fatherhood. I am a proud cosponsor of this resolution but an even prouder father of three. My children are the joy of my life and my wife Vicki and I have thoroughly enjoyed each stage of their lives as they have grown up. I would like to encourage all fathers to realize the impact we have on our children. It is imperative that we not only love our wives as Jesus Christ loved His church, but that we show that love to our children. Our children must be our priorities, and that is exceedingly hard in this world. I challenge all of us fathers to work at maintaining a loving and active relationship with our children. Whether it is attending sporting events, going hunting and fishing, or playing guitar with your children, Almighty God has placed in our lives the gift of children and we must honor Him by our example. My own father is a man of God and an example to me of a godly leader and solid Christian. Thank you, Dad, for the impact you have been in my life and the lives of my children. Happy Father's Day.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development has done a fine job. We are a nation of priorities. Each year we must decide where the resources that have been given to us by the taxpayers will be spent. This bill is a good example. The chairman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) made good decisions on the allocations within this bill. The subcommittee worked its will, making sure that the allocations were filled to the best of our ability. Then the bill went to the full committee appropriations process, and the amendments were conducted. And again the will of the committee was worked. Not all of the requests were funded. It is the same with Amtrak. Their request was not funded, and it is because Amtrak is undergoing some financial stress that they have asked for more funding. But this is not new to our economy. Other portions of our economy have also been under financial stress. For example, the airlines have been faced with similar shortfalls in revenue. And yet when they were faced with these shortfalls, they undertook a search of every cost. They went to their workers. They went to their pilots. They went to their flight attendants. They went to the mechanics. And they asked them, could you help out under this current period of financial stress? And the unions and the workers all weighed in to help with the cost structure. The same thing happened in our auto manufacturing industry, where the United Auto Workers weighed in and helped bear some of the reductions in costs so that they could keep their companies afloat. They came to the table, they did the right thing for their jobs, for their families, and they made themselves more competitive in times of financial stress. Now we come to Amtrak. Amtrak has looked at some of their costs, but their workers have never weighed in. Mr. Chairman, I think when you look at the costs that Amtrak is asking for, we need to look across the spectrum, at the union agreements, at the wages that are being paid, at the benefits, as well as the cost of the infrastructure, the cost to operate, the energy costs, so that each and every facet of Amtrak weighs into these costs. We have done that. The reforms are in place. We hope to see the reforms completed, Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we have these reforms that we have put in the bill become enacted, so that we can take each facet of the cost in Amtrak into the formula to come up with a plan to make sure that Amtrak is solvent in the future. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for spending the time on these allocations within this bill. I think he has done a fine job. I would oppose the gentleman from Ohio's amendment, let the reforms take place and make sure that Amtrak is solvent in the future.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York. I am pleased that the gentleman from the State of Washington is concerned about the expanding Federal bureaucracy, and I look forward to working with him to make sure that our Federal Government does not grow at fast of a pace because when it does it makes us less competitive, but the issue here is whether we should divert money to the issue that the gentleman would like to have it diverted to. $260 million is a lot of money. There has been a lot of preparation in the allocation of the money that has come to the subcommittee and to the full Committee of Appropriations. Difficult decisions were made, but more importantly, this money that would be taken from the GSA is to address a very important, vital need in our society today, and that is the immigration challenge that we are facing today. Many of you have received bricks in your office from constituents. Those bricks represent the necessity of building a stronger border along the southern part of this country. This money that is being diverted in this amendment would take money from six border stations: McAllen, Texas; El Paso, Texas; San Luis, New Mexico; Columbus, New Mexico; Calexico, California; and Nogales, Arizona. People are coming across because we have not established our own borders in this country. We have not established our southern border. These six border stations will help do this establishment of our borders. Now, there is always something that people feel like is a higher priority, but today, if you stop the first 12 people on Main Street, America, and ask them do what you want with this $260 million going to this Federal housing project or do you want it to go to the border to stop the illegal flow of immigrants coming in, I guarantee you that all of them will say to you, let us stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. First, let us take care of the ones that are here, find a system that incorporates them into our work needs and into our culture, and then let us move on to something else. Let us move on to the needs that we have in meeting the challenges of those who are lower income groups. This amendment would take away from that goal of fixing our borders, and I would suggest that we vote it down.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his leadership on this issue. We have the number one economy in the world. And since we took over that position, we have never looked back. But today, we had better be looking over our shoulder. Other countries are rapidly gaining ground, and part of the problem is in our trade policy. Mr. Chairman over the last generation, Congress has created barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America. The Economic Competitive Caucus has listed eight categories of these barriers that restrict the growth in our economy and restrict more American jobs. One of these categories is securing trade policy, more trade agreements and opening markets to help create jobs. But we must also enforce the trade policy and the trade agreements that we have made, because if we do not, we will lose jobs. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has identified an unenforced portion of our statutes. His amendment closes a loophole, and protects the creative talents in America and saves American jobs. We must protect against infringement of American ideas to protect these jobs and we do that by enforcing our trade agreements. This amendment will do just that. Please support the gentleman from Nebraska's amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona yielding to me for the purpose of a colloquy. I would also like to thank him for his service to the country. In his 22 years in the Congress, he has been a great subcommittee chairman and we appreciate his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank him for his foresight and inclusion for the Tiahrt amendment violation report language. I also appreciate his hard work as chairman of the subcommittee on this bill, which I support. As the author of this important amendment, which has been in law since 1998, I have grave concerns about the violations that took place in Guatemala, the confirmed fact that the violations went on for 3 years, and the amount of time it took USAID to notify Congress of the violations. The purpose of this report language is to send a strong message to USAID that the law has been ignored and that Congress will not stand by and watch. We must be able to provide proper oversight. In order to do that the agencies that receive taxpayer dollars under the child survival and health programs fund, must adhere to the specifications of the law. USAID has confirmed that bonus payments were paid to 12 referral agents at APROFAM, the Family Welfare Association of Guatemala, which is an international Planned Parenthood federation affiliate. Each agent had a target of bringing in 25 women for sterilization. The bonus payments were paid to the agents when certain quotas were met, and for some their salaries were almost doubled as a result. This violates two parts of the language of the law. USAID found out about the violations and the bonus was stopped. However, the length of time concerns me. It took them 9 months to get the information from Guatemala to USAID to Washington, then another 60 days to get it to Congress. We ought to be horrified that no less than 900 women that were sterilized by APROFAM over the span of 3 years, the bonus payment system was in place. Mr. Chairman, I have heard of other possible amendment violations to the Tiahrt amendment in other countries, and I implore USAID to act quickly to investigate these in a proper and timely manner and to report to Congress. I want to thank again the chairman for engaging in this colloquy and for his service to the committee and to the country.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer and withdraw an amendment tonight in order to make the point that over the last generation, Congress has created barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America. One of those barriers is excessive regulations, and I was trying to make the point that whenever this government makes regulations, they should take into consideration that the competitiveness of America is very important, not only for today and today's economy, but for the next economy. Many countries are preparing for the future economy, and this country seems to be trying to erect new barriers to making us more competitive. In deference to the Members' time tonight, I know the hour is getting late and we have much work to accomplish, I will not be offering the amendment. But I do want to leave the House with this point, that we must look forward to the next economy and remove barriers that have been created so we can bring jobs back to America and create more jobs.

Mr. TIAHRT

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It just says we will not promulgate any regulations without considering the effect such regulations have on the competitiveness of American businesses. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the President highlighted competitiveness in his State of the Union address this year. The President understands the need for helping make America more competitive. The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, thanks to Chairman Hobson of Ohio, fully funds the President's American Competitiveness Initiative within the Department of Energy at $4.1 billion. Hopefully, that money will be well spent to lay the groundwork for a strong U.S. position in the future economy. This funding will help America provide leadership in the area of science and energy research. Our teachers, engineers and scientists need resources to help them stay on the forefront of new discoveries and practical application of new technologies. The President understands the importance of training more scientists and engineers to conduct needed research for our future economy. China currently graduates more English speaking engineers every year than we do right here in America. They are planning for the next economy. But beyond Federal funding, the importance of science, energy and teacher training initiatives, it is vitally important that our Federal agencies create rules in a way that do not restrict the businesses from being competitive. Federal spending, while it is important, is not the primary answer to making America more competitive. It is the private sector that creates jobs, not the government. We need to make sure that the rules and regulations are written in ways that will not harm our competitiveness. Unnecessary burdensome regulations restrict American businesses from doing what they do best, and that is creating jobs. Other barriers beyond regulations include skyrocketing health care costs that are driven by government regulations, excess civil litigation costs that our laws allow, punitive tax policy, unenforced trade policy, a need to focus education in technical areas, and the directed research and development funds similar to what we have here in this bill. Energy policy is another area. We must remove the barriers to lower energy costs. America currently has 103 civilian nuclear reactors that are responsible for generating 20 percent of our electrical needs. We could use more nuclear energy for our future electricity needs to reduce the demand on fossil fuels, but there are a number of obstacles in the way to these new plants from them being ordered, licensed and built. No nuclear power plants have been built since 1978. The last one took 30 years. We have to simplify the regulations. It is important to do that in order to make America more competitive. We need to continue assisting, not hindering, commercial interests by pursuing more nuclear power plants. The more affordable we can make electricity, the more American businesses are going to benefit by having lower energy costs. In an era when energy prices have soared, Congress needs to do everything possible to reduce the barriers in the marketplace to provide affordable energy. The more reliable and affordable sources of energy we can create in America, the more help businesses will have in creating and keeping our jobs. Now, Mr. Chairman, I realize that the House rules view this amendment as legislating in an appropriations bill, but fighting for a strong economy is a good thing. It is good for America, and it is good for American jobs. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for this process, I respectfully ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It just says that none of the funds made available in this act will be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of the effect that such regulations would have on the competitiveness of American businesses. Mr. Chairman, over the last generation, Congress has created barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America. There are at least eight major barriers in which our policies have been preventative of keeping jobs in America. They consist of health care policy that is driving the fastest growth in costs in America, making it more difficult to keep and create jobs. It includes a tax policy that punishes success. It includes litigation costs that result in court costs, lawyer fees and higher liability insurance costs. It includes an energy policy that has prevented exploration, expansion of refinement capability, and new renewable energy resources. It includes trade policy that hasn't been properly enforced. And it has allowed American companies to be targeted by foreign-owned government businesses. It includes an education policy that is not meeting the needs of the next more technological economy. It includes research and development funding that is not focused on the ideas that will move us into a strong position for tomorrow's products in the next economy. And it includes a regulatory policy that slows the growth of our economy by taking an adversarial role which works against those that create and keep jobs in America. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain just one example of how the funding in this bill has been used by government agencies to prevent us from creating and keeping jobs in America. Creekstone Farms is a small Kansas beef processing plant in my congressional district that has sought permission from the United States Department of Agriculture since early 2004 to voluntarily conduct BSE tests or screening tests on cattle. USDA has repeatedly refused to allow BSE test kit manufacturers to sell the test kits to companies who want to voluntarily test for BSE. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, the American food system is completely safe with many checks and balances built into our production, processing, distribution, and retail system. Mad cow disease has never made it into our markets. In December of 2003, USDA detected the first case of mad cow disease, but that case never made it into our system. It is completely safe. Our food supply is completely safe. But concerns developed overseas in several of our export markets, specifically in Japan and South Korea. They banned our meat products from their markets. Since then, we have lost over $4 billion in sales and thousands of jobs, some of them right in Kansas. South Korea and Japan are looking for more confidence in their meat supply. We believe it is perfectly safe, but they want something to tell their consumers. Creekstone proposed a screening test on a voluntary basis of each carcass so that they could provide that level of confidence to the consumers in South Korea and in Japan. But when they went to the United States Department of Agriculture to get permission to do this screening, they were told no. Not only was Creekstone told no, but the company that manufactured these test kits for BSE was told, no, you cannot sell these kits to Creekstone. Whatever happened to the old adage that the consumer is always right? In America, we have built a strong economy by meeting the needs of the consumers, by opening new markets to a developing level of confidence. For example, the side air bags in an automobile: an automobile that has side air bags, gives some people more confidence that it is safe and therefore they are willing to spend a little extra money on buying a car with side air bags. But not all cars have side air bags. The Department of Transportation said, yes, it is fine. If you want to meet those customers' needs and they want to pay a little more, then go ahead and voluntarily put side air bags in automobiles. Unlike the Department of Transportation, USDA has said that you cannot use this type of voluntarily based marketing to meet consumers needs, so they have completely shut off this area of letting us develop this new market, and the consumers in South Korea and Japan still don't have enough confidence to buy American beef. We have lost that market now to Australia and New Zealand, and it is going to be difficult for us to gain it back. Creekstone has an idea to regain this market, but it is the government-regulation bureaucracy that is preventing us from opening that market and keeping and creating jobs in America. Mr. Chairman, this is just one example of how regulations can keep us from expanding and preparing for the next economy. Other nations are preparing for the next economy, but we are not. Mr. Chairman, I realize this is authorization on an appropriations bill and it is my I intent to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment, but I will not withdraw from the fight of creating a strong economy for tomorrow's future. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully withdraw this amendment.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, the elected Representatives of this great institution, the House of Representatives, should be very concerned about the direction of our current and future economy. Over the last generation, past Congresses and this Congress have created and expanded barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America. And those congressionally constructed barriers are affecting us today. Our trade deficit this year will be somewhere in the area of $700 billion. China will graduate more English-speaking electrical engineers this year than we do if current trends hold true. India will graduate more software engineers than all the universities and colleges in the United States of America added together. Chile is currently pursuing more trade agreements than the United States. And Ireland has taken their economy in the European Union from third-rate status to the hottest and most vibrant economy in the entire European Union. There is no doubt that we have the number one economy in the world today, but we are jeopardizing that status by the barriers created by this Congress. Those barriers include health care policy, the fastest growing cost in the American economy. It is nearly 15 percent of our total gross domestic product today. Those higher costs mean some jobs will not be created. Those higher costs mean some jobs will be driven overseas. Our tax policy punishes success and makes it more appealing to move workers overseas to countries like Ireland. Our regulatory burdens are huge roadblocks to new jobs. Yesterday, this Congress rejected a commonsense proposal for reform with EPA regulations that would have reduced the costs and still retained 99 percent of the reporting data of the Toxic Properties Inventory Report. Small manufacturing firms of 20 employees or less right now spend more than $22,000 a year on regulatory compliance. If we could just put some commonsense reform and cut those jobs in half, we could increase jobs at those small firms by up to 50 percent by just reforming regulations. This Congress chose not to do that last night. Our litigation expenses raise the cost through court costs, lawyer fees, and liability insurance costs. Lawsuits drive jobs overseas. Other barriers include engineering policy, energy policy, education policy, trade policy, and unfocused research and development investments. A regulatory problem that directly affects this bill is related to a company called Agriboard. Agriboard is a panel made of wheat chaff. It is stronger than most manmade materials. It is fire resistant, blast resistant, even tested by the military, energy efficient, mold resistant, termite and insect resistant, environmentally safe, and sound resistant. Agriboard Industries makes panels for construction for residential, commercial, or military buildings. But they are falling victim to the regulatory bureaucratic red tape fiasco at the Department of Defense. These panels have been used in Sri Lanka for the tsunami victims and have passed or exceeded DOD structural blast tests. They are stronger, environmentally sound, cheaper, and more durable than most construction material. Yet they have had a hard time getting through the onerous procurement system to be considered by the Department of Defense for base construction. Agriboard products deserve consideration; yet our system is preventing them from that consideration. Base commanders have limited flexibility on how those projects are constructed based on the value of the project. Instead, the process is handed from top down and is cumbersome and ineffective. A company has to get new materials approved by the Pentagon prior to being used in any significant projects. I am told that process for approval is laborious and complex. This makes our government inefficient. It also prevents American companies, such as Agriboard, from competing and expanding their businesses which would mean more high-paying jobs for America. Mr. Chairman, it is time Congress removed economic barriers, streamlined the procurement process, because in doing so, we will reduce costs and create more opportunity in America to create and keep American jobs. Mr. Chairman, I realize our rules would recognize that this is an authorization on the appropriations bill and therefore not in order. But I believe it is always in order to fight for American jobs. Mr. Chairman, respectfully I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of jobs and lower energy costs for the American people. The House Appropriations Committee correctly voted to take a first step toward opening more access to natural gas in the outer continental shelf. Natural gas is an affordable, clean-burning fuel that can be safely extracted without causing harm to the environment. But there are opponents of expanded access to this domestic energy source who are trying to strip language that lifts the annual congressional moratoria on natural gas leasing and production in the OCS. I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Peterson and Mr. Abercrombie in defeating all attempts to prohibit America from taking this small, but important, step toward energy independence. I commend Mr. Peterson for his work on this important issue and for his persistence in bringing this issue before the American people. America is the only country in the world that has a moratorium on off-shore drilling for natural gas. While there are vast amounts of this environmentally clean energy source available in areas far off our shorelines, opponents of lifting the moratorium are standing in the way of lowering energy costs for our farmers, chemical workers, small businesses and manufacturers. Because Americans pay as much as 600 percent more for natural gas than other countries, American businesses are often at a competitive disadvantage when trying to compete with foreign businesses. Our farmers depend upon natural gas for everything from irrigation to food processing to nitrogen fertilizer production. When the price of natural gas is high, that translates to more economic hardship for rural America. Unlike most other businesses, farmers are not able to pass along their increased input costs to consumers. It simply means less income for them and the rural communities that depend on an agriculture economy. Natural gas prices account for most of the cost of fertilizers, which means that as long as we refuse to open up more of our natural gas reserves and lower the costs, farmers and rural farming communities will continue to suffer. Additionally, 21 fertilizer plants in this country have closed in the past 6 years because they were no longer able to compete. High natural gas prices are closing businesses and killing jobs. Small businesses suffer when natural gas prices are high because they have to spend more money for heating and cooling bills rather than investments in new technologies or better wages for workers. Instead of being able to sell their products and services for less, many businesses are forced to raise their prices. And in today's economy, many small businesses are often competing with foreign competitors. Manufacturing jobs are even more at risk for leaving if we do not address the high cost of natural gas in this country. Over 100,000 chemical jobs have been lost over the past 5 years because of high natural gas costs. These are jobs that we should not be forced to lose. Americans deserve better than a continuation of an out-dated moratorium on offshore drilling for natural gas. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the amendment to strip language that would help make America more energy self-sufficient.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding. I rise in opposition to Mr. Hinchey's amendment because it does not follow sound logic or the rule of law. Basically what we are saying in this amendment is that if you are out there with a lease today that has a provision that was put in place by the Clinton administration in the Outer Continental deepwater area, then you cannot have any future leases. So if you have made a deal, you have signed a contract, and you are out there producing product that is helping us keep our gas prices from going completely through the roof instead of just high like they are now, then you cannot do that any more unless you break your existing contract. I think this is commonly referred to as blackmail. If you do not do this, then we are going to make you suffer. And under this amendment, an oil company who in good faith entered into a contract with the Clinton administration to produce a product when nobody else was willing to do it, and you entered into that contract in good faith, we are going to punish you for that unless you completely absolve yourself of that contract and start paying more money to the Federal Government. Personally, in the private sector nobody gets a free ride on royalties, and I do not think anybody should produce a product without paying royalties if it is natural gas or if it is crude oil. Any place in Kansas where we have been drilling for oil and gas for over 100 years, we pay royalties. But that is really not the point here. The point is the Clinton administration made these agreements and are we going to allow, as the Federal Government, them to abide by that contract or are we just going to blackmail them into doing something totally different? I think we should vote down this amendment, that we should honor the contracts that we have made, whether it was with the Clinton administration or the Bush administration, and not blackmail people who are just trying to produce a product, something that we greatly need. So oppose the Hinchey amendment and let us move on.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for the future of American jobs and for our future economy. Tonight we have decided to keep energy prices higher by blocking exploration offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf. We have also blocked the EPA from reducing the paperwork burden on small businesses and on pop and mom shops, because we have blocked them from reducing the toxic relief information paperwork. We have even tried to blackmail oil companies tonight that entered into contracts in good faith to produce oil and gas. Now, we have adopted an amendment to force them to breach those contracts or else they are unable to drill offshore in the future. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of American businesses. It is very simple: it is about American jobs. ``Without consideration'' is a very simple term. It is like being polite to people in the future. Being polite often says that we are just going to be considerate of others. In terms of our future economy and in terms of our children's opportunities, we should be considerate. We should be considerate of the barriers that have been created by this Congress and by Congresses before us over the past generation that are keeping us from creating and keeping American jobs. We have excessive health care costs, much of which is driven by an archaic system called Medicare which was created in the 1960s and today is heavily laden with paperwork, and it drives up our health care cost. Mr. Chairman, we have a tax policy that is punitive to success. We have regulation burdens, as I spoke about tonight, in relationship to the toxic release inventory deduction. We also have a trade policy that goes largely unenforced in some areas, allowing other countries to target businesses and run them out so that they can import their products. We also have excessive litigation costs. The one thing that we do have in excess in this country is lawsuits. We should be exporting our lawsuits through our trade policies, holding other countries accountable when they violate our trade agreements. But litigation costs have driven up the expenses for small businesses and large businesses alike. When expenses go up, we are less competitive and we lose jobs. Our energy policy has failed to meet the demands of our economy. That is why we have $3 gas. That is why our natural gas costs are the highest in the world because of policies created by this Congress. And our education policy has failed to meet the needs of our high- tech society these days. Our math scores, our science scores, those students pursuing engineering degrees and science degrees are diminishing, and so are their test scores. And our unfocused research and development programs have also created barriers to keeping and creating jobs here in America. So, Mr. Chairman, that is why I created this very simple amendment that just says that we won't put a barrier in place when it comes to writing regulations because it costs us American jobs. Now, I realize that my amendment is subject to a point of order because our rules say that a Member cannot add authorization language to an appropriations bill. And I assume that there is wisdom in the process, and we will abide by that. So with reservations, I will withdraw this amendment. But I will not withdraw from the fight to remove the barriers that Congress has created that prevent us from keeping and creating jobs here in America. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this proposal, this amendment, and I want to tell you it is really difficult for me to see us put more and more barriers in the way of keeping and creating jobs in America. What the gentleman is doing with his amendment is striking language that will allow reforms to the Toxic Release Inventory annual reporting requirements. The reason it is important is because it directly affects small businesses. In fact, it has a tremendously greater impact on small businesses than it does on large businesses. There was an example given by W. Mark Crain in a report called The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms. It was done by the Small Business Administration Advocacy Group, the overall regulatory burden was, as estimated by Mr. Crain, to exceed $1.1 trillion in 2004. The costs have gone up since then. But for manufacturing firms of fewer than 20 employees, the annual regulatory burden of 2004 was $21,919 per employee, two and a half times greater than the $8,748 burden per employee with firms of 500 or more employees. So by striking this language, you target the small businesses, and in Kansas small businesses are four out of five jobs. So this is a direct assault on the jobs in America because it raises costs making us less competitive. Now, the EPA has followed the proper process of reforms. In response to the continuing calls for this Toxic Release Inventory annual reporting system, EPA conducted stakeholders outreach meetings in 2003. It took public comments in 2003 and 2004 on possible reporting reforms. The EPA subsequently proposed and revised a Form A and took additional public comments on that proposal, and they came up with a plan that works. It alleviates the burden and it still has 99 percent of the current information now reported on a different form, on Form R. This is going to reduce the cost for small businesses. It is going to allow us to continue to have the reporting on these toxic release inventories. But let me just tell you the impact on one of the local small businesses. Nancy Klinefelter is president of Baltimore Glassware Decorators. Her small business specializes in printing small quantities of custom glass and ceramicware for special occasions. Some of Nancy's work can even be found in the House Gift Shop right here. When they print these mugs or glasses for customers, they sometimes use lead- bearing colors on the outside surfaces. These colors are expensive; so they use only a minimal amount of paint needed, which reduces waste, and the finishing process ensures that none of the lead leaches out. So their products are completely safe for anyone who uses them. I am even told that the EPA sells her products in their gift shop. But because of this Toxic Release Inventory lead rule, Nancy's business is forced to compile daily records on how much color is used for the mugs because the colors contain a very small amount of lead. Each year her small business then has to report to the EPA how much lead has been used. This may sound like some innocuous rule, but the truth is it costs Nancy $7,000 annually. When you add up all the other small businesses, it is over $70 million every year. And what do Americans get for this? Do they get cleaner air? No. Do they get less lead being used? No. Is there less exposure to lead by children because of this? No. The answer is none of these things. All the American people get are thousands of reports on estimates on how much lead is being used. Many reports are never read, and our air is not any cleaner. The average citizen does not gain any public health benefits. Instead, small businesses have to comply with the EPA reporting rule and are literally wasting tens of millions of dollars every year, and it is costing us good-paying jobs. These jobs end up in other countries, offshore. Rather than focussing on reducing the real pollution and focusing on real pollution cleanup, EPA has to spend an inordinate amount of time on these small reports that nobody ever uses. Now, with an average cost of $21,919 per employee for small businesses that have less than 20 employees, is a lot of money. It could be reinvested and create more jobs. But, instead, it is just reporting paperwork that piles up. The gentleman has good intents on having clean air and clean water, a clean environment, and I support that. But striking this language will not make the environment any cleaner. It will only cost us jobs. Again, ninety-nine percent of the same information will still be reported under the reforms conducted by EPA and put in place correctly by EPA. So for that reason I rise in opposition to the gentleman's proposal, and I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this amendment.