Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have the number one economy in the world. It is the envy of the world. But we are looking at some signs that I think indicate a long-term problem. Where will this economy and this country be 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now? We have a lot going on around the world as far as other countries trying to develop a stronger economy, looking forward, eliminating the barriers that were created by their own governments, so that they can keep and create jobs in their own country and outside the United States. Last year our trade deficit was $670 billion. This year it looks like our Federal deficit is going to be down from the projected $375 billion to down around $300 billion. But still that is a lot of money. Even though we have seen some good things happen because of the tax relief that President Bush pushed and was passed by the House and Senate, we still need to look forward and see how we are going to create a strong economy, not only in the agricultural area, but in all facets of the United States. Right now we know that in the agricultural community regulatory costs are creating problems down on the farm. We already know that less government regulation not only means granting freedom to allow Americans to pursue their dreams; it also means providing the space for businesses to thrive in agricultural areas and creating more jobs in those same areas communities. Instead, our Federal Government has become a creeping ivy of regulations that strangle enterprise and that makes it more difficult to keep and create jobs in rural America. Unrealistic and unnecessary prohibitions, along with burdensome mandates, are creating difficulties for our farmers, ranchers, and those involved in the agricultural industry. How can we expect our agriculture economy to develop and grow when bureaucracy prevents farm businesses from starting or expanding? With the decreasing numbers of farms and the growing average age of farmers, we need to be doing everything we can to eliminate the barricades farmers and ranchers face so that, as they provide the food to feed our Nation and the world, they can do so in an easier fashion. One area where the United States Department of Agriculture has an opportunity to reduce burdens for the private industry is in the area of national animal identification. I know there is concern among private industry that implementing a national system to track cattle and other animals will end up creating huge costs that will get passed on back to the producer. There is even greater concern among the private industry that there will be no value added to the end product, despite the increased costs associated with implementing an animal identification program. As the Department of Agriculture looks at implementing national animal ID, I think they should work closely with industry to find a private solution to help pay for the costs associated with creating such a vast and complex system. While working with State governments and universities is an important process, I hope that USDA will be forward-thinking in forging public- private partnerships to pursue market solutions that will help producers recover costs associated with implementing technology needed for animal identification. I believe that anytime that we can provide support through private initiatives that will deliver objectives sought by the Federal Government, I think we should jump at the opportunity to forge these partnerships and create a win-win-win situation, for the government, for the taxpayer and for industry. Each and every Federal agency should take into consideration the effect proposed policies will have on competitiveness of U.S. businesses, including farms and ranches. I plan to withdraw this amendment today because I am very encouraged by the forward thinking of our subcommittee chairman on agriculture in appropriations, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla). I believe we can work together and strengthen farmers and ranchers and agriculture businesses financially through less regulation. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. TIAHRT

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, in this legislation, the Military Quality of Life and VA appropriations, much of the work, especially for construction and maintenance, are governed by rules and regulations. A good example of the problem this can create occurred in Wichita, Kansas, not too long ago when OSHA targeted the Wichita area building and construction industry. Through the threat of citations and fines, they literally shut down all of the work going on in the area of home building. What I did was go back to the Wichita area and I met with OSHA and the area home builders, and I found out they both had the same goal. That goal was to see that the workplace was safe. So by bringing them together, they worked out an agreement that they would work together, instead of assessing fines and citations, and create a better work environment, a safe work environment, and they were successful. Only recently have I found that the OSHA department here in Washington wants to renege on that agreement and can no longer sustain the concept of working together to have a safe workplace. Instead, they are going to continue on an adversarial relationship. That brings me to the point that I want to stress with this amendment, and that is if we would work together, the Federal Government and the private sector, we could be much more successful in achieving the goals that both want. Mr. Chairman, less regulation and working together means granting the freedom to allow Americans to pursue their dreams. It also provides the space for businesses to thrive and create more jobs. Regulations promulgated by the Federal Government often become a creeping ivy of regulations that strangle enterprise. The unrealistic and impractical environment that OSHA mandates create are literally driving our industries and small businesses and our health care system to a grinding halt. How can we expect our economy to develop and grow when bureaucracy prevents businesses from starting and expanding. It is estimated today that the total regulatory burden is about $850 billion a year. That is $850 billion that could go toward creating more jobs instead of stifling growth. As we approve spending allocations on this bill and other bills, we need to remind regulators about the importance of their actions with that funding. Regulations can help create jobs or strangle them. Each and every Federal agency should take into consideration the effect of proposed policies on competitiveness of United States business. Each agency should be held accountable for those effects. Other countries are preparing for tomorrow's economy. Countries like Ireland are reducing regulations, working hand in hand with businesses. They have lowered their taxes, and they have changed their educational system to prepare their workers to be part of a technical economy. We are working in the opposite direction. My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that we are going to be a third-rate economy within 10 to 20 years if we do not change the environment that helps us keep and create jobs. That means having some common-sense regulations that work with our industries instead of against them. Mr. Chairman, I have complete confidence that Chairman Walsh is going to be working together with us to make a better America, a more competitive America and to prepare us for the economy, because we all know that if we do not, we are going to have a third-rate economy. With that hope in mind, I am going to respectfully withdraw my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, in a recent Washington Times technology section, Fred Reed gives us good evidence while America is on the path towards a third-rate economy. First, in 2001 through the end of the last school year, New York City 8th graders' failure rate in history and government grew from 61 percent to 81 percent. That is four out of five students. Second, 22 percent of the students entering college in Indiana needed remedial math. Third, this year's top U.S. university finished in 17th place in an international collegiate programming contest. We are not preparing for tomorrow's economy. The world is getting more and more technical, and we are falling behind. While China is creating 350,000 engineers every year, while India is creating 80,000 software engineers every year, we are putting more and more of our students in remedial math. We have to change the educational environment in America if we are going to avoid becoming a third-rate economy. Education is just one of the issues the Economic Competitive Caucus will be addressing this year so we can prepare for tomorrow's economy.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, 58 to zero. Today we are asked to sear our conscience and harden our heart towards human life so we can experiment on fertilized human embryos because we are told it holds such great promise. The results from testing are far from promising, though. They are very disappointing. But there is an alternative. The adult stem cell research has been very successful compared to embryonic stem cell research, and this success was accomplished without the destruction of human life. In fact, more than 58 diseases have been treated using adult stem cells in contrast to no diseases having been treated by using living embryonic stem cell research. Fifty-eight to zero. Mr. Speaker, how do we know the score? Well, embryonic stem cell research is being conducted in America with private funding, but that funding is lacking. So the labs have come to us for more money. Apparently, venture capitalists invest only in projects that are profitable, and you can see it is far from profitable here: 58 to zero. So now we are asked to support embryo stem cell research because it is so promising, when the facts are it is not promising: 58 to zero.

Mr. TIAHRT

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the United States has the number one economy in the world, and it is the envy of the world. We also have the most powerful military in the history of the world, but I believe we are headed down the wrong path. Our trade deficit last year was $670 billion. Our Federal deficit exceeded $400 billion. And we saw the loss of many high-quality, high- paying jobs. While other countries are preparing for the future, the current trends in the United States should be of concern to us all, because I believe we are on the path towards a third-rate economy. Our health care costs are growing too fast and forcing companies to withdraw these benefits from many of our employees. Our education system lags behind the developing world and needs to be revamped. Our trade policy fails to enforce many of the policies that we have in place. Our tax system punishes success. Our energy policy relies on imports rather than natural resources we have here in America, along with renewable energy resources that we have here in America. Our research and development policy needs to be enhanced. Lawsuits plague those who keep and create jobs here in America and that slows our economic growth. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that none of the funds available in this act should be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of the effects of such regulations on the competitiveness of American businesses, because that, Mr. Chairman, means more jobs. If we are going to succeed in the future, we have to create an environment here in America that encourages competition and does not discourage growth. Regulatory costs are killing our jobs. Less government regulations not only means granting the freedom to allow Americans to pursue their dreams, it also means providing the space for business to thrive, which means more jobs for working Americans. Instead, our Federal Government has become a creeping ivy of regulations that strangle enterprise. It is estimated today that the regulatory burden as of 2000 was $843 billion. That has cost us U.S. jobs. The regulatory compliance burden on U.S. manufacturers is the equivalent of a 12 percent excise tax. Mr. Chairman, if we could cut the regulatory burden in half, we would be 6 percent more competitive. As we approve spending allocations for the Department of Energy and other related agencies, we need to remind them of the importance of their actions and what they do with the funding that we give them. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and I have complete confidence that he will help us make America more competitive in the future. I plan to withdraw this amendment tonight, but I do not plan to retreat from this fight to reduce the barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Ohio will work with me to help us create an environment to bring more jobs back to America. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully withdraw the amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of H.R. 540. This bill would authorize the Equus Beds Aquifer recharge project in my district that will help meet the water needs of nearly 500,000 people in Kansas. This is an environmentally beneficial plan that will help ensure the City of Wichita, surrounding smaller communities, agriculture irrigators and local industry will have a clean and plentiful water supply for decades to come. I want to thank Chairman Pombo for his leadership in working with me on this important project. Seeking federal authorization for the recharge of the Equus Beds Aquifer is something I have worked on for many years, and I am grateful to the Chairman and his staff for including language contained in my original bill into H.R. 540. I also want to thank City of Wichita officials for their efforts in helping this project move forward. Their vision to ensure our community's water needs are met both now and in the future is extremely important. Leadership from Mayor Carlos Mayans along with City Council members Carl Brewer, Sue Schlapp, Jim Skelton, Paul Gray, Bob Martz and Sharon Fearey will continue to be needed for this project to be a success. Wichita Water and Sewer Director David Warren and Water Supply Projects Administrator Gerald Blain have been especially helpful to me and my staff over the years in navigating the details of the recharge project. I appreciate their dedication to public service. Nearly half a million people depend on the Equus Beds Aquifer and Cheney Reservoir to meet their water needs. Without water from the Equus Beds, Wichita and surrounding communities would face a serious water shortage. The Equus Beds Aquifer is the body of water beneath portions of Sedgwick, Harvey, McPherson and Reno counties within the boundaries of Groundwater Management District Number 2. The aquifer lies under 900,000 acres, and annual withdrawals from the aquifer average 157,000 acre feet. Approximately 55 percent of the water is used for irrigation; 39 percent is used for municipal needs in Wichita, Halstead, Newton, Hutchinson, McPherson and Valley Center; and six percent is used by local industry. The Equus Beds Aquifer recharge project involves taking floodwater from the Little Arkansas River and depositing that excess water into the aquifer through water supply wells after going through a filtration system. Since the 1950's, water levels in the aquifer have dropped 40 feet because water rights and pumpage exceed the aquifer's natural recharge rate of six inches per year. Due to this over usage, saltwater from the southwest and oilfield brine from the northwest are threatening the aquifer. When the aquifer levels were higher, the elevated levels created a natural barrier that kept the contamination at bay. Now that the water levels have dropped, the natural barrier is no longer there. If the aquifer is not replenished, the maximum chloride levels will eventually exceed what is permitted for both agricultural and municipal usage. This aquifer recharge project is a win-win project for all the communities who depend on its water. The City of Wichita and surrounding municipalities benefit because water can be safely stored to meet short-term and long-term water supply needs. Agriculture irrigators also benefit because the risk of saltwater contamination is reduced. Without the natural barrier of an elevated water level in the aquifer, the water would eventually become contaminated to the point where it would be unsuitable for use even on crops. Irrigators should also see reduced costs associated with pumping since the water level will rise. The Little Arkansas River and its ecosystem also benefit. During times of drought, a natural discharge from the Equus Beds Aquifer into the river will occur creating a more stable base flow. Under the language contained in H.R. 540, the City of Wichita will be required to maintain and operate the recharge project, which ensures the federal government will not bear costs associated with its ongoing operation costs. Recharging the Equus Beds is the most cost-efficient means to provide water for the greater Wichita area. And it is the best option available to keep salt and oilfield brine out of this critical water supply without greatly restricting water usage. In 2004, Gerald Bain with the City of Wichita testified before the House Committee on Resources on the need for federal authorization of the recharge project. I am including his testimony with my remarks because I think it tells of the water needs faced by our community and the many benefits that will come with a recharge of the Equus Beds. I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting for H.R. 540. This is a good bill that will greatly benefit the people in south-central Kansas. The 2004 testimony by Gerald T. Blain, P.E.: The City of Wichita, Kansas has had water supply wells in the Equus Beds Aquifer for over 60 years, and the aquifer has been a major source of the City's drinking water. However, because of excess pumping from the aquifer by municipal and agricultural users, water levels in the aquifer had declined up to 40 feet from their pre-development levels by 1992. Because of this over development, the Equus Beds aquifer is threatened by saltwater contamination from two sources. One source is natural saltwater from the Arkansas River located along the southwest border of the City's wellfield. The other source is oilfield brine contamination left over from the development of oil wells in the Burrton area in the 1930's, located northwest of the wellfield. Groundwater modeling by the Bureau of Reclamation indicates that the chloride levels, which are an indicator of salinity, could exceed 300 mg/l in much of the wellfield by the year 2050. This would be above the 250 mg/l standard for drinking water. In order to protect the water quality of the area, steps must be taken to retard the movement of the salt-water plumes. In 1993 the City of Wichita began implementation of a unique Integrated Local Water Supply Plan that is intended to meet the City's water supply needs through the year 2050. By the year 2050 it is projected that the City's water supply needs will almost double what they are now. The City's Plan uses a variety of local water resources to meet water needs, rather than requiring the City to transfer water from a remote reservoir in Northeast Kansas. A key component of the Plan includes an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) project to recharge the City's existing wellfield in the Equus Beds Aquifer. The excess pumping from the aquifer, and the resulting water level decline, has created a storage volume of almost 65 billion gallons that can be used to store water. The basic concept of the City's ASR project is to capture water from the Little Arkansas River and use it to recharge the aquifer. Computer modeling, and past experience at other sites throughout the country, has found that by recharging the aquifer a hydraulic barrier can be created that would retard the movement of the salt-water plumes. In addition, the 65 billion gallons that could be stored in the dewatered portion of the aquifer could be used as a component of the City's water supply. Unfortunately, all of the ``conventional'' water rights in the Little Arkansas River have already been allocated. However, excess flows in the river, which occur only after it rains or snows, have not been allocated. Computer modeling has predicted that there are enough days of excess flow that enough water can be captured to allow the aquifer to be recharged and become a valuable component of the City's water supply. The modeling predicts that if the City builds an ASR system with the capacity to capture up to 100 million gallons per day, that it would still capture only a fraction of the water flowing down the river, and it would not have a negative impact on the river. The City intends to capture water from the river using two techniques, either by using ``bank storage'' wells or by pumping directly from the river. ``Bank Storage'' wells take advantage of a unique geological condition that occurs along the river. As the river rises above the base flow, water is temporarily stored in the river's banks, but as the flow in the river declines, the water in the banks discharges back into the river. The City intends to drill wells adjacent to the river that will capture ``bank storage'' water and induce river water to replace the water pumped. The City recognized that some of the concepts included in the proposed ASR project have not been done before, so to prove the feasibility of those concepts the City completed a 5-year Demonstration Project. During the Demonstration Project, which was done in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation and the US Geological Survey, the City constructed a full-scale well adjacent to the Little Arkansas River, a river intake and a water treatment plant, and a variety of recharge facilities. To prove that the recharge project was safe, over 4,000 water samples were collected and analyzed for up to 400 different potential contaminates. During the Demonstration Project over one billion gallons of water were successfully recharged into the aquifer, and the City was able to prove that excess flows in the Little Arkansas River could be captured and recharged, and that it can be done without harming the aquifer. The full-scale ASR project, which will be constructed in phases, will capture and recharge up to 100 million gallons per day, and will cost approximately $137 million. All of the water that will be recharged into the aquifer must meet drinking water standards, and will be monitored and regulated by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Normally, when surface water is developed for a water resource, it requires the construction of a reservoir. A reservoir that would provide the same storage as this ASR project would probably consume around 25,000 to 30,000 acres of prime farmland. It is projected that the ASR project will use less than 400 acres of farmland. The City of Wichita and others believe that the ASR project is a Win- Win project, because it appears that all of the stakeholders receive benefits from the projects. As a result of this project: The City develops a water supply source that will allow it to meet its water supply needs through the year 2050. The water quality of the wellfield is protected from salt-water contamination. There is no requirement to curtail irrigation to restore water levels and protect water quality. Irrigators will have lower pumping costs because water levels will be higher. Low flows in the Little Arkansas River will improve, because additional water will ``leak'' from the Equus Beds back into the river. The project uses less land than any other surface water development project. The City has already implemented some components of the Integrated Local Water Supply Plan, including implementation of a water rate structure designed to reduce water consumption, and a greater emphasis on using water from Cheney Reservoir, and a corresponding reduction in water pumped from the Equus Beds. That alteration in water use has already allowed water levels in the Equus Beds to rise over 20 feet in some areas. Phase I of the ASR Project, which is currently being designed, will have the capacity to capture and recharge up to 10 million gallons per day of water from the Little Arkansas River by using Bank Storage wells. The location of the first recharge facilities is intended to begin the formation of a hydraulic barrier to the movement of salt- water plume from the Burrton area. It will take almost 10 years to construct the entire full-scale project. The City believes that this project represents a new approach to developing water resources, while at the same time protecting an existing water resource from contamination. The City of Wichita therefore urges support for federal assistance for this unique project.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, last year our trade deficit was $670 billion, our Federal budget deficit was about $300 billion, and our government made it more and more difficult last year to keep and create jobs here in America. Barriers have been created and erected by Congress, and the results have been the wrong environment for the current day economy. The world is changing. The world is getting more and more technical, and we, as a country, are not measuring up, and we are headed towards a third rate economy. What a third rate economy means to our national security, to the future of our children is rather startling, and it is something we need to start preparing today to change. We must change the environment for keeping and creating jobs here. In 10 to 20 years from now, we are looking at countries like China, currently with 1.3 billion people, India with 1 billion people, add that to Southeast Asia, and they get a group of about 3 billion people. Currently, they are in talks with trying to create an Asian Union, similar to the European Union, with the yuan as the currency of choice. This would be a very strong economy. It would be very difficult for America, who currently has the strongest economy in the world and the envy of the world, to compete with that. Last year, China graduated 350,000 engineers. India graduated 80,000 software engineers alone. They are preparing for the future. Today, a columnist for MSNBC wrote an article called, ``Can China build its own Silicon Valley? Beijing's recipe for technological success.'' In this article, China lays out what China's doing in their Zhongguancun district to create an environment to develop new technological businesses. They have already quite a few small high-tech companies in that area, and they also have the prestigious Tsinghua University, which is creating a lot of research and development to go along with this world-class technology incubator. They are also providing business support, venture capital, legal services, property management and health care. It is a total package, a culture, if you will, to try to develop new ideas. Dr. Meng Mei at the university said, ``We need a culture that gives small companies the confidence to succeed.'' It sounds like something we need to do here in America. What they are giving them is an infrastructure, an entrepreneurial infrastructure, so that they can go out and create new technology, driving the leading edge, something that America has been doing for the last several decades. In China, the amount of money they spend on research and development has tripled between 1991 and 2001, according to the article. In the meantime, what have we been doing here in America over the last generation? Well, starting in the 1960s, Congress started writing more rules and regulations and passing laws with good intent but terrible consequences. We have come up with burdensome regulations that keeps new companies from starting up. We have a litigation system that works against success. We have health care costs that are rising faster than small employers can keep up with. We have got a tax policy that punishes success instead of rewarding success. We have an energy policy that is dependent on foreign sources. We have a trade policy that too often goes unenforced, and our research and development sometimes gets spent in wasteful ways instead of looking forward to the future. Our education system, sadly, is lagging behind, especially in math, science and engineering. At the end of this article, it says, ``While the number of U.S. science and engineering graduates declines, year after year, China's numbers are surging. China already graduates more English-speaking electrical engineers than does the U.S. Last month the U.S. came in 17th in an annual international collegiate programming contest; a team from Shanghai University came in first. And U.S. middle school math and science scores continue to lag behind those of other developed Nations.'' We are on a path to a third rate economy that has worldwide implications for our future, for our kids, for our national security, and we have to change that environment. This is the debate that we should be having today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. This is how we are going to create the environment, by changing these rules and regulations, so that we can create new jobs, create new technology and prepare for the oncoming challenges of the future.

Mr. TIAHRT

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last year our trade deficit surpassed $670 billion. Our Federal budget deficit was more than $300 billion, and we saw too many high- quality, good-paying jobs go overseas. It has become more and more difficult to keep and create jobs and small businesses here in America. And when we look around at what the world is doing, unless we change the environment here in America we are going to become a third-rate economy. Over the last generation, starting in the 1960s, Congress has created barriers to keeping and creating jobs. We must remove those barriers. Mr. Chairman, one of those barriers created by Congress is bureaucratic red tape. Others are rising health care costs, education policy, research and development policy, energy policy, unenforceable trade policy, tax policy, and lawsuit abuse. My amendment goes to the heart of the problem centered around the unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. My amendment is designed to require an outside audit to determine that science is used to develop regulations at the EPA that are unbiased and well substantiated. At a minimum major rules by the EPA should go through a Science Advisory Board and rules should then be audited by a neutral third party to ensure that our environmental regulations are based on scientific facts and not emotional theory. There are reporting rules promulgated by the EPA that do nothing to protect the environment or the health and well-being of the citizens but cost American businesses hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. One example of an unnecessary burden to the American small businesses is the EPA's toxic release inventory lead rule. The rule requires that businesses report annually on how much lead is used. Not how much lead is emitted into the atmosphere, but how much lead the business uses. In June, 2002, a small business owner from Baltimore, Maryland testified before the Regulatory Reform and Oversight Subcommittee of the Committee on Small Business on how this particular EPA reporting rule causes harm to her business. We can see how ridiculous and wasteful this EPA rule is to our economy without making our air any cleaner. Nancy Klinefelter is president of Baltimore Glassware Decorators. Her small business specializes in printing small quantities of custom glass and ceramic ware for special occasions. Some of Nancy's work can even be found in the House gift shop and some is sold in the EPA's gift shop. When they print mugs or glasses for customers, they sometimes use lead-bearing colors on the outside surface. These colors are expensive, so they use a minimum amount of paint, just that which is needed to color the surfaces and they try to reduce waste. And the finishing process ensures that none of the lead leaches out. So their products are safe for anyone who uses them. But because of the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory lead rule, Nancy's business is forced to compile daily records on how much color is used for the mugs because the color contains a very small amount of lead. Each year her small business has to report to the EPA how much lead has been used. It costs her about $7,000 annually and across the Nation about $70 million every year. And what do the Americans get for the millions that are spent? Cleaner air? No. Less lead being used? No. Less exposure to lead by children? No. The answer is none of these. But all the American people get from these thousands of reports are estimates on how much lead is being consumed, but our air is not any cleaner. Mr. Chairman, with the hopes of working during the conference committee report, I intend to withdraw this amendment because I know it is subject to a point of order. I hope that we can work together with the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) in the conference report to try to remove some of these unnecessary regulations. So, in conclusion, we must not move forward with our government to implement regulatory burdens like this on the American public because it drives jobs overseas, it increases the trade deficit, it reduces the Federal revenue, and it moves us toward a third-rate economy. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, last year's trade deficit reached $670 billion. Our Federal deficit was over $300 billion. Top-rate jobs have gone overseas. How did we get in this situation? How did we get in this position? Mr. Speaker, over the last generation Congress has passed laws with good intent, but with terrible consequences. Our government has created barriers to creating jobs, and the results have not been good. Other nations are rising to the challenge of tomorrow's economy. China is graduating 350,000 engineers every year. India graduated 80,000 software engineers last year. While we are reducing the number of visas for creative talent in America, other countries are developing their talent. Mr. Speaker, we have to change the environment in America and remove the barriers created by Congress. If we are going to avoid becoming a third-rate economy in the future, we have to pass legislation like the Central America Free Trade Agreement so we can create jobs, strengthen our economy, balance the trade deficit, balance the Federal budget right here in America. We can do it by passing this legislation along with others, Mr. Speaker; and as we lead the challenge for competitiveness in America, we hope that our colleagues will join with us from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for those good words and, hopefully, through the effort of our combined work we can make sure we do not have any overly burdensome regulations. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the content of this amendment should be a part of the debate that we are having on every agency that we are going to fund this year through the Federal budget. Over the last generation, this government has made this country less and less competitive through the regulatory process. If you look to last year, last year we had a $670 billion trade deficit. Our Federal budget deficit grew and we saw a lot of outsourcing of jobs. Well, if you combine that with what we are seeing happen across the world, pointed out by Thomas Friedman in his book ``The World is Flat,'' China is graduating 350,000 engineers every year. India is graduating 80,000 software engineers. They are attempting to create an Asian Union, which would be an economy of about 3 billion people. The world is becoming more and more competitive, and part of the reason that we are becoming less and less competitive, part of the reason why we are seeing this trade deficit is because of our regulatory process. But it just does not stop there. We also have problems with litigation, and we need to reform our system because right now the lawsuits are driving up the cost of American products. A good example of how this could change is when common sense limits are put on litigation, such as the statute of repose, where the aircraft industry accepted through the legislation common sense limits on liability and 4,000 jobs were created the very next year. We could apply that to other industries. Our health care system needs to be reformed. Today, in Kansas, for every hour of health care it takes an hour to comply with regulations, actually, more than an hour, 1.1 hours, on average, of regulatory compliance. We need to reform our tax policy, our education policy, and our trade policy. We need to have research and development enhancements and we need regulatory reform. Regulatory reform can be a biting part of our government that can stop and stall the economic progress. If you look at the current regulatory burden on businesses today, about 12 percent of the cost of any product is buried in complying with regulations. If we could cut that in half, we would be at least 5 to 6 percent more competitive worldwide. So if we are going to find solutions to balancing our trade deficit, to balancing our Federal budget, and to start bringing jobs into America instead of seeing them outsourced out of America, we need to look at every agency and not promulgate regulations that conflict with the competitiveness of American businesses. Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee thinks we could work together to see that we do not get regulations that would be overly burdensome on American businesses through the Department of Homeland Security. Does the gentleman think he could help me with that task?

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

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Yogi Berra said that predictions are hard to make, especially when they are about the future. But that does not mean we should not look ahead. In fact, if you do sit down and think about what America is going to be like 5, 10, 20 years from now and how our economy is going to be in relationship to the rest of the world, I think we should all be very concerned. Right now, China is in the beginning stages of trying to start an Asian Union, much like the European Union, where the yuan is the euro or the monetary means. They are trying to combine the people in Southeast Asia, which could make an economy of about 3 billion people. The European Union is now absorbing new European countries, plus they have a natural bond to the Islamic world based on their current immigration trends, and they could easily develop an economy of 1 billion people. So if you look downstream, the very likely position for our economy could be third place, unless, unless, we change the environment here in America. Last year we had a trade deficit of $671 billion and a Federal deficit. If we are going to bring jobs back to America, we have to change the environment by making our country more competitive.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 81, expressing the sense of Congress regarding the two-year anniversary of the human rights crackdown in Cuba. The people of Cuba have suffered under the authoritarian dictatorship of Fidel Castro for more than 45 years. Rather than allowing Cubans to thrive and live prosperous lives, the Castro regime has instead created a legacy of suppression, harm and failure. Cubans are ready for freedom, but their government does not want them to have even a taste. Freedom-loving countries widely recognize that human rights violations against innocent Cubans are a sign Castro is afraid. Whether it is fear that Cubans will love freedom more than socialism, fear that a faltering economy will lead to more unrest, or fear of political opposition, it is clear Castro's government is a regime of fear. Rather than securing rights for the good of the people, Fidel Castro has imprisoned those who have spoken against human rights violations and other injustices within Cuba. I hope with the passage of this resolution we will again unite our voices with those who dream of a free Cuba and join with those whose voices have been silenced by a repressive government. In March 2003 Castro arrested 75 people who were bold enough to speak out against harmful policies of the government. Men and women whose occupations included librarians, union organizers and civic leaders were charged with innocuous crimes and sentenced to long prison terms. While a few of those arrested have been conditionally released, most of these voices of freedom remain behind bars. Ignoring international condemnation for its actions, the Cuban government continues down its path of suppression. However, as history has shown, when one group of voices are silenced, other voices will fill the void and cry out. The yearning for freedom within the human spirit can be suppressed, but it cannot be extinguished. One Cuban group speaking on behalf of Castro's political prisoners are the mothers, daughters, wives and sisters of those arrested more than two years ago. Every Sunday for the past two years, a band of 30 women, called the Women in White, attend mass at Santa Rita Catholic Church before proceeding down a sidewalk on a silent protest. Even after intimidation from Castro's thugs, this little band of women are determined to peacefully expose the injustice of what is happening to their relatives. I hope the Women in White, along with thousands of other Cubans, will have the strength to continue fighting for the right to live in freedom. I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting for H. Con. Res. 81 and send a strong message that the American people stand in solidarity with all freedom-loving Cubans.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Some people may say the majority party is in full retreat, that we were wrong in processing substance with the new rules. Well, that is incorrect. The new rules were fair and just, and according to the rules of the House, were passed by a majority vote. Where the fault lies is with those who use the ethics rules for pure political attacks, those who use the failure to act as an attack against one Member. The opposition claims these existing rules are unethical. That is also incorrect. What is unethical is to unjustly smear someone in order to destroy their character. Mr. Speaker, I think that is the attempt here, to unfairly attack one Member and use the House rules to do so. I admire the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) because I think the gentleman has gone above and beyond the call of duty to go back to the previous set of rules so we can move the process forward and continue the hard work, the successful work of the Republican-controlled House.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This comprehensive energy bill is a bipartisan effort to bring lower energy prices to consumers while spurring our economy toward growth for the future. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, energy conservation will be promoted and our environment will be cleaner as a result of the policies in this bill. House Republicans have a track record of passing energy legislation in both the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress. But we were unfortunately not able to get a bill to the President due to unwillingness by Senate Democrats. I am hopeful this year will be different and that Congress will finally pass an energy policy that will take our country forward. I know Kansans in my district are tired of paying high prices for gasoline, and they want a good energy bill passed soon. The longer we wait to pass a national energy plan, the longer it will take to counter rising energy costs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a huge step in the right direction and will help both the public and private sector address our energy needs for years to come. H.R. 6 promotes clean coal technology and provides incentives for renewable energies such as ethanol, biomass, wind, solar and hydroelectricity. I am very pleased H.R. 6 includes a Renewable Fuels Standard that will help introduce up to five billion gallons a year by 2012. The more ethanol and biodiesel is used by drivers across America, the cleaner our air will be. Plus, we will be providing America's farming communities with alternative income opportunities for commodities such as corn and soybeans. I have spoken to numerous Kansas farmers who say over and over again that the ethanol provisions contained in the energy bill are good for our struggling rural communities. Many counties and small towns in Kansas have faced years of declining populations. Whenever we can provide increased economic opportunities for rural communities while providing for our nation's energy needs, we create a win-win situation. Another promising renewable energy source is wind energy. There are plenty of places in the great State of Kansas where landowners are eager and willing to work with private investors to capture this abundant natural resource and turn it into usable energy. Anyone who has visited our State will know we have plenty of wind. By reauthorizing the Renewable Energy Production Incentive program to provide renewable energy production incentives for wind, we are giving landowners and businesses the assistance needed to tap into this underutilized energy source. This legislation also establishes a Department of Energy rebate program for renewable energy systems installed in homes or small businesses. And the Federal Government is directed to use more renewable energy in future years with a goal of using 7.5 percent or more by 2013. By promoting forms of renewable energy, we are helping move our country toward a more sustainable energy future. In addition to promoting renewable energy sources and looking toward the future, this energy bill also addresses the realities of our energy needs today. Americans everywhere are frustrated with high gasoline prices. One of the contributing factors to high fuel prices is the fact that the United States has not built a large-scale refinery in over 20 years. And since 1981, half of the refineries have been shut down. When we not only cease building new refineries, but we reduce the number of facilities needed to produce fuel, it is no wonder gasoline prices continue to steadily rise. H.R. 6 helps address rising fuel costs by providing an accelerated review and approval process for new refinery facilities in a refinery revitalization zone. The energy bill designates certain areas as refinery revitalization zones based on a region's previous refining or manufacturing experience and current unemployment rate. The United States depends on foreign sources of oil for 62 percent of our Nation's supply, and that percentage is projected to increase to 75 percent within 5 years. Not only is our demand for oil rising, but global crude oil demand is increasing, particularly in countries like China. We must take action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This energy bill has several provisions that help us do just that. It expands our domestic supply by increasing domestic oil and gas exploration and development on non-park Federal lands. And by requiring five billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012, we will save 1.6 billion barrels of oil by 2012. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 promotes a cleaner environment by encouraging new innovations and the use of alternative power sources by launching a state-of-the-art program to enable hydrogen fuel cell cars to compete in the marketplace by 2020. This is just one example of how we are encouraging ideas to move from conception to application in the marketplace. H.R. 6 requires the Department of Energy to develop a plan outlining technical milestones as well as technical and non-technical hurdles to hydrogen vehicles and their associated infrastructure. The hydrogen program is to be conducted as a partnership between public and private enterprises to address the production of hydrogen from diverse sources. Hydrogen can be produced from fossil fuels, hydrogen-carrier fuels and renewable energy resources, including biomass and nuclear energy. The program also addresses pipeline hydrogen transmission, convenient refueling, advanced vehicle technologies, hydrogen storage and the development of necessary codes and standards. The legislation authorizes $200 million for the ``Clean Cities'' program, which will provide grants to state and local governments to acquire alternative fueled vehicles. H.R. 6 will improve our Nation's electricity transmission capacity and reliability. By providing for expedited siting processes on both Federal and private lands, transmission lines will be able to be more efficiently and quickly placed so power can be transmitted across the country. The bill also greatly improves the operation and reliability of electric transmission networks by providing for open access to transmission lines not previously subject to the same open access requirements. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is directed to do an incentive rate rulemaking and to provide for participant funding. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 promotes investment in the electric sector by repealing existing Public Utility Holding Company Act requirements and replacing them with authority for Federal and State regulators to examine relevant books and records. H.R. 6 promotes more natural gas exploration. Many Kansans rely on natural gas to fuel stoves, furnaces, water heaters, clothes dryers and even backyard barbeques. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, resulting in approximately 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal and a third less carbon dioxide than oil. But those who rely on this energy source have seen their bills skyrocket. Provisions in H.R. 6 allow for more natural gas exploration and development by providing royalty relief for deep and ultra-deep gas wells in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Improved access to North America's abundant natural gas resources will help reduce high utility bills, create jobs and provide more than $500 million of increased revenues for the U.S. economy. Businesses depend on natural gas to produce steel, glass, paper, clothing, aluminum, brick and most importantly, electricity. Even farmers rely on it to produce fertilizer needed for the crops that ultimately become food on our tables. And cities rely on natural gas to comply with tough air quality standards. H.R. 6 also extends daylight savings time by two months. This extension will reduce energy consumption by the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of oil each day. Studies indicate the proposal to adopt extended daylight savings time from the first Sunday in March to the last Sunday in November will lower crime and traffic fatalities. This provision will also give families more daylight hours to enjoy outdoor recreation and opportunity for increased economic activity. If America wants to be more competitive globally, we must pass a comprehensive energy bill that allows businesses to operate with sustainable, low-cost forms of energy. H.R. 6 moves us in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to help make America more competitive by voting for the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. I believe passage of this important bill is long overdue, and I congratulate Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Oxley for their leadership over the past several years in crafting meaningful bankruptcy reform. The bill we are voting on today will help foster greater personal responsibility and make it more difficult for those who use bankruptcy as a tool for fraud to cheat their way out of debt. Bankruptcy filings have escalated in recent years, which have had negative consequences on our economy. Yet, numerous studies have shown many bankruptcy debtors are able to repay a significant portion of their debts. If this alarming trend continues, all Americans will pay the price in the form of higher costs for goods, services and credit. These higher costs not only harm consumers, it also stymies growth for businesses. By addressing bankruptcy abuses, S. 256 will play a role in creating a better environment to conduct business in America, which means more jobs for those who need them. Some have expressed concerns S. 256 will limit people from filing under Chapter 7. However, estimates show only a small percent of Chapter 7 bankruptcy filers would have their petitions dismissed or forced into Chapter 13 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy. One study cited by the Committee on the Judiciary suggests as few as 3.6 percent of Chapter 7 filers would be moved into repayment plans under the new means test. I recognize there are cases where families and individuals need to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy for very legitimate reasons. Sometimes hardships and unforeseen circumstances happen in life, and bankruptcy is a needed last option to help families survive. However, the United States cannot afford to continue down the path where high consumer debt is routinely directed toward bankruptcy as a first stop rather than a last resort. I am pleased S. 256 addresses common bankruptcy abuses while continuing to offer Americans who need to file for bankruptcy the means to do so. The consumer bankruptcy provisions of S. 256 address the needs of both creditors and debtors. With respect to the interests of creditors, this legislation responds to many factors that have contributed to the increase in consumer bankruptcy filings, such as lack of personal financial accountability. The bill provides many debtor protections such as provisions allowing debtors to exempt certain education IRA plans, fortifying exemptions for certain retirement pension funds, and enhancing the professionalism standards for attorneys and others who assist consumer debtors with their bankruptcy cases. S. 256 ensures debtors receive notice of alternatives to bankruptcy relief, requires debtors to participate in debt repayment programs, and institutes a pilot program to study the effectiveness of consumer financial management programs. I am also pleased S. 256 contains several provisions that will help make American businesses more competitive. By cracking down on bankruptcy abuse, we eliminate another obstacle small businesses face as they compete in the global marketplace. Currently, a business can be sued by a bankruptcy trustee and forced to pay back money previously paid to it by a firm that later filed for bankruptcy protection. Under the reforms of S. 256, small businesses will have an easier time successfully defending against these suits. The reforms will promote greater certainty in the financial market place as well. S. 256 reduces systemic risk in the banking system and financial marketplace by minimizing the risk of disruption when parties to certain financial transactions become bankrupt or insolvent. S. 256 addresses the special problems presented by small business debtors by instituting firm deadlines and enforcement mechanisms to weed out those debtors who are not likely to reorganize. It also requires the court and other designated entities to monitor these cases more actively. Under the current law, nearly every item of information supplied by a debtor in connection with his or her bankruptcy case is made available to the public. S. 256 prohibits the disclosure of the names of the debtor's minor children and requires such information to be kept in a nonpublic record, which can be made available for inspection only by the court and certain other designated entities. In addition, if a business debtor had a policy prohibiting it from selling ``personally identifiable information'' about its customers and the policy was in effect at the time of the bankruptcy filing, then the sale of such information is prohibited unless certain conditions are satisfied. These are just a few of the several provisions that make this bill good for American consumers and businesses. I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting for S. 256 so we can limit abuses within our bankruptcy system and promote a stronger America.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005. This bill would put an end to the estate tax, commonly referred to as the death tax. My only disappointment in voting to eliminate the death tax this year is that we must again wait for the Senate to follow suit. The House has already voted to permanently repeal this tax in both the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress. Unfortunately, the Senate has not been able to pass this permanent repeal. I am very pleased, however, that the House has once again listened to the people and will try to nail the coffin shut on the death tax. Asking families to pay taxes on what is left behind when a loved one dies is simply not the right way for a government to collect taxes. Throughout our history, Americans have worked vigorously to achieve great success despite extraordinary hardships. Farmers have tilled the earth, inventors have exercised their ingenuity, builders have constructed, entrepreneurs have established businesses, and in the process of becoming successful, wealth is created. When a person successfully pursues a dream and wisely manages resources over a lifetime, the federal government should not reward those accomplishments by seizing a significant portion of what he intended to pass along to the family. As is often the case, family farmers or small business owners make plans to pass the family business to their children after they die. Unfortunately, due to burdensome death taxes, there are countless examples of families who have been forced to sell the business or purchase it back from the government. As a result, a business that has been in a family for generations can be lost overnight because of the enormous burden of the death tax. And when a business leaves its family roots, there can be a loss of pride in the fundamental traditions that helped make the business successful. This is not the legacy parents want to leave their children and grandchildren. Aside from the harmful effects the death tax has on family small businesses, there is an inherent injustice in re-taxing assets. Because taxes have already been paid on accumulated gains over a lifetime, the death tax constitutes a double taxation. Re-taxing a person's assets when they die is equivalent to purchasing from the government what already belongs to a family. Resources that otherwise would have been utilized to hire more employees or invest in capital are underused when families are forced to make alternative plans for dealing with the death tax. This results in fewer jobs and a less robust economy. According to the Joint Economic Committee, the death tax results in a reduction of stock in the economy by nearly $500 billion. When businesses cease to grow efficiently, fewer jobs are made available to the unemployed. South-central Kansas has experienced several years of high unemployment following the economic downturn after 9/11. We must do all we can to help bring jobs back to those who need them. Permanently eliminating the death tax is one way we can help the economy fully rebound, which means more high-quality, high-paying jobs for Americans. Because small businesses are so important in providing jobs for Americans, the death tax is a tax on jobs. Small, family-owned businesses are especially vulnerable to the death tax because most small-business owners have the entire value of their business in their estate. According to one study, more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation, and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. The threat of the death tax forces small-business owners to pay for expensive ``estate planning'' just to keep the business in the family. Instead of helping families maintain and grow their small businesses, the Federal Government will be able to seize about half the business unless the death tax is repealed. I urge my colleagues to join me today in once again voting to end this tax that has caused so much harm to so many American families.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in rising to honor the life and achievements of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and to express profound sorrow on his death. This week is bittersweet for people of faith throughout the world. We mourn the loss of a great leader and a man respected by people of many different faiths, yet we also celebrate his life and rejoice that he is now enjoying his eternal reward. From the selection of the first Polish Pope and the first non-Italian Pope in over 400 years, Pope John Paul II's leadership of the Catholic Church was truly historic. Rightfully credited with helping bring about the end of communism, he also maintained a voice of morality during a time of overwhelming secularization of the West. The Pope was a stalwart in the fight against what he termed a ``culture of death.'' He was unrelenting in his promotion of a culture of life. Many talk of the Pope's legacy and presumed sainthood, but it seems the only legacy Pope John Paul II ever desired was a world of hope that celebrates life. Our great 40th President, Ronald Reagan, is credited with restoring optimism to Americans, but even before Reagan, Pope John Paul II began his mission to restore hope to a pessimistic world. In carrying his message, Pope John Paul II tirelessly traveled all ends of the globe as no Pope and no leader has done before. Even as he was in great physical pain, he did not stop visiting people of all ethnicities, cultures and faiths to bring Christ's message. Pope John Paul II inspired even the most cynical demographic of the human population, young adults. The Pope's message to the students of freedom and faith led to the success of Solidarity. In later years, the annual World Youth Days were filled with students eager to hear the Pope's message of faith and hope. The Pope challenged them to a life of service in all walks of life. He said, ``Jesus, Servant and Lord, is also the one who calls. He calls us to be like him because only in service do human beings discover their own dignity and the dignity of others.'' Mr. Speaker, the young people touched by Pope John Paul II will continue to carry out his work as they come to shape the world in coming years. It is fitting that Pope John Paul II was carried back home to the Lord on the vigil of Divine Mercy Sunday, a feast day he instituted. His last message to the world, which was read posthumously, should be repeated often across the globe: ``To humanity, which at times seems to be lost and dominated by the power of evil, egoism and fear, the risen Lord offers as a gift his love that forgives, reconciles and reopens the spirit to hope. It is love that converts hearts and gives peace. How much need the world has to understand and accept Divine Mercy.'' Mr. Speaker, we pray that John Paul II's message will be burned in our hearts and guide us through the current and future world challenges. We also pray for the repose of his soul and are delighted that he is in the company of the Lord he dutifully served his 84 years on Earth.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our nation's great manufacturing base. My colleague Rep. Gillmor introduced important legislation, H. Res. 16, to support National Manufacturing Week, congratulate manufacturers and their employees for their contributions growth and innovation, and recognize the challenges facing the manufacturing sector. I join him in applauding America's manufacturers. I especially want to highlight aviation manufacturing, the manufacturing sector predominant in my district, where Wichita is known as the Air Capital of the World. Wichita is home to 4 major aircraft manufacturers, numerous suppliers and other support industries. I am very proud of all the men and women today and in years past who have brought that distinction to our great city. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, General Aviation manufacturing contributed over $6 billion to the U.S. economy in 2004, exporting nearly $1.5 billion. Approximately 80 percent of the world's GA aircraft is manufactured in the United States. The total U.S. aerospace manufacturing industry exports $58.5 billion in products--the largest net export segment of all U.S. industry. General Aviation Manufacturers directly employ nearly 169,000 workers around the country. Aircraft manufacturing workers are the highest- paid, highest-skilled workers in the manufacturing sector. They earn an average wage of $47,700 annually--35 percent more than the U.S. average. In addition, for every aviation manufacturing job created in the U.S., three additional jobs are created in other industries. In 2002, the last year for which we have complete numbers, the total impact of civil aviation on the U.S. economy exceeded $900 billion and 11 million jobs. This amounts to 9 percent of the U.S. GDP. General Aviation contributes approximately $102 billion (or 12 percent of the total civil aviation contribution) and 1.3 million jobs. General Aviation manufacturers make aircraft for fire-fighting, law enforcement, scientific research, search and rescue, and agriculture. Currently General Aviation and aerospace employees are working on the future of flight: advances in propulsion, including quiet supersonic flight, new energy sources including hydrogen, and integrating satellite technology for navigational and safe flight purposes. Manufacturing employees across America are building our future as I speak. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding their hard work, and to commit to ensuring that our manufacturing base thrives for generations to come.