Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, when the 110th Congress finally adjourns sine die, I will come to the end of my time as a Member of the House of Representatives.

I look forward to service in the other body upon the convening of the 111th Congress, but today I want to express my appreciation for all that it has meant to me to have the privilege of membership in this extraordinary body with you and with all the other Members--past and present--with whom I have the honor of serving.

We've all heard that it takes more than moving in to make a house a home.

But I have to say that in my case, I have very much felt at home here in the House since the 106th Congress first convened in 1999, because so many people went out of their way to welcome me and to help me learn what I needed to know.

Thanks to them, I was able to do a better job of trying to properly represent the people of Colorado's Second Congressional District and to contribute to the search for ways to advance their interests and those of our state and our country as a whole.

So, Madam Speaker, today, I want to say ``thank you'' to all the Members and to the many talented and dedicated staff of the House and its Committees who have helped me do a much better job than I could have done without their advice and assistance.

And, while I am hesitant to mention anyone in particular--for fear of accidental omissions--I cannot conclude without giving special thanks to some of those who have been my special mentors.

On the Natural Resources Committee--which used to have a different name--the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, has been an example of courteous and effective leadership both as Ranking Member and more recently as Chairman.

I greatly appreciate all his many courtesies to me and his assistance in connection with matters of importance to Colorado that I have brought before the Committee.

I also appreciate having had the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, when he chaired the Committee and in his current role as Ranking Member.

Don Young and I do not always see eye to eye, but there have been many instances in which we were on the same side, and I am glad to have had the chance to join forces with him in connection with those matters--as also was the case with respect to his predecessor as Chairman, our former colleague from Utah, Mr. Hansen.

On the Committee on Science and Technology, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, has been unfailingly generous and has provided outstanding leadership. It has been my good fortune to have served with him and with the other members, from both sides of the aisle, as the Committee has dealt with many matters of great importance to Colorado and the country.

I also appreciated having the chance to serve with his predecessor as Chairman, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert, who was always kind and accommodating to me during the time we served together.

Similarly, I made many good friends during my service on the Committees on Small Business and Agriculture and benefitted from the opportunity to learn about the matters within their jurisdictions.

Finally, I cannot fail to mention my deep appreciation for having had the opportunity to be a Member of the Committee on Armed Services. I was privileged to serve with an outstanding chairman, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton as well as with his predecessor, the gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter.

My years on the Committee have been memorable ones, as we have wrestled with so many complex and difficult issues related to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the other challenges that face our Armed Forces and our country in connection with the threat of international terrorism and other threats. Bonds among Members of the committee are strong, and I feel honored to have been part of such a talented, dedicated and hardworking group of Members and highly- professional staff.

Madam Speaker, I could cite many others to whom I owe a debt of thanks--but the list would be longer than the time available, because they are literally too many to mention.

Therefore let me conclude by simply saying that although in the new year I will have a new job, some things will not change.

I am and will remain a ``man of the House,'' and while I will be spending more time on the other side of the Capitol, I look forward to continuing to work with you, Madam Speaker, and with the rest of our colleagues here.

So, tonight I choose not to say ``farewell''--because this is far from goodbye--or even ``so long,'' as the Western expression goes.

Instead, let me close with a wish to everyone for happy holidays and a promise that I will ``see you later,'' in the New Year.

Madam Speaker, I voted against this bailout package on Monday, because I took a hard look at it through the eyes of Coloradans, and I didn't see what they needed to see.

What I saw was a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street banks that didn't do enough to reassure taxpayers that they'd get their money back, didn't have a sure process for holding CEOs accountable and limiting taxpayer-funded golden parachutes, and didn't address the mortgage crisis that is at the root of our economic problems and is forcing hard-working Coloradans out of their homes.

Just as important, what I saw was a ``rescue'' for Wall Street that did nothing to begin fixing the broken financial system that led us to this crisis.

As I look at the legislation we're being asked to vote on today, I'm deeply disappointed to say that none of that has changed.

Instead, the Senate has sent us a bill that adds a single improvement to the package the House rejected, plus hundreds of pages of ``sweeteners'' intended to win over those of us who opposed it the first time. Many of those ``sweeteners'' are things I support--the people of Colorado know I have worked long and hard for middle-class tax breaks and have spent my entire career as a champion for investment in the new energy economy.

But no amount of ``sweetener'' changes the fact that Americans deserve a better solution to our economic crisis than the one we've already rejected.

I have no interest in making the perfect the enemy of the good. Anyone who knows my work in Congress knows that I am not a ``my-way-or- the-highway'' legislator. Because of the greed and lack of oversight on Wall Street, we face an unquestionably grave economic situation that requires Congress to act. But a better solution is still within our reach--one that takes immediate action to get our economy back on stable footing while providing the protection, oversight, and fundamental reforms American families deserve.

I am still guided by the words of the legendary basketball coach John Wooden, who told his players, ``Boys, be quick. But don't hurry.''

My hope was that after the House rejected Monday's bailout package, we in Congress would be quick to work together, improve the

legislation, and bring forward a revised version that would deserve and obtain broad support in Colorado and across the country. We had that opportunity until the Senate acted to re-package the old bailout bill in new clothing. We owe the taxpayers more than to hurry a deeply flawed package out the door at such tremendous cost to them.

I believe we could have added provisions that (1) provided independent oversight of the Treasury's program, (2) strengthened the equity position of taxpayers in purchasing mortgage-backed assets, (3) required the government to help responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages, and (4) insured that taxpayers will not be on the hook for irresponsible compensation packages for CEOs.

This bill claims to address these problems, but the exceptions in this bill swallow the rule. In short, the bill doesn't do what it claims to do.

On Tuesday, stronger provisions were within our reach and we should have worked to secure them

I hope--for the sake of all those people who have worked hard and played by the rules, only to see their retirement whittled away or their homes' values plummet--that this package does what its supporters promise us it will.

But in the end, my responsibility is to Colorado families, and I continue to believe as I did on Monday, that I cannot ask them to foot the bill for a bailout that costs so much, with so little accountability, so little reform, and so little protection for them.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill reflecting my comprehensive energy plan, the ``American Energy, American Innovation'' Act of 2008. This bill reflects my effort to really put everything on the table to address rising energy prices, our dependence on foreign oil, and our need to respond to the climate change challenge.

While in Colorado in August, I stood with Senator Salazar to embrace the bipartisan process and principles of the so-called Gang of 10--now Gang of 20--energy proposal. But I believe that this proposal doesn't go far enough and that's why I've spent the last 2 months working on this ``American Energy, American Innovation'' plan.

Since then, while the Senate group has doubled in size, indicating the strong desire in Congress to achieve a compromise on energy legislation, the Senators have yet to introduce the legislation that they outlined in their principles.

And last week, the House passed a comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6899) that includes an even stronger step towards a compromise, with provisions that will open up more of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling and establish a national renewable electricity standard to mandate that 15 percent of our electricity be produced from renewable energy by 2020.

Along with these two provisions, that bill included several others from my energy plan and I voted for it.

However, we have not yet achieved an agreement in Congress on a compromise that can move through both bodies and get to the President's desk. And, building upon the Gang of 20 proposal and H.R. 6899, I think my bill provides the next step in that process. That is why I am introducing this bill today, which I do not view as a final product, but more a step to further discussion on our energy policy and keep faith with the promise that I made to Coloradans in August.

My bill involves developing energy of all kinds--oil, gas, wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear. It's a broad and pragmatic approach to solve our critical energy challenge. It reaches out to new partners and promotes new solutions. And my bill includes both short- and long-term efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower energy prices, and protect our environment.

First, to deal with immediate problems with energy prices, my bill includes a provision bipartisan effort that will cut down on the manipulation of oil prices and increase transparency and oversight of the commodity markets. Estimates vary as to how much speculative trading on futures markets--as well as unscrupulous market manipulation--affects the cost of oil. Some estimates say as much as $30 to $60 per barrel of oil can be attributed to unfair speculative market practices.

This provision will bring transparency to the commodities and futures market by implementing Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, recommendations to break out index fund and other data in energy and agricultural markets, and require detailed reporting from index traders and swap dealers. This is important because speculators have come up with elaborate and tricky derivatives that obscure the true value of commodities. It will curb excessive speculation by tightening regulation of foreign boards of trade that offer futures contracts in the U.S., and it will give the CFTC the authority and the means to crack down on manipulation in the energy market.

It will help us address gas prices in the short term by including a provision to release additional oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR. This release would provide for a quick increase in the supply of petroleum in our consumer market and so could reduce the likelihood of further short-term increases in the price of gasoline and other refined products. And, it will do this in a way that is both cost-effective and protective of our national-security interests.

Under the bill, the Energy Department, DOE, would sell at least 20 million barrels of light grade oil now stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and sales would continue for 6 months or until 70 million barrels have been sold, whichever comes first. But the draw- down would not be permanent because the bill would require the Energy Department to acquire, through purchase (using money from the sales) or exchange, heavy grade petroleum for storage in the strategic reserve, to replace the light grade petroleum that would be sold.

Right now, slightly more than 700 million barrels of oil are stored in the strategic reserve--so the amount to be sold under the bill would be only about 10 percent of the amount on hand.

Importantly, the bill specifies that the amount of oil stored in the strategic reserve could not drop below 90 percent of the amount stored when the bill is enacted. The most recent data I have seen indicate that the reserve is currently filled nearly to capacity, so the bill will not cause a significant reduction in the amount stored.

But, Madam Speaker, this bill recognizes that short-term solutions and fixing past problems are not ``silver bullets'' for the factors that have led to the current high price of oil and products such as gasoline that are made from oil. We need long-term solutions as well.

First, we need to do all we can to move towards ending dependence on foreign oil and my bill creates a National Commission on Energy Independence to study technical obstacles and policy barriers and make recommendations on how to achieve this goal.

This bill also includes opening up new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, to oil and gas drilling. Specifically, the bill would end the current moratorium on OCS drilling and would permit leasing between 50 and 100 miles offshore if a State ``opts-in'' to allow it off of their coast, while providing protection for environmentally sensitive areas. I think this strikes a responsible balance between adding more drilling offshore and respecting State concerns--States should have a say about drilling activity affecting their beaches, lands and resources.

A separate provision in the bill deals with Federal lands that have been leased for energy exploration and development under the Mineral Leasing Act but where such activities have not yet occurred. While it is important to understand the reality that oil and gas exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific enterprise involving efforts not easily fitting within strict regulatory timelines, I think that this is a reasonable response to current conditions. In essence, it would bar the current holders of federal mineral leases--whether for onshore or offshore areas--from obtaining additional leases unless they are able to show that they are ``diligently developing'' the leases they already hold. The Secretary of the Interior would be responsible for spelling out in regulations exactly what would be needed to show such ``due diligence.''

But we must reach beyond oil and gas. My bill includes provisions to advance clean coal technology, including carbon capture and sequestration technology. And I believe that nuclear energy will continue to be an important part of our energy portfolio, so we must move forward on building new nuclear energy facilities. My bill will help streamline the licensing process for these new plants and will give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission additional staff to ensure that these facilities are safe and secure.

As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I understand the important role that both renewable energy and energy efficiency will play in meeting our energy needs. My bill also includes my proposal for a Renewable Electricity Standard--just like the one that has been so successful in Colorado. Under my plan, by the year 2020, utility companies will be producing at least 20 percent of our electricity from American-made renewable sources like wind and solar.

My bill also includes extension of critical renewable energy tax credits. The Production Tax Credit, PTC, in particular has been instrumental in promoting the creation of a renewable energy industry. An extended PTC will provide more market certainty and we must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008. My bill extends the PTC for 4 years.

The bill also authorizes new clean renewable energy bonds, CREBS, for public power providers and electric cooperatives. This is a critical tool, especially for Colorado's rural co-ops and municipal utilities.

Of course, the cheapest kilowatt of energy is the one we don't use and energy efficiency also has a key role in addressing our energy

needs. This bill will provide incentives for smart grid systems, as well as for energy efficient buildings. And it includes new energy efficiency standards for appliances.

Transportation is another area where we can do more to improve our efficiency. And my bill will move us forward by requiring that all new vehicles achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2015 and 50 miles per gallon by 2030. It also includes additional incentives for Americans to purchase high efficiency vehicles and for manufacturers to produce many vehicles that use alternative fuels.

Americans want fuel choice and my bill will require 50 percent of all new vehicles to be capable of burning various biofuels (in addition to gasoline) by 2012 and 80 percent by 2015.

We need additional incentives for fuel efficiency vehicles. It also includes funding for research and development focused on the major technological barriers to alternative fuel vehicles, such as advanced batteries, to develop the next generation vehicles. And it provides incentives for Americans to purchase these new vehicles that use alternative fuels or are more efficient.

And we must pay for this new energy policy. My bill does that by ending unneeded tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and closing tax loopholes.

In conclusion, let me again emphasize that we must all work together and bring everything to the table to address our energy challenge. This bill is a good draft to start with and I will continue to work with my colleagues to enact a comprehensive energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gas prices, and protect our environment.

Madam Speaker, for eight years, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have allowed Wall Street to gamble with America's economy, and the results have been devastating for Main Street. The Administration consistently ignored the experts and failed to adequately oversee America's financial markets. Administration officials were warned that Wall Street's risky investments, combined with the mortgage industry's irresponsible practices, could produce a perfect storm that would threaten Americans' homes, jobs and life savings. Yet they did nothing.

When Wall Street's dangerous behavior began to undermine America's economy, the Bush Administration proposed a bailout that would have given the Treasury unprecedented power to spend taxpayer money without adequate oversight or an actual plan for fixing the systemic problems that led America to this crisis. At the time, I spoke out against the Bush bailout and called for a better proposal, one that would protect taxpayers, help homeowners and benefit Main Street, not just Wall Street. More importantly, I demanded that any plan to shore up America's financial markets include reasonable rules to ensure that Wall Street does not continue to gamble with our future.

We could have, and we should have, taken the time to do this right. Four hundred of the country's top economists, including three Nobel laureates, asked Congress to take more time to improve this proposal. With a proposal this far-reaching and complex, we had a responsibility to produce the best possible piece of legislation. The bill we are voting on today falls short. Instead of reforming Wall Street, we are using taxpayer dollars to insulate financial firms from the consequences of their own actions. The American taxpayer is on the hook for $700 billion to cover Wall Street's mistakes, and that is not right. Even worse, Wall Street is not being forced to change its behavior. This can only encourage more irresponsibility.

At the same time, the provisions that limit executive compensation in this bill are weak, meaning that corporate executives who ran their companies into the ground could still walk away with millions in taxpayer-funded compensation in the forms of golden parachutes or other lavish benefits packages. Again, this sends exactly the wrong message to Wall Street. This legislation may still use taxpayer dollars to reward executives who have failed their companies and subsequently hurt the American economy.

In addition, at a time when America's middle class is severely stretched to make ends meet, this $700 billion bailout not only seeks to rescue our taxpayer dollars to bail out foreign comapnies. We must protect American taxpayers before we seek to rescue foreign companies while their governments do nothing.

Finally, this legislation does too little to help responsible homeowners. As a result, tens of thousands of families could lose their homes. More importantly, families who had nothing to do with failed mortgages could lose billions in assets as foreclosures continue to drive down property values.

I believe strongly that Washington must act to protect Main Street from the crisis on Wall Street. I supported an economic stimulus plan that puts working families before corporate CEOs by creating jobs, protecting children's access to healthcare and ensuring that struggling families do not go hungry. I have consistently supported strong action to protect middle class New Mexicans. But I could not vote to give Wall Street $700 billion of taxpayer money without solving the underlying problems with our economy.

I will continue working with my colleagues to reform America's financial markets, so Wall Street is not allowed to make the same mistakes over and over again. I will also continue fighting to support middle class New Mexico families that find themselves struggling in an economy devastated by the irresponsible acts of others. They are the true victims of the Bush administration's malign neglect of our economy. We must do what's right for them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. India is the world's largest and most diverse democracy and a strong ally and friend of the United States. As a member of the India Caucus, I recognize the benefits of increased economic, security, and cultural cooperation between India and the United States, and am proud that in recent years the relationship between our two countries has made rapid advances in so many areas.

Because of the growing importance of that relationship, it made sense for the Bush administration to consider expanding the U.S.-India strategic partnership to include civilian nuclear energy development. In the context of our friendship with India, I support the concept of civilian nuclear cooperation, and I will support this legislation today.

U.S. law prohibits nuclear cooperation with countries that have not pledged under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--like India--to forgo nuclear weapons. The U.S.-India agreement carves out an exception for India to allow it to gain access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in exchange for opening 14 out of 22 of its nuclear facilities to inspections under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Importantly, India and the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, have negotiated a safeguards agreement and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group has approved an exemption for India, requirements that needed to be met before Congress could vote on the final cooperation agreement.

Under existing law, Congress would have 60 days to consider the agreement, an important provision given that the agreement before us is complex and requires time for hearings and debate. But because there is little time left on the legislative calendar, we're forced to vote to waive the consultation period and consider the agreement today without the benefit of sufficient review. The bill is also being considered under suspension of the rules, which provides for only limited debate and no amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I am uncomfortable with this process. I am also disappointed that the legislation does not resolve what appear to be conflicting interpretations between U.S. officials and Indian officials about key points of the agreement. But I do believe that ultimately this agreement will help bring India closer to the global nonproliferation regime--a better outcome than if we leave it on the outside. And fo that reason, I will support this legislation today.

In exchange for getting access to sensitive nuclear technology and fuel supplies, India has committed to continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons testing; separate its civilian and military nuclear programs; place all current and future civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; implement a strong national export control system; work with the U.S. to conclude a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty; and not transfer nuclear technologies to states that do not already possess them. Although the agreement does not specifically require the U.S. to cut off nuclear cooperation if India tests another weapon or violates the IAEA safeguards, Secretary Rice has promised that the ``deal . . . would at that point be off.'' I have no doubt that an Obama or McCain administration would follow that same course. I have confidence that as a strong democracy and a responsible actor on the world stage, India will abide by its commitments--but I also take comfort in the agreement's stipulations that we can terminate the agreement and seek the return of any transferred materials and technology should circumstances require such a step.

So in conclusion, I believe this agreement strikes the right balance between strengthening our relationship with India and also maintaining our robust and time-tested international nuclear nonproliferation regime. I will support the bill today, but I plan to carefully scrutinize the agreement's implementation to ensure that India is abiding by its commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation that will extend critical tax credits for renewable energy and for American families while not adding to the federal deficit.

As cochair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I am especially pleased to see the House take action on needed tax credits for renewable energy. The Production Tax Credit, PTC, in particular has been instrumental in promoting the creation of a renewable energy industry. An extended PTC will provide more market certainty and we must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008.

I must add that, while I am pleased that the bill provides a three year extension of the PTC for most renewable energy sources, I am concerned that it only provides a one-year extension for wind energy. Wind is a very promising renewable energy source and a one year extension will not be as helpful for the industry. I will continue to lead the fight to extend the wind energy PTC for more than one year.

The bill also extends the Investment Tax Credit, ITC, for solar energy, qualified fuel cells, and microturbines for eight years. The ITC will help companies with initial investment costs in expanding these renewable energy sources across the country.

Rising gas prices are forcing many Coloradans to dip into their savings just to make ends meet. This bill will help families reduce their fuel bills by providing $3,000 in tax credits toward the purchase of fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrid vehicles. It will also help address long-term fuel cost concerns by expanding production of homegrown fuels and incentives for the installation of E-85 pumps for consumers to fill up flex-fuel vehicles.

This bill also will support advances in energy efficiency and conservation in commercial and residential buildings, as well as energy efficient appliances.

And this bill will also help Colorado businesses stay competitive by extending the research and development tax credit for one year. While again I would like to see this key tax credit extended for more than one year, this is a step in the right direction.

To help with the hard economic times that Coloradans are facing, this bill includes several other key tax credits, including expanding the child tax credit for some of our neediest families, allowing teachers to take a deduction for purchasing classroom supplies out of their own pocket, and providing additional support for families paying for college education.

Although this bill includes several important provisions and I will vote for it, I am disappointed that it does not include provisions that passed in the Senate and in previous House bills--particularly those related to clean renewable energy bonds, CREBS, and the Secure Rural Schools program.

CREBs provide a critical tool for public power providers and electric cooperatives to invest in renewable energy. This is a unique tool for Colorado's rural coops and municipal utilities and I hope to see us address this issue before the session ends. CREBS provisions were in the version of the bill originally passed by the House, but in the Senate they were revised. My understanding is that is the reason they have been omitted entirely from the bill now before us. My hope is that further discussions between the House and Senate will resolve this impasse.

The ``Secure Rural Schools'' program, originally authorized in 2000, was designed to establish stability to certain annual payments made to States and counties containing National Forest System lands and certain public domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Since 1908, 25 percent of Forest Service revenues, such as those from timber sales, mineral resources and grazing fees, have been returned to the States in which national forest lands are located. Because receipts from timber sales have fluctuated over time, the 106th Congress in 2000 enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, Public Law 106-393, to address this instability by providing funding for a period of seven years, but requiring reauthorization after that time.

While Colorado is not among the States receiving the largest payments, the program has helped some of our rural counties meet urgent needs. In fact, last year payments under the program to Colorado counties amounted to more than $6.4 million, helping to offset the costs of public schools, roads, and other needs of Colorado residents.

That is why I cosponsored legislation, H.R. 3058, to renew the program's authorization, and why I voted for that legislation when the House considered it on June 5 of this year. Unfortunately, while 218 of us voted for the bill, the final total included 193 against and thus, because it was considered under a procedure requiring two-thirds approval, the bill did not pass.

In its version of this legislation the Senate included funding for both the Secure Rural Schools program and for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, program, which makes payments to counties across the country where certain categories of Federal lands are located. PILT is also very important to Colorado, and I strongly support funding for it--and I would have preferred to have both its funding and that for the Secure Rural Schools program included in the bill now before us.

Nonetheless, despite the lack of these provisions, this is a good bill. I hope we can move it forward and promote positive change that will benefit our families and rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security.

I encourage my colleagues in the House to vote for this needed legislation, and also encourage quick action in the Senate so that we may move it to President's desk.

I rise in support of H.R. 7110, the Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act.

While I have reservations about any bill that relies on deficit spending, I think the long-term benefits this bill will have for the American economy outweigh those reservations. I am, however, very disappointed with the minority's objection to an amendment that would have included funding for the Secure Rural Schools program in this bill.

H.R. 7110 will help stimulate the American economy by creating jobs, and will update the Nation's rapidly deteriorating infrastructure. Nationwide, 84,000 Americans have lost their jobs within the last month, and more than 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs within the last month, and more than 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs throughout the year. In my home state of Colorado, more than 19,000 Coloradans have lost their jobs within the last year.

This bill will put Coloradans to work, rebuilding our roads, expanding our public transportation, investing in our water infrastructure, and fixing our schools. The Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT, recently weighed down by a combination of deteriorating infrastructure and shrinking resources, will receive more than $200 million in direct funding that will be put to use quickly and efficiently, and which will immediately help local economies. Colorado will be eligible for further funding for its public transit agencies.

This bill will also provide assistance for those who need help getting back on their feet after being wiped out by the current state of our economy. H.R. 7110 will extend unemployment benefits for up to 12,000 unemployed Coloradans, and fund job training programs to help them find work. And for those struggling to put food on the table, this bill will provide additional food stamps, and will help maintain the health of struggling Coloradans by increasing Medicaid assistance.

As a national leader in the development of clean, renewable energy, Colorado stands to benefit greatly from the resources dedicated in this bill to advance such technologies. This bill will further help lead this nation into an era of energy independence by investing in the manufacture of advanced vehicle batteries and battery systems--a key component to developing a new fleet of fuel efficient cars.

Simply put, this bill is an investment in America--her people, her ingenuity, and her future. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I rise in support of this important legislation.

I applaud Chairman Skelton for his leadership in guiding this bill to the floor today. He and Ranking Member Hunter have done a tremendous job, and they have been ably supported by the expert staff of our committee. We passed the Defense Authorization bill in the House over four months ago--but there was concern that the Senate wouldn't pass its bill before Congress adjourned for the year.

Fortunately, the Senate acted last week, and we're able to move ahead today to complete this important annual task. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter and their staff were not about to let this be the first Defense Authorization bill in 42 years not to become law. They worked very hard to reconcile the House and Senate legislation, and I commend them for the outcome. I expect the Senate to follow our lead and send this bill to the President for his signature.

This bill rightly focuses on our military's readiness needs. After more than five years at war, both the active duty and reserve forces are stretched to their limits. The bill will provide what's needed to respond, including funds to address equipment shortages for the active duty and reserve forces, improve the quality of our military barracks, maintain ammunition, and expand training opportunities, among other important readiness needs. The bill also improves the quality of life for our forces and their families by including a 3.9 percent pay raise for all service members, preserving important health benefits by prohibiting fee increases in TRICARE and the TRICARE pharmacy program, and including new preventive health care initiatives.

With regard to Colorado provisions, I am pleased that the bill includes language requiring the Secretary of Defense to maintain redundant facilities and equipment--along with the staff necessary to ensure continuity of operations--at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station until the Secretary can certify that security measures have been instituted to bring the consolidated command center for NORTHCOM/NORAD at Peterson AFB into full compliance with Protection Level One requirements. Currently, the Secretary has waived compliance to allow Peterson to meet these requirements--defined as resulting in ``the greatest possible deterrence against hostile acts'' and providing ``the maximum means to achieve detection, interception and defeat of a hostile force before it is able to seize, damage or destroy resources''--though Peterson AFB does not yet meet this level of protection. Such a waiver would not be permitted to meet the requirement under this legislation.

It is important that the House and the Senate have recognized that Northern Command's decision to relocate the nation's air and space defense command from Cheyenne Mountain to the new NORTHCOM/NORAD command center at Peterson AFB was flawed, particularly without fully analyzing the full range of threats. The Government Accountability Office in its recent report highlighted the lack of a comprehensive threat analysis, and the Department of Defense (DOD) finally concurred that a thorough analysis still needs to be completed. While that study is ongoing--and certainly while Peterson AFB cannot yet comply with protection level requirements for the highest level of threats-- redundant operations should be maintained at Cheyenne Mountain.

I'm also pleased that the bill increases overall military construction project authorization at the Pueblo Chemical Depot by $223 million, raising the five-year-old authorization cap that had forced the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative (ACWA) program and its main contractor Bechtel to cancel some work earlier this year and would have resulted in layoffs if it had not been increased. Although Congress appropriated sufficient funds last year, ACWA did not have Congressional permission to spend the funds until this cap was raised.

Finally, the bill includes language that prohibits DOD from transporting away from the Pueblo Chemical Depot in the next six months the hazardous wastes left after chemical treatment of mustard agent. This is based on legislation I introduced with Rep. John Salazar earlier this year, and sends an important message to the Department of Defense.

There is no question that the ACWA program has been poorly managed for years. But I believe the people of Pueblo shouldn't have to pay for DOD's mistakes. Pueblo needs the jobs that the biotreatment process will provide, and the community deserves the certainty that clean-up will be completed in a timely fashion. I am disappointed that the final language is not as strong as the language I helped pass in the House, but it is still an important step forward. I will continue to work to ensure the secondary wastes are not transported off-site.

The Pueblo Chemical Depot holds 2,611 tons of liquid mustard agent and is part of the DOD's ACWA program, which is responsible for destroying the chemical weapons stored at Pueblo and at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. The Chemical Weapons Convention, ratified by Congress in 1997, requires these munitions to be destroyed by 2012. Because of schedule delays, management problems, and funding shortfalls for the ACWA program, the DOD has said that the U.S. will not meet the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty deadline.

Last year, Congress mandated that DOD complete all chemical weapons destruction activities by 2017. The DOD has suggested that a 2017 deadline at Pueblo cannot be reached if wastes are treated on-site. DOD is again studying whether to transport these wastes for treatment off- site, despite approved plans to treat the wastes at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, and despite the fact that construction of an on-site biotreatment facility has already begun. In addition, studies have shown that shipping these wastes would not yield benefits. The community of Pueblo and the Colorado Citizens' Advisory Commission, established by law to represent community interests, have repeatedly expressed their preference for treating the wastes on-site.

The bill also authorizes $474 million for military construction projects at Fort Carson, as well as $65 million for construction at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, $4.9 million for land acquisition at Peterson AFB, $18 million for Colorado National Guard readiness centers in Denver and Grand Junction, $3 million for a satellite pharmacy and $4.2 million for Alert Crew Headquarters at Buckley Air Force Base, and $18 million to upgrade academic facilities at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today does an excellent job of balancing the need to sustain our current warfighting abilities with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. It is critical that we are able to meet the operational demands of today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world.

This is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this appropriations measure--partly because of what it includes, but primarily because I have concluded it would be irresponsible and a dereliction of duty to do otherwise.

Nonetheless, I must express my unhappiness with the way in which the legislation was developed, especially the decision to accede to the Bush Administration's insistence that it not include anything that would impede their desire to rush toward full-scale commercial development of oil shale.

By this insistence, the White House has shown it is quite ready to disregard our Western Slope communities and put Colorado's water supplies at risk. They were prepared to shut down the entire Federal Government--at a moment when our economy is in crisis--rather than accept a careful, responsible approach to full-scale oil shale development. Such `my way or the highway' tactics are deplorable, and while some may be tempted to respond in kind, I cannot in good conscience adopt the same approach by voting against this legislation.

I am also very disappointed that far too many of the measure's provisions have never previously been considered by the House or even approved by the full Appropriations Committee, meaning that they never have been and never will be the subject of detailed debate or possible revision.

I do not think this is the way the House of Representatives should exercise its serious constitutional responsibility for deciding how to spend the taxpayers' money.

However, while both the process through which the measure was developed and the details of its provisions could have been better, it includes many provisions that deserve enactment.

For example, it includes $910 million to defray firefighting costs and emergency fire-prevention efforts, and to help recover lands devastated by recent fires.

This has been one of the worst wildfire seasons on record, and while Colorado has not been as hard hit we have not been immune. Nationally, nearly 5 million acres have burned, costing over $1.8 billion for Federal wildfire suppression activities, which is $700 million above the average suppression cost.

So, it is appropriate that that measure includes a total of $610 million for wildfire suppression activities, including sufficient funds to fully repay all agency operating and construction funds which were previously borrowed to support emergency suppression activities earlier this summer. This repayment will allow the Forest Service and the Interior Department to use contractors and staff to revive important projects which were delayed by the budget shortfalls earlier this year.

In addition, this legislation includes a total of $175 million for urgently needed hazardous fuels reduction projects all over the Nation, including extensive areas in Colorado and other parts of the mountain west which are suffering unprecedented tree die-off from infestations of bark beetles and some other insects. Of this total, some $125 million is for state and private activities and $50 million for projects on national forests. Another $100 million will be used for rehabilitation of burned areas, including $75 million for the Forest service and $25 million for the Interior Department, and another $25 million is provided for firefighter retention.

Responding to the problems associated with insect infestations in Colorado's forests has been a high priority for me. I have worked with other members of our state's delegation on legislative proposals and have joined in efforts to secure increased funding for that purpose--so these parts of the bill are particularly welcome.

Further, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am also particularly glad to note that the FY09 Defense Department Appropriations bill included in this package puts our troops first.

It provides funds for necessary weapons and equipment and training, boosting funds particularly for the National Guard and Reserve; makes critical investments in the health of our troops, including $300 million for traumatic brain injury and mental health; provides more than the president's request to improve army barracks and military hospitals; and compensates troops for every month their terms of service are involuntarily extended, also known as ``stop loss.'' The bill also includes funding for important weapons systems and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance needs.

This legislation also provides FY09 funding for Defense Department military construction, including $474 million for military construction projects at Fort Carson, as well as $65 million for construction at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, $4.9 million for land acquisition at Peterson AFB, $18 million for Colorado National Guard readiness centers in Denver and Grand Junction, $3 million for a satellite pharmacy and $4.2 million for Alert Crew Headquarters at Buckley Air Force Base, and $18 million to upgrade academic facilities at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Finally, this legislation includes FY09 funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs--providing $47.6 billion for veterans' medical care, claims processors, and facility improvements, including $20 million for the new Fitzsimons VA hospital. The bill makes substantial increases in mental health and substance abuse programs, provides veterans with advanced prosthetics, provides additional resources for veterans who live in places where the VA does not offer sufficient services, increase the gas mileage reimbursement rate to 41.5 cents per mile, and improves access to care for veterans in rural areas.

In conclusion, I have decided the bill's merits--which include the fact that it will allow all federal agencies to continue their work until the next Congress can complete action on funding legislation for the remainder of this fiscal year--outweigh its defects, and I will vote for it.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Westmoreland/GTG JV, a venture of Global Staffing, Inc., and Westmoreland, Inc., on its recognition as a ``Top 100 Veteran Owned Business in America'' and a ``Top 100 Disabled Owned Business in America'' by Diversity Business Magazine. From what I have heard of Westmoreland/GTGS JV, a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business, this recognition is well deserved.

I'm told that for the 17 years that Global Staffing has operated in my district, it has provided quality service to commercial enterprises and government agencies. Global Staffing has provided gainful employment to thousands of my constituents and other citizens nationwide. I understand that Global Staffing has demonstrated good corporate citizenship, supporting the local community through scholarships for at-risk children, food drives for the homeless, and grants to domestic abuse support agencies.

Westmoreland, Inc. was founded by Dennis Westmoreland a service- disabled veteran of two tours in Vietnam, who has for many years given his time and energy to working with and supporting other veterans at VA hospitals in Colorado.

I congratulate the management and staff of Global Staffing and Westmoreland for this award and wish them continued success in the future.

Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this bill I urge its approval by the House.

The bill will extend through fiscal year 2012 the highly successful grant program for armor vests for law enforcement officers.

The program was originally established in 1998 through enactment of legislation sponsored by Colorado's Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Since then, over 11,900 jurisdictions have participated in the program, with $173 million in Federal funds committed to support the purchase of an estimated 450,000 vests.

For example, in fiscal year 2007, 60 separate jurisdictions in Colorado received more than $352,000 to assist with the purchase of 1,883 vests.

And while of course the most vests were purchased by the largest law enforcement

agencies--570 by the city and county of Denver, 344 by the State of Colorado, 131 by Adams County and 45 by EI Paso County--the program also assisted many smaller agencies as well, including those in Hinsdale County, Moffat County, Federal Heights, Glenwood Springs, and Durango.

Police officers from across our State have told me the program has been a great success, improving the safety and security of American law enforcement officers and better enabling them to do their job. And while President Bush's budgets have repeatedly neglected to request the full funding authorized for the program, Congress has stepped up and recognized its importance and appropriated the funds needed to keep it strong.

Bulletproof vests are expensive but essential. No officer should be without one and they should be basic equipment made available to officers when we ask them to perform dangerous jobs. If we can afford to pay for training and equipment for Iraqi police--and we indeed are paying for that--I think we can afford to help pay for bulletproof vests for the officers who protect Americans here at home.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge approval of this bill, to renew and extend the authorization for this very important program.

Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of H.R. 6063, the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2008, as amended by the Senate. H.R. 6063 provides important direction and ensures the leadership of the United States civil space programs and provides the next president with congressional priorities for America's future in aeronautics and civil space activities.

I am very proud that this legislation has been a bipartisan effort every step of the way. Our bill passed quickly through the committee process, and on June 18 of this year, H.R. 6063 passed the House by the overwhelming margin of 409-15.

Since that House passage, we have worked with our colleagues in the Senate to craft a final version that reflects the concerns and interests of Members in both Chambers of Congress. I am pleased that the Senate yesterday passed H.R. 6063, as amended, by unanimous consent.

I would like to thank Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall and subcommittee Ranking Member Feeney for their support and hard work on this bill.

I think a special acknowledgment is due Congressman Lampson, who represents the great City of Houston, and who has been tireless in his support of NASA.

I also wanted to point out, I think, the great model that Congressman Hall and Congressman Gordon present us here in our House, where they work together in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that NASA thrives, and is nurtured, and is in a position to excel in the years in front of us.

I also want to also take a minute and thank the excellent staff on both the majority and minority side for their outstanding work. On the Democratic side of the aisle, Dick Obermann, Pam Whitney, Allen Li, and Devin Bryant have all been instrumental in moving this bill forward, as has Wendy Adams on my personal staff.

I want to make special mention of Wendy. I know she is here on a Saturday, giving the extra effort that always characterizes her work on behalf of the committee and, in particular, the subcommittee.

I also wanted to take another bit of time and mention Dick Obermann and tell him how much I respect him and how much I have enjoyed working with him on all my years on the committee. He is, as everybody knows in this House, the epitome of professionalism. The House, the aerospace community, and I would say our country is fortunate to have his talents and intelligence and work ethic deployed on behalf of all of us. Dick, I will miss you and look forward to working with you wherever I am next year.

On the minority side, I want to thank Ed Feddeman, Kim Monroe and Lee Arnold for their efforts as well. We have truly worked together in a bipartisan fashion.

Now while the amended bill leaves out a set of House-passed provisions, I am confident that H.R. 6063, as amended, remains a good bill and puts NASA in the civil space program on a path that will help ensure our leadership in aerospace and aeronautics.

This year, as has been mentioned, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the U.S. space program and the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA has achieved remarkable accomplishments over the past decades in science and aeronautics and human space flight. All of us here want to ensure that the next 50 years of our space program are equally bright.

This is a very good bill. I urge my colleagues to pass it, as amended, to ensure continued United States leadership in NASA's science, aeronautics and human space flight and exploration programs.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this bill, I rise to urge its approval by the House.

The bill responds to as increasingly serious threat to freedom of speech--the phenomenon often called ``libel tourism.''

That term is used to describe lawsuits brought in other countries-- especially the United Kingdom--by people claiming to have been defamed by publications that would not be considered defamatory in the United States.

As explained in a recent news article about the practice--

Britain is a legal refuge because of defamation standards

rooted in common law. They essentially assume that any

offending speech is false and the writer or author must prove

that it is in fact true to prevail against the charge. In the

United States, with its First Amendment protection for free

speech, the situation tilts in the opposite direction: To

succeed, libel plaintiffs must prove that the speech is false

and published with a reckless disregard for the truth.

A notable example involves the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld, an Israeli- born writer living in the United States and her legal battle with a billionaire Saudi entrepreneur, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz over her 2003 book on terrorist financing, ``Funding Evil,'' which asserted that Bin Mahfouz and his family provided financial support to Islamic terrorist groups. The book was not sold in the United Kingdom, but Mr. Bin Mahfouz's lawyers argued that more than 20 copies of her book had been purchased there online and that therefore the British courts had authority to hear his defamation complaint.

Ms. Ehrenfeld did not respond and because she offered no defense, the judge ruled that she had to pay a judgment of $225,000, apologize for false allegations, and destroy existing copies of the book. Mr. Bin Mahfouz has not sought to collect on the judgment, but Ms. Ehrenfeld says it has affected her ability to publish further books. And last year Cambridge University Press agreed to destroy all copies of ``Arms for Jihad'' and to write to 100 libraries around the world seeking to add an explanatory sheet to archived books.

Evidently Mr. Bin Mahfouz has filed more than 24 lawsuits against writers and authors, and his advisers have created a special Web site tracking the legal suits and apologies issued by writers and publishers.

The bill now before the House responds to this threat to free speech. It would bar any U.S. court (State or Federal) from recognizing or enforcing a foreign defamation judgment unless it determined that the judgment ``is consistent with the First Amendment.'' Thus, someone who had won a defamation judgment abroad would have to prove the case under U.S. standards before it could be enforced here. This will provide important protection for Americans and others who exercise the First Amendment right of free speech in our country.

I urge approval of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, support this legislation that will extend critical tax credits for renewable energy and for American families while not adding to the Federal deficit.

As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I am especially pleased to see the House take action on needed tax credits for renewable energy. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) in particular has been instrumental in promoting the creation of a renewable energy industry. An extended PTC will provide more market certainty and we must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008.

I must add that, while I am pleased that the bill provides a three- year extension of the PTC for most renewable energy sources, I am concerned that it only provides a one-year extension for wind energy.Wind is a very promising renewable energy source and a one-year extension will not be as helpful for the industry. I will continue to lead the fight to extend the wind energy PTC for more than one year.

The bill also extends the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar energy, qualified fuel cells, and microturbines for eight years. The ITC will help companies with initial investment costs in expanding these renewable energy sources across the country.

Rising gas prices are forcing many Coloradans to dip into their savings just to make ends meet. This bill will help families reduce their fuel bills by providing $3000 in tax credits toward the purchase of fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrid vehicles. It will also help address long-term fuel cost concerns by expanding production of homegrown fuels and incentives for the installation of E-85 pumps for consumers to fill up flex-fuel vehicles.

This bill also will support advances in energy efficiency and conservation in commercial and residential buildings, as well as energy efficient appliances.

And this bill will also help Colorado businesses stay competitive by extending the research and development tax credit for one year. While again I would like to see this key tax credit extended for more than one year, this is a step in the right direction.

To help with the hard economic times that Coloradans are facing, this bill includes several other key tax credits, including expanding the child tax credit for some of our neediest families, allowing teachers to take a deduction for purchasing classroom supplies out of their own pocket, and providing additional support for families paying for college education.

Although this bill includes several important provisions and I will vote for it, I am disappointed that it does not include provisions that passed in the Senate and in previous House bills--particularly those related to clean renewable energy bonds (CREBS) and the Secure Rural Schools Program.

CREBs provide a critical tool for public power providers and electric cooperatives to invest in renewable energy. This is a unique tool for Colorado's rural co-ops and municipal utilities and I hope to see us address this issue before the session ends. CREBS provisions were in the version of the bill originally passed by the House, but in the Senate they were revised. My understanding is that is the reason they have been omitted entirely from the bill now before us. My hope is that further discussions between the House and Senate will resolve this impasse.

The ``Secure Rural Schools'' program, originally authorized in 2000, was designed to establish stability to certain annual payments made to States and counties containing National Forest System lands and certain public domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Since 1908, 25 percent of Forest Service revenues, such as those from timber sales, mineral resources and grazing fees, have been returned to the States in which national forest lands are located. Because receipts from timber sales have fluctuated over time, the 106th Congress in 2000 enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Public Law 106-393) to address this instability by providing funding for a period of seven years, but requiring reauthorization after that time.

While Colorado is not among the States receiving the largest payments, the program has helped some of our rural counties meet urgent needs. In fact, last year payments under the program to Colorado counties amounted to more than $6.4 million, helping to offset the costs of public schools, roads, and other needs of Colorado residents.

That is why I cosponored legislation (H.R. 3058) to renew the program's authorization, and why I voted for that legislation when the House considered it on June 5th of this year. Unfortunately, while 218 of us voted for the bill, the final total included 193 against and thus, because it was considered under a procedure requiring two-thirds approval, the bill did not pass.

In its version of this legislation the Senate included funding for both the Secure Rural Schools program and for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, which makes payments to counties across the country where certain categories of Federal lands are located. PILT is also very important to Colorado, and I strongly support funding for it--and I would have preferred to have both its funding and that for the Secure Rural Schools program included in the bill now before us.

Nonetheless, despite the lack of these provisions, this is a good bill. I hope we can move it forward and promote positive change that will benefit our families and rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security.

I encourage my colleagues in the House to vote for this needed legislation, and also encourage quick action in the Senate so that we may move it to President's desk.

I thank the chairwoman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. The bill's purpose is to require more fair play for people with credit cards.

For many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. They rely on it for everyday needs. And for them it's a necessity. But they aren't always treated fairly by the companies that issue the credit cards that they use.

As the chairwoman pointed out, I've heard from many people in my State of Colorado asking me to help level the playing field. They work to do the right thing and pay their bills on time, and they deserve to be treated in good faith by the credit card companies.

That's the reason I've been working to make some commonsense changes in the rules for credit cards over these last two Congresses. I introduced a bill in 2006, and then reintroduced it again this year. And I'm proud that it won the support of an array of consumer groups, as well as 39 cosponsors from congressional districts across the country.

Most of the provisions in my bill have been included in this bill, H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights. This is a good, solid bill that will bring real reform without arbitrary rate caps or price controls that could backfire and make credit less available.

Now later this week we'll be debating on how to respond to the problems in the credit markets. This debate will focus on a financial market crisis that's brought on, in part, by the reckless practices of lenders who thought the use of complicated financial engineering would make risky loans safe.

Across the country, people worry that we will be too concerned about rescuing the reckless and not concerned enough about fairness for hard working Americans who may be called upon to pay the tab. So it's appropriate, as we prepare for that debate, that we start by acting and bringing greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards.

I urge passage of the bill. I thank the chairwoman again for her leadership on this important measure.

Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this legislation, I rise in strong support of it as a way to add some common-sense rules to the laws governing issuance of credit cards.

Later this week, we will be debating how to respond to problems in the credit markets. As we all know, that debate will focus on a financial-market crisis brought on, in large part, by reckless practices of lenders who thought the use of complicated financial ``engineering'' would make risky loans safe.

Understandably, many in Colorado and across the country are concerned that Congress may be too concerned about rescuing those who took excessive risks and not concerned enough about fairness for hard- working American taxpayers who will be called on to pay the tab.

So it is appropriate, as we prepare for that debate, that we start by acting to bring greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards. I have heard from constituents across Colorado, asking me to help even the playing field on this issue.

They benefit from the widespread availability of consumer credit, and their use of that credit has been important to our economy. In fact, for many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. It is something that many people need to use to pay for their everyday needs. For them, it is a necessity.

Of course, another word for credit is debt--and credit card debt has increased considerably in recent years. Overall, during the last decade, total credit-card debt rose by about 70 percent, and this clearly has an effect on consumers.

Some polls have reported that about 70 percent of surveyed families said the quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of their debts, and young people are more worried about going deeply into debt than about a terrorist attack.

Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness and an erosion

of financial responsibility. That was one of the main arguments advanced in support of the recent changes in the bankruptcy laws.

But while there was something to that argument, it was not the whole story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone. Instead of just focusing on borrowers, Congress should also do more to promote responsibility by those who provide the credit--and one place to start is with credit card companies.

That's the reason I have been working to make some common-sense changes in the rules for credit card companies.

I first introduced a bill to do that back in 2006, and reintroduced it again last year with our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. I'm proud it won the support of an array of consumer groups as well as 39 cosponsors from Congressional Districts across the country.

Now, I have joined as an original cosponsor of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, which includes many provisions based on my bill.

It includes protection against arbitrary interest rate increases. It will prevent cardholders who pay on time from being unfairly penalized. It will bar excessive fees and will require more fairness in the way payments are handled. And it would prohibit the use of ``universal default'' clauses--provisions that allow card issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit card account if there has been any change for the worse in the cardholder's credit score--even if the change is unrelated to the credit card account.

In short, H.R. 5244 is a good, solid bill that will bring real reform without arbitrary rate caps or price controls that could backfire and make credit less available.

It deserves passage today and prompt enactment into law.