Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Space Commerce Act of 2008.'' This legislation would modify the Technology Administration Act of 1998 and provide for the establishment of an Office of Space Commerce in the Department of Commerce. As chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee with jurisdiction over commercial space activities, I am introducing this bill as a courtesy to the Department, which requested it.

While I think the legislation that I am introducing today requires review and potentially modification before it is ready to come back to this floor for further consideration, I believe that introducing the Department's proposed legislation will help us move forward in seeking the best ways to encourage the vitality of this growing industry. This bill will help stimulate discussion on what is the best approach to enhancing the development and competitive posture of America's commercial space sector. That discussion will help Congress craft the best path forward in addressing this important topic.

I feel quite passionate about the important role that the commercial space sector plays--and will continue to play in the coming years--in ensuring the sustained vitality of the U.S. economy and its competitiveness in world markets. My home State of Colorado is home to some of the Nation's leading commercial space companies and is serving as an incubator for more every year. I am proud of that fact, and I am proud of the companies that are contributing so much to the nation's strength in civil, commercial, and military aerospace.

As chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I have seen firsthand the growing impact that the commercial space sector is having, both in enhancing the Nation's economic strength and improving the quality of life of all our citizens. Whether it is advancing U.S. geospatial applications, maximizing the benefits to be gained from U.S. space-based positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities, or numerous other endeavors, America's space commerce sector is leading the way, and I want to do all I can to see that that continues to be the case.

That is why I believe it is important to fully examine how the Federal Government can best provide additional useful tools to help expand and develop the space commerce sector. We in Congress should do all we can to address space commerce policy issues and help encourage the growth of the U.S. commercial space sector. I look forward to hearing from all interested stakeholders as we move forward to fully examine this proposal.

Mr. Chairman, the Constitution gives Congress the ultimate legislative responsibility for the District of Columbia.

However, through enactment of the DC Home Rule Act Congress has authorized the residents of the District to elect a Mayor and City Council to be responsible for the day-to-day exercise of that authority.

I respect the intent of home rule because I think residents of Washington, DC--like residents of Colorado--should be able to govern themselves so far as consistent with the ability of the Federal Government to function.

And I think this principle of home rule for DC is made all the more important because the residents of the District are not fully represented here in Congress.

So, I have some hesitation supporting legislation that would in effect shape policies for the District of Columbia without the involvement of its elected officials.

However, I am supporting H.R. 6842 today because any flaws in its approach can be corrected as the legislative process continues and because I think it is needed in order to send a strong message to the District government to move promptly to revise its laws to reflect the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of DC v. Heller and thus to assure that the second amendment rights of the District's residents are not infringed.

That is the purpose of this legislation--one that I support, because complying with our oath to support and defend the Constitution is the first duty of all Members of Congress.

Madam Speaker, like so many of our colleagues I heard with great sorrow of the passing of former Representative John F. Seiberling of Ohio.

While I did not have the opportunity to serve with Mr. Seiberling, I knew of his distinguished career and especially of his being a longtime friend and colleague of my father, both during and after his own service in the House.

My father and John Seiberling not only served at the same time, they worked closely together on many measures that came before what was then the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs--now known as the Natural Resources Committee.

Examples include the legislation dealing with strip mining, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, finally signed into law by President Carter after President Ford had vetoed an earlier version, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, also known as the ``Alaska Lands Act,'' which was signed into law on December 2, 1980.

Also, for many years John Seiberling was the voice of historic preservation in the Congress. He authored the legislation that created the Historic Preservation Fund and the 1980 Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act, and he helped win passage of the first Federal tax credits to preserve historic buildings.

Indeed, both as a private citizen and a public leader, John Seiberling inspired and elevated the stewardship of our Nation's land and its natural and cultural heritage.

At home, he was a leader in saving the historic heritage of Ohio, including his birthplace, Stan Hywet Hall in Akron. And while he was the shepherd of more than 60 park-related bills, he took special pride in writing and achieving the enactment of the Act to protect the Cuyahoga Valley between Akron and Cleveland, Ohio, as a national recreation area, now a national park.

As his hometown paper, the Akron Beacon Journal put it ``John F. Seiberling often explained that in preserving land, we preserve something of ourselves. One generation sends an enduring message to its successors about what it holds dear. Who has forgotten the wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt and others advancing the cause of national parks? In that same way, Mr. Seiberling long will be remembered . . . for his vision in seeking to preserve' 33,000 acres in Northeast Ohio, a vast urban parkland between Akron and Cleveland, and then having the political skills to turn the dream into reality.''

And the same editorial also noted an important point about John Seiberling's character and why he was so effective here in Congress and back home:

Almost anyone who spent time with Mr. Seiberling soon

encountered his intelligence

and wit. What his legislative colleagues and others

appreciated was his modesty and civility, He listened to

opposing views, Perhaps that stemmed from his own story, the

scion of the family that founded Goodyear becoming a liberal

Democrat. His calm, informed and reasoned approach proved

most effective in aiding his causes. It meant that when he

got his back up (say, his snapping ``Who the hell are you?''

at James Goldsmith, the corporate pirate seeking to consume

Goodyear), his passion proved all the more persuasive.

President Clinton later awarded John Seiberling the Presidential Citizens Medal, which is awarded in recognition of U.S. citizens who have performed exemplary deeds of service for our Nation.

In making the award, the President rightly explained that ``An ardent advocate for the environment, John F. Seiberling has demonstrated a profound commitment to America's natural treasures. Championing numerous bills during his 17 years in Congress, including the Alaska Lands Act, John Seiberling safeguarded millions of acres of parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas.'' And, in recognition of John Seiberling's work as a member of the Judiciary Committee, President Clinton went on to say that ``working in a spirit of bipartisanship, he also promoted civil rights and worker rights, always striving to improve the quality of life in America.''

Truer words were never spoken of any Member of Congress--and, once again, the Beacon Journal got it right when its editors wrote ``John Seiberling led an admirable life. He might have been content to become the fine attorney and avid amateur photographer that he was. Instead, he jumped into the political fray and in doing so, provided an example of what it means to pursue the highest standards of public life. That is something very much worth remembering and preserving.''

John Seiberling's example is one we should all remember and try to emulate.

Here is the complete text of the Beacon Journal editorial, from the paper's August 5th edition:

The Seiberling Legacy.--Start with the Cuyahoga Valley National Park,

and then consider the remarkable political skills that brought the

dream to reality

John F. Seiberling often explained that in preserving land,

we preserve something of ourselves. One generation sends an

enduring message to its successors about what it holds dear.

Who has forgotten the wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt and others

advancing the cause of national parks? In that same way, Mr.

Seiberling long will be remembered, following his death over

the weekend at age 89, for his vision in seeking to preserve

33,000 acres in Northeast Ohio, a vast urban parkland between

Akron and Cleveland, and then having the political skills to

turn the dream into reality.

That achievement revealed so much about his public service.

In this election season, candidates spend many hours touting

their virtues, why their presence at the Statehouse or on

Capitol Hill is necessary. Rare is the lawmaker who enhances

the quality of community life to the degree of Mr.

Seiberling. He was a once-in-a-generation leader.

Look at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park today, three

decades after its creation, millions of people each year

hiking and riding its pathways, enjoying its meadows, its

wetlands and banks of trees, their colors radiant in the

fall. Practically all of us boast about the park to friends

and family elsewhere, and when they come to visit, they

marvel, too.

The park isn't the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone, obviously.

Mr. Seiberling knew the Big Country. One of his proudest

accomplishments representing the Akron area in the U.S. House

for 16 years was his essential role in preserving 54 million

acres of wilderness in Alaska. The Cuyahoga Valley park

represented an innovation in the concept. Why not do the same

in the industrial heartland of the country?

Almost anyone who spent time with Mr. Seiberling soon

encountered his intelligence and wit. What his legislative

colleagues and others appreciated was his modesty and

civility. He listened to opposing views. Perhaps that stemmed

from his own story, the scion of the family that founded

Goodyear becoming a liberal Democrat. His calm, informed and

reasoned approach proved most effective in aiding his causes.

It meant that when he got his back up (say, his snapping

``Who the hell are you?'' at James Goldsmith, the corporate

pirate seeking to consume Goodyear), his passion proved all

the more persuasive.

Most telling, Mr. Seiberling knew who he was, and didn't

pretend otherwise. Even as he cut a national profile

conserving public lands, he understood his leading role

involved representing the city and its surroundings. He

brought federal backing to the Akron-Canton airport, the

Goodyear Technical Center and other projects critical to the

community. He didn't duck confrontations. He felt comfortable

in his own skin, and at ease in the face of opposition.

John Seiberling led an admirable life. He might have been

content to become the fine attorney and avid amateur

photographer that he was. Instead, he jumped into the

political fray and in doing so, provided an example of what

it means to pursue the highest standards of public life. That

is something very much worth remembering and preserving.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation that will help provide price relief for American families, open up new areas for domestic energy production, and assist us to make the transition to a new energy economy that will reduce our dependence on imported oil-- all without adding to the federal deficit.

While this bill is not perfect--I would prefer to see the more comprehensive approach embodied in my ``American Innovation, American Energy'' plan--it is a step in the right direction and deserves approval.

It will help us address gas prices in the short term by including a provision (as does my energy bill) 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.

Furthermore, this bill will help diversify the type of oil in the SPR, meaning that this bill not only is compatible with the national security purposes of the SPR, it can actually assist in achieving them.

This bill will also require that oil companies pay their fair share of royalties on flawed leases granted in 1998 and 1999. Because of mistakes made by the Interior Department, oil companies holding 70 percent of leases issued for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in 1998 and 1999 became exempt from paying any royalties, costing American taxpayers about $15 billion.

And the bill will address the recently discovered ethical problems within the Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service (MMS)-- problems that were particularly rampant at the MMS office in Denver.

Numerous government employees were found to have very inappropriate relationships with employees who worked for the very companies they were regulating. This bill will increase penalties for both MMS employees and companies that hold oil or gas leases, strengthen the MMS code of ethics, and strengthen the office of the Inspector General, which uncovered these problems.

But, Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes that short-term solutions and fixing past problems are no ``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.

This bill 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 that is a critical component of this provision--states must be able to have a say in drilling activity within their territory.

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--yet another provision that is also in my energy plan. 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.''

These provisions also include a requirement for the Department of the Interior to offer at least one lease sale annually in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. This is an area of well-established potential that was initially made available for leasing in the Clinton Administration, and with regard to which the current Administration just today announced that 2.6 million acres would be offered at lease sales in the near future. Dictating a leasing timetable in legislation is unusual, and I have reservations about that approach--but the potentially beneficial effects on prices from tapping the reserves in this part of Alaska are undeniable.

In addition, the bill would reinstate a ban on the export of Alaskan oil that was previously a matter of federal law. Oil is a globally- traded commodity, so the effect of this will be limited, but it to an extent might reduce the extent to which imports are used to supply the domestic market.

And the bill calls on the President to use the powers of his office to facilitate the completion of oil pipelines into the National Petroleum Reserve and to facilitate the construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline to the continental United States to move the product to market. These are only exhortations, but I see no objection to their inclusion in the legislation.

I am particularly pleased that the measure before contains a provision that I authored, along with Representatives Tom Udall and Todd Platts, to establish a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). This provision will require utilities to acquire 15 percent of electricity production from renewable resources by 2020. While I would prefer to see us adopt a RES of 20 percent by 2020, as we have in Colorado and as is in my energy plan, establishing a 15 percent by 2020 is a good step in the right direction.

As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I am especially pleased to see the bill include needed extension for 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 PTC for more than one year in fact, my energy plan includes a four year extension of the PTC for all renewable energy sources.

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.

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 you don't use and energy efficiency also has a key role in addressing our energy needs. This bill will provide incentives to lenders and financial institutions, including the Federal Housing Administration, to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers who build, buy or remodel their homes to improve their energy efficiency. It will also establish a residential energy efficiency block grant program to improve the energy efficiency of housing.

Transportation is another area of high energy use and public transportation is becoming more and more necessary as gas prices continue to rise. This bill establishes $1.7 billion in grants to transit agencies for the next two years, which will help reduce transit fares for commuter rail and buses and expands service.

While I would like to see much more for transportation, such as the increase in vehicle efficiency and additional advancements in alternative fuels that are included in my energy plan, this public transportation provision is a good start.

I maintain strong reservations about the pace at which this Administration is pursuing oil shale development in Western Colorado. Before commercial leasing occurs, we need to know more about oil shale development's impacts on water and local communities.

Until those questions are answered, I do not believe that the federal government should rush ahead with oil shale leasing and I therefore have been fighting, with my colleague Representative John Salazar, to ensure that the necessary research and development can be completed before we move ahead. I have also been fighting to ensure that the State of Colorado has a voice in the development of oil shale, so that the wisdom of Westerners can help us avoid the pitfalls that have sunk oil shale development in the past.

At the end of this month, the moratorium on commercial oil shale leasing is scheduled to expire. In the event it does, I believe that the state of Colorado should have a safety valve so that it can determine the pace of oil shale development within its borders. Section 171 of the energy bill currently before the House aims to create that safety valve, and to ensure that regardless of the Administration's desire to rush ahead with oil shale development at all costs, Colorado and other states can control the pace of development.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill deserves support. But it certainly is not all that is needed in terms of energy policy. We need to do more.

I think we need to look at increasing mileage standards for new cars and trucks. Specifically, I believe we have the technology to require that all new vehicles achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2015 and, with additional American innovation, we can achieve 50 miles per gallon by 2030. I also think we need additional incentives for Americans to purchase high efficiency vehicles and for manufactures to produce many vehicles that use alternative fuels. And we need to aggressively pursue development of alternative energy sources, including solar and wind power, in order to reduce our dependence not just on imported oil but on all fossil fuels. We also need to work even harder to increase energy efficiency, so that we get a greater payoff from all energy sources.

I hope today we can move this bill 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 strongly 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 the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to improve the workings of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).

The bill, cosponsored by my Colorado colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, is entitled the Compensation and Respect for Energy Workers Act ( or ``CARE Act'').

It is similar to legislation with that title introduced in the Senate by Senator Salazar, but unlike the Senate version it also includes a section that would amend the EEOICPA to expand the number of former workers at the Rocky Flats site in Colorado covered by the ``special exposure cohort'' provisions of that law. This part of the new bill is identical to section 3 of H.R. 904, which I introduced with Mr. Perlmutter last year.

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program Act (EEOICPA) was enacted to compensate American workers (and certain survivors) who put their health and life on the line to serve our Nation during the Cold War. Among them were thousands of Coloradans who worked at Rocky Flats as well as some other sites covered by the EEOICPA law. Many of them developed beryllium disease, cancer, or other ailments from being exposed to beryllium, radiation, or other hazards.

When I was first elected to Congress, I began working with colleagues in the House and Senate--on both sides of the aisle--to provide a measure of justice for them and those with similar problems who worked at other nuclear-weapons sites.

Before the Clinton Administration, the federal government had resisted paying claims filed by injured workers. But, led by Bill Richardson as Secretary of Energy, the Clinton Administration took a different position and asked Congress to establish a compensation program.

That prompted me and other Members to introduce legislation to accomplish that objective. And I was among those who strongly supported the EEOICPA provisions that were finally enacted into law in 2000.

But the next year brought a new Administration that, regrettably, has not been as strong an advocate of the program as its predecessor. In fact, after the Bush Administration inherited this program, they have both mismanaged it and tried to undermine it. They seemed not to realize that this is not just about money, but about the honor of the United States.

With other supporters of the program, I have worked to get the Administration to improve its implementation--and I will continue to do so.

But I also have worked to correct problems with the EEOICPA law itself--and the bill I am introducing today is part of that ongoing effort.

While many people have received benefits under the Program, too many face incredible obstacles as they try to demonstrate that they qualify. More than 8 years after enactment, workers have died without receiving the healthcare or compensation they deserve. In fact, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape has prevented many workers from accessing any compensation for their serious illnesses.

The CARE Act is designed to expand the category of individuals eligible for compensation, improve the procedures for providing compensation and transparency, and grant the Office of the Ombudsman greater authority to help workers.

Toward that end, the first 10 sections of the bill would:

Expand the list of cancers for which individuals are eligible to receive compensation--this would be done by amending the relevant part of another law, the Radiation Exposures Compensation Act (RECA) because EEOICPA adopts that law's list by reference.

Require the Department of Labor (DOL) to pay a claimant's estate should a claimant die after filing their claim but before receiving payment and leave no survivors.

Expand the duties of the Office of the EEOICPA Ombudsman to include the ability to provide information to claimants on benefits available under Part B.

Grant the Ombudsman the authority to contract for expert services to assist in the execution of its duties (e.g., individuals with expertise in health physics, medicine and toxicology).

Require DOL to provide the public with access to the ``site exposure matrix'' and any other databases or site profiles used to evaluate claims for compensation.

Expand the statute of limitations to 1 year to provide ample time for workers whose claims have been denied to file a petition in federal court.

Require any federal agency with jurisdiction over the program to provide information to claimants in easily understandable language and, if a claim is denied, provide claimants with a detailed, written explanation of all reasons for the denial and the additional documents, evidence, or information necessary to meet the burden of proof on appeal.

Require the Office the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs to directly pay service providers for personal care services and transportation to assist low-income claimants who cannot afford to cover the cost of necessary medical and transportation expenses and wait for reimbursement from the government.

Require claims examiners to provide written notice to claimants who file under either Part B or Part E of potential monetary or medical compensation for which they may be eligible.

Require DOL to provide a list of physicians qualified to perform medical and impairment screenings from independent medical associations and institutions of higher education.

Prohibit the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Labor from destroying original documents related to any DOE facility that might reasonably be expected to be used by workers in support of filing claims under

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to facilitate the establishment of additional or expanded training ranges in certain States.

The bill, entitled the ``Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act,'' addresses a problem faced by many sportsmen and sportswomen and others in Colorado and some other States where population growth--and resulting public-safety concerns--has forced the Forest Service and other Federal land-managing agencies to bar target shooting on some parts of their lands where that activity was previously allowed.

The result has been a serious reduction in the number of appropriate places for target shooting that are readily accessible, which unfortunately means that in some cases such shooting occurs in places that are not suitable for that purpose and where that activity can endanger public safety.

My new bill would respond to this problem by revising the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act--often called the Pittman-Robertson Act--to give certain States temporary authority to use more of the Federal funds provided under that law for the establishment of new public target ranges or the enlargement or improvement of existing public target ranges. This authority would continue for ten fiscal years.

It would also make some other changes to that same law in order to help qualifying States work toward that goal.

The bill would apply to States where there has been at least a 2 percent growth in population since the most recent decennial census and where there has been a reduction in the acreage of Federal lands open to use for target practice and marksmanship training.

Also, to allay concerns by Federal land managers about potential liability related to allowing Federal land areas to be used for target practice and marksmanship training, the bill includes provisions to make clear that--(1) such a decision will be considered a discretionary function for purposes of the Federal Torts Claim Act; and (2) any potential liability of the United States for damages related to any activity at a public target range wholly or partially funded by the Federal government will be subject to the limits specified in the Federal Torts Claim Act.

And, finally, the bill includes a section expressing the sense of Congress that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management should cooperate with State and local authorities and other entities to carry out environmental remediation or other actions needed to allow target practice and marksmanship training to continue on lands managed by those Federal agencies.

Madam Speaker, this bill will not increase Federal spending and it does not require any State to use any of the funds it receives under the Pittman-Robertson funds for any new purpose. But it would provide eligible States additional flexibility regarding the use of those funds if they decide to use more of those funds for establishment of new public target ranges or improvement or expansion of existing ranges. For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill's provisions:

Outline of Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act

This proposed bill would address both the funding and liability issues to make it easier for State wildlife departments to work with Federal land agencies on establishing and improving safe and convenient target practice and marksmanship training facilities.

What the proposed bill would do

Provides additional funding flexibility to states: The bill would amend the Pittman-Robertson Act to allow eligible States to increase the extent to which eligible States could use Federal funds they receive under that law to establish new, expanded, or improved shooting ranges (including acquisition of lands for that purpose).

--Eligible States would be those that have experienced at least 2 percent population growth since 2000 and have seen a reduction of the extent to which target practice and marksmanship training can take place on Federal lands within their borders.

--Eligible States could apply for up to 90 percent of the cost of acquiring land for and/or construction of new, expanded, or improved facilities (current law caps Federal share at 75 percent) and could retain the funds until expended (current law requires funds unused in the year received to be refunded to the Federal government).

--In addition, the bill would temporarily allow eligible States to use up to 10 percent of the Pittman-Robertson funds provided for wildlife management and conservation for acquiring land for and/or construction of new, expanded, or improved shooting ranges and to assist in cleanup or other steps needed to allow Federal lands to be used for target practice or marksmanship training. This provision would expire after 10 fiscal years.

Addresses liability concerns: The bill makes it clear that shooting ranges on Federal lands do not expose the Federal land agency to liability for injuries that may occur at these facilities.

Encourages Cooperation: The bill states sense of Congress that Federal land managers should cooperate with States, local government, and other entities in doing what's needed to permit Federal lands to remain available for public target practice and marksmanship training.

What the proposed bill would NOT do

Impose a mandate on States: The bill would provide an opportunity for eligible States to receive additional funds for specific purposes, but does not require any funds to be spent for those purposes.

Raise any Taxes: The bill would broaden the uses for Pittman- Robertson funds can be used, but does not increase the excise taxes from which such funds are derived.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

As its name suggests, this bill is about fairness. As a nation, we have made great strides in promoting fairness in the workplace since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963. Unfortunately, I do not think the language of that bill adequately addresses the problem of gender-based wage discrimination. In particular, the language of the Equal Pay Act offers little remedy for women who are not being paid equal wages for doing equal work.

The statistics describe precisely why this legislation is needed. Despite representing nearly half of the American workforce, and despite countless examples of professional women who have ascended to the highest levels of any given field, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

This bill would require that employers, in justifying unequal pay, provide evidence-based reasoning that such pay discrepancies are job- related and necessary for their business. It would help end the secret discrimination of unequal pay by prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their coworkers. And this bill would dissuade employers from practicing gender-based pay discrimination by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages--the same sanctions that already apply to discrimination based on race, disability or age.

There are also some amendments that I think are important to prevent unscrupulous people from unfairly taking advantage of the provisions in this bill. As I said, this bill is about fairness, so I support the amendment from the gentle lady from Arizona, Ms. Giffords, which would clarify that a plaintiff would have to show intent to recover any punitive damages. I also support the amendment of another good friend from Arizona and a fellow supporter of earmark reform, Mr. Flake, which would prohibit any funds authorized under this bill from being used for Congressional earmarks.

Women have long proven their equal measure of talent and capacity in every corner of the professional world. It's long overdue that they be compensated equally as well, so I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I must oppose this motion to adjourn, because I think the House should continue trying to pass legislation to improve our national energy policies.

Regrettably, so far our repeated efforts to do that have been thwarted by the refusal of our friends on the other side of the aisle to support any of the proposals that have been considered.

They seem ready to put a perceived political advantage over working on a bipartisan basis to achieve results.

Otherwise, I cannot explain their recent votes on energy legislation.

Looking back, we see that a majority of Congressional Republicans have time and again voted against sensible energy legislation.

They have voted against renewable energy, against the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years--saving $1,000 in fuel costs per car per year--and against reducing transit fares for commuter rail and buses.

They have voted against expedited drilling in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve and against adding a due-diligence requirement that could stimulate expedited exploration and development on other Federal lands already leased for that purpose.

They also voted against releasing 10 percent of the record amounts of oil stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (to be replaced with heavy oil that is better suited for that storage), even though that addition to the supplies on the market could ease gas prices.

And, finally, too many of our Republican colleagues opposed better regulation of the commodity markets, to reduce the ability of speculators to artificially increase the price of oil, even though the bill had been approved in the Agriculture Committee by voice vote and was supported by the committee's ranking Republican member.

So, I certainly understand why many of our colleagues are prepared to give up for now and adjourn today in order to begin the normal August district work period.

But I think we owe it to our constituents and to the country to stay here at least for now, and to continue working on energy legislation. And for that reason, I cannot vote for this motion to adjourn.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to recognize the benefits of the United States Route 36, US 36, Corridor project plan, and to commend the cooperative effort of several communities located along the US 36 Corridor between Denver and Boulder in developing the project.

The Colorado communities along the US 36 Corridor, including Westminster, Louisville, Superior, Broomfield, Denver, and Boulder, are experiencing a tremendous period of expansion. While this growth is very positive and certainly welcome, it has also outpaced the growth of its transportation infrastructure, leading to heavy traffic delays and sometimes dangerous road conditions.

In response to these conditions, the US 36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition, MCC, a coalition of officials representing the communities along the US 36 Corridor, in coordination with the Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT, and a coalition of local businesses known as 36 Commuting Solutions, developed the US 36 Corridor project plan.

The US 36 Corridor project is a national model for congestion mitigation, combining bus rapid transit lanes, high-occupancy vehicle lanes and safe bicycling lanes with traditional auto traffic lanes. The project ranked among the highest congestion mitigation proposals submitted under the Department of Transportation's Urban Partnership Agreement Program, and a record of decision is expected to be issued next year that will allow for its construction to commence.

Madam Speaker, I think the cooperation and ingenuity that was demonstrated in putting the US 36 Corridor project together, as well as the project's benefits, deserve recognition from Congress, as this resolution does.

Madam Speaker, I was not present for the vote on this resolution (H. Con. Res. 398), despite my best efforts to reach the House floor in time to do so.

Had those efforts been successful, I would have voted ``no,'' because I think we should not adjourn or recess this week until completing action on legislation to revise our national energy policies--something that has not yet occurred.

I left on an early flight out of Colorado this morning in an effort to reach the House in time for that vote. My flight landed just as the vote began.

As soon as I got in the car, I called the cloakroom to advise that I was en route, and asked that the vote be held open until I arrived. I was no more than 10 minutes from the Capitol, and I was aware the vote was being held open already--as the first vote of the day, apparently in an effort to give Members additional time to arrive and cast their votes.

However, the vote was completed as I entered the Capitol. I regret that my request that the vote be held open was not honored and that I was not able to cast my vote even though I was only seconds short of being able to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill for two reasons.

First, because it 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, second, because 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, within 30 days would begin selling light grade oil now stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. At least 20 million barrels would be offered for sale within 30 days after sales begin, 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.

And, 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.

Also, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, says that it would be a good idea to increase the extent to which we store heavy oil in the reserve. In testimony earlier this year, Frank Rusco, GAO's acting director for natural resources and environment, said that ``to decrease the cost of filling the reserve and improve its efficiency . . . DOE should include at least 10 percent heavy crude oils in the SPR . . . Having heavy crude oil in the SPR would also make the SPR more compatible with many U.S. refineries, helping these refineries run more efficiently in the event that a supply disruption triggers use of the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill.

In the time Congress has taken to debate what steps to take to address the housing crisis and its related economic impact, hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure and the U.S. economy has continued to weaken.

Since last year, the House has been responding, and most of the provisions of this legislation are identical or similar to measures that we have passed previously. However, only now has the Senate acted, by passing the revised version of H.R. 3221 that is now before us. As a result, much precious time has passed--and the time to act is now.

Adding to the urgency is the need to respond to the perceived problems affecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--and the Bush administration's request that Congress act to validate the steps by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to restore confidence in the soundness of those companies that are so critical, not just to the mortgage market, but the national economy and the international standing of the U.S. dollar.

The provisions to implement this administration proposal have drawn serious criticism from well-informed people concerned that they do not strike the right balance between the value of supporting those entities and the value of subjecting them to the same market forces that affect other private concerns.

I have carefully considered those criticisms, especially because, as a son of the West, I

prefer the Federal Government's influence to be limited, in particular when it involves the free market process. Our Nation's history has shown, however, that in certain times it is the duty of the federal government to take action to help people responsibly address problems they face--particularly if, as in this case, government may have contributed to the problems.

The value of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock has plummeted in the last year, down about 80 percent. The most dramatic slide occurred just weeks ago, and it was the promise that Congress would pass--and the President would sign into law--this legislation that halted the Government Sponsored Enterprises' (GSEs) freefall. With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responsible for $5 trillion worth of residential mortgages--nearly half of the value in home loans nationwide--our economy could be crippled for years. With the backing of the U.S. Treasury Department, as outlined in this bill, we can avoid such a catastrophe.

This bill also places a strong regulator in position to oversee Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, and protect against any similar pitfalls in the future.

On the ground in neighborhoods throughout America, the importance of this legislation is much more concrete. Simply put, this legislation will help American families at risk of foreclosure work responsibly with their lenders to stay in their homes. The number of foreclosed properties soared through the first six months of this year, with more than 340,000 American families losing their homes.

This bill will help hundreds of thousands of American families remain in their homes by allowing the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to guarantee qualified loans. However, both lenders and homeowners must agree to sacrifice in order to receive the FHA's backing, with lenders having to voluntarily take significant losses by reducing the loan principal, and homeowners having to repay the government a percentage of the value of the home if they sell or refinance again.

This legislation also provides States with funding to purchase, rehabilitate and sell foreclosed properties, and in the process improve the value and quality of neighborhoods hardest hit by the housing crunch. This package will help remove some of the housing industry's excess inventory by providing a refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers, and by increasing the Veterans Administration home loan guarantee limit, so that our veterans can receive the expanded home ownership opportunities they deserve for serving our nation.

This legislation also creates an affordable housing trust fund, paid for with a percentage of future GSE profits, to provide acceptable affordable housing for low- and extremely low-income families--those who were too often the victims of deceitful and predatory subprime lending practices.

Mr. Speaker, my home State of Colorado was one of the first to realize the devastation of this housing crisis. Foreclosed homes can be found in far too many neighborhoods, especially in Adams County just outside of Denver--serving as a sober reminder of the need for housing reform. I was encouraged today to learn that the Bush administration removed its opposition to this bill. This legislation has been carefully crafted to safeguard against fraud, corporate giveaways and speculator abuse, and to provide a foothold for our nation's housing market to begin to rebound. This bill is a major step toward a more stable housing market, a more stable economy, and more stable households throughout the Nation.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I support this bipartisan bill, which is designed to strengthen and improve America's intelligence capabilities.

The bill strengthens intelligence by adding funding to enhance human intelligence collection, strengthening research and development in advanced technologies, and improving signals intelligence. Importantly, the bill also includes strong provisions to promote accountability, including prohibiting the use of CIA contractors to interrogate detainees, requiring a report on compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and creating a statutory, Senate-confirmed Inspector General for the entire Intelligence community.

I am disappointed in what the bill doesn't include--a provision included in last year's authorization bill that would have prohibited interrogation techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual on Interrogation.

Despite White House claims that the United States does not torture prisoners, we continue to learn about Administration actions that seem to condone the use of coercive techniques in questioning prisoners.

Last year, we learned about a classified Justice Department memo from February 2005 allowing waterboarding and other coercive techniques. Then there was the Executive Order signed last year that effectively opened a loophole for the CIA to practice interrogation techniques that go beyond those allowed by the U.S. military.

Reports of destroyed interrogation tapes showing CIA operatives using waterboarding and other ``enhanced'' techniques are deeply disturbing, and suggest a double standard, whereby these techniques are approved for use by the CIA but not by the Department of Defense and its intelligence agencies. All this points to the need for a common standard for humane and effective interrogation techniques across the government, which is what the provision called for in last year's bill.

Sen. John McCain has called the Army Field Manual techniques ``humane and yet effective.'' In my view, there is no reason why interrogation techniques that work effectively and humanely for our military interrogators cannot also work effectively and humanely for CIA and other intelligence agency interrogators.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this legislation, though I hope that the provision prohibiting interrogation techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual on Interrogation is included in the conference report. I believe it sends a message that the United States believes no part of its government is above the law, and that no interrogation method is acceptable that could not also be used on Americans in enemy custody.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to revise the 1986 law dealing with use of National Forests for ski areas in order to reflect current ways those areas are used and to provide clear authority for the Forest Service to allow additional recreational uses of those areas.

I have long thought it is in the national interest to encourage Americans to engage in outdoor recreational activities that can contribute to their health and well-being, and that National Forest lands, including ski areas, can play a role by providing opportunities for such activities.

And my interest in the subject was heightened earlier this year when representatives of the National Ski Areas Association brought to my attention the fact that the National Forest Ski Areas Permit Act of 1986, which speaks only to ``nordic and alpine skiing,'' does not reflect the full spectrum of snowsports for which ski areas are now used, and what they described as the absence of clear authority for the Forest Service to permit use of ski areas for other summer, seasonal, or year-round outdoor recreational activities and facilities in support of those activities.

To better understand the matter, I sent a letter asking the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment whether current law could be clearer on those points. Under Secretary Mark Rey replied that the 1986 legislation indeed did not address those matters and that, if requested, the USDA ``would be happy to work with you to amend'' the law to provide the Forest Service with clear authority regarding such activities and facilities.

I did request and receive technical suggestions from the Forest Service, and have considered their input as well as suggestions from the National Ski Areas Association and other interested parties in developing the bill I am introducing today.

The bill intentionally uses a number of terms and phrases based on the terminology of the Forest Service's regulations, manual, or other official documents because those terms and phrases are familiar not only to the Forest Service but also to permittees and others with an interest in the management of the National Forests. Thus, as used in the bill the term ``developed recreation'' means recreation that occurs at an area which has been improved or developed for that purpose--such as camping in constructed campgrounds or developed opportunities for off-highway-vehicle use as well as downhill skiing. Similarly, the term ``natural-resource-based recreation'' is intended to have the same meaning as when used in the Forest Service manual 2300 (Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management).

It also should be noted that the bill deals only with the 1986 National Forest Ski Areas Act, and would not in any way affect any other law applicable to management of the National Forests or any permits issued under any of those laws.

Ski area permits under the 1986 law do give their holders a priority with respect to commercial use of the lands subject to the permits, but they do not preclude general use of those lands by the public for compatible, non-commercial uses, and the bill would not change that. In fact, the bill does not affect the status, the duration, or any other provision of any permit already issued under the 1986 law, nor does it provide for any new permits. Instead, it makes clear that the Forest Service is authorized--but not required--to allow a current or future holder of a permit under the 1986 law to provide opportunities for additional developed recreational activities (and to place associated facilities) on the lands covered by that permit if the specified requirements are met and if the Forest Service decides it would appropriate for that to occur.

And it would not affect any existing or future permit related to use of lands that are not subject to ski area permits under the 1986 law or in any way reduce or otherwise modify the extent to which the Forest Service can allow any particular use on any of those lands outside ski areas.

Madam Speaker, this is a narrowly-targeted bill that I think can be valuable regarding an important aspect of the management of the National Forests and in facilitating the provision of additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities on the parts of those lands that are subject to permits under the 1986 law. I think it deserves the approval of our colleagues, and for their reference I attach a more detailed outline of its provisions:

outline of the Bill

Section 1 sets forth findings regarding the basis for the legislation, and states its purpose. The findings note that it is in the national interest to provide, and encourage Americans to take advantage of, opportunities to engage in outdoor recreational activities that can contribute to their health and well-being; that National Forests, including those areas used for skiing, can provide such opportunities during all four seasons; that increased use of ski areas for that purpose can reduce impacts on other National Forest lands; and that it is in the national interest to revise the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act. The purpose is to amend that 1986 law so as to reflect that other snowsports, in addition to nordic and alpine skiing, occur at ski areas and to clarify the Forest Service's authority to permit additional appropriate seasonal or year-round recreational uses of lands subject to permits under that law.

Section 2 would amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 in three ways:

(1) by replacing current language that refers only to ``nordic and alpine skiing'' with broader terminology to reflect that additional ski areas are also used for additional snowsports, such as snowboarding.

(2) by providing specific authority for the Forest Service to authorize the holder of a ski area permit under the 1986 law to provide additional recreational opportunities (and to have associated facilities) on lands covered by that permit. This authority is limited to activities and facilities that the Forest Service determines appropriate, that encourage outdoor recreation, and that harmonize to the natural environment to the extent practicable. The bill makes clear that the activities and facilities will be subject to such terms and conditions as the Forest Service determines appropriate. It also specifies that no activity or facility can be authorized if the agency determines that authorization would result in the primary recreational purpose of lands covered by a permit under the 1986 law would not be skiing or other snowsports.

(3) Finally, the bill would delete from the 1986 law obsolete language related to a deadline for conversion of previously-issued ski- area permits to permits under the 1986 law, while retaining the requirement that regulations be promulgated to implement that law--a requirement that will apply to the law as it would be amended by the bill.

Section 3 specifies that the bill will not affect any authority the Forest Service now has under laws other than the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, including authority with respect to recreational activities or facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill.

The bill is similar to one I voted for last month that dealt 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.

As I noted last month, the debate over this legislation has included statements--by some supporters and some opponents alike--that exaggerates the likely effect of enactment. For example, I believe it would be better to avoid the ``use it or lose it'' rhetoric that over- simplifies the issue and fails to reflect the reality that oil and gas exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific enterprise involving efforts that do not easily fit within strict regulatory timelines.

But while that part of the bill may not be as far-reaching as some have claimed, I think it is a reasonable response to current conditions and should be passed. 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.''

Current Interior Department regulations include provisions addressing due diligence requirements, so this is not a new concept. But I think giving it greater emphasis is appropriate in view of the continuing importance of oil even as we work to increase the availability and use of alternative energy sources. More useful in terms of energy policy, this bill will reinforce the provisions of current law that aim to prevent hoarding of leases. And providing an incentive for relinquishment of some leases may increase the opportunity for others to explore for and produce oil or gas from those lands.

This approach is similar to that taken when Congress amended the coal-leasing laws by passing the Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 over President Ford's veto. That 1976 legislation provided for a due- diligence requirement as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the laws governing leasing and development of federally-owned coal resources--a provision that some analysts have said had the most immediate practical effect of any of the legislation's various provisions. As a result, for several decades the holders of federal coal leases have been required by law to diligently develop their leases, which has aided in the orderly and efficient development of the nation's coal. I think a similar reinforcement of existing law for leasing of other federal energy resources makes sense.

I have a similar reaction to the other provisions of the bill--they certainly are not all that needs to be done to improve our energy policies, but they can make at least a modest contribution in the right direction.

These provisions include a requirement for the Department of the Interior to offer at least one lease sale annually in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. This is an area of well-established potential that was initially made available for leasing in the Clinton Administration, and with regard to which the current Administration just today announced that 2.6 million acres would be offered at lease sales in the near future. Dictating a leasing timetable in legislation is unusual, but the potentially beneficial effects on prices from tapping the reserves in this part of Alaska are undeniable.

In addition, the bill would reinstate a ban on the export of Alaskan oil that was previously a matter of federal law. Oil is a globally- traded commodity, so the effect of this will be limited, but it may, to some extent, reduce reliance on exports.

The bill calls on the President to facilitate the completion of oil pipelines into the National Petroleum Reserve and to facilitate the construction of a Alaska natural gas pipeline to the continental United States to move the product to market. These are only exhortations, but I see no objection to their inclusion in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this bill is a comprehensive solution toward solving our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Nor does it come close to addressing all that we must do on energy policy.

We need to do more.

We can look for ways to increase exploration in offshore areas--for example, in 2006 I proposed opening up part of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to within 100 miles of the Florida coast, rather than leave the 125-mile buffer that was finally enacted, and I think that additional acreage should be made available. We should adjust the tax on imported ethanol, and I have introduced to reduce an artificial trade barrier that discourages imports of that fuel. We need to aggressively pursue development of alternative energy sources, including solar and wind power, and we should move aggressively to support research in carbon sequestration for clean coal development, and review policies that inhibit a more proactive effort with nuclear power. And we also need to work even harder to increase energy efficiency, so that we get a greater payoff from all energy sources.

In short, we need a comprehensive and balanced energy policy. This bill by itself is at best a small part of that prescription--but, modest as it is, it does deserve approval and I will vote for it.