Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this year we celebrate many important anniversaries in our Nation's civil space and aeronautics programs. Earlier this year, I introduced H. Con. Res 287, which celebrated the 50th anniversary of the United States Explorer I satellite, the world's first scientific spacecraft, and which marked the birth of the United States space exploration program. Since the successful Explorer I launch, we have built the world's leading civil space and aeronautics enterprise. Our human expeditions into space, our robotic science probes exploring the Earth and beyond, and our aeronautical research and development initiatives continue to deliver inspiring results and provide benefits to society.

Today, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of three resolutions that mark other key milestones in our civil space and aeronautics activities: H. Res. 1315, Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; H. Res. 1313, Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the First American Woman in Space; and H. Res. 1312, Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the Space Foundation.

H. Res. 1315 commemorates the 50th Anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which was established on July 29, 1958, through the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. NASA has achieved countless successes over the 50 years since its creation and H. Res. 1315 recalls many of the agency's accomplishments in human exploration, aeronautics, and space and Earth science. I strongly agree with the sentiment expressed in H. Res. 1315, ``. . . in the last fifty years, NASA has positively impacted almost every facet of our lives.'' NASA's contributions to aviation, to increased understanding of our climate, to the advancement of our knowledge of the universe, and to the development of countless technologies that have made their way into broader societal applications have fundamentally changed our lives.

Madam Speaker, the applied uses of NASA research and developments have enabled weather and environmental monitoring, commercial satellite communications, and major improvements in commercial aviation. H. Res. 1315 marks NASA's successful launches of the first American manned spacecraft in 1961, the first human expedition to the Moon in 1969, and the first Space Shuttle in 1981. NASA's international cooperative ventures have allowed many of the world's nations to join together in advancing technology and knowledge through the peaceful uses of outer space. NASA's first 50 years have yielded truly remarkable discoveries and advances. I want to thank Mr. McCaul of Texas, who along with Mr. Lampson of Texas, introduced H. Res. 1315. H. Res. 1315 is an important opportunity to recognize NASA's half century of achievements and the men and women of NASA that have made them possible, and I am pleased to support it.

As a result of NASA's human exploration program, we also celebrate the 25th anniversary of the first American woman in space, Dr. Sally K. Ride. H. Res. 1313 commemorates that date in June of 1983 when Dr. Ride flew aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger, making history by becoming the first American woman in space. She went on to fly a second mission in 1984. When training for Dr. Ride's third mission ended as a result of the tragic Challenger accident, she continued her contributions to NASA and the Nation as an educator and advisor. H. Res. 1313 honors Dr. Ride's passion and dedication as a tireless advocate for young women and girls to pursue education and careers in science, mathematics, and technology. The opportunities she is creating for our youth, especially girls and young women, to acquire hands-on learning in science will go far in training the next generation of leaders in science and engineering. That is something I care passionately about, and I thank my colleague, Mr. Lampson of Texas for introducing H. Res. 1313.

In addition to the important role of our Federal government in the Nation's space and aeronautics programs, many non-governmental organizations provide outreach, education, and advocacy that enhance our space and aeronautics activities. That is why I strongly support H. Res. 1312, commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation. The Space Foundation, which is headquartered in Colorado Springs in my home state of Colorado, is a non-profit organization dedicated to using space to benefit humanity and furthering space exploration, development, and education. Since 1983, the Space Foundation has helped to ensure the strength and leadership of our space programs, and I am pleased that we can acknowledge the Space Foundation's endeavors in this regard. I thank my colleague, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, for introducing this resolution recognizing the Space Foundation for its 25 years of excellence and service.

Madam Speaker, our nation's space and aeronautics programs are critical sources of innovation and inspiration for our Nation. The contributions of NASA, our astronauts, and our space advocacy organizations provide benefits for our society, help strengthen our economy, and help train the next generation of scientists and engineers. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1315 commemorating the 50th anniversary of NASA; H. Res. 1313 celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first American woman in space, Dr. Sally K. Ride; and H. Res. 1312 commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because of the need to protect middle-income families from a massive tax increase that will hit them if we do not act to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT.

In technical terms, the bill would extend for one year AMT relief for nonrefundable personal credits and increases the AMT exemption amount to $69,950 for joint filers and $46,200 for individuals. In real-world terms, that means it will prevent a tax increase for more than 28,000 Colorado households that otherwise would be required to pay more in Federal income tax when returns are due next year. And so, Mr. Speaker, the bill overall is properly focused on tax relief for middle class families--a goal I strongly support.

Some of our colleagues say they will oppose the bill because it includes provisions that would close loopholes and make other changes in the tax laws in order to offset this tax relief. They evidently are not concerned about the fact that the federal budget is deeply into deficit spending.

I do have some reservations about how the bill seeks to provide AMT tax relief without making our Federal deficit worse. But I do not take a relaxed attitude to our fiscal problems, and think it is better to avoid adding to them--and that is the purpose of the offset provisions of the bill

One such provision would revise current law so investment fund managers would no longer pay capital gains rates on the income they receive for investment management services income that does not reflect a reasonable return on their own invested capital. This change was approved by the House last year in H.R. 3996, which I supported. In addition, the bill would exclude from the domestic production deduction the gross receipts derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition of oil, natural gas, or any primary product thereof for large integrated oil companies. And it would freeze at 6 percent--the rate under current law--the domestic production deduction for income of other taxpayers with respect to oil, natural gas or any primary product thereof. This is also not new--it is a scaledback version of an outright repeal of this deduction for all oil, natural gas or any primary product thereof that passed the House last year.

And the bill would prevent foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the United States by routing their income through structures in which a United States subsidiary corporation makes a deductible payment to a country with which the United States has a tax treaty before ultimately repatriating these earning in the tax haven country. This is a scaled-back version of a previously approved by the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 2419. Further, the bill includes a proposal that was in the president's latest budget request that will require institutions that make payments to merchants in settlement of payment card transactions to file an information return with the IRS.

These provisions are not the only or perhaps even the best way to offset the revenue costs of providing a temporary fix to the AMT--but the bill's opponents have suggested no alternative except to cut unspecified amounts of spending in unspecified parts of the budget or to further add to the ``debt tax'' that has already been imposed on our children (and their children) by the irresponsible policies of the last seven years.

The Senate will have to consider the legislation further, and it is possible that these provisions will be revised. But, in the meantime, the bottom line is that today we have the opportunity to provide tax relief to hundreds of thousands of middle-class families in Colorado. I think that is something I think the House should do without delay, and that is why I am voting for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill.

In recent days, discussion of the bill has included statements--by some supporters and some opponents alike--that I found exaggerated in their descriptions of the likely effect of its enactment. I regret that, and think it would be better to avoid the ``use it or lose it'' rhetoric that oversimplifies the issue and fails to reflect the reality that oil and gas exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific enterprise involving efforts not easily fitting within strict regulatory timelines.

But while 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, the bill 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 by providing an incentive for relinquishment of some leases may increase the opportunity for others to seek and obtain the right to explore for and perhaps 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.

This bill alone is certainly not all that needs to be done to improve our energy policies. But I think it can make at least a modest contribution to achieving that, and so I will support it.

Madam Speaker, I will support this bill.

I will do so because, as I have consistently said, I do think the basic law in this area--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA--needs to be updated to respond to changes in technology, which was the purpose of the current, temporary law.

That is why, last August, I voted for a bill (H.R. 3356) to provide such an update--a bill that was supported by a majority of the House, but did not pass because it was considered under a procedure that required a two-thirds vote for passage, which did not occur because of the opposition of the Bush Administration. It was supported by all but three of our Republican colleagues.

That is also why I voted for another bill to update FISA--H.R. 3773, the ``Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseer, Reviewed, and Effective'' (or RESTORE) Act--which the House passed on November 15th of last year. Like those bills I supported earlier, this bill will replace the Protect America Act, enacted in August 2007--which I opposed.

The bill makes it very clear that to conduct surveillance targeting a person in the United States, the government first must obtain an individual warrant from the FISA Court, based upon probable cause.

And, importantly, it explicitly states that FISA and Title III of the U.S. criminal code are the exclusive means by which the government may conduct surveillance on American soil, and adds that any future statute must expressly authorize surveillance if the government is going to rely on it to conduct domestic surveillance.

It also includes new legal protections for Americans abroad, requiring an individual probable cause determination by the FISA Court when the government seeks to conduct surveillance of U.S. persons located outside the United States.

It requires prior review and approval by the FISA Court of the targeting and minimization procedures used to conduct surveillance of any foreign targets (unless in an emergency, in which case the government may authorize the surveillance and then apply to the FISA Court for approval within 7 days), and requires that this surveillance be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. And it requires the government to establish guidelines to ensure that Americans are not targeted by this surveillance (``reverse targeting guidelines''), and requires the government to provide those reverse targeting guidelines to Congress and the FISA Court.

The legislation also includes important provisions to increase transparency and accountability. For example, it requires there be a comprehensive review of the President's warrantless surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department--and it provides for them to report the results to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

This report will review ``all of the facts necessary to describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use of the Program,'' as well as ``communications with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the private sector related to the Program.''

I do not find equally satisfactory another aspect of the bill that involves accountability--the treatment of pending lawsuits against various telecommunication companies that acted to implement President Bush's clandestine surveillance program.

Like the bills I supported earlier, this measure would provide civil liability protection for private sector companies that provide lawful assistance to the government in the future. But it differs significantly in the way it addresses those pending lawsuits, which deal with the previous actions of the defendant companies.

Those lawsuits have been consolidated and are pending in one court, but evidently have made little progress because of the Administration's argument, still awaiting court resolution, that the suits are barred because they involve state secrets. My understanding is that the defendant companies have argued that government's invocation of the state-secrets privilege has had the result of preventing them from defending themselves, although at least one company has stated in regulatory filings that the cases against it are without merit.

President Bush has insisted that Congress throw these cases out of court by giving the companies retroactive immunity for whatever they might have done in connection with the surveillance program, even though the Administration and the companies themselves insist that those actions were lawful and that the plaintiffs' complaints against the companies have no merit.

Regrettably, the Senate decided to comply with the president's demand on this point, and its version of this legislation would provide that retroactive immunity. I do not think that was the right decision because I agree with the Rocky Mountain News, which in a February 15th editorial said ``Letting this litigation proceed would not, as Bush [has] said . . .punish companies that want to `help America.' Businesses that want to help America need to be mindful of the Constitution--and so should the government.''

I supported removing that ``state secret'' barrier and allowing the companies to defend themselves by demonstrating to the court the evidence they say supports their arguments in a way that assures the continued security of that evidence and that avoids the public disclosure the Administration says would be adverse to the national interest. This is a process that has worked well in criminal cases, and while I am certainly not an expert on the matter, I think it can work when applied to these civil cases.

In that respect, this bill is similar to the legislation I supported earlier this year. But it is not identical, and I do not think it is quite as sound.

Under this bill, a district court hearing such a case will decide whether the Attorney General's certification attesting that the liability protection standard has been met and is supported by substantial evidence. In making that determination, the court will have the opportunity to examine the highly classified letters to the providers that indicated the President had authorized the activity and that it had been determined to be lawful.

That is not as strong a requirement for accountability as I would prefer. However, in such cases both plaintiffs and defendants will have the opportunity to file public briefs on legal issues and the court should include in any public order a description of the legal standards that govern the order.

And, importantly, this immunity provision does not apply to any actions against the Government for any alleged injuries caused by government officials.

Madam Speaker, as Benjamin Franklin has warned us, people who value security over liberty will get neither--and the Bush Administration has finally agreed to end its disregard for liberty and agree to effective judicial oversight and involvement in intelligence surveillance.

That agreement that is embodied in this bill, and the choice before us now is whether to reject it or to support the compromise measure now before us.

After careful review, I have concluded that the bill adequately meets the test of protecting civil liberties while giving our country tools needed to effectively combat terrorism.

So, while--like any compromise--the bill is not ideal, I have decided the correct decision--the one that will fulfill my responsibility to protect both our national security and the civil liberties that make our nation worth defending--is to vote for it.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to facilitate the importation of ethanol. It is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, and I appreciate his support.

The bill will direct the President to lower the ethanol import tariff, so that it will never be higher than the tax-credit subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline.

Historically, the ethanol tariff was linked to the subsidy, and so had the effect of precluding foreign ethanol blenders from benefiting from the subsidy. However, the recently-enacted Farm Bill will reduce the subsidy but simultaneously extend the tariff for 2 more years at $0.54 per gallon.

Unless that changes, the tariff will be changed into a trade barrier that will make it even harder for ethanol imports to enter the U.S. market. This can have serious adverse consequences. For example--

By restricting supplies, it will tend to increase the price of fuel-- including both gasoline and ethanol--in the United States.

It will make it harder to import sugar-based ethanol, which can work in today's cars and, like other ethanol emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline.

It works against imports from friendly countries that produce ethanol while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter the United States tax- free.

It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace that could permit mutually beneficial trade between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices.

And it tends to increase our dependency on fossil fuels--including petroleum from the Middle East--when we should be working to reduce that dependency.

By restoring the role of the tariff as an offset, not a trade barrier, my bill will prevent those consequences. In this respect, it is a companion to legislation (S. 3080) introduced in the Senate by Senator Feinstein.

In addition, my bill will require the Energy and Commerce Departments to report to Congress regarding the possible effect of further reducing--or even eliminating--the tariff on ethanol on fuel supplies and prices in the United States and on the domestic production of ethanol.

I have included this provision because I think it is worth exploring whether legislation to further reduce or eliminate the tariff could help reduce fuel prices without serious harm to our domestic ethanol industry.

Madam Speaker, this bill alone will not do all that should be done to revise and reform our energy policies. But I think it can help, and I think it deserves the support of all our colleagues.

For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill's provisions:

Section-By-Section Outline

Section one provides a short title, ``Imported Ethanol Facilitation Act.''

Section two sets out findings regarding the reasons for the bill. It also states the bill's purpose, which is ``to ensure that the tariff on ethanol does not exceed the tax credit applicable to blenders of ethanol, to avoid erecting a new trade barrier to imports of ethanol while assuring that foreign blenders will not benefit from the tax credit, and to require a study of potential effects of further reduction in or elimination of the duty on ethanol.''

Section three directs the president to act to ensure that the ethanol tariff will not exceed any tax credit applicable to ethanol.

Section four requires the Department of Energy and the Commerce Department to report to Congress regarding the effects any further reduction--or elimination--of the ethanol tariff would have on (1) fuel supplies and fuel prices in the U.S.; and (2) the domestic production of ethanol. The deadline for this report would be 90 days after the bill's enactment.

Madam Speaker, it's clear that those leading the government of Iran are not friends of the United States or of our friends, including Israel. It would be folly to think otherwise.

So, we are right to be concerned about the possibility that Iran could obtain nuclear weapons, and we should take seriously the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that the possibility of their developing them is ``a matter of serious concern.''

But I think a recent editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette was right to remind us that while Iran's actions ``cannot help but arouse suspicion . . . This is hardly a reason to resume rattling sabers, as some Americans seem to desire'' and that in fact ``it may be a reason to take steps toward more direct talks with the theocratic regime.''

Because I think its points deserve consideration, I am attaching the complete editorial for the information of our colleagues:

[From the Gazette, Colorado Springs, June 5, 2008]

An Opening for Iran Talks?

The latest report from the International Atomic Energy

Agency indicates that while there is still no solid evidence

that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons, the

possibility is still ``a matter of serious concern.'' Iran is

still playing cat-and-mouse with the IAEA in ways that cannot

help but arouse suspicion.

This is hardly a reason to resume rattling sabers, as some

Americans seem to desire. Indeed, it may be a reason to take

steps toward more direct talks with the theocratic regime.

The fact that a rival to loose-lipped Iranian President

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was overwhelmingly elected as speaker of

the Iranian parliament suggests that it might be a good time

to take preliminary steps toward resuming the official

contact between Iran and the United States. Ali Larijani, who

has been critical of Ahmadinejad because of persistent

inflation and other economic problems, won by a vote of 323-

31.

It is unthinkable that Larijani rolled up this majority

without backing from Iran's supreme religious leader,

Ayatollah Khamenei, and the mullahs who really run the

country. Most analysts interpret his victory as a signal that

the mullahs are rethinking their support of Ahmadinejad.

If the United States is to remain involved in the region,

it is wise to recognize that while Iran poses no direct

threat to the United States, it is an important regional

power. In such situations, as the Godfather understood, it is

important to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

As most employers will tell you, the success of their operations depends on the quality of their employees. The same is true for the actions of the Federal Government. Our Nation's federal employees choose their path in government for love of country and dedication to our common goals. On the other hand, parents need to be able to create a bond with their new children. This bill seeks to remove the dilemma faced by many federal employees--choosing between government service or serving the best interests of children newly added to their families.

Under current law, federal employees are allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a given year for the birth or adoption of a child. But like many other Americans, many federal employees cannot afford to take unpaid leave, especially with a new member of the family to support. Paid sick leave may only be used for the period that a new mother has been rendered physically incapacitated by the birth of her child, effectively penalizing those mothers who have a healthy baby with no complications. Federal employees can use paid vacation days, but the 13 days of annual leave after completing a full year of work, or even the maximum 30 days of leave saved up over several years, remains a small time frame for a parent to establish a bond with their new child.

H.R. 5781 would provide four weeks--just a single month--of paid parental leave for federal employees to establish a bond with their new child. It is important to note that many successful companies offer up to twice that amount, as evidenced by the 75 percent of Fortune 100 companies that offer six to eight weeks of paid parental leave for new mothers.

Americans want their Federal Government to operate as smoothly and as efficiently as possible. To accomplish this, we need the highest quality employees running it and focusing on national priorities such as homeland security and health care. This bill will help the Federal Government attract and maintain talented employees who value family as much as they value serving our Nation's government.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for these amendments today. They provide necessary funding for our troops, create new educational benefits for our veterans, and address domestic and global needs.

The war funding will pay for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for the rest of this year and half of 2009. I support this because it will make it possible to provide the equipment, ammunition, fuel, and other supplies needed by our brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who have shown such extraordinary skill, determination and endurance in answering their call to service.

I opposed the Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq, and voted against the resolution that authorized the President to send our armed forces into that country on the theory that this was necessary in order to deprive the Saddam Hussein regime of weapons of mass destruction. So, I understand why some of my constituents who also opposed the war want Congress to reject this funding measure.

And I could not agree more that the record of the current Administration demonstrates an

enormous failure of leadership. We desperately need new leadership that will bring to a close our open-ended military engagement in Iraq and will refocus on the very urgent tasks of reducing the terrorist threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But I am convinced that voting to deny funds to provide our men and women in uniform the resources they need to do their jobs is not the right way to bring about the change we need--especially because President Bush has shown he is prepared to veto funding for the troops rather than agree to change course.

This bill also improves veterans' educational benefits to more closely resemble the GI Bill of Rights that made it possible for so many World War II veterans to go to college. The GI Bill of Rights helped make possible the postwar growth of the middle class that was one of the greatest achievements of the Greatest Generation. Some have complained about the cost of providing similar benefits to those who are serving today. But to put those costs into perspective, we should remember that so far our spending for military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq has exceeded $800 billion.

By all indications, this bill will not be vetoed. Compromises were made on all sides to make it acceptable to the White House and the leadership of both parties. Of course, compromise means that everyone gives up something.

So there is good news: The bill addresses the needs of our soldiers and provides enhanced educational benefits for our veterans--but also extends unemployment benefits to help laid-off workers, provides relief for the thousands of people flooded out of their homes in the Midwest, and prevents the implementation of new rules that would increase the cost of healthcare, among other provisions. But there also is bad news: The bill does not include all the important policy provisions included in the first version of this bill, among them a requirement that our troops begin to redeploy from Iraq, a reminder to Iraq's government that U.S. troops will not remain in Iraq indefinitely.

I'm disappointed that the bill gives the President most of what he wants in Iraq spending without any significant policy constraints. Congress has tried and failed to include such constraints in previous spending bills, and here we have failed again. What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq, but as long as the architect of our current Iraq policy occupies the White House, I'm afraid that won't happen.

I hope that the next Administration will give serious consideration to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group as a framework for consensus. Those recommendations would be accomplished by legislation I introduced last year, which would support a course of escalating economic development, empowerment of local government, the provision of basic services, a ``surge'' in regional and international diplomatic efforts, and lightening the American footprint in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against war in Iraq because, as I said then, the Bush Administration was rushing to war without necessary international support or a clear plan to prevent the chaos that would follow after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. I was concerned a prolonged conflict would devolve into civil war. Since U.S. troops entered Iraq more than 5 years ago, we have lost thousands of our brave service men and women, seen tens of thousands more wounded, and spent half a trillion dollars in taxpayer money.

Yet the President's mission is no clearer, he has still offered no exit strategy, our enemies in Afghanistan have regained their strength, and our armed forces have been stretched to the breaking point.

Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the path out of Iraq. I will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on further steps we can take to change our broader Iraq policy. But today, I will vote to provide funding for our troops in the field, enhanced educational benefits for our veterans, and assistance for Americans suffering through the current economic downturn and the high costs of healthcare.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Honoring Our Nation's Obligation to Returning Warriors Act (HONOR Warriors Act), along with my colleague and friend Representative John Salazar (D-CO). It is a companion bill to S. 3008, bipartisan legislation authored by Senator Kit Bond of Missouri and Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

This legislation recognizes that our servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan need and deserve improved mental health care services. The HONOR Warriors Act will provide better mental health care treatment for these military members and veterans, enhance care for military families, and better prepare our troops to cope with stress related to combat.

The Pentagon acknowledged recently that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major depression are affecting an ever greater number of U.S. troops. Nearly 40,000 troops have been diagnosed with PTSD since 2003, up 50 percent just last year. The RAND Corporation found even more disturbing statistics recently: Nearly 20 percent of all military servicemembers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan--300,000 total--have reported symptoms of PTSD or severe depression. More than 600,000 returning troops suffer from PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), or both. With many our servicemembers deploying for their third or fourth tours to Iraq, we can expect that these numbers will continue to rise.

Treating these mental health problems is in some ways more difficult than treating wounds we can see. PTSD is the ``invisible wound'' that some soldiers don't even know they have, and the onset of its symptoms can be delayed, making it even harder to recognize. In addition, because of the stigma attached to PTSD, estimates are that nearly 50 percent of troops don't seek treatment. They are ashamed to seek help or fear that a diagnosis of mental illness will harm their careers.

The recent RAND report also found that of those who do seek help for PTSD, only about half receive treatment that is considered to be ``minimally adequate.'' With its shortage of funds and trained staff, it is clear that our military mental health care system isn't prepared to deal with this growing mental health crisis.

This is unacceptable. If the Pentagon can't act to help these injured servicemembers who have sacrificed so much for our country, then Congress must. That's why I am introducing this legislation--to ensure that the mental health needs of our military members and veterans are addressed now. The legislation will:

Create a scholarship program to educate and train behavioral health care specialists to serve servicemembers and veterans;

Give active-duty servicemembers access to Vet Centers, which currently provide readjustment counseling, outreach, and mental health care services to veterans only;

Extend survivor benefits to families of military personnel who commit suicide and have a history of combat-related mental health conditions, PTSD, or TBI;

Provide grants to non-profit organizations to offer services to survivors of members of the Armed Forces and veterans;

Establish pilot programs to better prepare servicemembers for combat through a focus on improved prevention, early detection, intervention, and treatment of PTSD. The bill sets up two locations for these programs--Fort Carson in Colorado, and Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri.

With Veterans Affairs Secretary James Peake himself suggesting a few weeks ago that concerns about PTSD and TBI are overblown, it's clear that Congress needs to step in to ensure that our servicemembers and veterans suffering from the invisible wounds of PTSD and major depression are getting the support they deserve. They shouldn't have to fight another war to get proper care once they return home. Providing prompt and effective treatment to our returning troops can help prevent many of the negative effects related to PTSD and depression. It's the least we can do to repay them for the sacrifices they have made for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this urgently needed legislation.

The latest statistics, show that the national unemployment rate has risen from 5 percent to 5.5 percent, the biggest increase in a single month in over 20 years, and now is at the highest level in nearly four years.

The economy has been slowing and has been losing jobs for at least five months. In May the number of people looking for work reached 8.5 million--and nearly one in five has been unemployed for more than 26 weeks.

Colorado has not been as hard hit as some other States, but we are not immune. For example, Denver will be affected by United Airlines' discontinuing its low-fare ``Ted'' carrier as well by layoffs by other airlines and companies in other sectors.

And, in the Nation as a whole the number of long-term unemployed Americans is higher now than when Congress last extended unemployment benefits in 2002.

This legislation will respond to that problem by immediately providing up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in every state to workers exhausting the 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits. In addition, another 13 weeks of extended benefits will be available in States with unemployment rates of six percent or higher. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will help some 3.8 million Americans.

And by helping them, we help the country--because extending unemployment compensation benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy. In fact, an estimate by an independent expert--the chief economist of Moody's Economy.com-- indicates that each dollar of unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand, while the existing federal unemployment trust funds have more than enough reserves to cover the cost.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this legislation deserves prompt approval. In fact, I think it should have been passed yesterday--and would have been if just 3 more of our Republican colleagues had voted for it then, when we considered it under a procedure that required a two-thirds majority for passage.

But even a day late, we still have an opportunity to do the right thing, so I urge its approval by the House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, earlier this year, I introduced the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, a bill to reauthorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the fiscal year 2009. Today, I rise to urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this bill and send it on to the Senate.

The bill passed the Committee on Science and Technology and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics with unanimous support, as our chairman pointed out. It represents a strong, bipartisan effort to ensure our continued leadership in space and aeronautics and to ensure that NASA's programs contribute to our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education efforts, to our Nation's Innovation Agenda, and to practical benefits for our citizens.

I, too, want to thank Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Member Ralph Hall, and my fellow ranking member on the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Tom Feeney from Florida, for being original cosponsors, as well as providing thoughtful input into this bill.

I would also like to thank the excellent staff on both the majority and minority side for their outstanding work on this bill. On my staff, my dedicated and tireless staff member, Wendy Adams, Richard Obermann, Pam Whitney, Allen Li, and Devin Bryant, as well as John Piazza have all been instrumental in moving this bill forward.

I want to particularly point out the great contribution--I think the chairman would agree with me--of Dick Obermann. We benefit in the committee, the Nation benefits and this House of Representatives benefits from Dick's insights, his knowledge, and the relationships he's built. Anyone in the NASA orbit knows Dick Obermann's many, many contributions. So I want to particularly point out his great contributions to the committee and to NASA.

On the minority side, I want to thank Ed Feddeman, Ken Monroe, and Lee Arnold as well. They have been very helpful in the work on this piece of legislation.

Madam Chairman, the bill sets fiscally responsible policies and provisions for a balanced set of science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight programs.

The baseline funding level authorized for NASA in fiscal year 2009, $19.21 billion, represents simply an inflation increase of about 2.8 percent over the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, legislation that the President signed into law.

I don't want to go into great detail about the many provisions of the bill but will include my longer statement for the Record.

Madam Chairman, 2008 represents the 50th anniversary of the birth of the U.S. space program and the establishment of NASA. NASA has accomplished a great deal in both space and aeronautical R&D over these past five decades, and we can all take pride in what has been accomplished. However, we cannot become complacent.

The testimony and constructive input of countless hearings, witnesses, and outside experts and organizations that led to H.R. 6063 conveyed a consistent message: that NASA has not been given the funding it needs to successfully carry out all of the important tasks that the Nation has asked of it. If we fail to adequately invest in NASA now, it is unlikely that we will see a comparable record of accomplishment over the next five decades, at a great opportunity cost to the Nation.

I am gratified by the support that H.R. 6063 has garnered to date, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Aerospace Industries Association, the Association of American Universities, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the University Space Research Association.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 6063 to ensure that our Nation remains the leader in space and aeronautics programs.

Madam Chairman, on May 15, 2008 I introduced the ``NASA Authorization Act of 2008,'' H.R. 6063, a bill to reauthorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for Fiscal Year 2009.

Today I rise to urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this bill and send it on to the Senate.

This bill passed the Committee on Science and Technology and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics with unanimous support.

It represents a strong bipartisan effort to ensure our leadership in space and aeronautics and to ensure that NASA's programs contribute to our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education efforts, to the Nation's innovation agenda, and to practical benefits for our citizens.

I would like to thank Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member Ralph Hall, and Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Tom Feeney for being original cosponsors of this bill.

Madam Chairman, this bill sets fiscally-responsible policies and provisions for a balanced set of science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight programs.

The baseline funding level authorized for NASA in FY 2009--$19.21 billion-- represents simply an inflationary increase of about 2.8 percent over the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, legislation that the President signed into law.

H.R. 6063 also reflects the conviction that NASA is as much a contributor to the nation's innovation agenda as any of the other agencies included in the America COMPETES Act that was enacted into law last year.

Thus, includes provisions and funding directed at supporting opportunities for hands-on training of the next generation of scientists and engineers.

In addition to the baseline authorization, H.R. 6063 contains a directed funding augmentation intended to help accelerate the date when the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares Crew Launch Vehicle can attain operational status.

A series of policy failures over a number of years have brought us to the point where we will have an unavoidable gap in the United States' ability to get its astronauts into space independently.

Providing the additional funding in FY 2009 can help narrow the gap while also putting in place the space transportation system that will help us carry out exciting and important exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit in the decades to come.

Madam Chairman, NASA's programs are strongly relevant to addressing the nation's needs.

In short, a properly balanced and focused NASA portfolio can pay large dividends to our society as well as to our standing in the world, and maximizing the value of the NASA portfolio to the nation is one of the main goals of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008.

To that end, H.R. 6063 establishes a role for NASA in leading a cooperative international effort on Earth observations research and applications, especially with respect to climate change-one of the major challenges facing our generation.

In addition, the bill includes a series of provisions to ensure that NASA's aeronautics program gets the resources it needs to remain one of the most relevant activities of the agency--one that impacts our quality of life, public safety, the vitality of the economy, and our national security.

H.R. 6063 also includes provisions to ensure that the International Space Station--a unique orbiting R&D facility that represents a significant investment of resources by both American citizens and those of a host of other nations--will be utilized in as productive a manner as possible.

The ISS is also a compelling example of the value of undertaking a cooperative approach to space exploration. To that end, H.R. 6063 makes clear that any human exploration initiative to return to the Moon and venture to other destinations in the solar system should be undertaken as a cooperative international undertaking under strong U.S. leadership.

Madam Chairman, 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the U.S. space program and the establishment of NASA.

NASA has accomplished a great deal in both space and aeronautical R&D over those past five decades, and we can all take pride in what has been accomplished. However, we cannot become complacent.

The testimony and constructive input of countless hearing witnesses, outside experts,

and organizations that led to H.R. 6063 conveyed a consistent message: that NASA has not been given the funding it needs to successfully carry out all of the important tasks that the nation has asked of it.

If we fail to invest adequately in NASA now, it is unlikely that we will see a comparable record of accomplishment over the next five decades--at a great opportunity cost to the nation.

I am gratified by the support that H.R. 6063 has garnered to date, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Aerospace Industries Association, the American Astronautical Society the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Association of American Universities, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the Information Technology Association of America, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers-USA, the National Business Aviation Association, the National Space Society, the Personal Spaceflight Federation, the Planetary Society, the Universities Space Research Association, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives support H.R. 6063 to ensure that our Nation remains the leader in space and aeronautics programs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of the manager's amendment. We have all worked together to fashion a constructive amendment. And I believe it includes a number of useful provisions that enhance the bill. Chairman Gordon already described them. So I am not going to restate them. But I want to note in particular that the workforce provisions included in the amendment have been under consideration for some time. We wanted to make sure however that we had the concurrence of all the stakeholders before we added any of these provisions. That has been done. The provisions will strengthen and protect the NASA workforce. I would ask the Members to support this amendment. It is a good amendment. It deserves the support of the body.

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding and thank him for his leadership on the committee.

I rise in support of this amendment on scientific integrity and openness at NASA. I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon for his action that we stay vigilant on this matter.

A few years ago, concerns were raised about political interference in the discussion of scientific research and results by NASA scientists. These concerns about scientific openness were and are serious, and we need to ensure that all measures are in place to prevent such interference.

It is true that the NASA Administrator, Dr. Griffin, took swift action in response to the reports of political interference and NASA revised the agency policy on the release of information of news and media, and I want to commend Dr. Griffin on his clear commitment to scientific openness. That said, we need to continue, Madam Chairman, our oversight on scientific integrity to ensure that Americans continue to have confidence in the important scientific research results that NASA provides to all of us and to our Nation.

So I again want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his initiative, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment.

This amendment is similar to the Boren amendment offered to the defense authorization package recently. That amendment passed with a voice vote on the floor.

This amendment as well seeks to clarify requirements of section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to allow NASA to procure conventional fuels that contain incidental amounts of unconventional fuels.

Section 526, Madam Chairman, is important because it establishes a positive benchmark for future alternative fuels, that their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions be less than or equal to those emissions from conventional fuels.

The amendment clarifies section 526 while retaining the standard it sets for greenhouse gas emissions.

I want to thank the Member from Texas for bringing this important amendment and urge all Members to support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.

Tornadoes cause an average of 54 fatalities and 1,500 injuries in the United States each year. Just last month in my home State of Colorado, tornadoes devastated the town of Windsor in Colorado destroying more than 100 homes and causing one death. Predicting tornado intensity and location is critical to protecting lives and property, and we must do all we can to improve our knowledge in this important area.

I'm proud to say that the research at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in my district, the Second District in Colorado, contributes to this better understanding and improved forecasts of tornadoes. This amendment will further involve NASA scientists and data in this important process.

I would urge Members to support this amendment just like the chairman did.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire for yielding to me.

I'm pleased to support this amendment as co-chair of the STEM Education Caucus along with my colleague, Dr. Ehlers, from Michigan. We've long worked to create emphasis on science and math education programs. These areas of study are critical to our future economic competitiveness as well as to the future of our space program.

It is very appropriate to honor the life of educator and astronaut Christa McAuliffe with this scholarship program.

I'm proud to support this amendment and urge all my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I do not think the House should today take up the question of exercising our Constitutional authority to impeach the President and asking the Senate to try him on charges that, if proved, would result in his removal from office.

That does not mean I have turned or will turn a blind eye to the numerous misjudgments of President Bush or that I think his administration has been above reproach. On the contrary, I think that the Bush Administration has been a distinct failure. I am convinced that this President will not be treated well by historians. His failures of judgment and leadership span domestic and foreign affairs in a way that will likely haunt future generations for years to come-- failures which are cited in the resolution proposed by the gentleman from Ohio.

But the question now before the House is not what we think of President Bush's actions and those of his Administration. Instead, we are being asked whether we should now, today, proceed to charge that he has violated his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the duties of his office and to defend the Constitution and thus should be impeached and brought to trial in the Senate.

The resolution sets forth what its author says are the specific statements and actions of the president that constitute violations of his oath. I also find those statements and actions deeply troubling and agree that they draw a picture of an Administration that has been characterized by hubris, bad judgment and arrogance. The picture is an unattractive one; but bad judgment, hubris and arrogance are not the constitutional grounds for impeachment.

The resolution raises serious questions about the way this president has used his position, both in communicating with the American people and in shaping policy. But as of today I am not prepared to say that there are adequate grounds to conclude that the failures of this Administration in fact constitute grounds for impeachment--and I do not think that Members of the House should be called upon to reach that conclusion today.

Before the House is asked to reach such a draconian conclusion, the president should have an opportunity to respond to the resolution's charges and the statements and actions it cites in support of those charges. Before we are asked to vote on the resolution, we should have the benefit of hearing from appropriate legal experts and other qualified witness and the Judiciary Committee should prepare a report that will provide the basis for any debate here on the floor of the House.

Impeachment is not entirely a legal question. It is partly political, which is why the Constitution entrusts it to Congress and not the courts. But I think it is essential that any decision to impeach any federal official should come only through a careful, thorough process that provides adequate due process for the accused and lays the proper foundation for a sound decision.

That was the process followed by the Judiciary Committee, under the able leadership of Chairman Peter Rodino, when it considered and ultimately approved articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon in July of 1974. In my opinion, that set the example of how the process should work. I think to do otherwise, as the author of this resolution seeks to do, would further weaken the civility toward our colleagues and respect for those with whom we disagree that should be the basis for our service in Congress and would only add to the polarization and rancor that are all too prevalent in the nation's political debates. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I must oppose consideration of this resolution at this time.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for votes during the late afternoon and evening of May 22, 2008. For the information of our colleagues and my constituents, I want the Record to reflect how I would have voted on the following votes I missed that day.

On rollcall 355, on the Akin amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 356, on the Franks amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 357, on the Tierney amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 358, on the Pearce amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 359, on the Lee amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 360, on the Braley amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 361, on the Price amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 362, on the Holt amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 363, on the McGovern amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 364, on the Motion to Recommit with instructions the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658), I would have voted ``no.''

I would have done so because the Motion to Recommit--as written-- would have effectively killed the bill by sending it back to Committee. I also objected to what the Motion attempted to do. It would have repealed Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which ensures that federal agencies do not procure or promote alternative fuels that emit, on a lifecycle basis, more greenhouse gas emissions than equivalent conventional fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources. This provision relates primarily to efforts of the Department of Defense to obtain half of its domestically used fuel from domestic synthetic sources by 2016. Specifically, the Air Force is pursuing ``coal-to-liquid'' fuel (CTL). According to both the EPA and DOE, liquid coal produces double the global warming emissions compared to conventional gasoline.

An amendment adopted on the floor clarified Section 526 to ensure that federal agencies could procure conventional fuels that contain incidental amounts of unconventional fuels. With the passage of this amendment, it is my belief that there is no reason to repeal Section 526, since the Department of Defense has said that it intends to pursue CTL with carbon capture and sequestration. In addition, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Energy recommended that if DOD decides to provide financial backing to synthetic fuel production plants, it should avoid investing in processes that exceed the carbon footprint of petroleum.

On rollcall 365, on Passage of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 366, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended, to H. Res. 986, a resolution recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed Forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a full accounting of the 1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict, I would have voted ``yes.''

The resolution recognizes the 35th anniversary of ``Operation Homecoming,'' when the first wave of the longest-held POWs from Vietnam left that country to return to the United States. We honor those POWs, but we also honor those brave heroes who fought and died for our country but never returned home.

Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation and I rise in its support.

The bill will reauthorize for four years the ``Secure Rural Schools'' program under which payments are made to certain counties in which national forest lands are located. Currently, the program is scheduled to expire at the end of this month.

This program is important for Colorado as well as other Western States. 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 amount may not be the same in the future, because the bill will revise the formula for distribution of payments so as to reflect the historical allocation of payments, the concentration of public land in a county, and the current economic condition of a recipient county. But Colorado will still benefit from the program.

I do regret that as it comes before the House today the bill does not include provisions dealing with another program of importance to Colorado's counties--the payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT, program. Under PILT, counties in Colorado received more than 17 million dollars last year--but would have received more if the full authorized amount had been appropriated.

As introduced, and as approved by the Natural Resources Committee, the bill would have provided for automatic payments under PILT at 80 percent of the authorized level in 2008, 90 percent in 2009, and 100 percent in 2010 and 2011. That would have meant that payments would not depend on annual appropriations.

I have worked for years to make full PILT payments automatic, so that our counties would be assured that they would receive the full amounts authorized--and I will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues have indicated they will oppose this bill because of the inclusion of provisions to reform the ``royalty relief'' afforded to some companies engaged in development of energy resources in the Gulf of Mexico.

I think those provisions are sound, and deserve support, just as they did when the House approved them last year. They would ensure that the companies pay their fair share of royalties on flawed leases granted in 1998 and 1999. Specifically, companies not currently paying any royalties due to these flawed leases would have to pay new ``Conservation of Resource Fees,'' in order to be eligible for new Federal leases for drilling.

In 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department issued oil and gas leases for drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico that mistakenly failed to include ``price thresholds,'' which trigger a requirement for companies to pay royalties to the Federal Government when the price of oil and gas exceeds a certain level. As a result, the companies that got these leases are exempt from paying any royalties at all--and, according to a preliminary estimate by the Government Accountability Office, that could mean that the taxpayers will be shortchanged to the tune of some $15 billion over the duration of the leases. This bill, like legislation approved in the House last year, corrects that mistake. I urge the bill's approval.