Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report and urge its approval.

It deserves support for many reasons, beginning with its very existence--if it is approved we will have a final budget resolution in an election year for the first time for nearly a decade.

To govern is to choose, and one of the most basic responsibilities for those who want to be entrusted with positions of leadership is to make hard choices. This year, Chairman Spratt and his Budget Act colleagues--and their counterparts in the Senate--have demonstrated real leadership and have reached agreement on a conference report that will enable us to make the choices needed to keep us on a responsible budgetary path.

This conference report will make it possible for us to provide tax relief for the middle class; make needed investments in energy, education, innovation, and infrastructure; and to properly support our troops and veterans. And it does so while maintaining fiscal responsibility, because it complies with a strong pay-as-you-go rule and makes it possible to return the budget to surplus in 2012 and 2013, without raising taxes.

One of its best features, in my opinion, is the way it encourages investment in new businesses and industries that focus on renewable energy, clean fuel technology, and energy efficiency. This will create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign energy, strengthen the economy, and ultimately help with high energy costs for consumers.

It also rejects the President's budget cuts to energy programs by providing for significant increases in programs such as weatherization assistance, renewable energy, and energy efficiency; and includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for energy legislation.

It also will enable us to continue working to retain and expand a skilled, technologically literate workforce and a strong research and development base. It provides for increasing funding for the Department of Education, and the National Institutes of Health. It also allows for more funding for science, space, and technology programs.

In addition, it sets the stage for much-needed investment in our nation's infrastructure, including more than President Bush has proposed for discretionary transportation accounts as well as full funding of Highway and Transit programs as authorized in the highway bill and funding for the Airport Improvement Program. All these are very important for Colorado, where the pressures of population growth have put severe strains on our highways, roads, and airports.

As a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly glad to be able. to support the conference report because it will enable us to provide the funding we need for national defense and to address the most critical threats facing our nation. It places a higher priority than the President's budget on programs such as Cooperative Threat Reduction and other nuclear nonproliferation programs, and on improving the quality of life for our troops and their families.

The conference report also recognized the need for higher funding levels for homeland security while rejecting the President's proposed cuts in law enforcement, the COPS program, firefighters, and other first responders.

And it takes an important step to help veterans get the quality health care they need and deserve by providing $3.3 billion more in discretionary funding for 2009 than the President's budget and $39 billion more over five years for veterans programs.

Similarly, it strengthens the safety net for those families most in need, allowing for more funding for home energy assistance (LIHEAP), for children's health, for nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children and for the Social Services Block Grant. And it accommodates legislation to reauthorize and expand the trade adjustment assistance program and to improve unemployment insurance.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that despite claims to the contrary, the conference report does not include any tax increases--in fact, it supports significant tax relief, including continued marriage penalty relief, child tax credit, and the 10 percent bracket, and provides for an additional year of tax relief for more than 20 million Americans who would otherwise be subjected to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Nonetheless, some of our colleagues will object that it does not provide for making permanent all the tax cuts enacted since the Bush Administration took office. I supported

some of those cuts--including the 10 percent tax bracket, the increased child credit, and relief from the marriage penalty--all of which should be made permanent, but this conference report is not the place for an all-or-nothing approach to the entire list. We will have time later to consider which of the rest of President Bush's tax cuts should be extended.

Consistent with that more responsible approach, this conference report allows for only a small increase in revenues above the levels assumed in the President's budget--an increase that can be accomplished through closing loopholes that enable some corporations and affluent taxpayers to take advantage of offshore tax havens, and by doing a better job of collecting taxes that are already due under current law.

Mr. Speaker, seven years of fiscal irresponsibility have left a legacy of deficits and debt that it will take time and work to overcome. But the sooner we begin, the sooner we will complete the job of restoring fiscal responsibility and reordering our national priorities--and now is the time to take an essential step forward by approving this conference report.

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, below is 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, today the President vetoed the Farm Bill conference report--a significant piece of legislation that is supported by the vast majority of the House of Representatives. While I am disappointed with the President's veto, I am proud to stand with so many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in making the Farm Bill law.

This bill, while not perfect, addresses some of the most pressing issues facing our nation today. Perhaps most importantly, this bill will provide millions of Americans with access to healthy food, especially those hit hardest by the President's failed economic policies. Nearly three-quarters of the bill's funding will promote nutrition initiatives such as increased access to food stamps, emergency food assistance programs, and a program to supply our schools with fresh fruits and vegetables as a healthy snack alternative to reduce our unacceptably high ratio of obese children.

This bill will help my home state of Colorado continue to lead the nation in developing renewable energy technologies, and will help our nation move closer to energy independence, while reducing overly generous tax credits for corn-based ethanol, and creating a better tax credit for the production of more efficient cellulosic biofuels, such as switch grass and wood chips.

The bill also ensures that farmers in Colorado and around the nation have some protections should a natural disaster befall them. This action may foster lower future grocery prices by speeding up disaster compensation for lost crops and allowing farmers to bring new crops to market faster. Meanwhile, conservation programs included in the bill will help further protect sensitive rural fields from urban sprawl and harmful over farming, while encouraging public access to private land.

Of particular interest to Colorado, this bill includes legislation I introduced that will protect the future of Colorado's unique collection of mutual ditch companies and the precious water rights that they share for the mutual benefit of all Coloradans.

To be sure, I would have preferred this bill include tighter reforms on farm subsidies, especially when many farmers are reporting surging profits. But no compromise can he all things to all people, and while this Farm Bill is not perfect, it is good for Colorado and for our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in overriding the President's flawed national priorities when it comes to agriculture, energy independence and ensuring that American families have food on their tables.

Madam Speaker, 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 this session.

On rollcall 134, to pass S. 2733, to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, 1 would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 154, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1605, providing for the consideration of H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act, I would have voted ``no.''

I would have done so because defeating the previous question would have allowed the House to consider an amendment dealing with the appropriations earmark process. I support reforming that process and think that the House should at least debate changes to it, although I reserve judgment on whether I would have supported the specific language of the amendment since it was not debated.

On rollcall 158, passage of H.R. 5501, Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 162, passage of H.R. 2464, The Wakefield Act--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 163, passage of S. 793, Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 182, on the Flake amendment to H.R. 2537, to bar use of funds provided under that bill for Congressional earmarks, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 183, to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 886, Expressing sympathy to the victims and families of the tragic acts of violence in Colorado Springs, Colorado and Arvada, Colorado, as a cosponsor of the resolution I would have voted ``yes.''

As the resolution reminds us all, on Sunday, December 9, 2007, a troubled individual was responsible for killing several innocent people and injuring others at, first, the Youth With a Mission facility in Arvada and, a few hours later, at the New Life Church in the Colorado Springs area--where he was fatally shot by Jeanne Assam, a volunteer private security guard.

The resolution rightly commends Ms. Assam and the quick response of local first responders in the city of Arvada and in Jefferson County as well as those in EI Paso County and Colorado Springs who, assisted by Federal authorities and medical professionals limited the danger to the church and local community. And it offers the heartfelt condolences of the House of Representatives to the victims and families of these tragic acts of violence in Colorado and coveys our gratitude to Jeanne Assam, city and county officials, as well as the police, fire, sheriff, Federal authorities, and

emergency medical teams whose quick response saved lives.

On rollcall number 185, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3548, as amended, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, as a cosponsor of that measure I would have voted ``yes.''

H.R. 3548 requires Federal agencies to use plain language in Government documents related to obtaining a service or a benefit. It responds to the fact that Government documents often are complex and difficult to understand, particularly when they are not written clearly. To address this problem, President Clinton in 1998 issued a memorandum that, in part, required Federal agencies to use plain language in all documents that explain how to obtain a benefit or service. However, while a few agencies still maintain plain language programs, efforts to promote plain language have waned. H.R. 3548 defines plain language and requires agencies to use plain language in any new document that explains how to obtain a service or a benefit or that is relevant to obtaining a service or a benefit. The bill ensures that many of the letters, forms, and other documents that people receive from the Government will be written in a clear, understandable way. Under this bill, for example, the Social Security Administration would be required to use plain language in letters that provide beneficiaries information about Social Security.

I joined in cosponsoring the bill because I think it is important for those of us in Government to do more to communicate clearly with our employers, the American people, and I hope that the Senate will join the House in giving prompt approval to the legislation.

On rollcall number 331, to pass H.R. 6081, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall number 332, to pass H.R. 6074, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this bill. I want to start by applauding Chairman Skelton for his leadership and also Ranking Member Hunter. They have done a tremendous job as have their expert staff.

I am particularly grateful to Chairman Skelton and Chairman Smith for working with me to provide an important provision for Colorado. The bill prohibits the Department of Defense from transporting away from the Pueblo chemical depot in the 2009 fiscal year the hazardous wastes left after the chemical treatment of mustard agent.

This language is necessary because the DOD continues to look at treating these secondary wastes offsite despite studies showing that shipping these wastes will not yield benefits and despite the clear preferences expressed by the community of Pueblo to treat these wastes onsite.

Last year, Congress mandated that the DOD complete all chemical weapons destruction activities, including the destruction of 2,600 tons of liquid mustard agent housed at the Pueblo depot by 2017. The Department of Defense should get on with this approved plan to treat the secondary wastes at the depot and not delay this program any further.

More broadly, our bill focuses on our military's readiness needs. After more than 5 years at war, both the Active Duty and Reserve forces are stretched to their limits. Our bill will provide what's needed to respond, including funds to address equipment shortages for Active Duty and Reserve forces, improve the quality of our military barracks, ammunition maintenance, and expand training opportunities, among other important readiness needs. It increases Army end strength, consistent with the Tauscher-Udall Army expansion bill in the last Congress. And, importantly, it will provide for a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay raise for servicemembers, boost funding for the defense health program, and prohibit increasing TRICARE and pharmacy user fee increases.

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill, carefully drafted and bipartisan, and I urge its passage.

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

As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I am especially pleased to see the House take action on needed tax credits for renewable energy. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) in particular has been instrumental in promoting the creation of a renewable energy industry. An extended

PTC will provide more market certainty and we must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008.

I must add that, while I am pleased that the bill provides a 3-year extension of the PTC for most renewable energy sources, I am concerned that it only provides a 1-year extension for wind energy. Wind is a very promising renewable energy source and a 1-year extension will not be as helpful for the industry. I will continue to lead the fight to extend the PTC for more than 1 year.

The bill also extends the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar energy, qualified fuel cells, and microturbines through the end of 2014. The ITC will help companies with initial investment costs in expanding these renewable energy sources across the country.

The bill also authorizes $2 billion of 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.

This bill would also benefit families who want to invest in renewable energy. It would extend the credit for residential solar property for 6 years and increase the annual credit cap, currently capped at $2,000, to $4,000. And it would expand the definition to include residential small wind equipment and geothermal heat pumps so that consumers have more options.

Rising gas prices are forcing many Coloradans to dip into their savings just to make ends meet. This bill will help families reduce their fuel bills by providing $3000 in tax credits toward the purchase of fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrid vehicles. It will also help address long-term fuel cost concerns by expanding production of homegrown fuels, including creating a new production tax credit for cellulosic biofuels besides ethanol, as well as an extension of the tax credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.

I supported the energy bill that the House passed last year which included many of these important tax provisions, as well as the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 that the House passed earlier this year. But, for the lack of support in the Senate, these provisions have not yet made it to the President's desk to be signed into law.

And this bill will also help Colorado businesses stay competitive by extending the research and development tax credit for 1 year. While again I would like to see this key tax credit extended for more than 1 year, this is a step in the right direction.

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

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 the ``NASA Authorization Act of 2008'', a bill to reauthorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2009. I am pleased that Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member Ralph Hall, and Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Tom Feeney are joining me as original cosponsors. Their cosponsorship demonstrates the bipartisan nature of the support for NASA in this Congress, and I want to thank them for their efforts in helping to develop this legislation.

In addition to providing funding and programmatic direction for fiscal year 2009, this bill is also intended to provide congressional guidance for the next Administration relative to NASA. I believe that it is critically important for Congress to do so. Without a clear statement of congressional priorities and policies for the Nation's civil space and aeronautics enterprise, we run the risk of wasting both time and scarce resources during and after the transition from one Administration to the next. I want to avoid such an outcome if at all possible.

Madam Speaker, 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. 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.

That is because 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.

Thus, the bill emphasizes a number of important areas--areas that demonstrate the role that NASA can and should play in improving the quality of life of our citizens, enhancing our economic vitality, demonstrating American leadership in the international arena through the pursuit of challenging scientific and technological goals, and helping to advance knowledge.

To that end, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 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. It builds on the recommendations of the National Academies' Earth sciences and applications decadal survey to outline a robust and challenging agenda for NASA to pursue that will help us better understand the causes and impacts of climate change as well as other Earth system phenomena. It is an agenda that will also maximize the opportunities for transitioning those research results into applications that can benefit our society in a myriad of ways.

NASA's aeronautics research program is one of the most relevant activities that NASA undertakes as it impacts both public safety and our national economy, and the bill provides guidance to ensure that that aeronautics program will regain its former health and focus so that it can continue to contribute to the wellbeing of the nation. That guidance takes several forms. For example, the legislation provides enhanced funding for aeronautics, but it makes clear that the additional funding is to be used to take NASA's aeronautics research activities to a sufficiently mature state so that the results of that research can be transitioned to the commercial sector as well as to key public sector users. One of the most important examples of the latter is the interagency initiative to develop the next generation air transportation system for the nation, known as NextGen--a program that will improve both the safety and efficiency of our air travel system. The bill makes it clear that we need to do all we can to ensure that the aircraft of the future leave as small an impact on the environment as possible, whether it be noise, energy consumption, or harmful emissions--and that NASA has a critical role to play in that effort. And the bill requires an external review of NASA's aviation safety research to make sure that it is doing all that it can to protect the flying public.

Finally, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 recognizes that America's human space flight activities are not, and should not, be an end in themselves. We need a results-oriented human space flight program that serves the nation's geopolitical goals in addition to advancing America's exploration of outer space. I believe that we provide the foundation for such a results-oriented approach in the bill I am introducing today. Thus, the bill 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 manner as possible.

In addition, the ISS is a compelling example of the value of undertaking a cooperative approach to space exploration that we would do well to emulate as we embark on exploration beyond low Earth orbit. To that end, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 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 U.S. leadership--and that such a cooperative approach will have the best chance of being successfully sustained if the President is personally involved in inviting our friends and allies to participate in such a venture.

It is clear that the 21st century will see the emergence and growth of ambitious human space flight programs carried out by a number of nations. It is not in our national interest to get drawn into rerunning a ``space race'' that we already won almost 40 years ago. Instead, we should be looking to leverage that emerging global interest to promote a peaceful, cooperative approach to space exploration under American leadership. Such an approach can provide a compelling ``soft power'' rationale for NASA's human exploration program and be an approach that will deliver clear benefits to America beyond just the demonstration of our technological prowess and national commitment to space exploration.

Madam Speaker, those are just three ways in which continued investment in and support for a properly focused NASA can deliver important benefits to the nation, especially if NASA works hand in hand with our colleges and universities and our commercial sector. However, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the important way in which NASA's basic and applied research activities help advance America's competitiveness and promote innovation as well as helping inspire and educate the nation's next generation of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians. That is why I and many of my colleagues consider NASA to be just as much a part of America's innovation agenda as the other agencies called out for support in the ``America COMPETES Act'' that was enacted into law last year. This bill recognizes that reality and puts NASA on the same doubling path as those agencies.

However, NASA will not be able to contribute effectively in the ways I have just outlined unless we not only invest adequately in NASA's programs but, equally importantly, direct those investments in ways that maximize their utility. Thus the bill contains a number of provisions focused on each of NASA's main mission areas to ensure that NASA can make the best use of its capabilities to advance the nation's space and aeronautics agenda.

Madam Speaker, I am a passionate believer in the value of America's space and aeronautics programs and the role that NASA can

play in delivering significant benefits to the American people. I believe that the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 that I am introducing today will go a long way towards positioning the agency for a productive future when the next Administration takes office, and I hope that Members will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for these amendments today. Taken together, they provide necessary funding for our troops, set the stage for a responsible strategy of phased disengagement in Iraq, and address domestic needs and global concerns.

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 and that 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 denying 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.

Achieving the needed change in course is the point of the second amendment--the policy amendment--being considered today. It includes a range of provisions, including one that requires redeployment of our troops in Iraq to begin within 30 days and that states as a goal the completion of this withdrawal within 18 months.

As I've said before, I don't think there is a sustainable role for large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. While this provision sends the right message--that our troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely-- regrettably, it does not send it in the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by Democrats, and the president has already promised to veto any legislation that he says could tie his hands on Iraq.

What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq. I still think the best way to achieve that consensus would be to focus on the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. 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.

Today's policy amendment does not include the specific provisions from my Iraq Study Group bill, but it does include other important provisions--prohibiting military units that are not determined to be ``mission capable'' from deploying; prohibiting deployment of U.S. forces that have not spent sufficient time at their home stations between tours of duty; prohibiting permanent bases in Iraq; requiring that reconstruction assistance to Iraq be provided in the form of a dollar-for-dollar match with the Iraqis; and cracking down on contractors engaged in fraud and profiteering, among other provisions.

These are things I think should be established policy, and I support them without hesitation.

Finally, the domestic and international assistance amendment provides increases for international food aid; rejects seven of the Administration's Medicaid regulations that will increase the cost of healthcare; extends unemployment benefits; provides increases in funding for the Bureau of Prisons; and provides enhanced education benefits for veterans, among other provisions.

I support these provisions because I think they are good for the country as a whole.

Some are especially important for Colorado--for example, we have a direct interest

in the funding increase staffing at federal prisons because our state has several such facilities and because recent events, including a riot that led to fatal shooting of inmates, have shown the need to increase those staffing levels.

And particularly important for America and the future of our society is the provision to improve veterans' education 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--estimated at $52 billion over the next 10 years--into perspective, we should remember that so far our spending for military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq have exceeded $800 billion.

However, I do have some reservations about the way the amendment proposes to finance these benefits. To offset the cost, the amendment would impose a surtax of a half a percentage point on incomes of about $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples. It is estimated that this would increase federal revenues by some $54 billion over 10 years, while the educational benefits are estimated to cost $52 billion over that period. So the amount of the tax increase is not excessive, and it is appropriate to target it in a way to apply to those best able to afford it. But I think there is validity to the concern that some small businesses--those whose profits are not covered by corporate taxes but are claimed as the personal income of their owners--could be disproportionately affected. I think this aspect can and should be reviewed as the legislative process continues, to see if appropriate adjustments should be made.

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 servicemen 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 support these amendments providing funding for our troops in the field, assistance for Americans suffering through the current economic downturn and people around the world suffering from spiraling food costs, and important policy measures to take care of our troops and remind Iraq's government that U.S. troops will not remain in Iraq indefinitely.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report. I would like to commend conference committee members for tackling the tough issues, offsetting costs, and producing a conference report that I can support.

To be sure, this is not a perfect bill. Yet, in my estimation, no amount of negotiation could produce a conference report that all would agree is perfect. Rather, what has emerged is a farm bill that is good for my home State of Colorado and good for the country.

For starters, this bill will provide millions of American families with access to healthy food. Nearly three-quarters of the bill's cost will support nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency food assistance programs, as well as an initiative to provide fresh fruit and vegetables as healthy snack alternatives for a generation of schoolchildren currently battling an epidemic obesity problem.

This farm bill will help Colorado continue to lead in the development of homegrown energy programs that we need to help free us from our national addiction to oil and protect our environment. It increases investments in renewable energy technologies, while reducing the burdensome tax credit for corn-based ethanol and creating a new tax credit for the production of more efficient cellulosic biofuels.

Rural America can plant their fields with confidence, thanks to the farm bill's new disaster relief program, and this provision of the bill also might significantly lower future grocery bills by speeding up compensation for farmers subject to natural disaster and allowing them to bring crops to market faster.

In addition, American consumers will have added confidence knowing that this farm bill mandates critical food labeling for our meat supply, including country of origin, and improves oversight of USDA's enforcement of rules governing meat packers and stockyards.

Along with promoting safe food and renewable energy production, this legislation increases spending for conservation programs by nearly $8 billion. These programs will help protect agricultural lands from urban sprawl; enhance and protect our natural resources; encourage public access to private land; and protect sensitive wetlands and grasslands, areas that are especially vulnerable in Colorado's eastern plains.

Of particular interest to Colorado is that the farm bill includes provisions similar to those in a bill--H.R. 1182--I introduced dealing with the tax treatment of exchanges of mutual ditch stock. Mutual ditch companies are unique to Colorado and are organized for the mutual benefit of shared water rights rather than for profit. This provision allows for tax-free exchanges of shares of these mutual ditch companies.

Another measure included in the farm bill, which I supported during consideration in the House Natural Resources Committee, will protect domestic timber producers by stopping the flow of illegally logged foreign timber imported into the United States.

This bill will also help bolster America's international standing by helping to meet global food shortage demands. America is already the world's largest provider of food aid, but recent riots in developing nations around the world have shown that we must increase our efforts. This legislation will provide additional funding to purchase emergency food aid overseas, and reauthorizes the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program for infant, child and school nutrition programs in underdeveloped countries.

As I said before, this bill is not perfect. I applaud the conference committee for trimming subsidies for already wealthy farmers, but I would prefer tighter reform of these programs, especially at a time when consumers must sacrifice to afford increasing food costs. And any legislation of this size and scope--especially when it is developed as a compromise between the two Chambers--is likely to include provisions that might not deserve to pass on their own.

Taken in whole, however, the farm bill conference report successfully addresses the most important food and agricultural issues facing the Nation today, and fully pays for all new spending initiatives. I agree with the editorial board of the Denver Post, which wrote, ``this latest version of the Farm Bill is good for the entire country,'' and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I think Congress should act to reform the earmark process.

That's why I have introduced H.R. 595, the Stimulating Leadership in Limiting Expenditures (or `SLICE') Act, which would provide the president with a constitutionally-sound version of a line-item veto that could be used to force Congress to vote separately on any specific spending earmark.

That's why I am a cosponsor of legislation (H. Res. 727) to put a moratorium on considering any bill with any congressional earmarks until a bipartisan panel has been set up and made recommendations for that reform.

And that's why I am also cosponsoring the Earmark Transparency and Accountability Act (H.R. 631) which would require any earmark, to be effective, to be included in a bill's text--not just in a committee report--so it would be subject to amendment.

But I cannot support this motion to recommit.

If we were considering this legislation for the first time, it might make sense to consider sending it back to the Agriculture Committee for revisions.

But we first considered this bill a year ago. Since then, the Senate has also acted and the differences between their version and the one we passed last year have been resolved by a committee of conferees appointed for that sole purpose.

That purpose was fulfilled when the conferees filed their report, and at that point the conference committee ceased to exist.

So, this motion would not really send the conference report back for more work--it would send it into oblivion.

And while I know the conference report has flaws, I think they are not so great as to require us to in effect tear it up completely.

So I urge rejection of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation and I urge its approval.

The bill would direct the President to temporarily suspend putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the end of the year, unless before that time the price of oil should drop below $75 per barrel.

This is the quickest step we can take to increase the supply of oil on the open market, and so to bring some relief to consumers suffering from the high price of gasoline and other petroleum products.

Currently, the Federal Government is putting some 70,000 barrels of oil into the strategic reserve each day, even though the reserve is 97 percent full. While there are no guarantees, economists estimate that suspending that action could reduce gas prices by 5 to 24 cents a gallon.

It should not have been necessary for Congress to be considering this legislation. Current law gives the president authority to suspend diversion of oil into the strategic reserve.

That authority has been used in the past, by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, and by the current President Bush, who did so

in 2006. And history shows using that authority can help consumers--in 2000, after such action, the price of oil dropped by one-third, from $30 to $20 per barrel.

That's why last November, with other Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, I sent a letter asking President Bush to again suspend putting oil into the strategic reserve.

Regrettably, the president did not agree to that request, or to a second similar request that many of us made last month. So now Congress must act to require what the president has declined to do on his own.

That is what this bill does and why I support its passage. But I think we should not stop there. There are at least five other steps to reduce the extent to which American consumers are paying the price for our flawed energy policies.

Specifically, we should--

(1) Crack Down on price gouging--Speculators have contributed to oil prices increasing 82 percent in the last year. While these have been regulated markets in the past, more and more new investment tools are outside of regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or any other Federal Government oversight. That's why I am backing a bill (H.R. 594) to give the CFTC oversight over additional energy commodities trading and to establish civil and civil and criminal penalties for price gouging.

(2) Consider Suspension of the tariff on ethanol imports--Suspending the 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol import tariff would mean more ethanol coming into the country, which would increase fuel supplies and lessen the pressure on prices.

(3) Stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry--The Republican Congress passed an energy bill in 2005 that included about $2.6 billion in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry--an industry that has seen record profits in the last few years. I strongly support removing some of the unneeded tax credits for this industry, specifically the tax credit for taxes paid to foreign governments and the deduction for domestic manufacturing activities for major oil and gas producers.

(4) Increase oil and gas drilling in certain areas--I support expanding exploration and development in appropriate areas both onshore and offshore, as long as it is done in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner. I also have proposed legislation (H.R. 3182), with the support of Representative Jeff Flake and other Members from both sides of the aisle, to relax the current embargo that prevents U.S. oil companies from competing to develop oil offshore from Cuba, where companies from other countries are currently drilling.

(5) Push renewable energy alternatives--promote cellulosic ethanol and the Production Tax Credit--Increasing America's use of renewable energy sources will also help address supply in future years by providing a more diverse energy portfolio. Cellulosic ethanol has great potential to not only lower our gas prices, but also our food prices as we move away from corn-based ethanol.

Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this important legislation, which will help State and local governments in Colorado by reimbursing them for the costs of holding aliens charged with crimes.

The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, was originally created to provide financial assistance to States and localities for costs they incur as a result of incarcerating criminal aliens. However, now they are only reimbursed for a portion of these expenditures.

H.R. 1512 amends the law to reflect the original intent of Congress, namely to provide financial assistance to States and localities for costs they incur as a result of incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors.

The SCAAP program was created in 1994. It is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, BJA, part of the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs OJP. The Department of Homeland Security aids BJA in administering the program by verifying the immigration status (or lack of status) of those for whom States seek reimbursement.

Current law authorizes the appropriation of $950 million annually over the 2008-2011 period for SCAAP. For fiscal year 2007, the authorization level for the program was $850 million, and the Congress appropriated about $400 million. In 2007, however, States and localities applied to SCAAP for reimbursements totaling over $950 million.

In 2003, the Department of Justice reinterpreted the statute establishing SCAAP so that reimbursement is made only if: (1) the criminal alien is convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors; and (2) the arrest and conviction occurred in the same fiscal year. The result has been a drastic reduction in the amount of reimbursements received by Colorado and other States.

H.R. 1512 restores SCAAP as it was originally intended by permitting States and localities to be reimbursed for the costs of incarcerating aliens who are either ``charged with or convicted'' of a felony or two misdemeanors, regardless of the fiscal year of the incarceration and conviction.

I have long supported making this overdue change, which will help many Colorado jurisdictions, and I urge approval of this essential measure.

Madam Speaker, as Congress has debated how to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, some have said that law is completely outdated.

I support revisions to reflect changes in technology since FISA was enacted, but I think it is important to recognize that the basic law is sound and does not prevent the Government from acting to protect Americans.

That point was well put in a recent editorial in the Rocky Mountain News, noting that the Justice Department has reported that in 2007 the special FISA court approved some 2,370 warrants authorizing surveillance of people in the United States believed to be in contact with international terrorist organizations while denying only 3 requests for such warrants.

This led the newspaper to conclude that ``The great number of warrants granted, compared to just three denied, indicates that the spy court is no great impediment to national security'' and, with regard to the Bush administration's proposals to rewrite FISA, ``The suspicion here is that the Bush administration simply doesn't want any checks on its eavesdropping powers.''

I think that is a pretty accurate appraisal.

For the information of our colleagues, here is the full text of the editorial:

[From the Rocky Mountain News, May 2, 2008]

Spy Court Keeping Up With Wiretap Requests

The Bush administration has been asserting the right to

wiretap without seeking a warrant from a special court set up

for that purpose under the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act.

However, a Justice Department report on the court's wiretap

approvals suggests it is not quite the hurdle the

administration made it out to be. Last year, the court

approved 2,370 warrants seeking wiretaps of people in this

country believed to be in contact with international

terrorist organizations.

The court denied just three warrant applications and

partially denied another; 86 times the court asked the

government to amend its applications before granting

approval. The year before, the court denied only one

application and that just partially. This hardly sounds like

an onerous approval process.

Since the number of warrants being sought has more than

doubled since 9/11, it also sounds as if the court is having

no problem keeping up with the workload. The suspicion here

is that the Bush administration simply doesn't want any

checks on its eavesdropping powers. And in seeking a rewrite

of the surveillance law, the administration did in fact seek

to greatly expand its powers to wiretap without warrants.

The great number of warrants granted, compared to just

three denied, indicates that the spy court is no great

impediment to national security.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008. This bill would provide $15 billion in loans and grants, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, for States to buy and, rehabilitate foreclosed and vacated housing properties in order to resell or rent them out.

While I have some reservations about the balance in this bill between loans and grants, I think the potential threat to the value of American homes and the safety of our communities justifies the overall cost. Studies have shown that home foreclosures adversely affect the value of other homes in the same neighborhood, and the rate of home foreclosures in a neighborhood directly corresponds to a spike in crime in that neighborhood. In many cases, foreclosed and vacated homes have become the dens of vagrants, drug addicts and drug dealers.

H.R. 5818 attempts to reduce the likelihood of these problems by helping States buy and refurbish foreclosed and vacated housing properties to make them an appealing choice for qualified families to buy or rent. In addition, this legislation includes provisions to protect against housing speculator abuse by requiring that homes purchased and refurbished by a State be resold to families whose income does not exceed 140 percent of the area median income. This bill offers further targeted assistance for those Americans who need it most by requiring that half of the bill's grant money be dedicated to housing families at or below 50 percent area median income.

Finally, H.R. 5818 will direct funds to the States with the greatest need. Under this bill, each State's loan and grant authority would be based on the State's percentage of nationwide foreclosures reported during the previous four calendar quarters. This is a significant point for my home State of Colorado, which has consistently ranked among the top 10 States in percentage of foreclosures.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good measure that deserves our support. As I previously stated, the benefits of this legislation outweigh my concerns over its cost, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

In most circumstances, I consider it counterproductive and not in the best interest of the American people for the Federal Government to intervene in the free market process. However, in certain exceptional times, I believe it is the duty of the Federal Government to act for the greater good of our Nation. And I think we are experiencing such an exceptional moment in American history.

The provisions of this legislative package will help stabilize the downward trend in the housing industry and overall economy, and prevent that trend from spiraling out of control.

The danger is real. Just last month, the Pew Charitable Trusts released a study that forecast one in 25 homeowners in my home state of Colorado will be in foreclosure within the next two years if Congress does not act now to curb this impending disaster. The national forecast of homeowners in foreclosure within the next two years--one in 33--is only slightly less discouraging. If we stand by and do nothing, as some have suggested, the damage to the overall American economy could be devastating.

First and foremost, this bill will help American families at risk of foreclosure to stay in their homes by allowing the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to guarantee qualified refinanced loans. To do so, however, homeowners and their lenders must agree to sacrifice. Lenders could recover no more than 85 percent of a property's current value, but could avoid the potentially greater losses associated with unloading a foreclosed property. Meanwhile, participating homeowners could remain in their home, but must repay the Federal Government a percentage of the value of the home if they sell or refinance again.

The bill provides much needed measures to modernize the FHA, allowing expanded opportunities for families to secure affordable loans without having to turn to subprime lenders. The legislation also increases the Veterans Administration home loan guarantee limit, allowing our veterans to receive the dignified homeownership opportunities they deserve for honoring us with their service; reforms Government Sponsored Enterprises through strengthened regulation, while raising GSE loan limits for homes in high-cost areas; and encourages mortgage servicers to readjust at-risk mortgages by removing the threat of lawsuit.

This legislation would help remove some of the excess housing inventory by offering a refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers. It would also provide additional mortgage revenue bonds for states to refinance subprime loans, and help prevent soldiers from being unfairly penalized for their service by providing more time to get their finances in order when they return from service before a lender could start foreclosure.

A final important piece of this legislation would simply protect the right of States and cities to regulate their own foreclosure process. Some have argued that national banks and financial institutions should be exempt from these rules. I, however, believe it is the right of States and cities to have their own requirements and enforce their own rules throughout the foreclosure process.

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to learn of the Bush Administration's threat to veto this legislation, because I believe that it is important for us to act now to provide relief to America's stressed homeowners. It is my understanding that Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson, as well as other Administration officials, had worked with Chairman Frank to shape provisions of this legislation, so this change of heart is doubly regrettable. I hope that the President will change his mind and sign this needed legislation when it reaches his desk.

This legislation has been carefully crafted to safeguard against fraud, corporate giveaways and speculator abuse. And as concerned as I was that the Federal Reserve had to devote $29 billion to prevent the collapse of investment bank Bear Stearns, I am equally concerned about the Federal Government taking action to rescue the housing market. However, without the stability that the Fed provided the investment banking industry, experts tell us that the bottom may well have fallen out of our economy. And it appears the same is true for our housing market--without the stability this legislation will help provide, it may not have the chance to correct itself and, eventually, rebound. Main Street deserves the same attention as Wall Street.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting all three components of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, every present and former college student knows that writing a solid essay or research paper is not easy.

So, I think it's appropriate to recognize the careful effort displayed by Theresa Snyder in an essay published last month in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper.

Ms. Snyder is a student at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. Her topic is a proposed water-delivery project called the Southern Delivery System, which would pipe water to that city from the Pueblo Reservoir-- part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project--with return flows back to the Arkansas River via Fountain Creek.

Because of the complexity of the project, I joined others in asking the Bureau of Reclamation to provide additional time for comment on it--a request that I am happy to say has been granted.

I think Ms. Snyder's essay, written in connection with a class in Western Water Policy, reflects well on her and on the quality of instruction at Colorado College.

For the benefit of all our colleagues, here is the full text of her essay:

[From the Pueblo Chieftain, Mar. 16, 2008]

Springs Needs To Correct Fountain Creek Problems

(By Theresa Snyder, Colorado College Student)

First things first . . .

In a time when water is becoming increasingly scarce,

Colorado Springs has failed to explore its many options for

responsible water use. The Springs, which has experienced

rapid population growth in the past 40 years, is expected to

grow by an additional 250,000 people by 2025.

To supplement water supply for this urban development, a $1

billion project known as the Southern Delivery System has

been proposed by Colorado Springs Utilities. The project

includes storing water in Lake Pueblo and running a 43-mile

long pipeline from Pueblo Dam to Colorado Springs.

The city, while possessing all the required water rights to

use the additional 78 million gallons a day from Lake Pueblo,

currently is completing an Environmental Impact Statement as

required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Drafts of the statement led the citizens of Pueblo to wonder

about their future as downstream water users.

The focus of Pueblo's concern is Fountain Creek. This

watershed begins as Monument Creek in Colorado Springs, flows

south and joins Fountain Creek, continues to Pueblo and

eventually joins the Arkansas River in Pueblo.

The creek has long been used to channel return flow

wastewater from Colorado Springs. As a result of the Southern

Delivery System, return flows from the city into Fountain

Creek would greatly increase.

Anyone who walks along the creek can see the obvious

problems with erosion, sedimentation and water quality

already present in the creekbed. Current return flows from

Colorado Springs have altered this previously intermittent

stream to a year-round flow, and are to blame for the

multitude of other problems in Fountain Creek.

Increased sedimentation along the creek bed produces

stretches of dirt with no trace of vegetation. Other sections

of the river have channelized as severely as 20 feet below

previous flow lines. The result is a creek that

looks sprawled in some areas and like a small canyon with

steep, abrupt walls in others.

The Southern Delivery System would only increase average

flows and consequently the sedimentation and erosion that

results in an unappealing creek with muddy water. Where does

all of this poor-quality, heavy-sediment water go? Downstream

to Pueblo.

As Colorado Springs Utilities officials prepare to launch a

$1 billion project, they have failed to address a serious

issue that will only worsen upon completion of the project.

Clean-up of Fountain Creek should be first on the list of

projects to tackle. Colorado Springs brings in the majority

of its water from the Western Slope of Colorado. Seventy

percent actually comes from Fryingpan-Arkansas water storage

projects across the Great Divide. This means fresh, crisp

mountain water. Yet the city passes on poor-quality water and

disregards the negative effects the flows have on a natural

ecosystem and downstream municipality.

Pueblo has begun to speak up and demands that Colorado

Springs dam Fountain Creek to control the overall flow of the

creek. A dam would control flooding as well as mitigate the

negative effects from erosion and sedimentation.

Yet Colorado Springs Utilities has cited cost as the

primary reason for not damming the creek. How is cost an

object when the utility is prepared to shovel out $1.1

billion for more water? It seems selfish and unfair of a

municipality to not only ignore a problem such as Fountain

Creek but to propose a huge project that only worsens the

situation.

Colorado Springs is considered the ``big bully'' in this

ongoing water issue. It's time for them to take a step back.

First things first: Colorado Springs officials should

address the issues at hand such as Fountain Creek. They

should become responsible water users before they gain access

to more of the precious commodity.

Though they may have the legal rights to follow through

with the Southern Delivery System, it's unfair and

irresponsible to ignore the current mess and follow through

with a project that brings more detrimental effects.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5819, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act. Enactment of this bill will extend important programs that improve American competitiveness in the world, and I urge its adoption.

The State of Colorado houses a strong and vibrant collection of cutting-edge small businesses, and businesses in my own district employ SBIR awards to promote advanced research in aeronautic, biotechnology, and other important industries. This bill will ensure that small businesses and research firms will continue to have access to the capital that enables them to compete with large firms both at home and abroad. Ultimately, this bill is about increasing competition and ensuring that good ideas are not lost for a lack of resources.

This bill also modernizes the SBIR and STTR programs in order to better suit the needs of small businesses, ensuring that small businesses that receive funding from venture capital firms are allowed to receive SBIR grants. Though some suggest that this policy undermines the spirit of the program, the reality for many small businesses is that their most consistent sources of funding are from venture capital firms and the SBIR program. This bill proposes sensible limits on the participation of venture capital firms so that small businesses can continue to rely on these two important sources of funds.

As co-chair of the House Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Caucus and a representative of a district with a major research institution, I support this legislation because it will help keep America more technologically and economically competitive. I commend the committees for their hard work on this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.