Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House yesterday passed my resolution, H. Res. 891, on Celebrating 35 Years of Space-Based Observations of the Earth by Landsat Spacecraft. I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Regula from Ohio, who has joined me as an original cosponsor of this resolution.

It is only fitting that we celebrate Landsat and its thirty-five year record of space-based observations of the land at a time when we are beginning to address the current and future implications of climate change. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program recently recognized Landsat noting that ``Landsat data are invaluable for studying the land surface and how it affects and is affected by climate.'' I thank my colleagues in Congress for continuing to support Landsat and for enabling the development of these long time-series data that are so important for research on climate variability.

The data collected by Landsat satellites are being used by almost all Federal agencies, by state, regional, and local governments, by researchers and private industry. I held a field hearing earlier this month in Colorado on the important ways in which remote sensing data, including Landsat imagery, can help our state and local officials carry out their responsibilities more effectively. The broad application of these data to provide scientific and societal benefits testifies to the nation's sound investment in space technology. We owe our thanks and appreciation to the talented and dedicated scientists, engineers, and professionals who have contributed to Landsat and its success.

Mr. Speaker, there is more to be gained from the data collected by Landsat satellites, and there are still issues to be resolved to ensure that the nation can get the best return on its investment in Landsat's capabilities. However, I have no doubt that through support for the research, technology, and education required to improve Landsat data collection and applications, the returns from this national investment will continue to multiply. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the benefits derived from this important record of civil observations of the land, as collected from Landsat satellites, continue to expand for another 35 years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Jennifer Hanson for her service to our community.

Jennifer Hanson, an educator with the Boulder Valley School District, has been an instrumental leader in the development of online safety protocols for our local schools and communities. Ms. Hanson has played an active role in uniting our educators, business leaders, law enforcement officials and parents in a collaborative effort to protect our youth from online predators. Jennifer Hanson should be commended for her leadership and commitment to enriching our children's educational opportunities in a safe and dynamic online environment.

Jennifer Hanson was recently presented with The Spirit of Online Safety Award in appreciation of her work as the President of the Internet Safety Foundation. The Internet Safety Foundation mentored nine youths in their creation of a cutting-edge public awareness campaign about safe online practices. The culmination of their hard work will have a positive impact on our communities for years to come.

Upon graduation summa cum laude from the Metropolitan State College of Denver, Jennifer taught in the Cherry Creek Public Schools for seven years. She completed her master's degree work at Adams State College in educational technology leadership and would lend her expertise as an active participant for Project Safe Childhood and Qwest's Online Safety Coalition. Ms. Hanson has also played a vital role in the establishment of the Internet Safety Summit; a statewide assembly focused on giving our communities the knowledge and tools necessary to protect our children from the dangers of the World Wide Web.

Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to Jennifer Hanson for her willingness to devote herself for the betterment of our children's education and safety.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 322, I am glad to have the opportunity to vote for this important resolution today.

The United States recognized the State of Israel the day it was established on May 14, 1948. In the ensuing 60 years, the people of Israel have established a democratic society, developed an advanced economy, and created a thriving culture in the face of war, terrorism, and threats to its security.

H. Con. Res. 322 expresses ``enduring support for Israel as Israel pursues peace with its neighbors.'' The importance of peace in the region cannot be overstated. Without it there can be no regional stability and no security for Israel. Over the decades, the United States has played a special role in helping facilitate the peace process in the region, and I believe we must continue to play that role.

For 60 years, the United States and Israel have shared strong bonds of friendship, common values, and strategic interests. Our support for the people of Israel has been a fundamental part of American foreign policy and remains so today. In the post-9/11 world and with American soldiers engaged in two wars on Islamic soil, I believe our historic alliance with the State of Israel has even greater significance.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Israel on its 60th birthday and send my best wishes to the Israeli people for a peaceful and prosperous future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008. By passing this bipartisan bill, we can help ensure that our respective States can continue to provide needed health care to citizens who are eligible for Medicaid.

I have heard from a number of health care providers, hospital administrators, public health officials, and constituents in my district in regards to seven Medicaid regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. The message has been clear: these regulations have the potential to devastate the health care safety net in Colorado, pulling an extraordinary amount of funding away from the State's health care economy with the highest cost placed on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Though I think that all seven regulations deserve a great deal more scrutiny and discussion, there are two regulations in particular that give me serious concern. The first, a regulation that would alter the definition of ``publicly-owned providers,'' would put 34 hospital providers in my State at risk of losing funding budgeted for serving low-income and indigent patients. The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing estimates that the State would lose $711 million over 5 years--a loss that the Department says would put ``the financial stability of the entire safety-net provider community in Colorado at risk.''

The second regulation with which I am concerned would completely eliminate Medicaid funding for the Graduate Medical Education program, pulling an estimated $60 million from Colorado's teaching hospitals over 5 years.

Our teaching hospitals, which play a critical role in providing health care to underserved communities, cannot withstand this sort of hit to their budgets without severely curtailing important services.

Broadly speaking, I think that these seven regulations ought to be much more carefully scrutinized. Where some were intended to change Medicaid policy without Congressional authorization, others responded to Congressional action by altering policy beyond what Congress intended. A 1-year moratorium will enable Congress to thoroughly examine these regulations to ensure that States like mine are not devastated by rules that, frankly speaking, appear to undermine the very purpose for which Medicaid was established. I am proud to support this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our State Medicaid safety-nets remain strong and viable.

Madam Speaker, I was not able to be present for three rollcall votes on Tuesday, April 22.

If I had been present I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 205, on passage of H. Res. 981--Recognizing March 6, 2008, as the first-ever World Glaucoma Day, established to increase awareness of glaucoma, which is the second leading cause of preventable blindness in the United States and worldwide, Representative Baldwin--Energy and Commerce--I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 206, on passage of H.R. 5151--Wild Monongahela Act: A National Legacy for West Virginia's Special Places--I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 207, on passage of H.R. 831--Coffman Cove Administrative Site Conveyance Act--I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, as a committee member I had the opportunity last week to hear first-hand the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker when they appeared before the Armed Services Committee to update us on the status of America's military and diplomatic involvement in Iraq.

There have been many comments on that testimony, but one of the best I have seen was a recent editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette.

As the editorial noted, ``One of the more striking aspects of our unfortunate occupation of Iraq is an everchanging description of who `the enemy' is. At first it was the Saddam Hussein regime, and once that toppled it was covert regime loyalists. After a long period of denying that an insurgency had developed, insurgents became the enemy. Then it became al-Qaida in Iraq, although foreign and al-Qaida forces never made up more than about 10 percent of those fighting the U.S. occupation. Now it is `special teams,' presumably supported by Iran.''

In addition, the editorial commented on the speech to the Nation in which President Bush announced that although tours of duty would be reduced to 12 months, for the foreseeable future the number of troops deployed in Iraq would remain at the same level as before the ``surge'' and on the president's description of the desired outcome in Iraq.

The editorial's response was ``The president spoke in broad generalities of `a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs.' Beyond holding on and hoping, however, there was no sense of how to get there from here.''

Madam Speaker, I think that sums it up very well. And, as one who opposed the Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq, I also must concur with the editorial's statement that ``The length, cost and indecisiveness of this war should make Americans more skeptical the next time a political leader suggests war, against a country halfway around the world, without a clear objective.''

For the benefit of our colleagues, here is the full text of the Gazette's editorial.

[From the Gazette, Apr. 13, 2008]

Iraq: No More Hold and Pray

President Bush's speech Thursday, combined with the

congressional appearances this week by Gen. David Petraeus

and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, suggest strongly

that the U.S. strategy in Iraq until the end of this year is

``hold on and pray.''

Even the welcome news that Army combat tours will be

reduced from 15 months to 12 months, no doubt welcome news to

the top military chiefs who have expressed concerns publicly

and privately about the military being ``hollowed out'' by

the endless combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, has a whiff of

unseriousness about the mission to it. Granted, as outgoing

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody told the House Armed

Services Committee on Tuesday, the Army is ``out of balance''

because of the war. But if the president had a coherent

strategy for turning the corner in Iraq, he might well

have been willing to tolerate that for a while.

The president spoke in broad generalities of ``a free Iraq

that can protect its people, support itself economically, and

take charge of its own political affairs.'' Beyond holding on

and hoping, however, there was no sense of how to get there

from here.

One of the more striking aspects of our unfortunate

occupation of Iraq is an ever-changing description of who

``the enemy'' is. At first it was the Saddam Hussein regime,

and once that toppled it was covert regime loyalists. After a

long period of denying that an insurgency had developed,

insurgents became the enemy. Then it became al-Qaida in Iraq,

although foreign and al-Qaida forces never made up more than

about 10 percent of those fighting the U.S. occupation. Now

it is ``special teams,'' presumably supported by Iran.

It's clear now: The longer we remain in Iraq the more

enemies we make. Imagine if the Chinese army were occupying

California. Opposition to that occupation would come from new

quarters every week.

Perhaps the most encouraging development from this week's

hearings is the growing number of Republican lawmakers

beginning to question administration policy. ``The people of

the United States have paid an awful price,'' said Rep. Dana

Rohrabacher, R-Calif., noting that the Iraqi government had

budget surpluses. ``It's time for the Iraqis to pay that

price for their own protection.''

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Reps. Tom Tancredo

of Colorado, John McHugh of New York, Randy Forbes of

Virginia, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Steve Chabot of Ohio and

even Dan Burton of Indiana all expressed impatience with the

pace at which the Iraqi government is assuming

responsibility.

Republicans may simply be distancing themselves from an

unpopular president as they face reelection bids in November.

Whatever the reasons, it is encouraging to see them express

the skepticism most Americans feel.

The length, cost and indecisiveness of this war should make

Americans more skeptical the next time a political leader

suggests war, against a country halfway around the world,

without a clear objective.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for three rollcall votes on April 14th. If I had been present for those votes, I would have voted as follows:

First, on rollcall No. 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 El 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 conveys 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.

Second, on rollcall No. 184, to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 994, regarding National Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Awareness Day, I would have voted ``yes.''

And, third, on rollcall No. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I support ordering the previous question because I think the House should proceed to considering H.R. 5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act, without unnecessary delay.

Some have urged that Members oppose ordering the previous question so that the House could consider legislation to make permanent all the tax cuts the Bush Administration pushed through Congress in 2001.

I supported some of those reductions, but opposed others, and am not convinced that they should all be made permanent. But in any event, they will remain in effect until 2010. There is no need for us to consider today which should be extended, either as they stand or in modified form. I think instead we should proceed to the debate on H.R. 5719, and so I am voting to order the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this very timely and important measure. Its enactment will make a number of worthwhile changes in the current tax laws and the policies of the Internal Revenue Service, IRS.

To protect people against identity theft, it will require the IRS to notify a taxpayer if IRS finds that someone else may have made unauthorized use of the taxpayer's identity.

It will increase both the civil and criminal penalties that can be imposed on those who use misleading websites that imitate to seek to get personal information. This is important because people are losing thousands of dollars in tax refunds to such frauds.

It will strengthen IRS outreach to make sure that people know that they are entitled to tax refunds or to payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC. It would also permit the IRS to refer these taxpayers to low income tax clinics and increase funding for those clinics, and strengthen taxpayer protections from ``predatory'' providers of refund anticipation loans. And it clarifies that the IRS can use its website to publicize unclaimed taxpayer refunds.

To help small businesses, the bill will eliminate the outdated requirement to maintain and submit detailed call records to substantiate business use of employer-provided cell phones.

Of great importance to State and local governments--including every county in Colorado--it will delay for one year the imposition of a 3 percent withholding requirement on government payments for goods and services made after December 31, 2010.

Further, to protect all of us, the bill includes the ``Fair Share Act,'' which closes a loophole that now allows government contractors to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.

An example of how the current law could permit this was recently reported in the press account of how a company operating under Federal contracts for reconstruction work in Iraq has listed the people doing that work as being employees of a subsidiary company based in the Cayman Islands. As a result, while people formally employed by the company with the Federal contract would be subject to the 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare (half technically paid by the employer, the other half technically paid by employees), that is not the case with people who are counted as working for a foreign company. This is not fair or just. It should not be permissible, and this bill would stop it by closing the loophole.

In addition, the bill would strengthen accountability and protect taxpayers by repealing the authorization for the Internal Revenue Service to use private contractors to collect Federal income taxes.

Just today, the press is reporting that this program, while perhaps well-intentioned, has cost the government--that is, the taxpayers--some $37 million more than the total amount of taxes it has collected, while the contractors have collected commissions of up to 24 percent for their efforts. The program has been marked by harassment, abusive calling, and violations of taxpayer rights and disclosure protections. The Government Accountability Office has reported that debt collectors placed over one million calls, many to innocent people, trying to reach 35,000 taxpayers and the Federal Trade Commission reports that as of last year it had received 130 complaints and the National Taxpayer Advocate has counted many more. The House has already twice voted to end this private collection program, and we should do so again today.

Madam Speaker, some have criticized this bill because it includes measures to implement the requirement that taxes be paid on funds withdrawn from a Health Savings account for purposes other than those related to health care. I think the purpose of these provisions is appropriate, but it may be that they could be more finely-tuned in order to achieve that purpose in a better way--something that may occur as the legislative process proceeds. In any event, I am not convinced that whatever shortcomings there may be in that or other parts of the bill are sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the rest of the legislation.

Overall, this is a good bill that will help the taxpayers and our country, and I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday I was unavoidably detained and unable to reach the House floor in time for two rollcall votes.

If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall No. 165--on adoption of H. Res. 1084, Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2016, to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes--I would have voted, ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 166--on passage of H. Res. 1077, Calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and to enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated solution that respects the distinctive language, culture, religious identity, and fundamental freedom of all Tibetans--I would have voted, ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of this legislation and I rise in its support. Its sole purpose and effect is to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, NLCS, as a matter of statutory law.

The NLCS now includes more than 800 units, including all National Scenic and Historic Trails, National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, wilderness areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and wilderness study areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. In all, it includes some 26 million acres, or about 10 percent of the land that BLM manages.

As a system it was established in 2000 by an administrative action of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. However, each of its units was originally established by Congress or through a Presidential Proclamation under the Antiquities Act of 1906 and each is managed according to its enabling authority, as well as other laws applicable to various units or portions of units, such as the Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

The purpose of Secretary Babbitt's administrative action was to erect a framework to tie each unit of the NLCS together into a larger conservation system, and the result has been to increase the public recognition and understanding of these special places within the array of public lands under management of the BLM.

The NLCS units include significant natural resources, including approximately 12 percent of the BLM-managed sage grouse habitat, as well as important cultural and scientific resources. For example, in Colorado the system includes the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, which has more than 6,000 archeological sites significant to Native American cultures, as well the Gunnison Gorge and McInnis Canyons National Conservation Areas (the latter of which is named for our former colleague, Representative Scott McInnis).

These and the other NLCS units provide unique recreational opportunities, and their status as part of the system has proved valuable not only in terms of their recognition by the public but also as it relates to funding for their management.

The bill makes that status a matter of law. At the same time, it specifies that any future additions to the system must be authorized separately--as the existing units have been--and that each unit is to be managed in accordance with all laws applicable to that unit and in a manner that protects the values for which the components of the system were designated.

The legislation does not impose any new conditions on use of the lands involved, nor does it affect existing rights with respect to those lands, whether those are related to grazing or other purposes. The Congressional Budget Office says its enactment will not affect BLM's budget because BLM already has permanent authority to manage the lands in the system, subject to amounts provided annually in appropriations acts, and that enacting H.R. 2016 will not affect direct spending or revenues or the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

The bill is supported by the Bush Administration as well as by many other groups, including the Colorado-based Outdoor Industry Association as well as the American Hiking Society, National Council of Churches, Boone and Crockett Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the National Wildlife Federation.

Mr. Chairman, this is a modest measure but one that deserves enactment, and I urge its approval by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution that President Bush has regrettably made necessary.

The immediate effect of the resolution will be to allow deferral of a vote on the proposed free trade agreement with Colombia.

Some say that the longer-term effect will be to make approval of that agreement impossible. But I think the reality could be just the reverse, because as you have said, Mr. Speaker, at this point the odds are against its approval and so deferring the vote on the agreement could be the only way it might ever be approved.

I have supported Free Trade Agreements with Bahrain, Singapore, Chile, Morocco, Australia, Jordan, Oman, and Peru, I'd like the opportunity to consider the merits of a Columbia FTA, but cannot jump to the conclusion that its provisions are fully acceptable, and I am troubled by allegations that labor organizers have been terrorized by government authorities in Columbia. It seems to me that the proponents of this agreement have the burden of making a compelling case that the agreement meets criteria Congress has insisted upon with regard to labor protections.

Therefore, deferring the vote will allow additional time for the Bush Administration and the other supporters of the agreement either to the make the case that it should be approved in its current form or to work with the Colombian government and the Congress to make revisions to respond to objections raised by its opponents.

It should not have been necessary for the House to act to provide that time. If President Bush had been willing to do more to resolve those objections, we would not be taking such action. But by deciding to formally transmit the agreement, which set in motion the so-called ``fast track'' procedures of the current law applicable to trade agreements, the President has brought us to this point.

And while the details are different, that approach is very similar to the one the president has followed on many other matters--demanding approval of his proposals and refusing to work with Members of Congress to resolve objections or accommodate other suggestions.

We have seen the pattern over and over, from the repeated vetoes of legislation to expand the State Children's Health Program, SCHIP, to revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, and with regard to more other matters than I have time to list.

But this time, by adopting this resolution, we can give President Bush time to reconsider that way of doing business, and give the other proponents of the Colombia trade agreement time to make the case for why it should be approved.

Madam Speaker, this week the press reported the declassification and public release of a Justice Department memo popularly known as the ``torture memo.''

It's news that the memo has been made public, but, sadly, what it says comes as no surprise. At least since the summer of 2004, when it was reported in the press, the American people have known that after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington the Bush Justice Department advised other agencies that the President, when acting as commander-in-chief, is not bound to follow duly enacted Federal laws.

After this was revealed, the Bush administration--preparing for the 2004 Presidential election--repudiated the memo. But it had guided the administration for 22 months, and experts have claimed that its startling reading of the law and the constitution led to excesses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

In 2005, Congress responded by enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act, which requires the defense department to follow the interrogation guidelines in the Army Field Manual and which prohibits the ``cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the detention, custody, or control of the United States Government.''

I strongly supported those provisions, which are often referred to as the ``McCain amendment' in recognition of their Senate author.

But when President Bush signed them into law, he issued a ``signing statement'' that raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law by suggesting that he intended to reserve the right to authorize prohibited interrogation methods in some cases.

Taken together, the memo and the signing statement clearly signal the Bush administration's contempt for the rule of law. As the Rocky Mountain News says in an April 3 editorial, ``This was one step on the path to the Bush administration's unfortunate assertion, until the courts knocked it down, that the president had the power to snatch an American citizen on U.S. soil and hold him incommunicado in solitary confinement indefinitely, without charge, trial or counsel.''

And the memo and the signing statement also show that the administration refuses to recognize that its contempt for the law will result in placing every American, especially those in uniform around the world, at grave risk.

I think we all should remember that, in the words of the Colorado Springs Gazette, ``In

the larger struggle with jihadist terrorism and those tempted to support or harbor them, the perception that the United States has a certain moral authority is invaluable. Moral authority was a key factor in the long, twilight struggle with aggressive communism we call the Cold War. Using torture undermines that moral authority.''

For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching the full text of the editorial in the April 3 edition of the Rocky Mountain News.

[From the Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 3, 2008]

Not Above the Law, Despite the Memo

The Justice department has released the full text of the

infamous 2003 ``torture memo'' brushing aside the legal

restraints on military interrogators. The memo, which

originated in the department's Office of Legal Counsel,

argues that the president's inherent powers in wartime

overrode any federal law or international treaty, raising in

the layman's mind the point, Why bother to have laws and

treaties?

Our government is supposed to be one of checks and

balances but the Office of Legal Counsel saw no check on the

president's powers. The courts had no jurisdiction on what

Americans did overseas and in any case ``Congress cannot

interfere with the president's exercise of his authority as

commander in chief to control operations during a war.''

This was one step on the path to the Bush administration's

unfortunate assertion, until the courts knocked it down, that

the president had the power to snatch an American citizen on

U.S. soil and hold him incommunicado in solitary confinement

indefinitely, without charge, trial or counsel.

Madam Speaker, on April 2nd I was unavoidably delayed and unable to be present for three votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall No. 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 No. 155, adoption of H. Res. 1605, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 156, the Carson of Indiana Amendment to H.R. 5501, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 157, the motion to recommit H.R. 5501, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 158, passage of H.R. 5501, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, on Monday, March 31, I was unavoidably absent and so was unable to join in three recorded votes.

If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

On H.R. 3352--To reauthorize and amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, and for other purposes--I would have voted ``yea.''

On H.R. 2675--To provide for the conveyance of approximately 140 acres of land in the Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma to the Indian Nations Council, Inc., of the Boy Scouts of America, and for other purposes--I would have voted ``yea.''

On H. Con. Res. 302--Recognizing the Month of March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month--I would have voted ``yea.''