Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I support this measure for two reasons.

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

That is why, last August, I voted for a bill (H.R. 3356) to provide such an update--a bill that was supported by a majority of the House, but did not pass because it was considered under a procedure that required a two-thirds vote for passage, which did not occur because of the opposition of the Bush Administration, which was supported by all but 3 of our Republican colleagues. That is also why I voted for another bill to update FISA--H.R. 3773, the ``Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective'' (or RESTORE) Act--which the House passed on November 15th of last year.

Second, I will support it because I think it is distinctly better than the version the Senate passed--as an amendment to the House-passed RESTORE Act--on February 12th.

It does include some good features of the Senate version, including provisions that for the first time will provide statutory requirement that surveillance of the communications of Americans overseas will be done pursuant to appropriate orders of the courts.

But it differs from the Senate version in some important ways, particularly in the way it addresses the current lawsuits brought against several telecommunications companies by parties who claim that the companies acted wrongly by assisting with a surveillance program involving the massive interception of purely domestic communications.

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

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

Regrettably, last month the Senate decided to comply with the President's demand on this point, and their version of this legislation would provide that retroactive immunity.

I do not think that was the right decision. I agree with the Rocky Mountain News, which in a February 15th editorial said ``Letting this litigation proceed would not, as Bush [has] said . . . punish companies that want to `help America.' Businesses that want to help America need to be mindful of the Constitution--and so should the government.''

That is why I think the approach taken in the measure before us is better. Unlike the Senate version, it would not short-circuit the court by preventing the cases from proceeding. Instead, it would allow the defendant companies to defend themselves by freeing them from the ``state secret'' barrier erected by the Bush Administration.

Under the measure before us, the defendants will be able to demonstrate to the court the evidence they say supports their arguments in a way that assures the continued security of that evidence and that avoids the public disclosure the Administration says would be adverse to the national interest. This is a process that has worked well in criminal cases, and while I am certainly not an expert on the matter, I think it can work when applied to these civil cases.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of basic fairness to allow the companies now being sued, and those that may be sued in the future, to fully defend themselves and to try to show the court why, as the defendants in the current cases claim, they are already immune under existing law.

That is what this measure does--and, in fact, it does more.

Unlike the Senate version, it will protect the companies from lawsuits for compliance with valid authorizations under the temporary surveillance law (the ``Protect America Act'') passed last August for the period between the expiration of that law (but not the underlying authorizations) and the enactment of more lasting FISA reform legislation.

I strongly approve of that aspect of the legislation because while I did not support its original enactment, I do regret the fact that the temporary law was allowed to lapse.

I thought it should have remained in effect while we in Congress work to replace it with a longer-lasting statute. That was why earlier this year, I twice voted to extend it--first, by passage of a 15-day extension (H.R. 5104) and then by voting for a bill (H.R. 5349) that would have provided a further 21-day extension.

Regrettably, that second extension did not occur. Its failure was because of the opposition of President Bush and the resulting fact

that all our Republican colleagues here in the House, who voted against the extension and thus allowed the ``Protect America Act'' to lapse--a fact that has been conveniently ignored by many of those who have sponsored television commercials or otherwise complained about that lapse.

In any event, today we have the opportunity to make progress toward the goal of updating the FISA law in a way that will enable our intelligence agencies to obtain information needed to protect the American people while safeguarding our rights under the Constitution. That is what this measure does, and that is why I will vote for it.

For the information of our colleague, I am attaching the February 15th editorial of the Rocky Mountain News that I mentioned earlier.

[From the Rocky Mountain News--Friday, Feb. 15, 2008]

No Immunity--Senate Veers Off Track in Its Surveillance Bill

The Bush administration is in a tizzy because Congress will

take its Presidents Day recess and allow the temporary

``terrorist surveillance'' act passed six months ago to

expire at midnight Saturday.

Earlier this week, President Bush actually suggested that

al-Qaida operatives are watching the calendar, poised to plot

new attacks freely with Congress absent--and U.S.

intelligence officials will be largely powerless to stop

them.

Don't insult the American public, Mr. President. You'll

still have the ability to wiretap suspected terrorists--and

the warrantless surveillance powers in the bill are valid

until August.

Bush is riled because the House is leaving town without

adopting immunity provisions in the Senate surveillance bill.

The Senate version granted immunity from lawsuits--unwisely,

in our view--to telecommunications firms that cooperated with

the warrantless wiretaps on overseas calls.

If immunity is in the final legislation--and Bush has said

he'd veto any bill that doesn't include it--it would kill the

40-plus lawsuits that have been filed against telecoms in

federal court. The litigation challenges the legality of the

program and the actions of telecoms that cooperated with the

government.

If the lawsuits don't move forward, we may never learn if

some telecoms compromised the privacy of innocent Americans.

A grant of immunity could also set a dangerous precedent for

other businesses when federal agents or local cops who don't

have a court order demand private or confidential information

about their customers.

(Colorado Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar both voted to

pass the Senate legislation and to oppose an amendment that

would have stripped the immunity provisions from the bill.)

Look, we think the government should have greater leeway--

and constitutionally, does have greater leeway--to monitor

international communications with al-Qaida than it does to

intercept domestic phone calls or e-mails.

But we've largely had to take the administration's word

that the wiretap program didn't go beyond the narrow confines

under which it would be legal. Moreover, any program that

lets the government snoop without a judge's approval deserves

outside scrutiny to prevent abuses.

In this instance, the lawsuits may reveal whether the

wiretaps were targeted or were more like fishing expeditions.

We may also learn how effectively the telecoms separated

international communications from domestic calls or e-mails.

The government initially tried (and failed) to quash these

cases, claiming the program was so top secret that even

admitting that private telecoms participated would compromise

national security. Federal courts wouldn't buy that line. So

AT&T and other telecoms started claiming they were victims--

Washington had persuaded them that the program was legal and

they had little choice but to assist in the fight against al-

Qaida.

Those claims may be true, but they seem to run counter to

the experience of Joe Nacchio, the former Qwest CEO who was

convicted on insider trading charges last year. Two years ago

it was revealed that Nacchio refused to comply with appeals

from the government to participate in the warrantless wiretap

program; he balked at turning over information about his

customers obtained under what Qwest considered suspect legal

circumstances.

Court documents released in October revealed that Nacchio

first met with national security officials in February 2001--

six months before the 9/11 attacks. ``Nacchio's account,''

The Washington Post reported, ``suggests that the Bush

administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms

in programs without court oversight before the terrorist

attacks on New York and the Pentagon.''

Letting this litigation proceed would not, as Bush said

Wednesday, punish companies that want to ``help America.''

Businesses that want to help America need to be mindful of

the Constitution--and so should the government.

Madam Speaker, today, along with my colleague and co-chair of the Congressional Fitness Caucus, Representative Zach Wamp, I am introducing the ``Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Act of 2008.'' If enacted, this bill will make important improvements in the way that we measure and promote health and fitness in our communities.

Health care has become one of the most prominent issues of our time, and coming up with solutions to curb rising costs and address the growing numbers of uninsured Americans will take a great deal of hard work and debate. Whatever our disagreements about the best ways to fix these problems, there are simple principles upon which we can all agree. This bill focuses on one of those simple principles: that exercise makes Americans healthier.

Many of us are familiar with Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a report released every five years by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. These are recommendations that help guide the way that physicians and nutritionists talk to their patients and clients about their diets and how to think of healthy food as a way of life. Similarly, HHS also releases a report entitled Physical Activity Guidelines, which summarizes current knowledge about the relationship between exercise and fitness.

I would argue that these publications are of equal importance, as diet and exercise are the pillars of a healthy lifestyle. There is one difference, though, that I believe by fixing we can further promote healthy living for Americans. The difference is this: where Dietary Guidelines is mandated to be updated every five years. Physical Activity Guidelines has no such requirement. Fixing this difference will ensure that Americans have the most up- to-date information about the role and importance of exercise in their lives, just as they do now for their diets.

This bill seeks to accomplish that fix. It would equalize the way that the federal government dispenses information about diet and exercise, and it would benefit ordinary people by giving them relevant information about how to become healthier. As I said. curing all of our health care ills will require a great deal of work. thought. and debate, but I believe that we can get off to a good start simply by helping Americans exercise more and, by staying healthy, go to the doctor a little less. Madam Speaker. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this simple measure to help achieve that simple goal.

Mr. Chairman, I support this budget resolution, which will lay the foundation for the decisions about spending and taxes that we must make this year.

Our first responsibility as Members of Congress is to provide for our national defense and homeland security, in order to safeguard the lives and liberties of the American people.

For that reason, and as a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am glad to be able to say that this budget meets that responsibility by providing $537.8 billion for national defense, which is in line not only with the amounts requested but also the recommendation of our committee.

I also support the budget because it puts the needed priority on moving to restore the capabilities so seriously eroded by repeated deployments and more than 6 years of war. And, even more important, it includes instructions to properly care for the men and women in uniform by rejecting TRICARE fee increases, providing funding to continue addressing problems such as those at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and calling for enhanced pay and benefits to improve the quality of life of our troops and their families. It also calls for allocating $4.9 billion more than in the current fiscal year for veterans' health care.

But that is not the end of our responsibility. We also need to act responsibly to change the policies that over the last seven years have brought us deeper budget deficits and massive increases in the national debt even as we make needed investments in our society here at home.

This budget meets that responsibility as well. It lays out a path that can bring the budget back to balance. It includes an essential aspect of fiscal responsibility by following the ``pay-as-you-go'' approach now embodied in our House rules, requiring that any entitlement spending increases or revenue reductions be offset, so that the bottom line of the budget is not worsened.

At the same time it allows for funding priority investments in education, children's health care, veterans' health care, and innovation but also accommodating tax relief for middle-income Americans. It rejects President Bush's proposed cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and assistance to local law-enforcement agencies while accommodating $50 billion over 5 years for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). It also allows for substantially greater appropriations that the president has requested for education, and energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

And it includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to accommodate middle- income tax cuts, such as extension of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, extension of the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, elimination of most estate taxes, extension of the research and experimentation tax credit, extension of the deduction for state and local sales taxes, and a tax credit for school construction bonds. In addition, through a reconciliation instruction to the Ways and Means Committee, it allows for action to protect more than 20 million middle- income taxpayers from exposure to the alernative minimum tax, which was never intended to apply to them.

As a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, I applaud the fact that the budget will allow an additional $1.98 billion over the amounts appropriated for this fiscal year for science, space, and technology.

That amount will fully accommodate the commitments made in the America COMPETES Act--a measure I was proud to cosponsor and champion in the conference committee--for the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy Office of Science.

Further, the budget includes increased budget authority for energy technology research programs such as those at the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which include help for small manufacturers and technology companies through the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and Technology Innovation Program.

These programs have great potential to increase our economic growth and to foster innovation. As the global marketplace becomes more competitive, it is essential that we compete on the basis of improved skills and greater productivity, rather than follow the destructive path of trying to compete solely on cost with the half of the world's workers who earn less than $2 a day.

That is the purpose of the America COMPETES Act, and why it is so important that we provide adequate funding for it. And it also the point of the resolution's provision saying the House should provide sufficient funding so that our Nation may continue to be the world leader in education, innovation, and economic growth and so we can stay on a path toward doubling funding for the National Science Foundation, basic research in the physical sciences, and collaborative research partnerships, and toward achieving energy independence through the development of clean and sustainable alternative energy technologies.

In addition, as a member of the Natural Resources, and as a westerner, I also support the budget because it will allow for an increase of more than $6 billion in the amounts available for protection of our water and air and the sound management of our public lands and other natural resources.

Mr. Chairman, it is said that to govern is to choose--and today's debate demonstrates the truth of that adage because the House must choose among four competing proposals for how the budget should be shaped in the years ahead.

Before deciding to support the resolution approved by the Budget Committee, I carefully reviewed the three competing alternatives, and in each I found some things that I think have considerable merit. For example, I liked the additional investments in education, job training, and employment included in the alternative advanced by the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as the provisions regarding unemployment insurance, food stamps, and housing assistance highlighted in the Progressive Caucus alternative. And the Republican alternative includes procedures for a legislative line-item veto similar to legislation (H.R.

595) I have introduced under the name of the Stimulating Leadership in Limiting Expenditures (or ``SLICE'') Act and would place a moratorium on spending earmarks pending review of the earmarking process by a bipartisan panel--two ideas that I think could result in worthwhile reforms.

But, on balance, I have concluded that the version now before us, developed in the Budget Committee under the able leadership of its distinguished Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr Spratt, is the best choice. It is a sound proposal that will enable our government to meet its responsibilities, at home and abroad, in a way that is fiscally sound and respectful of the need to provide tax relief for middle-income Americans and promoting a sound economy.

I will vote for it and I urge its approval by the House.

Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of this legislation was not a surprise but still very disappointing.

It was not a surprise because the President had clearly signaled his intention to reject the bill's requirement that all intelligence agencies follow the rules governing interrogation techniques followed by our military, even though the bill also authorizes supplemental funding for counterterrorism as well as funding for advanced research and development funding to

help maintain our technical capacity for intelligence, to repair and replace aging and inadequate power infrastructure, and to improve training and education of linguists, analysts, and human intelligence collectors.

But it was disappointing that President Bush refuses to agree to that simple requirement, because the result is to signal to the world that he refuses to recognize that the result will be to place every American, especially those in uniform around the world, at grave risk.

The United States historically has led in the effort to establish and enforce the laws of war and conventions against torture. Indeed, the Army Field Manual is an outstanding example of how our modern military effectively gathers intelligence and observes international norms of conduct.

The importance of that leadership and the appropriateness of the guidelines in the field manual were clearly recognized by Congress when we voted to approve the conference report's provision extending the field manual to the entire intelligence community--the provision to which the President objects and which has prompted him to veto the legislation. By extending the field manual to the intelligence community, the legislation would effectively outlaw waterboarding and similar coercive techniques. I support that because waterboarding is widely and rightly viewed as a form of torture and the refusal to renounce its use will result in greater damage to our national interests than the possible benefits of its possible use in the future.

I think the case for overriding the President's veto was well made by the Colorado Springs Gazette in a recent editorial pointing out that ``the use of torture blurs the line between civilized societies and ruthless barbarians.'' As the editorial notes,

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.

It is telling that the firmest opponents of the use of

torture tend to be military and former military people who

understand the dangers to captured military personnel if it

is widely believed that the U.S. engages in torture. Instead

of spinning unlikely scenarios in which torture might be

justified, the government should announce that America

doesn't do that any more--and mean it.

I agree, and that is why I will vote today to override the President's unwise veto of this important legislation. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching the complete text of the editorial:

[From the Colorado Springs Gazette, Feb. 14, 2008]

The High Road--Forswearing Torture Gives U.S. Moral Standing

So it's out in the open now. Central Intelligence Agency

Director Gen. Michael Hayden admitted to the Senate

Intelligence Committee last week that the CIA used the

coercive interrogation technique known as waterboarding, a

form of simulated drowning, on three al-Qaida operatives in

2002 and 2003. The technique is widely viewed as torture,

which is prohibited by U.S. law and international treaties.

Hayden said it has not been used since 2003 but that the CIA

could use it again if approved by both the attorney general

and the president.

The Justice Department is currently investigating the

destruction of videotapes of the interrogations of two

detainees held in Thailand who were reportedly subjected to

waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques to

determine whether destroying the tapes amounted to

obstruction of justice.

Public disclosure of these incidents should lead to a firm

U.S. policy preventing government operatives from using

torture in the future. Perhaps the best thing about the

emergence of Sen. John McCain as the Republican presidential

frontrunner is that McCain, who was tortured by the North

Vietnamese while a POW during the Vietnam War, has expressed

his firm opposition to the use of torture by the U.S. He has

said that one thing that helped him endure his imprisonment

was the knowledge that our side doesn't engage in such

barbarity.

Torture is sometimes justified as the only way to extract

information from detainees when an attack is deemed imminent,

and Hayden said in 2002 and 2003 that everybody expected an

attack on the U.S. following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But

most experienced interrogators say torture seldom if ever

produces reliable intelligence, that while other techniques

may take longer, they generally produce better information.

At a more fundamental level, the use of torture blurs the

line between civilized societies and ruthless barbarians. 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.

It is dismaying, therefore, that a day later White House

spokesman Tony Fratto was still saying that waterboarding

might be used justifiably in the future. It would have been

better to acknowledge that in the wake of 9/11 the U.S. used

coercive techniques, that one could understand the temptation

considering the circumstances and the lack of knowledge about

al-Qaida, but that we had renounced the practice.

It is telling that the firmest opponents of the use of

torture tend to be military and former military people who

understand the dangers to captured military personnel if it

is widely believed that the U.S. engages in torture. Instead

of spinning unlikely scenarios in which torture might be

justified, the government should announce that America

doesn't do that any more--and mean it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007. This bill moves forward the important principles that mental health deserves fair and equal recognition in our health care financing system and that individuals afflicted with mental health disorders deserve no less a chance at recovery than those afflicted with physical disorders.

These principles do not exist for their own sake, and there are plenty of practical reasons that mental health coverage should be equal to that of other types of health coverage. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that employers lose as much as $31 billion per year in productivity costs associated with having depressed workers. The story is much the same for alcohol-related illnesses and certainly for suicide. Even if these economic realities did not exist, there remains no scientific justification for treating mental health as separate and inferior to physical health.

Many attribute the historical disparities between the treatment of mental health and physical health to stigmas about the realness of mental health disorders and the credibility of those who claim to have them. If this is true, surely our scientific and health care communities have moved us beyond those stigmas and shown that mental health not only exists, but is as important to one's day to day life as any physical condition. It is time that our laws and our health care financing system caught up to our scientific knowledge in this important respect.

H.R. 1424 will move us in that direction. If passed, it will bring this aspect of our private health insurance system in line with what has worked for Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program--the very same health program available to members of Congress. This is not a mandate. Employer-based health care plans will not be required to offer mental health benefits, but those group plans with 51 or more employees who do offer mental health benefits will be required to provide coverage that is no less substantial than the coverage provided for physical health. This is sound policy, and ensures that those afflicted with mental health disorders can afford the care they need to lead productive, happy, healthy lives.

I am aware that there are some differences between this bill and the similar bill that passed the Senate last year. Some opponents of the House version, I think, have legitimate concerns about the effects of basing coverage on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The instances in which plans and states have adhered to the DSM-IV have not yielded the problems with overuse and treatment for the ``worried well'' that opponents predict, but the possibility that these problems could occur, I think, is strong enough that these differences should be addressed before the bill becomes law. I am hopeful that ongoing discussions between the House and the Senate will produce a bill that addresses these concerns and finds a suitable compromise.

I will vote for this bill because I believe that moving it forward in the legislative process is one more important step toward the final goal of instituting equity between physical and mental health coverage, a goal I hope can be achieved this year.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this legislation come to the floor today that will extend critical tax credits for renewable energy while not adding to the Federal deficit.

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 expanding the PTC to include solar, open-loop biomass, geothermal, and small irrigation power will ensure that all renewable energy sources can benefit. We must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008, and this bill will extend it to the end of 2011.

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.

But this bill would also benefit families who want to invest in renewable energy. The bill 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.

Of course, the cheapest kilowatt of energy is the one you don't use, and energy efficiency also has a key role in addressing our energy needs. This bill will extend the tax credit for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes. It will also extend the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction for 5 years and the modification and extension of the energy efficient appliance credit for 3 years.

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 between $4,000 and $6,000 in tax credits toward the purchase of fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrid vehicles. It will also help address long-term fuel cost concerns by expanding production of homegrown fuels, including creating a new production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol produced from domestic, non-food feedstocks such as switchgrass, corn stover, sawdust, and paper pulp, 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. But, for the lack of just one more vote in the Senate, these provisions were not included in the final bill that the President signed into law.

I hope today we can move this bill forward and promote positive change that will benefit 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, I have reviewed two amicus briefs filed for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

One brief has been signed by a majority of our colleagues in Congress. The other was filed on behalf of the Bush administration by the Solicitor General, Paul D. Clement. I want to explain why I have decided not to join in signing the first one.

First of all, I want to make clear I am aware of the importance of this case as regards the interpretation of the constitutional reach of the Second Amendment. As I said when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided Parker v. District of Columbia last year, I am convinced that the Constitution's Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. I believe the Court of Appeals' decision striking down several gun laws passed by the D.C. City Council in that case was rightly decided and persuasively reasoned with regard to that fundamental point. As one who reveres the Bill of Rights and as a strong proponent of individual liberty in other contexts, like privacy and freedom of expression, I am very comfortable asserting that the Second Amendment ought to be recognized as protecting individual rights and not just a collective right to form militias.

The decision in Parker has been appealed to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and I had an opportunity to read the amicus brief in support of upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals that Members of Congress were urged to sign. After carefully reviewing the brief, I found that I agreed with the arguments in 29 of its 31 pages, which support my view about the nature of the individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

If the brief stopped there, I would support it without hesitation. However, it does not stop there. Page 30 of the amicus brief includes declarations that ``the District's handgun ban is unreasonable on its face'' and further, that ``The lower court's categorical approach in holding a prohibition on handguns to be unconstitutional per se was correct.''

Those assertions directly contradict statements in the Solicitor General's brief warning that while the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, the lower court's categorical approach to reviewing the D.C. laws in question ``could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation'' including restrictions on possession of firearms by convicted criminals, fugitives from justice, illegal immigrants, and people suffering from mental disorders.

Some may ask why the many Members of Congress who signed the first brief did not similarly hesitate to so flatly contradict the arguments of the Solicitor General. It is possible that my colleagues read the brief as only trying to make clear that the lower court rightly ruled about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment and rightly rejected the absurd argument advanced by the District of Columbia that if any individual right attached to the Second Amendment it should only apply to weapons (not handguns) known at the time the founders drafted the Constitution. But if that was the intention, the amicus brief is drafted in an ambiguous way that is regrettable.

I can speak only for myself, but as a non-lawyer who thinks Mr. Clement is highly qualified to serve as Solicitor General, I find it difficult to reject his concerns outright. And it is for this reason I cannot unequivocally endorse the amicus filed by my colleagues. It seems to me that the Supreme Court will need to take the Solicitor General's views into account when the Court considers the right standard for reviewing the decision of the lower court.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Vic Trujillo for receiving the ``7-Everyday Hero'' award. I am pleased to recognize his service and the many contributions he has made to our community.

For the last 12 years, Lions Club member Vic Trujillo and his wife Ida volunteered side by side. Their dedication to the community blossomed into a program to prevent neighbors from going hungry while empowering youth to help others. Mr. Trujillo has continued the family's commitment to community service even after his wife's passing.

Partnering with schools in the tri-town area of Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono, the Trujillos have created a canned-good competition in which area schools compete to collect the most canned goods. Prairie Ridge Elementary School won the most recent competition--collecting well over 4,000 canned food items. With the cans from other schools, this program fills the tri-town food closets each year--providing about 60 families with donated food every month. For people who do not have homes or food, this service is life-saving. To augment the canned resources, Mr. Trujillo has also encouraged these schools to sponsor a community bingo game.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Mr. Vic Trujillo for his exceptional community work and to express our appreciation for his efforts. I'm proud to acknowledge his reception of the ``7-Everyday Hero'' award and wish him good health, happiness, and success in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of my esteemed colleagues and former classmates, Sir Franklin Miller, for receiving honorary knighthood by the British Government. Queen Elizabeth II, during her fall 2007 visit to Washington, DC, awarded Mr. Miller with honorary knighthood--a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire--in gratitude for his work to strengthen U.S.-U.K. defense collaboration during his career with the Department of Defense and as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush. I am pleased to recognize his commitment to America's security.

Frank and I were both members of the Williams College Class of 1972. After graduating, he served as Communications Officer and Anti- Submarine Warfare Officer aboard the USS Joseph Hewes, a Knox-class frigate, with deployments in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian and Atlantic Oceans. In 1977, he returned to school and received his MPA from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

His talents at defense studies brought him to the State Department's Bureau of Political- Military Affairs from 1977 to 1979. For 22 years, he served under seven Secretaries in a series of progressively senior positions. His final assignments were twice as Acting Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy and once as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Threat Reduction.

Frank Miller served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and as Senior Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security Council staff between 2001 and 2005. This made him responsible for Presidential policy initiatives in the fields of nuclear deterrence policy, strategic arms reduction, national space policy, defense trade reform, land-mines, and transforming the American and NATO militaries.

He heroically assumed responsibility for the operation and management of the White House Situation Room immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001. This led him to direct interagency support of both Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

For his distinguished service, he was honored five times with the Defense Department's highest civilian award, the Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Medal. In addition, he has been awarded the Norwegian Royal Order of Merit, Grand Officer, and the French Legion of Honor, Officer. Knighthood is another fitting tribute to Sir Miller's distinguished 31-year career.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me to congratulate Sir Miller for his recent knighthood. We are grateful to Sir Miller for his outstanding commitment and service to improving the security of this country. I wish him

good health, happiness, and success in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I regret that it is necessary for the House to consider this matter today, but I will support the resolution because I have concluded that the Bush administration has made it necessary to do so. When this is disposed of, I hope we can promptly return to the pressing needs of the American people that Congress needs to address.

Last year, the Judiciary Committee began reviewing the actions of the administration related to the firings of a number of U.S. Attorneys and allegations that this was part of a pattern of improper politicization of the Justice Department.

After failing to get requested information voluntarily, the Committee served subpoenas on then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. The president then invoked executive privilege and Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten, despite the subpoenas, refused to appear before the Committee. In response, the Judiciary Committee approved a resolution citing them both for contempt of the Congress.

I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert on questions of executive privilege. But it seems clear to me that the administration has refused to negotiate in good faith to resolve this matter, offering only to allow some interviews under severe restrictions, including a bar to keeping of transcripts.

This is not the first time Congress has sought information from a president's advisors. The Congressional Research Service reports there have been 74 instances since World War II where even sitting White House advisers, including White House counsel, have testified before Congress, including 17 between 1996 and 2001. But I am not aware of any instance in which executive privilege has been invoked as a reason why a former advisor--such as Ms. Miers--will not even make an appearance before a Congressional committee in response to a subpoena.

And I am not persuaded by the administration's explanations about why it refused to allow Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolton to even appear, let alone to testify. For example, we have been assured that the President was not involved in the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys. But if that is true, how can executive privilege, which is intended to assure that a president will receive candid advice, apply to this matter?

After reviewing the history of this matter, I find myself in agreement with someone who is both a lawyer and a distinguished former Member of Congress--Mickey Edwards, who during his service here as a Representative from Oklahoma chaired the Republican Policy Committee.

Commenting on this matter, he has written, ``If Congressional leaders are not able to persuade the administration to reverse its position and allow Ms. Miers to testify and Mr. Bolten to produce documents, then all Members of Congress, regardless of party, should insist that the subpoenas be enforced promptly and vigorously and to use civil litigation if, as the White House has hinted, it prohibits the D.C. U.S. Attorney from performing his enforcement duties.''

I agree, and because that is exactly the purpose of this resolution, I will vote for it.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 982 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the

following:

``That upon adoption of this resolution, before

consideration of any order of business other than one motion

that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a

procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign

intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment

thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the

Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate

amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without

intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and

the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

Mr. Chairman, I will support H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007. Overall, it is an excellent bill, but I do have a serious concern about the impact of one provision, the state maintenance-of-efforts provision, on Colorado.

This bill will reauthorize the Higher Education Act and will help make our colleges and universities more affordable and accessible.

I am especially pleased that this bill will help students and families trying to afford the increasing costs of college. The bill increases the maximum Pell grant award to $9,000 annually, up from $5,800. Pell Grants enable many students to attend college, but with rising tuition costs these grants have lost some

of their purchasing power. This increase will allow Pell Grants to help students limit debt and expand their education opportunities. Also, Pell Grant scholarships availability will be expanded to year-round to allow students to use the funding when it best works with their schedule.

Not only will H.R. 4137 increase federal aid, but it will also make the process of applying for that aid much more straightforward. Streamlining the application process for Federal aid will make it easier for students and their families to determine if they are eligible for Federal loans. The bill will also create a two-page ``FAFSA-EZ'' form for low-income students and families who qualify for the ``auto-zero'' family contribution.

And the legislation will not just help students from low-income families--it will help all students become better informed by requiring that the Department of Education publicly provide a user-friendly list of all colleges and universities in the country with information on tuition and fees, average price after grant aid, recent price increases, and change in per-student spending.

Textbooks are a growing--and often overlooked--cost of attending college. Students can spend hundreds of dollars on textbooks every semester, adding up to thousands of dollars by the time they graduate. The bill requires college textbook publishers to provide full pricing information about both bundled textbooks and unbundled alternatives. It also requires that publishers sell unbundled versions of every bundled textbook they sell so that students are not forced to purchase unneeded extras, such as study guides or CDs.

H.R. 4137 reauthorizes two critical programs that help disadvantaged students thrive in college. GEAR-UP helps prepare low-income elementary and secondary students to succeed in college and the bill increases the authorized funding to $400 million for GEAR-UP. It also increases the authorization level for the TRIO programs--Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Services--to $950 million. The TRIO programs seek to increase high school completion and college participation and graduation rates among low-income and first- generation college students. African-American students make up nearly 50 percent of all TRIO participants.

The bill recognizes the debt that our country owes to our soldiers and their families. It creates a new scholarship program for active duty military personnel and their family members to help make college more affordable. The bill also establishes support centers to help veterans succeed in college and graduate.

As co-chair of the House Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education caucus, I am pleased that this bill builds upon the America COMPETES Act to expand and improve STEM education. It creates programs to bolster students' interest in STEM careers through collaborations with businesses and other stakeholders, as well as improves teacher training and development programs and focuses on recruiting teachers into high demand science and technology fields.

As I mentioned, I am particularly concerned about the impact that the maintenance-of-effort provision will have on my state of Colorado. This provision ties Federal funding to state funding. Though I applaud the effort by Chairman Miller to encourage states to continue to support higher education, Colorado is in an unusual position because we have several constitutional provisions that limit the spending options of our legislature. These include the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR, and another that requires that the state increase funding for K through 12 education every year. Together with other constraints, these provisions have seriously affected the state's ability to fund higher education--and the maintenance-of-effort provision will not help matters.

While the manager's amendment improved this provision, I will work to see that this issue is further addressed in conference.

In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4137.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing an additional bill to address the danger to Colorado's communities, water supplies, and infrastructure from the increasing risk of very severe wildfires on our forested lands.

I have put a priority on reducing those risks since I was elected to Congress. In 2000, with our then-colleague, Representative Hefley, I introduced legislation to facilitate reducing the buildup of fuel in the parts of Colorado that the Forest Service, working with State and local partners, identified at greatest risk of fire--the so-called ``red zones.''

Concepts from that legislation were included in the National Fire Plan developed by the Clinton Administration and were also incorporated into the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. As a Member of the Resources Committee, I had worked to develop the version of that legislation that the committee approved in 2002, and while I could not support the different version initially passed by the House in 2003, I voted for the revised version developed in conference with the Senate later that year--the version that President Bush signed into law.

Since then welcome progress has been made--in Colorado, at least--in developing community wildfire protection plans and focusing fuel- reduction projects in the priority ``red zone'' areas, two important aspects of the new law. But at the same time nature has continued to add to the buildup of fuel in the form of both new growth and dead and dying mature trees.

In recognition of the serious nature of the problem, the entire Colorado delegation--both here in the House and in the Senate, too-- worked together to reach consensus on a broad-scale legislative response. The result was legislation--H.R. 3072 and S. 1797, the Colorado Forest Management Improvement Act of 2007--which I introduced last year in the House with the cosponsorship of the entire Colorado delegation and which Senators Salazar and Allard introduced in the Senate. Together with two bills I introduced last week--H.R. 5216, the Wildfire Risk Reduction and Renewable Biomass Utilization Act and H.R. 5218, the Fire Safe Community Act--the bill I am introducing today is designed to complement the Colorado Forest Management Act to respond to the increasingly widespread extent to which our State's forests are being altered by infestations of bark beetles and other insects.

These insects help to balance tree densities and set the stage for fires and thereby the generation of new tree growth. And when forests are healthy and there are adequate supplies of water, their effects are relatively low-scale and isolated. But under the right conditions--such as drought, unusually warm winters, or when there are dense stands of even-aged trees--the insects can cause large-scale tree mortality, turning whole mountainsides and valleys rust red. And that is happening now in many parts of Colorado, as was made unmistakably clear recently when Federal and State foresters reported that the beetle infestation first detected in 1996 grew by a half-million acres last year, bringing the total number of acres attacked by bark beetles to 1.5 million, and has spread further into Front Range counties east of the Continental Divide.

My goal in introducing legislation dealing with this issue is not to eradicate insects in our forests--nor should it be, because insects are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Instead, I seek to make it possible for there to be more rapid responses to the insect epidemic in those areas where such responses are needed in order to protect communities from increased wildfire dangers.

The bill I am introducing today would add a new section to the Healthy Forests Act. which would apply only to Colorado, to specifically address insect epidemics. It would authorize the Forest Service or Interior Department to identify as ``insect emergency areas'' Federal lands that have already been slated for fuel-reduction work in community wildfire protection plans and that have so many insect-killed trees that there is an urgent need for work to reduce the fire-related risks to human life and property or municipal water supply.

The Forest Service or Interior Department could do this on its own initiative or in response to a request from a State agency or a Colorado political subdivision (such as a county, city, or other local government). After receipt of such a request, a decision must be made within 90 days.

In any such emergency areas, the Forest Service or Interior Department would be authorized to remove dead or dying trees on an expedited basis, including use of a ``categorical exclusion'' from normal review under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. Although categorical exclusions from NEPA are controversial, I believe they are appropriate for these emergency situations.

For the information of our colleagues, here is a more detailed outline of the bill:

colorado forest insect emergency response act

This bill, based on provisions in the Udall-Salazar bill (H.R. 4875) of 2006, will add a new section to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to specifically address the forest insect epidemic in Colorado.

It would authorize the Forest Service or the Interior Department, as relevant, to identify as ``insect emergency areas'' Federal lands in Colorado that have already been slated for fuel-reduction work in community wildfire protection plans and that have so many insect-killed trees that there is an urgent need for work to reduce the fire-related risks to human life and property or municipal water supplies.

The Forest Service or Interior Department could make such a determination on its own initiative or in response to a request from any Colorado State agency or any Colorado political subdivision (such as a county, city, or other local government). The relevant Federal agency must respond to such a request by making a decision within 90 days.

The bill would reduce the extent to which analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, must be done prior to implementing fuel-reduction--i.e., thinning or tree-removal projects in insect-emergency areas. This would be done in two ways:

(1) by allowing the abbreviated NEPA reviews to be used for projects on any lands covered by a wildfire protection plan for a Colorado community in or adjacent to an insect-emergency area (the Act now allows this only for projects on lands within 1.5 miles of a community's boundaries); and

(2) by allowing the Forest Service or Interior Department to forego NEPA analysis entirely through use of a ``categorical exclusion'' with regard to a project involving only lands that are both within an insect-emergency area and covered by a community wildfire protection plan.

Before making a decision to exempt a project from NEPA review, the Forest Service or Interior Department would have to consult with relevant Federal and State agencies, seek comments from the public, and follow existing procedures for such decisions.

Madam Speaker, with my Colorado colleague, Representative John Salazar. I am today introducing a bill to restore the equitable sharing between the Federal Government and the States of revenues from federal onshore mineral leases.

Leasing of federally-owned onshore minerals is governed by the Mineral Leasing Act. which provides that the royalties paid by the producers are split equally between the Federal Government and the government of the State where a lease is located.

This is very important for Colorado, which in recent years has received between $30 million and $60 million from this source. And many other States--especially in the West--have benefited as well. In fact, the most recent report by the Interior Department indicates that 34 States received a total of $1.9 billion pursuant to this part of the Mineral Leasing Act in 2007.

Regrettably, the just-enacted appropriations bill for the Interior Department includes a provision that in effect amends this part of the Mineral Leasing Act by reducing the share of royalty funds going to affected States by 2 percent--so that Colorado and other States will get only 48 percent (instead of half) of the royalties from Federal leases within state boundaries.

My understanding is that this change was prompted--at least in part-- as a way to offset some of the costs to the Interior Department of administering the leasing program and the distribution of royalty revenues.

But I do not think Such a drastic change in the law should he accomplished by inclusion of such a provision in an appropriations bill, especially when it will have such a serious adverse effect on Colorado and our communities--especially those on the Western Slope-- that are experiencing the impacts of intensive development of Federally-owned natural gas and other energy resources.

Accordingly, our bill would reverse this recently-enacted change and so restore the equitable division of royalty revenues provided by the Mineral Leasing Act.

Mr. Speaker, today we consider H. Con. Res. 287, Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the U.S. Explorer I Satellite and the Birth of the United States' Space Exploration Program, which I introduced last week.

My statement about its introduction highlighted the inspiring accomplishments of our early space pioneers who contributed to the successful development and launch of Explorer I--America's first space satellite--and the multiple achievements of our Nation's first 50 years in space.

Today, I want to focus on one of the major enablers of America's highly successful space program, namely our highly skilled science and engineering workforce.

As we celebrate 50 years of exciting accomplishments in space, we witness the return on our Nation's past investments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.

Those investments produced the cadre of highly skilled scientists and engineers who have led our Nation in pushing back the boundaries of scientific knowledge and making possible the human and robotic exploration of outer space.

Their contributions to our successes in space have also yielded critical benefits by promoting the innovation and advanced technology development that are central to America's competitiveness.

As was expressed so clearly in the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report and in the America COMPETES Act that was signed into law last year, our nation's economic strength cannot be sustained without renewed investments in STEM education.

Space has always been an attraction for some of America's best and brightest. Our space program provides a unique means of encouraging the pursuit of STEM fields. I urge my colleagues in Congress to support the STEM programs and educators we need to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers who will lead America's next 50 years of accomplishments in space and on Earth.

And I urge you also to maintain Congress's commitment to making the investments necessary to continue a robust and vital space program for the Nation.

I would like to thank my colleagues Ms. Giffords and Mr. Rohrabacher for their support of the bill, along with the original cosponsors.

I urge adoption of my resolution.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the launch of the U.S. Explorer I satellite, and the birth of the United States' space exploration program. I am pleased that Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Member Ralph Hall, Rep. Tom Feeney, and Rep. Nick Lampson have joined me as original cosponsors and I thank them for their support.

On January 31, 1958, the United States successfully launched its first satellite into space and began a 50-year journey of exploration and achievement in space that continues to this day.

Yet the launch of Explorer I was not just a ``photo-op''. Explorer I carried a scientific package that included a cosmic ray detector and marked the first ever use of a satellite to carry out scientific research in outer space. Because of that detector, developed by Dr. James Van Allen of the University of Iowa, the United States made a significant discovery about the Earth's environment--namely, the discovery of regions of energetic charged particles trapped in the Earth's magnetic field--later referred to as the Van Allen radiation belts.

In addition, Explorer I was the first in a succession of small scientific spacecraft that continue to be an integral component of the U.S. space science program and an invaluable training ground for young scientists and engineers.

In light of all that, I ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in extending our profound thanks and appreciation for the contributions of the late Dr. James Van Allen and his team as well as those of the individuals at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency who made possible the success of Explorer I and the birth of our space program.

Since the launch of Explorer I, the U.S. space program has maintained a record of high aspirations and remarkable accomplishments. America sent the first astronauts to the Moon and has launched robotic probes to study each of the planets in the solar system as well as the Earth's Moon. Moreover, American spacecraft have helped investigate the origin and structure of the universe and the formation of galaxies and stars-- including our own Sun. Finally, our space program has delivered significant benefits to our citizens through communications and weather satellites, navigational and positioning systems, and remote sensing satellites that have helped increase our understanding of the Earth and its environment and our ability to manage our resources.

All in all, it has been an exciting half-century of U.S. human and robotic space exploration.

As we honor Explorer I and the birth of the U.S. space program, it is appropriate to remember that our efforts in space exploration have inspired generations of our young people to pursue careers in science and engineering. In addition, it is clear that the scientific and engineering advances of the U.S. space program have yielded dividends that have helped promote America's technological preeminence in the world as well as foster economic growth here at home.

As we look forward to the next 50 years in space exploration and utilization, it is important that Congress continue to support science and engineering educators and programs that will help prepare the men and women who will lead the United States in pushing back the frontiers of space exploration in coming years.

In closing, I think that America's space program has been a vital contributor to the nation's well being and standing in the world, as well as to significant scientific and technological advances over the last five decades. It is fitting and proper that we pause to celebrate and honor the anniversary of Explorer I and the birth of the U.S. space program--and to rededicate ourselves to the pursuit of a robust and vital space program over the next 50 years.

I hope that all Members will join me and my cosponsors in supporting this resolution.