Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, last week I was pleased to have the opportunity to vote to extend the Torture Victims Relief Act (TVRA). I have been a cosponsor of this legislation since 2003. In the last Congress, the bill became law, but it authorized appropriations only through the end of fiscal year 2007. So it's important that Congress act to renew it before the current authorization expires. H.R. 1678 authorizes for two years additional appropriations for domestic centers and programs for the treatment of victims of torture, for foreign centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.

There is no question about the need for this funding. Two-thirds of the world's countries still practice torture. An estimated 500,000 torture survivors live in the United States, and about 1,100 refugees and 400 asylum seekers enter my state of Colorado alone each year. Repressive governments use torture to target the very leaders who share our principles of freedom and democracy. Without their voices, communities are fearful. But torture treatment can undo the legacy of torture and reclaim the leaders who stand with us in promoting human rights and the rule of law.

I am proud that one of the most effective domestic torture treatment centers is located in Colorado. This year is the tenth anniversary of the Rocky Mountain Survivors Center (RMSC), which has served over 1,000 survivors of torture from over 53 different countries and regions around the world, in 35 languages. The RMSC is working hard to ensure that torture survivors in Colorado become functioning members of the citizenry through its in-house Legal Services, physical and mental healthcare, psychosocial services, and interpreter services. Most recently, RMSC introduced a community development effort to bring the topic of torture and its impact to newcomer communities in Colorado and hear from those newcomers what that impact has been on the larger community, the families of survivors and the survivors themselves.

The Rocky Mountain Survivor Center also educates providers, healthcare systems, and community members about torture and how to work to heal the wounds of torture, as well as

how to work to ameliorate and eradicate torture itself. The RMSC stands firmly as a voice for the voiceless in Colorado and as a beacon of hope for those whose hope has been stolen by torture. Domestic centers like RMSC receive funding from the Office of Refugee Settlement in the Health and Human Services Department and other private sources to assist survivors of torture and war trauma and their families. But levels of funding for the domestic and international parts of this program don't begin to match authorization levels. Domestic torture treatment programs were funded at almost $10 million in FY 2007 (and have been funded at this same level since 2000), fully $15 million short of authorized levels. International torture treatment centers were funded at $8.5 million in FY07, $4.5 million short of authorized levels. And the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Fund for Victims of Torture was funded at $6.5 million in FY07, $1.5 million short of authorized levels.

The Torture Victims Relief Act is vitally necessary for the work of rehabilitation in this country, but the domestic portion of the bill is woefully underfunded to accomplish this task. There are well over 500,000 survivors of torture in America today, many of whom do not get the services they need because of the shortage of funds. The U.N. Fund and international portions of the bill should also be generously funded to ensure America's leadership in the fight against torture throughout the world through partnerships and building capacity at centers devoted to healing of torture victims.

When Congress adopted the Torture Victims Relief Act last year, we made a commitment to ensure our population of victims of torture wouldn't be left behind. Now is the time to fulfill that promise and demonstrate that survivors of torture won't be forgotten on our watch.

So I am pleased that this bill passed overwhelmingly in the House, and I urge my colleagues to demonstrate the same enthusiasm when considering appropriation levels for TVRA programs in the next fiscal year.

Madam Speaker, in reviewing the formal record of rollcall 209, the vote on the Kilpatrick substitute to H. Con. Res. 99, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008, I find I am recorded as having voted ``yes.'' However, I had intended to vote ``no,'' and my recollection is that I did vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, in my view an act of violence against one person is an act of violence against all of us Our actions toward each other should--and our policies as a nation must--be based on compassion and understanding of human experiences if we are to truly have a nation of liberty and justice for all.

In other words, I think in our country all of us, regardless of our race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, should be able to live our lives free from violence, intimidation, and discrimination.

That is why I believe Congress must pass legislation to make it more likely that people who are guilty of violent crimes based on bias are properly prosecuted, convicted, and punished.

The result will not be to end hate--nor to make hate a crime--but to establish that our government will not tolerate hate and bigotry that manifests itself in violence against anyone.

Because I support that result, since first coming to Congress I have cosponsored and voted for legislation similar to the measure now before us.

And that is why I will vote for this bill today.

The bill will amend the Federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of that person.

It also will authorize the Department of Justice to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance to help local law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute acts that are both crimes of violence under Federal law or a felony under State, local, or Indian tribal law; and also are motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim. And to further assist State, local, and tribal officials with the expenses related to hate crime cases, the bill would authorize the Attorney General to establish a grant program to be administered by the Office of Justice Programs that would have a particular focus on combating hate crime committed by juvenile offenders.

The bill also will broaden Federal coverage of hate crimes under two scenarios. First, under any circumstance, it will prohibit willfully inflicting bodily injury to any person, attempted or otherwise, through the use of fire, a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person. Second, it will prohibit the same conduct, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the four bases covered by the first scenario, in circumstances involving specific jurisdictional ties to the Constitution's interstate commerce clause.

Under either scenario, offenders could be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine, or for any term to life imprisonment if the crime resulted in the victim's death, or involved murder, kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, rape, or attempted rape.

The bill addresses two deficiencies in current law that limit the Federal Government's ability to work with State and local law enforcement agencies and have led to acquittals in some cases in which Federal jurisdiction has been asserted to backstop local efforts.

One is the fact that current Federal law provides no coverage for violent hate crimes committed because of the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The other is that current law requires proof that the crime was committed with the intent to interfere with the victim's participation in one of six specifically defined federally protected activities. The bill addresses both those limitations and provides the Justice Department tools to effectively act against bias-motivated violence by assisting States and local law enforcement agencies and by pursuing Federal charges where appropriate. This is the same approach Congress took in the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996.

It is important to note that even after enactment of this bill, State and local authorities will deal with the overwhelming majority of hate crimes--and the bill is drafted to ensure that the Federal prosecution of hate crimes will be limited to cases that implicate the greatest Federal interest and present the greatest need for Federal intervention.

The bill is not intended to federalize all rapes, sexual assaults, acts of domestic violence, or other gender-based crimes.

In fact, for a hate crime case to be prosecuted federally, the Attorney General, or a high-ranking subordinate, would have to certify that pertinent state or local officials (1) were unable or unwilling to prosecute; (2) favored Federal prosecution; or (3) prosecuted, but the investigation or trial's results did not satisfy the Federal interest to combat hate crimes.

This certification requirement is intended to ensure that the Federal Government will assert the new hate crimes jurisdiction in a principled and properly limited fashion, consistent with procedures under the current Federal hate crimes statute.

It should also be noted that the bill respects and protects First Amendment rights. It will not bar or punish name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any person or group--it deals only with violent criminal actions--and includes a provision explicitly stating that conduct protected under the speech and religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment is not subject to prosecution. In short, the bill does not criminalize speech or advocacy, and its enactment will not jeopardize anyone's right to associate, to denounce, to hold fast to a religious belief, or to do anything else protected by the Constitution's First Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, crimes motivated by bias are not as rare as many of us would like to think. Since 1991 the FBI has received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes. In 2005, the latest year for which data are available, the FBI received reports from law enforcement agencies identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents, with more than half being racially-motivated and others reflecting religious bias (17.1 percent), sexual orientation (14.2 percent) and ethnicity/ national origin bias (13.7 percent). And, unfortunately, Colorado is not immune--in 2005 our state reported 59 crimes based on racial bias, 22 reflecting religious prejudice, 16 related to sexual orientation, 27 involving ethnic bias, and 1 involving a person's disability, and there have been more since then.

These sobering statistics demonstrate that the legislation before us is appropriate and necessary--especially because it is generally understood that hate crimes are often not reported as such.

Accordingly, I support the bill and urge its passage.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007.

I am a cosponsor of this important legislation, which reauthorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST has not been completely reauthorized since 1992, yet it is the lead federal agency in much cutting-edge technology, such as semiconductor research and nanotechnology.

NIST is particularly important to me because one of its key laboratories is located in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. The Boulder labs employ more than 350 people and serve as a science and engineering center for significant research across the nation.

A critical component of this legislation is that it includes funding for construction at these laboratories. NIST's Boulder facilities have contributed to great scientific advances, but they are now over 50 years old and have not been well maintained. Many environmental factors such as the humidity and vibrations from traffic can affect the quality of research performed at NIST. In Fiscal Year 2007, NIST-Boulder will begin an extension of Building 1 to make room for a Precision Metrology lab. This new facility will allow for incredibly precise control of temperature, relative humidity, air filtration and vibration to advance research on critical technologies, such as atomic clocks telecommunications, and nanomaterials. To complete this extension, NIST will need further funding in Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009. H.R. 1868 authorizes this critical funding.

The legislation also includes a needed funding increase for overall laboratory research at NIST. As part of the American Competitiveness initiative, NIST will use these funds to expand upon its world-class research, ensuring that the United States will continue to be globally competitive in many industries.

I am also Pleased to see that the legislation reauthorizes and gradually increases funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. The MEP program has a network of centers across the nation to help small and medium-sized manufacturers develop and commercialize their research. Minimal Federal investment has yielded substantial benefits to manufacturers across the country.

In Colorado, the Colorado Association for Manufacturing and Technology (CAMT) hosts the Colorado MEP (CMEP) program and has helped Colorado's more than 6,000 manufacturers save millions of dollars. Over the last 6 years, CMEP has decreased costs for Colorado manufacturers by almost $17 million and increased sales by more than $4 million--so I believe that this is a program that we must continue to support.

This legislation also replaces the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) with the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). The ATP has been a valuable resource to small manufacturers by funding technology development. The TIP will build upon and improve this program to help small U.S. manufacturers remain competitive in the increasingly competitive global market.

I would like to thank Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman Wu and Ranking Member Gingrey, as well as Science and Technology Chairman Gordon, for introducing this critical legislation and working to bring it to the floor today.

In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1868.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be present at the time of the vote on the motion to recommit H.R. 1429. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to help address the critical issue of childhood obesity which is caused by physical inactivity and sedentary lifestyles.

Nearly 15 percent of American children and teenagers are obese. One quarter of the children between the ages of 5 and 10 already show the early warning signs of heart disease. Cases of adult-onset diabetes in children--which used to be almost unheard of--have exploded tenfold in the last two decades.

This is occurring as recess and physical education classes are being phased out of too many schools across the country. And too many communities lack adequate access to safe places and facilities for kids to play so the United States is being forced to confront an epidemic of childhood obesity.

This is unacceptable and action needs to be taken. Congress, the Bush administration, and private enterprise along with the philanthropic groups and health organizations need to reinvest to ensure that our children are living healthy lives.

Last Congress I wrote to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to request a study about the relationship between areas such as public lands and public health. GAO was unable to provide such a study in part because there were no consistent or adequate data from which to draw a conclusion.

To help better identify this relationship I am introducing companion legislation to S. 651 authored by Senator Harkin. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with the support of Congresswoman Granger, Congressman Boswell, Congressman McIntyre and Congressman Cummings. The bill ``The PLAY Every Day Act,'' will help to advance national physical-activity benchmarks for children and adults alike. The legislation will specifically do two things.

First, it will mandate the creation of a well-validated evaluation tool called the ``community play index.'' This index would be used to identify barriers which prevent people from being physically active in particular communities.

Second, it will assist local coalitions to use this index as they craft plans to promote physical activity and wellness in their communities.

While this bill is far from a comprehensive solution to the rise in childhood obesity it is an important step in the process. I urge the swift consideration of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Comprehensive Learning Assessment for Students and Schools Act or ``CLASS Act of 2007.'' This legislation makes practical and meaningful reforms to the No Child Left Behind Act.

The importance of ensuring that each child in America is given the opportunity to reach his or her full potential cannot be overstated. Having an educated workforce is a matter of economic competitiveness and it is a matter of national security. I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, in 2001 because it placed much needed focus on accountability and on closing the socalled ``achievement gap'' in this country by targeting the achievement of low-income and minority students. These remain laudable and important goals.

Since the law was enacted 5 years ago, I have met with students, parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and others to discuss the real-world effects of this Federal mandate. What I have learned is that there is broad consensus in favor of establishing high standards and accountability, but there is also an emerging consensus that the law has had some unintended consequences.

In 2005, several stakeholders in Colorado's education community, including representatives from the Colorado Association of School Executives, the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Colorado Education Association, and the Colorado Board of Cooperative Educational Services Association, produced a policy paper suggesting meaningful reforms to the NCLB. The policy paper's prescriptions mirror what I have heard first hand from constituents in my district and other Coloradans. My legislation addresses many of these suggested reforms.

First, the way that the Department of Education currently measures Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP, does not yield an accurate metric for actual student progress in our Nation's schools. For example, in Colorado in 2004, the Boulder Valley School District met 140 of 142 required performance targets, Littleton Schools met 124 of 128, and Durango met 91 of 94. Yet under the ``all or nothing'' rules of NCLB each of these districts were labeled as failing.

The CLASS Act would allow schools to use longitudinal growth to measure student proficiency to calculate AYP more accurately. Longitudinal growth measures a student's progress from previous years as opposed to comparing the scores of one cohort of students one year to an entirely different cohort the following year. By focusing directly on individual students, we can develop a much better understanding of ways to improve the grade-level learning process.

In addition, the CLASS Act would require that multiple measures be used to assess AYP. These would include: the proportion of State report card indicators met, a performance index score, student drop-out rate, and a measure based on individual student achievement gains over time by disaggregated groups. When a school is required to offer transfer choices and supplemental services to a school because that school has failed to meet all of its AYP targets, transfer choice and supplemental services will only be available to students who fall under the one of the subgroups that failed to meet an AYP target. For example, if the students with disabilities subgroup is the only one within a school to not achieve AYP, then only those special education students would be offered transfer options and supplemental services. This common-sense measure allows schools and districts to target resources where they are needed most.

Second, two federal mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and NCLB are conflicting. Whereas NCLB requires that students progress at similar rates, IDEA expressly states that students with disabilities progress at different rates. NCLB requires that students progress be measured by a ``proficient score'' on a standardized test; IDEA is based on an Individual Education Program (IEP) team decision with a test score as just one factor. The CLASS act would allow a student's IEP to be taken into consideration when determining the assessment level under which a student would be tested for the purposes of NCLB.

Third, the CLASS Act would acknowledge the fact that becoming fluent in a new language is a complex process that occurs over time. It is unfair and unproductive to require students, while they are learning English, to be tested in both the acquisition of a new language and in the subject content. The CLASS Act would exclude the performance of students with limited English proficiency who have resided in the United States for less than three years, so as to avoid any distortion in measurement resulting from the new arrivals of such students.

NCLB has provided critical tools for parents, teachers, and administrators to understand how children are learning and what schools and families can do to improve education. But in order for accountability assessments to be meaningful, they need to be transparent and fair.

Madam Speaker, the CLASS Act goes a long way toward achieving the goal of transparent and fair assessments of student progress without compromising the critical goal of demanding excellence in our public education system. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, but I think the Natural Resources Committee should consider whether additional legislation would be appropriate in order to improve the management of wild horses and burros on Federal lands.

The bill repeals a provision enacted in 2004 as part of an appropriations bill that itself repealed the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros that had been the law since 1971.

The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 established as national policy that wild free-roaming horses and burros were to be protected from capture, branding, harassment, and death and, among other things, it directed that ``no wild free-roaming horse or burros or its remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products.''

Practically since its enactment, the law's implementation has been problematic. In particular, the Bureau of Land Management--BLM--has been criticized by the Government Accountability Office and the Interior Department's Inspector General for the way it has responded to the challenge.

Under the act, the agencies inventory horse and burro populations on Federal land to determine ``appropriate management levels.'' They are authorized to remove animals determined to be exceeding the range's carrying capacity so as to restore a natural ecological balance and protect the range from deterioration.

Toward that end, the law authorizes removed animals to be offered for private adoption. New owners can receive title after a 1-year wait, with certification of proper care during that time. An individual may receive title to no more than four animals per year.

The law says that if adoption demand is insufficient, the remaining healthy animals are to be destroyed--but that authority has not been used for more than 20 years, and BLM was prohibited from doing so by funding limitations included in the appropriations act from 1988 through 2004.

The latest numbers I have seen indicated that there currently are an estimated 28,500 wild horses and burros on BLM's 199 herd management areas. I understand this is the lowest level since the early 1970s and is the closest to what BLM considers to be the appropriate management level since that time--but evidently BLM expects the population to increase to about 34,000 in this fiscal year while a reduced emphasis on removal, as proposed in the President's budget request for fiscal 2008, could result in a considerable increase in the number of wild horses and burros on BLM-managed lands. My understanding is that as of the end of fiscal year 2006 there were another 3,180 wild horses and burros on 37 ``territories'' managed by the Forest Service.

Removals have long been controversial. Some think they are not appropriate, while others are of the opinion that reduction of herds protects range resources and balances wild horse and burro levels with wildlife and domestic livestock. BLM says it bases decisions about appropriate management levels on population censuses and range monitoring, taking into account natural resources, such as wildlife and vegetation, and land uses, including grazing.

My understanding is that between fiscal 1972 and fiscal 2006, 268,709 horses and burros were removed, of which 216,942 were adopted, while others died of natural causes, were sent to holding facilities, or were sold. Because more animals have been removed than have been adopted, large numbers of animals are being held in facilities.

This was the context in which Congress enacted the requirement for sale of unadopted

animals that this bill would repeal. However, in April 2005, BLM temporarily suspended sale and delivery of wild horses and burros due to concerns about the slaughter of some animals. The agency did not sell animals directly for slaughter, and was requiring purchasers to give written affirmation of an intent to provide humane care. Nevertheless, 41 sold animals were resold or traded and then sent to slaughterhouses. Another 52 animals were sold to slaughterhouses, but Ford Motor Co. committed to purchasing them. In May 2005, BLM resumed sales after revising its bill of sale and pre-sale negotiation procedures.

I support this bill because the provision it would repeal was inserted without the benefit of any hearings or public notice and without an opportunity for the Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction, to consider possible alternative approaches.

For the same reason, when the House considered the fiscal 2006 Interior appropriations bill, I supported the Rahall amendment that prohibited the use of funds for the sale or slaughter of wild free- roaming horses and burros--an amendment that the House again included in the fiscal 2007 Interior Appropriations bill by voice vote.

After passage of this bill, the appropriate next step will be for our committee to review the status of the wild horse and burro program to see whether there is a need for more carefully considered changes in the law.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this Defense Supplemental conference report.

Earlier, when the House considered the Defense Supplemental bill itself, I voted for it to ensure that America's soldiers get the equipment and resources they need and the top-quality health care they may require when they come home.

And I think the conference report is an improvement on that House bill.

As I said when the House debated the initial bill and again during debate on the motion to instruct conferees, I did not believe it was a good idea for the bill to include a date certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. So I'm glad that language has been made more flexible in the conference report. It includes a goal of March 2008 for completing the redeployment of U.S. combat troops, and allows sufficient troops to remain to protect U.S. military and civilians in Iraq, conduct counterterrorism operations, and train Iraqi Security Forces. I remain convinced that we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines for military actions and focus instead on realistic diplomatic and political goals. Our military needs flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation on the ground, and successful diplomacy requires such flexibility as well.

My vote for the conference report is not a vote to support the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. We are 4 years into a war the Bush administration assured us would be short and decisive. The administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership have made a bad situation worse--and the tactic of increasing troops for a temporary ``surge'' is no substitute for what is needed, namely, a strategy for containing civil war and a wider regional war.

But whatever may be said about the wisdom of invading Iraq 4 years ago--and I am one who believed it was a mistake to do so--the fact is that we are still deeply engaged in Iraq. So long as our troops are in the field, we must provide them what they need. Beyond supplying our soldiers, however, we must extricate them from what objective defense experts have characterized as an emerging civil war.

Disengaging from that civil war is the purpose of the provisions in the conference report designed to hold the president accountable to the benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi Government-- including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects.

I strongly support that approach because I am convinced that holding the president and the Iraqi Government accountable for achieving these benchmarks will provide us with the leverage necessary to pressure the Iraqi Government to forge the political solution we all know is required. In fact, Defense Secretary Gates has acknowledged that this provision in the House-passed bill has been helpful by showing the Iraqis that American patience is limited.

This conference report is an important step toward what I think must be our goal--a responsible end to the war in Iraq, based on a strategy of phased withdrawal of troops, accelerated diplomacy and redeployment that is based on Iraqi stability and not arbitrary deadlines.

The conference report fully funds our troops, providing $4 billion more for the troops than

the president requested. It honors our veterans, providing $1.8 billion more for our veterans' unmet health care needs, including additional funds for treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury care and research. It strengthens our military, providing $2 billion more to create a Strategic Readiness Reserve and address the serious readiness crisis our military is facing.

It also protects our troops by limiting deployment schedules and setting minimum readiness standards--based on current Defense Department standards--for U.S. troops deploying to the region. The president could waive these requirements but only by certifying in writing to Congress that waiving them would be in the interest of national security.

The conference report also provides $52.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and provides $9.7 billion for the Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces to help them assume greater responsibility for their nations' security.

And the conference report includes $3.1 billion to fully fund the Pentagon's FY07 request for the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission's recommendations, which is vitally important for Ft. Carson as it prepares to expand and for other military installations in Colorado.

On the non-military side, the conference report includes critically important funding for farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado who were recently hit hard by winter storms. Thousands of cattle were killed in storms worse than the October 1997 storm that killed approximately 30,000 cattle and cost farmers and ranchers an estimated $28 million. The struggles that family agriculture producers and small counties face are significant and are having a negative impact on the livelihood of hundreds of farmers and ranchers and their communities. So I am pleased that the Colorado delegation was successful in persuading the conferees to include financial assistance for farmers and ranchers, including for those affected by Colorado's recent blizzards.

Mr. Speaker, many of us who voted against authorizing the President to rush to war in Iraq were worried that while it would be easy to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime, the aftermath would be neither easy nor quick. Sadly, our fears have proven to be justified. And now, as the Pentagon has finally admitted in its most recent quarterly report, the situation in Iraq is ``properly descriptive of a civil war.''

Insisting on keeping our troops in the middle of that kind of internecine war is not a recipe for victory; it is only a prescription for quagmire. And as a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.

We need to be scaling back our military mission in Iraq. We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter--not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.

But as we do so, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region--not only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also because our national security has been so badly compromised by the Bush administration's failures there. The President's decision to take the nation to war has made our country less safe. We need to change course and chart a path that enhances our national security and sets the right priorities for the war on terrorism and struggle against extremists.

This conference report begins to chart this path, and I will support it. I hope the president will reconsider his stated intention of vetoing it.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act.

I am a cosponsor of this important legislation, which will greatly increase the numbers of science and math teachers across the country, both through creating more teachers from current college students and by providing better training for the teachers already in our schools.

America has long been a center for science and engineering discovery. Just looking back over the 20th century, American ingenuity has been truly incredible. From Ford's Model T in 1908 and on to the personal computer in 1981, American innovations have transformed our Nation and the world, again and again, creating whole new industries and occupations. Going forward, new innovations will continue to be critical, both in maintaining a solid industrial base and increasing our standard of living.

In short--innovation leads to new products and processes that sustain our industrial base; innovation depends on a solid knowledge base in math, science and engineering; without this knowledge base, innovation as well as our industrial base will erode.

Along those lines, all jobs of the future will require a basic understanding of math and science. The most recent 10 year employment projections by the U.S. Labor Department show that of the 20 fastest growing occupations projected for 2014, 15 require significant mathematics or science preparation to successfully compete for a job.

To succeed, U.S. students will need a strong background in math and science and our students have proven that they have talent in these areas. Compared to other countries, U.S. fourth graders score above average in both math and science on international tests. Yet, by the time these students graduate from high school, they score near the bottom of all industrialized countries.

We must do more to keep students involved, interested, and educated in science and math fields.

This bill will help us increasing the number of well-trained science and math teachers, which will lead to more scientists and engineers in future generations.

H.R. 362 will enhance and expand the national corps of math and science teachers, both by recruiting new teachers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields and by supporting current teachers.

Specifically, the bill will improve the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Noyce Scholarships will award $10,000 scholarships to students enrolled in STEM majors who commit several years to teaching. Furthermore, this program will ensure that these new teachers have mentors and other support as they begin teaching.

For current teachers, the bill will enhance NSF's Math Science Partnership (MSP) program, which provides sustained, content-oriented professional development for current teachers with summer institutes and master's degree programs. Furthermore, teachers participating in these MSPs are encouraged to become teacher leaders by sharing their knowledge with other teachers in their schools.

I would like to thank Science and Technology Chairman Gordon for introducing this critical legislation and working to bring it to the floor today.

In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 362. To ensure that we continue to have a strong and healthy economy in the new interconnected global market, we need to have a prosperous science and technology enterprise. This legislation will set us in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I could not support this motion to instruct House conferees on the Defense Supplemental appropriations bill, for two reasons: First, I do not support the idea of rigidly insisting on the parts of the House-passed bill that the motion says the conferees should not change. Second, I believe the funding of our troops and the future of our involvement in Iraq are too important and too serious to be used for cheap partisan tricks.

My vote was based on my appraisal of the merits of the motion, without regard to how others may have decided to vote. In other words, unlike the gentleman from California who offered it, I took the motion seriously--and, like its author, I opposed it.

Earlier, when the House considered the Defense Supplemental bill itself, I voted for the bill to ensure that America's soldiers get the equipment and resources they need and the top-quality health care they may require when they come home.

My vote for the bill was not a vote to support the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq. We are 4 years into a war the Bush Administration assured us would be short and decisive. The Administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership have made a bad situation worse--and the tactic of increasing troops for a temporary ``surge'' is no substitute for what is needed, namely, a strategy for containing civil war and a wider regional war.

While I am convinced that it was a strategic mistake to go to war in Iraq in the way that the Bush Administration did, we are still deeply engaged there--and while our troops are in the field, we must provide them what they need. Beyond supplying our soldiers, however, we must extricate them from what objective defense experts have characterized as an emerging civil war.

Disengaging from that civil war is the purpose of the provisions in the House-passed bill designed to hold the president accountable to the benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi government-- including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects.

I strongly support that approach because I am convinced that holding the president and the Iraqi government accountable for achieving these benchmarks will provide us with the leverage necessary to pressure the Iraqi government to forge the political solution we all know is required. In fact, Defense Secretary Gates has acknowledged that the House-passed a bill has been helpful in this approach by showing the Iraqis that American patience is limited.

As I said when the House debated the bill, however, I do not believe it was a good idea to include a date certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. As I said then, I do not consider this provision to be wise and if it had been up to me, it would not have been included in the bill. I remain convinced that we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines for military actions and focus instead on realistic diplomatic and political goals. Our military needs flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation on the ground, and successful diplomacy requires such flexibility as well.

I voted for the bill despite my reservations about the withdrawal language because the deadline--August of 2008--is far enough away that it can be revisited, and while I did not like its inclusion, I do not believe in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

But since it would have been better if it had not been included in the first place, I could not vote to instruct the conferees to insist on including it in the conference report.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007. This bill will expand and enhance the Department of Energy's carbon capture research and development program to spur the creation of economically feasible and environmentally sound carbon sequestration technology. It is companion legislation to a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Bingaman, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Several events over the past year have helped clarify the agreement among scientists, the public, industry, and public officials that climate change is a challenge that our society must address.

Most recently, Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change--IPCC--released reports as part of the panel's fourth assessment report. The first report highlighted the growing scientific consensus that human influence is causing the climate to change. The second report provides a powerful statement of the impacts of climate change around the world. The IPCC international process has government support from over 100 countries, including strong involvement from the United States. These reports document that the ``warming of the climate system is unequivocal'' and that sea temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, and air temperatures worldwide are increasing, all of which will have major impacts on the world that we know.

The climate is changing and we as a society must begin addressing these changes before the economic and environmental consequences devastate our planet. And that will involve decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere.

Yet, it is important to come to terms with the fact that we cannot end our dependence on fossil fuels overnight. For example, coal is the most abundant energy source in the United States and one of the cheapest energy resources. My home State of Colorado is ranked sixth in coal production in the U.S. In Colorado, coal provides more than 70 percent of our electricity and employs more than 2,000 people.

Coal is a critical component of our economy and our energy supply, but unfortunately coal is also a major contributor to climate change. We must find a way to maintain our energy production while decreasing our carbon emissions. Carbon sequestration will be key to that effort.

Carbon sequestration refers to taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and storing it so that the gas does not re-enter the atmosphere. Right now, companies and governments around the world are enhancing natural carbon storage sources by planting trees and advocating no-till agriculture, among many other activities. But we are still not even close to slowing the increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

Eventually, technology may allow us to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and funnel it underground in long-term, airtight storage areas. But there are many obstacles to the development of technologies and methods that can significantly decrease CO2 levels in our atmosphere. For example, we still don't know enough about the long- term stability, safety, and reliability of aquifers, coal seams, and other geological formations for CO2 storage. Nor are we familiar with the technologies to accomplish this on the scale needed to truly decrease global carbon levels.

My legislation will build upon DOE's current carbon capture and storage program created in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It will improve DOE's regional carbon sequestration partnerships and create seven test projects across the country to learn more about the economics and design of carbon capture and storage technology. It will also help ensure that DOE has the necessary funds to conduct this cutting-edge research.

Although it is already too late to stop the climate from changing, carbon capture and storage--in conjunction with smart energy policies-- can help minimize the impact of climate change on future generations.

We must not view taking action against global warming as bringing doom and gloom to industry. Making the right choices about how to address climate change can lead to new technological innovations, a boom in American jobs, and a strengthened economy. But we must begin to make these choices now by investing in the research and development of carbon capture and storage technologies that can address the climate change challenge.

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

The bill will provide residents of the District of Columbia (DC) with full representation in the U.S. House of Representatives by permanently expanding the House from 435 to 437 seats, with one of the new seats allocated to DC and the other to the State next entitled to increase its congressional representation. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the State next entitled to increase its congressional representation, so Colorado's western neighbors will gain that seat.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution authorizes Congress to ``exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever'' over the seat of government--that is, the area ceded to the Federal Government and now known as the District of Columbia. But I think residents of DC should be able to govern themselves--like residents of Colorado--to the maximum extent consistent with allowing the Federal Government to operate. And the fact is that right now more than half a million people living in DC lack an essential element of self-government--full representation in the House of Representatives. So, while residents of Colorado and every other State have a vote regarding the laws that govern DC, the American citizens living there do not.

Interestingly, this has not always been the case. The decision to locate the ``seat of government'' on the Potomac was made by the First Congress through enactment of the Residence Act. And for a decade--from 1790 to 1800--District residents were able to vote in Congressional elections in Maryland and Virginia, even though they were not citizens of those states, because of Congressional action recognizing and ratifying the ceding states' laws as the applicable law for the now- federal territory until further legislation.

However, in 1800 Congress passed a different law for DC, and since then DC residents have been denied voting representation in Congress-- the very entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions. And as early as 1801, the citizens of Alexandria petitioned Congress to create a functioning DC municipal government and restore its residents' representation in the House of Representatives. Over the years Congress did act to create a DC municipal government, but its residents remain without voting representation in Congress. This bill would remedy that.

Some of the bill's opponents argue that it is not constitutional because representation in Congress is reserved for Americans who live in one of the 50 States. I am not a lawyer, and do not claim to be a constitutional expert. But after careful review of the matter, including the opinions of people who unquestionably are experts, I am not convinced the opponents are right on that point.

As I said, the Constitution gives Congress very broad power to legislate regarding the District of Columbia. And, as noted in the Judiciary Committee's report on this bill, many Constitutional experts say that this power includes the power to restore to DC residents the right to vote for a Member of the House of Representatives that existed from 1790 until 1800.

In short, their view is that a right given by Act of Congress in 1790, then removed by another Act of Congress in 1800, can be restored by a third Act of Congress in 2007. I find that persuasive, and so I will vote for this bill even though it is likely that this interpretation of Congressional authority will be tested in the courts.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak in support of House Concurrent Resolution 76, honoring the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year, IGY.

This resolution marks the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year, IGY, honors its contributions to space research, and looks forward to future accomplishments.

I am pleased that several of my colleagues from the Science and Technology Committee have joined me as cosponsors and would like to thank Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Calvert, Chairman Gordon, and Research and Science Education Subcommittee Chairman Baird for their support for this measure.

I would especially like to thank the Chairman for his leadership in getting this bill on the floor today.

The International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-1958 was an international collaboration to coordinate observations and measurements of the solid Earth, oceans, the atmosphere, and the near-Earth space environment on a global scale. Despite the tensions of the Cold War, 67 nations and thousands of scientists came together to make the IGY a resounding success.

A particularly significant aspect of the IGY was that it extended science into space through the launch of artificial satellites-- signifying the dawn of the Space Age. Explorer I, the first successful U.S. satellite launch, made possible an important scientific result of the IGY--the discovery of belts of trapped, charged particles in the Earth's upper atmosphere, which are now known as the VanAllen radiation belts.

Equally importantly, the IGY has been a shining example of the benefits of international cooperation in scientific endeavors. The coordination of global interdisciplinary observations by researchers from multiple nations during a time of geopolitical tensions continues to be an inspiration and a model for those who recognize the significant contributions that can be achieved when nations come together in the peaceful pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Indeed, scientists around the world continue to build on the impressive research legacy left to them by their IGY predecessors 50 years ago. As a current example, I support the International Polar Year (IPY) and the IPY research efforts that are planned to take place over the next 2 years, efforts that will encompass a wide range of research topics--for example, on studies of environmental change in the Arctic and marine life in the Arctic Ocean.

I introduced an IGY resolution in the 108th Congress, which passed the House, to mark the then-upcoming IGY and to encourage the celebration of its 50th anniversary throughout the country and across the globe. This year's IGY concurrent resolution both honors the great scientific work that was done during the IGY, as well as works to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers. We will be looking to those young men and women to continue to advance our knowledge, strengthen our nation's economy, and improve our quality of life. That is why H. Con. Res. 76 encourages the public, and in particular our young people, to participate in celebrations planned for the IGY anniversary year and to seek to build on the scientific legacy of the IGY by striving to achieve challenging new goals in space science and Earth science.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 76 and honor the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year. The IGY set a high standard of achievement. I am confident that by means of future research in Earth science and space science, including that of the IPY, we can achieve equally meaningful advances over the next 50 years.

Madam Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to allow people who want to do so to sell lands for inclusion in certain units of the National Trails System.

The bill is identical to ones introduced in previous Congresses by my former Republican colleagues from Colorado, Representatives Beauprez and McInnis. It is cosponsored by Representatives Ehlers, Kildee, Kind, Baldwin, Levin, and Petri. I greatly appreciate their assistance and support.

Current law prohibits people who own land associated with several units of the Trails System from selling those lands to the federal government for inclusion in those units.

The bill would revise that to allow such sales from willing sellers.

The Trail System units covered by the bill are the Oregon National Historic Trail, the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, the Iditarod National Historic Trail, the North County National Scenic Trail, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail.

Madam Speaker, this bill would make a small but important adjustment to current law. I think it deserves the support of all Members of the House.