Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I support this budget resolution because it will begin the process of changing our budgetary course.

For 6 years, the Administration and the Republican leadership insisted on speeding ahead with misguided fiscal and economic policies. Ignoring all warning lights, they plowed ahead, taking us from projections of surpluses to the reality budgets deep in deficit and heaping higher the mountain of debt that our children will have to repay.

Many of us said it was urgent to stop persisting in that error and voted for alternatives, including those proposed by the Blue Dog Caucus.

But year after year our Republican colleagues insisted on taking their marching orders from the White House, moving in lockstep to endorse the Bush Administration's insistence that its economic and fiscal policies must continue without change.

I admired their discipline, but I could not support their insistence on driving us deeper into the swamp of fiscal irresponsibility that has left a debt burden of $30,951 for a typical middle-income family of four in Colorado.

And now, in this new Congress under new management, by passing this budget resolution we can begin to undo the damage they have done.

The resolution is better in its fiscal responsibility and in its priorities.

It follows the tough ``pay as you go'' budget rules to begin to reverse the budget deficits and to put us onto the path to a balanced budget. And under this plan, by 2012, domestic discretionary funding would fall to the lowest level, as a share of the economy, in at least a half century while spending as a percentage of GDP will be lower in 2012 than it has been in any budget adopted under President Bush--1 percent lower than it will be this year and lower than it has been in any year since 2001.

At the same time it provides for continuing middle-class tax cuts and reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to protect middle-income families from a tax increase by default. This is important because while in 2004 only 32,000 Colorado families were subject to the AMT, if nothing is done, this year that number will rise to 234,000 families in Colorado and hundreds of thousands more in other States.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly glad to note that the budget resolution is also realistic and responsible about the need to maintain our national defense and honor our promises to our troops and veterans.

It provides for investing $507 billion for national defense and another $145 billion for overseas deployment and other activities while reordering defense priorities in order to make sufficient funds available for nuclear non-proliferation programs, military health care, and military pay raises and benefits.

I think ensuring the people who protect our country are provided for is a significant part of meeting our national defense requirements. So, I'm pleased that the resolution rejects increases in TRICARE fees for military personnel under age 65.

And the budget committee worked with the chairman of our committee, Representative Skelton, to assure that the resolution will allow Congress to support the implementation of recommendations of the Commission appointed to review conditions at Walter Reed and other military health facilities--a provision that is so important for our wounded warriors.

The resolution provides for a much-needed increase in veterans' programs--for veterans health care, no less than $3.5 billion more this year (and $32 billion over the next 5 years) than the President's budget--to provide health care for new veterans, repair VA health care facilities, make needed investments in veterans' mental health care and traumatic brain injury, and speed up and improve the accuracy of disability claims processing.

This is a priority for me, because it will help ensure that the 427,957 veterans in Colorado receive care worthy of their sacrifice. It is also critical for the 17,419 Coloradans, who have served their country in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will need VA health care services.

The resolution also provides for increases homeland security and rejects the cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention programs that would happen if we adopted the President's budget for fiscal 2008. I support that because following the President's budget would mean reducing the State Homeland Security Grant Program--which awarded $88,508,658 to Colorado from 2003 to 2006--would be slashed by 52 percent and the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program (LETPP)--which awarded $22,392,512 to Colorado from 2004 to 2006--would be eliminated.

And the resolution provides for beginning to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations to make Colorado and our Nation more secure.

Similarly, the resolution recognizes the importance of research, development, and education in keeping our economy strong and our country secure.

It recognizes that scientific research provides the foundation for innovation and our ability to compete with other countries by setting us on a path toward doubling funding for

the National Science Foundation and research by other agencies while increasing collaborative research-purpose partnerships.

As a member of the Science and Technology Committee and Chairman of its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am particularly supportive of the resolution because it rejects the President's proposed cuts to aviation programs within NASA in order to help ensure that such vital programs as development of the next-generation management system for air traffic can go forward.

Similarly, as one of the Chairs of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I welcome the resolution's declaration that increased research and development of renewable and alternative energy technologies ``needs to come soon and be substantial.'' I think that sets exactly the right priority.

And I similarly welcome the resolution's allowing for additional emphasis on science, technology, and mathematics (``STEM'') education by increasing funding for National Science Foundation programs that support training qualified teachers in these important areas.

The resolution recognizes the importance of investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency to improve our security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil as well as to reduce global warming and promote new technologies that can create American jobs. So, it creates a reserve fund that could target up to $14 billion over 10 years to invest in clean, renewable alternative energy and energy efficiency paid for by redirecting oil subsidies.

And it restores funding for environmental programs cut by the President's budget--including $3,162,000 in Clean Water revolving loan funds that help Colorado communities improve their wastewater treatment facilities.

As for education, the resolution allows for substantially more funding for helping Colorado's public elementary, middle and high schools educate the 768,600 children now enrolled--nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11 percent more over the next 5 years for education and training programs than requested by the President.

This means more resources to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, special education and Head Start. By contrast, if we followed the President's budget, 31,296 Colorado children would not receive promised help in reading and math and the Head Start program--which serves 9,820 Colorado children--would be cut by 1.5 percent below the 2007 level.

Small businesses are essential for Colorado's economy--and the resolution rejects the President's proposal to cut the Small Business Administration by 26 percent from last year's request and 56 percent from 2000. It also recognizes the importance of job training for the kind of high-skilled workforce we need to keep America competitive-- which is why it rejects the President's proposal to eliminate $54,403,000 in funding for job training and employment services in Colorado.

These investments to a growing economy for America's families are needed because, according to the Census Bureau, family income in Colorado has dropped by $4,041 since 2000, while health care and energy prices are climbing. But still more is needed.

So, I am glad that the resolution provides for increasing funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--to help cover the 176,230 of Colorado's children do not have health insurance. And I am pleased that it also rejects the Administration's proposal to cut Medicare funding by $261,719,066 for Colorado hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health care providers--another misguided proposal that would make health care less accessible and affordable for many Coloradans.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand why the Bush Administration does not like this resolution. After all, it rejects the Administration's misguided priorities. But it's disappointing that so many of our Republican colleagues still are so willing to unquestioningly follow the president's lead. And, while I suppose it's to be expected, it's particularly unfortunate that they have decided to attack this budget resolution by resorting to recycling the old, tired--and false--claim that it is ``the largest tax increase in history.''

The fact is that this is no tax increase in the resolution. It assumes the same level of revenues between now and 2012 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy baseline, which essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes.

In other words, this resolution does not affect the top-heavy tax cuts the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership pushed through since 2001--they remain in place as they stand, which means they will not expire for 4 years.

I did not vote for all of those tax cuts, but I did support some that are most important for middle-income Coloradans. So, I am glad that the resolution provides for extensions of those in 2011, including an extension of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent individual income tax bracket.

And when the rest of the tax cuts come up for reconsideration, Congress can and should consider whether to extend them, as they are now or in modified form.

I support that approach, which is quite different from the alternative approach taken by the Republican alternative, which insists on locking in all of the Bush tax cuts--the ones I did not support as well as those I did--and would put top priority on making them all permanent.

There are some things in the Republican alternative that I do support--including a constitutionally-sound line-item veto similar to my Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (``SLICE'') legislation--but overall I think it is not a responsible approach and I cannot support it, just as I cannot support the other alternatives that go too far in the other direction by calling for large tax increases.

Unlike all those alternatives, the resolution developed by the Budget Committee is the best balanced in its combination of fiscal responsibility and refocusing priorities. I will support it and I urge its approval by the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Melissa Jones of the Legacy High School girls' basketball team. On March 22, 2007, Melissa was selected as the All-Colorado Player of the Year by the Rocky Mountain News staff with input from coaches statewide.

This was Melissa Jones' senior season playing for the Legacy High School Lightning. During prior seasons Melissa demonstrated her superb abilities and proved to be a standout player. Preceding her senior season, neither major Colorado newspaper ranked the Legacy Lightning in the top ten. Yet that ranking quickly changed as Melissa and her teammates beat, for the first time, their Front Range League rival Horizon High School.

The Lightning, led by Melissa Jones, won a share of the league title and then went on to knock off Regis High School in the Class 5A semifinals. Regis was 21-0 and was the tournament's No. 1 overall seed. Melissa skillfully led the team to the title game clearly showing that the pre-season rankings underestimated her determination. Melissa's skills and abilities, along with her outstanding teammates, carried the Legacy Lightning into the title game. Melissa and the Lightning's success have served as an inspiration and a source of pride for athletes of all stripes in Colorado.

Melissa Jones' statistics for the season included an average of 22.1 points, 8.1 rebounds and 5.1 steals. During the tournament she averaged 29 points and recorded four 30-point performances during the final eight contests.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Melissa Jones for her storybook season and well-deserved selection as the Rocky Mountain News' All-Colorado Player of the Year. Her talent, vision and leadership are undeniable, and she is a source of pride for women's basketball, for Legacy High School and for all of Colorado. I wish her continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this Defense Supplemental appropriations bill.

Whatever some may say, I think it would be grossly irresponsible to vote against it. That would be to vote against providing America's men and women in uniform with the equipment and resources they need and against providing them the best health care they may require when they come home.

I understand why some are urging a vote against the bill. Many Americans are frustrated and angry because we are four 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. So there are many who do not trust the Bush Administration to find a way to end this war, and who believe Congress should simply act to cut off additional funds.

But whatever may be said about the wisdom of invading Iraq four 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. We also must finish the job of securing Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda. So long as our troops are in the field, we must provide them what they need even as we move to change the mistaken policies of the Administration in Iraq.

This bill begins that change. It includes important language to hold the president accountable to the benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi government.

Those benchmarks were outlined in January, when President Bush announced that the Iraqi government had agreed to pursue all extremists, Shiite and Sunni alike; to deliver Iraqi Security Forces to Baghdad to join in the ``surge''; and to establish a strong militia disarmament program. President Bush also announced that Prime Minister Maliki and his government agreed to pursue reconciliation initiatives, 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.

By holding the president and the Iraqi government accountable for achieving these benchmarks, this bill will provide General Petraeus and the Administration with the leverage necessary to help the Iraqi government forge a political solution. And we all know that it will take a political solution--not a military one--to end this war.

The bill 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.

It is true that this legislation includes a date certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. I do not believe this language is wise and were it up to me, this provision would not be included in the bill. As a matter of national security policy, we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines and focus instead on realistic goals. Our military needs flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation on the ground.

The deadline established in this bill--August of 2008--is far enough away that I believe we may be able to revisit it if need be, and while I find its inclusion troubling, I do not believe in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. And the bill's language does give the president flexibility to protect U.S. interests, since it allows sufficient troops to remain to protect U.S. military and civilians in Iraq, conduct counterterrorism operations, and train Iraqi Security Forces.

The bill 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 bill also includes many provisions important to our troops, such as funds for military personnel for imminent danger pay, family separation allowances, and basic allowances for housing; funds for recruiting and retention in the Army Reserve and National Guard; and funds to develop countermeasures to prevent attacks from improvised explosive devices. The bill recommends the creation of a new Strategic Readiness Reserve fund, and provides $2.5 billion for the program, which is intended to improve readiness, training and equipping of U.S. forces not already deployed.

Given the recent revelations about problems with the defense health system at Walter Reed and other facilities across the system, I am very pleased that the bill provides $2.8 billion for military health care costs and $1.7 billion for initiatives to address the health care needs of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, particularly those suffering from traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder. Funding is also included to address facility deficiencies so the Department of Veterans Affairs does not have to defer facility maintenance and upkeep in order to provide quality health care services.

The bill also provides $52.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and funds the $5.9 billion request for the Afghan Security Forces and the $3.8 billion request for Iraq Security Forces.

And the bill 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 bill 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 House leadership to include financial assistance for farmers and ranchers, including for those affected by Colorado's recent blizzards, and I am hopeful that the funding will be included in the final conference report.

Mr. Speaker, we have entered the 5th year of the war in Iraq. Already, more than 3,200 of our men and women in uniform have made the ultimate sacrifice in the performance of their duty. More than 24,000 others have been wounded. The Iraqi death toll is at least 60,000, with more than 650,000 other Iraqis displaced and at least one million who have fled to Syria and Jordan and other countries.

Even these heavy costs are not the whole story, because nation- building in Iraq has degraded our ability to counter other threats to our national security around the globe. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am all too aware of the pressures on our active duty and National Guard and reserve soldiers, including a lack of equipment and training, multiple or extended deployments, and limited time at home between deployments. To be successful, U.S. forces must be trained, equipped, and ready to quickly deploy worldwide. Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increase the risk to our troops and to their mission.

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 bill begins to chart this path, and I will support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ruth Kueffer Campbell who turned 80 years of age on March 9, 2007.

Ruth was born in Milwaukee, WI, to Ernest and Alma Kueffer. Her father was an immigrant from Switzerland and her mother was from Davenport, IA. Completing the family was Ruth's brother, Carl, 8 years her senior.

Ruth was a good student in high school and was selected for the National Honor Society. Upon graduation, she entered cadet nurses training at the Misericordia Catholic Hospital in Milwaukee. She always wanted to be a nurse and also wanted to serve in the military.

With her RN degree in hand, Ruth enlisted in the Air Force. She did her basic training at Chanutte AFB in Illinois and then was off to flight school at Maxwell AFB in Alabama. From there she was assigned to France, where, on her very first night she and the other new nurses were invited to have dinner with the officer who headed the Office of Special Investigations. That officer eventually became her husband, John Campbell. But that took some time and off-duty travel with close friends to Spain and other neighboring countries.

When Ruth was honorably discharged from the Air Force in 1954, she planned to move to the state of Washington where she had relatives. She wrote to her AF buddy, John who was stationed at Lowry, to tell him about her move. John encouraged Ruth to stop in Denver on her way to Washington. Needless to say, she never made it to Washington. Instead, she continued her nursing career at the VA Hospital in Denver.

Ruth and John were married in the Chapel at Lowry AFB in 1955. Within the next 2 years, their daughters Pat and Terry were born at Fitzsimons. Soon after Terry's arrival, John was transferred to an OSI unit in Okinawa, and the family went along. Son, Mike, was born there in 1960. The following year, John was reassigned to Lowry and the Campbells bought a home near Geneva Street and Montview Boulevard in Aurora. Ruth quickly settled into her new community and soon was volunteering with the PTA at Crawford Elementary School, teaching Sunday school at the Fitzsimons Catholic Parish, starting a girls' softball league and serving as a scout leader--she was the Girl Scout Cookie chair for all of Aurora for five years.

In 1964, John retired from the Air Force and joined the Adams County Sheriff's Department, specializing in investigations, handwriting analysis and polygraphs. Four years later, John ran for the State House. While he didn't win that election, Ruth was hooked and became very involved in Democratic Party politics--first as a precinct committee person and then as a captain. Nearly a decade after Ruth caught the political bug, John was appointed to fill a vacancy as an Adams County Commissioner. Two year's later, he successfully ran for that office. In 1979, Ruth's beloved husband of 24 years passed away at the age of 59 at Fitzsimons Army Medical Center.

Ruth continued her political involvement and became a mentor for a host of candidates from City Council to County Commission and the State House and everything in between. Among the Democratic office holders who benefited from Ruth's knowledge and experience are Don Armstrong, Guillermo deHerrerra, Bob Grant, Mary Hodges, Molly Markert, Bill Shear, Stephanie Takis, Frank Weddig and Leo Younger. Ruth has always been strongly committed to political activism and was a founding member of the Aurora Democratic Club more than two decades ago.

Ruth's political savvy wasn't limited to candidates. She also became involved in several important ballot measures, the 1986 Adams County mill levy for mental health services and most recently the Aurora Sports Park near Colfax and Tower.

If it wasn't a political campaign, Ruth found many other places where her energy, common sense and organizational skills were more than welcome. She served on the Board of Directors of the Aurora Mental Health Center for 6 years, has been an active member of the Northwest Aurora Neighborhood Organization, NANO, since its inception in 1975, was a 23 year member of the City of Aurora Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, is an active member of the Society of Military Widows, and serves on the Accountability Committee at Fletcher School. Ruth also records textbooks for sight-impaired students at the Community College of Aurora.

Ruth's good works have not gone unnoticed. She has received a number of honors, including the 1980 Liberty Bell Award as ``Outstanding Citizen of Adams County.'' She has been honored with a Circle of Life Award in recognition for her many contributions to the north Aurora community. In 2002, Ruth was named a ``Woman Sculptor of the Community,'' an honor for which she was nominated by the Aurora Democratic Club.

As Ruth celebrates her 80th birthday and a lifetime of civic and political involvement, I know Republicans and Democrats alike wish her the very best.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this bill--and of similar legislation since shortly after I was first elected to Congress--I strongly support its approval by the House.

The bill amends the Presidential Records Act of 1978 to establish a clear and equitable process enabling incumbent and former Presidents to review records prior to their public release under the act and determine whether to assert constitutional privilege claims against release of the records.

Importantly, it would revoke an Executive order issued by President George W. Bush in 2001 that overturned rules set by President Ronald Reagan. By that order, President Bush has sought to give himself and Vice President Cheney--as well as former Presidents and Vice Presidents--broad authority to withhold Presidential records or delay their release indefinitely. I do not think that order should be allowed to stand.

The Presidential Records Act was enacted in 1978 after the Watergate scandal and the subsequent resignation of President Nixon. It makes clear that Presidential records belong to the American people, not to the President, and required the Archivist of the United States--who was given custody of the records--to make the records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of the law.

The act first applied to the records of former President Ronald Reagan. In 1989, he issued an Executive order requiring the Archivist to give the incumbent and former Presidents 30 days notice before releasing Presidential records, with the records to be released after that unless the incumbent or former President claimed executive privilege, or unless the incumbent President instructed the Archivist to extend the period indefinitely. If the incumbent President decided to invoke executive privilege, the Archivist would withhold the records unless directed to release them by a final court order. If the incumbent President decided not to support a former President's claim of privilege, the Archivist would decide whether or not to honor the claim.

Before he left office, President Reagan used his authority under the act to restrict access to some of his records for 12 years, a period that expired in January 2001.

In February 2001, the Archivist provided the required 30-day notice of his intent to release about 68,000 pages of former President Reagan's records. In March, June, and August of 2001, the counsel to President Bush instructed the Archivist to extend the time for claiming executive privilege. And then, in November 2001, President Bush issued a new Executive order extending the review period for former Presidents to 90 days and allowing a former President to extend it indefinitely. In addition, that order allows an unlimited review period for the current President and requires the Archives to honor the assertions of executive privilege made by either the incumbent or a former President--even if an incumbent President disagrees with the former President's claim. And, while the Reagan order said records were to be released on a schedule unless action occurred, the Bush Executive order says records will be released only after actions by the former and current Presidents have occurred--so, secrecy, not disclosure, is the rule. Also, the Bush Executive order allows designees of a former President to assert privilege claims after that President's death and authorizes former vice Presidents to assert executive privilege claims over their records.

Mr. Speaker, when we think what difference the release of the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon tapes has made in our understanding of the decision-making on Vietnam we can see how much could be lost if representatives of the Reagan, Clinton, and current Bush administrations in the future can hold back any and all documents related to Iran-contra, the first gulf war, the way the Clinton administration responded to intelligence about a potential Al Qaeda attack, or the current administration's decisions about Iraq.

It is understandable that every President and his or her heirs wants to put the best possible face on his administration, but an edited and airbrushed version of history is not something that will serve our long-term national interest.

H.R. 1255 would nullify Executive Order 13233 and establish procedures to ensure the timely release of Presidential records.

It requires the Archivist to give advance notice to former and incumbent Presidents before records are released so they can review the records and decide whether to claim privilege and provides for withholding of material for which the incumbent President claims privilege. The bill also clarifies that the incumbent and former Presidents must make privilege claims personally and that a right to claim executive privilege cannot be bequeathed to assistants, relatives, or descendants. And the bill eliminates executive privilege claims for vice Presidents, restoring the long-standing doctrine that the right to executive privilege over Presidential records is held only by Presidents.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced, and essential bill. I strongly urge its approval.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill, which will increase the transparency and accountability of the Federal Government by making a number of long-overdue revisions to the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.

The bill will reemphasize that disclosure is to be the rule, secrecy the exception. It will help people seeking documents to get timely responses, and improve transparency in agency compliance. It will reduce the need for people seeking documents to go to court, and provide accountability for agency decisions on whether to release requested information.

Mr. Speaker, the enactment of FOIA in 1966 was a watershed. It established as fundamental policy the principle that information within the government's control should be available and established a presumptive right for the public to obtain identifiable, existing records of Federal agencies. Anyone can use FOIA to request access to Government information. Requesters do not have to show a need or reason for seeking information, and the burden of proof for withholding requested material rests with the department or agency that seeks to deny the request. Agencies may deny access only to records, or portions of records, that fall within certain specific categories.

FOIA has been used effectively by journalists, public interest organizations, corporations, and individuals to access Government information. But the process could be better--because of delays and backlogs, requesters often have found it hard to learn about the status of their requests, and a recent Supreme Court decision has hampered requesters' ability to litigate their claims.

H.R. 1309 would address these and other concerns about the implementation of FOIA. It is a modest measure, but an important one that deserves the approval of the House.

That's especially true because, as the Rocky Mountain News noted in a recent editorial, ``The Bush administration may have been the most openly contemptuous of FOIA's mission since the act first passed. . . . President Bush will leave office in 2009, but it's not enough to trust that future administrations will abide by the promise of openness that FOIA represents. The law needs specific measures to ensure accountability, and the amendments within H.R. 1309 mark a large stride forward.''

For the information of our colleagues, I attach the complete text of that editorial:

[From the Rocky Mountain News, Mar. 13, 2007]

Open Records Upgrade

Congress has chance to improve critical law

We welcome bipartisan efforts in Congress to beef up the

Freedom of Information Act--the four-decade-old law that

affords citizens access to the inner workings of the

executive branch.

FOIA could certainly stand a little love, as open

Government has been attacked many times since Lyndon Johnson

signed the act into law July 4, 1966.

The revisions to FOIA in H.R. 1309, which could come before

the full House as early as today, would both shine more light

on the nooks and crannies of federal bureaucracies and force

agencies to better respect the spirit of the law.

Here are a few of the improvements:

The Government would have to act on FOIA requests more

quickly. Agencies that did not respond to a request within 20

business days would forfeit any copying and research fees;

agencies are now supposed to respond within that period, but

there are no penalties.

Federal departments would have to set up FOIA hotlines and

individual tracking numbers so that people and organizations

that file FOIA requests can easily follow the process.

Citizen journalists and freelancers would gain new

credibility. An agency could no longer summarily deny FOIA

requests from journalists who are not employed or under

contract with established media organizations or watchdog

groups. Such requests from unaffiliated individuals can now

be rejected.

The amended law would force agencies to consider any

request to disseminate information to a broad audience as

legitimate, particularly if the party making the request has

any record of publication (including bloggers).

The Government would have to reimburse the legal fees of

more parties that sue under FOIA. Currently, there's only one

way a party that has filed suit to enforce a FOIA request can

get repaid: The Government has to lose in court. The

amendments would force agencies to repay attorney fees if the

government turns over records before a final ruling is

issued. This would prevent agencies from sticking media

groups with attorney fees by surrendering records just before

a judge rules.

The Bush administration may have been the most openly

contemptuous of FOIA's mission since the act first passed.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft urged Federal agencies

to fight FOIA requests and not presume that the public has a

right to know what goes on inside the executive branch. The

administration also placed gratuitous limits on requests to

the Department of Homeland Security.

President Bush will leave office in 2009, but it's not

enough to trust that future administrations will abide by the

promise of openness that FOIA represents. The law needs

specific measures to ensure accountability, and the

amendments within H.R. 1309 mark a large stride forward.

Madam Speaker, today I am again introducing legislation to add some common-sense rules to the laws governing issuance of credit cards. The bill is cosponsored by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. I am grateful for his assistance and support.

Americans benefit from the widespread availability of consumer credit, and their use of that credit has been important to our economy. But there are some warning signs that signal a need for some additional legislation.

Overall, during the last decade, total credit-card debt rose by about 70 per cent, and this clearly has an effect on consumers. Some polls have reported that about 70 percent of surveyed families said the quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of their debts, and young people are more worried about going deeply into debt than about a terrorist attack.

For many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. It is something that many people need to use to pay for their everyday needs. For them, it is a necessity. And, of course, another word for credit is debt.

In a recent report on family finances, the Federal Reserve said that from the third quarter of 2001 to the same period in 2004, inflation- adjusted household debt increased by more than 26 percent. During the same period, when incomes remained about the same, more families carried a credit-card balance and the average balance owed on a card rose nearly 16 percent, to $5,100.

Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness and an erosion of financial responsibility. That was one of the main arguments advanced in support of the recently-passed legislation to revise the bankruptcy laws. But while there was something to that argument, it was not the whole story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone.

Instead of just focusing on borrowers, Congress should also do more to promote responsibility by those who provide the credit--and one place to start is with credit card companies.

For example, let's talk about interest rates. Credit is not free, and it should not be. But consumers should be treated fairly.

We have all seen print ads and commercials that advertise very low interest rates, but don't make clear that these rates can change, sometimes without warning, and that higher rates can apply even if a consumer gets a warning and then acts to cancel a card.

The bill would address that by requiring that a credit card company provide advance notice of any increase (unless the increase results from the expiration of an introductory rate for new accounts or a change in another rate to which the credit-card rate is indexed) and notice of the right to avoid paying the higher rate by canceling the card before the new rate takes effect. And it says that if the consumer does cancel the card in time, any remaining amounts owed on that card will be subject to the terms and conditions that applied at the time of cancellation.

Similarly, the bill would require that card holders be more fully informed about the relationship between the monthly minimum payments and the full amounts owing on their cards and what monthly payment would be required to eliminate the outstanding balance in 36 months if they do not their cards to make additional purchases.

Further, the bill would require that card holders be given clear notice of any fees, other charges, or increases in interest rates that would result from their making late payments.

For payments made by mail, card holders would have to be given a reasonable time for their payments to be received and would have be to told the date on which a mailed payment must be postmarked in order to avoid fees, charges, or increased interest rates.

And if a card issuer accepts payments made in person, a payment made at least one day before the due date would mean that no late-payment penalties would be in order.

The bill also would bar charging fees or other penalties because a card holder pays more than the monthly minimum or pays in full an existing account balance or because a card holder does not use the card during some particular period of time.

It would bar imposing a fee for a charge that would mean a card holder has gone over the total credit authorized on a card if the card

issuer has authorized that charge either in advance or at the time of a purchase.

And the bill would prohibit the use of ``universal default'' clauses--provisions that allow card issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit card account if there has been any change for the worse in the cardholder's credit score--even if the change is unrelated to the credit card account. Under ``universal default,'' a card holder can be saddled with such an increased rate not only for being late on big-ticket items such as a car or a mortgage payment, but for something as relatively minor as being late (even once) on some other credit card, or a utility payment, carrying too much debt overall, having ``too much'' available credit and open trade lines, making ``too many'' credit inquiries, or getting a new mortgage or car loan.

The bill also would limit issuance of credit cards to people under the age of 18. People under that age applying for a credit card will need one of three things--the signature of a parent or guardian willing to take responsibility for the applicant's debts; information indicating that the applicant has some other means of repaying any debt; or a certification that the applicant has completed a credit counseling course by a qualified nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency. These requirements would apply to issuance of both regular credit cards and college ``affinity cards.''

And, finally, the bill increases the amounts people injured by violations of the rules can collect from card issuers.

Madam Speaker, this bill is similar to one I introduced in the 109th Congress. It would take some simple, common-sense steps to stop abusive practices, educate cardholders, and stiffen the penalties for violations. I think it deserves to be enacted.

For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching an outline of the bill's provisions.

outline of the bill

Section One provides a short title and table of contents.

The short title is ``Credit Card Accountability,

Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2007 or `Credit CARD

Act of 2007' ''

Section Two authorizes the Federal Reserve's Board of

Governors to issue rules or publish model forms to implement

the bill and the changes it makes in existing law

Title I

Title I amends the Truth in Lending Act regarding certain

credit-card rates and fees.

Section 101 requires at least 15 days' notice of certain

increases in interest rates and requires card holders to be

told of their right to cancel an account before the increases

take effect.

Section 102 imposes a freeze on interest-rate terms and

fees applicable to accounts closed or cancelled before a

scheduled rate increase.

Section 103 bars charging penalty fees for--(1) on-time

payments; (2) either full payment of a balance owed or a

payment larger than the minimum required amount; or (3) non-

use of a card for any particular period of time.

Section 104 bars imposing fees for a purchase that exceeds

a credit card's limit if the lender approves the charge in

advance or at the time the card holder makes the purchase.

Section 105 bars ``universal default,'' meaning the

practice of imposing a higher interest rate on a credit card

because of a change in a cardholder's credit score even if

that change is unrelated to the credit card account.

Title II

Title II amends the Truth in Lending Act's provisions

regarding disclosures to card holders.

Section 201 specifies information that must be provided

regarding outstanding balances, required monthly minimum

payments, grace periods for avoiding additional charges, and

the monthly payments needed to pay off the balance in 36

months.

Section 202 requires that card holders be told the date by

which mailed payments must be postmarked to avoid late fees,

whether (and by how much) interest rates will be increased

because of one or more late payments, whether (and if so,

where) a payment can be made in person and when it must be

made to avoid late fees (which must be no sooner than one

business day before the payment is due).

Title III

Title III adds provisions to the Truth in Lending Act

dealing with issuing credit cards to people under age 18 and

amends the Act's provisions regarding penalties.

Section 301 requires that a credit card can be issued to

someone under 18 only if the application includes either (1)

the signature of a parent, legal guardian, spouse, or other

person willing and able to be jointly liable for amounts

charged on the card before the card holder becomes 18; or (2)

financial information showing the applicant has enough

independent means to be able to repay amounts charged on the

card; or (3) proof that the applicant has completed a credit-

counseling course by a nonprofit budget and credit counseling

agency meeting certain specified requirements.

Section 302 allows borrowers injured by violations of

credit-card rules to collect increased amounts from card

issuers. Current law says they can recover at least $200 but

no more than $2,000. This section would increase that to at

least $500 or twice the amount of an improper finance charge

(whichever is higher), with an overall limit of $5,000 for

isolated violations or appropriately higher amounts for

established patterns or practices of violations.

Section 303 makes the rules specified in section 301 for

regular credit cards apply as well to college ``affinity

cards'' (a card with the logo or name of an institution of

higher education in addition to that of the lender) issued to

someone under age 18.

Madam Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to provide additional resources for use by the Federal land-managing agencies to restore lands damaged as a result of improper activities and to promote public education about the use of the Federal lands. My Colorado colleague, Representative Tancredo, is again cosponsoring the legislation. I greatly appreciate his support.

The bill is based on one part of a bill introduced by Representative Tancredo that I cosponsored in the 108th and 109th Congresses. Our purpose is to improve the ability of the land-managing agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Interior Department as well as the Forest Service in the Agriculture Department--to adequately enforce the rules that apply to uses of the lands they manage.

In the 108th Congress, Mr. Tancredo and I worked with the Resources Committee's Chairman, Ranking Member, and other Members, to develop a substitute that included a number of improvements in the bill. The Resources Committee approved that substitute, which included provisions similar to those in the bill I am introducing today. However, after the Resources Committee completed its work,

the measure was reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, which made further changes before the bill went to the House floor.

The most significant change was deletion of the provisions of the bill that allowed the agencies to retain fines paid for violations of land-use regulations and to use those funds for repairing damages to the lands and for public education. I regretted that change because in addition to more adequate authority to enforce regulations, the land- managing agencies need more resources--more money and more people--if we want them to do a better job.

The House passed the bill as revised by the Judiciary Committee, but the 108th Congress adjourned before the Senate could complete action on it. Accordingly, in the 109th Congress Mr. Tancredo reintroduced the House-passed bill and I cosponsored it, and I introduced a separate bill which he cosponsored. We are repeating that pattern of cooperation today.

The Tancredo-Udall bill of the 108th Congress would have allowed the land-managing agencies to use money from fines to help pay for some of the restoration work caused by violations of regulations and for public education.

The bill I am introducing today is similar. It would allow agencies to use money collected as fines to be used for repairing damage caused by the actions that lead to the fines or by similar actions. It would also allow them to use the money to increase public awareness of regulations and other requirements regarding use of Federal lands. And it provides that any of the money not needed for those purposes would be credited to the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury.

Madam Speaker, this is a modest bill but an important one. I think it deserves the support of our colleagues and I will do all I can to achieve its enactment into law.

Madam Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to authorize the Interior Department to participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Species in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin.

Its purpose is to continue a cooperative effort involving the Federal Government and the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming (and other entities and groups) aimed at recovery of endangered species in ways that will not involve the creation of Federal water rights or requiring the grant of water rights to Federal entities. Information about the background of the legislation and the program follows:

Bill to Authorize Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

Background

Since 1997, the States of Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming have

worked with water users, conservation groups and the Interior

Department to develop way to allow continued water use and

development along the Platte River to comply with the

Endangered Species Act.

In late 2006 the 3 States and the Interior Department

signed the final agreement for a basin-wide Recovery Program

to benefit three endangered species (interior least tern,

whooping crane, and pallid sturgeon) and one threatened

species (piping plover) referred to as the ``target

species.'' The Federal government is to pay half the cost--

and the bill would authorize appropriation of those federal

funds. The total authorization would be $157.14 million plus

any needed inflation adjustments.

Recovery Program

The Program is designed to secure defined benefits for the

target species and their associated habitats while also

providing ESA compliance for existing and certain new water-

related activities in the Platte River basin. It is to be

incremental, with the First Increment coming over the next 13

years. It would be implemented by a Governance Committee with

membership including representatives of the three states, the

Interior Department, water users, and environmental groups.

While the Program is designed to provide ESA compliance for

existing and certain new water related activities throughout

the Platte River basin upstream of the confluence of the

Platte and the Loup Rivers (in Nebraska), the land

acquisition and management for the target bird species will

occur in the central Platte River region (Lexington to

Chapman, Nebraska), and Program water activities would be

designed to provide benefits for the target bird species in

the central Platte River region and for the pallid sturgeon

in the lower Platte River region (below the confluence with

the Elkhorn River).

Elements of the Program

The Program has three main elements: (1) increasing stream

flows in the central Platte River during relevant time

periods through retiming and water conservation/supply

projects; (2) enhancing, restoring and protecting habitat

lands for the target bird species; and (3) accommodating

certain new water related activities. It will achieve these

results through an adaptive management approach employing

scientific monitoring and research to evaluate the management

actions and species habitat needs. These elements will be

implemented according to underlying principles that require

interests in land to be acquired only from willing

participants and avoid increasing tax burdens to local

citizens by paying taxes or their equivalent on

Program lands. Program lands will be held by a land

holding entity (rather than by the federal or state

governments) and will be managed under a ``good neighbor''

policy.

Water

The Program's long-term objective for water is to provide

sufficient water to and through the central Platte River

habitat area to assist in improving and maintaining habitat

for the target species using incentive based water projects.

During the First Increment (13 years) the Program's objective

is to retime and improve flows in the central Platte River to

reduce shortages to target flows by an average of 130,000 to

150,000 acre-feet per year at Grand Island.

Land

During the First Increment, the Program's objective is to

protect, restore, and maintain 10,000 acres of habitat. The

Program's long-term objective for land is to acquire land

interests, restore where appropriate, and maintain and manage

approximately 29,000 acres of suitable habitat along the

central Platte River between Lexington and Chapman, Nebraska.

Land acquired during the Program's First Increment will be

credited to this long-term objective as will certain lands

that meet criteria established by the Governance Committee

but are managed by other entities such as environmental

organizations or utility and irrigation districts.

Future Water Development Projects and New Depletions

One Program purpose is to mitigate the adverse impacts of

certain new water related activities through the

implementation of state and federal depletions plans. This

will allow continued growth and water development to occur in

the Platte River basin along with improving conditions for

the target species.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about Daniel R. ``Dan'' Smith, Sr., a truly remarkable man who will be celebrating his 75th birthday this Sunday, March 11.

Born in Winsted, CT, on March 11, 1932, Dan is one of a few surviving African-American children of a slave. His father, Abram Smith, was born in 1863. Age 70 when Dan was born, he died when Dan was 6. Dan's mother, Clara Wheeler Smith, was a young bride. A domestic worker, she raised her 8 children plus other foster children.

Dan graduated from Gilbert High School in Winsted, Connecticut. He entered the U.S. Army and served in Korea as a medic, operating room technician, in the Korean War. He also was trained as a water safety instructor and after returning home from Korea, he performed heroic actions during the 1955 Winsted flood, diving into a raging river and saving a man's life.

Dan attended Springfield College, in Massachusetts, where he majored in general studies with minors in psychology and sociology. He was elected student body president and graduated in 1960.

During the 1960s he had a broad range of professional experiences. Building on his education and experiences as a medic in the Army, he served as a social worker at Norwich State Hospital, a 3,000 bed psychiatric hospital in Connecticut, and at the Seaside Regional Center for the mentally retarded in Waterford, Connecticut.

One of Dan's many loves is animals, especially dogs. During high school he had worked for a veterinarian and learned to be a dog trainer. He took additional pre-med courses and was accepted into the Veterinary School of Tuskegee Institute, Alabama.

This was during the height of the Civil Rights movement, however, and the pull of public service was strong. Dan left his studies to become executive director of an anti-poverty program launched by Sargent Shriver in Lowndes County, Alabama, one of the Civil Rights' ``hot beds.'' The church in which his program was housed was burned by arsonists, but he had carefully saved all his documentation, and was able to start again almost immediately. He participated in many Civil Rights activities and nearly lost his life at the hands of the KKK. He was with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the march from Selma to Montgomery.

As a result of his excellent administration of the anti-poverty program, Mr. Smith was given the opportunity to enter the Federal Government at the national office of VISTA in Washington, DC. He later moved to the Office of Health Affairs in the Office of Economic Opportunity, OEO.

While at OEO he served as Assistant Chief of Program Development, and developed a national program of Neighborhood Health Centers, NHCs, that provided ambulatory health care for low income communities throughout the United States, using a medical team approach. He was responsible for developing NHCs in Bedford Stuyvesant, San Francisco's Chinatown, and St. Louis, Missouri. He also established and served as Chief of OEO's Consumer Affairs office, where he designed a pilot multi- dimensional training program.

In 1972, Dan became the National Director and Chief of the Area Health Education Program (AHEC), a medical health education program that he designed and implemented at the National Institute of Health. He worked with medical schools throughout the United States to provide more primary care and family practice physicians and related health professionals. At $165 million annually, it became the largest social contract program in the nation. One of the finest of these programs continues today at the University of Colorado's School of Medicine. Acknowledged as the ``father'' of AHEC, Dan received a distinguished service award for his outstanding management of the program.

During the 1980s Dan was awarded an IPA (Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement) position at Georgetown University Medical School as a Research Associate, where he was involved in research and teaching. He returned to the Federal Government as Director of Bilateral and Sub- Saharan African Programs in the Office of International Health and was responsible for developing Emergency Medical Services programs in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Because of his expertise in administrating medical programs, in 1986 the White House officially requested his assistance with the Republic of South Africa to develop a program similar to AHEC. He was subsequently invited by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to attend his Capetown installation as the Episcopal Bishop of South Africa.

Dan later served as Special Projects Manager in the Administrator's Office of the Department of Health and Human Services. He retired from the Federal Government in 1994.

Still working, Dan has established and owns an import/export company, Takoma Enterprises LLC, for which he serves as president and CEO. Active in community and religious organizations, he served on the board of trustees of Springfield College and senior warden of St. Luke's Episcopal Church, Bethesda, MD. An usher at the Washington National Cathedral, Dan served as head usher at the Cathedral, where he has escorted Presidents and other dignitaries at special services, including

the memorial service following the events of September 11, 2001.

Dan has four surviving siblings who still reside in Connecticut: His brother, A. Wilson ``Abe'' Smith, and sisters Marion Hanson, Jenny Brown and Henrietta Reed. He has two adult children from a previous marriage. His daughter April is married to a South African, Andrew Motaung. Both are teachers with advanced degrees. They have a 3\1/2\- year-old child, Tselane, and live in Columbia, MD. His son, Daniel Robert Smith, Jr., a graduate of Syracuse University, is an actor who resides in New York City, stage name Robert Mauzell.

In 2002 Dan met Loretta Neumann, a neighbor. It should be noted that Loretta worked for me as a legislative assistant before she retired in 2001 and, during the 1970s and 1980s, she also worked for the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee when it was chaired by my father, Morris K. Udall, and for Representative John F. Seiberling of Ohio, who chaired the Committee's Public Lands and National Parks Subcommittee.

Last but not least, Dan and Loretta were married on October 28, 2006, at the Washington National Cathedral. They reside in the Takoma neighborhood of Washington, DC, and from all reports are truly living happily ever after.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 903, the Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study bill.

It is identical to a measure that passed the House last year but on which the Senate did not complete action. I appreciate the actions of Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Don Young, and the staff of the Natural Resources Committee for making it possible for the House to consider it today.

The bill is intended to help local communities identify ways to protect the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern sections of the Denver-metro area, especially the region just west of what will soon be the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.

The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes much of the land in this backdrop area, but there are other lands as well.

Rising dramatically from the Great Plains, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains provides a scenic mountain backdrop to many communities in the Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado.

The portion of the range addressed in this bill also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation.

Its open-space character is an important esthetic and economic asset for adjoining communities, making them attractive locations for homes and businesses.

But rapid population growth in the northern Front Range area of Colorado is increasing recreational use of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and is also placing increased pressure for development of other lands.

We can see this throughout Colorado and especially along the Front Range.

Homes and shopping centers are spreading up the valleys and along the highways. This development then spreads out along the ridges and mountain tops that make up the backdrop.

The result is potential loss of many of the very qualities that attract new residents.

This bill is designed to help provide a better understanding of what steps might be done to lessen that risk.

Already, local governments and other entities have provided important protection for portions of this mountain backdrop.

The bill acknowledges their good work and aims to assist further efforts along the same lines.

The bill does not interfere with the authority of local authorities regarding land use planning.

And it does not infringe on private property rights.

Instead, it will bring the land protection experience of the Forest Service to the table to assist local efforts to protect areas that comprise the backdrop.

Under the bill, the Forest Service will work in collaboration with local communities, the state, nonprofit groups, and other parties.

I think this is in the national interest.

The backdrop both beckoned settlers westward and was a daunting challenge to their progress. Their first exposure to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West helped define a region, and the pioneers' independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day.

We need to work to maintain the mountain backdrop as a cultural and natural heritage for ourselves and generations to come.

This bill is intended to assist in that effort, and I urge its approval.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to mark the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (IGY), honoring its contributions to space research, and looking forward to future accomplishments. I am pleased that several of my colleagues from the Science and Technology Committee have joined me as original cosponsors and would like to thank Chairman Gordon, Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Calvert, and Research and Science Education Subcommittee Chairman Baird for their support.

The International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958 was a highly successful international effort to coordinate global observations and measurements of the solid Earth, oceans, the atmosphere, and the near- Earth space environment. It was truly a global effort, involving thousands of scientists from 67 nations who came together--in the midst of the Cold War--to plan and carry out this ambitious cooperative scientific initiative.

As we pause to honor the accomplishments of the IGY, it is worth remembering that the IGY marked the dawn of the Space Age. The successful launches of the first artificial satellites, Sputnik 1 by the former Soviet Union and Explorer 1 by the United States, opened new areas of research and enabled one of the most notable achievements of the IGY, the discovery of belts of trapped, charged particles in the Earth's upper atmosphere by the late Dr. James Van Allen of Iowa.

Yet the discovery of the Van Allen belts is just one of the significant scientific achievements of the IGY. Indeed, scientists around the world continue to build on the impressive research legacy left to them by their predecessors fifty years ago. 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.

I introduced a similar resolution in the 108th Congress, which passed the House, to honor the IGY and to encourage the celebration of its 50th anniversary throughout the country and the globe. This commemoration serves to not only remember the great scientific work that was done during the IGY, but also to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers, who will be critical to our continued progress and economic well being. In that regard, I encourage the public and in particular our young people to participate in celebrations planned for the IGY anniversary year and to embrace challenging goals for future research in Earth and space science, so that we will be able to look back, 50 years from now, on equally exciting accomplishments and discoveries.

Madam Speaker, I think that it is fitting that this Congress take the time to recognize and honor the fiftieth anniversary of the International Geophysical Year, and I hope that this concurrent resolution will be speedily adopted by the House.

Madam Speaker, today I am again introducing the Royalty-in-Kind for Energy Assistance Improvement Act. This bill is intended to make it possible for the Department of Interior to implement a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that was intended to provide a new way to assist low-income people to heat or cool their homes.

For several years before 2005, the Department of Interior had authority to develop ``royalty-in-kind'' arrangements under which companies developing federal oil could meet their required royalty payments by providing oil instead of cash. The Energy Policy Act expanded this provision to apply to natural-gas developers as well, and also added new authority for Interior to grant a preference to low- income consumers when disposing of natural gas it obtained under such an arrangement.

While this Energy Policy Act provision does not specifically reference the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), its implementation could benefit that program.

LIHEAP is intended to help low-income Americans pay for their heating and cooling costs. However, at current funding levels this critically important program serves less than 15 percent of those who qualify for it. Implementing the Energy Policy Act provision to grant a preference to low-income consumers would supplement LIHEAP funding and expand the amount of energy assistance available to the poor.

After enactment of the 2005 legislation, I joined my colleagues from Colorado in writing a letter to Interior Secretary Gail Norton asking her to consider beginning implementation of the new provision through a pilot program in Colorado. In the letter we emphasized the importance of helping this country's most vulnerable citizens, who are increasingly hard hit by rising energy costs.

In a reply to my office, the Interior Department responded that the Interior Department's lawyers had reviewed the Energy Policy Act provision and had concluded that as it now stands it could not be implemented because the current law ``does not provide the Department with the authority or discretion to receive less than fair market value for the royalty gas or oil.''

My bill is intended to correct the legal deficiencies in the provision as enacted to make it possible for the Interior Department to implement the program. In developing the legislation, my staff has reviewed the Interior Department's legal opinion and has consulted with the Interior Department's lawyers and with other legal experts. Based on that review, I think enactment of my bill will resolve the legal problems cited by the Interior Department and will enable the program to go forward.

Spring may be nearly upon us, but hot summer temperatures and another winter are just months away. I believe the Energy Policy Act provision to help low-income consumers is an innovative tool that must be allowed to work. The Royalty-in-Kind for Energy Assistance Improvement Act would make this possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to support energy assistance for this nation's most vulnerable residents.

Here is a brief outline of the bill:

Section One--provides a short title (``Royalty-in-Kind for Energy Assistance Improvement Act of 2006'').

Section Two--sets forth findings regarding the importance of LIHEAP and the intent of the relevant provisions of law regarding payment of royalties-in-kind and the conclusion of the Interior Department that the provision of the 2005 Energy Policy Act intended to allow use of royalties-in-kind to benefit low-income consumers cannot be implemented. This section also states the bill's purpose, which is to amend that part of the Energy Policy Act in order to make it possible for it to be implemented in order to assist low-income people to meet their energy needs.

Section Three--amends the relevant provision (Section 342(j)) of the Energy Policy Act by--

(1) adding explicit authority for the Interior Department to sell royalty-in-kind oil or gas for as little as half its fair market value in implementing that part of the Energy Policy Act under an agreement that the purchaser will be required to provide an appropriate amount of resources to a Federal low-income energy assistance program;

(2) clarifying that such a sale at a discounted price will be deemed to comply with the Anti-deficiency Act; and

(3) authorizing the Interior Department to issue rules and enter into agreements that are considered appropriate in order to implement that part of the Energy Policy Act.

These changes are specifically designed to correct the legal deficiencies that the Interior Department has determined currently make it impossible for it to implement this part of the Energy Policy Act.

Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill. It can help working people, and it will send a strong message that we need a National Labor Relations Board committed to fairness in the workplace.

But as I said 2 years ago, I have serious reservations about lessening the role of the secret ballot in union elections. Workers should not be intimidated by pressure from either business or labor in making decisions about organizing a union.

However, it is clear that the NLRB has clearly failed to protect workers from intimidation and union-busting. That is why I support this bill even though it is far from perfect.

And while I support the rule because it allows the House to consider some meaningful amendments, I am disappointed that others were not included. For example, I thought we ought to have made changes to make the procedure for decertifying unions like those for establishing unions. We should also have considered setting deadlines for NLRB decisions.

I would hope those amendments, and others, maybe even a sunset clause, will be considered in the Senate not only because they could improve this legislation but because open debate on amendments might help reduce the divisions and polarization about this bill.

But the House should pass the bill, imperfect though it is, so the Senate can continue the process of reforming our labor laws to better protect workers' rights while also working towards balance, fairness, and objectivity in the way that the NLRB must do its job.

Madam Chairman, when I agreed to cosponsor this important legislation two years ago I made clear in a floor statement that I had serious reservations about weakening the secret ballot in union organizing elections. I believe American workers ought to make decisions about organizing unions in a way that is free from intimidation by labor or employers.

It is because the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has largely failed in their responsibilities to protect the rights of American workers to organize that we even have to consider this legislation.

Despite my reservations, therefore, I am persuaded that we ought to pass this imperfect bill so that the Senate may take up reforms in the labor-business relationship that will protect the rights of workers to organize, and at the same time preserve balance, fairness and objectivity in the way the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) conducts elections.

Before I get to the merits of this legislation, however, I want to register my disappointment that more amendments were not allowed for our consideration. The majority may not be well served by an open process that allows for deeper debate and the consideration of amendments, but our country would be better served. And on legislation with such far-reaching consequences for the balance between business and labor, I believe we are ill-served by not debating and considering more amendments.

There are other improvements to this bill that we should have considered, and that I hope will be considered in the Senate. For example, I hope the Senate will consider amendments that address decertification procedures and deadlines for the NLRB to reach decisions. And I am hopeful the Senate will consider carefully whether this legislation should apply equally to small businesses. Perhaps the Senate will also consider the wisdom of a sunset provision for this legislation so that we can revisit it later--in order to determine whether it will have the desired effect for workers and for our economy.

As I said in 2004, I am reluctant to endorse changes in current law that could be seen as preventing workers to make decisions in private about union representation.

I agree with those who say a secret ballot process is preferable in most cases, and think that the burden of proof is on those who say that an alternative should be used.

However, I have been and remain disturbed by reports of employers using heavy handed techniques to discourage workers from organizing in the first place and intimidating and even illegally firing workers who decide to join.

But there is a real possibility that the NLRB won't do that--which is the primary reason I support this bill.

I am disturbed--I think we should all be disturbed--by the serious questions that have been raised about whether the NLRB is doing its job. And I am worried that recent NLRB decisions tilt too far toward allowing employers to intimidate union organizers.

For example, the NLRB has decided that as workers are considering whether to form a union, an employer may explicitly ``inform'' them that workers in two other facilities lost their jobs after they decided to organize.

I understand that in the case in question the regional NLRB director ruled this ``clearly implied'' the union was responsible for the firings and insinuated the same would happen to others who chose a union. In other words, the NLRB official closest to the case saw this as an example of an illegal threat of retaliation.

But in a 2-1 party line vote--with two appointees by the current Administration in the majority--the NLRB overruled the regional director's decision and claimed the memo ``did not exceed the bounds of permissible campaign statements.''

I think that decision shows just how far the playing field has been tilted away from a fair balance between employers and employees who want to bargain collectively.

And the purpose of this legislation is to move back toward a fairer balance.

Consider what the law says about ending--not establishing, but ending--union representation. Under the National Labor Relations Act, if 50% or more of the employees in a bargaining unit sign a petition that they no longer want to be represented by their union, the employer can withdraw recognition without an election.

And if just 30% of the employees in a bargaining unit sign a Decertification Petition, the NLRB will conduct a secret ballot election on the question of ending union representation. Not a majority--just 30%

In other words, the current law makes it harder for workers to get a union than to get rid of one--and, as I just said, current policies of the NLRB add to the burden of people who want to have a union. I don't think that's balanced. Why should it be harder for workers to get a union into their workplace than it is for them to get the union out?

This bill would not completely change that. But it would say that just as signatures of a majority of workers can end union representation, a majority of signatures could start it. And I think that is reasonable and equitable.

Also, the bill would correct some of the problems with the current NLRB by changing parts of the law under which it operates.

Current law says the NLRB must go into federal court and ask for an injunction against a union if the NLRB thinks there is reasonable cause to believe that the union has violated the law's prohibition of secondary boycotts. Under the bill the NLRB would have to take the same action to enforce the law that protects workers against pressure to reject a union as it does to enforce the law's limits on what a union can do to put pressure on employers. I think that is fair.

And the bill also increases the amount a worker could collect if he or she has been unlawfully discharged or discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first contract drive and by providing for civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated the law. Again, I think these are improvements over the current law.

Finally, I think some of the attacks on this bill have been exaggerated. For example, some have said it is intended to deprive workers of their right to an election. But under current law, elections are not always required--if a majority of workers sign cards saying they want to have a union, their employer can agree, and then the union is established without any election. So what the bill does is to deprive employers of the option of insisting on an election any time a majority of the workers have signaled that they want a union.

Madam Chairman, this bill is not perfect, and in some ways I think it might have been better to take a different approach to the problem, with even greater emphasis on changing the law governing the operations of the NLRB rather than the card-check process. But I think it can, and should be improved before final passage by the Congress, and should go forward to the Senate for further and, hopefully more deliberate, consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise not only as a Member of Congress but also as a member of the Board of Visitors for the United States Air Force Academy, to acknowledge the contributions to freedom made by the famous Tuskegee Airmen during World War II.

Each year at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, people gather to remember and honor the African-American airmen, and their families, who sacrificed so much as part of their service in the formation of an all-African-American fighting unit known as the ``Tuskegee Airmen.'' From across the country and all walks of life, these young volunteers were trained at the Tuskegee Army Air Field in Alabama. They were among the most decorated and successful fighter pilots in American history.

My father, Mo Udall, also served in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. He was not engaged with the Tuskegee Airmen, but he commanded the 75th Air Squadron, an African-American unit. His experience with these men led him to a lifelong and passionate commitment to racial equality, and I know that if he were alive today, he would want to join me in keeping the flame of remembrance alive for the brave African-American aviators and soldiers who fought for their country when their country still denied them equal rights.

As people gather in Colorado Springs at the Air Force Academy in a few days to rededicate the Tuskegee Airmen Memorial and honor the memory of men like Clarence Shivers, who was not only a member of the unit but also the sculptor of the memorial, I believe they should attend this ceremony with the full support and appreciation of Congress.

Let us also use the occasion of this event to rededicate ourselves to building a nation that honors duty, service, and sacrifice and works for the preservation of civil rights and liberties for all people.