Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am today again introducing the Western Waters and Farm Lands Protection Act--a bill intended to make it more likely that the energy resources in our Western States will be developed in ways that are protective of vital water supplies and respectful of the rights and interests of the agricultural community.

Based on my previous legislation that was endorsed by the Colorado Farm Bureau and the American Farm Bureau Federation, it would do three things:

First, it would establish clear requirements for proper management of ground water that is extracted in the course of oil and gas development. Second, it would provide for greater involvement of surface owners in plans for oil and gas development and requires the Interior Department to give surface owners advance notice of lease sales that would affect their lands and to notify them of subsequent events related to proposed or ongoing energy development. And, finally, it would require developers to draft reclamation plans and post bonds top assure restoration of lands affected by drilling for federal oil and gas.

Madam Speaker, I am today introducing a bill dealing with the tax treatment of exchanges of mutual ditch company stock, a subject of special importance to Coloradans who hold such stock in order to make beneficial use of water transported through the companies' ditches and associated structures.

The bill is cosponsored by my Colorado colleagues, Representatives Salazar, Mus- grave, and Lamborn. I appreciate their assistance and support.

Madam Speaker, mutual ditch companies are unique to Colorado. They are not organized for profit, but for the mutual benefit of the shareholders and operate on the premise that the company owns the water rights and other property and the shareholders have the right to use the water. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that shares of stock in a mutual ditch company represent a definite and specific water right, as well as a corresponding interest in the structures by which the water right is beneficially used.

One such company, based in Windsor, in northeastern Colorado, is working to raise funds to improve the efficiency of its delivery system. To do so, it has contracted to give the City of Greeley and two local water districts part of its water in exchange for $30 million, part in cash and part in the stock of a reorganized corporation. As part of this plan, the Windsor company's shareholders will exchange their stock for shares in the new corporation.

Other similar exchanges have occurred or will occur in the future. But there is concern that shareholders making such an exchange might be called upon to pay taxes in connection with such exchanges.

Federal tax law (Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) allows a tax-free exchange of like-kind property held for productive use in a trade or business. Generally this does not apply to exchanges of stock. However, shares of Colorado mutual ditch companies are different from normal stock shares, and the Colorado Supreme Court has held that because a mutual-ditch shareholder is entitled to apply water to a beneficial use, mutual-ditch shares are real property (like real estate), not personal property (like normal stocks or bonds).

The mutual ditch companies say--and I think they are right--this means exchanges of their shares should be covered by the like-kind exchange exemption. Unfortunately, in 1986, the IRS's General Counsel ruled otherwise.

Since that ruling, however, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a 1997 decision, made it clear that under Colorado law mutual ditch company shares are real property.

The bill would remove any doubt on this point and make clear that Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code will apply to exchanges of shares in a Colorado mutual ditch, reservoir, or irrigation company covered by section 501(c)(12)(A) of the Code.

Madam Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to managing elk in Rocky Mountain National Park.

Elk are a major attraction for visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park and nearby Estes Park, attracting thousands of people who come to enjoy viewing them and listening to the bulls bugle in late summer and early fall.

But while the elk are a true asset, their numbers are a concern, Property damage and human safety concerns in Estes Park have increased as elk increasingly use parks, golf courses, and yards in close proximity to people and they are also causing adverse effects on the other resources of the park itself. This has led the National Park Service to consider possible steps to address this by reducing the number of elk within the park. My bill is intended to resolve a question that has arisen about how this might be done.

Some historical perspective is useful in understanding the situation.

Elk, or wapiti, are native to the area that includes Rocky Mountain National Park, but hunters had all but eliminated them by the 1870s-- and by early in the Twentieth Century, wolves, their only significant predator in the area, had disappeared as well.

They were reintroduced in 1913 and 1914, shortly before Rocky Mountain National Park was established in 1915. Since then, because of the lack of any significant predation--by wolves, other animals, or people--the park's elk population has flourished. By the early 1930s, it had increased so much that the National Park Service became concerned about resulting deteriorating vegetation conditions on their winter range.

Starting in 1944, the elk population was limited, primarily by having rangers cull the herd by shooting some of the elk but also by some trapping and transplanting. For the next 25 years, the number of elk using Rocky Mountain National Park was maintained between 350 and 800 animals.

This ended in 1969, when a ``natural regulation'' policy--meaning no active management within the park--was instituted. In part, this was because the National Park Service thought hunting in adjacent areas would control the elk population in and near the park.

But since then, the park's elk numbers have continued to increase and vegetation changes have been observed, particularly a decline in willow and aspen on the elk's primary winter range.

As a result, the National Park Service has been reconsidering the appropriate size for the park's elk population and ways to address the problem of chronic wasting disease, CWD, a fatal brain disease known to affect deer and elk, which has been detected in elk within the park. Research begun in 1994 was aimed at gathering critical information needed to provide a scientific basis for a new management plan.

I have been following this matter with interest, and last year I wrote the National Park Service about the four alternatives discussed in their draft environmental impact statement, DEIS, on the subject.

As I said in that letter, while I am not a wildlife biologist, my own observations and discussions of the matter with both nearby residents and people with some professional expertise led me to conclude that the document correctly identified adverse consequences for aspen trees and other vegetation that would result from continued high elk densities in the park. Accordingly, as my letter said, I support action to reduce the numbers of elk in the park to something like the numbers that would be expected under natural conditions.

One option discussed in the DEIS would be release of a limited number of gray wolves, in order to return a natural predator that could control elk numbers. However, the DEIS notes that this would involve ``numerous uncertainties,'' including ``whether park managers could effectively control wolf behavior and movements and keep wolves in the park,'' which I think is a source of valid concern for ranchers who operate on nearby lands and for other park neighbors. And, in any case, the DEIS indicates that it would still be necessary for there to be ``lethal reduction''--meaning shooting of elk--at least for some time because the small number of wolves would not be enough to accomplish the desired reduction in the number of elk in the park.

So, as I noted in my letter, I readily understand why this has not been identified as the preferred alternative.

Instead, the DEIS said it would be preferable to have people cull the elk herd by ``lethal reduction''--meaning the shooting of selected animals to reduce the overall numbers to a more appropriate level.

The DEIS identified two ``lethal reduction'' scenarios, differing mainly in the number of elk to be shot: 100 to 200 annually over 20 years or 200 to 700 elk annually for four years and after that 25 to 150 elk annually for 15 years. The DEIS says ``adaptive use of wolves'' could eventually become part of the second scenario, and it identified it as the preferred alternative.

I think the DEIS did a good job of providing reasons for that choice. However, as I said in my letter, I think serious consideration should be given to some changes in its implementation--particularly by exploring ways to increase participation by Colorado sportsmen and sportswomen.

There are several reasons I think this should be explored, especially the potential for significant savings to the taxpayers.

The DEIS estimates that implementing the preferred alternative would cost between about $16.55 million and $18.26 million over the next 20 years, with ``labor'' accounting for between $6.55 million and $7.37 million of those totals. Evidently, these ``labor'' costs would be mostly for compensating the people doing the shooting, between 3 and 10 FTEs, with a smaller amount for administration (1.5 FTEs).

As I indicated in my letter, I think the National Park Service should explore the possibility that those costs could be substantially reduced by offering qualified Coloradans an opportunity to take part--under the strict guidance and direction of the National Park Service--either without compensation or for less compensation than the amounts on which the DEIS estimates were based.

Having reviewed my letter and other public comments on the DEIS, the National Park Service is now moving toward a decision on how to go about reducing the number of elk in Rocky Mountain National Park. That is what they should be doing.

But I am concerned that some of their statements in a recent meeting with Colorado wildlife officials suggest they have mistakenly concluded that they do not have the legal authority to act along the lines I suggested. My bill is intended to make it clear that they do have that authority.

At the meeting, the National Park Service distributed a paper entitled ``Legal Analysis of Hunting within Rocky Mountain National Park.'' I am not a lawyer, and I do not dispute the accuracy of that paper. But I do dispute its relevance--because what is involved here is not ``hunting,'' as that term is generally used, but instead a plan to reduce elk numbers by having people selected by the National Park Service and acting in accordance with its instructions shoot specified numbers of animals over specified periods of time.

So, the question is not whether the National Park Service plans to have elk shot--it does. The question is whether the National Park Service has the authority to consider allowing qualified Coloradans-- specifically, those who have hunting licenses and who meet whatever qualifications the National Park Service may set--do the shooting.

My bill would resolve that question by making it clear that the laws applicable to Rocky Mountain National Park do not prevent the National Park Service from doing that.

It also would require the National Park Service to consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding the possible participation of that state agency in implementing the new plan for managing elk in the park. I have included that provision because, while management of the park is and should remain the sole responsibility of the National Park Service, I think the Service should at least discuss the matter to see whether the Division of Wildlife can be helpful in addressing this matter of concern to both agencies and the public.

I think my bill can help the National Park Service to move forward to resolve a real management problem in a cost-effective manner.

For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the legislation:

Section 1 provides definitions of terms used in the bill

Section 2 states that nothing in the laws applicable to management of Rocky Mountain National Park is to be construed as prohibiting the Interior Department from using the services of qualified individuals, as volunteers or under contract, from assisting in implementation of the new elk and vegetation management plan by using lethal means to reduce the park's elk population. The term ``qualified individuals'' means people with Colorado resident big-game hunting licenses who have whatever other qualifications the National Park Service may set after consulting with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. This section would not require the National Park Service to use the services of qualified Coloradans, but it would make clear that there is no legal obstacle to their doing so.

Section 3 would require the National Park Service to consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding that state agency's possible participation in implementing the new plan to manage elk in the park. This would not require such participation, but it would require the National Park Service to consider it.

Section 4 states that nothing in the bill is to be construed as applying to the taking of wildlife within the park for any purpose other than implementation of the new elk management plan.

Madam Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to require focused, careful consideration and separate Congressional approval of a form of back-door spending that could leave the taxpayers exposed to serious financial liability.

It is cosponsored by our colleagues Mr. Walz, Mr. Flake, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Maloney, Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Kline, Ms. Musgrave and Mr. Miller of Florida. I greatly appreciate their assistance and support.

The bill, entitled the ``Congress Must Co-Sign Act'' deals with proposals to have the Department of Transportation lend a billion dollars--or more--for any one purpose.

It would require greater transparency regarding such loans and a separate Congressional vote to approve each such loan, even if it had received preliminary approval either on its own or as part of a larger measure.

The purpose is to increase Congressional accountability and to reduce the chance the taxpayers will find themselves stuck with the bill if the lender should default on one of these loans.

The bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to provide Congress advance written notice at least 60 days before any Department of Transportation funds can be used to make a loan in an amount greater than $1 billion. This notice would have to include information about the purpose, the authority and the terms and conditions of the loan.

And the bill would require that after receiving the notice, Congress would have to pass legislation approving the loan before the Transportation Department could go forward and lend the money.

This is not just a theoretical matter--one such mega-loan is now being processed within the Administration. And that fact illustrates the need to broaden the focus in the debate about ``earmarks'' and special tax breaks. We in Congress need to take a harder look not just at direct spending and the indirect spending through the tax code, but also at backdoor spending through the lending of taxpayer dollars.

In all these areas, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability. That's why I have introduced H.R. 595, the ``Stimulating Leadership in Controlling Expenditures''--or ``SLICE''-- Act, to enact a constitutionally sound version of a line-item veto for individual spending items.

It's also why I have introduced H.R. 905, the Commission on Unfair Tax Breaks and Subsidies--or ``CUTS''--Act, which would provide another way to require action to increase equity and accountability in the federal budget.

And that is why I am introducing this bill today--not because I am convinced that the pending loan, or some similar loans in the future, would not be appropriate, but because I think it's essential that a decision to approve such a mega-loan should be made in a careful, deliberate way with full discussion of the merits and potential risks and a separate vote here in the Congress. At the end of the day, I might vote to approve the pending loan or some other loan of that type, or I might conclude that the potential costs outweigh the likely benefits. My purpose is not to prejudge the result, but to require a better, more open way of making a decision.

The federal budget remains awash in a sea of red ink and we are continuing to add to the Nation's towering pile of debt. People in Colorado and across the country expect greater transparency and accountability from their elected officials and our decisions on spending. This bill would take an important step in that direction and I think it deserves the support of all our colleagues.

Madam Speaker, this week the House has considered a resolution focused on the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq by committing more troops. That certainly deserves the debate it has received.

I voted for the resolution disapproving of the escalation plan because I think that plan is misguided and will not be effective in the context of the civil war that has emerged in Iraq.

Of course, I'm not under any illusion that the president will listen to the resolution's message. He has made clear his intention to move

forward, and many troops are already in place or heading to their new positions.

I think that is a tragic error, one that I will work to correct. But at the same time we--both the Administration and the Congress--must consider what may come next.

That is why I am today introducing legislation to require that Congress be informed about the extent to which the Administration is doing the planning that is needed if we are to be prepared to respond to what our intelligence agencies tell us may be further catastrophic developments in Iraq and the region.

You'd think it wouldn't be necessary for Congress to legislate to make sure the Pentagon plans for contingencies. And when, at a recent Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Gates whether they were doing that, his answer, while vague, was reassuring.

But vague reassurances aren't enough, and I am following up with this bill because I don't want a repeat of the performance that led the Administration to launch a war in Iraq without a plan for what would come after initial military success.

The Bush Administration was warned--by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's Joint Staff, the State Department's Bureau of intelligence and Research, and the CIA's National Intelligence Council, among others--that U.S. troops could face significant postwar resistance.

And in February, 2003 an Army War College report warned that without an ``overwhelming'' effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, ``The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making.''

But despite these warnings, the Bush Administration rushed ahead without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country once our military had achieved its initial objectives.

We all know where that has led us--to the point where, according to the just-released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, we're faced with a deteriorating situation in Iraq in which ``Iraqi society's growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides' ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremist.''

And now we are being warned that things well may get even worse.

Specifically, the NIE states that as Iraq's security environment worsens, three prospective security paths could emerge--chaos leading to partition, the emergency of a Shia strongman, or anarchic fragementation of power.

Madam Speaker, the NIE is the Administration's own document, and the most authoritiative written judgment of the Director of National Intelligence with respect to Iraq. I think it must be taken seriously, and I think we in Congress must demand to be told--specifically and in detail--just how the Administration is preparing to respond should any one of those contingencies occur.

That is what my legislation calls for. It would require that by June 30th of this year the Administration inform the House and Senate Armed Services Committees just how the Department of Defense and other agencies would respond to each of the three scenarios identified by the NIE, with an explanation of the proposed role of U.S. troops under each scenario, including a comprehensive analysis identifying and justifying the number of U.S. troops needed in each case.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I want assurances that this Administration is thinking about and planning for troubling possibilities they themselves have depicted. No one wants chaos or increased violence in Iraq, but it would be irresponsible not to plan for those possibilities. While looking at Iraq through rose-colored glasses may make us feel better, we will only do right by our men and women in uniform if we plan for likely contingencies, however unpalatable.

Of course, this legislation isn't intended to solve the larger problem of Iraq. To do that, we need a policy aimed at escalating diplomatic and political efforts and lightening the U.S. footprint in Iraq. But so far the President instead is continuing to embrace the idea that the solution is more troop.

Defense Secretary Gates has said that we'll know within months whether or not that escalation has been successful. So it isn't too soon to begin planning now for what may come next. And it is high time for Congress to insist that the Administration is responding to that essential.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of Dan E. Straight. Although Mr. Straight did not reside in my district, he worked on an issue within my district that was dear to his heart--the preservation and reopening of the Rollins Pass road over the Continental Divide near Winter Park, Colorado.

Mr. Straight passed away last week. He led a full life that included patriotic service to our country. He served in the U.S. Air Force for years and saw action in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. He also served his community through work with the Boy Scouts, the American Red Cross and his local Rotary.

And because he loved history and the outdoors, he was a champion for the reopening of the Rollins Pass road. Also known as the Moffat Road due to its proximity to the Moffat railroad tunnel, this road was used as a stage and narrow gauge railroad corridor taking passengers from Colorado's east slope communities to the homesteads, resources and recreational activities on the western slope. Rollin Pass contains historic railroad features such as dramatic trestles that span creek valleys and a feature aptly called the Needle Eye Tunnel near the top. Due to age, rock fall has occurred in the tunnel and it has remained closed.

Due to Mr. Straight's efforts, I included language in the James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area Act to allow for the reopening of the Rollins Pass road to two-wheel drive vehicles. Conversations are occurring between the acted countries and the U.S. Forest Service in this regard. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Straight as we were working on this legislation. It was clear that he had a love for this road, this state and this country and he served it all with distinction and passion.

Madam Speaker, I have attached a story from the Longmont Times-Call newspaper noting his passing.

[From the Daily Times--Call, Feb. 9, 2007]

Longmont loses `The Colonel'

(By Trevor Hughes)

Longmont.--Dan E. Straight, a retired Air Force colonel and

tireless advocate of reopening Rollins Pass Road over the

Continental Divide to Winter Park, died suddenly Wednesday.

He was 84.

A longtime local resident, Straight volunteered with groups

ranging from the American Red Cross to the Boy Scouts. He

helped launch the Twin Peaks Rotary.

Originally from Greeley, Straight and his family settled in

Longmont around 1976 after he retired from the Air Force, for

which he had flown more than 29 types of aircraft. The front

fuselage of one of them, a B-26B Marauder nicknamed ``Flack

Bait,'' is displayed at the Smithsonian.

Straight, known locally to many as ``The Colonel,'' was one

of many pilots of the storied World War II bomber. He flew

one mission in the bomber, on Valentine's Day 1945, carrying

his young daughter's shoe in his pocket so she'd always be

near.

Straight often regaled high school students with stories

from his service during World War II, Korea and Vietnam,

according to his family.

He and Juanita also were Red Cross volunteers who helped

Special Transit transport people in Longmont and Boulder

County to medical appointments.

But it was perhaps his 25-year presidency of the Rollins

Pass Restoration Association that brought Straight the most

local attention. The pass, along an old railroad grade and

through the Needle's Eye Tunnel, offers a shortcut between

Boulder and Grand counties.

The 23-mile route fell out of use by trains in 1928, when

the 6.2-mile Moffat Tunnel was completed. With the tracks

removed in the late 1920s, trains gave way to cars, and for

decades the pass and tunnel drew sightseers and travelers

from across the Front Range.

Part of the Needle's Eye Tunnel collapsed in 1979, but it

was re-opened to cars in 1987 before another partial collapse

that injured a sightseer closed it again in 1990.

``I'm just amazed at the people who built it,'' Straight

said in 2003.

Technically difficult to pull off at 11,000 feet, the

tunnel-stabilization project entailed drilling eight-foot

holes into the tunnel walls and roof, then gluing in inch-

thick steel rods.

The 1990 collapse injured an area firefighter who was hit

by falling rocks from the roof of the tunnel's southern

entrance.

The cause: a single missing rock bolt. Ironically, the

space where the missing bolt should be is clearly visible in

the commemorative photos given to association members.

Straight took that photo, a signed copy of which hangs in the

Times-Call newsroom.

Despite the setback, Straight remained committed to

reopening the tunnel, and negotiations among local officials

about fixing it continue to this day.

``That was his favorite mission in life,'' said his

daughter Su Eckhardt.

She added that Straight was involved in many other

endeavors, including the Longmont Rotary Club, Westview

Presbyterian Church, the Masons, the Shriners, the St. Vrain

Photographic Society and the Salvation Army.

``He made a commitment beyond simply joining and paying

dues,'' she said.

Clark Misner served as project manager for the Rollins Pass

reopening in 1987. Now the county's transportation director,

he said Straight's love of railroads and the old wagon route

over Rollins Pass prompted his interest in the project.

``He was a really decent guy, a straight shooter, no pun

intended,'' Misner said. ``He was direct about what he

thought should happen. He was honest and just a good guy.''

Memorial services will be held at 2 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 10,

at Westview Presbyterian Church, with the Rev. Bruce McQueen

officiating. Military honors will be presented by the Mile

High Honor Guard, USAF.

In lieu of flowers, the family suggests memorial donations

to the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, the Rollins Pass

Restoration Association, Shrine Children's Hospitals or

Westview Presbyterian Church in care of Ahlberg Funeral

Chapel, 326 Terry St., Longmont 80501.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, which includes an array of tax cuts and other provisions that will help the small businesses that provide jobs for Americans in all sectors of the economy.

The bill will make it easier for small businesses to invest in new equipment by extending their ability to count such investments as a business expense, increasing from $112,000 to $125,000 the amount that can be deducted from their taxes and expanding the number of small businesses that can take these deductions.

In addition, the bill extends the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, WOTC-- which provides incentives for hiring--and expands it to cover disabled veterans.

It also will enhance the current tip credit for small businesses, by maintaining the current tip credit that small businesses take for the Social Security taxes that they pay on their employees' tips, instead of allowing it to drop with the increase in the minimum wage. This is particularly important for many restaurants in Colorado and across the country.

And it will simplify tax-filing requirements for businesses owned jointly by married couples and ensure that small businesses are fully able to claim the WOTC and tip credit against Alternative Minimum Tax liability.

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is an excellent example of the good results that can be achieved when we work together on a bipartisan basis. It has the support of the Administration and has also been endorsed by the national Chamber of Commerce, the National

Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Restaurant Association.

I have also received a letter of support from the American Farm Bureau Federation--which I will insert in the Record--noting that passage of the bill will directly benefit many farm and ranch businesses. This means it is particularly important for our rural communities in Colorado.

This is a good bill, and I think it deserves the approval of the House.

February 15, 2007.

Hon. Mark Udall,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Udall: The American Farm Bureau

Federation supports passage of H.R. 976, the Small Business

Tax Relief Act of 2007.

H.R. 976 extends the enhanced provisions of section 179

small business expensing for one year. Beginning in 2007, it

increases the maximum amount that can be expensed from

$112,000 to $125,000 and the total dollar limit from $450,000

to $500,000.

Section 179 allows small businesses to expense the cost of

qualified property in the year that it is purchased in lieu

of depreciation. Qualified property includes farm machinery

equipment and attached farm property, such as milk tanks,

automatic feeders, barn cleaners, single purpose agricultural

structures and livestock.

The ability to deduct expenses immediately instead of

having to depreciate them over time improve cash flow and

allows farm and ranch businesses to better match income and

expenses. Extending and expanding small business expensing

will offer additional benefits to farm and ranch businesses.

Farm Bureau urges you to vote for passage of H.R. 976, the

Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007.

Sincerely,

Bob Stallman,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also acknowledge Mr. Marshall and the powerful sentiments he just shared with all of us. Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. It is our first extended and substantive debate on the war in Iraq since Congress gave the President the authority to invade more than 4 years ago.

But if we do nothing more than debate the President's escalation plan, we will not keep faith with the American people who rightly expect this new Congress to bring our costly involvement in Iraq to a close. And while the resolution before us is largely symbolic and nonbinding, it can be, I think it should be, the opening part of a longer, thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests not only Iraq but the entire Middle East.

So this resolution is a start. And I will vote for it because I agree with the message it sends. The resolution expresses disapproval of the President's sending more troops to Iraq, an action that is contrary to the wise advice of the Iraq Study Group, critical members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and experienced military commanders like former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The President's escalation is most likely too small to be effective, and adopting new counterinsurgency tactics comes 2 years too late. The resolution, in my opinion, represents the correct response to these facts. It expresses support for our brave men and women in uniform, but disagreement with the policy of military escalation.

Mr. Speaker, as we speak here today, the death toll in Iraq rises, and the war continues to drain our national Treasury, stretch our Armed Forces, and weaken our capacity to effectively counter Islamic terrorism. Congress needs to send the message that things must change.

I opposed the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and I have never once regretted that vote. But today we must focus on the future. We cannot move the clock back, but we need to avoid making a bad situation worse. We should not be scaling up our military mission in Iraq, we should be scaling back. 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.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I know about the pressure on our active duty and National Guard and Reserve soldiers. They lack enough equipment and training. They are experiencing multiple or extended deployments and limited time at home between deployments. But to be successful our men and women must be properly trained, equipped, and ready to deploy worldwide quickly.

Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increases the risk to our troops and to their mission. In short, this administration's policies have brought us to the point where we not only cannot sustain an escalation in Iraq, but also we are not fully prepared for other contingencies.

But that is not the only reason I oppose the escalation. I do not think the President's rationale for it makes sense, no matter our readiness levels. The just-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq agrees that the term ``civil war'' accurately describes what is happening in Iraq, and suggests that the conflict may in fact be worse than a civil war.

Putting more Americans at risk is not a recipe for victory. 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.

So what should be the way forward? For one, I believe a reduction of military forces in Iraq and a phased redeployment of our Armed Forces to border regions like Anbar and the Kurdish areas of Iraq would be effective. That can give us flexibility to act militarily in Iraq if necessary, but will also increase the pressure on the Iraqi Government to move toward political reconciliation.

I do not think an immediate withdrawal of American forces or setting a date certain for withdrawal makes sense, but neither does an open- ended commitment for American blood and treasure. And as bad as the situation is in Iraq, 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 badly compromised by the Bush administration's failures.

We should adopt the main policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, including stronger efforts of diplomacy in the region. It is not in the interests of any nation to have Iraq descend into further civil war and chaos. As challenging as diplomacy is in the Middle East, I believe the sacrifice of our soldiers demand that we engage in serious regional talks, including those with our adversaries Syria and Iran.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced we must reach for bipartisanship in crafting our policy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the stakes in Iraq are very high.

The outcome in this region will have consequences for future generations that will long outlive those of us who are in Congress today.

Great leaders acknowledge mistakes, learn and chart a new course. For the sake of future generations and to keep faith with the generations that built America, let us be a Nation of great leaders.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first significant debate we have had on the war in Iraq since Congress passed the President's request for an authorization to invade Iraq more than four years ago. And even though our debate today is on a largely symbolic question--a non-binding resolution disapproving the President's announced plan for moving additional troops to Iraq--I believe it ought to serve as the beginning of a deeper and more thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests in the Middle East, and Iraq.

If all we do is debate the wisdom of a surge, we will not keep faith with the American people, who rightly expect this new Congress to bring our costly involvement in the Iraq war to a close.

Nevertheless, I will support this resolution disapproving the president's call for additional troops in Iraq because it runs contrary to the wise advice of the Iraq Study Group (the Baker-Hamilton Commission), critical members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and experienced military commanders like former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on the best strategic approach in Iraq. The President's plan calls for an infusion of additional soldiers--probably too few to have the desired outcome--and utilizing counterinsurgency tactics that are two years too late and that I believe will be ineffective in the context of the civil war that has emerged in Iraq.

We are also expecting General David Petraeus and our troops to operate under a complicated joint command structure with Iraqi forces and political leaders that is unprecedented in our military history and undermines the ``unity of command'' rule in warfare. And all this comes at a time when the death toll in Iraq is rising and the war continues to drain our national treasury, stretches our armed forces, and decreases--rather than enhances--our ability to wage an effective war against Islamic terrorism. Even as we debate a ``surge'' in Iraq, we should not forget Afghanistan. We will win there if we redouble our efforts now.

I opposed the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq and I have never once regretted that vote. Today, we cannot move the clock back, but we can surely avoid making a bad situation worse. We should not be scaling up our military mission in Iraq--we should be scaling back. 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.

I say this as a Member of the Armed Services Committee who understands 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. By all measurements, we are not in a position to sustain an escalation of troops.

But I don't believe the President's rationale for the ``surge'' makes sense, no matter our readiness levels. The just-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq agrees that the term ``civil war'' accurately describes aspects of the Iraq conflict and goes further in suggesting that the conflict may in fact, be more complicated and worse than a civil war. Putting more American troops at risk in this kind of setting is not a recipe for victory; it is only a prescription for quagmire. 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.

So what should be the way forward? How should Congress respond?

I believe a policy aimed at escalating diplomatic and political efforts is preferable to one that continues to rely on our soldiers to carry the heavy burden of nation-building--a mission that soldiers are ill-equipped for without strong international support, particularly in the midst of civil war and sectarian violence. That is why I favor a reduction of military forces in Iraq, and a phased redeployment of our armed forces to border regions in places like Anbar province and the Kurdish areas of Iraq, which should give us some flexibility to respond militarily should circumstances require it, but will also increase the pressure on the Iraqi government to move toward political reconciliation and stability.

I do not believe an immediate withdrawal of American forces or setting a date certain for withdrawal makes sense, but neither does an open-ended commitment of American blood and treasure.

As bad as the situation is in Iraq, however, 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.

To do this, I believe Congress should pass a resolution that embodies the main policy elements of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, including a call for stronger efforts at diplomacy in the region and internationally. It is not in the interests of any nation to have Iraq descend into further civil war and chaos. As challenging as diplomacy is in the Middle East, I believe the sacrifice of our soldiers demands that we engage in serious regional talks, including talks with our adversaries, Syria and Iran.

Finally, I believe we must reach for bipartisanship in crafting our policy in Iraq. The President misguidedly took us into war on the eve of a bitter national election. We must try hard not to compound this error by turning a debate on Iraq into a partisan game of one-upmanship where legitimate disagreement with the Administration's plan for escalation is called a betrayal of our troops or where resistance to immediate withdrawal is called war-mongering.

For my part, I intend to speak out loudly and often for a responsible withdrawal strategy in Iraq, but I will also offer proposals that are aimed at finding common ground. I will be introducing legislation that looks beyond the ``surge'' and toward the necessary and inevitable contingency planning that will be needed if we are to avoid deeper and more catastrophic scenarios in Iraq and the region.

Mr. Speaker, the stakes in Iraq are very high. The outcome in this region will have consequences for future generations that will long outlive those of us who are in Congress today. Great leaders acknowledge mistakes, learn, and chart a new course. For the sake of future generations and to keep faith with the generations that built America, let us be a Nation of great leaders.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am today reintroducing four bills that would make various changes in current laws regarding Native Americans. Each of these bills is identical to one that I introduced last year, and each is identical to a bill passed by the Senate in 2005 or 2006 on which action was not completed before the end of the 109th Congress. I am reintroducing them today so that their consideration can resume without further unnecessary delay.

One bill corresponds to S. 1231 as passed by the Senate on December 14, 2005. Entitled the ``National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education Amendments Act,'' it would amend the Act to provide four key improvements intended to assist the Fund in achieving self- sufficiency. First, it would provide initial seed money to the Fund for three fiscal years to facilitate operations. In addition, it would authorize the Secretary to provide funding for operational costs of the Fund on a reimbursement basis. It also would authorize the Board to appoint the Chief Operating Officer rather than mandating the Secretary of the Board serve as the Chief Operating Officer. And it would increase the administrative cost cap of ten percent currently in place to 20 percent for one year, 15 percent the following year and then decreasing back to 10 percent.

Another bill corresponds to S. 1758, as passed by the Senate on September 26, 2005. It would amend the Indian Financing Act of 1974 with respect to loan guaranty and insurance to: (1) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to guarantee or insure loans to both for- profit and nonprofit borrowers; and (2) allow all or any portion of a guaranteed or insured loan, including its security, to be transferred by the lender by sale or assignment to

any person, and be retransferred by the transferee. It also would allow a fiscal transfer agent to be compensated through any of the fees assessed and any interest earned on any funds or fees the agent has collected while the funds or fees are in the agent's control and before the time at which the agent is contractually required to transfer such funds to the Secretary or to transferees or other holders. And it would make loans made by an eligible Community Development Finance Institution eligible for guaranty or insurance and increase from $500 million to $1.5 billion the amount of loans the Bureau of Indian Affairs can have outstanding.

Another bill corresponds to S. 1480, passed by the Senate on July 26, 2006. It provides that any actual rental proceeds certified by the Secretary of the Interior from the lease of land acquired with a FHA Direct Loan by an Indian tribe or Tribal Corporation shall be deemed to: (1) constitute the rental value of that land; and (2) satisfy the requirement for appraisal of that land.

And another bill corresponds to S. 1483, also passed by the Senate last July 26th. It would amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 with respect to grants to tribally controlled postsecondary vocational and technical institutions that are not receiving federal support under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 or the Navajo Community College Act to provide basic support for the education and training of Indian students. It also would revise the definition of ``Indian student count'' (essential to the formula for the determination of grant amounts). And it would require the Indian student count to be determined according to a specified formula, for each academic year, on the basis of the enrollments of Indian students as in effect at the conclusion of the third week of the fall term and the third week of the spring term, allowing the counting of students without secondary school degrees under certain circumstances.

I urge the leadership of the committees to which these bills will be referred to consider them as soon as practicable.

Madam Speaker. I am today introducing another bill intended to help reduced waste and inequity in the Federal budget.

There has been much discussion of individual spending items-- ``earmarks''--requested by individual members. They are not all bad, but I agree that some need closer scrutiny. That's why I have introduced a bill, H.R. 595, the Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures, or ``SLICE'' Act, to give the President a constitutionally sound version of a line-item veto that can force Congress to reconsider individual spending items.

But we need to recognize that earmarks are not the whole story. Much waste and inequity in the budget results not from 1-year spending items, but from ongoing tax breaks and subsidies that are built into the budget and will persist unless and until there are changes in relevant law.

Like earmarks, not all tax breaks and subsidies are bad--in fact, I think many are good for our country and deserve to continue or even be expanded. One example would be the tax breaks and other provisions to promote renewable energy and to help Americans become more efficient in their use of energy. And there are other examples as well.

But there is also an array of direct subsidies, tax breaks and indirect assistance created for the special benefit of a relatively small number of beneficiaries, sometimes at the expense of others.

Too often, such provisions have persisted because of the phenomenon that once made it nearly impossible for Congress to close unneeded military bases--the cost of each one is relatively small in overall terms, but very important to a few States or Congressional Districts, with the result that the potential budgetary benefit of a reform is not great enough to overcome the strong opposition from its defenders.

So, the bill I am introducing today would resolve this dilemma in the same way that an earlier Congress resolved the similar problem of eliminating unneeded military bases. It would do that by establishing an independent, bipartisan, and expert commission to review special- interest tax breaks and subsidies to see which should be ended or revised.

But this would not be just another commission to produce another report fated only to gather dust on congressional shelves. Instead, like the special commissions that have reviewed military bases, it would be key to a

process that would require Congress not just to read the report but to vote on whether to adopt its recommendations.

Here's how my bill would work:

bipartisan cuts commission

The Commission on Unfair Tax Breaks and Subsidies, or ``CUTS Commission'', would consist of five members. Its chair would be a person named jointly by the Speaker and the Senate majority leader. The Speaker and the majority leader of the Senate would each pick one other member, and so would the minority leaders in each Chamber. Members would be chosen on the basis of their expertise and to represent a fair balance of views.

The Commission's job would be to identify and evaluate payments, benefits, services, or tax breaks to see if they meet the test of a reasonable expectation that they will bring a return to the public at least equal to the value of the cost to the taxpayers.

Scope of Review

The scope of this review would not include payments made to or tax breaks benefiting individuals, to state or local government or Indian tribes, or Native corporations organized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or to nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations.

It also would not cover support for research and development based on peer-reviewed or other open, competitive and merit-based procedures where the subject is in the public interest and the work is not likely to be done, or done with equal benefit to the public, by the private sector.

Similarly, the review would not include payments or tax breaks primarily benefiting public health, safety or protection of the environment; the development and use of renewable energy; improved energy efficiency; or education.

Finally, the Commission would not review matters of national security, including homeland security, compliance with trade agreements or treaties, or procurement contracts--and could not propose new programs or taxes or the termination of federal agencies.

Recommendations

The Commission would have a year to complete its work. Within that time, it would first prepare a preliminary report for review by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and then a final report to Congress.

The Commission's report would specify which changes in subsidies the commission is recommending--and any recommendation supported by at least four of the five members of the Commission would be assured of prompt consideration by Congress.

Legislative Action on Recommendations

Under the bill, recommendations with that high degree of bipartisan support on the commission would have to be introduced as bills, and each committee to which they were referred would have a 20-day deadline to reporting them.

A committee could consider only amendments that would terminate or reduce an inequitable subsidy, except that the tax-writing committees could offset revenue increases with broad-based tax cuts, they could not use limited tax breaks of the kind that would have been subject to a line-item veto under the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996. If a committee failed to meet the deadline for reporting, it would be discharged.

Bills reported from committees would go to the Rules Committees of each Chamber. If more than one bill is reported, Rules would consolidate them into one measure which would go to the floor. After 5 days, excepting weekends and holidays, a motion to proceed to its consideration would be privileged and not debatable and, if adopted, the bill would be considered under procedures limiting the time for debate. Similar procedures would apply to conference reports after each Chamber had acted.

In short, Congress could not ignore consensus recommendations by the Commission. It would have to debate them and then vote on whether to adopt them.

Potential for Savings

It is not possible to say exactly how much this bill will save the taxpayers--that depends on what the Commission might recommend and how many of their recommendations Congress would approve. I have seen estimates that the kinds of subsidies and tax breaks covered by this bill could be costing tens of billions of dollars annually just in terms of special-interest spending programs, not to mention special tax breaks--such as provisions to suspend the tariffs on certain items-- many of which are of particular benefit to just one or a few companies. So, I think the potential is considerable.

Equity and Accountability

And as important as the savings that could come from enactment of my bill is the increased budget equity and congressional accountability that it would promote. Special-interest subsidies, whether through spending or tax breaks, are great for the beneficiaries but they aren't always great for the taxpayers and they often are harmful to competing companies or other entities that don't get the benefit of the subsidies.

So, trimming or eliminating that kind of subsidies could save money and would remove inequities--and requiring those of us in Congress to stand up and be counted on whether to trim or eliminate some of them would increase our accountability to the taxpayers, to those hurt by the subsidies, and to the American people.

For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I think this bill deserves the support of our colleagues. For their benefit, here is an outline of its major provisions.

Outline of Commission on Unfair Tax Breaks and Subsidies (``CUTS'')

Bill

Commission--5 members: chair appointed jointly by House

Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, plus one each appointed

by House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and House and

Senate Minority Leaders. Members to be chosen on basis of

expertise and to reflect diverse views. No Federal employees

on the commission, but agencies can detail people to provide

technical expertise.

Duration--Commission would have one year to complete its

review and report to Congress.

Scope of Review--Commission would review payments,

benefits, services, and tax breaks provided to companies,

joint ventures, associations, etc. but not to individuals,

state or local governments, Indian tribes and Alaska Native

Corporations, or tax-exempt nonprofits. Review would not

cover support for research and development based on open,

merit-based competition if it is consistent with public

interest and federal agency purposes and private sector

cannot reasonably be expected to do it as well. Also outside

scope of review: matters involving public health or safety or

the environment; development or use of renewable energy;

greater energy efficiency; national security (including

homeland security); or education. Review also would not

involve matters needed to comply with international trade or

treaty obligations or federal procurement contracts.

Report--Commission's preliminary report would be reviewed

by GAO; final report would go to Congress with

recommendations for changing or eliminating subsidies covered

by commission's review. Any recommendation backed by at least

4 commission members would have to be introduced as

legislation.

Action by Congress--Committees would be limited in amending

bills to adopt recommendations by at least 4 of the 5

commission members and would have to report them for floor

action with time limits on debate. So, Congress would have to

act on those recommendations.

Madam Speaker, today I am again introducing the Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act. I introduced similar bills in the 107th and 108th Congresses, and last year the legislation was passed by the House but the Senate did not complete action on it before the end of the 109th Congress.

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 the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site. The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes much of the land in this backdrop area, but there are other lands involved 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 within and adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation. The open-space character of this mountain backdrop 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 within and adjacent to that national forest.

We can see this throughout Colorado and especially along the Front Range. Homes and shopping centers are sprawling up valleys and along highways that feed into the Front Range. This development then spreads out along the ridges and mountain tops that make up the backdrop. We are in danger of losing to development many of the qualities that have helped attract new residents. So, it is important to better understand what steps might be taken to avoid or lessen that risk--and this bill is designed to help us do just that.

Already, local governments and other entities have provided important protection for portions of this mountain backdrop, especially in the northern Denver-metro area. However, some portions of the backdrop in this part of Colorado remain unprotected and are at risk of losing their open-space qualities. This bill acknowledges the good work of the local communities to preserve open spaces along the backdrop 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. It also 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. The bill envisions that to the extent the Forest Service should be involved with federal lands, it will work in collaboration with local communities, the state and private parties.

Madam Speaker, I strongly believe it is in the national interest for the Federal Government to assist local communities to identify ways to protect the mountain backdrop in this part of Colorado. The backdrop beckoned settlers westward and presented an imposing impediment to their forward progress that suggested similar challenges ahead. This first exposure to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West helped define a region. The pioneers' independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day. We need to work to preserve it by protecting the mountain backdrop as a cultural and natural heritage for ourselves and generations to come. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a fact sheet about this bill.

Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act

Generally: The bill would help local communities preserve

the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern sections of

the Denver-metro area in a region generally west of the Rocky

Flats Environmental Technology site.

Front Range Mountain Backdrop: The backdrop consists of the

mountainous foothills, the Continental Divide and the peaks

in between that create the striking visual backdrop of the

Denver-metro area and throughout Colorado. Development in the

Denver-metro area is encroaching in the Front Range backdrop

area, and thus adversely affecting the esthetic, wildlife,

open space and recreational qualities of this geographic

feature. Now is the time to shape the future of this part of

the Front Range. There is a real but fleeting opportunity to

protect both protect Rocky Flats--a ``crown jewel'' of open

space and wildlife habitat--and to assist local communities

to protect the scenic, wildlife, and other values of the

mountain backdrop.

What the bill does:

Study and Report: The bill requires the Forest Service to

study the ownership patterns of the lands comprising the

Front Range Mountain Backdrop in a region generally west of

Rocky Flats, identify areas that are open and may be at risk

of development, and recommend to Congress how these lands

might be protected and how the federal government could help

local communities and residents to achieve that goal.

Lands Covered: The bill identifies the lands in southern

Boulder, northern Jefferson and eastern Gilpin Counties in

the Second Congressional District; specifically, an area west

of Rocky Flats and west of Highway 93, south of Boulder

Canyon, east of the Peak-to-Peak Highway, and north of the

Golden Gate Canyon State Park road.

What the bill would not do:

Affect Local Planning: The bill is designed to complement

existing local efforts to preserve open lands in this region

west of Rocky Flats. It will not take the place of--nor

disrupt--these existing local efforts.

Affect Private Property Rights: The bill merely authorizes

a study. It will not affect any existing private property

rights.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007 with my colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis. This bill updates the existing law that formally established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in 1990. This bill is also similar to the Global Change Research and Data Management Act that I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses.

Over the past decade, the USGCRP has significantly advanced our scientific knowledge of Earth's atmosphere and climate and has provided us with a wealth of new data and information about the functioning of our planet.

However, the program has not produced sufficient information, both in terms of content and format, to be the basis for sound decisions. The program has focused nearly all of its resources and efforts on scientific inquiry. Only one broad assessment of the impact of global change on society has ever been attempted by the program, and that assessment was completed nearly 7 years after its Congressionally mandated deadline. The local, state, regional, and national policymakers responsible for managing resources, fostering economic development, and responding to natural disasters need information to guide their decisions. In my view, it is critical that Congress reorient the USGCRP toward a user-driven research endeavor.

The recent release of the policy summary from the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group I, has helped solidify the growing scientific consensus that our climate is changing. This international effort had government support from around the world, including strong involvement from the U.S., and is a summary of the latest science about our climate. It reports that the Earth is warming--sea temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, and air temperatures worldwide are increasing.

Most of the public and policy makers also agree that the climate is changing, but disagreement remains about how much is the result of human activities. I think this bill deserves the support of people on both sides of that argument.

We need to move beyond debates about whether global change is occurring and allocating responsibility for the changes. I continue to believe fervently that we must do all we can to soften our impact on the environment and to slow the pace of global change. But we are going to have to deal with climate change with some mix of mitigation and adaptation. We must acknowledge the interdependence of our social, economic and environmental systems and learn to anticipate and adjust to changes that will inevitably occur.

In its 2003 review of the Administration's draft strategic plan for the USGCRP, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) acknowledged the need for research to evaluate strategies to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of global change, and the Academy recommended that the plan be revised to enhance efforts to support decision-making. The Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007 reorients the program to accomplish these goals.

The NAS praised the Administration for including the development of decision support tools in the strategic plan, but criticized the plan for its failure to ``recognize the full diversity of decision makers'' and for failing to ``describe mechanisms for two-way communication with stakeholders.''

The Global Change Research and Data Management Act would address these criticisms by requiring the Administration to identify and consult with members of the user community in developing the USGCRP research plan. The bill would also mandate the involvement of the National Governors Association in evaluating the program plan from the perspective of the user community. These steps would help to ensure that the information needs of the policy community will be met as generously as the funding needs of the academic community.

The 1990 law outlined a highly specific organizational structure for the USGCRP. Our bill would eliminate this detailed organizational structure and provide the President with the flexibility to assemble an Interagency Committee and organizational structure that will best deliver the products Congress is requesting. Our bill would, however, retain many of the key features of current law--the requirements for a ten-year strategic plan, for periodic assessments of the effects of global change on the natural, social, and economic systems upon which we depend, and for increased international cooperation in global change science.

Our bill would establish a new interagency working group to coordinate federal policies on data management and archiving. Advances in computer, monitoring, and satellite technologies have vastly expanded our ability to collect and analyze data. We must do a much better job of managing and archiving these important data resources to support the work of current and future scientists and policymakers.

I would like to thank Mr. Inglis from South Carolina for cosponsoring of this bill. Crafting a new approach for the USGCRP is a non-partisan issue--increasing access to better and more relevant science is something that we all can agree will help us make better decisions.

As is clear from the current debate in response to the release of the IPCC report, we have yet to agree on how much more information, if any, is needed before we take actions to slow the effects of human activities on global change. These are tough policy questions that we will continue to wrestle with. This bill does not offer specific policy direction, but it does affirm the need for the continued strong federal support for global change research, and it does map out a new emphasis on the production of information needed to inform these important policy debates. As the world's leader in science and technology, it is incumbent on us to develop solutions that will protect our planet's resources and permit continued economic and social progress for our Nation and for the world.

Madam Speaker, I am today again introducing legislation to facilitate the use of water produced in connection with development of energy resources for irrigation and other uses in ways that will not adversely affect water quality or the environment.

The bill is similar to one I introduced in the 109th Congress (as H.R. 5011) that passed the House last year but on which the Senate did not complete legislative action. It is cosponsored by Representative Pearce of New Mexico, who is the ranking Republican member on the Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and also by Representative Edwards of Texas. I greatly appreciate their support.

The bill's purpose is to help change an energy-industry problem into an opportunity, not just for oil and gas producers but for everyone else who would benefit from increased supplies of usable water.

Especially in the arid west, that covers everyone--not least our hard-pressed ranchers and farmers.

The focus of the bill is what's called ``produced water''--the underground water extracted in connection with development of energy sources like oil, natural gas or coalbed methane. It would do two things:

First, it would direct Reclamation and the USGS to identify the obstacles to greater use of produced water and how those obstacles could be reduced or eliminated without adversely affecting water quality or the environment.

Second, it would provide for federal help in building 3 pilot plants to demonstrate ways to treat produced water to make it suitable for irrigation or other uses, again without adversely affecting water quality or the environment.

At least one of these pilot plants would be in Colorado, Utah, or Wyoming. At least one would be in one of the three States of New Mexico, Arizona or Nevada. And there would be at least one each in California and Texas. This is to assure that, together, the plants would demonstrate techniques applicable to a variety of geologic and other conditions.

Under the bill, the federal government could pay up to half the cost of building each plant, but no more than $1 million for any one plant. No federal funds could be used for operating the plants.

The bill's goal is reflected in its title--the ``More Water and More Energy Act of 2006.''

The extent of its potential benefits was shown by the testimony of Mr. David Templet at a hearing on the similar bill of mine the House considered last year.

Mr. Templet testified in support of that bill on behalf of the Domestic Petroleum Council and several other groups, including the Colorado Oil & Gas Association. He noted that produced water is the most abundant byproduct associated with the production of oil and gas, with about 18 billion barrels being generated by onshore wells in 1995.

And he pointed out that if only an additional 1% of that total could be put to beneficial use, the result would be to make over 75 billion gallons annually available for use for irrigation or other agriculture, municipal purposes, or to benefit fish and wildlife.

Now, remember that in the West we usually measure water by the acre- foot--the amount that would cover an acre to the depth of one foot--and an acre-foot is about 32,8560 gallons, so an additional 75 billion gallons is more than 230,000 acre-feet--more water, indeed.

And at the same time making produced water available for surface uses, instead of just reinjecting it into the subsurface, can help increase the production of oil and gas.

At least year's hearing, this was illustrated by the testimony of Dr. David Stewart, a registered professional engineer from Colorado. He cited the example of an oil field in California from which an estimated additional 150 million barrels of oil could be recovered if water were removed from the subsurface reservoir. And he pointed out that where oil recovery is thermally enhanced, a reduced amount of underground water means less steam--and so less cost--is needed to recover the oil.

The potential for having both more water and more energy is also illustrated by the example of a project near Wellington, Colorado, that treats produced water as a new water resource. An oil company is embarking on the project to increase oil production while a separate company will purchase the produced water to supplement existing supplies, eventually allowing the town of Wellington and other water users in the area to have increased water for drinking and other purposes.

In view of its potential for leading to both ``more water'' and ``more energy'' I was pleased but not surprised that last year the Administration, through the Interior Department, testified that it ``agrees that the goals of the bill are commendable and the needs that could be addressed are real'' and that the roles the bill would assign to the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS are consistent with the missions and expertise of those agencies.

In view of all this, Madam Speaker, I submit that this bill--and its promise of helping provide our country with both more water and more energy--deserves the support of the House.

For the benefit of our colleagues, here is a summary of the bill's provisions:

Summary of Provisions of the ``More Water and More Energy Act''

Section One--provides a short title (the ``More Water and

More Energy Act of 2007''), sets forth several findings

regarding the basis for the bill, and states the bill's

purpose: ``to facilitate the use of produced water for

irrigation and other purposes without adversely affecting

water quality or the environment, and to demonstrate ways to

accomplish that result.''

Section Two--defines terms used in the bill.

Section Three--requires the Interior Department (through

the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey) to

conduct a study to identify the technical, economic,

environmental, legal, and other obstacles to increasing the

extent to which water produced in connection with energy

development can be used for irrigation and other purposes

without adversely affecting water quality or the environment,

and legislative, administrative, and other actions that could

reduce or eliminate those obstacles. Results of the study are

to be reported to Congress within a year after enactment.

Section Four--provides that within existing authorities and

subject to appropriation of funds, the Interior Department is

to provide financial assistance for development of facilities

to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of

processes to increase use of produced water for irrigation,

municipal or industrial uses, or other purposes without

adversely affecting water quality or the environment. The

section specifies that assistance is to be provided for at

least one project in (1) Colorado, Utah, or Wyoming; (2) New

Mexico, Arizona, or Utah; (3) California; and (4) Texas.

Assistance to any facility cannot exceed $1 million and

cannot be used for operation or maintenance. The section

specifies that assistance under this bill can be in addition

to other federal assistance under other provisions of law.

Section Five--requires the Interior Department to--(1)

consult with the Department of Energy, EPA, and appropriate

Governors and local officials; (2) review relevant

information developed in connection with other research; (2)

include as much of that information as Interior finds

advisable in the report required by section 1; (3) seek the

advice of people with relevant professional expertise and of

companies with relevant industrial experience; and (4)

solicit comments and suggestions from the public.

Section Six--specifies that nothing in the bill is to be

construed as affecting--(1) the effect of any State law, or

any interstate authority or compact, regarding the use of

water or the regulation of water quantity or quality; or (2)

the applicability of any Federal law or regulation.

Section Seven--authorizes appropriation of--(1) $1 million

for the study required by section 1; and (2) $5 million to

implement section 4.

Madam Speaker, I am today again introducing a bill to make it more likely that red tape and missing documents will not frustrate Congress's attempt to provide compensation and care for some nuclear-weapons workers made sick by on-the-job exposure to radiation.

The bill is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter. I appreciate his support and that of Senator Ken Salazar, who is introducing a similar bill in the Senate.

The bill would revise the part of the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (``the Act'') that specifies which covered workers are part of what the law designates as the ``Special Exposure Cohort.''

The revision would extend this ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contractor employees, or atomic weapons employees--all terms defined by the current law--who worked at the Rocky Flats site, in Colorado, for at least 250 days prior to January 1, 2006.

The result would be to help provide the Act's benefits to any of those workers who contracted a radiation-linked cancer specified in the Act after beginning employment at Rocky Flats.

As the law now stands, before a Rocky Flats worker suffering from a covered cancer can receive benefits, it must be established that the cancer is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job exposure to radiation.

That sounds like a reasonable requirement--and it would be appropriate for Rocky Flats if we had adequate documentation of radiation exposures for the years when it was producing nuclear-weapons components as well as for the more recent time when DOE and its contractors have been working to clean it up and prepare it for closure.

However, in fact there were serious shortcomings in the monitoring of Rocky Flats workers' radiation exposures and in the necessary recordkeeping--to say nothing of the slowness of the current administrative process for making the required determinations concerning links between exposure and employment.

So there is a risk that a significant number of Rocky Flats workers who should be able to benefit from the Act will not obtain its benefits in a timely manner or will be denied them entirely.

The bill would prevent this miscarriage of justice, by recognizing that Rocky Flats workers have been plagued by the same kinds of administrative problems that entangled workers at some other locations--administrative problems that were addressed through inclusion in the Act of the provisions related to the ``Special Exposure Cohort.''

My understating of the need for this bill came from meeting with Rocky Flats workers and their representatives and by consulting experts. I have particularly benefited from the great experience and expertise of Dr. Robert Bistline. Dr. Bistline has served as Program Manager of the Energy Department's Oversight of Radiation Protection Program at the Rocky Flats field office and has few if any peers in terms of his understanding of the problems addressed by the bill.

In particular, the bill reflects these aspects of Rocky Flats history--

Many worker exposures were unmonitored over the plant's history. For some, estimated doses were assigned, and radiation exposures for many others are missing. As a result, there are at best incomplete records and many inaccuracies in the exposure records that do exist.

No lung counter for detecting and measuring plutonium and americium in the lungs existed at Rocky Flats until the late 1960s. Without this equipment the very insoluble oxide forms of plutonium cannot be detected and a large number of workers had inhalation exposures that went undetected and unmeasured.

Exposure to neutron radiation was not monitored until the late 1950s and most of those measurements through 1970 have been found to be in error. In some areas of the plant the neutron doses were as much as 2 to 10 times as great as the gamma doses received by workers but only gamma doses were recorded.

As a result of these and other shortcomings, some Rocky Flats workers have been denied compensation under the Act despite having worked with tons of plutonium and having known exposures leading to serious health effects.

Since early in my tenure in Congress I have worked to make good on promises of a fairer deal for the nuclear-weapons workers who helped America win the Cold War. That was why enactment and improvement of the compensation Act has been one of my top priorities. I saw this as a very important matter for our country--and especially for many Coloradans because our state is home to the Rocky Flats site, which for decades was a key part of the nuclear-weapons complex.

Now the site's military mission has ended and the last of the Rocky Flats workers have completed the job of cleaning it up for closure. And just as they worked to take care of the site, we in Congress need to take care of them and the others who worked there in the past.

That was the purpose of the compensation act. I am very proud that I was able to help achieve its enactment, but I am also aware that it is not perfect. The bill being introduced today will not remedy all the shortcomings of the current law, but it will make it better.

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

Outline of Rocky Flats Special Cohort Bill

Section 1: Short Title, Findings, and Purpose

Subsection (a) provides a short title, ``Rocky Flats

Special Cohort Act.''

Subsection (b) sets forth several findings regarding the

need for the legislation.

Subsection (c) states the bill's purpose: ``to revise the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000 to include certain past Rocky Flats workers as members of the special exposure cohort.''

Section 2: Definition of Member of Special Exposure Cohort

Subsection (a) amends section 3621(14) of the Energy

Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (EEOICPA). The

effect of the amendment is to provide that a person

employed by the Department of Energy or any of its

contractors for an aggregate of at least 250 work days at

Rocky Flats before January 1, 2006 would be a ``member of the

Special Exposure Cohort.'' Under EEOICPA, a member of the

special exposure cohort suffering from one of the cancers

specified in the Act is covered by the Act if the cancer was

contracted after the person began employment at a covered

facility.

Subsection (b) provides that someone employed by the Energy

Department or any of its contractors for an aggregate of at

least 250 work days at Rocky Flats before January 1, 2006 may

apply for compensation or benefits under EEOICPA even if the

person had previously been denied compensation or benefits

under the Act. This is to make clear that the subsection

(a)'s change in the law will apply to people who had applied

previously.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, February 5, I was unavoidably detained in Colorado and so was not present for two votes:

Rollcall No. 74, on passage of H. Res. 94--Supporting the goals and ideals of National Consumer Protection Week; had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 75, on passage of H. Con. Res. 35--Supporting the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day; had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''