Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the exemplary service of Mr. Max Dodson. Mr. Dodson will be retiring from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 8 office in Denver, Colorado, this coming January.

For over 35 years, Mr. Dodson has been at the forefront of EPA's initiatives and programs. His career at EPA is marked with many firsts and a tireless dedication to the Agency and its mission. Since joining EPA in August 1971, Max held numerous positions in the Denver, Colorado, and Helena, Montana, offices. These include: Director, Montana Operations Office, Helena, Montana; Director, Water Quality Management Division, Denver, Colorado; and Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation, Denver, Colorado. He holds a B.A. in Geography and two masters' degrees, one in Geography and one in Public Administration.

In addition, Max served 4 years as an intelligence officer with the U.S. Department of Navy and spent more than 20 years in the Naval Reserve where he was the Regional Commander of a District Office for several years. On top of his service to our country, Max has been a past member of the South Platte River Commission, and the Red River, Poplar River and Souris River Boards of the International Joint Commission (a binational United States-Canada organization established under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909) and the Steering Committee for the American Water Resources Association.

In the early 1970s, Max was a major contributor to EPA's very first wastewater facility plan and the first ever basin-wide water quality management plan. Both of these plans guided the development and management of wastewater treatment systems within Summit County, Colorado, and Weber County, Utah. As the first of their kind, these plans were used as models for the rest of EPA and to this day, provide a guide to development and citing of wastewater treatment facilities in these two counties. Likewise, Max worked with the State of Montana to develop the first State/EPA agreement which provided the basis for environmental work within the State and enabled EPA to award millions of dollars in grants to the State in support of that work.

While a member of the Poplar and Red River International Boards, Max was instrumental in the development of some of the earliest agreements between Canada and the United States detailing how each country would manage activities in the river basin to minimize water quality impacts that each country's activities had on the other country. Another first for EPA, which Max initiated and cultivated from the 1980s through now, was bringing together the Superfund and Clean Water Programs to address serious water quality problems in the Western United States due to historical mining activities. As a consequence of Max's leadership, EPA Region 8 was the first region in the country to list mining sites on the Superfund National Priorities List. Today, several mine cleanups have been completed and many others are underway using Superfund resources to pay for the cleanup. Through his efforts the very first ``Good Samaritan'' agreement was developed for an abandoned mining site located in the American Fork Canyon in Utah. This agreement is serving as a model for others and has informed the Congressional deliberations related to new ``Good Sam'' legislation.

Another example of Max's leadership is the development of a Response Support Corps and Regional Response Center for EPA Region 8 during the early 2000s. Due to his foresight, Region 8 was able to contribute more than its proportional share of the EPA staff who worked on the Katrina recovery efforts. Max also served as a ranking officer during the initial response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Max was an important asset in the early days of the Katrina recovery efforts to get all of the disparate parties to work together and to ensure that the work done in the field was responsive to the needs identified.

For the last 11 years of Max's career he has been the Senior Manager overseeing the Region's Superfund, Brownfields, Emergency Response/ Preparedness and National Environmental Policy Act programs, as well as several parts of the Agency's Clean Water Program. In all, his office of over 200 personnel has responsibility for implementation of six environmental statutes: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (a.k.a., Superfund); Oil Pollution Act; Brownfields Revitalization Act; National Environmental Policy Act; Clean Water Act; and Safe Drinking Water Act. Additionally, his office oversees cleanup of the Department of Defense sites under its Base Realignment and Closure, and Defense Environmental Restoration programs.

Region 8 has the distinction of being the home to some of the country's largest and most complicated Superfund sites and projects: Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Rocky Flats, Clark Fork Watershed, Clear Creek Watershed, and Libby Asbestos cleanups to name a few. The capstone of his many Superfund accomplishments was the work Max performed related to the final cleanup of Rocky Flats in 2006, enabling most of it to be converted to a wildlife refuge. Max served on the governing board that directed and oversaw the cleanup of Rocky Flats. Through his leadership and guidance, the $6.7 billion project was completed 14 months ahead of schedule and over $550 million under budget. Since 1980, 61 sites in the region have been listed on Superfund's National Priorities List--a list of sites representing the greatest risk to human health, welfare and the environment. By the end of 2006, 44 of the 61 sites will have been cleaned up, all but 4 under Max's tenure. Of the 44 cleaned sites, 11 have been deleted from the NPL.

Region 8 is a leader for the country in terms of the number of acres and cleanup projects restored to beneficial uses. For example, since April, 2004, over 13,000 out of a possible 17,000 acres of Rocky Mountain Arsenal have been converted from weapons and pesticides manufacturing to a National Wildlife Refuge, the largest urban refuge in the Nation. Revitalization projects which have received national recognition or awards under Max's watch have been:

1. Prairie Gateway--an over 900 acre project involving recreational and commercial uses Northeast of Denver, Colorado, including a world class soccer stadium and practice fields and a new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service visitor center for the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Wildlife Refuge.

2. SLC Gateway--former 650 acre railyard that was converted to mixed retail, hotel, and residential use in Salt Lake City, Utah. The redevelopment was integral part of the 2002 Winter Olympics and was selected as a Brownfields Showcase Project.

3. Murray Lead Smelter--142 acre former lead smelter that was converted to a public transit station, hospital, and commercial/retail space located in Murray, Utah.

4. Colorado Bioscience Park and Health Sciences Center--the former property that

housed the Fitzsimons Army Hospital has been redeveloped into a $4.3 billion ``square mile of life science projects'' and is the focus for the biotechnology industry in the Rocky Mountain Region. The Colorado Bioscience Park located in Aurora, Colorado is the first university- affiliated ``biopark'' to be developed west of the Mississippi. It is adjacent to the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and Hospital Complex, the Children's Hospital, and the Fitzsimons Commons town center, all of which make up the new development at the former Fitzsimons Army Hospital

5. Lowry Redevelopment--the former 1866 acre Lowry Air Force Base has been converted to 4500 residential properties, 4 college campuses, a town center with shopping and commercial space, and 800 acres of open/ recreational space. Lowry has been so successful that it received the Governor's Award for Smart Growth and is a model community for urban- infill projects across the country.

Throughout his career, Max has been the recipient of many honors and awards, including two bronze medals, a U.S. Forest Service award, the prestigious 4Cs award from the Bureau of Land Management, a Department of Defense Award for work on Rocky Mountain Arsenal, and. several special SES service awards. In 2004 Max received the coveted Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executive. The Presidential Rank Award recognized, among several other things, his leadership in setting up the first ``one stop'' funding process for Clean Water Act programs which was subsequently adopted by the Agency; reinvigorating and streamlining the Regional National Priorities Listing efforts which resulted in the addition of 12 new sites located in Region 8 to the National Priorities List; and evaluating the impacts of wastewater point and non-point sources of contamination on a watershed basis instead of the traditional discharge by discharge basis. Through Max's leadership, the EPA changed several of its approaches for addressing environmental problems and managing different aspects of the Clean Water and Superfund programs.

Max has contributed 40 years of service to the people of this nation and especially the communities encompassed within EPA's Region 8 area. His ``can do'' approach and personal style of working with people make him a role model for public servants in all aspects of government. I want to personally thank him for his work on the clean up of Rocky Flats and mine waste issues--especially ``Good Samaritan'' concepts-- two issues that are especially important to my Congressional District. He has laid the foundation for all of us to continue his great work for the benefit of the environment, our quality of life and effective public service. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Max for his contributions and wishing him the very best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Guam for yielding me time, and I thank her for her service to the House.

Mr. Speaker, obviously I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 5110, and I want to begin by thanking Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall, as well as subcommittee Chairs Radanovich and Gibbons and Ranking Members Napolitano and Grijalva, for making it possible for the House to consider this today.

As we have heard, the bill's purpose is to help change an industry problem that is in the energy industry 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 is called produced water, the underground water extracted in connection with development of energy sources like oil, natural gas or coalbed methane.

The bill would do two things, Mr. Speaker. It would first direct Reclamation and the USGS to identify the obstacles to the greater use of produced water and how they could be reduced or eliminated. Second, it would provide for Federal help in building three pilot plants to demonstrate ways to treat produced water to make it suitable for irrigation or other uses.

One of these pilot plants would be in the Colorado River's upper basin, one would be in either Arizona or Nevada, and the third one would be in California. Under the bill, the Federal Government would pay up to half the cost of building each plant, but no more than $1 million for any one plant, and then no Federal funds could be used for operating the plants themselves.

The bill's goals are reflected in its title, which is the More Water and More Energy Act of 2006. More water because of the way it would help supplement the water available for agriculture, municipal or other uses, and more energy because keeping produced water on the surface instead of reinjecting it into the ground can make it possible to recover more oil and gas from the subsurface. These are two goals I think we all can share, and this bill helps us achieve it.

I would urge its support. I want to thank again in closing Congressman Radanovich and my good friend from Guam for acknowledging this bill today and yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Energy and Minerals Field Institute (EMFI), an organization affiliated with the Colorado School of Mines that provides policy makers, elected officials and their staff with direct and in-depth information about energy resources and production in the western United States.

A number of staff in my office have had the opportunity to participate in the informative field tours the EMFI provides. Through the EMFI, they and the many other participants from state and federal agencies, Congressional committees, Native American Tribes, and other offices have had the chance to travel to locations where energy, resources, and minerals are developed, extracted and produced. On such trips, participants have descended into active molybdenum, gold and coal mines, watched oil and gas drill rigs in action, explored wind turbine technological development at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and witnessed new water projects under construction. The information acquired through direct contact with these activities has greatly enhanced my staff's knowledge of resource development, as well as their understanding of the positive and negative impacts these resources can have on local communities and the nation as a whole.

The professional and knowledgeable staff, including Director Gary Baughman, Tom Sladek, Jim Proud, and other consultants and support personnel, put together outstanding programs and tours year after year. As an added plus, participants are also provided extensive roadside geologic tutorials by Mr. John Rold, former Colorado State Geologist and Director of the Colorado Geologic Survey; educating program participants on everything from rockslides and fractures to the energy industry and anecdotes about life in general.

The Energy and Minerals Field Institute was established in 1978 as the ``Energy Field Institute'' to create a forum for exploring interactions between regional energy development in the West and federal policies. ``Western Energy: Opportunities, Problems, and Policy Issues'' was the first field program, cosponsored by the Colorado School of Mines and Resources for the Future. Participants consisted of federal officials from Colorado.

In 1980, a new July program was added, directed toward representatives of the regional and national media. With the inclusion of non-fuel minerals in 1981, the EMFI was renamed to its present title. In 1985, participation in the July program was expanded to include secondary level teachers, business leaders, government personnel, and staff and students from the Colorado School of Mines. This diversity of disciplines and professions created an exciting educational atmosphere in which many perspectives on the various issues were represented.

With the continued success of the traditional ``Government Program'' in August and the growth of the ``Interdisciplinary Program'' in July, it was decided in 1985 to make the itineraries of both trips identical. This approach provided similar educational opportunities for all participants and made logistical planning more efficient.

In addition to the summer field sessions, the EMFI also conducted an annual Washington Workshop. This conference was designed to familiarize EMFI alumni and invited guests with topical issues related to Western resource development. The EMFI also published a newsletter entitled ``Field Notes'' twice each year to keep its alumni and supporters informed of recent events.

However, due to funding difficulties in 1996, the EMFI was forced to discontinue its major summer field programs, the Washington Workshop, and ``Field Notes.'' It continued to conduct customized field programs for corporate clients, specific government organizations, and delegations from other countries.

In 2003, the Colorado Office of Energy Management and Conservation (OEMC) provided funding to reactivate the Colorado Energy Research Institute (CERI), which is administered by the Colorado School of Mines. With funding from CERI, and with in-kind contributions from the Colorado School of Mines, sufficient funding was provided to reestablish the EMFI Field Program.

The small but steady source of grant dollars from CERI and the Colorado School of Mines, as well as additional financial support from federal agencies, have allowed the EMFI to conduct a single Field Program each summer. It is hoped that the successful conduct of these field programs, coupled with the creation of additional EMFI alumni, will generate sufficient interest and financial support to enable the EMFI to recreate all of its previous outreach programs and become financially independent.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the work of the Energy and Minerals Field Institute. The practical knowledge and invaluable experiences gained by program participants will undoubtedly help shape important energy, natural resource, and environmental policy for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. John Stencel, a tireless ally of rural America and the hardworking farmers and ranchers that call it home.

Mr. Stencel was born and raised on a farm near Greeley, CO, and from the beginning his commitment to agriculture was clear. He was active in 4-H, the Future Farmers of America, and the Farmers Union Youth Program. After graduating from Colorado State University in 1964 he began a career with the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU). A few years later John served two years in the U.S. Army and was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for Outstanding Service. After his return, John was elected RMFU President in 1970. His strong leadership abilities were repeatedly demonstrated during his 23 years as president, and in 1993 President Bill Clinton appointed John as the Deputy Administrator for the Farm Service Agency in Colorado. He later worked in Washington, DC, at the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration as Special Assistant to the Administrator. John then returned to Colorado in 2000 and was once again elected president of the RMFU in 2001.

Unbelievably, through all of this John Stencel also found the time to serve as the president of the Colorado 4-H Foundation, as the vice president of the Colorado Future Farmers of America Foundation, and as a member of the Colorado State University Board of Agriculture. His versatility, dedication, and uncharacteristic leadership are admirable.

I remember sharing time with John on the road during a series of renewable energy tours throughout rural Colorado over the past couple years. I learned quickly of the remarkable ability of this man. Whether the topic was wind power and methane digesters or crop subsidies and cooperative development projects, his grasp of the issues was second- to-none.

Mr. Stencel's forward thinking policies and actions have set an example in the agriculture world. He acknowledges and promotes ideas that need to be brought to the attention of small and large farmers alike. His pending retirement will mark the end of an exceptional career, and finding a worthy successor will undoubtedly be difficult.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring John Stencel for his accomplishments, his dedication, and his legacy. Citizens of Colorado and the United States as a whole have benefited from this man's service, and we owe him our gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1129, the Pitkin County Land Exchange Act and to express my thanks to Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for making it possible for the House to consider it today.

The bill provides for completion of a land exchange that involves Pitkin County, Colorado, on the one hand and two federal agencies--the Forest Service and BLM--on the other.

Under the exchange, the county will transfer two parcels to the Forest Service--a 35-acre tract known as the ``Ryan property'' near the ghost town of Ashcroft; and addition about 18.2 acres of patented mining claims on Smuggler Mountain near Aspen, Colorado.

In return, the Federal Government would transfer to the county--

A 5.5 acre tract south of Aspen known as the ``Wildwood'' parcel, which the county will transfer to private ownership after reserving a permanent public easement for a trail;

About 5.92 acres in 12 scattered locations on Smuggler Mountain that abut or are near lands now owned by the county;

And, finally, a 40-acre tract of BLM land along the Crystal River, which will be subject to a permanent conservation easement limiting future use to recreational, fish and wildlife, and open space purposes.

The bill requires standard appraisals of all properties involved. It provides that if the lands going to the county are worth less than what the county is giving to the Federal Government, the county will waive additional payment, while if the lands provide by the county are worth less than those the county is to receive, the county will either pay cash to equalize or will convey an additional tract of about 160 acres, in the Sellers' Meadow area near Hagerman Pass, to make up the difference.

The Resources Committee made some technical changes suggested by the administration and the county and the House passed the bill as so amended last year.

On September 29th, the Senate by unanimous consent passed an amended version of the House-passed bill, adding some provisions regarding public access to and future use of the lands to be acquired by the county and making a number of other, technical changes.

The Senate's changes are consistent with the original intent of the legislation and are acceptable to the county. Accordingly, I urge the House to concur in the Senate amendment and so to send the bill to the President for signing into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

The Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 funds our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many other things. It is very similar to the Defense Authorization bill that I supported in the Armed Services Committee and on the House floor.

The bill provides $447.6 billion in funding, including $70 billion in emergency funds to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This grand total represents about 55 percent of the entire Federal discretionary budget. Overall defense spending has risen 40 percent since September 11th and is more than currently being spent by the rest of the world combined.

Appropriating $70 billion for the so-called bridge fund is realistic and necessary, because we must support our men and women in uniform, but I also believe the Administration must begin to take responsibility for the full cost of the war in Iraq and consider these costs through the regular appropriations process. There is no ``emergency'' here--we know that since this bridge fund would take us only halfway through fiscal year 2007, we should be expecting another request before the year is over. With total costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan crossing the half trillion dollar point after passage of this bill, the American people deserve greater candor from the Administration about both the predictable costs as well as the anticipated benefits of our undertakings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although I don't agree with the ``emergency'' designation, I'm pleased that the conferees saw fit to increase the bridge fund levels to include $17.1 billion to replace and refurbish Army equipment. This is the amount General Schoomaker testified that the Army needed in fiscal year 2007 to fully fund its reset program. It's true that even with this funding, the Army will still need tens of billions of dollars over the coming years for equipment rehabilitation and recapitalization--but this is an important start. The bridge fund also includes funding for Marine Corps equipment and body armor as well as $549 million to cover costs of the enhanced insurance and death gratuity benefits.

I am pleased that the conference report fully funds military pay, benefits, and the pay raise of 2.2 percent for the base force. It also includes language that I advocated for prohibiting funding for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

I remain concerned about rising costs of weapons systems that have yet to be fully funded, such as the Future Combat Systems and missile defense program, among others. A recent report from the Department of Defense identified 36 major weapons systems as having significant cost overruns. And yet Congressional Budget Office projections are that we'll need to increase defense budgets by 17 percent per year simply to sustain the current force structure and weapons programs. And this is happening at the same time that operations and maintenance and personnel costs--as well as training and recruiting costs--are rising.

So Mr. Speaker, this conference report is not perfect. It does not solve or attempt to solve some of these looming budget problems. But overall, it deserves to pass and I urge its approval.

Mr. Speaker, I support changing current law on electronic surveillance to remove obstacles to vigorously fighting terrorism, and I believe we can do so in a way that protects the constitutional rights of our citizens. This bill attempts to strike the right balance, but it has serious flaws that could and should have been corrected--and because of those flaws, I cannot support it as it stands.

I believe the American people should know that on this very important subject, for the most part, we are being asked to legislate in the dark. It is only because of leaks to the news media that we became aware that after the terrorist attacks of 2001 the administration decided not to follow the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, with regard to a new, wide-ranging surveillance program.

Since it became public, that decision has been controversial and has been challenged in the courts, but the administration has consistently maintained that this surveillance program is lawful--although it has been less consistent in its reasons for reaching that conclusion.

Like many of our colleagues, I have found some of their arguments strained and far from fully convincing.

Nonetheless, I do think it makes sense to further revise FISA to reflect both the latest technology and the realities of the current threats to our country. And events since the revelation of the administration's decision not to comply with FISA have made it clear that there is a definite need for better oversight by Congress, which can occur only if we require more reporting by the executive branch.

So, I react favorably to some points made by this bill's author and supporters in support of the way it addresses both of these concerns. They point to provisions described as designed to update FISA's definition of electronic surveillance to make it technology neutral as well as those they say are intended to enhance congressional oversight not only of electronic surveillance, but also of U.S. intelligence and intelligence-related activities generally.

While these positive aspects of the bill are encouraging, they are unfortunately overwhelmed by the bill's more serious defects.

Overall, this legislation goes very far toward making warrantless surveillance of communications here in the United States the rule rather than the exception and toward allowing the executive branch to conduct electronic surveillance of telephone calls and e-mail in the United States without adequate, meaningful oversight.

The bill makes sweeping alterations to the current definition of ``electronic surveillance'' and how to define an ``agent of a foreign power.'' The bill redefines the term ``surveillance device'' in a way that would allow the government to conduct unregulated data retention and data-mining operations on all the information collected through the warrantless surveillance that this bill authorizes.

My concerns about these provisions are shared by others, including former Representative (and former House Republican leader) Dick Armey, as expressed in a September 26th letter in which he says:

The explosion of computers, cameras, location-sensors,

wireless communication, biometrics, and other technologies is

making it much easier to track, store, and analyze

information about individuals' activities. Unfortunately, the

legislation may promote additional government intrusions into

individual lives by exempting such data mining from requiring

court orders . . . It is not evident that such legislation

will necessarily prevent the next terrorist attack. But . . .

failure is unlikely to lead to a halt in federal data mining.

Instead, it will probably just spur the government into an

ever-more furious effort to collect ever-greater amounts of

personal information on ever-more people in a vain effort to

make the concept work. We would then have the worst of both

worlds: poor security and a vast increase in the information

about individuals collected by the government that would

destroy Americans' privacy and threaten our freedom.

I also am concerned that while the bill would explicitly

allow essentially unlimited surveillance in the event of an

``armed attack'' a ``terrorist attack,'' or an ``imminent

threat of attack,'' those terms are not adequately defined. I

think this means that there is an unacceptably large chance

that these sweeping exceptions would give the Executive

Branch unlimited authority to conduct surveillance whenever

and however it prefers.

These concerns are heightened by the fact that the bill does not include an explicit reaffirmation of the principle that FISA, including the revisions that would be made by the bill, is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance in the United States. Such a provision would help make sure that every president--now and in the future--complies with the law.

This is not a theoretical matter, because the Bush administration has never indicated that it will comply with FISA--even as it would be revised by this bill, which was proposed by a member of his party and has the support of that party's leadership here in the House of Representatives. Indeed, the Bush administration has indicated it will appeal the recent decision of a federal judge that its ongoing surveillance program--which the administration candidly says does not comply with the current version of FISA--is illegal.

That was one of the reasons I voted for the motion to recommit, which would have added language to reiterate that FISA is the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes may be conducted, unless Congress amends the law or passes additional laws regarding electronic surveillance. It also would have made clear that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, AUMF, passed after the 9/11 attacks and that was the basis for our military actions in Afghanistan--a measure I supported--does not constitute an exception to that rule.

If the motion to recommit had been adopted, the result would have been to approve an alternative version of the legislation so it would update FISA to provide intelligence agencies more flexibility in emergency situations and less bureaucratic red tape when applying for warrants, while still requiring court orders for domestic surveillance of Americans.

That better alternative would have extended from 72 hours to 7 days the amount of time allowed to initiate surveillance in an urgent situation before going to the FISA court for a warrant. This authority can be used to thwart imminent attacks.

The alternative also would have made clear that foreign-to-foreign communications are outside of FISA and don't require a court order, and would have provided that a FISA order for electronic surveillance shall continue to be in effect for the authorized period even if the person leaves the United States. It also would have removed redundant requirements in the application process and made other changes to streamline the FISA process, including adding judges to the FISA court while authorizing that court, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the NSA to hire more staff for the preparation and consideration of FISA applications and orders. And it would have made clear that in addition to a ``declaration of war by the Congress,'' an ``authorization for the use of military force, AUMF,'' can also trigger the FISA ``wartime exception'' for purposes of allowing 15 days of warrantless surveillance.

I think that alternative had the best features of this bill without its defects. Unfortunately, it was not adopted and those changes were not made.

As a result, I do not think this bill as it stands should be approved. But while I cannot support it tonight, I recognize that it is not being sent to the president for signing into law. Instead, if it passed tonight it will go to the Senate, where it will be subject to further debate and revision.

My hope is that if it does pass tonight, and the legislative process continues, the result of that process will be a revised version that will deserve enactment.

Mr. Speaker, Colorado has been one of the fastest-growing States, and we have our share of contentious land-use disputes--in fact, sometimes it seems we may have more than our share.

And I do think the federal government has a role to play in helping our communities to respond to the problems that come with that rapid growth.

But I don't think the help that's needed is greater involvement of the federal courts in more and more local land-use decisions. And that's what this bill is all about.

This bill does not deal with the questions about use of eminent domain for economic development projects that were involved in the case of Kelo v. New London which attracted so much attention when the Supreme Court issued its decision last year.

I voted for a resolution (H. Res. 340) expressing disapproval of that decision, and for a bill (H.R. 4128) that responded to the decision by barring any state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic development if that state or political subdivision received federal economic development funds. That bill also would make a state or political subdivision violating that prohibition ineligible for any such funds for two fiscal years, bar the federal government from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic development, and establish a private cause of action for any private property owner who suffers injury as a result of a violation of the bill.

I thought that was an appropriate response to the Kelo decision. But this bill is quite different, and I cannot support it.

I do not think it is needed. The vast majority of land-use disputes, including claims that local regulations or decisions amount to a ``taking'' of property, are resolved at the local or state level without significant delay.

There is no need to short-circuit the decisionmaking process under local and state law. There is no need to bypass our state courts, because, as noted in a letter signed by Attorney Generals of 32 States, ``State courts . . . are ideal forums for resolving disputes involving state and local planning issues [and] . . . the bill thus runs counter to the admonition of Justice Alito . . . that the federal judiciary should avoid procedural rules under which it could be `cast in the role of a zoning board of appeals.' ''

I also don't think the bill is sound policy. I am very concerned that it would severely tilt the field in favor of one interest, developers, and make it even harder for our communities to meet the challenges of growth and sprawl. It would saddle taxpayers of our towns, cities, and counties with the costs of expensive federal litigation. That's one reason it is opposed by the Colorado Municipal League as well as the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Council of State Legislatures, and the Council of State Governments.

It's also not good for our federal courts. When the House considered similar legislation previously, the Judicial Conference of the United States--the body that speaks for our federal judges--said it ``may adversely affect the administration of justice'' and ``contribute to existing backlogs in some judicial districts.''

Finally, as a non-lawyer who takes very seriously the oath we all have taken to support the Constitution, I have listened carefully to the views of the many lawyers--including distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee--who have concluded that the bill is likely unconstitutional.

Even if I thought the bill was otherwise desirable, that would make me hesitate. But, as I've said, the bill has other serious shortcomings--and the constitutional issues that have been raised mean that enacting this bill would inevitably lead to even more protracted and expensive litigation that would go all the way to the Supreme Court. However the Court might finally rule, that additional litigation is not something that I think is necessary or that Congress should encourage. So, again, I cannot vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate-passed bill before us today is identical to H.R. 6166. I could not support that bill when the House considered it earlier this week, and nothing that has happened since then has caused me to change my view that it should not be enacted. So, I must continue to oppose it.

As I said earlier, I agree that Congress should establish clear statutory authority for detaining unlawful enemy combatants and using military tribunals to try them. In fact, I thought this should have been done long age because I took seriously the warnings of legal experts who said the system established by President Bush's unilateral Executive Order lacked departed too far from America's fundamental legal traditions to be immune from serious legal challenges.

That is why for several years I have cosponsored bills to replace that Executive Order with a sound statute that would allow prosecutions to proceed without the same vulnerability to challenge.

Unfortunately, until recently neither the president nor the Republican leadership thought there was a need for Congress to act--the president preferred to insist on unilateral assertions of executive authority, and the leadership was content with an indolent abdication of Congressional authority and responsibility.

Then, earlier this year, the Supreme Court put an end to that approach with its decision in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which struck down the system established by the Executive Order--just what many of us had seen coming, and which we had sought to avoid through legislation.

So, we are voting on this bill only because the Supreme Court has forced the Administration to do what it should have done much sooner-- come to Congress for legislation. And the voting is occurring this week, under rushed procedures that do not permit consideration of any changes, because, above all, the Republicans have decided they need to claim a legislative victory when they go home to campaign, to help take voters' minds off the Administration's missteps and their own failures.

But I think it is less important to get the job done before the election than to do it right. And, regrettably, I remain convinced that this bill fails that test.

I remain concerned about the bill's specific provisions. But just as serious are my concerns about what the bill does not say. In particular, I am concerned about the lack of any provisions to prevent indefinite detentions of American citizens who have never left the United States.

I cannot support any legislation intended to give the president--any president, of any party authority to throw an American citizen into prison without what the Supreme Court has described as ``a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.''

As I said when the House first debated this legislation, I prefer to err on the side of caution when I must vote on a measure that is not more clear on this point. And since that earlier debate, my concern-- and my unwillingness to vote for this legislation--has been heightened by analyses of experts such as Professor Bruce Akerman of the Yale Law School.

In an analysis published after the earlier vote here in the House-- which I am attaching for the benefit of our colleagues--Professor Akerman says: ``The legislation . . . authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights. . . . This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison. . . . What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.''

And, as Professor Akerman notes: ``We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an ``enemy combatant'' upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent. . . .

``But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress is poised to authorize this presidential overreaching. Under existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential authority.''

I do not have the legal expertise to say that Professor Akerman is completely right in this analysis. But I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill on the mere hope that he is wrong.

And, as I said when the House first considered this bill, it is clear that several of its provisions raise enough legal questions that military lawyers say there is a good chance the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional.

They may or may not be right about that, but their views deserve to be taken seriously--not only because we in Congress have sworn to uphold the Constitution but also because if our goal truly is to avoid unnecessary delays in bringing terrorists to justice, we need to take care to craft legislation that can and will operate soon, not only after prolonged legal challenges.

Finally, I remain concerned that the bill gives the president the authority to ``interpret the meaning and application'' of U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Instead of clearly banning abuse and torture, the bill leaves in question whether or not we are authorizing the Executive Branch to carry out some of the very things the Geneva Conventions seek to ban.

I cannot forget or discount the words of RADM Bruce MacDonald, the Navy's Judge Advocate General, who told the Armed Services Committee ``I go back to the reciprocity issue that we raised earlier, that I would be very concerned about other nations looking in on the United States and making a determination that, if it's good enough for the United States, it's good enough for us, and perhaps doing a lot of damage and harm internationally if one of our service men or women were taken and held as a detainee.''

I share that concern, and could not in good conscience support legislation that could put our men and women in uniform at risk.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, establishing a system of military tribunals to bring to trial some of the worst terrorists in the world shouldn't be a partisan matter. It also should not be handled in a rush, without adequate care to get it right. Unfortunately, that has been the process used to develop this legislation and the result is a measure that I think has too many flaws to deserve enactment as it stands.

So, as I said earlier, I cannot support it.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 28, 2006]

The White House Warden

(By Bruce Ackerman)

Buried in the complex Senate compromise on detainee

treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal

struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo

Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing

toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize

American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have

never left the United States. And once thrown into military

prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any

other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president

to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our

troops ``during an armed conflict,'' it also allows him to

seize anybody who has ``purposefully and materially supported

hostilities against the United States.'' This grants the

president enormous power over citizens and legal

residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they

have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they

can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't

detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those

who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation

into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support

the president's initial detention decision, ordinary

Americans would be required to defend themselves before a

military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees

provided in criminal trials.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more

harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal

habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's

suspicions.

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president

has already subjected a citizen to military confinement.

Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11,

he was seized by the Bush administration as an ``enemy

combatant'' upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare

International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and

had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held

for more than three years in a military brig, without any

chance to challenge his detention before a military or

civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the

president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused

to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a

terrible precedent.

The new bill, if passed, would further entrench

presidential power. At the very least, it would encourage the

Supreme Court to draw an invidious distinction between

citizens and legal residents. There are tens of millions of

legal immigrants living among us, and the bill encourages the

justices to uphold mass detentions without the semblance of

judicial review.

But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made

in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the

right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an

enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress

is poised to authorize this presidential overreaching. Under

existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit

congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme

Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential

authority.

This is no time to play politics with our fundamental

freedoms. Even without this massive congressional expansion

of the class of enemy combatants, it is by no means clear

that the present Supreme Court will protect the Bill of

Rights. The Korematsu case--upholding the military detention

of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War

II--has never been explicitly overruled. It will be tough for

the high court to condemn this notorious decision, especially

if passions are inflamed by another terrorist incident. But

congressional support of presidential power will make it much

easier to extend the Korematsu decision to future mass

seizures.

Though it may not feel that way, we are living at a moment

of relative calm. It would be tragic if the Republican

leadership rammed through an election-year measure that would

haunt all of us on the morning after the next terrorist

attack.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.

As a relatively new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I appreciate having had the opportunity to work with my colleagues, especially Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton, on a number of provisions of particular importance to Colorado.

I want to express my particular thanks to Joel Hefley, the dean of our Colorado delegation, who I am proud to call my colleague and friend. He and I have joined forces on a wide variety of matters, including steps to respond to the danger to our state's communities from wildfires, and I have benefited greatly from the opportunity to work with him both before and especially after I became a member of the Armed Services Committee.

The Senate bill included language to name a housing facility at Fort Carson in honor of Representative Hefley, who is retiring at the end of the year. I thought it was appropriate, and while the conference report does not include that provision, I am glad to note that it does include a section (Section 2002) that accurately states that since his election in 1986, Representative Hefley ``has served in the House of Representatives with distinction, class, integrity, and honor.''

The same section goes on to note that Representative Hefley's efforts on our committee have benefited the military value of installations in Colorado and the quality of life of the men and women stationed there. It also reminds us that he was a leader in efforts to retain and expand Fort Carson and was a leader in efforts to eliminate inadequate housing on military installations, beginning with a pilot program at that Colorado base, an effort which has ``brought meaningful improvements to living conditions for thousands of members of the Armed Forces and their spouses and children at installations throughout the United States.

And it concludes by saying that ``Congress recognizes and commends Representative Joel Hefley for his 20 years of service to benefit the people of Colorado, members of the Armed Forces and their families, veterans, and the United States''--a well-earned commendation in which I completely concur.

Looking ahead, I anticipate receipt of two reports on matters of particular importance to Colorado.

Part of the report of our House Armed Forces Committee accompanying this authorization bill reflected our recognition of the importance of the High Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) based at the Eagle, Colorado Regional Airport and its need for enough aircraft to fulfill its mission.

HAATS is the primary site for training military aviators on operations in hostile, high altitude, and power-limited environments under all seasonal weather conditions, such as Afghanistan. Responding to language I had included in the Defense Authorization bill last year, the Army National Guard pledged to provide two Blackhawks to HAATS. However, I'm told HAATS needs five Blackhawks in order to sustain training requirements.

To lay the foundation for possible future action to meet that need, our committee's report included a request for the Secretary of the Army to provide a report on high altitude aviation training to the congressional defense committees by December 15, 2006. The report is to include: (1) The current location and type of high altitude training, to include the percentage of pilots who receive such training on an annual basis at each location and the types of aircraft used in such training; (2) the number and type of helicopters required to provide the high altitude aviation training needed to sustain the war strategies contained in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, assuming that priority for such training is given to commanders, instructor pilots, aviation safety officers, and deploying units; and (3) a thorough evaluation of the accident rates for deployed Army helicopter pilots who received high altitude training and deployed helicopter pilots who did not receive such training, including the number of accidents related to power management, using high and low estimates and the number of accidents involving combat and non-combat environments. I expect that this report will make clear the importance of HAATS' critical mission and the need for its having more aircraft.

And this conference report includes a section (section 2827) requiring a report by November 30th of this year analyzing of any potential expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, which is associated with Fort Carson. As a member of the Armed Service Committee and the Colorado delegation, I will be very interested in the information presented in this report.

The conference report provides funds for important projects in Colorado, including $10 million for work at Buckley Air Force Base, $4.9 million for construction at Peterson Air Force Base, $21 million for work at Schreiver Air Force Base, and $26.1 million to be used at Fort Carson.

And, at the national level, it includes many provisions that will improve our overall military readiness and provide for our troops and retirees.

Among other things, it authorizes a 2.2 percent pay raise, effective January 1, 2007, and includes a provision, developed through the leadership of our colleague Representative John Spratt, to provide targeted pay raises for mid-grade and senior NCOs and warrant officers, effective April 1, 2007. It also expands TRICARE Reserve Select to members of the Selected Reserves, and terminates the current three-tier eligibility program while putting a one-year moratorium on any increases in retail pharmaceutical prices under the TRICARE system.

The conference report also establishes additional financial protections for service members, prohibiting creditors from charging service members and their dependents annual interest rates for loans higher than the legal limit for state residents, or no more than 36 percent in any case.

And, of course, it authorizes a $70 billion supplemental for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $23.7 billion to replace and reset equipment lost or damaged in operations.

I opposed President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and my concerns about this poorly managed and badly planned war have been realized. I believe it was a strategic mistake to make nationbuilding in Iraq the centerpiece of our war against Islamic terrorism--a belief that has been strengthened by the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate entitled ``Trends in Global Terrorism: Implication for the United States,'' portions of which were recently declassified. But now that our troops are there and Iraq is struggling to avoid a slide into civil war, we cannot withdraw them immediately, and we must continue to provide the funds necessary to maintain and re-equip them.

I urge approval of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Tim Ryan, for introducing these bills; to their colleagues in the Arizona and Ohio delegations, respectively, for cosponsoring them; and to the leadership on both sides for scheduling them for consideration by the House.

H.R. 5857 would designate a Post Office in Tucson, AZ, as the ``Morris K. `Mo' Udall Post Office Building,'' while H.R. 6051 would designate a Federal building in Akron, OH, as the ``John F. Seiberling Federal Building.''

With every bill we debate and every vote I cast, I am conscious of the many years during which my father served here in the House of Representatives. He was truly a ``man of the House,'' and I know that to him no honor could be greater than the bipartisan--non-partisan, really--support of our colleagues for a measure intended to recognize that service.

And I think it is very appropriate that at almost the same time the House will extend similar recognition to my father's longtime friend and colleague, former Representative John Seiberling of Ohio. I think nobody could be more deserving of such recognition.

My father and John Seiberling not only served at the same time, they worked closely together on many measures that came before what was then the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs--now known as the Resources Committee. Examples include the legislation dealing with strip mining--the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act--finally signed into law by President Carter after President Ford had vetoed an earlier version, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--ANILCA--also known as the Alaska Lands Act, which was signed into law on December 2, 1980.

President Clinton later awarded John Seiberling the Presidential Citizens Medal, which is awarded in recognition of U.S. citizens who have performed exemplary deeds of service for our Nation.

In making the award, the President rightly explained that ``An ardent advocate for the environment, John F. Seiberling has demonstrated a profound commitment to America's natural treasures. Championing numerous bills during his 17 years in Congress, including the Alaska Lands Act, John Seiberling safeguarded millions of acres of parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas.'' And, in recognition of John Seiberling's work as a member of the Judiciary Committee, President Clinton went on to say that ``working in a spirit of bipartisanship, he also promoted civil rights and worker rights, always striving to improve the quality of life in America.''

Truer words were never spoken of any Member of Congress.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for the bill recognizing the service of Representative Seiberling, and my heartfelt thanks for the honor bestowed on my father and our family by the bill to name a post office in Tucson in his memory.

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is unnecessary and unwise, and I cannot vote for it.

Current law says that federal judges have discretion to require a state or local government to pay the attorneys' fees of individual citizens who win lawsuits challenging government actions that violate the Constitution.

This bill would take away part of that discretion, by barring judges from making such awards in cases involving the Constitution's prohibition of the establishment of religion.

Nothing in today's debate on the bill has convinced me that that so many judges have abused their discretion that Congress should limit it, or that the current law is broken and requires repair.

And I am very concerned that the effect of this bill would be to weaken Americans' constitutional rights, as the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty has warned in a recent letter that says ``passage of H.R. 2679 would encourage elected officials to violate the Establishment Clause whenever they find it politically advantageous to do so. By limiting the remedies for a successful plaintiff, this measure would remove the threat that exists to ensure compliance with the Establishment Clause.''

I think the Joint Committee is right--and that what they say about the Establishment Clause is just as true about the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For example of where this might lead, consider the 2003 lawsuit against the school district in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In that case, the plaintiffs complained that a former student's right to free speech was abridged when school officials denied the student an opportunity to give her opinion of homosexuality at a school forum on diversity. The judge ruled they were right, and ordered the school district to pay damages, attorneys' fees and costs to the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based law firm organized to argue on behalf of Christians in religious freedom cases.

I have no reason to think that was an abuse. I am glad that the law provides judges with the discretion to award attorneys' fees when people successfully defend their constitutional rights. This bill would limit that discretion unnecessarily, and so I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this bill in its present form.

After 5 years of negligence by both the House Republican leadership and the president, today they are insisting the House vote rapidly on a long-overdue bill to establish military commissions to try ``unlawful enemy combatants.''

This should have been done sooner and the legislation definitely should be better.

If President Bush had come to Congress sooner with his request for legislation establishing military commissions, we could have avoided prolonged legal battles and delay in getting a system in place. But despite his stated interest in bringing the terrorists to justice, this president has seemed to be more interested in enhancing executive branch powers than he has in trying and convicting those who would harm Americans.

Five years ago, when President Bush first issued his executive order to set up military commissions, legal experts warned that the commissions lacked essential judicial guarantees, such as the right to attend all trial proceedings and challenge any prosecution evidence. I took those views very seriously because those experts made what I thought was a compelling case that the proposed system

would depart too far from America's fundamental legal traditions to be immune from serious legal challenges.

So, beginning 3 years ago, I have cosponsored bills that would establish clear statutory authority for detaining enemy combatants and using special tribunals to try them. Unfortunately, neither the president nor the Republican leadership thought there was a need for Congress to act--the president preferred to insist on unilateral assertions of executive authority, and the leadership was content with an indolent abdication of Congressional authority and responsibility.

Then, earlier this year, the Supreme Court put an end to that approach.

In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court ruled that the military commissions set up by the Administration to try enemy combatants lacked constitutional authority in part because their procedures violated basic tenets of military and international law, including that a defendant must be permitted to see and hear evidence against him. Although the Court did not rule that the president is prohibited from establishing military commissions, it did determine that the current system isn't a ``regularly constituted court'' and doesn't provide judicial guarantees.

We are voting on this bill--on any bill, in fact--only because that Hamdan decision forced the Administration to come to Congress, not because President Bush has been in any hurry to try the more than 400 detainees at Guantanamo under sound procedures based on specific legislation.

And we are being forced to vote today--not later, and only on this specific bill, with no opportunity to even consider any changes-- because, above all, the Republicans have decided they need to claim a legislative victory when they go home to campaign, to help take voters' minds off the Administration's missteps and their own failure to pass legislation to address the voters' concerns.

In other words, for the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership it's business as usual--ignore a problem as long as possible, then come up with a last-minute proposal developed without any input from Democrats, allow only a ``take it or leave it'' vote, and then smear anyone who doesn't support it as failing to support our country.

That's been their approach to almost everything of importance, so while it's disappointing it's not surprising that the Administration and the Republican leadership have not approached this important topic more thoughtfully.

The goal, of course, should be to have legislation to help make America safer that can withstand the proper scrutiny of the courts while meeting the needs of the American people and not undermine our ability to have the support of our allies.

The bill originally proposed by the president fell short of meeting those standards. I opposed it because I thought it risked irreparably harming the war on terror by tying up the prosecution of terrorists with new untested legal norms that did not meet the requirement of the Hamdan decision; endangering our service members by attempting to rewrite and limit our compliance with Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions; undermining basic standards of U.S. law; and departing from a body of law well understood by our troops.

I was not alone in rejecting the bill the president originally proposed. As we all know, several members of the other body, including Senator Warner, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and other members of that committee, including Senators McCain and Graham, also had serious objections to that legislation and, joined by Senator Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Committee, developed legislation that struck the important balance between military necessity and basic due process.

When the House Armed Services Committee took up the president's bill, I joined in voting for an alternative, offered by our colleague, Representative Skelton, the Committee's senior Democratic member, that was identical to that bipartisan Senate legislation.

That alternative would have established tough but fair rules, based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice and its associated regulations, for trying terrorists. This would have fully responded to what the Supreme Court identified as the shortcomings in the previous system. But the Republican leadership insisted on moving forward with the president's bill rather than working in a bipartisan manner, and so that alternative was rejected. As a result, I voted against sending the president's bill to the House floor.

But the bill now before the House is neither the president's bill nor the bipartisan bill approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Instead, it is a new measure, just introduced, that differs in many respects and reflects the result of further negotiations involving the White House, several Republican Senators, and the House Republican leadership.

And while this new bill includes some improvements over the president's original bill, it still does not meet the test of deserving enactment, and I cannot support it.

Some of my concerns involve the bill's specific provisions. But just as serious are my concerns about what the bill does not say.

For example, the bill includes provisions intended to bar detainees from challenging their detentions in federal courts by denying those courts jurisdiction to hear an application for a writ of habeas corpus ``or any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement'' by or on behalf of an alien that the government--that is, the Executive Branch--has determined ``to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.''

These provisions, which the bill says are to apply to cases now before the courts, evidently allow indefinite detention, or detention at least until the war on terrorism is ``over.''

And while the reference to ``aliens'' seems to mean that this is not to apply to American citizens--who are not immune from being considered ``enemy combatants''--some legal experts say it is not completely clear that citizens would really have the ability to challenge their detentions.

I could not support any legislation intended to give the President-- any president, of any party--authority to throw an American citizen into prison without what the Supreme Court has described as ``a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker,'' and I prefer to err on the side of caution before voting for a measure that is not more clear than the bill before us on this point.

Also, these sweeping jurisdiction-stripping provisions, as well as other parts of the bill, raise enough legal questions that military lawyers say there is a good chance the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. I do not know if they are right about that, but their views deserve to be taken seriously--not only because we in Congress have sworn to uphold the Constitution but also because if our goal truly is to avoid unnecessary delays in bringing terrorists to justice, we need to take care to craft legislation that can and will operate soon, not only after prolonged legal challenges.

In addition, I am concerned that the bill gives the President the authority to ``interpret the meaning and application'' of U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Instead of clearly banning abuse and torture, the bill leaves in question whether or not we are authorizing the Executive Branch to carry out some of the very things the Geneva Conventions seek to ban.

I cannot forget or discount the words of Rear Adm. Bruce MacDonald, the Navy's Judge Advocate General, who told the Armed Services Committee ``I go back to the reciprocity issue that we raised earlier, that I would be very concerned about other nations looking in on the United States and making a determination that, if it's good enough for the United States, it's good enough for us, and perhaps doing a lot of damage and harm internationally if one of our servicemen or women were taken and held as a detainee.''

I share that concern, and could not in good conscience support legislation that could put our men and women in uniform at risk.

Mr. Speaker, establishing a system of military tribunals to bring to trial some of the worst terrorists in the world shouldn't be a partisan matter. I think we can all agree that there is a need for a system that can deliver swift and certain justice to terrorists without risking exposing Americans to improper treatment by those who are our adversaries now or who may become adversaries in the future.

Unfortunately, I think there is too much risk that the bill before the House today will not accomplish that goal and has too many flaws to deserve enactment as it stands. So, I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support H.R. 5136 with my colleague from Texas, Judge Hall. H.R. 5136 authorizes NOAA to establish a National Integrated Drought Information System to provide an early warning system to enable State and local governments to take steps to mitigate the effects of drought.

Drought is as devastating to our lives and our economy as other severe weather events. In recent years, the western United States has experienced severe drought conditions. The impacts of drought are costly in both lives and dollars. Drought conditions set the stage for wildfires, crop failures, decline in recreation and tourist activities, impacts on hydropower production, and other harmful effects.

And unlike other severe weather events, Mr. Speaker, drought conditions emerge over a long period of time. Reduced rain and snowfall deplete moisture in the soil, reduce the level of reservoirs, and reduce the flow in rivers. NOAA's current Drought Monitor and drought prediction efforts have provided information to assist with drought planning and mitigation, but I believe we can and should do more.

We need a more refined information system on a seasonal and long-term basis about the severity and persistence of drought conditions to better tailor drought mitigation plans at the regional and local levels. H.R. 5136 will also facilitate the consolidation of drought- related information in one location, providing the public and decision makers at all levels a single point of access for information on drought.

I want to thank Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers for their support of this legislation. In particular, again, I want to mention my good friend, the senior member from Texas, Judge Hall, for his leadership; and I would urge all Members to support this effort to improve our ability to deal with the impacts of drought.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to speak in strong support of this resolution, 948, which is a resolution that honors the dedication of the employees of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Stennis Space Center, who stayed at their posts during Hurricane Katrina and protected critical space program assets.

In addition, they provided shelter and medical care to storm evacuees, and they provided logistical support for storm recovery efforts.

Mr. Speaker, as you may recall during late August of last year, Hurricane Katrina severely assaulted southeast Louisiana and the Mississippi coast, resulting in massive damage and the evacuation of large numbers of citizens.

Yet, in the midst of the storm there were countless examples of heroism. One example is the way in which employees of the Stennis Space Center stayed and protected the facility instead of fleeing the area.

These great Americans deserve our thanks and praise for their dedication to working to preserve Stennis during Hurricane Katrina's passage through the region.

Among their accomplishments was the protection of critical test infrastructure at the rocket propulsion text complex. The Stennis Space Center plays an important role in the United States space program. By risking their own lives, these brave individuals ensured that the Center was preserved as a viable facility in spite of the devastation wrought by this Hurricane.

But these individuals are also worthy of recognition for their efforts to assist their fellow citizens who were affected by the storm. During the hurricane, almost 3,700 people took refuge at the center. The employees who remained helped feed, provide medical care and maintain electrical power for all of those on site. The space center also served as the site of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's incident command center for the parts of the Gulf Coast impacted by Katrina.

In short, without the dedication of the employees listed in the resolution before us today, the consequences of Katrina's passage through the region would have been far worse. Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting and proper that we

honor those brave individuals for their heroic deeds. I strongly urge the passage of House Resolution 948.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, Congressman Taylor, from the coast of Mississippi who firsthand experienced the effects of Hurricane Katrina, and who himself is a hero for the way he stood tall and was there on the ground helping people who were affected by the Hurricane.

I think it is only suitable and only proper that Congressman Taylor shares his point of view with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the comments of my good friend, Representative Hall. And I think I speak for him and every other Member of this body when I express the opinion that there is nobody that is more respected than Congressman Taylor.

And we are all in a sense examples of the people in our district. And when we watch and work with Congressman Taylor, we know that there are thousands of other people in his district that have integrity, that have a work ethic that makes us proud. And it is his leadership and his courage, I think Judge Hall would agree that have helped the Congress continue to do the right thing, although we have much more to do for the people of Louisiana and Mississippi to put things to right after this terrible natural disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.