Floor Statements

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

Having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I have a solemn responsibility to vote against even the most politically popular proposals when there are serious doubts about the constitutionality of the legislation. And this bill, transparently brought forward to help the Republican majority whip up public emotions on the eve of a tough election, poses serious constitutional problems--in short, I think it violates the 24th Amendment.

That amendment, added to the Constitution in 1964, says that the rights of Americans to vote in federal elections ``shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax'' and that Congress ``shall have the power to enforce'' that part of the Constitution.

But instead of enforcing that constitutional bar on making voting a taxable event, this bill would require states to choose between making some people pay to vote and paying to provide them with the identification that the bill says will be required if they want to exercise that right.

The bill's supporters say the bill is constitutional because it says that states cannot make everyone pay for identification--they have to provide it free to people who cannot afford the ``reasonable cost'' of providing it.

But the 24th Amendment is not ambiguous on whether it is permissible to make some people pay to vote, so long as they can afford it. Instead, it makes clear that no Americans--regardless of their income-- can be forced to pay ``any . . . tax'' in order to vote.

And while some may argue that paying for a government-issued ID is not a tax, but just some kind of ``user fee,'' I am not persuaded--and I would remind them of the words of Richard Darman, OMB Director under President Reagan, who said that ``if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like duck, it is a duck, [and] euphemisms like user fees will not fool the public.''

That's one of the reasons the National Association of Counties (NACO) opposes the bill--because, as they say in their letter to the Speaker and Minority Leader, ``we fear that any fee imposed on other voters [besides those claiming to be too poor to afford an ID] could be characterized as a poll tax and be subject to challenge in court.''

Further, aside from the constitutional questions, both NACO and the National Conference of State Legislatures oppose the bill because it would impose a burdensome unfunded mandate on every state and every local government. And, as the Conference points out, the bill ``is duplicative'' and ``adds bureaucratic burdens that are completely unnecessary. The REAL ID Act, flawed though it is, already requires a new state identification system based on legal presence . . . This second identification system would be used only for voting [but the Help America Vote Act] . . . and state and local election procedures

already address identification needs [while] . . . This legislation contains only a vague promise to reimburse states for the cost of providing voter ID's to indigent individuals. There is no specific appropriation for this . . . and little likelihood for one.''

If the Republican leadership had been willing to allow the House to consider amendments, changes could have been made to remove any doubts about its constitutionality and to avoid burdening the state and local governments with unnecessary burdens. However, instead the leadership insisted on bringing the bill to the floor under a procedure that prevented that--one of the reasons that many have questioned whether the real purpose of the bill is less to respond to potential election fraud and more to make it harder for some citizens to vote.

I am not opposed to a carefully constructed and constitutional bill that would enhance workplace identity, which is why I support H.R. 98. Nor am I opposed to legislating in order to ensure that non-citizens and others ineligible to vote are prevented from voting fraudulently. And I am hopeful that once the heat of this election season passes, the House will return to a more deliberative and bipartisan way of doing business on this issue and others.

But, in the meantime, I think this bill does not merit enactment as it stands because its defects outweigh whatever value it may have as a supplement to the existing state and federal laws against election fraud.

Mr. Speaker, it's often said legislating is like making sausage--stuffing various ingredients into one product. But sometimes it's more like slicing salami--cutting something into pieces, to be swallowed one at a time.

Today, the Republican leadership clearly has decided that sliced salami will be the blue plate special, and that there can be no changes or substitutions. They are saying they favor a piecemeal approach to immigration reform and are more interested in political posturing than in trying to enact legislation that will meet all the challenges involved in strengthening our borders, reducing illegal immigration, and addressing the status of illegal immigrants now in the United States.

So they have cut three pieces off the immigration bill the House passed last year, and are bringing them to the floor under this rule which prohibits us from even debating any amendments or offering any additions to the menu.

In other words, it's take it or leave it, and forget about trying to make any improvements--just like it was with last week's serving, the bill for 730 miles of high-price fencing along the border. I think that is wrong, and I cannot support that procedure.

However, I will vote for the three separate bills covered by this rule, because while I have some concerns about some of their provisions, on balance I think they would improve current law and policies.

That was why last year I voted for H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antierrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, the overall bill from which today's bills have been sliced.

Among other ingredients, that bill also included provisions added by the amendment by our colleague from California, Mr. Hunter. As I mentioned, those provisions were sliced off last week and served up as H.R. 6061, the so-called Secure Fence Act.

I am not opposed to the construction of fencing or other barriers along our borders, but I am not convinced Members of Congress should attempt to substitute our judgment about technical questions of engineering and law enforcement for the expertise of those responsible for border security.

I voted against the Hunter amendment, and against H.R. 6061, because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities--those with the most experience in border security have not requested such a mandated expenditure, and in fact, have expressed a preference for different resources and tools to do their job. Moreover, I am skeptical that the kind of fence-building mandated by the Hunter amendment and H.R. 6061 is a cost-effective response to the problem of illegal entries into the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, about 730 miles of new fencing would be required by H.R. 6061. They say that it costs about $4.4 million for a single layer of fencing per mile--but the bill calls for double-fencing, which costs more, and also for building all- weather roads in the middle. So, using a conservative estimate of $9 million a mile, it would cost nearly $6.6 billion to build the 730 mile fence called for in H.R. 6061.

I think it would be better from Congress to resist the temptation to micro-manage the Department of Homeland Security and instead to allow it the discretion to spend those billions of dollars on a variety of measures--fences in some places and other kinds of barriers in other places, plus other technology and increased border patrol manpower-- that it decides, based on experience and expertise, will do the best job of securing the border.

And if those steps turned out to cost less than 730 miles of double fencing, the Department could put the rest of the money to good use.

For example, $2 billion would pay for the 35,000 detention beds called for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (the 9/11 Act) that are need to implement the ending of the so-called catch and release of illegal aliens apprehended after they cross the border. It would take only $360 million to hire, train and equip 2,000 border patrol agents, while $400 million, 250 more port-of-entry inspectors and 25 percent more canine detection teams could be added to the field. Or for $400 million every U.S. port of entry could have a radiation portal monitor, so that all incoming cargo can be screened to detect nuclear or radiological material.

The three bills we will consider today are not perfect, but they are less problematical and I will vote for them.

H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act would establish new criminal penalties for people involved with constructing illegal tunnels beneath our borders, including those who knowingly finance such actions, with particularly severe penalties for using such tunnels to smuggle illegal immigrants, drugs, weapons of mass destruction or other illegal goods into the United States. I strongly support this strengthening of current law.

H.R. 6094, called the Community Protection Act, like corresponding parts of the larger bill I supported last year, would allow for longer detentions of illegal aliens prior to deportation if they have refused to comply with deportation proceedings, pose a threat to community safety or public health, because they have a highly communicable disease, or if their release would threaten national security or have serious adverse consequences for American foreign policy. It includes provisions for periodic review of such detentions and affords these detained aliens an opportunity to seek reconsideration of their cases and to present evidence in support of their release. In addition, it would centralize judicial review of legal challenges to the detention of illegal immigrants--something that I think is of dubious value but not so bad as to outweigh the rest of the legislation.

Further, the bill would explicitly bar admission to the United States of members of criminal street gangs, allow the deportation of illegal aliens who belong to gangs convicted of threatening or attempting crimes, and requires that they be held in detention prior to deportation and makes criminal street gang members ineligible to receive asylum or temporary protected status. I strongly support these provisions, because criminal street gangs whose members include illegal aliens are a serious and growing problem in too many communities.

Finally--for today, at least--H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act would establish new procedures to speed resolution of lawsuits brought against the Federal Government that are based on the implementation of immigration laws and require the Justice Department to hire more people to prosecute human smuggling cases.

It also includes language reaffirming the existing inherent authority of the States, their political subdivisions, such as counties or cities, and their law-enforce agencies to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States . . . for the purposes of assisting in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States in the course of carrying out routine duties. I find this acceptable because the bill says ``Nothing in this section may be construed to require law enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of a State to--(1) report the identity of a victim of,

or a witness to, a criminal offense to the Secretary of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement purposes; or (2) arrest such victim or witness for a violation the immigration laws of the United States.''

In other words, this is not a mandate and will not interfere with the ability or any state or local government to decide whether and how it will undertake to respond to question of immigration law and policy, matters which are essentially the responsibility of the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, nobody should think that passing these bills today-- something I support--will come close to completing the work that Congress needs to do regarding immigration.

This plateful of slices is not even the full salami the House passed last year--a bill that, by itself, dealt with only part of the full menu of issues that must be addressed.

I voted for that bill because I think improving border security is absolutely necessary. But I am convinced it is not sufficient.

It does not address the most difficult and challenging aspect of immigration reform, namely the question of how to deal humanely and effectively with the millions of illegal immigrants currently living and working in this country or the difficulties that their employers including many Colorado companies that have contacted me--during the transition to a changed labor market that may follow revisions in current immigration laws.

As we all know, the Senate has passed what its supporters--including President Bush--say is intended to be a comprehensive immigration reform measure. We should follow their lead.

Following the Senate's lead does not mean simply accepting their bill as it stands. I think that would be a mistake, because I think that bill has defects that must be remedied. Instead, it means recognizing the full dimensions of the problems that must be addressed and the need to address them without unnecessary delay. It means appointing House conferees and directing them to meet with their counterparts from the other body to resolve differences and shape a final, comprehensive bill that addresses those problems in a way that is in the best interests of our country and the American people.

If that effort succeeds--as I think it can and am convinced it must-- the result not only will be better than any of the bills before us today, it will be better than either the bill we passed last year or the bill that the Senate passed earlier this year and in fact will deserve to be sent to the President for signing into law.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the assistance of several public-spirited individuals working at GeoEye, the world's largest commercial satellite imagery company.

GeoEye, which acquired another company, Space Imagining, earlier this year, now operates a constellation of three Earth imaging satellites-- Orb View-2, Orb View-3 and IKONOS--that contribute to an international network of more than a dozen regional ground stations, an image archive, and advanced geospatial imagery processing capabilities that are among the best in the world.

GeoEye has a strong presence in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District and recently demonstrated the value of their corporate presence in our state.

Last month, the Boulder County Sheriff and others responded to a report that a young Marine was missing after a fall in Eldorado Canyon State Park. This search effort involved hundreds of volunteers and a significant number of law enforcement officials, and of course the missing Marine's parents were deeply concerned about their son's disappearance, and conventional search methods were proving to be ineffective.

As the search was underway, my office was asked to contact GeoEye to see if they might be able to provide imaging data that could be used to find him.

Within moments of my request, GeoEye was offering up satellite imaging of the Eldorado Springs area and other forms of assistance to the Boulder County Sheriff's Department and to the Marine's family. No questions asked. No request for payment in return for services rendered; just a neighborly helping hand.

I want to express my deep public appreciation for the employees at GeoEye, who were quick to offer the company's assistance and who demonstrated a true sense of community spirit in a difficult situation.

While the law says ``corporations'' are also ``persons,'' I think it is noteworthy when a company responds to a crisis in the way ordinary citizens do. After all, companies are organized--and properly so--for financial profit and economic benefit. We don't expect corporations, particularly large ones, to exhibit the

very human qualities that neighbors or friends do. And that is why I want to commend GeoEye and thank the company for their quick response and their offer to help.

I want to particularly thank Mr. Matt O'Connell, the CEO of GeoEye, Mr. Mark Brender, the Vice President for Comms/Marketing at GeoEye, and to Kim Goff, Kerri Rose and Val Webb. They generously gave of their time and expertise to help the community. Ms. Webb called my District Office to follow up on the case several times to offer additional assistance. That kind of personal effort certainly impressed me and my staff.

Please join me in commending these individuals and thanking them for their public-spiritedness. They remind us that with the right leadership, corporations are not necessarily abstract institutions lacking the qualities we look for in good friends and neighbors, but are, at their best, integral parts of the community at-large.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill, for several reasons.

To begin with, as the debate in the Resources Committee made clear, this is not the kind of measure that should be considered under a procedure that rigidly limits debate and prevents consideration of any amendments. Instead, it is a controversial proposal that can affect many parts of the country. All members whose districts could be affected--or who have concerns for other reasons--should have the opportunity to propose amendments that they think would improve the legislation.

But regardless of the procedures controlling debate today, I think the bill has such serious flaws that it should be rejected--which was why I voted against it in committee.

As others have noted, it would make a drastic change in current law regarding the regulation of Indian gaming, changes that do not properly reflect and respect the status of tribal governments and that have led the majority of tribes and tribal organizations to oppose the legislation.

I do not think such far-reaching changes are necessary to address the problems cited by the bill's supporters. On the contrary, I think the Interior Department already has ample authority to resolve those problems through regulation.

Finally, some have suggested that the legislation should be passed to resolve questions raised in 2004 when two tribes now based in Oklahoma asserted a claim to lands in Colorado. However, I do not think that is accurate.

Nothing in this bill would prevent tribes from making such land claims in the future. And because no legislation can bind a future Congress, the bill would not prevent a legislative settlement of such claims--the professed goal of those asserting the Colorado claim--which could involve authorization of Indian gaming on some of the lands involved.

I urge the House to reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Anna Schubert, an excellent young scholar who has a bright future ahead of her. Anna was selected by the Alliance for Affordable Services to be the recipient of a $2,000 scholarship for the 2006-2007 school year. While there are many deserving scholars in our communities, it is worth noting the outstanding caliber of students such as Anna. Young people like Anna will lead our country into the future, achieve new breakthroughs in science and medicine, and protect our environment for future generations.

Anna will have the opportunity to receive an additional $1,000 every year of her undergraduate career, a goal that is accomplished by keeping a 3.5 overall grade point average. Although an arduous task for any student, I am confident this exceptional young lady will achieve it through her hard work and dedication.

It is an honor for the State of Colorado and this Nation to have bright, young individuals that are excelling beyond barriers. Such ambitions are necessary qualities in the next generation for the United States to maintain its leadership role in this new century.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our congratulations to Anna Schubert and her family. We wish her the best in both her undergraduate career and in all her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Alex Trujillo, who has served for 35 years in the federal government, most recently as the Region VIII Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A personable, thoughtful and caring individual, Mr. Trujillo has worked closely with my office on numerous occasions to ensure that beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and Children's Health Programs are receiving reliable information from which to base their healthcare decisions.

Under Mr. Trujillo's direction, nearly 92 percent of beneficiaries in Region VIII now have prescription drug coverage. This is a remarkable number of people receiving much needed healthcare coverage, especially in a time of rising prescription drug costs.

Over the past four decades, Medicare has grown to become a critical provider of healthcare services for millions of Americans. More often than not, recipients of Medicare are not fully aware of all of the advantages and health benefits to which they are entitled. Consequently, many beneficiaries pay a higher premium for their healthcare or do not understand where and how they can make savings. One of Alex Trujillo's accomplishments has been his leadership in improving public education about Medicare. During his tenure, Region VIII has measured an increase in responsible healthcare decision-making by beneficiaries that not only provides better quality healthcare, but also utilizes services more efficiently. This is an important accomplishment considering that Region VIII provides services for 3.2 percent of the U.S. population. It is also one of the biggest regions geographically, with a coverage area that stretches from Colorado to Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota and South Dakota. Mr. Trujillo's attention to rural communities has also been noteworthy.

Following his graduation from college in 1971, Mr. Trujillo entered public service at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For the last 20 years he has worked for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). He gained valuable experience in the Divisions of Medicare and Health Standards and Quality, and also served as the Assistant Regional Inspector General for the Office of Investigations and Office of the Inspector General. In short, he knows the landscape of these agencies and developed a reputation for exceptional service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our appreciation to Alex Trujillo for his record of service in the federal government.

Madam Chairman, I cannot support this bill in its present form.

I understand and appreciate the views of its proponents, many of them in Colorado, who are distressed about the fact that three slaughterhouses in this country are in the business of preparing horse flesh for human consumption--primarily in other countries.

The bill's supporters do not think this is appropriate, and that Congress should exercise its authority over interstate commerce in order to put an end to this business. That is what this bill is intended to do.

I can understand the discomfort many Americans have about consumption of horse flesh, although of course it has been and remains an accepted practice in some places.

But emotional concerns cannot be the only guiding force in legislation regarding the way livestock is managed, and prohibiting slaughter of horses for human consumption--the main market for horse flesh at this time--would have unintended consequences this legislation fails to address.

The hearings held by the Agriculture Committee made it clear that there the current horse sanctuaries do not have the capacity to care for the additional unwanted horses--which otherwise would be handled by slaughterhouses that would result from the bill's enactment. That was one reason the committee, on a bipartisan basis reported the legislation unfavorably.

I voted for an amendment that would have delayed implementation of the bill until the Agriculture Department determined that adequate sanctuaries were ready. Unfortunately, that amendment was not adopted. Similarly, state and local governments--including the Colorado Department of Agriculture and the Commissioners of Adams County--are concerned that shutting off the slaughterhouse outlet will lead to an increased number of unwanted horses being abandoned and left to be dealt with by local authorities. I am attaching letters from the Colorado Commissioner on Agriculture and Adams County Commissioners who oppose this legislation. I voted for an amendment to provide federal reimbursement to local governments faced with such a problem. However, that amendment also was rejected.

Because of these problems, I cannot vote for the bill as it stands. Finally, I must note that with the nation at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, everyday Americans struggling with a mediocre economy and high energy costs, there are more pressing issues Congress needs to address than this one.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of the financial services industry--including both banks and credit unions--to our economy. I support and applaud the steps both have taken toward better services and improved products.

However, I think there's a need to change some of the rules involving credit cards and I also think we need to remember the need for diversity in the industry. That's why I am cosponsoring H.R. 2317, to update the regulation of credit unions, and have introduced a bill dealing with credit cards.

The last major changes to the Federal Credit Union Act were in 1998, and since then there has been time to identify unnecessary and outdated provisions and develop legislation that would make common sense improvements.

That is the background for H.R. 2317, the Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act (or ``CURIA''), introduced by our colleagues, Representatives Ed Royce and Paul E. Kanjorski. It combines a series of regulatory enhancements that will allow credit unions to operate more effectively and efficiently. These changes can help improve productivity and efficiency in a competitive and dynamic marketplace, and will translate into better and lower-cost service to credit union members.

The current bill improves upon similar bipartisan legislation introduced in the 108th Congress, and its broad support is shown by the fact that it has no fewer than 121 cosponsors. That support reflects the reality that credit unions--with 87 million members nationwide and 1.5 million just in Colorado--provide choice in the financial services industry.

My support for credit unions does not mean hostility to banks, because I do not think credit unions represent a threat to the continued success of banks. Credit unions remain member-owned not-for- profit institutions directed by volunteer boards that pool their resources to help each other. And while credit unions have changed and grown, that has not prevented banks from growing as well. In 2005, bank profits reached a record level of $134.2 billion.

Banks have a 94% share of the financial services industry, holding more than $10 trillion in assets. In fact, the net growth in bank assets in 2005--$626 billion--was nearly as much as the combined total assets of all credit unions in the country while one of the biggest banks has assets that exceed the $669 billion in assets held by all the credit unions.

In view of these realities, I am not persuaded that the modest changes in credit-union regulation included in CURIA represent a real threat to the continued success of the banking industry--and there is no doubt they can and will benefit consumers.

Similarly, consumers will benefit from the common-sense changes in the rules governing issuance of credit cards that would be accomplished by enacting H.R. 5383, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which I introduced earlier this year.

That bill reflects the reality that Congress needs to do more to promote responsibility by those who provide credit, beginning with credit card companies. Like a similar (but not identical) bill introduced by Senator Dodd, my bill takes some simple, common-sense steps to stop abusive practices, educate cardholders, and stiffen the penalties for violations.

I hope that when we return in September, the House will have an opportunity to consider both H.R. 2317, the Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act, and H.R. 5383, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act.

Mr. Speaker, skiing and snowboarding are exhilarating activities that allow individuals and families to enjoy a natural environment and participate in physical activity.

To help spread this message, I am introducing a resolution urging the president to declare January as National Ski and Snowboard Sports Month.

This resolution notes the increase in adult and childhood obesity along with the negative consequences of overweight and obese people including a decrease in the average life span and rising health care costs stemming from related illnesses. It also highlights the role winter sport activities can play in addressing chronic inactivity and the positive effects of participating in physical activity.

``Ski and Snowboard Month'' would remind citizens of the importance to maintain a consistent exercise program and healthy lifestyle twelve months out of the year. Winter sports offer unique opportunities to allow all Americans a chance to be together outside and enjoy the season.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of the financial services industry, including both banks and credit unions, to our economy. I support and applaud the steps they have taken toward better services and improved products, but I think there is some need for some changes.

That is why I have introduced a bill dealing with credit cards and am cosponsoring H.R. 2317, to update the regulation of credit unions. My support for credit unions does not reflect hostility to banks because I do not think credit unions represent a threat to the continued success of banks.

In 2005, bank profits reached a record level. Banks have a 94 percent share of the financial services industry, and the net growth in bank assets in 2005 was nearly as much as the combined total assets of all credit unions in the country. So I do not think modest changes that are in H.R. 2317 represent a real threat to the continued success of the banking industry.

When we return in September, we should have an opportunity to consider both H.R. 2317 and my bill, H.R. 5383, the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of the worst kind of political game playing.

After months and months of short workweeks and long breaks, now the Republican leadership has brought the House into session late today-- and for what?

Certainly not for a simple vote on raising the minimum wage--even though that's long overdue.

No, instead the purpose of this grab-bag of a bill is to provide political cover for people who want to say they voted to raise the minimum wage but don't want their votes to actually produce that result.

That's why the Republican leaders have chained onto the minimum-wage increase the deadweight of an estate-tax revision bill like the one the House passed last month--a bill so badly flawed that it has already reached dead end in the other body. They know that the added weight will mean that even if this bill is launched from the House it will not fly, and will never reach the President's desk.

It's a cynical move. And it's a lost opportunity--because if the estate-tax part of this bill were good enough to give the package a long-shot chance of enactment, the bill would merit support.

But, like the version we passed last month, the estate-tax part of this bill does not have that chance, because it does not represent a true compromise. While benefiting only a very few--the very largest estates--it would irresponsibly reduce federal revenue at a time when the country is at war and the budget is already deeply in deficit. And to make matters worse, it includes unrelated provisions that are even less fiscally responsible, such as a special tax break for timber companies that would reopen a loophole that was closed when President Reagan signed the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986.

My opposition to this bill does not mean I am opposed to reducing estate taxes. When the House considered the estate-tax bill last month, I supported an alternative that would have raised the amount of an estate excluded from taxes to $6 million per couple and increased this to $7 million by 2009. This not only would have provided relief for small businesses and family farmers, but it would have done so in a much more fiscally responsible way, because it would have reduced revenues by much less than this bill. It also would have simplified estate-tax planning for married couples, who could carry over any unused exemption to the surviving spouse and so assured that the full $7 million would be available.

Furthermore, that alternative would have transferred the revenue from the estate tax to strengthen the Social Security trust fund, a change that, according to the Social Security Actuary, would solve one quarter of the trust fund's shortfall.

If the Republican leadership allowed us to vote on that--even as an added burden on a bill to raise the minimum wage--I would vote for it. But they could not do that, because that kind of true compromise--a reasonable and responsible compromise that would have a good chance of approval in the Senate--would not fit their plan to use the estate tax as a weight to sink the minimum wage increase.

So, once again, I have no responsible choice but to oppose what the Republican leadership has put before us and to vote against this cynical maneuver disguised as a serious legislative proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support of this legislation.

India is the world's largest and most diverse democracy and a strong ally and friend of the United States. As a member of the India Caucus, I recognize the benefits of increased economic, security, and cultural cooperation between India and the United States and am proud that in recent years the relationship between our two countries has made rapid advances in so many areas.

Because of the growing importance of that relationship, it made sense for the Bush Administration to consider expanding the U.S.-India strategic partnership to include civilian nuclear energy development. In the context of our friendship with India, I support the concept of civilian nuclear cooperation, and I will support this legislation today.

U.S. law prohibits nuclear cooperation with countries that have not pledged under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--like India--to forgo nuclear weapons. H.R. 5682 carves out an exception for India to allow it to gain access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in exchange for opening 14 out of 22 of its nuclear facilities to inspections under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Importantly, the bill requires that India and the International Atomic Energy Agency negotiate a safeguards agreement and that the Nuclear Suppliers Group approve an exemption for India before Congress votes on the final cooperation agreement. That means Congress will have a chance to vote up or down once more, this time on the final negotiated agreement. I think that's the right approach.

In exchange for getting access to sensitive nuclear technology and fuel supplies, India has promised to continue the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs and not to transfer the nuclear technology to third parties.

But the deal would not prevent India from ramping up its military nuclear program. Whether or not India actually begins building more nuclear arms is less important than the fact that it will have the capability to do so, and it is unclear what actions countries like China and Pakistan might take in response to that new reality.

I tend to agree the statement by Rep. Berman (D-CA) in his additional views on H.R. 5682 that ``only a halt on fissile material production would make this deal a net plus for nonproliferation.'' In the July 2005 joint statement between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India committed to ``assume the practices and responsibilities'' of other advanced nuclear powers. With four of the five recognized nuclear weapons states already having stopped producing fissile material for nuclear weapons and China believed to have halted production, it would seem that India should be able to ``assume'' this important practice.

Yet the agreement itself does not include any promise by India to cease its production of fissile materials. So I remain concerned about the potential effects of the agreement on our broader nonproliferation goals, since the real has ramifications far beyond the U.S.-India relationship. That's why I supported an amendment based on a proposal by former Senator Sam Nunn to allow the exports of nuclear reactors and technology to India but not the transfers of reactor fuel until it had been determined that India had halted the production of fissile material for its weapons program.

We must try to strike the right balance between strengthening our relationship with India and also maintaining our robust and time-tested international nuclear nonproliferation regime. I will support the bill today, but once the

agreement has been negotiated and before Congress takes its final vote on the deal, I plan to carefully scrutinize the agreement to ensure that it strikes a balance I can support.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in Colorado and not present for three recorded votes on Monday, July 24, 2006.

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall 394, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1496, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a pilot program under which up to 15 States may issue electronic Federal migratory bird hunting stamps--I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall 395, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 203, the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act--I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall 396, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5534, to establish a grant program whereby moneys collected from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program are used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative fuels--I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which embodies a bipartisan and bi-cameral agreement that includes important provisions to protect children.

The bill will create a National Sex Offender Registry with uniform standards for the registration of sex offenders, including a lifetime registration requirement for the most serious offenders. This is a vital step to improve the current patch-work quilt of 50 different state systems for identifying and tracking sex offenders. The bill also authorizes much-needed grants to help local law enforcement agencies establish and integrate sex offender registry systems.

Under the bill, states will be required to maintain sex offender registries accessible to the public on the Internet and to make failure to register a felony. Sex offenders will be required to provide DNA samples and will be subjected to more frequent in-person verification of information about their residences and workplaces.

The bill targets child-exploitation enterprises and registered sex offenders who commit offenses against minors, including obscene visual representations of sexual abuse of children and sex trafficking of children. It includes several provisions designed to better combat child pornography, including authorizing civil and criminal asset forfeiture in child pornography cases. And it authorizes new grant programs that will help local law enforcement agencies combat sexual abuse of children by enabling them to hire more people, add computer hardware and software, and take other steps to apprehend sex offenders who violate registry requirements. It also authorizes a new grant program for the National Crime Prevention Council, a private, nonprofit organization that has expertise in promoting crime prevention programs through public outreach and media campaigns.

The bill also authorizes 88 new prosecutors within the U.S. Attorneys' Offices to prosecute child sex offenses, including child exploitation, child sexual abuse, and child obscenity and pornography offenses. It authorizes 10 additional Justice Department task forces to address Internet crimes against children. It authorizes the Justice Department to provide grants to states, local governments, and nonprofit organizations to establish and maintain programs to educate children and parents on the best way to be safe using he Internet. It authorizes the Justice Department, in consultation with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to develop and carry out a public awareness campaign to demonstrate how to better protect children when using the Internet. And it authorizes the Justice Department to provide fingerprint-based background checks to child welfare agencies as well as to private and public educational agencies so they can carry out background checks on prospective adoption or foster parents, private and public teachers, and school employees.

As a cosponsor of H.R. 4005, the National Police Athletic League (PAL) Youth Enrichment Reauthorization Act of 2005, I am also glad to note that the version of the bill now before the House includes provisions similar to those of that bill.

The PAL program brings youth under the supervision and positive influence of a law enforcement agency and expands public awareness about the role of a police officer in the local community and reinforces responsible values and attitudes instilled in young people by their parents. It utilizes educational, athletic and recreational activities to create trust and understanding between police officers and youth. It is based on the conviction that young people--if they are reached early enough--can develop strong positive attitudes towards police officers in their journey through life toward the goal of maturity and good citizenship.

A volunteer-driven organization with an estimated 80,000 volunteers across the country supporting all levels of programming, PAL has a 90- year history of caring and providing alternatives for youth at risk. Today, it offers structured and personal guidance in a safe, friendly environment and provides a variety of activities, from organized competitive sports, recreational activities, arts and educational programming to cultural and social skill development programs. This bill will help it carry out that important work.

I do have concerns about some aspects of the bill, including a provision allowing some juvenile offenders over 14 to be included in publicly available sex offender registries. However, on balance I think this is a good, strong bill and I support its enactment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5684, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. While the agreement would provide some benefits both for the people of the U.S. and Oman, I think the agreement contains more flaws than benefits, and I believe it must be rejected.

The agreement, which is similar to free trade agreements (FTA)s with Middle Eastern countries Morocco and Bahrain, would provide the U.S. and Oman duty-free access for almost all consumer and industrial goods, with special provisions for agriculture, textiles and apparel. Both countries would phase out all tariffs on the remaining eligible goods within 10 years.

I have supported a number of trade agreements to expand access to foreign markets for exports as part of a long-term strategy to strengthen the American economy. While expanding market access for American industry, financial markets and farmers is critical, I believe it needs to be done responsibly, accounting for the treatment and protection of workers and the environment. This agreement makes efforts to do so but in my opinion needs to go further.

Regarding the agreement's labor provisions, I am concerned that Oman is not in compliance with International Labor Organization (ILO) core labor standards. There are no labor unions in Oman today. The royal decree issued by Sultan Qaboos--which prohibits forced labor and endorses the use of collective bargaining and strikes--is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. It's important that the provisions in the recent decree be implemented before Congress considers this agreement. Regardless of the outcome of today's vote, I urge the Administration and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to monitor and take necessary steps to ensure the implementation of this decree.

I think the Administration and the USTR would be well served by including labor provisions, such as those contained in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, in the body of future trade agreements and making them subject to sanctions via dispute resolution procedures. The dispute resolution procedures continue to fall short in FTAs negotiated by the Bush Administration, and the Oman FTA is no exception. It is important that the United States takes step to ensure our trading partners provide workers with basic labor rights.

I am also concerned about reports that the U.S.-Oman FTA would create a new right requiring the U.S. to allow any Omani company to buy U.S. port operations. Given the uproar earlier this year over the news that Dubai Ports World had been permitted to take over the operations of several U.S. ports, it seemed only reasonable today to pass the Cardin amendment, which would close the loophole in the current trade agreement that allows a foreign company with operations in Oman to operate U.S. Port facilities. But the Republican leadership would not allow the amendment to be considered.

Expanding the liberalization of trade in goods and services between the U.S. and Oman can help us build a stronger relationship with a strategic country in the Middle East. I firmly believe the Bush Administration squandered this opportunity by not paying sufficient attention to national security concerns and by not ensuring basic labor standards in the agreement, which is why I must oppose H.R. 5684 today.