Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, at best this bill is a mistake. At worst, it is a cynical political stunt. Either way, it should not pass.

It seeks to end the ability of Federal courts--including the Supreme Court--``to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance'' as the pledge is now worded.

It responds to a 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that both the 1954 law that added the words ``under God'' to the pledge and a local school district's policy of daily recitation of the pledge as so worded were unconstitutional. (The ruling later was modified to apply only to the school district's recitation policy.)

The Supreme Court reversed that decision because the plaintiff did not have legal standing to challenge the school district's policy. But the Republican leadership evidently finds the possibility of a similar lawsuit so alarming--or maybe they think it presents such a political opportunity--that they back this bill to keep any Federal court from hearing a lawsuit like that.

I cannot support such legislation.

It mayor may not be constitutional--on that I defer to those with more legal expertise than I can claim. But I have no doubt it is not only unnecessary but even misguided and destructive.

I have no objection to the current wording of the Pledge of Allegiance. After the Ninth Circuit's decision, I voted for a resolution--approved by the House by a vote of 416 to 3--affirming that ``the Pledge of Allegiance and similar expressions are not unconstitutional expressions of religious belief'' and calling for the case to be reheard.

But this bill is a different matter. It may be called the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' but that is inaccurate and even misleading--because it not only fails to protect the pledge but also would undercut the very thing to which those who recite the pledge are expressing their allegiance.

It doesn't protect the pledge because even if it becomes law people who don't like the way the pledge's current wording would still be able to bring lawsuits in state courts. So, even if Colorado's courts upheld the current wording, the courts of other States might not. And the bill says the U.S. Supreme Court could not resolve the matter.

That would mean there would no longer be a single Pledge of Allegiance, but different pledges for different States--and the Constitution's meaning would vary based on State lines. That would directly contradict the very idea of the United States as ``one Nation'' that should remain ``indivisible'' and whose defining characteristics are devotion to ``liberty and justice for all.''

And that would be completely inconsistent with the idea of the Republic (symbolized by the flag) to which we pledge allegiance when we recite what this bill pretends to ``protect.''

How ironic--and how pathetic.

As national legislators, as U.S. Representatives, we can and should do better. We should reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support changing the Constitution along the lines of this proposal--so I will not vote for this resolution.

Under our federal system, there are many matters where the states have broad latitude to shape their laws and policies in ways their residents think fit, subject to the U.S. Constitution's provisions protecting individual rights. And one of those areas has been family law, including the regulation of marriage and divorce. But this amendment would change that.

Adoption of this amendment would for the first time impose a constitutional restriction on the ability of a state to define marriage. And it would do so in a way that would restrict, not protect, individual rights that now are protected in at least some states. I think this is not necessary or appropriate.

Some of the resolution's supporters say it is needed so a state whose laws ban same-sex marriages or civil unions will not be forced to recognize such marriages or unions established under another state's laws.

They say this could happen because Article IV of the Constitution requires each state to give full faith and credit to another state's public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. But my understanding is that this part of the Constitution has never been construed to require states to recognize the validity of all marriages of people from other states.

Instead, over the years various states have refused to recognize some out-of-state marriages--and the ``full faith and credit'' clause has not been used to force them to do otherwise--because marriages are not judgments but civil contracts that a state may choose to recognize as a matter of comity, not as a constitutional requirement.

As if this were not enough, in 1996 Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. That law says ``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.''

Not everyone supported that bill at the time. But it did pass, and now that law is on the books and has not been successfully challenged.

Given this history, I am not convinced that this constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent the full faith and credit clause being used to compel a state to recognize a same-sex marriage.

Moreover, when you focus on the language of the proposed amendment it becomes clear that protecting states is not its real purpose.

That purpose could be achieved by an amendment to the full faith and credit clause--perhaps by putting language along the lines of the Defense of Marriage Act into the constitution itself. But that is not what is being proposed here.

Instead, this amendment would restrict states, by establishing a single definition of marriage--the only definition that any state could recognize.

And, unlike other constitutional amendments, it would not protect individuals either. It would write into the Constitution a new limit on what legal rights they could hope to have protected by a state or the federal government.

If adopted, this amendment would restrict individual liberties instead of expanding them. So, I think it is clear the real purpose of this amendment is to lay a foundation for discrimination against some Americans on the basis of their sexual orientation. In good conscience, I cannot support that.

Mr. Speaker, no proposed constitutional amendment should be taken lightly. On the contrary, I think such proposals require very careful scrutiny and should not be adopted unless we are convinced that a change in our fundamental law is essential.

I do not think this resolution meets that test, and so I will vote against it.

I agree with President Bush that an America now ``addicted to oil'' needs to reduce its dependency on petroleum and other fossil fuels.

And as a chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I strongly support legislation aimed at achieving that goal,

including greater investments in renewable energy sources (such as wind, sun, and biofuels) that also will boost our economy, create jobs, and revitalize rural communities.

Still, some additional development of the oil and gas resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would be desirable to help meet our immediate needs, and I could support appropriate legislation to achieve that result.

Unfortunately, I do not think this bill is appropriate, and I cannot support it as it stands.

The bill's provisions dealing with the OCS are excessively complicated and costly, and the bill also includes a plethora of unrelated and unnecessary provisions, including changes in the rules for onshore leases and a section dealing with oil shale royalties that I think is particularly troublesome.

In the Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that would have made this a much simpler bill. It would have deleted all the complicated provisions dealing with State legislation, different rules for different parts of the offshore lands, and the disposition of Federal revenues--not to mention the section about oil shale. It would have replaced all that with a short and simple requirement for the Interior Department to lease within a year the lands within the so- called ``181 Area'' in the Gulf of Mexico.

My amendment was essentially identical to a bill--S. 2253--introduced by Senators Domenici and Bingaman with 28 cosponsors, from both sides of the aisle and already approved by the Senate's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by a bipartisan vote of 16 to 5. Its groundwork has been laid by the Department of the Interior over a number of years, including completion of environmental reviews and consultation with coastal States and the public.

The amendment would have put only two limits on the requirement for leasing the 181 area.

First, it said that one part--the part east of a ``military mission line''--could only be leased if the Defense Department had agreed in advance that development there can be done without interfering with military activities. That responded to issues raised by Secretary Rumsfeld last year in a letter to the Senate's Armed Services Committee.

And, second, the amendment said there could be no leasing within 100 miles of the Florida coastline. That, of course, responded to concerns about potential adverse effects on that State's coastal areas.

According to the Mineral Management Service, the whole 181 area has about 930 million barrels of recoverable oil and more than 6 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. And the same agency's numbers show that even if the Defense Department were to say there would be no leasing east of the military mission line, there would still be about 800 million barrels of recoverable oil and nearly 5 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the rest of the 181 area. Thus, my amendment would have cleared the way for rapid development of significant new supplies of energy. And it would have done so without the complications that caused the Administration to testify that they have ``serious concerns'' about the bill as it stands.

If our goal is to get more energy from offshore areas, I think it would make more sense to start with simple and straightforward legislation that's based on sound science and that has some strong support, including from a significant number of our colleagues in the other body.

My amendment followed that approach--but, unfortunately, the committee did not adopt it.

As a result, we must vote today on this seriously flawed bill which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will ``increase net direct spending by about $900 million in 2007, $3.2 billion over the 2007-2011 period, and $11.0 billion over the 2007-2016 period.''

Those are sobering numbers. And even if the bill is revised along the lines proposed by some of its supporters, I expect any change in that estimate to be marginal, and will have no significant effect on the bottom line. I am not ready to support increased mandatory spending on the scale that will result from this bill while our country is at war and we are running persistent budget deficits that must be financed by increases in the national debt our children will be required to repay with interest.

And I think if anything CBO underestimates the potential costs of this bill to the taxpayers, because their estimate does not discuss all of the provisions not directly related to offshore leasing.

For example, while the estimate does discuss section 17's requirement that the Interior Department comply with lessees' requests for the government to repurchase and cancel leases (and compensate their holders) under certain circumstances, it does not note that the chances of such required payments are increased by section 19, which would impose a series of tight deadlines which the Interior Department must meet if it is to avoid a demand for compensation.

It could be that CBO isn't able to estimate how much money that might cost--and, even if they could, that estimate would not include other costs, including the likelihood that the deadlines will lead the Interior Department to put so much emphasis on speed that they will be less careful in the way they assess potential problems and will not ensure appropriate steps to mitigate those problems. This would not be good for the owners of private surface properties underlain by Federal minerals, for affected communities, or for the environment.

Further, the estimate does not even mention section 24, which would prohibit the Department of the Interior from adjusting the fees it charges for actions related to mineral leases. This applies to both offshore and onshore leases, and could result in requiring the taxpayers to shoulder the burden of paying for things that otherwise would be the responsibility of the mineral lessees.

And, CBO says nothing about Section 29, which deals with oil shale.

Colorado has lots of oil shale, so we have a special interest in the subject. But it's important for the whole country, as an energy resource, and it's important to all taxpayers because most of it, as Federal property, belongs to them.

That means that all the taxpayers have an interest in how it is developed and what return they the taxpayers, will get for this resource. And both those interests--in oil shale as an energy source and in fair treatment for the taxpayers--are reflected in current law.

Specifically, section 369(o) of the 2005 Energy Policy Act says the Secretary of the Interior will set royalties and other payments for oil shale leases at levels that will do two things--first, ``encourage development'' of oil shale; and, second, ``ensure a fair return to the United States,'' meaning to the taxpayers.

I was not a big fan of most parts of last year's energy bill, but I think that provision is good policy. So, I am troubled that part of section 29 of this bill would repeal it and replace it with what can only be described as legislative price fixing.

The relevant part of section 29 starts by telling the Secretary of the Interior to ``model'' tar sand and oil shale royalties on the royalty program now used in one Canadian province. But then it goes on to say that the Secretary would have to reduce the actual rates in accordance with ``a sliding scale'' based on a complicated formula based on the monthly average price of ``NYMEX West Texas Intermediate crude oil at Cushing, Oklahoma.''

I'm not an expert on oil prices, but it's easy to understand what is involved here. It's Congressional micromanagement in the form of legislating a formula for royalty rates.

It's an attempt to have Congress--not the Secretary--decide a very technical issue that could affect a lot of money. And it's the kind of thing that should raise suspicions in anybody who cares about making sure the taxpayers get a fair shake, especially because the supporters of the bill have made it clear that they put more emphasis on encouraging production than on ensuring that the Federal Government-- and the local Governments with whom the revenues are to be shared--will get a fair return.

As the Interior Department proceeds to implement the current law, there will be ample opportunity for all of us to weigh in if we think the Secretary is not doing a good job in setting royalty rates. In the meantime, I think Congress should not try to set the rate through legislation.

That was why I opposed including a similar provision in the reconciliation legislation when the Resources Committee debated it earlier this year, and why I was glad when it was finally dropped from that legislation. But, like a bad penny, it turned up again in this bill--and is still the same bad idea as before.

So, in committee I offered an amendment to strike this attempt at long-term political price-fixing, and to replace it with the language of the current law that says the Secretary is to set royalties that will encourage development and ensure a fair return to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, that amendment was not adopted, either, which is another reason I cannot support the bill.

In fairness, I should note that the bill does include some worthwhile provisions. One example is the provisions aimed at closing OCS royalty- rate loopholes that have unduly reduced the return to the taxpayers. Another is section 23, which deals with support for accredited petroleum and mining schools, applied geology and geophysics programs, and individuals pursuing degrees in petroleum and mining engineering and related subjects.

Overall, though, the bill's good parts are so outweighed by its defects that I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I object to--and voted against-- the restrictions the Republican leadership has imposed on our consideration of this resolution.

Those restrictions made it impossible for the House to even consider changes to this resolution, including parts to which I must take strong exception.

I do agree with some parts of the resolution.

For example, I agree that ``the United States is currently engaged in a global war on terrorism to prevent future attacks against American civilian and military interests at home and abroad.''

Furthermore, I agree that the House of Representatives ``supports efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks here and abroad, including through the use of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.''

And, I do support making clear that the House ``condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens, including members of the Armed Forces, as well as individuals and organizations that support United States efforts.''

But, like most Members of Congress, I cannot of my own knowledge say it is true that, as the resolution states, the tracking program that is the subject of the resolution ``only reviews information as part of specific terrorism investigations and based on intelligence that leads to targeted searches,'' or that the program ``is firmly rooted in sound legal authority'' or that it ``consists of the appropriate and limited use of transaction information while maintaining respect for individual privacy,'' or that it ``has rigorous safeguards and protocols to protect privacy.''

In fact, to paraphrase Will Rogers, most of us--Members of Congress as well as members of the public at large--know about this only what we have read in the newspapers or heard over the airwaves.

So, it is ironic, to say the least, that so many are so ready to describe and praise the program's details and at the same time condemn those who told us about those details.

In short, I think the resolution should not be adopted at this time because its conclusions are based too much merely on the assertion of claims for which no solid evidence has been presented. For that reason, I will vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Wolf, of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I had offered to introduce an amendment today to make a

modest increase of $2.2 million for the Space Environment Center, returning its funding to the President's requested level of $7.2 million.

However, Mr. Chairman, after discussing this with your staff, I have decided not to offer the amendment but would like to engage you in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, the Space Environment Center is a part of NOAA's National Weather Service, and it is the only civil provider of space weather warnings. These warnings enable government and private sector operators to take actions to minimize disruptions in service and damage to critical infrastructure.

Last year, the Space Environment Center received a $4 million cut, a cut of about 44 percent from its $7 million budget. NOAA, in order to prevent degradation of services reprogrammed funds from other programs to continue the operations of the Space Environment Center.

But in this cycle, if the Center receives $5 million as proposed in the bill, it will be forced to make substantial cuts in its staffing.

As a national critical system, should the capabilities of the center go down, the Air Force currently provides data as a back-up. However, with this proposed budget, the center will not be able to maintain a liaison position with the Air Force, potentially harming its operations and the continuity of its services.

So, in that spirit, with that background, Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. Would you agree that the space weather warnings are a vital service to many of our space-based assets and that more funding is needed for the Space Environment Center? And if so, would you be willing to work in conference to increase funding for the center?

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's response and willingness to work on this issue. I thank my colleague, Mr. Mollohan, from the great State of West Virginia for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with this bill and regret that I cannot support it.

I do not support repeal of the estate tax, but I have long supported reforming it.

So, I took hope when I heard that the Republican leadership had decided to abandon its misguided drive for its permanent repeal and to focus instead on its revision.

I hoped that at last we would have a chance to vote on a measure that would strike the right balance, protecting family-owned ranches, farms, and other small businesses while recognizing the need for fiscal responsibility in a time of war. But when I reviewed the details of the bill now before us--even to the limited extent that was possible--I realized that once again I had hoped in vain.

The bill would exempt the first $10 million of an estate for a couple ($5 million for an individual) and would link the estate tax rate to the capital gains rate, which is currently 15 percent, but which is slated to return to 20 percent after 2010. Under the bill, the value of an estate under $25 million would be taxed at the capital gains rate, and the portion above $25 million would be taxed at two times the capital gains rate.

While this is different in some ways from previous versions, it does not represent a true compromise. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the bill would reduce revenues by $280 billion between 2007 and 2016, with a reduction of $61 billion, or 75 percent as much as full repeal, in 2016. In other words, the revenue reduction from this bill would be greater--65 percent greater--than simply making the 2009 rates permanent.

And to make matters worse, the bill includes some unrelated provisions that are even less fiscally responsible, most notably a special capital gains tax break for timber companies that well could result in profitable companies paying no tax at all.

Under current law, if a tree-owning company cuts and sells some of its trees, the income is taxable as regular corporate income. But this bill would allow those companies to exclude 60 percent of that income from tax.

The result would be to restore a loophole that was closed when President Reagan signed the landmark tax reform act of 1986. Before that, the largest paper and wood products corporations benefited from favorable treatment to a remarkable extent.

For example, one of those companies told its shareholders that for the period of 1981 to 1983 it made $641 million in U.S. profits--but it not only paid no taxes but in fact had so many excess tax breaks it actually received $139 billion in tax rebates. Another company reported $167 million in pretax profits, yet instead of paying part of that in federal income tax, it got $8 million in tax rebates. And another reported $400 million in pretax profits, but instead of paying taxes, got $99 million in tax rebates.

In 1986, recognizing the unfairness of this kind of legal tax avoidance, Congress closed the loophole. But this bill would undo that reform, bringing back an exclusion for timber income that strongly resembles the pre-1986 tax break.

The bill says this change would be temporary, sun setting at the end of 2008, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that during that two-plus year period it would reduce revenues by $940 million. But if this tax break is extended--and we can be sure its beneficiaries will lobby for its extension beyond 2008--the long-term cost to the Treasury will certainly be more.

I oppose these provisions, which I think should not be part of this or any other legislation.

My opposition to this bill does not mean I am opposed to reducing estate taxes.

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. But, unfortunately, the Republican leadership actively worked against that alternative and so my hopes for that true, reasonable compromise were thwarted.

As a result, I have no responsible choice but to oppose this bill and to hope that as the legislative process continues it will be sufficiently revised that I can support it.

Time will tell whether that hope, too, will be in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise with great respect for my friends on my side of the aisle when it comes to this proposal today.

I took an interest in this starting 2 years ago when it seemed to me we needed some additional tools to bring these budget deficits under control. We have gone from surpluses to enormous deficits, and from reducing our national debt to increasing the debt tax on our children; and it is my opinion that this bill will help us begin to bring our budget back into balance.

As has been mentioned here, it follows the approach of our former colleague Charlie Stenholm, and it also mirrors what 43 Governors have, as our friend Congressman Castle mentioned earlier today. It also mirrors a bill that I introduced in the last Congress as well.

So, in sum, this will promote accountability. It will promote transparency. It is a small start. I believe that it balances the constitutional responsibilities between the President and the Congress; and perhaps if we pass this today, then we create some momentum so that we move toward putting PAYGO back in place and reining in the earmark situation that we now face in this Congress that in part has led us to these enormous deficits.

So let's pass this. Let's work together. Let's find a way to balance the budget and not pass on the debt tax to our children.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and, again, I rise in support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 5 years we've seen a dramatic change in the Federal budget--a change for the worse.

We've gone from budget surpluses to big deficits, and from reducing the national debt to increasing the ``debt tax'' on our children.

There's no mystery about how this happened.

Partly, it was caused by a recession.

Partly, it was caused by the increased spending needed for national defense, homeland security, and fighting terrorism.

And in part it was caused by excessive and unbalanced tax cuts the president pushed for and Congress passed.

This bill does not directly address those major causes of our budgetary problems.

Fixing them will take long-term work on several fronts, including taxes.

And it will take stronger medicine than this--such as restoring the ``PAYGO'' rules that helped bring the budget into balance in the past.

That's why I thought the House should have been able to at least debate a stronger version of this bill, in the form of the substitute proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt.

And that's why I voted against the Republican leadership's restrictive rule that prevents even debating that substitute.

But, even so, I support this bill because it can help, at least a little, to promote transparency and accountability about spending items and tax breaks.

We have heard a lot of talk about spending ``earmarks''--meaning spending based on proposals by Members of Congress instead of the Administration.

Some people are opposed to all earmarks--but I am not one of them.

I think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and I think Congress as a whole has the responsibility to decide how tax dollars are spent.

And earmarks can help fund nonprofits and other private-sector groups to do jobs that Federal agencies are not able to do as well.

In short, not all earmarks are bad.

In fact, I have sought earmarks for various items that have benefited Coloradans--and I intend to keep on doing that.

And a similar case can be made for targeted tax breaks, as well.

Still, we all know some bills have included spending earmarks or special tax breaks that might not have been approved if they were considered separately.

That's why the President--like his predecessors--has asked for the kind of ``line-item veto'' that can be used by Governors in Colorado and several other States.

And that's why about 10 years ago Congress actually passed a law intended to give President Clinton that kind of authority.

But the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that the legislation was unconstitutional.

And I think the Court got it right.

I think trying to allow the President to in effect repeal a part of a law he has already signed--and saying it takes a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress to restore that part--went too far.

I think that kind of line-item veto would undermine the checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.

So, I could not support that kind of line-item veto.

But this bill is different.

It is a practical, effective--and, best of all, Constitutional-- version of a line-item veto.

It is not unprecedented. It follows the approach of legislation passed by the House of Representatives several times during the Clinton administration under the leadership of our former colleague Charlie Stenholm and others, including Tom Carper, Tim Penny and John Kasich.

It also is similar to bills I introduced under the heading of measures to ``Stimulate Leadership in Cutting Expenditures,'' or ``SLICE.''

Under this bill--as under SLICE--the President could identify specific spending items he thinks should be cut--and Congress would have to vote, up or down, on whether to cut each of them.

Current law says the President can ask Congress to rescind--that is, cancel--spending items. But Congress can ignore those requests, and often has done so.

This bill would change that.

It says if the President proposes a specific cut, Congress can't duck--it would have to vote on it, and if a majority approved the cut, that would be that.

So, it would give the President a bright spotlight of publicity he could focus on earmarks or special tax breaks, and it would force Congress to debate those items on their merits.

That would give the President a powerful tool--but it also would retain the balance between the Executive and Legislative branches.

I think that is very important, and I appreciate having had the opportunity to work with Mr. Ryan and others to fine-tune the bill while it was being considered in committee. I think the result has been to improve the bill considerably.

Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution Congress is primarily accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars are spent.

By making the taxing and spending processes more transparent and specific, this bill can promote that accountability.

Of course, without knowing what the President might propose to rescind, I don't know if I would support some, all, or any of his proposals.

But I do know that people in Colorado and across the country think there should be greater transparency about our decisions on taxing and spending.

And I know that they are also demanding that we be ready to take responsibility for those decisions.

This bill will promote both transparency and accountability, and so I urge its approval.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that East High School from Denver, CO, placed third in the national finals competition of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.'' From April 29 to May 1, 2006, approximately 1,200 students from across the country participated in the 19th annual We the People competition-- the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The We the People program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.

The We the People national finals are a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which the students ``testify'' before a panel of judges on constitutional topics. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues.

In Colorado, I have made a priority of dispatching my staff to serve as ``judges'' in competitions at all levels within my district and throughout the State. Through them I can attest to the skill, intellect and diligence that characterize the East High School team. Congratulations to the members of the East High School team: Michelle Buchanan, Darien Combs, Lila Creighton, Paula Davis, Joshua Figueroa, Sophia Galleher, Rose Green, Jonathon Hammond, Meghan Harrington, Kathryn Havranek, Than Hedman, Collin Hornsby, Noah Hubbell, Mackenzie Jacobs, Elizabeth Kochevar, Clay Lemar, Zach Levek, Christopher Linsmayer, Elise Mann, Gabe Mann, Logan McHenry, Tyler McNamara, Sarah McNaughton, Zena Price-Broncucia, Rachel Romer, Claire Sanderson, Cary Shapiro, Amy Stanesco, Amy Steinhoff, Alex Stevens, Zachary Susel, Elizabeth Trower, and Will VanTreuren. I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Ms. Edna Sutton, who was responsible for preparing the class for the national finals competition. Also worthy of special recognition are Ms. Jackie Johnson, the State coordinator, and Mr. Loyal Darr, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People program in my district.

I am an unequivocal supporter of the We the People program. Nothing is more important to a healthy democracy than a civicly educated and informed citizenry. East High School's team is a shining example of the bright future of tomorrow's leaders. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues in the House, please join me in congratulating these young constitutional experts for their outstanding achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution.

I say reluctant opposition--because I agree with much of what this resolution says.

I support its statements about honoring the sacrifices of our troops and their families. There's no question that our military is the most professional fighting force in the world, and we are all grateful to our men and women in uniform for putting their lives on the line for our country.

I support the resolution's statements congratulating the new prime minister upon forming his government and the Iraqi people for their courage in participating in elections, and calling on the nations of the world to work together for global peace.

I even agree with the statement that we should not set an arbitrary date for the redeployment of our troops.

I opposed the Iraq war resolution, but I have resisted supporting an artificial deadline for withdrawing troops. I believe that how we withdraw is as important as when we withdraw. This means giving the Iraqis time to get their newly installed permanent government up and running and establish the means for international support. We must exercise deep care in the way our country withdraws because leaving a failed state in Iraq will deeply endanger our country.

But I profoundly disagree with the overall tone of the resolution and disagree even more with the way this debate was conducted.

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago--in response to pressure from both sides of the aisle--the Republican leadership promised a full debate on Iraq.

What we got was certainly a long debate, but it was far from ``full.'' A full debate would mean that Members would have been able to offer alternatives to this resolution. We would then have been able to debate the merits of all the resolutions offered.

I had hoped to offer the bipartisan resolution I introduced with my colleague Joe Schwarz of Michigan that recognizes political progress in Iraq, including the establishment of a national unity government, but also recognizes that more progress is needed, and that the Iraqis must meet their own deadline for modifications to their new constitution.

As it is, the debate has been tightly controlled, and our only choice is to vote up or down on a status quo resolution that doesn't focus on Iraq and that doesn't reflect reality on the ground.

If this were a real debate on Iraq, it would be about where we are versus where we thought we'd be, and where we should go from here. Just last year, Congress called for 2006 to be a year of transition in Iraq that would allow U.S. forces to begin to redeploy. But we're into the middle of June, and we are actually adding troops.

A real debate would begin by recognizing that Iraq is a distinct issue, ouly part of the ``global war on terror'' insofar as the security vacuum in Iraq has attracted terrorists. But as the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, has said--Iraq is a separate conflict, an insurgency with terrorist elements and sectarian violence.

A real debate would have been honest about how continuous deployment in Iraq hurts our military personnel and their families, strains recruiting and retention, and damages readiness.

A real debate would have looked at the human cost. We are losing one battalion every month of killed or wounded soldiers. Just yesterday the military reported that we've hit a tragic milestone. A total of 2500 American men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. More than 18,000 have been wounded. Attacks on U.S. forces are now at their highest rate ever--900 a month.

A real debate would have looked at the financial cost. We are mortgaging our future and the future of our children. So far Congress has appropriated $320 billion for Iraq alone, a war that was supposed to pay for itself through proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil, and the ``bum rate'' is now up to $8 billion per month. That's $2 billion every week, or $286 million every single day.

And if we were really concerned about the well-being of our troops, we would be talking about the fact that every one of the Army's available active duty combat brigades has served at least one 12-month tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, 40 percent of the National Guard and Reserves has been mobilized since September 11th, and nearly half of those mobilized have been deployed two or more times. We need to consider that the readiness of Army units here in the U.S. is at the lowest level since the late 1970s.

We would also have considered what it means for current and future readiness that fully 40 percent of the Army and Marine Corps ground equipment is deployed to Iraq and that equipment in Iraq is wearing out five times faster than the rate in peacetime. If the war in Iraq ended today, the Army would require two years of supplemental appropriations and at least $24 billion dollars to repair and replace equipment.

If we were properly concerned about our National Guard, we would have addressed the

fact that it only has about 34 percent of its equipment on hand, down from 75 percent of its requirement in 2001. The missing equipment has been left in Iraq or transferred to units deploying to Iraq. The Army National Guard has been directed to transfer more than 75,000 pieces of equipment valued at $1.76 billion to the Army to support operations in Iraq. There is no plan to replace these items.

No matter how each Member chooses to vote today, there's no question that we all honor and support our troops. But I would argue that if we really cared for our troops, we would make sure they had the equipment and training they need. We wouldn't make it less possible for them to meet some future mission. No one wants a new mission for our troops, but if we had to fight somewhere else, we wouldn't have the equipment or forces to do it.

These are the things that we should have been debating, not the ``feel good'' messages included in the Republican resolution. We all want to feel good about Iraq and believe that progress is possible. But we can't want progress so much that we blind ourselves to the reality on the ground.

Of course, it's hard to know reality on the ground if Congress does no oversight. Congress has a fundamental responsibility to review how the money it appropriates is being spent and to ask tough questions. The Republican majority would have us believe that asking questions makes us unpatriotic.

But that's just wrong. We abrogate our responsibility to the American people if we shut our eyes to how their tax dollars are being spent.

The Republican leadership seems unable to come up with anything other than the same old tired lines. They will all toe the Administration line when they vote today, but we all know that even Republicans are having doubts as to the wisdom of the President's direction in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more divided. A successful withdrawal from Iraq can only happen if Congress and the Bush Administration work to bring unity at home.

This resolution doesn't bring us together, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that the Republican leadership continues to seek to divide this House. But that is the course they have chosen, and so they have left me no choice but to reluctantly oppose this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate a student from Southerland Hills Middle School in Boulder, Colorado.

Zach Sheehan has been selected to present his award winning history project at the Smithsonian National Museum of America. Zack's project was one of a handful selected by the National History Day program from hundreds of thousands nationwide.

Each project reflected on this year's National History Day theme, ``Taking a Stand in History: People, Ideas, Events.'' Zack's project highlighted a scientist in Boulder who has had a major impact on increasing public awareness of global warming and helping spur the government to slow global warming.

It is my view that, as the world leader in science and technology, the United States must develop solutions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These solutions are of vital importance to protecting our planet's resources and permitting the economic and social progress for our Nation and the world.

In the Old Hall of the House of Representatives, Clio, the Muse of History, stands in a winged chariot representing the passage of time. Clio is looking back; recording events as they occur. Mr. Speaker, this statue served as a poignant reminder to our forbearers of the importance of history as a guide to and a watchdog for the history that is made here every day.

History education is an integral part of the education of future generations of Americans. I would like commend the National History Day program for empowering teachers to improve history education and influencing students to follow Zack Sheehan's exemplary example.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor, I am glad the Budget Committee has approved H.R. 4890, the so-called line-item veto bill. H.R. 4890 is similar to the Ryan-Stenholm amendment to H.R. 4663 from the 108th Congress. I say ``so-called'' because it does not have the constitutional defects that led the Supreme Court to strike down the line-item veto law passed in 1996.

Instead, like legislation I introduced last year, it would simply enable the President to require Congress to vote on individual spending items or targeted tax breaks included in a larger bill signed into law. Congress would still make the ultimate decision on the basis of a majority vote. There would be no need for a two-thirds vote to override the President. This bill will not solve our budget problems, but it will promote greater transparency and accountability when it comes to taxing and spending. It deserves approval.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, in response to pressure from both sides of the aisle, the Republican leadership promised a full debate on Iraq. What we are getting today is certainly a long debate, but it is far from full.

A full debate would mean that Members would be able to offer alternatives to this resolution. We would then be able to debate the merits of all of the resolutions offered. I had hoped to offer a bipartisan resolution I had introduced with my colleague, Joe Schwarz of Michigan, that recognizes political progress in Iraq, including the establishment of a national unity government, but also recognizes that more progress is needed, and that the Iraqis must meet their own deadlines for modifications to their Constitution.

As it is, today's debate has been tightly controlled, and our only choice is to vote up or down on a ``status quo'' resolution that does not focus on Iraq and does not reflect reality on the ground. This resolution does not bring us together, Mr. Speaker. And I regret that this debate is driving us further apart.

We were led into war as a divided Nation, and today we are even more divided. A successful conclusion in Iraq can only happen, it can only happen if Congress and the Bush administration work to bring unity at home.

If this were a real debate on Iraq, we would focus on where we are versus where we thought we would be, and look at the options from here. Just last year, Congress called for 2006 to be a year of transition in Iraq that would allow U.S. forces to begin to redeploy. But we're into the middle of June, and we are actually adding troops.

A real debate would admit that Iraq is a distinct issue, only part of the ``global war on terror'' insofar as the security vacuum in Iraq has attracted terrorists. But as the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, has said--Iraq is a separate conflict, an insurgency with terrorist elements and sectarian violence.

A real debate would be honest about how continuous deployment in Iraq hurts our military personnel and their families, strains recruiting and retention, and damages readiness.

This resolution talks about how much we honor our troops and the sacrifices they and their families have made to help defend freedom. No matter how each Member chooses to vote today, there's no question that we all honor and support our troops.

But I would argue that if we really cared for our troops, we would make sure they had the equipment and training they need. We wouldn't make it less possible for them to meet some future mission. No one wants a new mission for our troops, but if we had to fight somewhere else, we wouldn't have the equipment or forces to do it.

These are the themes that we should be debating in a resolution today, not the ``feel good'' messages included in the Republican resolution. We all want to feel good about Iraq and believe that progress is possible. But we can't want progress so much that we blind ourselves to the reality on the ground.

This debate is driving us further apart.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is far from perfect, but I believe it is worth supporting.

The bill provides important resources to help support our nation's transportation systems, community and economic development. Examples of this include $8.9 billion for federal transit programs, which is an increase above the Fiscal Year 2006 allocation and the request made by the Bush Administration. Included in this funding is support for light rail projects in the Denver Metropolitan Area, which will help to reduce congestion on Colorado roadways.

Communities throughout Colorado and the nation rely on CDBG funds to provide decent housing and expand economic opportunities so I am pleased the legislation rejects the Bush Administration proposal to cut funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).

I am also pleased the full house has supported projects specific to the 2nd Congressional District including: $4.2 million for a replacement tower at the Jefferson County Airport, $500,000 for construction to relieve peak hour overcrowding, reduce accidents, and improve access for pedestrian and cyclists along the US 36 Interchange and Wadsworth in the city and county of Broomfield, $500,000 for construction of a climbing lane on Interstate 70 in Clear Creek County, $100,000 for property acquisition and renovation costs of a new facility for the National Sports Center for the Disabled (NSCD) located in the town of Winter Park.

Of course, I do not agree with all its priorities included in the legislation. I believe it was shortsighted to eliminate funding for Small Starts in the Department of Transportation (DOT) budget. This much needed program is designed to provide discretionary grant funding for public transportation projects that run along dedicated corridors or guideways. I am hopeful the Senate takes a different approach and provides funding for this vital program.

Additionally, with the increasing federal budget deficits caused by the recent recession, the costs of responding to terrorism and increasing homeland security, and the excessive and unbalanced tax cuts the Bush Administration has pushed through Congress I think the idea of eliminating a cost-of-living increase in Congressional salaries is worth considering.

I thought the House should have been able to have a separate vote on this increase, and voted against the restrictive procedure that prevented that. Unfortunately, I was in the minority on that vote.

I also supported a number of amendments to improve the legislation, including an increase in funding for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, the Section 8 Tenant-Based assistance and for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which improved the bill.

While the legislation is still not all that I had hoped for, it deserves support and I will vote for it and will hope that it is improved further as the legislative process continues.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this defense supplemental without hesitation, but with a number of concerns.

As I've said in the past, I opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq because I thought President Bush's decision to begin military action in Iraq was premature. I thought it would have been better to allow more time for other measures, including coercive inspections, to accomplish the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein. However, Congress--by adopting the resolution authorizing the use of force--left it to the President to decide if and when military action would begin.

But with our troops still in the field, actively engaged in operations that Congress has authorized, we have an obligation to fund those operations. I won't make our soldiers the victims of my regrets by failing to support this bill to provide them what they need to carry out those operations.

It's too bad the Republican leadership evidently didn't see the urgency in getting this funding to our troops to pay for key equipment and benefits. The president requested this funding back in February, but somehow the Republican leadership couldn't get it done until now. In the interim, the Army was forced to cut back on ordering spare parts and supplies and freeze civilian hires, among other constraints.

So I'm glad we're finally focusing on this legislation today, which includes funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as funding to train and equip the military and police forces of those countries. I'm pleased that the conference report funds more up- armored Humvees, provides nearly $2 billion to procure and develop countermeasures to prevent improvised explosive device attacks on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and funds the recently enhanced $100,000 death benefit for soldiers' families.

I'm also pleased that--more than 9 months after Hurricane Katrina struck--the conference report includes funding for levee improvements and for Community Development Block Grants for the Gulf Coast States. The report also includes important funding for pandemic flu preparedness and for border security.

I do have strong concerns about some things that are in this conference report and some things that were left out.

I am disappointed that it does not include the additional funds that the Senate approved for work to reduce the increased danger of severe wildfires in Colorado forests caused by prolonged drought and insect infestations.

After the Senate acted, I wrote the House conferees to point out that these factors have raised to emergency levels the risk to our communities. I noted that hazardous-fuel reduction projects can reduce that risk, and our State has hazardous fuels projects waiting to be implemented but lacking adequate funding to do so. Unfortunately, the conferees did not include in the conference report the Senate- passed increase to the National Forest System to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires and mitigate the effects of widespread insect infestation.

I am also disappointed that the conference report does not include language prohibiting permanent military bases in Iraq. The House-passed bill contained a provision that I supported--H. Amdt. 750--which would ensure that no funds in the bill would be used to enter into a base agreement with the government of Iraq. The Senate-passed bill also contained a similar amendment--S. Amdt. 3855--which would prohibit funds to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.

But the conference report includes neither version of this language, which I find baffling, since the clear will of both bodies was expressed through the passage of these amendments. Policymakers and experts across the political spectrum agree that the U.S. should make clear that it does not seek a permanent military presence in Iraq. GEN. George Casey has testified that gradually lowering the visibility of U.S. troops will remove one of the elements fueling the insurgency. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has testified that, ``We have no desire to have our forces permanently in that country. We have no plans or no discussions under way to have permanent bases in that country.'' I believe that Congress should have joined the administration in affirming this principle to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people that we fully support their efforts to establish democracy and exercise sovereignty.

Finally, I 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. With the enactment of this supplemental, Defense Department spending for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq will reach $400 billion, with the majority of that provided for Iraq. Even though we are now more than 3 years into the conflict, virtually all of this money has been provided for Iraq as ``emergency'' funding and has not been offset. But there is no ``emergency'' here. So much of the costs are predictable. Instead, by funding this war through supplementals, the Bush administration avoids having to make tough choices--like raising taxes or making deep spending cuts. 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. I've attached a May editorial from the Rocky Mountain News that amplifies this point.

Nonetheless, as I said, I will vote for this bill without hesitation because its prompt passage is needed not just to support our men and women in uniform as they fight, but also to continue to lay the foundation for the harder mission of stabilizing Iraq.

[From the Rocky Mountain News, May 4, 2006]

A Crazy Way to Fund the Wars: Iraq Spending is No longer an `Emergency'

A congressional emergency spending measure is meant to be a

quick response to sudden, unexpected and generally one-time

events, the Gulf Coast hurricanes being an excellent example.

The emergency bills are handled outside the regular budget

process and under much looser rules.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although obviously

serious, hardly qualify as emergencies in the normal sense.

Yet that is how the Bush administration and Congress insist

on funding them, even though we're in our fifth year on one

and fourth year on the other.

The result is that Congress has a poor grip on the wars'

costs and how they fit in with other competing budget

priorities. And the process has allowed Congress to avoid the

question of how we are going to pay for those wars.

The Senate took advantage of the urgency of the latest

emergency funding bill for Iraq, Afghanistan and hurricane

relief to load it up with money for Hawaiian sugar growers, a

Northrop Grumman shipyard, riverbank erosion in California

and farm relief, among other largesse. A $92 billion bill is

now around $108 billion.

The wars are not going away. The president himself has

indicated we are likely to be in Iraq at least another 3\1/2\

years. Its annual cost has risen from $51 billion in 2003 to

$102 billion this year, and the meter is running at about $9

billion a month. In a few weeks the total will surpass $320

billion, and Congress' analysts estimate that even if troop

withdrawals begin this year, a best-case scenario, the costs

of a phase-out in Iraq and Afghanistan will run an additional

$371 billion.

As was done in previous wars, the expected cost of Iraq and

Afghanistan should be submitted as part of the regular annual

federal budget, and Congress should give it the regular line-

by- line scrutiny it gives every other part of the budget.

This might have prevented the squandering in Iraq of the vast

sums meant for reconstruction.

Congressional researchers complain that the Pentagon has

refused to give them data

on current and cumulative cost obligations for the wars as

well as one-year and five-year estimates. In the normal

budget process, the Pentagon would have to provide those

figures.

Incorporating war costs in the regular budget, Congress

would no longer be able to compartmentalize, treating those

expenditures as an aberration while going about business as

usual elsewhere. Those expenditures are no aberration, and

it's not business as usual.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hour draws near, and we have to conclude the day's business. And I want to join my colleagues from across the country who serve with me on the Armed Services Committee to make the point that this is just the beginning of this discussion. We have not had time tonight to talk about recruiting and retention and the developments that have occurred in those areas. We have not talked about equipment and the need to replenish the equipment that not only the active duty force is using and leaving behind but the National Guard as well.

I know my colleague Mr. Cooper from Tennessee hears, as I do, from returning soldiers and marines about all the equipment that is not coming home that would be available in my part of the country to fight fires and respond to natural disasters, to help on our border in the southern regions. Just recently I had a chance to visit with the Marine Corps leadership; and if I am not mistaken, the number that they shared with me that is necessary to replenish all the equipment that the Marine Corps is leaving behind is on the order of $5 billion, a very significant number.

So I know we want to leave a little bit of time for Mr. Spratt and Mr. Skelton to conclude, but I hope that this discussion will continue, particularly that we can focus on the real changes we face when it comes to retention and recruiting; and I know my good friend Mr. Skelton is well aware of this in the part of our country in the Midwest.