Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker I rise today to congratulate four recipients of the Ninth Annual Wirth Chair Awards. The Wirth Chair was started by my good friend and predecessor, former Senator Tim Wirth. The Wirth Chair is committed to helping governments, businesses and non-profit groups and community organizations form sustainable development partnerships that carefully balance economic, environmental and expanded social welfare objectives and strategies. Their tremendous work is widely respected throughout the country. This year's recipients are very deserving of this prestigious honor.

Good Dirt Radio received the award for electronic media. The program is broadcast from Durango, Colorado. Good Dirt airs radio stories aimed at inspiring listeners to take ecological action in their own communities. Good Dirt is an all volunteer effort. Word is catching on about their good work, and I am confident that they will continue to grow and be successful.

Harumi Kato of the Yamagata Broadcasting Company was honored for her short film entitled ``Little Steps in Colorado for Sustainable Living.'' The program was also broadcast in Japan in October of last year. She plans to have more viewings in Japan in the future because she wants people there to know ``that despite not signing the Kyoto Protocols, some Americans are really concerned about taking action in many ways to protect our environment by practicing sustainable living.''

Rick Gilliam of Western Resource Advocates was the primary author of Amendment 37. This was the first time that a renewable energy standard was put to a popular vote. The successful initiative required that 10 percent of Colorado's electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2015. I campaigned vigorously for this initiative and saw firsthand how hard the people associated with this effort worked on the campaign. It was because of their commitment that the initiative was passed despite being out spent ten-to-one by the opposition. Morey Wolfson, Robin Hubbard, Ron Larson, Matt Baker, Ron Lehr, Ken Regelson and Stephanie Bonin were all instrumental getting Amendment 37 passed.

Finally, the City of Denver was recognized for its historic sustainability initiative, ``Greenprint Denver.'' The initiative advances and supports the integration of environmental impacts into the city's programs and policies, along with economic and social considerations. The comprehensive set of strategies includes: measurably reducing greenhouse gas emissions city wide, developing and implementing a municipal green building policy, increasing residential recycling, and increasing urban forest cover for air and water quality and aesthetic benefits.

I am inspired by all of these laudable efforts. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these Wirth Chair Award recipients for their tremendously important good work.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to honor the achievements of Colonel Eileen Collins, an inspirational member of the aerospace community. Last week, she announced her decision to retire from NASA, where her passion for discovery and her leadership skills will be greatly missed.

Building on a childhood love for airplanes and space, Col. Collins studied mathematics and science, earning her associate degree from Corning Community College in 1976, her bachelor's degree from Syracuse University in 1978, her master of science degree from Stanford University in 1986, and her master of arts degree from Webster University in 1989.

Col. Collins' career included many firsts: she was the first woman to enter Air Force pilot training straight from college, the first woman to pilot a space shuttle, and the first woman to serve as commander for a space shuttle mission. She also served her country as an Air Force pilot and as a mathematics teacher at the Air Force Academy. Her last space flight took place during the summer of 2005 when she commanded the STS-114 space shuttle mission, the first mission following the 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster. As we've all come to expect, she carried out her duties on this mission with distinction. In sum, as noted by the Colorado Springs Gazette referred to her nearly 30-year career as an ``era'' in spaceflight. And I think that that is a truly fitting description of her legacy.

I would like to include the following article with more details about Col. Collins' extraordinary work. The progress she made for both her gender and her country are admirable.

[From the Colorado Springs Gazette, May 8, 2006]

Happy (Con)Trails to Collins

For some reason, perhaps buried deep in the subconscious,

people love to mark events in their lives. The media are

especially fond of memorializing moments we think should be

important to readers and viewers. Last week, when Eileen

Collins announced her retirement from NASA, it truly marked

the end of an era in spaceflight. She was an astronaut who

represented the pioneering spirit that drove mankind to

explore space.

From an early age, she longed to fly airplanes and dreamed

of space travel. One biography pointed out that her parents

used to take her to the airport to watch planes land and take

off. She worked hard in school and earned multiple degrees in

mathematics and space-related subjects. After college, her

career literally took off.

She was among the first women to go directly from college

to Air Force pilot training. She spent several years flying

various aircraft for Uncle Sam and continued her education as

a student at the Air Force Institute of Technology. From

1986-1989 she taught mathematics and was an instructor pilot

at the Air Force Academy.

Tapped by NASA for astronaut training while she was

attending the Air Force's test pilot school in 1990, she

later became the first woman selected for shuttle pilot

training, was the first woman pilot of the space shuttle and

the first woman commander of a space shuttle mission. She

retired from the Air Force in January 2005 and will leave her

NASA duties later this month.

Collins has had a career of which anyone could be proud and

many can only dream of. We wish her blue skies and tailwinds

as she pursues other interests in the aerospace industry.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to add some common-sense rules to the laws governing issuance of credit cards.

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

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

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

And, of course, another word for credit is debt.

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

Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness and an erosion of financial responsibility. That was one of the main arguments advanced in support of the legislation to revise the bankruptcy laws that Congress passed last year.

There was something to that argument, but it was not the whole story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone.

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

For example, let's talk about interest rates.

Credit is not free, and it should not be. But consumers should be treated fairly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bill also would bar charging fees or other penalties because a card holder pays more than the monthly minimum or pays in full an existing account balance.

And it would bar imposing a fee for a charge that would mean a card holder has gone over the total credit authorized on a card if the card issuer has authorized that charge either in advance or at the time of a purchase.

The bill also would limit issuance of credit cards to people under the age of 18.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, like a similar (but not identical) bill introduced by Senator Dodd, the bill I am introducing today takes some simple, common-sense steps to stop abusive practices, educate cardholders, and stiffen the penalties for violations. I think it deserves to be enacted.

For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching a short digest of the bill's provisions.

Outline of the Bill

Section One provides a short title and table of contents.

The short title is ``Credit Card Accountability,

Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2006 or `Credit CARD

Act of 2006' ''.

Section Two authorizes the Federal Reserve's Board of

Governors to issue rules or publish model forms to implement

the bill and the changes it makes in existing law.

Title I

Title I amends the Truth in Lending Act regarding certain

credit card rates and fees.

Section 101 requires at least 15 days' notice of certain

increases in interest rates and requires card holders to be

told of their right to cancel an account before the increases

take effect.

Section 102 imposes a freeze on interest-rate terms and

fees applicable to accounts closed or canceled before a

scheduled rate increase.

Section 103 bars charging penalty fees for on-time payments

or for either full payment of a balance owed or a payment

larger than the minimum required amount.

Section 104 bars imposing fees for a purchase that exceeds

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

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

Title II

Title II amends the Truth in Lending Act's provisions

regarding disclosures to card holders.

Section 201 specifies information that must be provided

regarding outstanding balances, required monthly minimum

payments, grace periods for avoiding additional charges, and

the monthly payments needed to pay off the balance in 36

months.

Section 202 requires that card holders be told the date by

which mailed payments must be postmarked to avoid late fees,

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

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

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

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

business day before the payment is due).

Title III

Title III adds provisions to the Truth in Lending Act

dealing with issuing credit cards to people under age 18 and

amends the Act's provisions regarding penalties.

Section 301 requires that a credit card can be issued to

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

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

person willing and able to be jointly liable for amounts

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

financial information showing the applicant has enough

independent means to be able to repay amounts charged on the

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

counseling course by a nonprofit budget and credit counseling

agency meeting certain specified requirements.

Section 302 allows borrowers injured by violations of

credit card rules to collect increased amounts from card

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

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

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

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

isolated violations or appropriately higher amounts for

established patterns or practice of violations.

Section 303 makes the rules specified in section 301 for

regular credit cards apply as well to college ``affinity

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

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

someone under age 18.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this rule. As the ranking member pointed out, let us debate and vote on the Skelton, Andrews, Israel, Hoyer, Gordon and Udall amendments.

Earlier, the chairman and the ranking member had an important discussion about oil production. It was a legitimate debate. But the purpose of the Hoyer amendment is to focus on alternative fuel production.

We all share support for the missile defense program. But it is the largest single weapons research and development program in the DOD at $10 billion. We are asking for $63 million to include an alternative fuels production initiative in the Department of Defense so that we can move closer to energy independence. Energy independence equals energy security. That means national security.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of nothing more important to us today than breaking our addiction to foreign oil and making sure that we are secure in the long run, and the American people understand the importance of this initiative.

Let's reject this rule and include these important amendments in the debate that is forthcoming, give the whole House a chance to vote and express its will.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong objection to this rule. This was the second chance for the Rules Committee Republicans to get it right, but they got it wrong again.

The rule allows debate on some important amendments but leaves out the most crucial ones. The rule essentially prevents an airing of key issues--and consequently reflects poorly on this body and does a disservice to the American people.

In his testimony before the Rules Committee, Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Skelton expressed strong support for a number of amendments that would strengthen the bill (and strengthen real security for all Americans.)

Among them were his own, an amendment to lower the increased retail pharmacy co-payment fees for military families; an amendment offered by Mr. Andrews and others to increase funding for nonproliferation programs; and an amendment by Mr. Israel to require that chaplains demonstrate sensitivity, respect, and tolerance toward servicemembers of all faiths. None of these amendments was made in order.

Mr. Skelton also expressed strong support for an amendment on energy security that I offered and a similar one that I offered with my colleagues Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Gordon.

But even as Americans struggle to afford near-record high gas prices, Republicans refused to allow debate on these amendments to increase funding for alternative fuels programs at the Department of Defense. America's addiction to oil from any source means that our security is vulnerable and will continue to be until we have the vision to look beyond the oil wells. I'm very disappointed that the Republican leadership doesn't see this as a priority.

Another amendment not made in order was one offered by Mrs. Capps and Mr. Snyder to strike language in the bill prohibiting the National Park Service from carrying out a 1997 court-ordered settlement agreement that requires the shutdown of a private trophy hunting operation on Santa Rosa Island, part of the Channel Islands National Park. There have been no hearings on this issue, the National Park Service is opposed to it, and DoD has not requested it. The Republican leadership should have allowed debate on this amendment.

Many more amendments worthy of House consideration were not made in order. This means that the bill we will debate today on the House floor will not address some of the key challenges affecting our military and our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, this rule stifles debate, and I cannot support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. As a relatively new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for working with me on a number of provisions in the bill that are important to Colorado.

The bill includes language that highlights the importance of the High Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) in Eagle, CO and its need for enough aircraft to fulfill its mission. HAATS is the primary site for training military aviators on operations in hostile, high altitude, and power-limited environments under all seasonal weather conditions, such as Afghanistan.

As a result of language I had included in the Defense Authorization bill last year, the Army National Guard pledged to provide two Blackhawks to HAATS, but I'm told HAATS needs five Blackhawks in order to sustain training requirements. The language included in this bill asks for the number and type of helicopters that are needed to provide the training necessary to sustain our war strategies and asks for an evaluation of the accident rates for deployed Army helicopter pilots who received high altitude training and those who did not receive such training. I think this information will further underscore HAATS' critical mission and the reason it needs more aircraft.

Second, I worked with committee chairman Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to include language in the bill to name a housing facility at Fort Carson in honor of my friend Representative Joel Hefley, who is retiring at the end of the year. In his 20 years representing Colorado's 5th Congressional district, Joel has served with integrity and honor and has been a fair and effective lawmaker. I have learned a great deal from Joel in my years in Congress, and I will miss his good company and collegiality.

I also supported an amendment offered by Representative Hefley that requires the Defense Department to report to Congress that it has made every effort to acquire property from willing sellers before using eminent domain to expand Fort Carson's maneuvering site in Pinyon Canyon. Along with other members of the Colorado delegation, I will be watching these developments carefully.

Finally, I'm pleased that the bill includes $3.1 million for the Air Sovereignty Alert Crew Quarters facility at Buckley Air Force Base. Currently, the crews are housed in modular trailers on the edge of the alert aircraft-parking apron, which do not comply with prescribed procedures identified by safety and Air Force Fire Protection instructions. These funds will enable Colorado's Air National Guard to build a facility to help aircrew perform their mission--supporting Homeland Defense capabilities throughout the United States--which was established in response to post 9/11 national strategy requirements.

I am also pleased with many other provisions in the bill. H.R. 5122 includes a provision I advocated to permanently authorize and fund the Freedom Salute Campaign and Welcome Home Warriors Program, an awards and appreciation program for troops returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. This program is a small but significant way for us to show our appreciation for the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families, and is also helpful for retaining these dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces.

There are also many broad provisions in the bill that benefit our troops. An important one extends Tricare coverage to all Reservists, something Democrats on the Committee fought for last year with limited success. So I'm very pleased that the bill expands this benefit and underscores the importance of providing the same set of services to all our servicemen and women. The bill also blocks the proposed plan to raise certain Tricare fees. It raises the end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps by 30,000 and 5,000 respectively, thereby helping to ease the strain on our troops, and fully funds end-strength of the Army National Guard. I'm also glad that the bill includes provisions to increase recruiting and retention incentives, provides a 2.7% pay raise for members of the armed forces, and increases funding for up-armed Humvees and IED jammers.

Also important--especially at this time of budget tightening--is the bill's focus on reining in costs of major procurement programs, particularly the Future Combat Systems and other programs that have relied on immature technology. The bill requires the Army to fully fund its maintenance, modular conversion and pre-positioned war stocks or face a cap of $2.85 billion on FCS. Funding in excess of the cap would be transferred to reset equipment costs and modularity. H.R. 5122 also redirects missile defense funding from longer range programs to near- term needs, such as buying upgrades for the Patriot and Aegis interceptors that can protect our service members and allies today. It also places restrictions on developing improvements to the ground-based midcourse defense system until after it successfully intercepts two operationally realistic warheads.

On a less positive note, Rules Committee Republicans denied Members of the House the opportunity to debate a number of key amendments which would have improved this bill. Among them was one offered by Ranking Member Skelton, which would lower the increased retail pharmacy co- payment fees for military families; an amendment offered by Mr. Andrews and others to increase funding for nonproliferation programs; and an amendment by Mr. Israel to require that chaplains demonstrate ``sensitivity, respect, and tolerance'' toward servicemembers of all faiths.

Another amendment not made in order was one offered by Mrs. Capps and Mr. Snyder to strike language in the bill prohibiting the National Park Service from carrying out a 1997 court-ordered settlement agreement that requires the shutdown of a private trophy hunting operation on Santa Rosa Island, part of the Channel Islands National Park. There have been no hearings on this issue, the National Park Service is opposed to it, and the Defense Department has not requested it. The Republican leadership should have allowed debate on this amendment, and I will work with my colleagues to see that conferees on the bill strike this language.

The Rules Committee Republicans also refused to allow debate on an amendment on energy security that I offered and a similar one that I offered with my colleagues Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Gordon. Even as Americans struggle to afford near-record high gas prices, Republicans rejected these amendments to increase funding for alternative fuels programs at the Department of Defense. America's addiction to oil from any source means that our security is vulnerable and will continue to be until we have the vision to look beyond the gas pump. I'm very disappointed that the Republican leadership doesn't see this as a priority.

I'm also disappointed that the leadership and the Rules Committee did not provide for any debate on the prosecution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the whole, however, the bill we are considering today does a good job of balancing the need to sustain our current warfighting abilities with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. It is critical that we are able to meet the operational demands of today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. And the process under which it was debated on the floor was not all that it should have been. But overall, this is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, and I urge its support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. As a relatively new member of the Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to the ranking member, Mr. Skelton, and Chairman Hunter for working with me on parts of the bill that are particularly important for Colorado, including report language about the importance of the High Altitude Army Aviation Training Site, which is located in Eagle, Colorado, and its need for enough aircraft to fulfill its mission.

I am also grateful for the chairman's support of a provision to name a housing facility at Fort Carson, Colorado, in honor of Mr. Hefley, who as my colleagues know is retiring this year. During his 20 years of representing Colorado's Fifth District, Mr. Hefley has served with integrity and honor, and he has been a fair and effective lawmaker. I have learned a great deal from Mr. Hefley in my years in Congress, and along with everyone else here, I will miss him.

I am also pleased with many other provisions in the bill, including the extension of TRICARE coverage to all Reservists, the blocking of the proposed plan to raise certain TRICARE fees, the authorization of additional active duty Army and Army National Guard personnel, added funds for up-armored Humvees and IED jammers, and the 2.7 percent pay increase for military personnel, among other provisions.

I hope that the Rules Committee will allow debate on many important amendments not made in order in today's rule, including one I proposed that will bring us further towards our goal of energy independence, and therefore national security.

In conclusion, I think this is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, and I urge its support.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report.

As I noted before, this conference report--like the House-passed bill--is only part of a brew based on the Republican leadership's budget recipe.

Last year, they put the first ingredients into the mixing bowl in the form of a bill to cut more than $50 billion over five years from Medicaid, student loans, and many other programs of great importance to millions of Americans. Then, with the original version of this bill, they added a compound of a few good things tainted by such unwholesome provisions as the premature extension of preferential rates for dividends and capital gains.

The result was a full-bodied one-two punch that might have been intoxicating to some but was sure to leave us all with a bad budgetary headache and stick future generations with paying the tab.

So, when it originally came to the House floor, I voted against it but held out some hope that a conference with the Senate would result in a bill that deserved enactment. Unfortunately, that did not occur and instead we have before us a conference report that perhaps is a little better than the House-passed bill but shares its basic flaws.

The centerpiece of the conference report, like that of the House- passed bill, is an extension of the reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends, even though those rates are not scheduled to change until 2008.

This is not only unnecessary, I think it is not good policy--and neither is letting lapse better tax provisions such as the research and development tax credit, the education tax deduction to help students go to college, tax deductions for teacher's classroom expenses, and the deduction of state and local sales taxes. All of these have been omitted from the conference report.

It is true that the conference report addresses the need to remove the threat of alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability from millions of middle-income American families. But it provides only a one-year respite.

And, worst of all, enacting the conference report will result in adding at least another $70 billion onto the deficit, while the long- term budget costs are masked by a change in the rules for Individual Retirement Accounts that may increase revenue in the short term but will greatly worsen the long-term budget picture.

Questionable at any time, that kind of increase in the deficit-- meaning an increase in the national debt--is even worse now, when America is at war and when President Bush and the Republican Congress have taken us from paying off our debts to a projected deficit of $3.3 trillion. Over the last 5 years, the Federal Government has had to borrow more than $1 trillion--much of it from foreign governments-- which is more than the total it borrowed over the preceding two centuries. This is a sorry record, and this conference report will make it worse.

So, Mr. Speaker, count me out. I thought the original recipe was wrong. I did not vote for the original House bill and I cannot vote for this conference report.

That doesn't mean I am opposed to tax relief. That's why I voted for the motion to recommit, which would have shielded middle-income families from the AMT without adding to the deficit. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership insists on rejecting that in favor of its own recipe. I fear the result will be half-baked and leave a bitter aftertaste.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Bruce Fitch of Frisco, Colorado, who recently retired from his post as Executive Director of Outward Bound Wilderness. As a friend and former Executive Director of Outward Bound, I am honored to have the opportunity to congratulate Bruce on his contributions to Outward Bound and to wish him well on his future endeavors.

Bruce Fitch began his stellar career at Outward Bound with a simple love of the outdoors and a desire to provide young people with a strong outdoor education. These passions led him first to a position as a river instructor for the Colorado Outward Bound School, then to a variety of administrative positions within the organization. Bruce's leadership skills and devotion to outdoor education became obvious, and he climbed the ranks until he landed at the top of the organization as Executive Director, COBS. His responsible and forward-thinking stewardship as separate Outward Bound entities merged to become Outward Bound Wilderness provided a visionary path for the organization, and ensured that young people would continue to have the opportunity to participate in Outward Bound's life-changing programs.

With the same devotion to outdoor education that Bruce showed as a young instructor and administrator for Outward Bound, he has accepted a position as the Executive Director of the Breckenridge Outdoor Education Program. I have no doubt that he will provide this organization with the same leadership and vision that he contributed to Outward Bound over the years, and I look forward to seeing what the BOEP accomplishes with Bruce at the helm.

As Bruce and his family begin this new chapter in their lives, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating him on his continuing service to the outdoor education community and to those that it serves.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed and regretful that I must vote against this bill, for two reasons--first, because it fails to adequately address the need for real reform of the lobbying rules, and, second, because the Republican leadership has insisted on adding unrelated, unnecessary and undesirable restrictions on political speech.

The bill does include some good reform provisions, but they fall short of what is needed.

For example, it would add some transparency regarding appropriations earmarks. I support that, which is why I am cosponsoring H.R. 4964, the Earmark Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006, introduced by Representative Flake. That bill would require all earmarks to be included in the texts of bills, so they would be known and could be debated and also would bar consideration of a conference report unless it includes a list of all earmarks and the name of the Member who proposed each earmark and was available to the general public on the Internet for at least 72 hours before its consideration.

Unfortunately, the earmark provisions of this bill do not meet that standard.

Similarly, the bill takes a step toward greater ethics training for Congressional staff. I also support that, which is why I have joined my Colorado colleague, Representative Hefley, in sponsoring H.R. 4988, the House Ethics Reform Act of 2006. That bill not only would require mandatory annual ethics training for Members of the House and House officers, it also includes provisions that would strengthen the ethics committee and enable it to carry out the job of ensuring compliance with the House's rules and standards of conduct.

So, unfortunately, here too the bill falls short of what is needed.

Similarly, the bill would do nothing meaningful to tighten the current House gift rule or curb meals from registered lobbyists. It would do nothing meaningful to curb the abuse that can come from the availability of corporate jets for Members. And it would do nothing to slow the revolving door, retaining the current 1-year period in which former Members are prohibited from lobbying their former colleagues.

Those shortcomings would have been corrected by adoption of the motion to recommit, which would have added provisions from H.R. 4682, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which I am cosponsoring. However, unfortunately, that motion was not adopted.

But the worst part of all is that the bill, already watered down, was corrupted by the addition of H.R. 513, dealing with so-called ``527'' organizations--a bill that I strongly opposed when the House considered it last month.

That legislation would bring independent groups under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and subject them to the full scope of federal election law regulation--even though this not necessary to remove any appearance of public corruption--and it would restrict the freedom of speech of people who band together to express themselves about federal candidates and issues of national importance. It also would lift limits on coordinated expenditures, allowing national party committees to completely underwrite individual campaigns.

I cannot support these provisions--and so I cannot support the overall bill.

Mr. Speaker, we all know why this bill was rushed to the floor today, and why it is being considered under a shortcut process that limits debate and prevents any consideration of even a single amendment.

It's because the Republican leadership thinks they need to make a show of doing something about the price of gasoline.

But just because they are feeling some political heat does not mean that we should pass this bill, which I think does not deserve to be approved.

The bill would require State and local governments to comply with a new Federal schedule for approving permits to site, construct, or expand a refinery. To do that, it would repeal part of the brand-new Energy Policy Act of 2005 that gave the States the ability to request authority to trigger a process that would coordinate Federal and State actions on a refinery.

In other words, it is a new Federal mandate--and it probably would not do anything to speed up construction of any refineries, for several reasons.

First, more Federal bureaucracy and red tape means more delays, because heavy-handed Federal requirements--including judicially- enforceable deadlines--will bring exactly the resistance and litigation that the provisions in the Energy Policy Act were intended to forestall.

And, second, it's economics that controls decisions about refinery capacity.

That's why, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, Exxon thinks building a new refinery would be bad for its long-term business even as it expands the capacity of is existing refineries.

Just last November, in fact, Shell's CEO testified in a Senate hearing that ``[w]e are not aware of any environmental regulations that have prevented us from expanding refinery capacity or siting a new refinery'' and Conoco' s CEO echoed that, saying ``we are not aware of any projects that have been directly prevented as a result of any specific Federal or State regulation.''

But, when the Republican leadership gets scared, who cares about the facts or wants to bother with thinking things through?

So here we are, rushing to take up a bill that was just introduced, on which there have been no hearings and no opportunity for anyone who will be affected--including the State and local governments--to have a chance to comment.

That's a bad way to do business, and this is a bad bill. I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a well-known and beloved voice in the Greater Denver community. Mr. Rick Crandall, host of ``The Breakfast Club'' on AM 1430 KEZW, is celebrating his 15th anniversary on the air on June 17, 2006. This occasion marks a long and storied career dedicated not only to his listeners and fans, but to the community in which he thrives. Rick deserves a moment of pause to reflect on his career, and I join him and his fans in doing so.

Rick Crandall got off to a shaky start on his first day on the air at KEZW when he confused Tommy Dorsey with Glenn Miller, much to the ire of his musically inclined listeners. Over time, though, Rick became as important to his fans' mornings as a cup of coffee, and he was soon the centerpiece of a community of listeners and friends that enjoy music, news, and personal stories throughout the morning hours. ``The Breakfast Club'' is no mere radio show; it is a collection of like- minded people enjoying one another's company through Rick's engaging personality and love of entertaining his fans.

As if his career in radio wasn't impressive enough, Rick Crandall is also well-known for his stunning devotion to community service and public well-being. Rick has raised enormous amounts of funding for charities and, as a result, has earned both the Colorado Broadcasters Association Citizen of the Year Award and The Colorado Broadcasters Association Harry Hoth Award for Public Service, among many others. Specifically, Rick's work with military veterans is second to none, as he works constantly to assist and honor veterans both with his radio show and by engaging in the veteran community. Rick has also put substantial effort into raising money for and building the Colorado Freedom Memorial, a monument to all Coloradans who have been killed in action. I look forward to seeing the completion of this project, and I honor Rick's efforts to make it happen.

It would be difficult to list all of Rick's accomplishments and projects, suffice it to say that his presence in Colorado has been a blessing for all who know him. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Rick Crandall as he celebrates the 15th anniversary of ``The Breakfast Club,'' and I look forward to many more years of great radio and community service.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month because of official business in Colorado I was not able to be present for three votes.

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

Rollcall No. 82, H.J. Res. 81--Providing for the appointment of Phillip Frost as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution--I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 83, H. Res. 703--Recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and supporting continued efforts to control radiation and mitigate the adverse health consequences related to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant--I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 84, H. Res. 744--Expressing support for the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as the blueprint for lasting peace in Northern Ireland and support for continued police reform in Northern Ireland as a critical element in the peace process--I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to learn of the death of former U.S. Representative Dan Schaefer, who represented Colorado's 6th Congressional District for 15 years before he retired at the end of the 105th Congress.

While I did not serve with Dan, we occasionally found each other on the familiar flights between Washington and Denver after his retirement from Congress, and like all Coloradans I am aware of his contributions to our state and the nation.

He took a leadership role in establishing the House's renewable- energy caucus and in support of the important work of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)--a role that was appropriately recognized when NREL's visitors' center was named for him.

He also worked closely with my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, in pressing for timely cleanup of the closed Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons facility--a goal that was finally achieved just last year.

And as our state experienced rapid population growth, he also worked to provide federal assistance to help fund essential transportation infrastructure, including funds for highway and light-rail construction and improvements.

In the words of The Denver Post, ``Schaefer had a fine ability to disagree with people without being disagreeable. Besides leaving cleaner lands and water as his legacy, he left a record of civility and decency in public affairs that will be greatly missed in today's often strident politics.''

He will be missed, in Colorado and in Congress. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a recent editorial about his career and contributions.

[From the Denver Post, Apr. 24, 2006]

Schaefer Served Colorado Well

Dan Schaefer's legacy can be seen in the native grasses

that replaced the former Rocky Flats nuclear bomb factory and

in the pavement of C-470. Schaefer, who last week died of

cancer at age 70, represented Colorado's 6th Congressional

District for 15 years until retiring in 1998. Called a

conservative in his political career, today he would be a

moderate Republican.

While in office, Schaefer focused on service to his

district and state, and fiscal restraint in government. His

national initiatives, to end the income tax and deregulate

electrical utilities, failed on their merits.

Close to home, though, he successfully worked with David

Skaggs, the Boulder Democrat who then represented the 2nd

Congressional District, to fast-track Rocky Flats' cleanup.

He pushed the U.S. government to meet the same environmental

standards imposed on industry. He got crucial federal support

for C-470 but supported mass transit, too. Schaefer was such

a champion of renewable energy that the main building at the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden is named after

him.

Schaefer had a fine ability to disagree with people without

being disagreeable. Besides leaving cleaner lands and water

as his legacy, he left a record of civility and decency in

public affairs that will be greatly missed in today's often

strident politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a brief outline of the bill:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this week I have introduced the ``More Water and More Energy Act of 2006.''

My bill deals with the issue of ``produced water,'' the saline water generated in the production of oil. For every barrel of oil produced, approximately 10 barrels of saline water is generated. This country generates over 5 billion gallons of produced water per day.

While sometimes this water can be and is used for agriculture or other purposes, most often it has been handled as a waste and reinjected. But as we expand our development of fossil energy resources to meet our increasing demand for energy, we are also increasing the volume of water produced in the development process. And given the increasing demand for fresh water supplies in many areas of the country--especially in the West--it makes sense to consider how this produced water could supplement our limited fresh water resources.

I'm glad that this issue is beginning to engage so many around the country as they realize the potential benefits of produced water. Just this week, the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute is hosting a ``Produced Water Workshop'' to discuss ``Energy & Water--How Can We Get Both for the Price of One?''

In my opinion, few topics could be more timely or important, not only for Colorado but for our country.

That's why I'm introducing the More Water and More Energy Act--to facilitate the use of produced water for irrigation and other purposes, including municipal and industrial uses. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior (through the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S.G.S.) to carry out a study to identify the technical, economic, environmental, legal, and other obstacles to increasing the extent to which produced water can be used for such purposes.

In addition, it would authorize federal grants to assist in the development of facilities to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of processes to increase the extent to which produce water can be recovered and made suitable for use for such purposes.

Developing beneficial uses for produced water could reduce the costs of oil and gas development, while also easing demand for water-- especially in the West--by alleviating drought conditions and providing water for agriculture, industry, and other uses. Energy and water are two of our most important resources--so it makes sense to pursue ways to produce more of both. I believe my bill is a step in this direction.

Here is a brief outline of the bill's provisions:

Section One--provides a short title (``More Water and Energy Act of 2006''), sets forth findings, and states the bill's purpose, ``to facilitate the use of produced water for irrigation and other purposes and to demonstrate ways to accomplish that result.''

Section Two--provides definitions of key terms used in the legislation.

Section Three--authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey, to conduct a study to identify the technical, economic, environmental, legal, and other obstacles to increasing the use of produced water for irrigation and other purposes and the legislative, administrative, and other actions that could reduce or eliminate these obstacles. The study is to be done in consultation with the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and appropriate Governors and local officials, and the Interior Department will be required to seek the advice of experts and comments and suggestions from the public. Results of the study are to be reported to Congress within a year after enactment of the legislation.

Section Four--authorizes and directs (subject to the availability of appropriated funds) the Interior Department to award grants to assist in developing facilities to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of processes to increase the use of produced water for irrigation, municipal or industrial uses, or for other purposes. No more than one such project is to be in a State of the Upper Basin of the Colorado River (i.e. Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, or Wyoming), no more than one is to be in either Arizona or Nevada, and no more than one is to be in California. Grants are to be for a maximum of $1 million, and can pay for no more than half the cost of any project. Grants cannot be used for operation or maintenance of a project.

Section Five--authorizes appropriations to implement the legislation, including up to $5 million for grants authorized by section 4.