Floor Statements

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

I, too, join my colleagues in acknowledging the bipartisan nature of this very important conference report. I want to thank Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Calvert on that side of that aisle for their leadership and for their good work and, as well, my ranking member on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

There are four key areas that I would just like to highlight in my remarks that are a part of this very important piece of legislation.

Number one, we beef up the aeronautics effort of NASA, and we make sure that crucial research and development work continue, and the effect it has on our domestic economy, which is very, very crucial.

Second, the Hubble telescope, we will do all we can under this legislation to service the Hubble telescope, and it has

truly become the people's telescope. It is known not only in the scientific community but to lay people on the street. It is a tremendous asset for us today, and it will be in the future.

Third, the legislation includes a piece of legislation I authored 4 years ago that deals with remote sensing data. That is the data that we are generating from the fleet of satellites that look down on the earth, and this data can be of great use to our cities, our towns, our counties and the private sector. The bill puts in place a grant program as well as increased access to that data so that it can be used by the American public.

Finally, there is a provision that further strengthens the space grant program that brings into the career paths of science and technology mathematics and engineering, those young people who will not only teach the students of the future but who will also come up with the great inventions and the new technologies and new understanding from our great efforts in space and in aeronautics.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill. I want to commend it to our colleagues, and I rise in support of this important piece of legislation and would ask every Member to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for this conference report.

This report reflects the results of productive, bipartisan negotiations that began between House Republicans and Democrats and continued on with the Senate.

This is a good conference report, and I would like to thank all the Conferees and their staff who worked on this report. In particular, I would like to thank our Conference Committee Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and Subcommittee Chairman Calvert.

I have been pleased to see how this group has come together to put together an authorization bill that enables NASA to take positive steps in each of its mission directorates. I believe that it provides an essential balance between NASA's core missions as well as a timely long-term policy direction for NASA as it embarks on the Moon/Mars initiative.

One of the strengths of this bill is that it highlights NASA's non- exploration related research and ensures that innovative work continues to be done in the Science and Aeronautics programs.

To ensure the continued health of each of NASA's core missions, it sets up a budgetary structure that separates NASA's human space flight and exploration accounts from its science, aeronautics, and education accounts--in effect, it erects a flexible ``firewall'' between the accounts.

Turning to some of the program-specific features of the conference report, I am pleased that it encourages NASA to take up three groundbreaking initiatives in subsonic, supersonic and rotor craft R&D under its Aeronautics program.

Progress in aeronautics is crucial to the health of the Nation's air transportation industry, which in turn is crucial both to the continued strength of our domestic economy and our international competitiveness.

That R&D also benefits our quality of life and enhances our national security. We need to encourage it, and this bill does just that.

In addition, while the new Exploration initiative at NASA has gotten the most public attention recently, NASA's science programs have continued to be some of NASA's ``crown jewels''--generating discoveries that have been captivating the American public for decades.

For example, images from Hubble have helped us better understand our universe, but they also allow amateur astronomers of all ages to study the wonders of space.

In short, Hubble has truly become the peoples' telescope, and I am gratified that this bill calls for a mission to service Hubble to be scheduled and authorizes funding accordingly.

This bill also seeks to make sure that the scientific research on the International Space Station achieves its full potential by ensuring that both exploration and non-exploration related research is performed. Microgravity and life science research can help us better understand the affects of space on the human body, moving forward our efforts in human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

It also has many applications here on Earth, and this bill ensures that the ISS will support diverse research goals by requiring that at least 15 percent of all research funds for the International Space Station are to be used for nonexploration related research such as ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS life and microgravity science research.

I believe it is important that we continue to encourage commercial involvement in our space missions, including through research initiatives. There are several partnerships existing between the science community and industry that perform research on the International Space Station.

This bill speaks to the need to preserve fundamental, applied, and commercial life sciences and other micro gravity research that allows commercial participation in the research performed on Station.

I would also like to highlight another title of this bill that will allow cities and municipalities better access to remote sensing data. Many cities in our country--including in my home state of Colorado--are faced with a real problem of excess growth and sprawl.

We now have technology--using geospatial data from satellites--that can produce very accurate maps that show information about vegetation, wildlife habitat, flood plains, transportation corridors, soil types, and many other things.

This bill includes provisions--based on legislation I had authored several years ago--that would establish in NASA a program of grants for competitively awarded pilot projects. The purpose of the pilot projects would be to explore the integrated use of governmental and commercial remote sensing data and other geospatial information to address state, local, regional, and tribal agency planning and decision-making needs.

State and local governments and communities can use geospatial information in a variety of applications--in such areas as urban land- use planning, coastal zone management and erosion control, transportation corridors, environmental planning, and agricultural and forest management. As I indicated, the provisions in this conference report will allow cities and municipalities access to such data from many available commercial sources, as well as from governmental sources.

Lastly, I would like to point out the NASA education programs authorized in this bill that engage young students in space and earth science and encourage them to pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and careers. It is no secret that the United States is falling behind in producing graduates in STEM disciplines. Through programs such as Space Grant, NASA is reaching out to students to provide a hands-on experience studying space-related fields.

As a nation we must do more to ensure our students are getting the science education they need to compete globally, and I believe these NASA programs are taking steps in the right direction to do this.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other provisions I could highlight, but in closing, I simply would like to say that I strongly believe that this is a good conference report. It is the product of open dialog and negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate alike, and I am pleased that we were able to bring it to the floor today.

I would again like to thank my colleagues on the Conference Committee for their hard work to make this report a reality. This is the right policy for NASA and I urge members to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the procedures under which this resolution is being debated. I voted against those procedures because the House should have been able to have a full and free debate and to consider possible changes in the resolution.

For example, Representative Lantos proposed that we congratulate the Iraqi people on three national elections conducted in Iraq this year, encourage all Americans to express support for the people of Iraq, and express thanks to the members of the U.S. armed forces whose heroism permitted the Iraqi people to vote safely in yesterday's elections. That would have been something all Members of the House could support, if the Republican leadership had permitted that to be considered.

Still, I will vote for the resolution that is now before us, for several reasons.

First, the resolution calls yesterday's parliamentary elections a ``crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy.'' I couldn't agree more.

Reports are still coming in and we won't know the results for some time, but it's clear that the day was a success in terms of high turnout and low levels of violence. To the extent that increased Sunni participation means a greater political role for Sunnis in the new parliament, we could see weakened support for the insurgency. And the Iraqi people should be commended for their courage in coming out to vote--not once, but three times this year.

The resolution then goes on to call for a commitment to victory in Iraq, although it doesn't define ``victory.'' I strongly suspect this language was added, not so much to send a positive message to our soldiers or the Iraqi people so much as it was designed to bolster President Bush's recent speeches in Iraq where the word ``victory'' looms large.

Unlike American success in World War II, ``victory'' in Iraq cannot be measured by military success alone. This was achieved when our troops toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. What we can hope for in Iraq is that a responsible withdrawal of American forces can be linked to measurable benchmarks of political stability. This means that Iraqi security forces must be capable of providing for the safety of Iraqis. It means that Iraq's cities and infrastructure are rebuilt and its citizens have access to electricity and clean water. A successful withdrawal strategy means that America will no longer bear the brunt of the burden--that the U.N., other international organizations, our allies, and countries in the region will step up to assist with the nation-building mission in Iraq.

A successful outcome in Iraq is essential because failure in this part of the world could lead to wider war, greater terrorism and a disaster for our national security. To be frank, it is not so much ``victory'' that ought to concern us so much as a need to avoid ``failure.''

Unfortunately, whether we can avoid a failure in Iraq is a question that is not completely in our hands because only the Iraqis themselves can find the will necessary to live

alongside each other and to make the compromises necessary to build a functioning government based on an inclusive constitution.

For the record, I opposed the Iraq war resolution, but I have resisted supporting an artificial deadline for withdrawing troops. I believe we need a plan that is designed to bring our troops home and make clear to the Islamic world that we harbor no ambitions for permanent bases, Iraqi oil revenues or any military occupation. But how we withdraw is as important as when we withdraw. This means giving the Iraqis time to form a permanent government 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.

We were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more divided. That's why I led a letter last month to Defense Authorization conferees with my colleagues Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE), Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), and Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-MI) urging conferees to include language passed overwhelmingly in the Senate urging President Bush to outline his strategy for withdrawal from Iraq and to provide Members of Congress with quarterly reports on the progress of American operations in Iraq. We wrote this letter because we believe that a successful withdrawal from Iraq can only be helped if Congress and the Bush Administration work to bring unity at home.

It is in our national interest to show the greatest amount of unity possible to the American people, to the international community, and to the Iraqi people, who so bravely made their way to polling stations all over Iraq yesterday.

Sending a message of encouragement to the Iraqi people to build stable institutions based on democratic principles is important at this critical time. it is for this fundamental reason that I vote today in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why I sought and obtained unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 73, a resolution introduced by my friend and colleague Rep. Jack Murtha calling for the rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

In short, my name was added in error. But I'd like to take this opportunity to explain why I cannot support Mr. Murtha's resolution at this time.

Rep. Murtha's call for the rapid redeployment of U.S. forces carries significant weight in Congress because he is not only a decorated veteran, but also one of the most respected voices in our country on military and national security policy.

Like Rep. Murtha, I believe the Bush administration has largely failed in Iraq because the civilian direction of the war has not matched the skill and sacrifice of our soldiers. Going to war the way we did was a strategic mistake, and the aftermath has been a failure because of the president's refusal to plan and refusal to listen.

Unlike Mr. Murtha, I voted against the resolution authorizing the president to rush to war in the first place. I did so because I had concerns about the president's refusal to consider more aggressive inspections of WMD before going to war, his inability to secure greater international support, his obvious failure to develop a plan for securing peace after ousting Saddam, and his reckless disregard of experienced military advice.

Although I was an outspoken opponent of going to war in Iraq, I have supported our brave soldiers because it has seemed to me that our national security is now linked, like it or not, to a credible plan for stabilizing Iraq and preventing a catastrophic civil war in the region.

I remain concerned about setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal because how we leave is as important as when we leave. Nevertheless, Mr. Murtha's call, coupled with the evaporation of public confidence in the president's management of the war, should be a wake-up call to the president to develop a strategy that can garner bipartisan support and set an unmistakable path toward exiting Iraq expeditiously and with our interests and security intact.

This country cannot have 535 commanders-in-chief. There can only be one commander-in-chief, and we need him to better explain his strategy and to be honest with the American people about the costs and timetable for executing that strategy.

We were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more divided. A successful outcome in Iraq can only be helped if Congress and the Bush Administration work to bring unity at home. In a hopeful sign, that kind of unity was on display when the Senate recently passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a resolution requiring accountability by the president in Iraq. The House should, at a minimum, do the same.

Madam Speaker, four years ago I voted against the bill that became the ``USA PATRIOT Act,'' more commonly called simply the ``PATRIOT Act.''

I agreed that our law-enforcement agencies needed increased power and more tools to fight terrorists. But I also thought then--and still think today--it was imperative for Congress to proceed carefully in order to protect Americans' civil liberties. However, I took some comfort from the fact that a number of the most troublesome provisions of the new law were temporary and would expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts to renew them.

The imminent expiration of those provisions is why the House considered this legislation in July, and provides the impetus for the conference report before us today.

I think the value of such ``sunset'' provisions is shown by the debate on that bill and today's debate on the conference report. It is evidence that requiring Congressional action to renew agencies' authorities can and does result in ongoing Congressional oversight and periodic reconsideration.

In July, I voted against the bill because it would have made permanent no fewer than 14 of the 16 provisions of the original ``Patriot Act'' that were covered by the law's ``sunset'' clause--as well as other new authorities provided by last year's bill to reform the intelligence community--and under the bill the other two would not have faced a ``sunset'' for a full 10 years.

However, at the same time I noted that there was considerable support in the other body--by Senators on both sides of the aisle--for provisions that would improve on this legislation. And I hoped and expected that once the Senate had acted and the conference was completed, the result would be a measure that deserves the support of all Members of Congress.

Unfortunately, after careful review I have concluded that this conference report, while an improvement over the bill the House passed in July, is still so seriously flawed that I cannot support it.

The conference report does not do enough to reduce the potential that the authority it gives to the FBI and other agencies could be abused or misused in ways that intrude on Americans' privacy and civil liberties--a potential that has led more than 300 communities and seven States, including Colorado--governments representing over 62 million people--to pass resolutions opposing parts of the Patriot Act.

The Senate, to its credit, did a better job than the House in responding to the concerns that prompted such resolutions, while still providing ample tools that the government can use to work against the threat of more terrorist attacks, at home and abroad.

I could have supported enactment of the bill as passed by the Senate. That is why I voted for the motion to recommit. But I cannot support this conference report as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly oppose this legislation.

I support changing the current rules related to pensions, and had hoped that this bill would be considered under procedures that would allow it to be improved.

However, the Republican leadership has made it impossible for even a single amendment to be considered--and the bill's flaws so outweigh its good features that it should not be passed in its current form.

Among the most troubling aspects of the bill is its potential effect on defined-benefit pension plans.

Some 34 million Americans are now covered by defined-benefit plans, but their retirement security is threatened by the failure of some companies to adequately fund the plans, by corporate bankruptcies such as that of United Airlines, and consideration by even profitable companies of freezing benefits and ending their plans.

And many of the people who manage large pension plans tell us the result of enacting this bill's provisions that would make significant changes to the rules for these plans and increase the premiums companies pay the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, could be benefit cuts or, worse, termination of even well-funded plans.

At the same time, the bill's requirements for increased payments to PBGC threatens the financial health of many manufacturing companies and fail even to adequately improve PBGC's financial condition--its own analysis found that the bill would increase the agency's financial shortfall by $2.5 billion.

And both the Congressional Budget Office and PBGC have concluded that the bill would increase claims on the Federal Government by billions of dollars, which would increase the likelihood of a massive taxpayer bailout as well as the loss of billions of dollars in employee and retiree benefits.

I am not prepared to support legislation that would increase the chances of such outcomes, especially when its tax provisions would substantially increase future budget deficits and would primarily benefit taxpayers in the highest income groups.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the revenue effects of the tax provisions primarily benefiting higher-income households would grow from $3.6 billion in 2012, the first full year affected, to $5.6 billion a year by 2015. But the effect of extending the saver's credit, which is most important to lower-income honseholds, would fall from $1.4 billion in 2008, the first full year affected by that provision, to $943 million by 2015.

That means that while in 2012, the saver's credit would account for one-fourth of the total benefits of all of these provisions, by 2015 it would account for only 14 percent of the total benefits. And after that the saver's credit would dwindle further, eventually fading away, while the upper-income pension tax changes would become still more robust.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says, ``To allow the severe erosion over time of the principal tax incentive for modest- income families to save for retirement does not make sense as retirement policy. To do so while protecting very generous retirement tax-cut benefits that go overwhelmingly to higher-income taxpayers who generally are able to save adequately for retirement anyway, without these tax subsidies, is even less defensible. And incorporating regressive tax policy of this nature into a bill that swells budget deficits, and opens the door to still more deficit-increasing tax cuts in the future, stands sound policy on its head.''

I think they are right.

And, in addition to badly framed provisions, the bill's flaws also include some serious omissions. I am particularly disappointed there is nothing in the bill like the bipartisan Senate-passed provisions to protect the pensions of employees and retirees of airline companies. As Coloradans know all too well, the employees and retirees of United Airlines already have lost $3 billion in earned pension benefits. We should be working to help them, and we also should be working to make it less likely that their experience will be repeated.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that there are good aspects to this bill, and while I think Congress does need to act on this subject, I think that on balance the bill as it stands should be rejected so that a better-balanced measure can be brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, because it was added in error, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 73.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the town of Granby, Colorado.

Granby is a small town with a population of 1,525 located on the Fraser River with breathtaking views of the Continental Divide and Rocky Mountain National Park. Despite its size, Granby holds an important place within Colorado's history. It was first settled in 1904 and incorporated the next year. The town was established along the railroad line being built by Denver, Northwestern & Pacific and was a connection with the state route to Grand Lake.

The Granby site was chosen because of the dry ground and good view of the surrounding mountains. The town was named in appreciation of the services of Denver attorney, Granby Hillyer, who worked to layout the town site.

By the 1920's the town was a thriving commercial and service center for local farmers and ranchers. It was during this time that Granby became known for its lettuce which became a major crop for Granby. In fact, at the peak of the market, the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City proudly advertised Granby Head Lettuce on its menus.

Today Granby boasts some of the finest recreational opportunities that Colorado is so well-known for, including hiking, rafting, hunting, gold medal river water for fishing, horseback riding, and dog sledding. to name a few.

Granby is also known for its local charm and hospitality, as well as its preservation of its western rural roots--I have developed an affinity with this town and appreciate the friendliness and communal spirit of its residents. This community has welcomed me to their town in a manner that greatly reflects the essence of Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in commemorating the historic 100th anniversary of Granby, Colorado. I believe that by honoring Granby and all the other historic small towns of this vast nation, we keep the great tradition of the American spirit alive for future generations. We must not forget about the many places that molded our country into what it is today. Centennial celebrations are few and far between, and Granby is deserving of our recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and commend my Colorado colleague, Mrs. Musgrave, for its introduction.

The bill would direct the Interior Department to convey to the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District wants the title to some of the water-distribution facilities that are part of the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson project.

That project, authorized by Congress in 1937 to provide water for agricultural and other uses, consists of dams, dikes, reservoirs, powerplants, pumping plants, pipelines, tunnels, and substations spread over approximately 250 miles. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the project's local government sponsor, operates and maintains all of the water conveyance facilities.

H.R. 3443 directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer 58 miles of the Project's water conveyance facilities (the St. Vrain Supply Canal, Boulder Creek Supply Canal, and South Platte Supply Canal) to the District. The transfer will allow the District to more cost- effectively manage the facilities, reduce paperwork requirements, provide for local ownership and reduce the federal government's liability. The District, which has operated and maintained these water conveyance facilities since 1957, has repaid the appropriate capital costs associated with the facilities. Despite this repayment, the title of the facilities remains in the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill directs the transfer of this title with no conditions. It is modeled on the successful transfer (Public Law 106-376) of other single purpose water conveyance facilities associated with the Colorado Big-Thompson Project.

None of the affected facilities are used to generate electricity. However, payments by electricity customers have been contributing to the repayment for the overall project, and the electricity customers still owe something under that repayment contract. To reflect that, the bill provides for transfer of funds from electricity-sale collections to complete repayment of the amount the electricity customers owe toward repayment of the facilities to be transferred.

The bill includes language to make clear that it will not lessen the existing responsibilities of the district or affect the rights of two ditch companies whose ditches have been part of the distribution system for water from the Colorado-Big Thompson project. And, to stimulate prompt implementation, the bill says that if the transfer isn't completed within a year Interior must send a written report to Congress explaining why it hadn't done so and to keep reporting annually until the transfer is complete.

I joined as a cosponsor of this legislation because I think it will be beneficial both for the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District and for the federal government. I urge its approval.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and congratulate my Colorado colleague, Mr. Tancredo, for his leadership in introducing it.

I joined as a cosponsor of this bill because I also want to improve the ability of the land-managing agencies to adequately enforce the rules that apply to uses of the federal lands.

That is why in the 108th Congress I introduced a related bill--the Responsible Off-road Vehicle Enforcement and Response Act, or ``ROVER.'' That bill was narrow, dealing only with enforcement of the regulations for use of vehicles on National Forest lands and public lands managed by BLM. This bill goes much further. In addition to the forests and BLM lands, it also applies to lands managed by the National Park Service and the refuges managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. And it addresses the enforcement of all regulations, not just those related to use of vehicles.

Last year, Mr. Tancredo and I worked with Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, and other Members of the Resources Committee, to develop the broader measure.

That bill passed the House, but the Senate did not complete action on it. So, Representative Tancredo and I joined in reintroducing it as H.R. 975, the bill now before the House.

I urge its approval, because legislation for better and more consistent enforcement of regulations is needed. However, we need to recognize that it is only one part of a bigger picture.

Even more than new legislation, it seems to me, the land-managing agencies need more resources--more money and more people--if we want them to do a better job.

That was why I introduced a related bill--H.R. 599--which the Resources Committee has also reported. It would allow the agencies to use money from fines to help pay for some of the restoration work caused by violations of regulations, as well as for offsetting the administrative costs involved in enforcement of those regulations.

This is something that I think should be addressed in the future, and I will seek to work with other Members to do that. Today, however, we can take an important step forward by passing this bill, and I urge the House to approve it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Boulder-Dushanbe Sister Cities organization and its ongoing work to develop friendship and understanding between the citizens of Boulder, Colorado, and the citizens of Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

In 1987, two cities on opposite sides of the world, in countries on opposite sides of the political spectrum, collaborated to bring their respective traditions, culture, and history to one another in a peaceful manner. During a time of great conflict and tension, the cities of Boulder, Colorado, and Dushanbe, Tajikistan, united as the Sister Cities. Over the next 3 years, dozens of Tajikistani painters, woodcarvers, and ceramicists worked on completing Dushanbe's gift to Boulder, the Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse. The result was a magnificent structure and a wonderful restaurant that offers exquisite cuisine and atmosphere.

Now it is our turn to give back to the people of Dushanbe. Planning is well underway for Boulder's reciprocal gift of a cybercafe, which will be part restaurant, learning center, and Internet connection point.

Most of all it will be our way of connecting to Tajikistan--by sharing our culture, helping Tajiks communicate with the outside world, providing educational resources, and investing in their community. At a time when international understanding between countries and their citizens is more valuable than ever, this project deserves strong support.

Mr. Chairman, I've attached a June 2005 newspaper article from The Daily Camera highlighting progress on the cybercafe project. I think it's important to call attention to this project and the volunteer efforts of the Boulder-Dushanbe Sister Cities organization. On its website, the group writes about the cybercafe that it ``hopes that that gathering place, offering computer and Internet access rare in that part of the world, will bring to life the goal of helping people connect through what they have in common rather than what keeps them separate.'' I share that hope and commend the Boulder-Dushanbe Sister Cities organization for helping this project come to life.

[From the Daily Camera, June 20, 2005]

Residents Work To Repay Debt: Dushanbe Cybercafe Project Is Expected To

Start in Fall

(By Ryan Morgan)

Boulder owes the city of Dushanbe a cybercafe to

reciprocate for a teahouse from the Tajikistani capital that

opened in Boulder in 1998.

Now, after years of work, the Boulder residents organizing

the cybercafe effort have received good news from Dushanbe

officials: They expect to break ground on the project this

fall.

Don Mock, a former Boulder city councilman and co-president

of Boulder-Dushanbe Sister Cities, said his group learned

late last week that city planners in Dushanbe had approved a

new site for the cafe.

``It looks like some of the final hurdles have been

cleared,'' he said.

Much of the delay came after Mock and other committee

members realized that the site originally proposed for the

cybercafe--one that would have placed it in downtown

Dushanbe, next to a large concert hall and the national

library--wouldn't work.

It turned out that city planners there wanted every

building in that district to be at least five stories tall,

far beyond the expected scale and cost of the planned

cybercafe. So organizers had to find a new site and alter the

building's design.

If all goes well, the cybercafe will sit in Dushanbe's Park

of International Friendship, Mock said.

Mock said he thinks the cybercafe will give something of

real value to residents of Dushanbe. It will offer books in

Tajik and Russian and a ``cultural center,'' he said.

``It's going to be more than a place to check e-mail.''

With a final plan in place, the sister cities committee

will now start redoubling its fundraising efforts.

``We want to be able to tell these big donors exactly what

they'll be getting for their donation,'' Mock said.

The committee has raised about $400,000 and will need to

raise an additional $300,000, he said.

Vern Seieroe, an architect helping to design the building,

said he is relieved the process of navigating an often

confusing bureaucracy located 7,000 miles away will finally

yield dividends.

``You can only imagine the obscurity of what the process

is, seeing it and attempting to understand it from this

distance,'' Seieroe said. ``We're learning a lot. Our

learning curve is almost vertical.''

Boulder's colorful Dushanbe Teahouse was also the

culmination of several years' work and delays. Tajik

craftsmen carved the intricate structure, disassembled it

into 14 sections and shipped them to Boulder in 1990. The

sections sat in storage for years. In 1998, they were re-

assembled and the teahouse finally opened its doors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and congratulate the U.S. Small Business Administration's Colorado District Office, under the leadership of District Director Patricia Barela Rivera, for directing a record $520 million into Colorado's economy through its lending programs during 2005. The SBA approved 2,255 loan guarantees, a 20 percent increase over 2004, which is the highest number of loans ever approved in Colorado. This critical investment will help strengthen Colorado's economy and create jobs.

Many women and minority-owned businesses are the beneficiaries of these SBA loans. Of the total number of loans, 1,010 worth $214.6 million went to women and minority firms, and 188 loans worth $38.7 million went to small businesses owned and operated by veterans. Access to capital is critical in starting and maintaining a business and these loans will ensure that women, minorities and veterans will be part of a robust economy and they will be able to live the American dream.

In addition, I am also pleased at the level of outreach that the Colorado District Office has done in rural Colorado. A large portion of the loans distributed in 2005 went to small businesses in rural areas, which oftentimes are left out during good times and hurt even more when the economy takes a downturn. Every area of the state should be able to share in the success of our economy, and through the tireless efforts of the Colorado District Office staff many rural areas in the State are not being forgotten.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the steadfast leadership of SBA District Director Patricia Barela Rivera. Patricia understands that small businesses are the backbone of America's economy. She is one of the most talented public servants in Colorado who is always striving for excellence, always coming to the aid of those individuals in need, and always working to make our State a better place to live, work, and play. The SBA is lucky to have Patricia as its ambassador in Colorado. I salute her for her unswerving dedication and I know she and her staff will continue to make all of us proud.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4340, the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Overall I believe the agreement contains numerous important benefits for the people of both the United States and Bahrain.

The agreement would allow 100 percent of American-made industrial and consumer goods and virtually all agricultural products to enter Bahrain duty free. The agreement would also expand access for the United States to many of the financial and service sectors in Bahrain along with strengthening intellectual property protections. This improved commercial relationship between our countries will benefit many sectors of the American economy, including agriculture, banking and securities, and high technology.

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

Regarding the agreement's labor provisions, I am concerned that Bahrain is not in complete compliance with International Labor Organization, (ILO), core labor standards. But it is my understanding that Bahrain has committed in an exchange of letters--which will be included with the trade agreement--to modify domestic laws to comply with key labor standards. I commend the Kingdom of Bahrain for its commitment to modify its domestic laws, and I urge the Administration and the United States Trade Representative, (USTR), to monitor progress in this regard.

In the future, I think the administration and the USTR would be well served by including labor provisions, such as those included in the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, in the body of future trade agreements and by making them subject to sanctions via dispute resolution procedures. The dispute resolution procedures fall short in the case of the Bahrain FTA. It is important that the United States takes step to ensure our trading partners provide workers with basic labor rights. By including such requirements we dedicate ourselves to this goal.

While this agreement is largely about the liberalized exchange of goods and services, it is also about building a stronger relationship with a strategic country in the Middle East.

Opening up commerce between the U.S. and Bahrain can help us gain Bahrain's support for initiatives in other areas, such as resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and restoring security to Iraq. In that connection, it is important to note that Bahrain is not observing the Arab League boycott of Israel. I welcome the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement and urge its support.

Mr. Speaker, as we debate this bill, we must remember it is only part of a brew based on the Republican leadership's budget recipe.

Just before Thanksgiving, they twisted enough arms to put the first ingredients into the mixing bowl by passing 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.

Today, they want to continue by adding some good things--including extensions of well-targeted tax cuts like the research and development tax credit and small business expensing tainted by some unwholesome provisions, especially the premature extension of preferential rates for dividends and capital gains.

The result, just in time for holiday parties, will be a full-bodied one-two punch.

And while some may find it intoxicating, it will have a nasty aftertaste for many, will leave everyone with a bad budgetary headache--because it will actually increase the deficit--and will stick future generations with paying the tab.

So, Mr. Speaker, count me out. I thought the original recipe was wrong. I did not vote for the first part of the mixture. And I will not vote for this bill.

That doesn't mean I am opposed to tax cuts. As I said, there are good things in this bill, and I support them. That's why I voted for the substitute.

The substitute would have exempted every family making less than $200,000 from the alternative minimum tax--something that should be a priority but that is not included in the bill before us. Adoption of the motion to recommit would have had the same effect.

The substitute also included $42 billion in tax cuts over five years targeted to spur economic growth by extending the most pressing tax provisions that are now scheduled to expire this year.

However, unlike this bill, the substitute did not include extension of things that will not expire this year--including the preferential rates for dividends and capital gains--or the changes to international tax rules.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership was not willing to follow that more reasonable approach, and is insisting on sticking with their own recipe.

But the Senate has passed a quite different tax measure, and differences between that bill and this one will have to be resolved in conference. So, while I cannot support this bill I am hopeful that the conferees will insist on a new and better mixture that will deserve support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I have no doubt that the majority of the House will oppose it, so it will be voted down.

And by voting down this resolution, we are responding to the Republican leadership's desire to have us say what we're against.

But that's the easy part. The hard part--the part that should be under discussion--is to say exactly what we are for, what policy we think our country should follow regarding our military involvement in Iraq.

The Republicans don't want to have that discussion. They would rather put forward a politicized, petty, irresponsible resolution that is intended to score political points. Like the Bush Administration, they are adopting the tactics of a political campaign, and like the Administration, their greatest success will only be to further divide Americans. How does this honor our men and women in uniform who are even now risking their lives in Iraq?

It's clear that the Republican leadership is concerned that Representative Jack Murtha's call for the rapid redeployment of American forces and reducing our military presence in Iraq is already carrying significant weight in Congress. Why else would the Republicans seek to trivialize and play politics with this proposal from a man who is not only a decorated veteran, but one of the most respected voices in our country on military and national security policy?

Like Mr. Murtha, I believe the Bush administration has largely failed in Iraq because the civilian direction of the war has not matched the skill and sacrifice of our soldiers. Going to war the way we did was a strategic mistake, and the aftermath has been a failure because of the president's refusal to plan and refusal to listen.

I voted against the resolution authorizing the president to rush to war in the first place. I did so because I had concerns about the president's refusal to consider more aggressive inspections of WMD before going to war, his inability to secure international support, his obvious failure to develop a plan for securing peace after ousting Saddam, and his reckless disregard of experienced military advice.

Although I was an outspoken opponent of going to war in Iraq, I have supported our brave soldiers because it has seemed to me that our national security is now linked, like it or not, to a credible plan for stabilizing Iraq and preventing a catastrophic civil war in the region.

I do not think supporting our troops is a partisan matter. In fact, I know everyone on both sides of the aisle does support them. So, it is disappointing--but, unfortunately, not surprising--that some have alleged otherwise.

And, some have suggested the resolution we are voting on today is a Democratic resolution, even though it was introduced by the gentleman from California, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who of course is a Republican.

The resolution we are voting on today isn't Jack Murtha's resolution--it is a cheap ripoff of a well-intended effort on the part of a respected veteran and long-serving Member. Jack Murtha's resolution calls for the immediate termination of the deployment of our forces, but it also says that the redeployment of forces should happen at the earliest practicable date, not right away. Jack Murtha's resolution includes important safeguards such as a quick-reaction U.S. force and a presence of U.S. Marines outside of Iraq who could respond as necessary if events in Iraq were spiral out of control.

I remain concerned about setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal because how we leave is as important as when we leave. That's why I cannot support Mr. Murtha's resolution and why I certainly cannot vote for this resolution proposed by Mr. Hunter.

Nevertheless, the fact of today's debate, coupled with the evaporation of public confidence in the president's management of the war, should be a wake-up call to the president to develop a withdrawal strategy that can garner bipartisan support and set an unmistakable path toward exiting Iraq expeditiously and with our interests and security intact.

This country cannot have 535 commanders-in-chief. There can only be one commander-in-chief and we need him to address the country, explain his withdrawal strategy, and to be honest with the American people about the costs and timetable for withdrawal.

We were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more divided. A successful withdrawal from Iraq can only be helped if Congress and the Bush Administration work to bring unity at home. In a hopeful sign, that kind of unity was on display when the Senate passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a resolution requiring accountability by the president in Iraq, and the House should, at a minimum, do the same.

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

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, through four Congresses now, we have worked with outside groups and the agencies to address the flaws in this legislation as it was originally introduced. As in the previous Congress, we do not intend to impose this legislation.

However, the majority is amending H.R. 585 to remove authorize station for funding to assist these local gateway communities. It is unfortunate that as we are making available new information and technical assistance, we are not providing these communities the funding they will need to take advantage of these new opportunities.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose H.R. 585.

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