Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3045, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, DR-CAFTA. Deciding how to vote on this has not been easy, but ultimately I believe that the bad in the agreement outweighs the good.

I definitely believe free trade brings benefits, but in this case I question who would get those benefits. I agree that open markets have helped lift up the lives of people in many countries of the world. But I am also alarmed about the growing economic inequality within and between countries. Unless free trade is also fair trade, we risk lifting up the few to the detriment of the many.

I think that an improved commercial relationship with the Dominican Republic and the five Central American countries could benefit our economy and U.S. farmers, workers, and manufacturers. But I am concerned about a number of provisions of DR-CAFTA. The agreement will help some U.S. agricultural industries, services markets, and high technology, chemical, medical and scientific equipment companies, among others. But it will harm other agricultural markets, and could have a detrimental impact on small Central American farmers as well. We ought to be encouraging rural economic development in this part of the world, not undercutting it.

The most problematic aspect of DR-CAFTA is that the administration failed to incorporate internationally recognized labor standards. Nor does the agreement clearly require any country to maintain and enforce a set of basic environmental regulations. America's interests are

not simply about the bottom line. The U.S. should also be concerned about maintaining and enhancing the high mark set by American workers. While expanded trade is important to this country and the world, it will only be beneficial to a broad range of people in our Nation and abroad if it is carefully shaped to include basic standards and adequately protect the rights of workers and the environment. This agreement does not meet that test.

DR-CAFTA would also allow foreign investors to challenge our laws and regulations before international tribunals, bypassing domestic courts, if they believe U.S. laws on labor, environmental protections, and public health and safety reduce the value of their investments. The U.S. has already spent millions defending our laws from NAFTA, which includes a similar provision. Foreign companies have sued the U.S. over California's ban of MTBE, a California law regulating harmful gold mining practices, and the Agriculture Department's decision to close the border to Canadian beef due to concerns about mad cow disease.

DR-CAFTA also creates a challenge to the safety of the American food supply because it is silent on the issue of imported goods meeting the rigorous food safety and sanitary rules of the United States Department of Agriculture. This agreement takes a step backward in our efforts to provide the American consumer with the safest food possible.

Finally, the agreement includes a provision precluding generic pharmaceutical products from obtaining regulatory marketing approval for a 5-8 year period if approval has been granted for a brand name drug in that market. Especially since low-cost generics are already available in the DR-CAFTA countries, this provision will only serve to make drugs unavailable and unaffordable for most Central Americans, who are suffering in great numbers from HIV/AIDS and untreated diabetes, among other maladies. While market access for U.S. goods is important, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially undermining a country's ability to provide prescription drugs to its citizens.

As part of a long-term strategy to strengthen the American economy, I have supported a number of agreements to expand access to foreign markets for exports from our nation's farmers and businesses. But DR- CAFTA is one I cannot support.

I don't want this country to miss out on economic opportunities, but the problems with this agreement are real, and I don't believe this agreement will create the opportunities its proponents have touted. In the end, our progress together has to be about raising, and not lowering wages, reducing and not adding to the world's poverty, making more ``haves'' and fewer ``have-nots.''

I do believe in actively shaping globalization, not passively closing our doors. Although I cannot support DR-CAFTA today, I remain committed to this activist course and hope the Administration will present us with an agreement that deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference report--but only because it includes an essential immediate increase in funding for veterans health care.

This has been a long time coming. Last September, many of us sought to provide a $2.5 billion increase over the Bush Administration's budget for veterans' health care. Earlier this year, Members on our side of the aisle made an unsuccessful effort to add $1.2 billion for veterans' health care to the emergency supplemental appropriations for military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. And over the last month, the Republican leadership led successful efforts to block consideration of amendments to add the needed funds for VA health care.

Things finally changed when the Bush Administration finally acknowledged a $1 billion shortfall in veterans' health care for FY 2005, which had been well known since spring. When that happened, the Senate added $1.5 billion in supplemental funding to this bill because it was the most convenient legislative vehicle--and the conferees wisely agreed to retain it in the conference report.

This additional $1.5 billion is essential if we are to make any claim to meeting our moral obligation to America's veterans and returning soldiers. Because of its inclusion, I will vote for the conference report, even though the rest of the conference report does not deserve to pass.

Except for the veterans' health funding, this conference report falls short across the board.

It once again fails to provide the authorized funding for the payments-in-lieu-of-taxes program, shortchanging the counties and other local governments in Colorado and across the country for whom these ``PILT'' payments are so important.

It does not provide enough funds to enable the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, or the Forest Service to properly manage the federal lands for which they are responsible.

And it inadequately funds many other agencies as well, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency, which will be cut by about 3 percent from this fiscal year. I am particularly concerned about deep cuts to EPA's state grants (down nearly $400 million from fiscal 2005), which support environmental protection programs through grants to State, local and tribal governments, and a $24 million shortfall for EPA science and technology research.

Of course, Colorado will benefit from funding earmarked for projects in several parts of the state. But the needs of many communities will go unmet, and opportunities to acquire high-priority lands such as those in the Beaver Brook watershed in Clear Creek County will be missed.

Finally, the bill includes extensive legislative provisions authorizing the Forest Service to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise convey lands that the Forest Service identifies as ``administrative sites''--including forest headquarters, ranger stations, research stations, or laboratories, among many other kinds of sites.

Mr. Speaker, this part of the conference report originated in the Senate. Inclusion of such legislative provisions in a general appropriation bill is contrary to the House rules, because it properly should be handled by the authorizing committee--the Committee on Resources--in an orderly fashion that allows for hearings and the consideration of amendments.

It would have been far better for the House conferees to have rejected it and enabled our committee to consider it in that fashion. However, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the conferees did make very important changes in the Senate-passed language.

In particular, I am glad that they included an explicit requirement for the Forest Service to consult with affected local governments and to provide public notice regarding their plans for disposing of properties covered by this part of the conference report. And I think that excluding visitor centers and potential inholdings as well as lands providing access to other lands or waters were valuable changes, as was the requirement that the Forest Service provide advance notice to Congress of planned disposals and the reaffirmation that environmental analysis of proposed disposals include consideration of the ``no action'' alternative as required by NEPA.

While this legislation will remain in effect only through fiscal 2008, the statement of managers clearly signals an expectation that Congress will be asked to renew it or perhaps even make it permanent. If that should occur, I will do all I can to make sure that the Resources Committee is responsible for considering such legislation and that it is not accomplished by inclusion of legislation in an appropriations measure.

Mr. Speaker, the June 23rd decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London has raised concern about the potential abuse of the power of eminent domain by local governments.

I share that concern, which is why I voted for the resolution (H. Res. 340) expressing the House's disagreement with that decision.

Congress may consider proposals for even stronger legislative responses. I think that is completely appropriate, and well may support legislation on this subject.

At the same time, however, I think it is important to remember that the primary responsibility in this area rests with the States and their local governments.

As I said during debate on the resolution passed by the House, while (in the words of the resolution) ``Congress maintains the prerogative and reserve the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by State and local government,'' Congress can only take such action in ways that are themselves consistent with the Constitution.

Further, I think we should be reluctant to take actions to curb what some--perhaps even a temporary majority--in Congress might consider improper actions by a State or local government.

Thy States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their agencies or local governments. I think this would be the best way to address potential abuses, and I think we in Congress should consider taking action to impose our ideas of proper limits only as a last resort.

That point was well made in a recent column by State Senator Lois Tochtrop, with whom I had the honor to serve when I was in the Colorado legislature.

In that column, Senator Tochtrop writes ``There's only one piece of `good news' for Colorado citizens in the recent Supreme Court decision. The high court left it up to state legislatures to control city bureaucrats bent on turning your home or business into a new strip mall. Here in Colorado, legislators have lots to do. . . . I will reintroduce legislation in the upcoming session to stop cities from abusing the power of eminent domain by giving corporate welfare to retailers while the taxpayers pay the bills.''

I commend Senator Tochtrop for her leadership on this important issue. For the information of our colleagues, here is the complete text of her recent column:

[From the (Boulder, Colorado) Daily Camera--July 14, 2005]

State Must Protect Property Rights

(By Sen. Lois Tochtrop)

Founding father James Madison: ``Government (is) instituted

to protect property of every sort. That alone is a just

government which impartially secures to every man, whatever

is his own.''

United States Supreme Court: ``Never mind!''

You've heard the bad news. If Wal-Mart or other big boxes

want to take your home or business for a new store, that's OK

by the U.S. Supreme Court. All big developers must do is

convince property tax hungry city officials that the public

will benefit. As we've seen in Colorado, that doesn't take

much convincing.

Time was cities used eminent domain to condemn private

property only for ``public use'' like roads, libraries or

parks. Now, the Supreme Court says it's constitutional for

government to take your property to build that Wal-Mart or

Walgreen's, as long as there is some ``public benefit.'' That

promised benefit is the torrent of tax money that

will supposedly flow into city coffers from the new economic

development.

Allowing municipalities to ``take'' private property and

give it to another private entity is wrong and unjustified

even with the recent Supreme Court ruling. The original

intent of eminent domain was only to be used for public good,

not to allow cities to condemn property to increase their tax

base by putting in big boxes at the expense of mom-and-pop

businesses, which are the backbone of America.

Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent

that with ``the banner of economic development . . . nothing

is to prevent the state from replacing . . . any home with a

shopping mall or any farm with a factory.'' The bottom line:

Your home isn't your castle anymore. It's prime development

land for a Wal-Mart Super Center.

There's only one piece of ``good news'' for Colorado

citizens in the recent Supreme Court decision. The high court

left it up to state legislatures to control city bureaucrats

bent on turning your home or business into a new strip mall.

Here in Colorado, legislators have lots to do.

From legislative hearing rooms to constituent living rooms,

Colorado property owners are crying out for relief. I have

heard testimony on the abuses of eminent domain from dozens

of small businesses in Aurora whose property the city wants

for ``mixed use development'' to complement the new medical

complex at Fitzsimons. I listened to testimony from dozens of

citizens who battled Arvada's plan to condemn a small lake

for a Wal-Mart parking lot. I listened to a pioneer family in

Westminster that is losing its homestead to make way for

economic development.

The losers in the battle over eminent domain aren't only

the folks you read about in the newspaper or see on TV trying

valiantly to protect their private property. Colorado

taxpayers are big losers too, because cities often grant

developers a big property tax break called ``tax increment

financing.'' Tax increment financing is given to developers

to build big boxes after the municipalities ``take'' the

property from rightful private owners under the guise of

urban renewal.

Just last year, Colorado taxpayers had to ``infill'' more

than $18 million just to school districts because tax-

increment financing robbed schools of tax money that the city

gave away to developers. Who pays for that ``infill''?

Taxpayers, of course. Colorado taxpayers wind up subsidizing

corporate giants like Wal-Mart after cities take private

property from owners under the guise of urban renewal and

economic development.

The only economic development is usually to the big box's

bottom line. In 1999 the Legislature passed legislation which

somewhat limits cities' power of eminent domain, but it

does not go far enough to protect private property rights,

as evidenced by local land grabs. Since then, I have

introduced bills that removed ``economic'' from the

definition of urban renewal and barred municipalities from

declaring agricultural land ``blighted.'' Lobbyists for

cities and powerful land developers stopped both of those

bills.

The constitutional private property rights of Colorado

citizens must be protected. I will reintroduce legislation in

the upcoming session to stop cities from abusing the power of

eminent domain by giving corporate welfare to retailers while

the taxpayers pay the bills.

Protecting private property rights will take more than new

legislation. Every citizen must help. If you don't like the

idea of a city taking private property so Wal-Mart can put in

a new Super-Center, tell your city council that's not the way

your city should be doing business.

Lois Tochtrop represents District 24 in the Colorado

Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this legislation.

There is nothing I would rather vote for than a balanced energy bill that sets us on a forward-looking course--one that acknowledges that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy.

But at a time of sky-rocketing oil prices, this report doesn't do what it needs to do--help us balance our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix.

The process of developing the conference report is much improved from last year's contentious debate. Senate and House conferees worked together cooperatively and were able to compromise on a number of provisions and bridge difficult differences of opinion. I believe Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell and on the Senate side, Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman, have done a good job in this respect.

The conference report itself is also an improvement over the bill passed by the House earlier this year.

It includes an extension of the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit for another 2 years, which will take us through the end of 2007. This is very good news. The report also includes clean energy bonds provisions from the Senate bill which will enable electric cooperatives to invest in renewable generation.

It also removes the methyl bromide tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE, liability waiver that would have let industry off the hook. It's true that the conference report does provide a ``backdoor immunity'' that could derail many legal claims by denying communities and states the right to be heard in state forums. But I believe that the conferees took a big step forward by dropping the liability waiver.

On energy efficiency, the conference report goes beyond the House bill in establishing new energy efficiency standards for 15 products. It also includes numerous energy efficiency tax provisions for alternative fuel vehicles, energy efficient appliances and new and existing homes, among others, provisions contained in the Energy Efficiency Cornerstone Act that I introduced with my colleague Rep. Zach Wamp and others.

Electricity provisions are strengthened--not only does the conference report include new standards for grid reliability, but it also includes consumer protections in electric markets, such as new merger review, a prohibition on market manipulation, improved market transparency, among others. These protections are especially important given that the bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, which restricts the ownership and operations of power companies and their ability to control energy prices.

Another way in which the conference report has improved on the House bill is its treatment of oil shale.

This is a subject of particular concern to Coloradans, because Colorado has the most significant amounts of oil shale--and also the most experience with oil shale fever. In Colorado, we have had several bouts of that syndrome. The last one started during the 1970s energy crisis and ended abruptly on ``Black Sunday'' in 1982. That was when Exxon announced it was pulling out of the Colony shale project, an event that left an impact crater from the Western Slope to downtown Denver. There followed an exodus of other companies that had been working on oil shale--which led to an echoing exodus of jobs and of Coloradans who had nowhere else to turn.

The House bill would have required the Interior Department to set up a new leasing program for commercial development of oil shale, with final regulations to be in place by the end of next year. In other words, it called for a crash program to meet a short, arbitrary deadline.

In the Resources Committee, I tried to change that. An amendment I offered would not have barred oil shale development. Instead, it would have said that before we leap again, we should take a look and have a clear idea of where we are apt to land. Under my amendment, the Department of the Interior would be told to prepare regulations for a new oil shale leasing program--and to get them finished ``promptly'' after finishing the analysis required by NEPA and the regular process for developing new federal regulations.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the Resources Committee opposed my amendment, and so it was not adopted. The result is that that part of the House bill was much uglier than it should have been.

The oil shale part of the conference report, while not necessarily a thing of real beauty, is definitely better. It calls for a programmatic environmental impact statement as the first step, and requires issuance of final regulations for a new commercial leasing program only after that statement has been completed. Further, it requires the Interior Department to consult with the Governor of Colorado (and the governors of other relevant states) and other interested parties in order to determine the level of support for development of oil shale (or tar sands) resources, and provides that leasing will then occur only if there is sufficient interest and support. This is a much better way to proceed than through the kind of crash program called for in the House- passed bill.

And, while I think the need for a new oil shale task force or a new office within DOE is doubtful at best, the conference report's provisions related to experimental leases are sensible and worthwhile.

There were a few good things in the House bill that I am glad are retained in the conference report--after all, in a 1,725-page bill, there are bound to be some good provisions, but in this case they are far outweighed by the bad.

For example, I support most of the provisions developed by the Science Committee, and I commend Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for their bipartisan approach.

In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me.

I am also pleased that the conference report includes the Clean Green School Bus Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean, alternative fuel buses. H.R. 6 also includes provisions from legislation I introduced on distributed power, which would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and demonstration of distributed power energy systems.

Unfortunately, though, as a whole this conference report--like the bills we've debated twice before--basically retains the status quo and does little to provide solutions to the real energy problems facing this country.

This conference report provides oil and gas companies massive forgiveness of royalty payments. It exempts industry from requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act when they inject harmful chemicals into the ground during drilling. It exempts oil and gas construction sites from storm water runoff regulations under the Clean Water Act. It authorizes up to $1.5 billion in new subsidies to the oil industry for ultra-deep oil drilling and exploration. It establishes an exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for oil and gas development activities.

Of the bill's total $14.6 billion in tax incentives, $9.3 billion (or 64 percent) is for traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. The oil and gas industries are getting these massive subsidies from the taxpayer at the same time that their profits have never been higher. Meanwhile, renewables and energy efficiency technologies are allocated $5.3 billion, or just 26 percent of the total incentives in the bill.

And then there are all the things the bill would not do. It would not increase vehicle fuel economy standards, which have been frozen since 1996. Raising CAFE standards is the single biggest step we can take to reduce oil consumption, since about half of the oil used in the U.S. goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles.

This conference report avoids the whole question of mandatory action on climate change, excluding even the toothless Senate-passed resolution that recognized the need for immediate action by Congress to implement mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

It also does not include the Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, part of the Senate-passed bill, which would require utilities to generate 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Colorado is uniquely positioned to take advantage of alternative energy opportunities, such as wind and sun. Colorado's voters approved Amendment 37 last year, a state RPS, which is making a difference in our energy supply.

But a Federal RPS would yield numerous rewards in the long-term for the whole country, including increased energy independence and security, economic development opportunities in depressed communities, maintaining a competitive advantage internationally, protecting our environment, and helping our farmers develop long-term income sources. The absence of an RPS in this conference report is a serious setback for forward-thinking energy policy.

Most importantly, according to analyses conducted by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, this energy bill will neither lower gas prices nor reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, with foreign imports predicted to increase from 58 percent to 68 percent in the next 20 years. Coloradans on average are already on average $2.25 for a gallon of regular gas. This bill will do nothing to bring those prices down.

I don't always agree with President Bush. But I think he is absolutely right about one thing--at $55 a barrel, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. Instead, we need a strategy to wean our Nation from its dependence on fossil fuels, especially foreign oil.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we need a plan in place to increase our energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30 percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home.

This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology that exists today. Given the magnitude of the crisis ahead, we can surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil.

Earlier this year, President Bush spoke at the opening of the Abraham Lincoln Museum in Springfield, Illinois and attempted to draw parallels between his goal of expanding freedom in the world and Lincoln's effort to expand freedom in the U.S. I have some questions about that comparison, but I do think it is good to consider Lincoln's example when we debate public policy.

In fact, I wish President Bush and the Republicans would draw a few more parallels to Lincoln in their approach to energy policy--because, as that greatest of Republican Presidents said, ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. Our present is piled high with difficulties. We must think anew and act anew--then we will save our country.''

And while we are not engaged in a civil war, our excessive dependence on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security. We have an energy security crisis. We need to think anew to devise an energy security strategy that will give future generations of Americans an economy less dependent on oil and fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, too much of this bill reflects not just a failure but an absolute refusal to think anew. Provision after provision reflects a stubborn insistence on old ideas--more tax subsidies, more royalty giveaways, more restrictions on public participation, more limits on environmental reviews--and a hostility to the search for new approaches.

Maybe we could have afforded such a mistake in the past. But now the stakes are too high--because, as I said, energy policy isn't just an economic issue, it's a national security issue. America's dependence on imported oil poses a risk to our homeland security and economic well- being.

Unfortunately, this conference report does not think anew and is not adequate to the challenges of this stormy present. For that reason, I cannot vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, many of us have serious concerns about the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London and the potential effects on private property owners from local governments' exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Because of those concerns, I joined in voting for H. Res. 340, expressing disapproval of that decision, which was passed by the House last month.

However, as I said then, although I agreed with the resolution's statement that Congress could seek to ``address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by State and local government;'' I think we should be reluctant to take actions to curb what some--perhaps even a temporary majority--in Congress might consider improper actions by a State or local government.

The States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their agencies or local governments. I think this would be the best way to address potential abuses, and I think we in Congress should consider taking action to impose our ideas of proper limits only as a last resort.

So, I am glad to note that in Colorado discussion is already underway regarding possible changes to our laws that would modify the scope of eminent domain authority available to local governments.

A good example of that discussion is a recent editorial in Grand Junction's Daily Sentinel, which notes with approval a proposal for an amendment to the Colorado constitution but points out that its proponents should be cautious in their approach.

I think the editorial's points are well taken. I attach its full text and commend it to the attention of all our colleagues.

[From Grand Junction (CO) Daily Sentinel, July 21, 2005]

Voters Could Check Eminent-Domain Abuse

State Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, is joining a host of

state government officials around the country who want

tougher state rules on government's use of eminent domain to

condemn private property.

Efforts are being pushed in at least 25 states in the wake

of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that said the

city of New London, Conn., could condemn homes in an older

middle-class neighborhood and turn them over to private

developers for razing to build condos, a hotel, athletic

clubs and other amenities.

Millions of Americans were understandably angered by the

ruling. It opens the possibility that any home or small

business can be condemned if some developer can demonstrate

that his plans can produce more revenue for local government.

White says he intends to push a measure in the Legislature

for a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit

local government from taking land for private gain. If it

doesn't pass the Legislature, he said he will mount a

petition drive to get it on the 2006 ballot.

White's concerns for the rights of private property owners

are well taken. But White should be cautious about

overreaching. There are some cases where it may be legitimate

for government to condemn private property and allow another

private entity to benefit from it.

Even before this June's ruling, the Supreme Court had long

held that governments can use eminent domain to condemn

private property and turn it over to other private developers

in order to eliminate blight.

Although ``blight'' may sometimes be poorly defined,

eliminating health and safety issues associated with severely

run-down or neglected properties meets a legitimate public

need.

White's proposal or any other aimed at reducing the

potential for eminent-domain abuse in Colorado must recognize

that public need and provide clearly worded conditions under

which it could be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report on the ``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (TEA-LU).

While the funding provided in the bill will not meet all the needs in Colorado's Second Congressional District--let alone those of the rest of the State or the country as a whole--it does provide resources for many needed improvements.

The conference report will help our State address challenges that face Colorado as a result of a decade of rapid expansion in the northwest Denver suburbs and mountain and resort communities. Without the passage of this essential long term extension critical transportation and infrastructure needs for Colorado and the Nation will continue to be ignored.

This bill will also fuel job creation.

I am committed to continue working with the Colorado delegation, local communities and the Transportation Committee to secure essential Federal funding to get people and goods from one place to another with a focus on transit and other alternatives and improve current modes of Colorado's transportation network.

Mr. Speaker, I'm reluctantly voting against H.R. 5, which would limit medical malpractice awards.

I am not opposed to considering legislation that would do something to respond to real problems. But I do not think this bill merits that description.

In fact, I think the vote today has more to do with politics than with policy--and if I had any doubts on that point, they ended when the Republican leadership refused to permit any amendments at all to be considered. Stifling debate is not the way to develop good policy.

As in the past, the bill's supporters argue that unless the tort laws are changed, doctors will not be able to afford malpractice insurance and so will give up providing medical care. And, again, opponents say the bill would do nothing to affect insurance rates.

I think we're beating a dead horse. Both sides have dug in and aren't willing to compromise. In the meantime, we aren't doing anything to reform our medical liability system and we aren't doing anything to make health care more affordable and accessible for Americans.

Our system is inherently adversarial and we've continued this finger- pointing game and done nothing to improve patient safety and health care access, which is what we're really talking about here.

I think we need a system that is non-punitive and encourages openness and improvement so that doctors can report medical errors without fear of being sued. This will help us understand medical errors and improve procedures and patient safety. Fewer medical errors will result in fewer medical malpractice suits, which in turn will help keep malpractice insurance rates and health care premiums down.

That's why I have supported legislation to create a voluntary medical error reporting system under which patient safety organizations, on a confidential basis, would receive information on reported errors for analysis. They would then be expected to develop and disseminate evidence-based information to help providers implement changes in practice patterns that help to prevent future medical errors.

In addition to that, I think we should explore ideas like alternate dispute resolution, no-fault systems, and medical courts.

I also want to make it clear that I am not opposed in principle to capping damages. That has been done in Colorado and some other states, and I think there is evidence indicating that it can help keep health care costs down and keeps doctors accessible. However, I think this bill's low and arbitrary limits on damages will hurt those at the bottom of the income scale the most. Also, I don't think we should be shielding large and powerful HMOs and drug companies from liability. So, I cannot support the bill as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, ultimately this issue is about health care access and patient safety. If we aren't going to compromise, I hope we'd start thinking outside the box on how to end the logjam. I offer these ideas as a way to get there, because we aren't going to get there from where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, I am today again introducing a bill to establish a process for orderly resolution of a problem that affects private property owners and the sound management of the Federal lands.

What is involved are claims for rights-of-way under a provision of the Mining Law of 1866 that later was embodied in section 2477 of the Revised Statutes, and so is usually called R.S. 2477. It granted rights-of-way for the construction of highways across Federal lands not reserved for public uses. It was one of many 19th-century laws that assisted in the opening of the West for resource development and settlement.

More than a century after its enactment, R.S. 2477 was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, often called ``FLPMA,'' and was replaced with a modern and comprehensive process for establishing rights-of-way on Federal lands. However, FLPMA did not revoke valid existing rights established under R.S. 2477--and, unfortunately, it also did not set a deadline for people claiming to have such rights to file their claims.

As a result, there is literally no way of knowing how many such claims might be filed or what lands might be affected--including not just Federal lands but also lands that once were Federal but now belong to other owners. But it is clear that R.S. 2477 claims could involve not only thousands of square miles of Federal lands but also many lands that now are private property or belong to the states or other entities.

This is obviously a serious problem. It also is the way things used to be with regard to another kind of claim on Federal lands--mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872. However, that problem was resolved by section 314 of FLPMA, which gave people 3 years to record those claims and provided that any

claim not recorded by the deadline would be deemed to have been abandoned. The courts have upheld that approach, and I think it should have been applied to R.S. 2477 claims as well. If it had been, R.S. 2477 would be a subject for historians, not a headache for our land managers or a nightmare for private property owners. I think that now, finally--more than a quarter of a century since it was repealed--the time has come to let R.S. 2477 sleep in peace. And that is the purpose of the bill I am introducing today.

The bill is based on legislation proposed by the Secretary of the Interior in 1997, with changes and refinements based on extensive consultations with many interested persons and groups.

The bill follows the sound example of FLPMA by providing that any R.S. 2477 claim for which a notice is not filed with the government within 4 years will be considered to have been relinquished and void. I think this is more than reasonable, because people interested in claiming rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 have had ample time to decide whether they want to file a claim.

The bill also spells out what information a claimant is to provide, how claims are to be considered administratively, and the rules for judicial review of administrative decisions about claims.

Recognizing the potential threats to private or other non-Federal landowners from R.S. 2477 claims, the bill spells out that claims involving their lands will be considered to have been abandoned when the lands were transferred out of federal ownership unless the claimant can establish by clear and convincing evidence that at the time of transfer there was a well-established right-of-way whose use for highway purposes was intended to be allowed to continue. And it applies a similar standard to claims involving lands used for national defense purposes as well as National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, wilderness and wilderness study areas, and other conservation areas.

Since last year, my staff and I have discussed this subject with many people, representing a wide range of views. In particular, we worked closely with Commissioners and staff members from many of Colorado's counties. The results of those discussions are reflected throughout the bill, which differs from the previous version in many respects.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced bill. It gives anyone claiming to hold a valid right under R.S. 2477 ample opportunity to come forward and seek to have that claim upheld, with an opportunity to seek ultimate redress from the courts if necessary. At the same time, it gives private property owners and the American people--the owners of the Federal lands--assurance that the time will come when they will know what they own, without having to worry about new R.S. 2477 claims being made against their lands.

In my opinion, such legislation is long overdue.

I am attaching an outline of the main provisions of the bill.

Outline of R.S. 2477 Bill

Section 1

Section 1 provides a short title, has findings about the

bill's background, and states its purpose, which is to

provide certainty to affected private landowners, State and

local governments, and the public by establishing a deadline

for filing of claims for highway rights-of-way under R.S.

2477 and providing a process for consideration and resolution

of such claims.

Section 2

Section 2 defines key terms used in the bill.

Section 3

Section 3 deals with the filing of notices of claims for

rights-of-way based on R.S. 2477:

Subsection (a) sets a deadline of 4 years after enactment

for filing notices of claims.

Subsection (b) specifies the information to be included in

each notice of a claim.

Subsection (c) deals with the places for filing notices of

claims and other aspects of filing

Subsection (d) requires publication and other steps to

inform the public.

Subsection (e) provides that failure to timely file a

notice of a claim shall be deemed to constitute a

relinquishment of any rights purported to have been acquired

under R.S. 2477 related to that claim. This parallels Section

314 of FLPMA, which required recordation of unpatented mining

claims. A claimant would have 3 years to file a lawsuit

challenging the effect of this provision on a claim. Claims

already subject to final determination by any Federal court

or agency are exempt.

Section 4

Section 4 addresses evidence to support claims.

Subsection (a) sets a deadline of 6 year after filing a

notice of a claim for a claimant to submit evidence in

support of the claim.

Subsection (b) requires submission of the following: 1)

Name, address, and contact information of the claimant; 2)

names and contact information of all persons or entities with

property interests in lands affected by a claim, as shown on

public records; 3) proof that notice of the claim has been

provided to the persons and entities listed under (2); 4)

identification of the entity that would have a property

interest in the right-of-way for which a claim is being made;

5) a description of the highway on which the claim is based;

6) evidence of construction of a highway on the claimed

route; 7) evidence that the claimed route constitutes a

highway; 9) a statement regarding the availability of

materials related to the claim; and 10) evidence that the

claimed right-of-way traversed public land not reserved for

other use at the time of construction of the highway

Subsection (c) requires additional evidence to support

claims involving certain lands: 1) for claims involving

conservation lands, tribal lands, or defense lands, evidence

that prior construction and continuing use of the lands for

highway purposes were so open and notorious on and after the

date on which the lands acquired such status that management

of the lands by the Federal government was intended to be

subject to continuation of their use for highway purposes;

and 2) For claims involving lands no longer in Federal

ownership, evidence that prior construction and continuing

use of the lands for highway purposes were so open and

notorious on the date that the lands were transferred from

Federal ownership that the transfer was intended to be

subject to the continued use of lands for highway

purposes.

Subsection (d) provides that a claimant who fails to submit

all the required evidence to support a claim will have an

additional 30 days to complete the submission, and that

failure to submit all required evidence shall result in a

determination that the claim is deemed abandoned and that any

rights purported to be based on R.S. 2477 with respect to the

claim have been relinquished. Such a determination is subject

to judicial review pursuant to section 5(j).

section 5

Section 5 addresses review of claims and determinations

regarding them.

Subsection (a) requires the authorized officer to review

timely-submitted evidence in order to determine whether a

claim should be considered presumptively valid.

Subsection (b) provides that in all cases a claimant shall

have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence

that a claimed right-of-way was validly accepted under R.S.

2477.

Subsection I requires the authorized officer to determine

presumptively valid a claim involving private or other non-

federal lands if the claimant has both met the burden of

proof specified in subsection (b) and has also demonstrated

by clear and convincing evidence that when the lands passed

from Federal ownership the prior construction and continuing

use of the lands for highway purposes were so open and

notorious that transfer of the lands was intended to be

subject to their continued use for highway purposes.

Subsection (d) requires the authorized officer to determine

presumptively valid a claim involving conservation or defense

lands if the claimant has both met the burden of proof

specified in subsection (b) and has also demonstrated by

clear and convincing evidence that when the lands acquired

that status the prior construction and continuing use of the

lands for highway purposes were so open and notorious that

management of the lands for conservation of defense purposes

was intended to be subject to their continued use for highway

purposes.

Subsection (e) requires the authorized officer to determine

presumptively valid a claim involving tribal lands if the

claimant has both met the burden of proof specified in

subsection (b) and has also demonstrated by clear and

convincing evidence that when the lands acquired that status

the prior construction and continuing use of the lands for

highway purposes were so open and notorious that it was

intended that use of the lands for highway purposes would

continue.

Subsection (f) provides that if no portion of a claim

involves former Federal lands, conservation lands, defense

lands, or tribal lands, the authorized officer is to

determine the claim presumptively valid if the claimant has

met the burden of proof specified in subsection (b).

Subsection (g) provides that if the authorized officer is

unable to determine a claim to be presumptively valid, the

officer will determine it invalid and that any rights

purported to have been acquired under R.S. 2477 with respect

to the claim have been relinquished and therefore no further

administrative action on it is required. It also provides for

notification of such a determination and specifies that such

a notification constitutes final agency action subject to

judicial review, and sets a 3-year statute of limitation for

initiation of such review.

Subsection (h) specifies the procedures to be followed if

the authorized officer determines a claim is presumptively

valid, provides an opportunity for filing an objection to

such a determination, and allows a claimant to provide

supplemental evidence to respond to such an objection.

Subsection (i) provides for a public hearing if an

objection is filed to a determination of presumptive

validity, upon the request of either a claimant or an

objector.

Subsection (i) provides for review of information submitted

by an objector to a finding of presumptive validity and for

issuance of a determination of validity or invalidity.

Subsection (k) specifies the information to be included in

determinations of validity, specifies that such a

determination is a final agency action subject to judicial

review, and

establishes a statute of limitation for initiation of such

review.

section 6

Section 6 includes a variety of administrative provisions:

Subsection (a) prohibits charging a fee for filing of a

claim by a State, County, or local government.

Subsection (b) sets priorities for reviewing and processing

claims: 1) claims filed by a State, County, or local

government; 2) claims filed by non-governmental parties and

involving private or other non-federal lands, conservation

lands, defense lands, or tribal lands; and 3) other claims.

Subsection (c) requires that to the extent practicable

review of claims will be completed within a year after

submission of evidence and requires periodic status reports

on claims under review.

Subsection (d) provides--1) authorized officers reviewing

claims are to seek and consider the views of affected States,

counties, local governments, tribes, Federal agencies, and

the public; 2) authorized officers reviewing claims are

responsible for coordinating with appropriate Federal

agencies; 3) authorizing officers reviewing claims involving

lands in Alaska will also seek the views and consult with any

affected Native Corporation.

Subsection (e) authorizes retention by the United States

(with respect to claims involving conservation, defense, or

tribal lands) or the owner of record (with respect to claims

involving other lands) of exclusive possession or control of

lands affected by claims held upon judicial review to be

valid. The subsection specifies the United States or the

owner of record shall seek to reach agreement with the

claimant before exercising the authority to retain possession

or control.

Subsection (f) requires filing of surveys of R.S. 2477

highway rights-of-way determined to be valid; provides that

failure to file such a survey within 5 years after final

administrative determination of validity shall be deemed to

be a relinquishment of any rights purported to have been

acquired under R.S. 2477 with respect to such right-of-way;

and establishes a 3-year statute of limitations to challenge

any such deeming of relinquishment.

Subsection (g) provides for consultation with relevant

Federal agencies or tribes and requires concurrence of

relevant Federal agencies before a determination of

presumptive validity.

section 7

Section 7 addresses the relationship between the bill and

other law and prior determinations.

Subsection (a) provides that authorized officers are to

apply Federal law and relevant State law to the extent that

State law is consistent with Federal law.

Subsection (b) specifies that nothing in the bill will

affect, change, alter, or modify Title V of FLPMA or Title IX

of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Subsection (c) provides--1) except as provided in this

subsection, nothing in the bill applies to or affects the

status of any judicial or administrative determinations made

prior to its enactment regarding any claim or assertion based

on R.S. 2477; 2) any final determination regarding an R.S.

2477 claim or assertion made sooner than 4 years after the

enactment of the bill must be filed with relevant offices of

the Bureau of Land Management and recorded on appropriate

local land records; 3) failure to file or record in

accordance with paragraph (2) shall be deemed a

relinquishment of any rights purported to have been acquired

under R.S. 2477; 4) a deeming of relinquishment for failure

to file or record is subject to judicial review; but 5) any

such judicial review must be initiated no later than 7 years

after the date of enactment of the bill.

section 8

Section 8 specifies that no Federal officer, agency, or

court shall take any action to affirm the validity of any

assertion of a property interest in a right-of-way under R.S.

2477 except with regard to a claim filed under the bill.

section 9

Section 9 authorizes appropriations to implement the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill today that will resolve a conflict between the Department of Commerce and a property owner along the perimeter of the Department of Commerce campus in Boulder, Colorado.

In 2004, the Department of Commerce determined that a security fence needed to be constructed around the Boulder campus that houses labs for both the National Institute for Standards and Technology, NIST, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. In preparation for the fence the current access road would need to be rerouted. This road is also the only access to the Oak Park Medical Center, that abuts the Department of Commerce property. NIST granted an easement to the medical center to allow access to the facility through the Boulder Campus. Current plans to open a new entrance to the campus will result in the closing of access to the medical center.

Significant discussions have occurred between the Oak Park Medical Center property owner and the Department of Commerce, principally through NIST. However, no compromise has been reached to provide alternative access to the medical center. The Department of Commerce contacted the Oak Park Medical Center property owner identifying an alternative access road which is unacceptable to both the owner and the tenants of the building. The property owner has expressed interest in selling the property to the Department of Commerce.

Unlike most government property, the Boulder Campus was purchased by the Department of Commerce, rather than the U.S. General Services Administration. As a result, my bill authorizes the Department of Commerce to purchase the land.

I have contacted the Department of Commerce urging the agency to administratively buy the property, however feel this legislation is helpful if an administrative solution is not worked out. I believe this is an equitable compromise, as the property owner is willing to sell the land, and NIST would have access to utilize the building. At the same time, plans for construction of the security fence will not need to be altered to provide access to the medical center.

I have included a letter from the property owner expressing his support for this bill as well as the purchase of his property by the Department of Commerce. I consider this a friendly condemnation and urge a speedy passage of the bill by the House of Representatives.

Boulder, CO,

July 19, 2005.

Re Proposed Legislative Bill for the Purchase of 385 South

Broadway, Boulder, Colorado.

Congressman Mark Udall,

Mr. Doug Young,

Turnpike Drive,

Westminster, CO.

Dear Congressman Udall and Mr. Young: I am in support of

the legislation that would authorize and direct the federal

government to purchase my property at 385 South Broadway,

Boulder, Colorado, referred to in the proposed Bill as the

``Oak Park Medical Center.''

Please understand that my preference would be to retain

ownership and for NIST to honor its existing easement

granting access to and from the Oak Park Medical Center.

However, if that agreement is to be unilaterally rescinded by

NIST, then I feel that this legislation to purchase my

property is the appropriate course of action. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bruce Tenenbaum.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act.

I do have real concerns about the spiraling trade deficit with China and China's unfair trade practices, and I think Congress should consider possible legislative responses.

However, the bill offered today does little to provide assistance to U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses. In fact, it could create additional problems for them. In particular, I am concerned that the legislation could make it more difficult to apply countervailing duties to China and other nonmarket economies while making it easier for them to hide subsidies.

Further, by placing this legislation on the suspension calendar, which is reserved for non-controversial legislation, the Republican leadership has refused to offer a full debate to Members to consider alternative plans to strengthen enforcement of our trade policies and hold countries accountable for their trade practices.

This procedure makes it clear that real intent here is not so much to address our trade problems--it is more about politics and winning extra votes for passage of CAFTA later this week.

It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership has taken this opportunity to bring about stronger trade policies and instead used it to consider a bill that is largely symbolic at best, and could even be harmful.

It is for these reasons I will vote against this bill.

Mr. Chairman, 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.

I take very seriously my duty to preserve and protect our Constitution. For me, this is a matter of conscience--and four years ago I concluded that I could not fulfill my duty and also vote for the legislation.

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 unless Congress acted to renew them.

And the imminent expiration of those provisions is the reason this bill is before us today.

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

Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not fully follow the good example of our procedure 4 years ago. Instead, the bill would make 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 will not ``sunset'' for a full 10 years.

That is one of the main reasons I will vote against this bill. But it is not the only reason.

Neither the expiring provisions nor the other sections of the ``PATRIOT Act'' are limited to cases involving terrorism. This makes even more troubling their potential for abuse or misuse in ways that intrude on Americans' privacy and civil liberties.

Because of that potential, over the last four years more than 300 communities and seven States, including Colorado--governments representing over 62 million people--have passed resolutions opposing parts of the ``PATRIOT Act.''

Much of that public concern--a concern I share--has focused on the possible effects on the privacy of patrons and customers from the application of section 215 of the ``PATRIOT Act'' to libraries and bookstores.

Section 215 expanded the FBI's ability to obtain ``any tangible thing'' under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Previously, the government could obtain records only from hotels/motels, storage facilities and car rental companies, and only if the records pertained to agents of a foreign power.' Now, it can seek ``any tangible thing'' from anyone at all as long as the information is relevant to an investigation.

Many of us think this is so broad that the government could investigate consumers' reading and Internet habits and private records (such as credit card information, medical records, and employment histories), without the requirement of relevance to any criminal activity that applies in grand jury investigations.

I would like to think that this authority will not be abused. But we cannot be sure that will never occur, and I think there are reasons to worry.

I understand, for example, that the American Library Association has confirmed that

Federal agents went into a library and asked for a list of everyone who checked out a book on Osama bin Laden--which likely would include people who wanted to learn about his connection to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington--and that overall, since those attacks libraries have received more than 200 formal and informal requests for materials, including 49 requests from federal officers.

It is not clear what authority (if any) was cited by the federal officers for obtaining this information--and, because recipients of orders issued under section 215 not only have no effective way of challenging them but in fact are prohibited from disclosing to anyone but their attorneys that they received such an order, there is no way of knowing how often this authority has been used.

So, I remain concerned about the possibility that the ``PATRIOT Act'' would be used to obtain very private information--whether library records, medical information, or gun purchase records--without an adequate showing of a connection to terrorism.

It is true that this bill would make some worthwhile changes to current law, including allowing the recipient of a Section 215 order to challenge it before a three-judge panel of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, in Washington, DC, and assert that the law was wrongly applied.

But I think we ought to have at least had the opportunity to debate more substantial reform to this part of the law.

To begin with, we should have been able to at least consider a limited exemption for bookstores and libraries, along the lines of the bipartisan amendment that the House voted to add to the Justice Department appropriations bill for fiscal 2006. However, the Republican leadership blocked that amendment from even being offered.

Further, I think consideration should be given to changing the standard for issuing a section 215 order, to require some individual suspicion that the records the government wants are related to a spy, terrorist or other foreign agent--which could include the records of other parties if they were clearly relevant to the activities of the subject under investigation. Again, no amendment along those lines was allowed consideration.

It is true that the House did have the opportunity to consider a number of worthwhile amendments. I was glad to have the chance to vote for them, and am glad that so many were adopted. However, we should have had the chance to consider many more.

For example, the House ought to have had the chance to at least debate changes such as some proposed in the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. I have in mind the amendment to ``sunset'' the so-called ``lone wolf' provision, approved by the Intelligence Committee and an amendment offered in the Judiciary Committee to restore a requirement for reporting on the disclosure of electronic communications that was included in the bill approved by the Judiciary Committee in 2001 but later stripped by the Rules Committee without explanation.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow any of these amendments to even be debated on the House floor, although it did allow time for a new amendment--not considered in committee, as far as I can tell--that would, among other things, change the rules for jury trials in many federal criminal trials, evidently including some not related to terrorism.

And so, Mr. Chairman, my reaction to the bill now before the House is similar to the one I had to the original ``Patriot Act'' legislation four years ago.

As I did then, I strongly support combating terrorism, here at home as well as abroad.

But I continue to think that it is essential that we remember and respect the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans as we wage war against those who would destroy both our Constitution and our country. In fact, I think that if we don't do that we will lose much of what we are seeking to defend.

And, now as then, I have concluded that for the reasons I have mentioned this bill as it stands--especially after rejection of the proposal to shorten the extension of expiring provisions--does not strike the right balance, and should not become law in its present form.

But, now as four years ago, I am hopeful that the bill will be further improved as the legislative process continues.

Four years ago, that did not happen. However, I think there is good reason to think that this time history will not repeat itself.

There evidently is considerable support in the other body--by Senators on both sides of the aisle--for provisions that would improve on this legislation. I hope and expect that the Senate will make such improvements and that in the end the result will be a measure that deserves the support of all Members of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), for yielding me this time and also for his kind words.

I also want to acknowledge my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman, and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), for the work we have all done together for this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the legislation strikes a productive and essential balance between NASA's core missions and provides important policy direction as the agency embarks on the Mars-Moon initiative. Though I hate to use a cliche, I believe NASA is at a crossroads with its many missions: the Space Shuttle will hopefully be returning to flight next week, after being grounded for nearly 2\1/2\ years; a Hubble Servicing Mission is being considered and prepared for; and NASA is looking to accelerate the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle; and research universities are anxiously awaiting news about the future of many of their projects with NASA.

As NASA moves forward with these initiatives, it is the opportune time for Congress to weigh in and provide NASA with long-term policy direction. The bill takes important steps to ensure that NASA continues its important investment in each of its core missions: science, aeronautics, and human space flight, including human exploration.

For example, it sets up a budgetary structure that separates NASA's human space flight and exploration accounts from its science, aeronautics, and education accounts.

In addition to establishing flexible firewalls between NASA accounts, it provides guidance on how to deal with subsequent cuts to the overall budget. Namely, any cuts to the NASA budget would reduce the authorizations for each of its accounts proportionally, ensuring one account does not make the bulk of the cut.

These provisions provide sound government policy to ensure that the intentions of Congress are followed and that NASA maintains a balance within its missions.

The bill contains a number of provisions that seek to establish better oversight of NASA. One I would specifically like to mention requires NASA to provide a transition plan to Congress and identify funds to support any transfer of programs from NASA to NOAA. This should not be considered a congressional endorsement of the transfer of Earth science missions or Earth observing systems from NASA to NOAA. Instead, it intends to ensure that all transfers are done openly.

H.R. 3070 also takes commonsense steps to review the extension of missions which have already met their original goals. With minimal investment, many missions, such as Voyager, can continue to provide useful data even though they have exceeded their original operational timelines.

The bill requires NASA to review each of the missions and assess the costs and benefits to continue these programs, thus allowing a maximum benefit from all of our investments. I would like to turn to four areas of particular importance to me in the bill: Aeronautics, education, remote sensing and the wonderful Hubble telescope.

I am pleased to see the inclusion of positive policy and funding guidance to NASA on revitalizing the aeronautics program at NASA. Historically, aeronautics has provided America with jobs, economic security, a positive input to our balance of trade, and technological advances for both commercial aviation and defense. However, recently those aeronautics investments have been declining with projections of continuing decline in the NASA budget. This all comes at a time when the European Union has announced a goal to become a leader in aeronautics by 2020 and is increasing R&D funding in aeronautics to $2.5 billion. If we are to remain competitive, we must revitalize our R&D programs to match what the European Union and other nations in the world are doing.

The aeronautics piece also names three breakthrough R&D initiatives in subsonic, supersonic and rotorcraft, as well as rejects the proposed decline in the aeronautics budget by authorizing increased R&D funding for 2006 and 2007. Overall the bill ensures that we continue to be a global leader in aeronautics.

As this body knows, and as the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) just shared with us, the United States is not graduating students in science, technology, engineering and math in the numbers required to sustain our current workforce. As we prepare for the return of flight with the Shuttle, young boys and girls are looking up to the astronaut corps and thinking one day they would like to become astronauts.

The bill provides specific emphasis on the education programs within NASA that excite and inspire our youth to continue to study in these fields. NASA's missions have the power to attract the American public, both young and old, and I believe we need to ensure that we utilize this excitement and encourage students to follow their childhood dreams of working with NASA.

I am pleased that the bill recognizes the importance of ensuring that our minority and economically disadvantaged young people have access to NASA's educational activities.

Turning to another topic, many of the American public only see NASA looking outward into space. However,

the agency's Earth science program provides valuable information about our own planet. NASA collects data about the Earth that has practical applications for States, tribal agencies, cities, and municipalities by providing geospatial data from satellites.

I am particularly interested because in my home State of Colorado, we have two of the leading companies involved in this important work, and many cities and counties in Colorado are working to address growth and sprawl. A bill that I have introduced which has been incorporated into this bill works to increase access to that data from both commercial and public sources.

Lastly, I am gratified that the bill calls for a human servicing mission to be scheduled once the Shuttle has returned to flight with appropriate safety precautions and provides authorization funding for the mission to service the Hubble telescope.

Hubble has truly become the people's telescope. Its data is accessible to scientists and nonscientists alike, and has allowed amateur astronomers of all ages to study our universe. I am pleased that NASA has already taken these steps towards a human servicing mission, and this bill affirms the congressional commitment to extending the life of Hubble.

In closing, I again want to acknowledge the great leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), for their work on the bill. This legislation has truly been the result of productive and positive dialogue and negotiations on both sides of the aisle. The staff has done a marvelous job in bringing us together as well. I believe this is the right policy for NASA, and I urge Members to support its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this manager's amendment.

I concur with the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and believe he has accurately summarized the strengths of the manager's amendment.

I have to tell my colleagues I am particularly heartened that the amendment adds additional provisions intended to improve participation by Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans, and other minorities in NASA's educational programs. In addition, it addresses some important concerns of the NASA workforce.

Finally, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Tennessee (Ranking Member Gordon), this amendment indicates that Congress supports exploration, but also that Congress is making clear that additional funding for exploration should not be obtained by cutting NASA's important science, aeronautics, and education programs. I think this is crucial policy guidance.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to again thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Ranking Member Gordon) for this very important piece of legislation, and salute the staff and everybody involved in the crafting of this legislation. I urge the adoption of the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of her important amendment. We all know that safety is a top priority for our space program and this is a sensible measure the House should support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the City of Louisville and to congratulate the citizens of this great community for the recent honor bestowed upon them. MONEY magazine and CNN spent months looking for towns across America worthy of being called ``Great American Towns.'' A criterion for the search included a safe, enjoyable environment in which anyone would want to raise their children. Out of more than 1,300 cities eligible for CNN/MONEY's ``Best Places to Live 2005,'' Louisville, Colorado placed fifth.

Louisville is located six miles from Boulder, a dynamic college town home to the University of Colorado, and just twenty-five miles from Denver, Colorado's metropolitan capital. Louisville started as a coal mining town in the 1880s, and has since grown to be home to some 19,000 residents and 1,700 acres of open space. While the city has undergone significant development from its humble beginnings, it has not forgotten its roots. The city gets much of its charm through the preservation of its history. Main Street is filled with historic buildings giving it an old-time feel, and the Louisville Historical Museum keeps the past alive for generations to come. Despite its nostalgic past, Louisville is forward thinking with a thriving high- tech industry. The combination of small-town history and charm juxtaposed with modern advantages are at the heart of Louisville's success.

Louisville enjoys a low crime rate, strong environmental values, affordable housing prices, and close proximity to the Rocky Mountains-- which provide boundless opportunities for outdoor activity including skiing, hiking, and camping.

Parades color Louisville's downtown streets on holidays. Schoolchildren discuss ways to improve the city in Youth Advisory Board meetings. Families watch classic movies in Louisville's picturesque parks. A lively, involved community keeps the city's traditions and a myriad of available activities alive.

I take great pride in representing Louisville, and commend Mayor Chuck Sisk and the city council for their work to ensure a safe and enjoyable community for its citizens. Cities like Louisville instill pride in the officials who govern them and the citizens who inhabit them, and serve to enrich the lives of all who live in them, work in them, or visit them.

Mr. Speaker, because my airline flight was delayed, on July 18th I was unable to be present for the vote on H. Res. 328, Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the workers' strikes in Poland in 1980 that led to the establishment of the Solidarity Trade Union. (rollcall number 380). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this bill.

It is an important bill. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act authorizes funding for 2 fiscal years for State Department programs, international broadcasting activities, international assistance programs, and related agencies. The bill authorizes a 12 percent increase in funding over fiscal year 2005, including funding increases for peacekeeping missions, embassy security and relief for Africa.

H.R. 2601 also includes a number of amendments that were passed during the bill's consideration on the floor. I voted against an amendment offered by Representative Hyde regarding reform of the United Nations. The amendment was based on the U.N. Reform Act, which I opposed--along with many of my colleagues--when it was considered as a stand-alone bill a month ago.

The U.N. is a critically important body that has taken on many of the world's problems and solved them--problems such as poverty, disease, and international disputes. And the U.S. has benefited from U.N. actions. Just recently, the U.N. helped with elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and helped negotiate the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon.

But I share the view that the United Nations needs to be improved so it can better carry out its indispensable role. It has serious problems, as exemplified by the oil-for-food scandal and offenses committed by U.N. peacekeeping forces.

So, I support U.N. reform--but I could not support the approach the amendment takes toward achieving that objective. It would require the Secretary of State to push for reforms at the U.N. in the areas of budgeting, oversight and accountability, peacekeeping, and human rights. That is something that needs to be done. But if the Secretary of State cannot certify that the reforms have been achieved, starting in 2007, the Secretary would be required to withhold 50 percent of the U.S. assessed contributions to the U.N.'s regular budget. The assessed U.S. contributions are estimated at $362 million for 2005, and $439 million for 2006.

I think such a punitive and unilateral approach to reform will not work. I think its primary result would be to further isolate the United States while at the same time actually undermining ongoing efforts at reform and potentially jeopardizing the U.N.'s ability to focus on global threats and work toward greater global stability.

I also voted in reluctant support of an amendment offered by Representative Rohrabacher regarding detainees at Guantanamo.

I supported it because I believe it is important to support an amendment that highlights the continuing threat of terrorism and the continuing necessity of disrupting terrorist activities and protecting the security of the United States. But my support was reluctant because the amendment inaccurately and incompletely characterizes the debate on the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and what goes on there.

It calls the capture, detention, and interrogation of international terrorists essential to the successful prosecution of the war on terrorism and the defense of the United States. Certainly no one can disagree with this.

The amendment also states that the detention and lawful, humane interrogation by the U.S. of detainees at Guantanamo is essential to the defense of the United States and to the prosecution of the war on terrorism. It is similarly hard to disagree with this statement. But the point is that detentions at Guantanamo haven't been consistently lawful or humane.

The amendment finally states that Guantanamo is so essential to the defense of the United States that it should not be closed while the U.S. is waging the war on terrorism. That is an overstatement, in my opinion.

``Gitmo'' is now infamous around the world as a place where detainees have been mistreated and the Koran mishandled. There are over 500 detainees remaining at Guantanamo--some who have been there for 3 years without being charged with a crime. We still don't know the extent of the abuses since there hasn't been any independent commission appointed to look into all the allegations. But whether prisoner abuse is limited or widespread, there is a perception that bad things have happened at Guantanamo, and this perception only makes it easier for terrorists to find willing recruits.

An independent commission could offer recommendations about what to do with the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo as well as about the situation at detention facilities all over the world. Closing Guantanamo may well be the best option, but it is an option we cannot consider without also considering accompanying changes to the whole detention system.

The Rohrabacher amendment didn't allow consideration of these finer points, and my support for it should not be seen as endorsement of its language.

I also reluctantly voted for an amendment offered by Representative Ros-Lehtinen regarding our military activities in Iraq. The amendment states that U.S. policy is to transfer responsibility for Iraqi security to Iraqi forces and that the U.S. should only withdraw ``when it is clear that United States national security and foreign policy goals relating to a free and stable Iraq have been or are about to be achieved.'' I agree.

In fact, most people agree on a policy of transferring responsibility for security to Iraqi forces. But saying we will only withdraw when our goals are met is problematic. That's because the administration's goals in Iraq are far from clear--the Defense Department shifts its focus on a daily basis, and it has resisted requests to establish metrics or measurements to help us determine when these goals have been or ``are about to be achieved.'' So given that we aren't sure of our goals, this part of the amendment is largely without meaning. It would have been better to include the language proposed in the motion to recommit, which I supported.

Recent calls for withdrawal have come about because there is rising opposition in this country to the administration's policy in Iraq. But I believe that just as rushing into Iraq was a mistake, rushing to get out would also be a mistake. We do need to send a signal to the Muslim world that America has no desire to stay in Iraq, but we must also make clear the importance we place on transferring responsibility for security to the Iraqis and on supporting efforts to assist the new Iraqi Government draft a constitution.

This must not be our last word on Iraq. Though not unexpected, it is disappointing that the Republicans continue to politicize our policy in Iraq through cleverly drafted amendments and resolutions intended solely to pigeonhole Members into black and white positions.

In conclusion, except for the parts related to the United Nations, the bill is basically sound and deserves approval so that the legislative process can go forward.