Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong objection to this rule. It allows debate on some important amendments, but leaves out many more, some of them dealing with key issues that I believe the House should have an opportunity to consider.

As a new member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am grateful to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for working with me on a number of provisions on the bill that are important to my State of Colorado.

But I am disappointed that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the committee did not see it fit to work with Democrats on issues of additional importance to the Nation.

Last week, the Committee on Armed Services voted for the Taylor amendment to provide TRICARE to all Reservists on a permanent basis. But this language was removed due to budget constraints, and the Committee on Rules refused to make the Taylor amendment in order.

The Committee on Rules also precluded debate on the Spratt amendment to increase spending on nonproliferation programs, on the excellent Tauscher amendment on sharing reports on detainee treatment, and on an amendment I offered with my colleague, a bipartisan amendment to help former nuclear weapons workers in Colorado who are suffering from cancer related to exposure to radiation.

The rule also precludes debate on the Skelton-Snyder-Wilson-Shimkus amendment that should have been offered, another bipartisan amendment, to strike the provisions saying that any positions currently closed to women shall remain closed.

Many more amendments worthy of consideration were not made in order, Mr. Speaker.

My friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) mentioned that in the committee the bill was voted out almost unanimously, but that does not mean that on the floor we cannot improve it. There are many of these amendments that should have been made in order.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule. It stifles debate and I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong objection to this rule. It allows debate on some important amendments but leaves out many more, some of them dealing with key issues that I believe the House should have an opportunity to consider.

As a new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to Chairman Hunter for working with me on a number of provisions in the bill that are important to me and my state of Colorado. But I'm disappointed that Mr. Hunter and the Committee didn't see fit to work with the Democrats on additional issues of importance to the nation and to the prosecution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm sure that the views of the Republican leadership of the Armed Services Committee influenced the deliberations of the Rules Committee and thus the final rule that was adopted. But it is the Rules Committee--not the Armed Services Committee--that determines which amendments are made in order.

Last week the Armed Services Committee voted for Representative Taylor's amendment to provide TRICARE to all Reservists on a permanent basis. But Chairman Hunter took the language out due to budget constraints, and the Rules Committee refused to make Mr. Taylor's amendment in order. The Rules Committee also precluded debate on Representative Spratt's amendment to increase spending on nonproliferation programs, on Representative Tauscher's excellent amendment on sharing reports on detainee treatment with Congress, and on an amendment I offered with my colleague Representative Beauprez to help former nuclear weapons workers in Colorado who are suffering from cancer and other conditions related to their exposure to radiation and other hazards.

The rule also precludes debate on an amendment to be offered by Representatives Skelton, Snyder, Wilson and Shimkus to strike the provision saying that any positions currently closed to women shall remain closed. Mr. Hunter will offer an amendment that waters down the provision slightly but combines it with other provisions, thus preventing a clean up or down vote on this very important issue.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. It is deficient in many ways, but it includes critical provisions that I think are necessary. So I will vote for it.

As a new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to Chairman Hunter for working with me on a number of provisions in the bill that are important to me and my state of Colorado.

The bill incorporates an amendment I offered to reauthorize for one year the Welcome Home Warrior and Freedom Salute programs for the Army Reserve and Army and Air National Guard. Both programs are first and foremost recruiting and retention programs. They help reintroduce returning soldiers to civilian life and honor them with gifts of flags, lapel pins and other items honoring their service. Especially given the amount of strain our citizen soldiers are under, it's all the more important that we take the time to let them know how much their service and sacrifices mean to their communities and to the nation.

The bill also includes language directing the Secretary of the Army to evaluate the type of aircraft available in the Army's inventory that can replace aging equipment currently in use at High-Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) in Eagle, CO. HAATS, which is operated by the Colorado Army National Guard, is the primary site for training military pilots on operations in hostile and high-altitude environments under all weather conditions. The training that is done at HAATS is essential to reduce the number of accidents our forces have recently experienced when operating in high mountainous areas, such as Afghanistan and Northern Iraq. But the training site currently uses aircraft that are being phased out this year, and no replacement aircraft have been programmed. So I'm glad that the Chairman has pledged to work with me to help HAATS continue to provide its important training.

I was pleased that the bill includes favorable language on the Pueblo Chemical Depot, a former chemical weapons site located in southeastern Colorado. Coloradans were alarmed last year when the demilitarization project was put on hold, so they want to see that DoD is committed to using the neutralization technology to destroy the 2,600 tons of mustard agent stored at Pueblo--not transporting the weapons to a different site for destruction. The Colorado delegation has worked hard to put the project back on the right track, so I am grateful for language in the bill directing the Secretary of the Army to continue to implement fully the neutralization technology at Pueblo.

I also want to call attention to language that would transfer program responsibility from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to the Secretary of the Army. I understand that objection to this transfer in the past was due to the preference of the Program Manager for Chemical Destruction under the Department of the Army for baseline incineration. Now that DoD is committed to the neutralization approach, and given the numerous GAO reports and testimony to Congress stating that effective management of the chemical demilitarization program has been hindered by the complexity of its management structure, it appears to make sense to pursue the transfer. Still, I've asked the Chairman to follow this move closely to ensure that this proposed change in oversight of the project doesn't change the path forward for the development of the neutralization technology.

Finally, I'm pleased that the bill includes $6.4 million for the Air National Guard Station at Greeley for the Space Warning Squadron Support Facility as well as $5.5 million for the Network Information and Space Security Center (NISSC) at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. These funds will enable Colorado's Air National Guard to replace its outdated facility and allow NISSC to expand its programs and services through a multidisciplinary homeland security lab environment.

There are also many broad provisions in the bill that benefit our troops. An important one increases the active duty Army and Marine Corp by 10,000 and 1,000 respectively, thereby helping to ease the strain on our troops. I'm also glad that the bill includes provisions to increase recruiting and retention incentives, increase the death gratuity to $100,000, and provide a 3.1 percent pay raise for members of the armed forces. The bill also provides better force protection for our troops, including nearly doubled funding for up-armored Humvees.

Also important--especially at this time of budget tightening--is the bill's focus on reining in costs of major procurement programs, particularly the Future Combat Systems and other programs that have relied on immature technology.

On a less positive note, I am concerned that the bill authorizes nearly $50 billion in a ``bridge fund''--over and above the $440 billion in the regular bill--for FY06 supplemental

appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror. While inclusion in the bill does mean that the authorizing process has been followed to an extent, still, the additional money in this bridge fund should be included in the regular budget request, since there is nothing unexpected about the need for these funds. The ``emergency'' label that these funds bear hides the fact that they do increase the size of the budget deficit. I don't believe this is a responsible way for us to pay for our military operations.

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

Last week the Armed Services Committee voted for Representative Taylor's amendment to provide TRICARE to all Reservists on a permanent basis. But Chairman Hunter took the language out due to budget constraints, and the Rules Committee refused to make Mr. Taylor's amendment in order. I agree with my colleague Representative Taylor that as long as our nation continues to use our reserve components in the same capacities as active duty troops, they deserve similar benefits for similar service. The needs of our Reservists will continue to grow as we continue to call them to service in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Republicans put off this decision on TRICARE to another day.

The Rules Committee also precluded debate on Representative Spratt's amendment to increase spending on nonproliferation programs. As Mr. Spratt pointed out, we are currently spending less on the cooperative threat reduction program than we did before September 11th. President Bush agreed with Senator Kerry in one of the presidential debates that the biggest danger we face is the threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. Yet this bill doesn't provide funding for our nonproliferation programs commensurate with this threat.

I am disappointed that debate was not allowed on Representative Tauscher's excellent amendment on sharing reports on detainee treatment with Congress or on an amendment I offered with my colleague Representative Beauprez to help former nuclear weapons workers in Colorado who are suffering from cancer and other conditions related to their exposure to radiation and other hazards.

I'm very relieved that the majority saw fit to scale back for the second time language that was first proposed two weeks ago in the Personnel Subcommittee on which I serve. That language would have removed women from Army combat support and combat service support units in which they currently serve, a move that would have affected many thousands of women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week's amendment watered down the initial language, codifying the status quo with regard to positions women currently hold in the military. Along with my colleagues in the Armed Services Committee, I objected to this revised language because it would take flexibility away from our commanders who need to make their own decisions about battlefield needs. So last week's amendment meant that if one of the services wanted to expand or change positions open to women, this could only be done through a change in the law. Ranking Member Skelton said it best: ``By limiting women to only those jobs they perform today, it will be more difficult for commanders to adapt their forces to the changing needs of current operations around the world.''

Given the current difficulties our military is facing with recruitment and retention, it doesn't make sense to tie the hands of our commanders, discourage women from joining the armed forces, or create confusion among our troops. So I'm glad that Chairman Hunter revised his language yet again in the manager's amendment today. This final provision requires the Defense Department to provide more detailed reporting if the services want to expand the role of women, and establishes a longer waiting period following notice to Congress before those changes can go into effect.

Finally, I want to discuss an amendment brought to the floor by our colleague from California, Ms. Woolsey.

This is an annual authorization bill, but its provisions will have lasting effects beyond the next fiscal year. So, I sympathized with those who supported the amendment calling for the Administration to tell us how they intend to complete the work we have undertaken to do in Iraq. But, after careful consideration, I decided that I could not support the Woolsey amendment.

That does not mean I am confident that the Administration has a clear blueprint--in fact, just the opposite. I opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq because I thought other alternatives had not been exhausted. And events since then have made clear that while the Administration planned for invasion, they lacked a plan for what would follow.

But just as rushing into Iraq was a mistake, rushing to get out would also be a mistake. Ms. Woolsey's amendment may be helpful in sending an important signal to the Muslim world that America has no desire to stay in Iraq, but it fails to address the necessary linkage between an exit strategy and security. Moreover, I am persuaded that this is not the moment for Congress to cast what the insurgents predictably would describe as a vote of no confidence in our efforts to assist the new Iraqi government to draft a constitution and to develop the police and military forces needed to maintain order so that the Iraqi people can decide in free and fair elections whether to ratify that document.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. And the process under which it was debated was not all that it should have been. But, overall, the bill deserves to pass and I urge its approval.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this bill because without enactment of such an extension the current transportation law will expire on May 31, 2005. It is critical that transportation programs and projects continue while Congress continues to work toward their long-term renewal.

With that being said I feel it important that Congress act swiftly and pass into law a long-term authorization for highway and mass transit programs. The number of continuing extensions passed by Congress have not provided state Departments of Transportations (DOT)s, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO)s, cities and municipalities the certainty they need to plan for, manage and fund their transportation priorities.

I am hopeful Congress acts quickly to resolve the differences between the House and Senate version so that we can invest the needed long term resources to create jobs and address transportation challenges facing the Colorado and United States.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for organizing this important hour tonight. I concur with the remarks of the gentleman from Colorado and we enjoyed your leadership. I would duly note that it took two Coloradans to take care of one Nebraskan, but that is usually the situation we face out West.

This, too, was my second trip to Iraq. We were there last September as well. I have to say as we left Iraq, we had a feeling that although the armed services personnel and the great civilians and the State Department are always optimistic, there was a greater sense of optimism, particularly on the heels of the election that was held at the end of January.

I would also say, this is kind of unusual to have both Democrats and Republicans in a special order. I am here to listen as much to my colleagues' perspectives on our very fascinating time spent in Iraq and Jordan, and I am eager to hear all of my colleagues' impressions.

I have a couple of things to add. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) covered many of the important interactions we had in Iraq, and particularly when we were on the shores of the Dead Sea with the 150 Iraqi women who had traveled 2 and 3 days across Iraq. A number had been robbed and detained along the way, but they were there because they wanted to have a say in the future of their country.

We were also joined by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), and they added a very important perspective to the conference itself. But you cannot come home and not feel a connection to those brave women, very brave women who were risking their lives every day.

The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) mentioned our trip through Ramstein Air Base on our way home, and what a facility that is, along with the world-class Landstuhl Hospital. We had an opportunity to see the jointness that we hear so much about within DOD. It was seamless. You could not tell whether the personnel in a particular setting was a Marine, sailor, airman, or soldier. For that, the DOD is to be commended because we are creating this synergy that in the end continues to put us on the cutting edge.

I think it is notable also to acknowledge the important role the Jordanians are playing in the Middle East. We were staged out of Jordan. We spent time in Amman. We received important briefings from our embassy staff. And King Abdullah and his government and the people of Jordan are a key part of the efforts in the Middle East.

On the flight over and then on the flight back, as you peer out the windows of the jet, we looked down over Israel for that short time frame that it takes to fly over Israel, and you understand the importance of the geography and the strategic and special relationship we have with Israel. They are, of course, a key player in this effort that we are all involved to stabilize and create free and democratic systems in the Middle East.

If I could just at this point conclude, I think it is important to acknowledge that there were different points of view in our delegation. You have to number me as one who had misgivings about the war in Iraq and the approach that we took. But now that we are there, my attitude is that we have to find a way clear to stabilize the situation and make good on our promises to the Iraqi people. In that undertaking, I think we are neither Democrats nor Republicans nor members of other political parties; we are Americans with a commitment to that part of the world.

The strategy to all of us is clear. It has three sections. As we have done, we have to hold the elections and support the standing up of this new government and it still has a ways to travel. That is well under way.

The second, and we heard a great deal about this from General Casey, General Petraeus and other military leaders, is to support the Iraqi security forces, the police and the military.

The third part of the strategy is to create a more stable environment in Iraq, which means providing jobs and electricity and clean water.

These three parts are all interactive. We have to stay committed and support our men and women in uniform.

I would just conclude by sharing, the men and women there are performing magnificently. Their commitment to each other, the mission, and to the United States of America and to the world at large is exemplary. I think we all came back the better for those interactions with the men and women in uniform in Iraq. For that, I am deeply grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for convening all of us, and I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman.

I wanted to also acknowledge that the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) joined us there, along with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

The other insight I had, and we shared this with General Casey and Dr. Jafari, local governments are going to be crucial to success in Iraq. After I returned, we had Baghdad city council members visit Denver, and I know the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) met with them. They are the people who are in charge of making sure the lights are on, the garbage is collected and the potholes are filled and that local services are delivered. If we do that and they do that, then the local Iraqi people will see the benefits of self-government.

We pay a lot of attention to the national government, and it is important, because they will be charged with the defense of the Nation and they will present the face of Iraq to the world, but those local governments are crucial. The civil affairs officers in our military and the civilian non-government organizations that are there, we need to remember that we have to support them in every way possible.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect. But it provides appropriate funding for many important purposes, and I will vote for it.

Subcommittee Chairman Hobson, ranking member Visclosky, and their colleagues on the Appropriations Committee deserve our thanks for their work on this legislation.

Their task was made harder by the restrictions imposed by the budget resolution championed by the Republican leadership, and the bill does not include some things that I think should have been funded. But I think they have done a good job with the allocation of funds available to them, and the bill does include some items of particular importance to Coloradans.

In particular, I am very pleased that it will provide nearly $580 million to continue--and, I hope, complete--the cleanup of Rocky Flats.

Formed by the location of a facility for making key parts of nuclear weapons, the Rocky Flats site is located just 15 miles from downtown Denver and at one time was the location of large quantities of nuclear materials and other hazardous substances. Because of its proximity to our state's major metropolitan area, timely and effective cleanup and closure of the site has been a matter of top priority for all Coloradans.

With the funding provided by this bill and barring unforeseen developments, the Department of Energy and its contractor, Kaiser-Hill, should be able to complete the cleanup in the coming months--and while the department will have ongoing responsibilities at Rocky Flats, completing the cleanup will enable it to focus even more intently on the cleanup work to be done at other sites. So, I strongly support this part of the bill.

However, while we are taking care of the site, it is essential that we also take care of those who worked there. Some of them were made sick because of exposure to beryllium, radiation, or other hazards. It was because of them, and those like them who worked at other sites, that I worked with our colleagues from Kentucky and Ohio, Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Strickland, as well as others in both the House and Senate, and with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and his colleagues in the Clinton Administration, to pass the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). I am proud to have been able to help get this program enacted and I will continue working to improve it for those who have worked at Rocky Flats and other sites.

And, we need to also remember the other workers at Rocky Flats as well. As they near the completion of their jobs at the site, they are understandably concerned about what will come next. Many have moved on to other jobs, and others will do so. But many are facing uncertainties about their futures. For all of them, it is essential that DOE acts promptly to resolve remaining questions about the futures they can expect when their work at Rocky Flats is finished.

For that reason, I recently wrote to ask Secretary Bodman to give immediate attention to two important matters--(1) determining the future administration of pension and health insurance plans for Rocky Flats workers (and for those at other closure sites as well); and (2) assuring the continued availability of medical benefits for Rocky Flats workers who will not be eligible for full retirement at the time of the site's closure.

I pointed out that DOE's Office of Legacy Management (LM) has stated that it is developing a plan for the transition of pension and insurance plans, as well as for record keeping and other matters for which LM is responsible. However, I also noted that no such plan yet exists, which means there is increasing concern among the Rocky Flats workers about their future.

There now remain only a few months for these matters to be resolved prior to closure. Time is of the essence. So, I was very glad to note that the Committee Report accompanying this bill directs DOE to report by September 30, 2005, on the Department's plan for a national stewardship contract for administration of the pension and benefit payments to former Environmental Management closure site contractor employees. I applaud the committee for including this directive, and urge the Administration to complete and submit this report as soon as possible.

The bill also includes other matters of particular importance for Colorado. It provides funding for several Bureau of Reclamation projects in our state, including the Colorado-Big Thompson project and the Fryingpan-Arkansas project as well as the ongoing construction of the Animas-La Plata project. It also includes needed funds for operation and maintenance of a number of reservoirs operated by the Army's Corps of Engineers as well as for other Corps activities in Colorado.

And I am very glad to note that the bill will provide funds for completing construction of the new science and technology facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

I am disappointed, however, that the bill shortchanges some of the important clean energy programs at NREL. As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I have worked for years to increase--or at a minimum, hold steady--funding for DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development programs.

Given the finite supply and high prices of fossil fuels and increasing global demand, investing in clean energy is more important than ever. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our nation's interests, helping provide strategies and tools to address the environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades. These programs are also helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports, thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds of new domestic businesses, Supporting thousands of American jobs, and opening new international markets for American goods and services.

For our investment in these technologies to payoff, our efforts must be sustained over the long term. This bill does not do that. This bill is $23 million less than last year's bill in the

area of renewable energy research. This includes cuts in biomass, geothermal, and solar energy programs. I believe that the reductions in funding levels for the core renewable energy programs are ill-advised at a time when the need for a secure, domestic energy supply is so crucial.

I am also concerned about the bill's deep cuts to energy efficiency programs such as Industrial Technologies ($16 million) and State Energy Program Grants (nearly $4 million) and a cut of nearly $5 million in the Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program.

Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, my regrets about this bill are outweighed by my appreciation for the good things that it includes, and so I urge the House to pass this important appropriations bill.

Madam Chairman, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that this bill does not deserve approval, and so I will not vote for it.

This is not a criticism of Chairman Taylor, Congressman Dicks, and the other members of the Appropriations Committee who had the unenviable task of developing the bill. The budget authority allocated to the Interior and Environment Subcommittee fell far short of the amount needed to adequately fund the agencies and activities within their jurisdiction. That in turn was the result of the unrealistic and inadequate budget resolution that the Republican leadership pushed through the Congress earlier this year. But while the shortcomings of the bill are understandable, they are nonetheless so serious that I cannot vote for it.

Among the worst are its severe reductions in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. It cuts EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund by $242 million below the 2005 funding level. This will mean that many communities in Colorado and elsewhere will be adversely affected as projects that have already been approved by State water authorities for future funding probably will be rejected, scaled back, or substantially delayed.

The wrong-headedness of this is clear when we recall that just two years ago EPA Administrator Whitman issued a formal report, entitled the ``Water Gap Analysis,'' which estimated the twenty-year fiscal shortfall between what we are currently spending and what is required at $388 billion.

Further, the bill includes cuts beyond those required by the budget resolution. Perhaps the most notable is the reduction of $190 million of Land and Water Conservation Act funding, including funding for all new Federal land acquisitions as well as all assistance to States. This, too, is something that I cannot support.

In Colorado and across the county there is a need for wise reinvestments of the funds coming into the treasury from oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. The wise principle of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act is that these short-term gains should be used to provide long-term assets for the American people. This bill turns its back on that principle.

Of course, there are some good things in this bill. I am particularly glad that because of the adoption of an amendment I sponsored along with Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Cannon it includes $242 million for the payments in lieu of taxes--or PILT--program that is so important to local governments in Colorado and across the country. This is only about 80 percent of the amount authorized for PILT, but it is a great improvement over the amount proposed by the administration--which sought a cut of $26 million below last year's level.

Nonetheless, overall, the bill falls woefully short of what is needed and I do not think it deserves to pass.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with my colleague from Wyoming and a number of other colleagues from the West and from the East in support of this bipartisan amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

The amendment would increase funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT program, by $12 million. The result would be to bring the bill total for PILT to about 80 percent of the authorized amount. That would not be enough, in my opinion, but it would be a definite improvement.

PILT payments go to every State except Rhode Island, as well as to the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, as we see on the map here. So PILT is a nationwide program, this amendment is important for local governments across the country. But it is particularly important for Western States because we have the largest amounts of public lands, again as we can see on the map. PILT payments help local governments pay for vital services like firefighting and police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search and rescue operations. So it should be something local governments can count on without becoming hostage to debates over the management of Federal lands.

But as things stand now, PILT is neither stable nor dependable because the amount of each year's payments is decided by annual appropriations. We were reminded about that when the President's budget proposed a $26 million cut in PILT. This would have been devastating for Colorado. So I am glad the Committee on Appropriations rejected this idea, and I applaud them for including $230 million in the bill for PILT. However, that is still less than the full authorized amount.

That is why I support this amendment and that is why I urge the House to adopt it to bring us closer to full funding.

If I can conclude, the gentlewoman of Wyoming mentioned that it is unnecessary to continue debating PILT every year as a part of the appropriations process. She has a bill that would phase in full funding for PILT over 3 years. I have also introduced a bill with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) that would provide permanent automatic funding, and I hope the Committee on Resources will take this up in the near future.

But in the meantime we should pass this very bipartisan amendment, which will help counties all over our great country.

Mr. Chairman, I support passage of this important bill--the first-ever authorization bill for the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The bill includes many provisions that will improve Americans' security. These include authority for recruitment and training of 2,000 new border agents, better screening of incoming cargo, and improved background checks for people taking part in programs regulated by the

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the FY 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This is not a perfect bill, but it provides much needed funds to make our country safer.

Total funding in the bill is increased from this year's levels, with significant increases over the requested levels for immigration and for customs enforcement and border protection. Funding for port, transit and aviation security is also much improved over the president's budget request.

Still, I'm concerned about shortfalls in the bill. It cuts fire grants by 16 percent, even as a recent survey found that fire departments all over the country are not prepared to respond to a haz- mat incident and lack equipment. The bill cuts State homeland security formula grants, local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants, and urban area security grants by 14 percent. The bill does provide additional funding for border patrol, but the number of agents still falls 500 short of the 2,000 called for in the Intelligence Reform bill. Since September 11, just 965 additional border patrol agents have been hired--less than a 10 percent increase in 4 years.

I am pleased that the House adopted an amendment offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin to provide funding to help States comply with the REAL ID Act. Estimates are that complying with the Act will cost the States between $100 million and $500 million over the next 4 years. Since the majority saw fit to push the REAL ID provisions through Congress, it is important that Congress also provides funding to do the job.

I opposed the amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo which would block any Homeland Security funding from going to State and local governments if their law enforcement is prohibited from reporting immigration information to the Federal Government.

I believe that linking this provision to vital homeland security funds could have unintended consequences for our national security. Since 9/11, national security has become a national priority, and State and local governments play an essential role in assisting the Department of Homeland Security to improve the security in this country.

Under current law passed in 1996, it is already illegal for law enforcement to restrict the reporting of immigration information to the Federal Government. I support this law, and believe it should be fully enforced. The efforts of State and local governments to enhance our security should not be undermined because the Federal Government has not properly enforced immigration law.

We should be providing States with resources to improve security, not taking these resources away. By underfunding and allowing the weakening of security in some States and localities due to their lack of reporting illegal immigrants to immigration officials, the Federal Government would in effect be contributing to the weakening of our national security.

Mr. Chairman, much remains to be done to improve our defenses against terrorism, but this bill is an important step, and I will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the ``Aeronautics Research

and Development Act of 2005''. I am pleased to be joined in this initiative by I the following cosponsors of this legislation: Representative John Larson, who submitted legislation on this topic in the 108th Congress that has provided a solid foundation for my bill; Representative Jo Ann Davis, Representative Gordon, Representative Kucinich, and Representative Bobby Scott. We would welcome additional Members joining us as sponsors once they have had a chance to review the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, 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 to our international competitiveness. In addition, aeronautical goods and services have long provided a major positive input to our balance of trade.

Yet progress in aeronautics is important for reasons beyond the health of our trade balance. Aeronautics R&D can enable advances in the capability of our nation's air transportation system to handle the enormous increases in air travel projected over the next twenty years. Aeronautics R&D can enable more environmentally compatible commercial aircraft, with significantly lower noise, emissions, and energy consumption compared to aircraft in commercial service today. Such new aircraft would not only improve the quality of life but would also open new markets. Aeronautics R&D can also enable new markets and services through the development of technologies that will allow supersonic commercial aircraft to fly over populated areas with no adverse environmental impacts, as well as the development of technologies that will greatly increase the capabilities of rotorcraft and other runway- independent air vehicles to serve civil needs. Finally, aeronautics R&D can lead to new concepts for protecting our Nation.

However, all of the new capabilities that I have described will only be possible if this Nation is committed to making the investments in aeronautics R&D that are necessary to achieve those goals. The unfortunate reality is that America currently is not investing enough in NASA's aeronautics program. Moreover, if nothing is done to correct the situation, NASA's aeronautics program is scheduled to suffer additional cuts over the next five years, cuts that will jeopardize the very foundations of our national aeronautics R&D capabilities.

You don't have to take my word for it--there have been a series of reports by independent committees over the last few years that have expressed deep concern over the state of the U.S. aeronautics R&D enterprise. In addition, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, on which I am privileged to serve as Ranking Member, held a hearing on March 16th of this year at which all of the distinguished non- governmental witnesses expressed the view that aeronautics is at risk in the U.S. That hearing also highlighted the seriousness with which Europe is approaching future investments in aeronautical R&D. The European governments have made it clear that Europe seeks to become the world leader in aeronautics technology by 2020.

Yet it doesn't have to be that way. It's not inevitable that our national commitment to cutting-edge aeronautics R&D has to decline. We can have an exciting, robust NASA aeronautics program that meets important national needs. We just need to do two things: provide a clear direction for NASA's aeronautics activities and provide the resources necessary for NASA to maintain a world-class aeronautics R&D enterprise.

That is the intent of the bill that I am introducing today: the ``Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2005''.

This Act contains a number of important provisions. First, it states clearly and unambiguously that: ``It shall be the policy of the United States to reaffirm the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 and its identification of aeronautical research and development as a core mission of NASA. Further, it shall be the policy of the United States to promote aeronautical research and development that will expand the capacity, ensure the safety, and increase the efficiency of the Nation's air transportation system, promote the security of the Nation, protect the environment, and retain the leadership of the United States in global aviation.'' The bill starts with this policy statement because I believe that it is critically important that we have a national policy for aeronautics research and development--one that recognizes the importance of aeronautics R&D and gives some guidance for the conduct of that research.

The bill next establishes three ``breakthrough'' R&D initiatives in subsonic, supersonic, and rotorcraft and other runway-independent air vehicle aeronautics. The intent is to set some challenging R&D goals that will push the state of the art across a range of aeronautical science and engineering disciplines as well as deliver technologies that will change existing air transportation paradigms and help open new markets in an environmentally responsible manner.

The third Title of the bill focuses on ensuring the overall health of the nation's aeronautics research enterprise. To that end, it reestablishes a fundamental research and technology program within NASA that is not tied to specific development projects. NASA used to have such a program, and I believe that, properly managed, it can provide the foundation on which future progress in aeronautics will be based.

I also wanted to ensure that NASA maintains its involvement in Airspace Systems research and Aviation Safety and Security research, because I believe those are crucial to the development of a safe and efficient national air transportation system. At the same time, I want to make sure that NASA's efforts are appropriately aligned with the plans and objectives of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO)--the interagency office that has responsibility for developing the next generation air transportation system. It is essential that the JPDO succeed, and I believe that NASA's research can play an important role in ensuring its success.

Next, I have included a provision that clearly defines a policy for the operation of NASA's aeronautical test facilities. As was noted at the recent Subcommittee hearing on aeronautics, NASA's full cost recovery policy has had a ruinous effect on the maintenance of its test facilities, and decisions to shut facilities down are being made for budgetary reasons instead of first addressing whether the facilities have strategic importance. This bill would undo that unwise policy.

The bill also highlights a number of other research areas that should be supported. These include hypersonics, a research area in which some exciting accomplishments have been made over the last several years that offer promise of significant future advances. In addition, the bill establishes speculative research initiatives to develop and test concepts for a zero emissions aircraft and an uncrewed aircraft that could operate in the atmosphere of Mars. These are research initiatives that could help excite the next generation of aeronautics professionals if properly structured to allow significant involvement by the university research community.

With respect to that next generation, the bill recognizes the need to get more American students to pursue studies in aeronautical engineering. To that end, the bill establishes a program of graduate scholarships to encourage students to pursue aeronautical engineering careers.

Finally, we come to the question of funding the programs contained in this bill. While some would argue that we need to double the aeronautics budget immediately if we are to reverse the negative trends in the state of U.S. aeronautics R&D, I do not believe that such an increase is possible in the current fiscal environment. In addition, I do not believe it is necessary over the short term. Instead, I believe that the highest priority is to refocus and strengthen NASA's approach to aeronautics R&D by a combination of challenging R&D projects and wise stewardship of its workforce and facilities. A budget that returns NASA to its FY 2004 aeronautics funding level of $1.057 billion for FY 2006 and provides modest annual increases over the next five years will do much to put NASA on a path that will allow it to put its aeronautics house in order and position it for a highly productive future.

Mr. Speaker, aeronautics R&D is important to the nation. NASA's aeronautics program has long been the centerpiece of those research efforts. We need keep NASA's aeronautics activities healthy and productive. I believe that the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2005 can help strengthen the Nation's aeronautics R&D enterprise, and I hope that it will receive early consideration by this body.

Mr. Speaker, these days of early May mark the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Last week, as we observed the days of remembrance for those who perished in the Holocaust, I noted that we need to remember history because looking back can help us to understand the world around us and to interpret events that may lie ahead.

This is important for our country and the world because our fate, and the fate of humanity, depends on our remembering and our understanding.

President Bush has been in Europe to mark the victory over Hitler. I am glad that he went, and I especially applaud him for visiting Latvia and Georgia. This was the right thing to do to demonstrate that America has not forgotten that the end of the war in Europe did not mean the end of oppression for millions of people who found themselves behind the Iron Curtain.

But learning from history depends on getting history right. And that's why I share the concerns of the Rocky Mountain News about part of the president's comments.

Speaking in Riga, Latvia, the president correctly noted that ``For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression.'' That was accurate, well put, and needed to be said.

However, regrettably, the president went on to say ``The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable''--a statement that at best is erroneous and that at worse reflects an intentional distortion of history.

As an editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News notes, ``Yalta did not leave the continent divided. The continent was already divided because Soviet armies were encamped in much of Eastern Europe and were not about to budge.'' In other words, the division of Europe was a fact before the Yalta conference began.

That is reality. But to somehow equate Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill with Molotov and Ribbentrop is something else entirely--either the product of a ``delusion,'' as the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has suggested, or the revival of an intentional distortion that once was a political weapon for opponents of some of the president's predecessors.

As the historian David Greenberg, writing in Slate has noted, ``Along with the myth of FDR's treachery in leading America into war, the `stab in the back' interpretation of Yalta became a cudgel with which the old right and their McCarthyite heirs tried to discredit a president they had long despised. Renouncing Yalta even became a plank in the 1952 Republican platform, although Eisenhower did not support it. In time, however, these hoary myths receded into the shadows, dimly remembered except as a historical curiosity, where, alas, they should have remained undisturbed.''

In short, Mr. Speaker, we should remember history but not be misled by myths.

Here is the full text of the editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News:

[From the Rocky Mountain News, May 11, 2005]

President Goes Too Far

President Bush has taken surprisingly little heat--but

deserves more--for his remarks in Latvia in which he equated

President Franklin Roosevelt's conduct at Yalta with Neville

Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler in 1938 and the

division of Poland by Hitler and Joseph Stalin in 1939.

``The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition

of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,'' Bush said.

``Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the

freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this

attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a

continent divided and unstable.''

But Yalta did not leave the continent divided. The

continent was already divided because Soviet armies were

encamped in much of Eastern Europe and were not about to

budge. It is true that Yalta's promise of free elections for

Eastern Europe, given Stalin's record, amounted to the height

of naivete, wishful thinking or cynicism. But even so, there

is a vast difference between engineering oppression (Munich

and Molotov-Ribbentrop) and sugar-coating its existence on

the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Joseph B. Blake of Denver, Colorado, for his commitment to entrepreneurship, economic development, education and improving the quality of life in one of America's fastest growing communities-- Denver, Colorado.

Modern achievement in the West involves two credos: hard work and public service. The ethic of hard work has driven our economy since the early discovery of gold, and the ethic of public service--helping neighbors build a barn or establish a hospital--is what has made our communities thrive. In Colorado, there are few individuals who embody the values of hard work and public service as does Joe Blake.

Since 1999, Joe Blake has held the position of President and CEO of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber represents over 3,000 businesses and over 300,000 employees in the Denver metropolitan area. This position gives Joe a vital leadership role in the economic direction of the State of Colorado. When he first arrived as head of the Chamber, Joe brought new and innovative ideas with him. He spearheaded a program to educate corporate leaders from around the country about the favorable business atmosphere of the Denver region. Joe Blake's work helped create an economic expansion in Colorado that defined the ``Tech Boom'' of the late

1990s and early 2000s. The Chamber continues to promote economic vitality in the Denver region by encouraging personal networking opportunities and entrepreneurial training.

Joe has been a particularly strong voice in bringing needed vision to the Denver metro area's enormous transportation needs. Just as civic leaders in the past brought stagecoach lines and railroads to connect the people of the West, Joe has brought his considerable talents to the task of improving our highways and transportation systems in the Rocky Mountain region. Joe has not been a prisoner of old ways of thinking about transportation, but has embraced 21st century visions of better ways to move people and goods in our communities.

His desire to serve Colorado and its people has not only manifested itself in his professional life. Joe serves on the board of the Denver Foundation, an organization dedicated to charity and civic improvement. Joe also serves on the boards of the Denver Zoological Foundation and the Denver Public Schools Foundation. And if his plate was not full enough, he also volunteers for the Hospice of St. John Foundation.

Among the qualities I admire most in Joe Blake, however, is his ability to get things done in ways that bring people together instead of dividing on ideological or partisan lines. Although Joe has a long history of involvement with the Republican Party, he has never allowed partisanship to inhibit good public works. In large part, I believe Joe's success with people is a direct reflection of his reputation for decency, genuineness and personal warmth. In short, he is a uniter and not a divider and that is why I enjoy working with him and learning from him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Mr. Joe Blake for the positive impact he has had on the West and in Colorado, through his leadership at the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and in so many other ways. Joe Blake is a pioneer in the best tradition of our history.

Mr. Chairman, I do not support this bill in its current form, and must vote against it.

Gang violence is real and serious. And there are already a wide range of Federal laws on the books that can be and are used to combat it. For example, Federal prosecutors are already armed with the Continuing Criminal enterprise, CCE, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, RICO, statutes.

So, is there an urgent need to pass new legislation that ``federalizes'' criminal gang activity and pushes the Federal Government further into law enforcement that is now being handled by the states? I doubt it, and think a better approach would be to support state and local law enforcement directly.

I am also not convinced that it makes sense to further expand the definition of criminal street gang and to reclassify some misdemeanors as crimes of violence, as this bill would do, and I am particularly concerned about the provisions to establish new mandatory minimum sentences.

Violent and dangerous people, whether members of gangs or not, need to be securely confined. But our experience with mandatory minimum sentences shows they are ineffective in preventing crime, they distort the sentencing process, and result mainly in a considerable waste of taxpayers' money.

I think instead of adding new Federal laws, Congress would achieve better results by providing greater assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies and to prevention programs which can reduce the impetus for young people to join gangs.

The bill does include some provisions that I support, including those that will make it easier for law enforcement agencies to have access to information about people who are in the country illegally and are subject to deportation. However, I think that they are outweighed by the bill's defects and so I will vote against this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

As the resolution notes, Rotary was founded in Chicago, Illinois, on 23 February 1905, and Rotarians now have set an example of a full century of service to their communities.

But Rotary is more than history. Today there are more than 400,000 Rotarians in the United States and more than 1.2 million Rotarians in over 32,000 clubs in 166 nations throughout the world--including 20 clubs in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District alone.

Rotarians provide tangible demonstrations of the power of their ideal and motto of ``Service Above Self'' by their efforts around the world toward elimination of diseases and the improvement of health as well as the provision of potable water and education for all. And over the years, through The Rotary Foundation, they have provided generously for undertakings that have improved the condition of people in all parts of the world.

In particular, Rotary International and its members have provided essential support toward the eradication of polio, measles, and other diseases, including donations of more than $600 million toward this cause, and have provided vaccines for immunizing over 2 billion children in the world. And in addition, Rotary Clubs annually provide tens of millions of dollars of local and global humanitarian support through grants, the services of Rotary Volunteers and matching grants.

In the field of education, Rotary Clubs collectively are among the largest private provider of scholarships in the history of the world, annually providing scholarships to tens of thousands of students. Also, Rotary International has sent over 200,000 students on Youth Exchange programs that foster understanding of people throughout the world as well as the development of leaders who go on to serve society. And Rotary International has provided $80 million to promote Group Study Exchanges of over 42,000 young adults for extended visits to other countries and to the United States where they learn, teach and create deep relationships, understanding and appreciation for different cultures.

So, it is very appropriate for Congress, through this resolution, to recognize Rotary International and Rotarians in every State and around the world as they commemorate and celebrate Rotary's centennial and to encourage them to work for even greater success in their second century of service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Denver Public Schools (DPS) Superintendent Jerry Wartgow, an exceptional leader in our Colorado education community. Dr. Wartgow will leave his post as superintendent on June 1st of this year.

For four years, Superintendent Wartgow has worked tirelessly to improve education in Colorado by closing the achievement gap between minority and non-minority students, raising accountability standards, promoting innovative reform and building a strong relationship between the school district and the city.

Before coming to DPS, Dr. Wartgow was President Emeritus at Colorado Community College and Occupational Education System. He was also the President and Chief Executive Officer for International Training and Education Alliance. Dr. Wartgow holds a PhD from the University of Denver, a Masters Degree of Education from the University of Hawaii, a Bachelor of Science from the University of Wisconsin, and has done post-doctoral work at the East-West Center in Honolulu and Harvard University in Boston.

Denver Public Schools is the second largest school district in Colorado--with an extraordinarily diverse student body--and with a long history of serious challenges that have included teacher strikes, racial and ethnic divisions and difficult budget choices. Jerry has faced each of these challenges head on with characteristic innovation and enthusiasm. Through his leadership a progressive new professional compensation plan will be brought to Denver voters in November 2005. This program, ``ProComp,'' will give teachers financial incentives for student achievement. His vision, compassion and tenacity allowed him to forge alliances between parents, students, teachers and school districts to both raise standards for Colorado kids and to provide teachers the professional opportunities they deserve.

While certainly much work remains to be done, Jerry Wartgow's leadership throughout his tenure as superintendent of DPS has paved a formidable path for the future of education in Colorado. He is widely respected in the community and has set a high bar for his successor. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Jerry Wartgow for his enormous contribution to the Colorado education community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Colorado businessman and community leader, Zee Ferrufino. Mr. Ferrufino is the owner and CEO of Latino Communications which is the parent company to KBNO 1280AM Radio in Denver.

KBNO ``Que Bueno'' has long been the leader in Denver's Hispanic radio market reaching over half a million people in the Denver metro area. Recently, for the first time in

its history, KBNO ranked #1 among adults aged 18-44. All of this--in spite of my occasional appearance on the radio speaking in broken Spanish!

Zee doesn't attribute the success of KBNO simply to the growth in Colorado's Hispanic community, though he acknowledges that is certainly a component. As a successful businessman, he recognizes the importance that the strong purchasing power of the Hispanic community has played in elevating the success of Spanish radio. He points out that in 1990, there were about 2,000 Hispanic-owned businesses, by the year 2000 that number had jumped to 30,000, and in ten years it is expected to increase to 60,000. It is increasingly critical for the mainstream media to adjust to these changing market forces. Zee has long- recognized this trend and has remained ahead of the curve.

In addition to being a successful Colorado businessman for several decades, Zee is a prominent community leader. In 1997, former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm presented him with the ``Americans by Choice'' award and in 1983 he was given the ``Outstanding Business Person'' by the Minority Business and Professional Directory. In addition, he was the recipient of the Small Business Administration's Advocate of the Year Award and the Daniel Ritchie Ethics in Business Award. He was also selected by former Colorado Governor Roy Romer to serve on the International Business Development Committee.

Zee has been a leading advocate in the Hispanic community working diligently on issues of importance like education, economic development and civil rights. More than that, he is a role model not only for young Hispanics, but for anyone who has dreams of success and the fortitude to carry out those dreams. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring a great American success story, KBNO Radio, and Zee Ferrufino.

Que bueno!