Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the framers of our Constitution empowered the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach the President in cases of ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' They gave Congress a sacred responsibility to check the power of the President in order to preserve the liberty of the American people. With this responsibility came an equally important obligation to use congressional power only to advance the interests of the Nation. I am not convinced that an impeachment proceeding is in America's best interests at this time. That is why I recently voted to give the House Judiciary Committee time to substantively consider the articles of impeachment before bringing them before the full House for debate and a vote. At a time when Congress has so much work to do to repair the damage caused by this administration, Congress will best serve the American people by focusing our efforts on ending the war in Iraq, protecting civil liberties from executive overreaching and passing needed legislation to move America in a new direction.

With a little over a year left in office, attempting to bring impeachment charges against President Bush, or Vice-President Cheney, at this point, would prove counterproductive to the aggressive agenda our new majority in Congress has put forth. With many issues needing attention, Congress should focus on implementing the agenda the American people elected us to pursue.

As part of the new agenda, the 110th Congress has begun to do what the previous Congressional leadership would not do, and what many in this Congress still refuse to do: Stand up to this President. Under Representative Henry Waxman, CA, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has launched more than two dozen investigations of Bush administration actions. The committee's 75 investigators have probed everything from the behavior of contractors in Iraq to the politicization of the Federal Government here at home. Congress's efforts have already led to needed reforms in a variety of executive branch programs.

You may recall that in late July, it became apparent to me that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's contradictory statements and actions raised serious concerns about his integrity and his respect for civil liberties. At the same time, Bush administration stonewalling was making it impossible for Congress to fully investigate Gonzales and restore America's respect for the Justice Department. On July 31, 2007, I joined with other former prosecutors serving in the U.S. House in calling for an investigation to determine whether Gonzales should be impeached. At the time, I believed investigation and, potentially, impeachment by the Congress provided the only way to hold Gonzales accountable.

In August, Alberto Gonzales did something he should have done long before: He resigned. His resignation provided needed change at the Justice Department, but it did not provide the answers that the American people demand and deserve. Congress still has an obligation to determine the legality of Gonzales's confusing, conflicting and misleading actions and statements. Just this week, Representative John Conyers, MI, took another step towards getting the truth about the Justice Department's actions under Gonzales. Conyers demanded the White House release key information regarding the Justice Department's firing of Federal prosecutors or face a congressional contempt citation. I and my colleagues will do everything in our power to compel the White House to cooperate with our investigation. I will continue to work with my colleagues to uncover the truth about the Gonzales Justice Department and its treatment of Americans' civil liberties, and I will fight to hold this administration accountable.

While Congress exercises its oversight role, we must also support a framework of laws that protects Americans from violations of our liberties and our right to privacy. I have always defended civil liberties. In 2001, I joined just 65 of my colleagues in standing up to post- 9/11 fearmongering and voting against the USA PATRIOT ACT. I have cosponsored legislation to restore the right of habeas corpus and undo the Military Commissions Act. And, most recently, I opposed changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, that would have given this administration more power to spy on Americans.

The Bush administration has done real damage to the United States through its policies and its executive actions. Congress must respond in the manner that will most effectively protect the American people and promote the interests of our country. We have begun to rein in the president and restore integrity to the Federal Government. We will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 744 and in honor of this country's Native American veterans.

For well over 200 years, Native Americans have provided military and strategic service to the U.S., acting as patriotic soldiers and standing side-by-side their fellow citizens in defense of our country. There are nearly 200,000 Native American veterans in the U.S. today, including members of every single tribe and pueblo. In New Mexico, there are countless stories of heroic Native American men and women serving in uniform.

I am proud to have sponsored earlier legislation to honor Native American veterans. During the 106th Congress, I introduced a bill to honor the Navajo Code Talkers with the Congressional Gold Medal in honor of their dedicated service during World War II. These brave interpreters used their native tongue to carefully transmit confidential Allied messages regarding the movement and strategy of millions of fellow soldiers. Not once was their code broken. Sixty years after their service, these men were honored in the Capitol Rotunda with the Congressional Gold Medal.

This past Congress, I was privileged to sponsor a measure to allow Native American tribes to be eligible for grants to establish state veterans cemeteries on tribal land. This long overdue legislation ensures that those Native American veterans who desire to be buried at home will not have their final wishes denied. I was happy that it was passed and am encouraged that we will soon see the first state veterans cemetery locate on tribal land.

To date, 47 Native Americans have given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. We honor their memory and their sacrifice by ensuring the Native American veterans who return home and granted the respect they deserve. As we approach Veterans Day later this week, we must remember that Native American have served our nation with pride, and continue to put on the uniform with bravery, honor, and dignity. I urge all of my colleagues to thank all veterans for their service, and to recognize the considerable sacrifice given by our country's Native Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to mark the passage of H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act. H.R. 2262 takes long overdue action to reform the 1872 Mining Act. That law, the General Mining Act of 1872, was written to encourage westward expansion and to generate the supply of minerals needed in our Nation. Back in 1872, a charge of $5 an acre to mine hard rock minerals in remote areas of the undeveloped west was probably a pretty fair price. The fact that the price is still the same today is simply ludicrous.

As a result, private companies, both domestic and foreign, have been able to profit handsomely by mining on public lands without the need to pay the American people any royalties or to even clean up the messes they leave behind. By some estimates, the antiquated 1872 Mining Act has allowed over $245 billion worth of minerals to be extracted from more than 3.4 million acres of public lands without returning to the American people, the owners of those lands, a single cent in royalties. Today, we took a necessary step toward bringing this policy into the modern era.

H.R. 2262, introduced by Representative Nick Rahall, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, requires mining companies to pay royalties to the American people for the minerals they mine from public lands and to properly reclaim lands damaged by mining. It also allows for the prohibition of mining on environmentally sensitive lands, and it creates a fund to begin the clean up of nearly a half million abandoned mine sites.

I sincerely hope that the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act sees swift passage in the other Chamber so we can send it to the President to be signed into law. Even though we have already waited 135 years to take action on this matter, time is truly of the essence. In 1872, hardrock mining mostly took place in the middle of vast undeveloped lands. Today, however, with over 375,000 mining claims spread throughout the rapidly developing West, some of our last pieces of unspoiled lands are threatened. According to the New York Times, many of those 375,000 claims are within 5 miles of 11 major national parks, including Death Valley and the Grand Canyon.

Over 89,000 of those claims were staked in 2006, largely due to the renewed interest in nuclear energy and the concomitant increase in the price of uranium. In New Mexico alone, almost 2,000 claims were staked in 2006. Many New Mexicans, most particularly members of the Navajo Nation, have already suffered devastating injuries from uranium mining in the past. H.R. 2262 will bring some much needed balance to the use of our public lands and, in so doing, help protect the health of our citizens. I am proud to support Chairman Rahall's efforts and I encourage our colleagues in the other Chamber to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, to introduce the Promotion of Artistic Giving Act of 2007, legislation that would amend recently enacted limitations on the donation of fractional gifts with more measured restrictions.

Fractional gifts are charitable donations to museums and galleries of partial interests in art or other collectibles that confer a substantial public benefit while permitting a tax benefit over an extended period of time. Like all qualified charitable gifts, the taxpayer receives an income tax deduction of up to 30 percent of his or her adjusted gross income for the donation to the charitable institution--in this case, museums. Fractional gifts are a valuable tool for many taxpayers due to the value of the art or collectible being donated as the value of the gift is far in excess of the amount of the available deduction. The benefit of these types of donations is that many fractional gifts would never be given to a museum without the potential donor being able to participate in an extended gift-giving program.

While well intentioned, the unnecessarily harsh provisions relating to fractional giving included in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, PPA, have effectively ceased charitable donations of partial interests in art to our Nation's museums and galleries. In trying to close a tax loophole, the PPA suffocated a time-honored method of giving that has made many of our national treasures such as the Hope Diamond and Vincent Van Gogh's ``White Roses'' available to the public. By rolling back some of the most restrictive provisions of the PPA, this legislation strikes the right balance between tax and charitable giving policy, addresses concerns about tax evasion, removes fractional giving from estate and gift tax provisions, and again encourages lifetime donations of art for the enjoyment of the public.

Since the passage of the PPA, fractional giving has dramatically decreased. For instance, a Santa Fe, New Mexico, museum had a potential donor of a tribal folk art collection worth approximately $2 million withdraw an offer to give the collection to the museum. Similarly, a potential fractional gift of an important body of work from a well- known Pennsylvania artist has been withheld as a result of the change in law.

The PPA made two dramatic changes to the income tax deduction benefits available to donors. First, donors of appreciating artwork are now limited on all contributions to the fair market value determined at the time of the donation of the initial fractional gift. Second, donors are now required to complete the fractional gift within a 10-year period. Combined, these changes negated much of the tax benefits for donating a fractional gift of valuable pieces of artwork and need to be modified. This legislation would slightly modify these provisions to require taxpayers to get a certified appraisal from the Art Advisory Board at IRS for gifts of over $1 million and require gifts be completed during the life of the donor. These modest changes will address congressional concerns about valuation of gifts and unlimited time periods for gifts while providing the necessary incentives for these types of charitable donations.

Unfortunately, the PPA also modified estate and gift tax rules for fractional gifts. These rules have proven to be unworkable and unnecessary. The abuses of fractional giving involved the income tax deduction, not any reduction in estate or gift taxes. Modifying the estate and gift tax laws based on valuation and recapture rules applied for income tax purposes will result in unfair outcomes for taxpayers. Unless these rules are modified taxpayers of completed gifts could have estate tax liability on an asset that is no longer in their estate or have gift tax liability on gifts that were never made. For these reasons, our legislation essentially removes the changes made in PPA to estate and gift tax rules for fractional gifts.

Our Nation has a wealth of culture and creativity. Museums are the venue through which individuals can learn from, engage in, and enjoy history, culture, and art. Our bill will encourage the transfer of museum quality pieces from individuals to public institutions.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on swift passage of this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that health care costs in the United States are sharply increasing. Nor is it any longer a surprise to hear that the rate of chronic illnesses and diseases has been on the rise. Left unabated, the continuing rise in both preventable illnesses and health care costs will put even more pressure on our already fragile health care system and threatens to bankrupt our Federal budget. These trends also have alarming implications for employers, both directly in terms of costs for employer-provided health care plans and indirectly through higher rates of absenteeism.

With all of these concerns in mind, I rise today to introduce the Healthy Workforce Act of 2007. In so doing, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from California, Representative Mary Bono. I would also like to thank Senator Harkin, who is truly a leader on preventive health care issues, and who is the original sponsor of this legislation in the Senate.

The Healthy Workforce Act of 2007 provides a tax credit to businesses that offer comprehensive wellness programs to their employees, thereby promoting prevention of high cost chronic diseases. This tax credit will encourage business to raise health awareness through health education and health risk assessments. It will promote a supportive environment to encourage employee participation in workplace wellness programs, through offering meaningful incentive to participating employees, such as a reduction in health insurance premiums. And it will encourage employees to lead a healthy lifestyle through counseling, seminars or on-line programs. Keeping workers healthy in the first place can go a long way to reducing the growing health care costs to employers.

And Madam Speaker, these increasing costs are significant to employers. Average

employer medical costs increased 72 percent between 2000 and 2006. Some companies report spending more than 50 percent of their profits to cover these expenses. Employers are also increasingly bearing costs of diet-related chronic disease and obesity. For example, obesity-related health conditions cost employers approximately $33 billion in health care and other indirect costs. However, proactive treatment would significantly reduce costs. The proactive treatment of hypertension costs about $1,000 per year, whereas treatment for a heart attack costs a minimum of $50,000, not including the costs which result from the time off and loss of productivity.

Employer spending on health promotion and chronic disease prevention is a good investment in our future. And this legislation targets primarily smaller and mid-sized companies who would otherwise have difficulty making the initial investment needed to support such programs. Workplace wellness programs are economical, averaging $30 to $200 per employee and studies have reported a proven rate of return on investment within 12 to 18 months, ranging from $2 to $10 for each dollar invested.

Adaptable lifestyle factors such as smoking, sedentary lifestyle, poor nutrition, unmanaged stress, and obesity account for approximately half of premature deaths in the United States. Spending on chronic diseases related to lifestyle and other preventable diseases accounts for an estimated 75 percent of total healthcare spending and it is estimated that by 2014 our country's total health care expenditures will be $3.6 trillion.

Clearly we cannot continue down this path. We must shift the focus of our nation's health care system to prevention and wellness programs. In so doing, we can reduce health care costs, improve health, improve quality of life, and boost productivity. Unfortunately, a very small percentage of health care spending is devoted to health promotion. The national investment in prevention is currently estimated to be less than 5 percent of annual health care costs. Our Nation needs a new approach to healthcare--one that puts prevention front and center.

The Healthy Workforce Act is one piece of the larger reform needed to our Nation's health care system. But it is a critical piece. By providing incentives for America's businesses to provide wellness programs for employees, they and their employees can focus on chronic disease prevention and health promotion, reduce health care costs, boost productivity, and improve the health and quality of life of working Americans.

I urge my colleagues to join me in seeking a more effective approach to preventing chronic diseases and providing incentives for employers and employees facing rising health care costs by cosponsoring the Healthy Workforce Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Iranian government continues to defy the international community in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. In the past, it denounced United Nations Security Council Resolutions imposing sanctions as ``illegal'' and ``invalid.'' And just this week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke before the U.N. General Assembly and announced that the nuclear issue in Iran was closed.

It is obvious to all of us that Iran's nuclear development programs are a concern for our Nation. Our Nation's security would be greatly affected by Iranian control over any nuclear weapons. However, we must not forget that, in addition to its disregard for the international community, the regime in place has abhorrent civil liberties and human rights practices within Iran. In the past 5 years, hundreds of newspapers have been closed, hundreds of pro-reform websites have been blocked, and innumerable people have been unjustly imprisoned. Just this year, Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, an Iranian-American, was jailed for months for unsubstantiated accusations that she was trying to set up networks of Iranians to start a revolution to bring down the government. In fact, she has long been an advocate for building bridges between the United States and the Middle East. While Dr. Esfandiari has been released, countless others have not, and it is clear that we must work to stop these baseless and ruthless actions.

While we address our ongoing concerns, we must be vigilant in ensuring that the United States works with the international community and approaches the Middle East diplomatically. As our Nation has learned, we must be willing to do everything that is necessary to protect our Nation and its people; however, we must not preemptively strike other sovereign nations because of incomplete and questionable information. What we must all agree on is that Iranian nuclear capability must continue to be investigated, discussed, and debated-- throughout this Congress, the Nation, and the world.

Nonetheless, while we attempt to address these situations diplomatically, these actions must be backed by strong sanctions against the regime in Tehran. It is with this knowledge that I support H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. This legislation, first and foremost, declares the support of diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear situation, calls for enhanced U.N. Security Council efforts, and explicitly states that nothing authorizes the use of force in Iran. Additionally, the bill expands bilateral sanctions against Iran, prohibits the Presidential waiver of these sanctions, and increases oversight of the Administration's efforts.

While critics of this legislation may consider these actions to be inflammatory, I instead see it as a necessary and diplomatic step that must be taken. Iran has long flouted its disregard for the international community and it must understand that it cannot pursue a nuclear weapons program and ignore international law without facing international political and economic repercussions.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me and appreciate his hard work in the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment that will better ensure the safety of our Nation's citizens, both in the air and on the ground.

In my district last November, in a situation that is unfortunately still far too common, a drunk driving accident resulted in the deaths of a mother, a father and three children. Left behind in Las Vegas, New Mexico, is one sole-surviving child. The family of six was on their way home from a soccer match when their minivan was struck by a drunk driver speeding down the wrong side of the interstate.

As the investigation unfolded, we learned that only a few hours earlier, the drunk driver was already visibly intoxicated on an airline flight to New Mexico. While other passengers noticed that the man appeared to be intoxicated, he was served more alcohol on board the flight. Just 2 hours after deplaning with a blood alcohol content four times the legal limit, the man took to the highway, killing this family and himself.

In the aftermath of this horrible tragedy, I learned that Federal regulations prohibit an intoxicated person both from boarding a plane, as well as drinking during a flight. However, the airlines are not required to train their flight attendants on how to identify intoxicated passengers. In order to help prevent a problem from occurring, those in charge must first be able to identify the warning signs. Adequate training to identify and deal with intoxicated passengers is critical to ensuring attendants make informed decisions when serving alcohol.

My amendment works to ensure airline personnel receive this training. It requires airline carriers to provide gate and flight attendants with alcohol-server training to help them recognize intoxicated persons. As New Mexico's Attorney General, I helped implement this training in the service industry, because research shows this knowledge is critical to combating the problem. Training would occur annually and would also provide situational training on how to handle inebriated individuals who are belligerent.

The intention of my amendment is to prevent drunk driving, but it does much more. While inebriated passengers pose a danger once they deplane and drive, they also pose a danger during flight. It is no secret that when too much alcohol is involved, tempers are more likely to flare, individuals are more likely to behave inappropriately, and decision-making skills are drastically impaired. For all of these reactions to alcohol, flight attendants must have training on how to handle those people. It is a commonsense approach for the safety of all people in flight.

Unfortunately, my amendment cannot prohibit all tragic drunk driving accidents from occurring, but it will implement a system to make it more difficult for passengers over the legal limit from boarding planes, deplaning and driving home. Training to identify intoxicated passengers is critical to ensuring that the attendants make informed decisions when allowing people to board a flight and when deciding whether to serve them alcohol.

Mr. Chairman, we must see that flight attendants are trained in a way that allows us to ensure the safety of those people in their care, our Nation's fliers. But this amendment can do much more. It may also help to ensure the safety of those who were nowhere near the airplane. My amendment cannot prevent every tragedy that comes from alcohol abuse, but it is one more valuable step we can take.

I am pleased to note that my amendment has the support of the Association of Flight Attendants and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and I would like to include for the Record letters from them of support.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving,

Irving, TX, September 20, 2007.

Hon. Tom Udall,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Udall: I write in support of your

amendment to H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Your amendment seeks to address a potentially serious

problem taking place in our skies. On more than one occasion

I have read about an airline passenger who has had too much

to drink and then driven after the flight. The Udall

amendment seeks to provide proper training to flight

attendants with regard to serving alcohol as well as how to

address passengers who have had too much to drink. For this

reason, MADD supports your amendment.

According to the latest NHTSA study, in 2006 more than

13,000 people died in alcohol related crashes with a blood

alcohol content of .08 or greater. Drunk driving continues to

be the leading cause of traffic fatalities in the country.

You may be interested to know that in 2006, MADD launched

the campaign to eliminate drunk driving. The campaign

consists of four points:

Intensive high-visibility law enforcement, including twice-

yearly crackdowns and frequent enforcement efforts that

include sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols in all 50

states.

Full implementation of current alcohol ignition interlock

technologies, including efforts to require alcohol ignition

interlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers. A key part

of this effort is working with judges, prosecutors and state

driver's license officials to stop the revolving door of

repeat offenders.

Exploration and development of advanced vehicle-based

technology that will detect if a driver has an illegal

alcohol level of .08 BAC or above and prevent that driver

from operating the vehicle.

Mobilization of grassroots efforts, led by over 400 MADD

affiliates.

Again, thank you for your efforts to address excessive

drinking on airline flights and best wishes as you pursue

your amendment.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Glynn Birch,

President.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct an outdated tax law that is forcing a husband and wife of almost 30 years from my district to live thousands of miles apart during what should be the golden years of their retirement together. In introducing this legislation, however, I seek to not only assist my constituents who have brought this inequity to my attention, but also to assist any other families facing the same problem.

Madam Speaker, I first introduced this legislation during the 109th Congress. I also had an opportunity to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures last Congress. Unfortunately that was as far as my bill progressed.

Today, however, I introduce this legislation with great optimism for, and a continued commitment to, its passage. At issue is what I believe is an outdated provision of the tax code that is preventing one of my constituents, Mrs. Novella Wheaton Nied, a U.S. citizen and native New Mexican, from enjoying her retirement years with her husband Veit Nied, a German citizen.

The Nieds have been married almost 30 years and have lived overseas in various countries for the length of their marriage until September 2001. Mr. Nied, an economist, retired in September 2001 from the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium. The couple decided to return to Taos, New Mexico, Novella's home, for their retirement years, but learned upon Veit's approval of permanent resident status in the United States that his pension from the European Commission would be subject to double taxation--the initial tax by the European Commission, and again by the U.S. should he choose to make his residency here.

Double taxation on his pension will create a hardship for the Nieds in their retirement--both financially and emotionally. As a result, Mr. Nied did not accept the permanent resident status and has been traveling back and forth between Germany and the United States, being very cognizant and diligent about following U.S. immigration and taxation laws, and therefore has not stayed longer than 120 days per annum in the United States, which would render him liable for taxes in this country. This unfortunate living situation has been ongoing since 2001 when they learned of the double taxation and have been seeking a solution that would allow them to once again live together.

The United States has tax agreements with many countries to prevent double taxation, as well as provisions in the tax code that allow resident aliens who pay taxes to a foreign country to claim the foreign tax credit that reduces their U.S. income taxes. Unfortunately, the EU does not qualify as a foreign country for purposes of the foreign tax credit.

The bill I introduce today amends the Internal Revenue Code to treat employment taxes paid to the European Union by employees of the European Union as income taxes paid to a foreign country, for purposes of the foreign tax credit. This bill will allow Mr. Nied, and others in his situation, to qualify for the foreign tax credit.

This is a simple bill that brings a section of the tax code up to date with the changes in international political institutions. While it certainly will help Mr. and Mrs. Nied, this legislation will also help other families who face the same situation. The sooner we pass this legislation, the sooner the Nieds, and others, can be reunited and enjoy their retirement years in the company of their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, our nation prides itself on establishing monuments and memorials in remembrance of the past. We shape marble, bronze, granite and stone into physical commemorations, hoping that they will reflect particular ideals of justice, principles, and beliefs from our country's history and encourage those who visit to embody the same ideals. Twenty-five years ago, the Nation found itself dedicating a memorial to a war that was bitterly fought both at home and abroad and trying to find within that memorial the peace and solace that had been elusive for so long.

The memorial design created by 21-year-old Yale University undergraduate Maya Lin, and managed by the National Park Service, wrought emotional reactions from the crowd when it was dedicated in November 1982. Thousands of veterans, regardless of their personal feelings on what the war had meant to them, found themselves moved by the Wall. Their faces reflected against the names of the dead etched into the black granite, visitors found that this memorial was not simply a standing block of stone, but instead was a moving tribute that refused to separate the past from the present, merging the two and forcing them to coalesce into a semblance of calm.

Now 25 years later we continue to see the effect of the memorial. Families and friends leave at the base of the memorial personal belongings of those whose names lie above. Boisterous crowds traveling noisily from monument to monument fall silent when entering the cut of earth that starts the Wall, their eyes skipping from name to name, recognition on their face that each one represents an individual who gave their life for their country. And those who fought and returned home see the names of fellow soldiers, an attempt not to justify or explain those losses, but simply to honor and remember them.

Early this month, the Wall was vandalized and the face of the granite desecrated. While long-term damage is not expected, this act of dishonor flies in the face of what the memorial represents. I hope that every single one of my colleagues will join me in denouncing those who committed this vandalism.

With each new year the wounds of the Vietnam War further heal, the passage of time helping to wear away the dissonance and divide. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial plays a large role in this process, bringing us together not only to remember what occurred and what was lost, but also to ensure that we do not forget. It is fitting that we commemorate the anniversary of this memorial and again offer the grateful thanks of our Nation to those who served.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill to ratify a conveyance of a portion of the Jicarilla Apache reservation to the county of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. This legislation will bring resolution to a long-standing dispute between the Jicarilla Apache Nation and Rio Arriba County. In the 109th Congress, H.R. 4876, a nearly identical bill, passed the House under suspension of the rules.

The dispute, which has been ongoing for nearly two decades, is over the ownership of a road on a parcel of land formerly referred to as Theis Ranch. The Jicarilla Nation purchased Theis Ranch in 1985 and, in March 1988, the Nation subsequently conveyed a trust deed for Theis Ranch to the United States. The Theis Ranch property then, by proclamation of the Secretary of the Interior, became part of the Jicarilla Reservation in September 1988.

A lawsuit was filed in October 1987 and the District Court was asked to determine the ownership status of the disputed road. In the original lawsuit, Rio Arriba County sought to establish that the county acquired the disputed road by prescription and, therefore, the county was the road's rightful owner. However, the Jicarilla Nation contended that the Nation owned the road because the road was, and continues to be, within the boundaries of the expanded 1988 Jicarilla reservation. On December 10, 2001, the District Court found in favor of the Jicarilla and determined that the disputed road traversed the Jicarilla Reservation in several locations. Rio Arriba County appealed the December 2001 District Court decision; the appeal is currently pending before the Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico. In a separate yet relevant matter, Rio Arriba County appealed a February 2003 decision by the Southwest Bureau of the United States Department of the Interior to acquire a

tract of land referred to as the Boyd Ranch in trust for the Jicarilla Nation. Rio Arriba's appeal of this determination is currently pending before the Interior Board of Indian Appeals.

In an effort to settle the road dispute, the Jicarilla Nation and Rio Arriba County entered into mediation. The parties successfully reached a settlement that was subsequently executed by the Jicarilla Nation on May 3, 2003, and Rio Arriba County on May 15, 2003. Representatives of the Secretary of the Interior approved the settlement on June 18, 2003. The settlement agreement, which would be implemented by this legislation, provided that the Jicarilla Nation would transfer approximately 70.5 acres of land located with the expanded 1988 Jicarilla reservation to Rio Arriba County. In exchange for the Jicarilla Nation's land conveyance, Rio Arriba County agreed to permanently abandon any and all claims to the disputed road. The settlement also provides that the terms of the agreement do not take effect until all parties complete their respective promises in the agreement and the United States, pursuant to federal law, approves of the conveyance of this particular Jicarilla trust land to Rio Arriba County.

Both parties and the Secretary of the Interior have fully performed the terms agreed to within the settlement agreement. All that stands between the parties to this dispute and long overdue resolution is Congressional approval. Consequently, the legislation will adjust the Jicarilla Reservation border in order to account for the transfer. At the same time, this legislation upholds Congress' trust responsibility to the Jicarilla Nation by placing restrictive covenants on the trust land transferred to the County. In other words, this legislation recognizes that the transferred land is immediately adjacent to the remainder of the Jicarilla Nation. As a result of the transferred land's proximity to the reservation, certain uses of the transferred land would have a detrimental effect on the remaining reservation. Therefore, this legislation allows the County to use the land only for governmental purposes but specifically prohibits the County from using the land for prisons, jails, or other facility for incarcerating persons.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to expedite passage of this legislation. Both the Nation and the County have waited years for this agreement to be implemented. Congress must now do their part to provide long overdue resolution.

Madam Speaker, when Pamela Minzner became the first female chief justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court, lawyers wanted to know what to call her. New Mexico lawyers had never used the phrase ``Madam Chief Justice,'' so they decided to inquire if they could call her ``Chief Justice Minzner.'' The Chief Justice's reply speaks volumes about her personality. She told the shocked lawyers, ``just call me Pam.''

Pamela Minzner grew up with dreams of being a secretary. She believed the job would give her all the independence a woman could expect. But after interning at the Ohio Civil Rights Commission in the 1960s, Minzner decided to study law. In 1968 she graduated from Harvard Law School as one of 22 women in a class of 500. In 1994, she became just the second woman to serve on the New Mexico Supreme Court, and in 1999 she became the court's first female chief justice.

Minzner will always be known for her integrity. She stood strong on principal when politics threatened to poison the court. She gave freely of her advice and compassion, and public officials across New Mexico regarded her as a mentor and a friend. Assistants remember leaving her chambers late at night with the judge still working, and her husband, Dick, recalls her commitment to the law and to her work.

I served as New Mexico's Attorney General when Justice Minzner was on the Supreme Court. I remember her ability to inspire trust in the rule of law. Justice Minzner believed in the law as a force for progress and fairness. Through the respect she showed to every lawyer who entered her court, she showed New Mexico that the legal system can be fair and just to all sides. On behalf of New Mexico, I want to honor Justice Minzner for her exemplary work and life as a wife to Dick and mother to Carl and Max.

Madam Speaker, if Bob Johnson had only one career, he would still be worthy of our admiration. If he had been only a hard working and talented reporter, a reporter who was loved by his coworkers and revered by the many he mentored, he would deserve our respect. Had he been only a crusader for open government, a tireless advocate for freedom of the press and the people, he would deserve our appreciation. But Bob Johnson was all of these things: A no-nonsense former marine who kept people informed about their government and changed government to make it more responsive to the people.

Bob Johnson wrote the Associated Press' first bulletin on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. His coverage of that tragedy shaped the response of a mourning nation and quelled public panic with prompt information. As an editor, Johnson taught young reporters the ins and outs of the newspaper business. Those who worked with him remember a ball of energy who was never too busy to pass along a hard-learned lesson or counsel a colleague in need. He covered everything from the Apollo space flights to the taking of hostages at the 1972 Munich Olympics with the same diligence, precision and enthusiasm.

In his ``retirement,'' Johnson founded and ran the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government. With a reporter's instinct for bringing public scrutiny to private places, Johnson has helped file more than 70 successful complaints under the Open Meetings Act. The organization he founded has helped the New Mexico Legislature craft laws to protect freedom of information and teach young people about their First Amendment rights. By educating and. empowering citizens around the state, the Foundation for Open Government has helped put government transparency on the public agenda in New Mexico. Thanks to Johnson, we know more about the decisions that affect our lives.

Bob Johnson's life will always remind us that a commitment to truth is powerful. For his more than 60 years of dedicated work in the public interest, I wish to honor Robert H. Johnson.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to establish a 15 percent national renewable electricity standard by the year 2020. In doing so, utilities are permitted to meet up to 4 percent of this requirement through energy efficiency measures. This amendment will save consumers money, stimulate our economy, and strengthen our national security.

The aim of this amendment may seem far reaching, but the mechanism for doing so is not. A 15 percent national renewable electricity standard by the year 2020 is essential to our national security future.

Equally important to this debate, however, and contrary from what you hear from our opponents, the RES is absolutely achievable. In fact, almost half of the States of the Union already have an RES in place, but the full potential for renewable electricity will be left unrealized without the adoption of a Federal program to enhance the efforts of these States. We must enact a Federal RES, and we must do so now.

Momentum has been building, as evidenced by the fact that many of the RES standards enacted by States already have been exceeded. Subsequently, the standards have been increased. A national RES has passed the Senate three times. It has proven itself effective, efficient and popular. And it's time for the New Direction Congress to bring those benefits to the rest of the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my Republican cosponsor, Todd Platts, who has worked very, very hard on this amendment. And I would emphasize that this is a bipartisan amendment, and we have worked all along on it together.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has been a key player on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has been another key player, organizer and leader on this issue.

With all those renewable minutes, I hope you're for the bill.

How much time remains on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). He has just written a book on energy. He is one of our big thinkers in the Democratic Party on this issue.

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to work with both of the gentleman to see that we correct this. I think this is something that we can work on and we can iron out.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who I know is very interested in renewable energy issues and has been a leader on that front.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has worked on these issues for many years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and a real leader on renewable energy issues, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a leader in the freshman class on this issue, Mr. Paul Hodes.

Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) to speak for 1 minute. She has helped enormously in this effort. She is a key player on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for 30 seconds. He knows this issue very well and I think has some important words for us.

Mr. Chairman, the staff work has been incredible on this, including my legislative director. I want to thank them all.

My cousin, who has been a key part in this effort, gave up his time so the Republicans could speak in a spirit of bipartisanship. With that, I would urge the rest of my colleagues to join me and my friends in passing this amendment and putting America on a path to a more secure energy future, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and reduce the energy bills for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great remorse that we are considering the legislation before us. I believe that the basic foundation of our Nation is inextricably linked between our national security and our civil liberties. Indeed, it was the very battle to secure our civil liberties that brought our Nation into being. Unfortunately, the current Attorney General and the White House continue to obfuscate the line between these links by casting inflammatory rhetoric that has little basis in truth.

And now we have bad legislation and few options. The Senate has sent this bill to us and has gone home, leaving the House in the position of considerable difficulty. The effort of the House leadership in the last six months, and in particular in the past two weeks, has been one of compromise, of negotiation, and of listening, and the legislation upon which this body voted on yesterday demonstrated that. That is why I voted in favor of its passage. The legislation today is little more than an ill-advised attempt by the Senate at a quick fix that will do nothing to protect our civil liberties and everything to give the continued opportunity of threatening American citizens' freedoms.

It is absolutely essential that the Congress deliberate extensively before reaching a final legislative conclusion on a matter of this magnitude. As with my vote on the PATRIOT Act, I do not believe that changes to the FISA Court--and allowing the surveillance activity of the Attorney General to remain untethered and unchecked--should be supported simply due to the rhetoric of a few. I have supported the investigation of the Attorney General because I believe he has failed in his duties to protect the American people from a deterioration of our basic civil liberties. For all of these reasons, I will vote against today's legislation.

Madam Speaker, in a little over a month, this body will receive an official status report from General David Petraeus, the commander of American forces in Iraq, on whether benchmarks of progress set by Congress have been met. A preliminary report issued in July indicated that there has been a failure to meet more than half of those benchmarks, a woeful assessment that has been only further hampered by increased political fracturing in Baghdad. Earlier this week, the largest Sunni political bloc resigned from the Prime Minister's cabinet. Any hope that the political cohesion so desperately needed for real, permanent success in Iraq seems to be lost amid the destruction and divisiveness that continues to impede our efforts.

When we return in September, we will consider whether to continue granting unchecked and unqualified funding for this war--a war that has raged on for 4 long years, a war that has claimed thousands of American and Iraqi lives, a war that has cost nearly half a trillion dollars. And while we debate funding for Iraq, the day-to-day lives of the men and women in uniform deployed are consumed by more violence and uncertainty. Recently, we received news in New Mexico that the life of another of our soldiers has been lost to combat. Like my colleagues, the calls back home to console parents, spouses and children for their loss and the occurrence of somber funerals is more familiar than we ever thought it would be, and for all of us the end to this war cannot come soon enough.

When I return to New Mexico this month, I have no doubt that the war will continue to be the top issue on the minds of my constituents. We all hear the same question: What is Congress doing? I will tell them that we voted to redeploy our troops. That we voted to bring our soldiers home for longer periods of rest. And that we vote to enact key provisions and provide critical funding for the soldiers. However, in the end, the families in my district will want to know when the end will come, when their sons and daughters will be home.

We must bring our troops home, we must end this misguided and mismanaged war, and we must--we must--repair our foreign policy. For if we don't, in the decades to come the reverberations of our mistakes in Iraq will continue to affect our image and our position in the world. Change is needed, and it is needed now.