Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this bill I urge its approval by the House. The bill will extend through fiscal year 2012 the highly successful grant program for armor vests for law enforcement officers. The program was originally established in 1998 through enactment of legislation sponsored by Colorado's Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Since then, over 11,900 jurisdictions have participated in the program, with $173 million in Federal funds committed to support the purchase of an estimated 450,000 vests. For example, in fiscal year 2007, 60 separate jurisdictions in Colorado received more than $352,000 to assist with the purchase of 1,883 vests. And while of course the most vests were purchased by the largest law enforcement agencies--570 by the city and county of Denver, 344 by the State of Colorado, 131 by Adams County and 45 by EI Paso County--the program also assisted many smaller agencies as well, including those in Hinsdale County, Moffat County, Federal Heights, Glenwood Springs, and Durango. Police officers from across our State have told me the program has been a great success, improving the safety and security of American law enforcement officers and better enabling them to do their job. And while President Bush's budgets have repeatedly neglected to request the full funding authorized for the program, Congress has stepped up and recognized its importance and appropriated the funds needed to keep it strong. Bulletproof vests are expensive but essential. No officer should be without one and they should be basic equipment made available to officers when we ask them to perform dangerous jobs. If we can afford to pay for training and equipment for Iraqi police--and we indeed are paying for that--I think we can afford to help pay for bulletproof vests for the officers who protect Americans here at home. So, Madam Speaker, I urge approval of this bill, to renew and extend the authorization for this very important program.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I rise in support of this important legislation. I applaud Chairman Skelton for his leadership in guiding this bill to the floor today. He and Ranking Member Hunter have done a tremendous job, and they have been ably supported by the expert staff of our committee. We passed the Defense Authorization bill in the House over four months ago--but there was concern that the Senate wouldn't pass its bill before Congress adjourned for the year. Fortunately, the Senate acted last week, and we're able to move ahead today to complete this important annual task. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter and their staff were not about to let this be the first Defense Authorization bill in 42 years not to become law. They worked very hard to reconcile the House and Senate legislation, and I commend them for the outcome. I expect the Senate to follow our lead and send this bill to the President for his signature. This bill rightly focuses on our military's readiness needs. After more than five years at war, both the active duty and reserve forces are stretched to their limits. The bill will provide what's needed to respond, including funds to address equipment shortages for the active duty and reserve forces, improve the quality of our military barracks, maintain ammunition, and expand training opportunities, among other important readiness needs. The bill also improves the quality of life for our forces and their families by including a 3.9 percent pay raise for all service members, preserving important health benefits by prohibiting fee increases in TRICARE and the TRICARE pharmacy program, and including new preventive health care initiatives. With regard to Colorado provisions, I am pleased that the bill includes language requiring the Secretary of Defense to maintain redundant facilities and equipment--along with the staff necessary to ensure continuity of operations--at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station until the Secretary can certify that security measures have been instituted to bring the consolidated command center for NORTHCOM/NORAD at Peterson AFB into full compliance with Protection Level One requirements. Currently, the Secretary has waived compliance to allow Peterson to meet these requirements--defined as resulting in ``the greatest possible deterrence against hostile acts'' and providing ``the maximum means to achieve detection, interception and defeat of a hostile force before it is able to seize, damage or destroy resources''--though Peterson AFB does not yet meet this level of protection. Such a waiver would not be permitted to meet the requirement under this legislation. It is important that the House and the Senate have recognized that Northern Command's decision to relocate the nation's air and space defense command from Cheyenne Mountain to the new NORTHCOM/NORAD command center at Peterson AFB was flawed, particularly without fully analyzing the full range of threats. The Government Accountability Office in its recent report highlighted the lack of a comprehensive threat analysis, and the Department of Defense (DOD) finally concurred that a thorough analysis still needs to be completed. While that study is ongoing--and certainly while Peterson AFB cannot yet comply with protection level requirements for the highest level of threats-- redundant operations should be maintained at Cheyenne Mountain. I'm also pleased that the bill increases overall military construction project authorization at the Pueblo Chemical Depot by $223 million, raising the five-year-old authorization cap that had forced the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative (ACWA) program and its main contractor Bechtel to cancel some work earlier this year and would have resulted in layoffs if it had not been increased. Although Congress appropriated sufficient funds last year, ACWA did not have Congressional permission to spend the funds until this cap was raised. Finally, the bill includes language that prohibits DOD from transporting away from the Pueblo Chemical Depot in the next six months the hazardous wastes left after chemical treatment of mustard agent. This is based on legislation I introduced with Rep. John Salazar earlier this year, and sends an important message to the Department of Defense. There is no question that the ACWA program has been poorly managed for years. But I believe the people of Pueblo shouldn't have to pay for DOD's mistakes. Pueblo needs the jobs that the biotreatment process will provide, and the community deserves the certainty that clean-up will be completed in a timely fashion. I am disappointed that the final language is not as strong as the language I helped pass in the House, but it is still an important step forward. I will continue to work to ensure the secondary wastes are not transported off-site. The Pueblo Chemical Depot holds 2,611 tons of liquid mustard agent and is part of the DOD's ACWA program, which is responsible for destroying the chemical weapons stored at Pueblo and at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. The Chemical Weapons Convention, ratified by Congress in 1997, requires these munitions to be destroyed by 2012. Because of schedule delays, management problems, and funding shortfalls for the ACWA program, the DOD has said that the U.S. will not meet the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty deadline. Last year, Congress mandated that DOD complete all chemical weapons destruction activities by 2017. The DOD has suggested that a 2017 deadline at Pueblo cannot be reached if wastes are treated on-site. DOD is again studying whether to transport these wastes for treatment off- site, despite approved plans to treat the wastes at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, and despite the fact that construction of an on-site biotreatment facility has already begun. In addition, studies have shown that shipping these wastes would not yield benefits. The community of Pueblo and the Colorado Citizens' Advisory Commission, established by law to represent community interests, have repeatedly expressed their preference for treating the wastes on-site. The bill also authorizes $474 million for military construction projects at Fort Carson, as well as $65 million for construction at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, $4.9 million for land acquisition at Peterson AFB, $18 million for Colorado National Guard readiness centers in Denver and Grand Junction, $3 million for a satellite pharmacy and $4.2 million for Alert Crew Headquarters at Buckley Air Force Base, and $18 million to upgrade academic facilities at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today does an excellent job of balancing the need to sustain our current warfighting abilities with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. It is critical that we are able to meet the operational demands of today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world. This is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of H.R. 6063, the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2008, as amended by the Senate. H.R. 6063 provides important direction and ensures the leadership of the United States civil space programs and provides the next president with congressional priorities for America's future in aeronautics and civil space activities. I am very proud that this legislation has been a bipartisan effort every step of the way. Our bill passed quickly through the committee process, and on June 18 of this year, H.R. 6063 passed the House by the overwhelming margin of 409-15. Since that House passage, we have worked with our colleagues in the Senate to craft a final version that reflects the concerns and interests of Members in both Chambers of Congress. I am pleased that the Senate yesterday passed H.R. 6063, as amended, by unanimous consent. I would like to thank Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall and subcommittee Ranking Member Feeney for their support and hard work on this bill. I think a special acknowledgment is due Congressman Lampson, who represents the great City of Houston, and who has been tireless in his support of NASA. I also wanted to point out, I think, the great model that Congressman Hall and Congressman Gordon present us here in our House, where they work together in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that NASA thrives, and is nurtured, and is in a position to excel in the years in front of us. I also want to also take a minute and thank the excellent staff on both the majority and minority side for their outstanding work. On the Democratic side of the aisle, Dick Obermann, Pam Whitney, Allen Li, and Devin Bryant have all been instrumental in moving this bill forward, as has Wendy Adams on my personal staff. I want to make special mention of Wendy. I know she is here on a Saturday, giving the extra effort that always characterizes her work on behalf of the committee and, in particular, the subcommittee. I also wanted to take another bit of time and mention Dick Obermann and tell him how much I respect him and how much I have enjoyed working with him on all my years on the committee. He is, as everybody knows in this House, the epitome of professionalism. The House, the aerospace community, and I would say our country is fortunate to have his talents and intelligence and work ethic deployed on behalf of all of us. Dick, I will miss you and look forward to working with you wherever I am next year. On the minority side, I want to thank Ed Feddeman, Kim Monroe and Lee Arnold for their efforts as well. We have truly worked together in a bipartisan fashion. Now while the amended bill leaves out a set of House-passed provisions, I am confident that H.R. 6063, as amended, remains a good bill and puts NASA in the civil space program on a path that will help ensure our leadership in aerospace and aeronautics. This year, as has been mentioned, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the U.S. space program and the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA has achieved remarkable accomplishments over the past decades in science and aeronautics and human space flight. All of us here want to ensure that the next 50 years of our space program are equally bright. This is a very good bill. I urge my colleagues to pass it, as amended, to ensure continued United States leadership in NASA's science, aeronautics and human space flight and exploration programs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, support this legislation that will extend critical tax credits for renewable energy and for American families while not adding to the Federal deficit. As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I am especially pleased to see the House take action on needed tax credits for renewable energy. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) in particular has been instrumental in promoting the creation of a renewable energy industry. An extended PTC will provide more market certainty and we must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008. I must add that, while I am pleased that the bill provides a three- year extension of the PTC for most renewable energy sources, I am concerned that it only provides a one-year extension for wind energy.Wind is a very promising renewable energy source and a one-year extension will not be as helpful for the industry. I will continue to lead the fight to extend the wind energy PTC for more than one year. The bill also extends the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar energy, qualified fuel cells, and microturbines for eight years. The ITC will help companies with initial investment costs in expanding these renewable energy sources across the country. Rising gas prices are forcing many Coloradans to dip into their savings just to make ends meet. This bill will help families reduce their fuel bills by providing $3000 in tax credits toward the purchase of fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrid vehicles. It will also help address long-term fuel cost concerns by expanding production of homegrown fuels and incentives for the installation of E-85 pumps for consumers to fill up flex-fuel vehicles. This bill also will support advances in energy efficiency and conservation in commercial and residential buildings, as well as energy efficient appliances. And this bill will also help Colorado businesses stay competitive by extending the research and development tax credit for one year. While again I would like to see this key tax credit extended for more than one year, this is a step in the right direction. To help with the hard economic times that Coloradans are facing, this bill includes several other key tax credits, including expanding the child tax credit for some of our neediest families, allowing teachers to take a deduction for purchasing classroom supplies out of their own pocket, and providing additional support for families paying for college education. Although this bill includes several important provisions and I will vote for it, I am disappointed that it does not include provisions that passed in the Senate and in previous House bills--particularly those related to clean renewable energy bonds (CREBS) and the Secure Rural Schools Program. CREBs provide a critical tool for public power providers and electric cooperatives to invest in renewable energy. This is a unique tool for Colorado's rural co-ops and municipal utilities and I hope to see us address this issue before the session ends. CREBS provisions were in the version of the bill originally passed by the House, but in the Senate they were revised. My understanding is that is the reason they have been omitted entirely from the bill now before us. My hope is that further discussions between the House and Senate will resolve this impasse. The ``Secure Rural Schools'' program, originally authorized in 2000, was designed to establish stability to certain annual payments made to States and counties containing National Forest System lands and certain public domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Since 1908, 25 percent of Forest Service revenues, such as those from timber sales, mineral resources and grazing fees, have been returned to the States in which national forest lands are located. Because receipts from timber sales have fluctuated over time, the 106th Congress in 2000 enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Public Law 106-393) to address this instability by providing funding for a period of seven years, but requiring reauthorization after that time. While Colorado is not among the States receiving the largest payments, the program has helped some of our rural counties meet urgent needs. In fact, last year payments under the program to Colorado counties amounted to more than $6.4 million, helping to offset the costs of public schools, roads, and other needs of Colorado residents. That is why I cosponored legislation (H.R. 3058) to renew the program's authorization, and why I voted for that legislation when the House considered it on June 5th of this year. Unfortunately, while 218 of us voted for the bill, the final total included 193 against and thus, because it was considered under a procedure requiring two-thirds approval, the bill did not pass. In its version of this legislation the Senate included funding for both the Secure Rural Schools program and for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, which makes payments to counties across the country where certain categories of Federal lands are located. PILT is also very important to Colorado, and I strongly support funding for it--and I would have preferred to have both its funding and that for the Secure Rural Schools program included in the bill now before us. Nonetheless, despite the lack of these provisions, this is a good bill. I hope we can move it forward and promote positive change that will benefit our families and rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security. I encourage my colleagues in the House to vote for this needed legislation, and also encourage quick action in the Senate so that we may move it to President's desk.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the chairwoman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. The bill's purpose is to require more fair play for people with credit cards. For many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. They rely on it for everyday needs. And for them it's a necessity. But they aren't always treated fairly by the companies that issue the credit cards that they use. As the chairwoman pointed out, I've heard from many people in my State of Colorado asking me to help level the playing field. They work to do the right thing and pay their bills on time, and they deserve to be treated in good faith by the credit card companies. That's the reason I've been working to make some commonsense changes in the rules for credit cards over these last two Congresses. I introduced a bill in 2006, and then reintroduced it again this year. And I'm proud that it won the support of an array of consumer groups, as well as 39 cosponsors from congressional districts across the country. Most of the provisions in my bill have been included in this bill, H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights. This is a good, solid bill that will bring real reform without arbitrary rate caps or price controls that could backfire and make credit less available. Now later this week we'll be debating on how to respond to the problems in the credit markets. This debate will focus on a financial market crisis that's brought on, in part, by the reckless practices of lenders who thought the use of complicated financial engineering would make risky loans safe. Across the country, people worry that we will be too concerned about rescuing the reckless and not concerned enough about fairness for hard working Americans who may be called upon to pay the tab. So it's appropriate, as we prepare for that debate, that we start by acting and bringing greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards. I urge passage of the bill. I thank the chairwoman again for her leadership on this important measure. Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this legislation, I rise in strong support of it as a way to add some common-sense rules to the laws governing issuance of credit cards. Later this week, we will be debating how to respond to problems in the credit markets. As we all know, that debate will focus on a financial-market crisis brought on, in large part, by reckless practices of lenders who thought the use of complicated financial ``engineering'' would make risky loans safe. Understandably, many in Colorado and across the country are concerned that Congress may be too concerned about rescuing those who took excessive risks and not concerned enough about fairness for hard- working American taxpayers who will be called on to pay the tab. So it is appropriate, as we prepare for that debate, that we start by acting to bring greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards. I have heard from constituents across Colorado, asking me to help even the playing field on this issue. They benefit from the widespread availability of consumer credit, and their use of that credit has been important to our economy. In fact, for many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. It is something that many people need to use to pay for their everyday needs. For them, it is a necessity. Of course, another word for credit is debt--and credit card debt has increased considerably in recent years. Overall, during the last decade, total credit-card debt rose by about 70 percent, and this clearly has an effect on consumers. Some polls have reported that about 70 percent of surveyed families said the quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of their debts, and young people are more worried about going deeply into debt than about a terrorist attack. Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness and an erosion of financial responsibility. That was one of the main arguments advanced in support of the recent changes in the bankruptcy laws. But while there was something to that argument, it was not the whole story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone. Instead of just focusing on borrowers, Congress should also do more to promote responsibility by those who provide the credit--and one place to start is with credit card companies. That's the reason I have been working to make some common-sense changes in the rules for credit card companies. I first introduced a bill to do that back in 2006, and reintroduced it again last year with our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. I'm proud it won the support of an array of consumer groups as well as 39 cosponsors from Congressional Districts across the country. Now, I have joined as an original cosponsor of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, which includes many provisions based on my bill. It includes protection against arbitrary interest rate increases. It will prevent cardholders who pay on time from being unfairly penalized. It will bar excessive fees and will require more fairness in the way payments are handled. And it would prohibit the use of ``universal default'' clauses--provisions that allow card issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit card account if there has been any change for the worse in the cardholder's credit score--even if the change is unrelated to the credit card account. In short, H.R. 5244 is a good, solid bill that will bring real reform without arbitrary rate caps or price controls that could backfire and make credit less available. It deserves passage today and prompt enactment into law.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution gives Congress the ultimate legislative responsibility for the District of Columbia. However, through enactment of the DC Home Rule Act Congress has authorized the residents of the District to elect a Mayor and City Council to be responsible for the day-to-day exercise of that authority. I respect the intent of home rule because I think residents of Washington, DC--like residents of Colorado--should be able to govern themselves so far as consistent with the ability of the Federal Government to function. And I think this principle of home rule for DC is made all the more important because the residents of the District are not fully represented here in Congress. So, I have some hesitation supporting legislation that would in effect shape policies for the District of Columbia without the involvement of its elected officials. However, I am supporting H.R. 6842 today because any flaws in its approach can be corrected as the legislative process continues and because I think it is needed in order to send a strong message to the District government to move promptly to revise its laws to reflect the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of DC v. Heller and thus to assure that the second amendment rights of the District's residents are not infringed. That is the purpose of this legislation--one that I support, because complying with our oath to support and defend the Constitution is the first duty of all Members of Congress.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Space Commerce Act of 2008.'' This legislation would modify the Technology Administration Act of 1998 and provide for the establishment of an Office of Space Commerce in the Department of Commerce. As chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee with jurisdiction over commercial space activities, I am introducing this bill as a courtesy to the Department, which requested it. While I think the legislation that I am introducing today requires review and potentially modification before it is ready to come back to this floor for further consideration, I believe that introducing the Department's proposed legislation will help us move forward in seeking the best ways to encourage the vitality of this growing industry. This bill will help stimulate discussion on what is the best approach to enhancing the development and competitive posture of America's commercial space sector. That discussion will help Congress craft the best path forward in addressing this important topic. I feel quite passionate about the important role that the commercial space sector plays--and will continue to play in the coming years--in ensuring the sustained vitality of the U.S. economy and its competitiveness in world markets. My home State of Colorado is home to some of the Nation's leading commercial space companies and is serving as an incubator for more every year. I am proud of that fact, and I am proud of the companies that are contributing so much to the nation's strength in civil, commercial, and military aerospace. As chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I have seen firsthand the growing impact that the commercial space sector is having, both in enhancing the Nation's economic strength and improving the quality of life of all our citizens. Whether it is advancing U.S. geospatial applications, maximizing the benefits to be gained from U.S. space-based positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities, or numerous other endeavors, America's space commerce sector is leading the way, and I want to do all I can to see that that continues to be the case. That is why I believe it is important to fully examine how the Federal Government can best provide additional useful tools to help expand and develop the space commerce sector. We in Congress should do all we can to address space commerce policy issues and help encourage the growth of the U.S. commercial space sector. I look forward to hearing from all interested stakeholders as we move forward to fully examine this proposal.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, like so many of our colleagues I heard with great sorrow of the passing of former Representative John F. Seiberling of Ohio. While I did not have the opportunity to serve with Mr. Seiberling, I knew of his distinguished career and especially of his being a longtime friend and colleague of my father, both during and after his own service in the House. My father and John Seiberling not only served at the same time, they worked closely together on many measures that came before what was then the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs--now known as the Natural Resources Committee. Examples include the legislation dealing with strip mining, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, finally signed into law by President Carter after President Ford had vetoed an earlier version, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, also known as the ``Alaska Lands Act,'' which was signed into law on December 2, 1980. Also, for many years John Seiberling was the voice of historic preservation in the Congress. He authored the legislation that created the Historic Preservation Fund and the 1980 Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act, and he helped win passage of the first Federal tax credits to preserve historic buildings. Indeed, both as a private citizen and a public leader, John Seiberling inspired and elevated the stewardship of our Nation's land and its natural and cultural heritage. At home, he was a leader in saving the historic heritage of Ohio, including his birthplace, Stan Hywet Hall in Akron. And while he was the shepherd of more than 60 park-related bills, he took special pride in writing and achieving the enactment of the Act to protect the Cuyahoga Valley between Akron and Cleveland, Ohio, as a national recreation area, now a national park. As his hometown paper, the Akron Beacon Journal put it ``John F. Seiberling often explained that in preserving land, we preserve something of ourselves. One generation sends an enduring message to its successors about what it holds dear. Who has forgotten the wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt and others advancing the cause of national parks? In that same way, Mr. Seiberling long will be remembered . . . for his vision in seeking to preserve' 33,000 acres in Northeast Ohio, a vast urban parkland between Akron and Cleveland, and then having the political skills to turn the dream into reality.'' And the same editorial also noted an important point about John Seiberling's character and why he was so effective here in Congress and back home: Almost anyone who spent time with Mr. Seiberling soon encountered his intelligence and wit. What his legislative colleagues and others appreciated was his modesty and civility, He listened to opposing views, Perhaps that stemmed from his own story, the scion of the family that founded Goodyear becoming a liberal Democrat. His calm, informed and reasoned approach proved most effective in aiding his causes. It meant that when he got his back up (say, his snapping ``Who the hell are you?'' at James Goldsmith, the corporate pirate seeking to consume Goodyear), his passion proved all the more persuasive. President Clinton later awarded John Seiberling the Presidential Citizens Medal, which is awarded in recognition of U.S. citizens who have performed exemplary deeds of service for our Nation. In making the award, the President rightly explained that ``An ardent advocate for the environment, John F. Seiberling has demonstrated a profound commitment to America's natural treasures. Championing numerous bills during his 17 years in Congress, including the Alaska Lands Act, John Seiberling safeguarded millions of acres of parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas.'' And, in recognition of John Seiberling's work as a member of the Judiciary Committee, President Clinton went on to say that ``working in a spirit of bipartisanship, he also promoted civil rights and worker rights, always striving to improve the quality of life in America.'' Truer words were never spoken of any Member of Congress--and, once again, the Beacon Journal got it right when its editors wrote ``John Seiberling led an admirable life. He might have been content to become the fine attorney and avid amateur photographer that he was. Instead, he jumped into the political fray and in doing so, provided an example of what it means to pursue the highest standards of public life. That is something very much worth remembering and preserving.'' John Seiberling's example is one we should all remember and try to emulate. Here is the complete text of the Beacon Journal editorial, from the paper's August 5th edition: The Seiberling Legacy.--Start with the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, and then consider the remarkable political skills that brought the dream to reality John F. Seiberling often explained that in preserving land, we preserve something of ourselves. One generation sends an enduring message to its successors about what it holds dear. Who has forgotten the wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt and others advancing the cause of national parks? In that same way, Mr. Seiberling long will be remembered, following his death over the weekend at age 89, for his vision in seeking to preserve 33,000 acres in Northeast Ohio, a vast urban parkland between Akron and Cleveland, and then having the political skills to turn the dream into reality. That achievement revealed so much about his public service. In this election season, candidates spend many hours touting their virtues, why their presence at the Statehouse or on Capitol Hill is necessary. Rare is the lawmaker who enhances the quality of community life to the degree of Mr. Seiberling. He was a once-in-a-generation leader. Look at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park today, three decades after its creation, millions of people each year hiking and riding its pathways, enjoying its meadows, its wetlands and banks of trees, their colors radiant in the fall. Practically all of us boast about the park to friends and family elsewhere, and when they come to visit, they marvel, too. The park isn't the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone, obviously. Mr. Seiberling knew the Big Country. One of his proudest accomplishments representing the Akron area in the U.S. House for 16 years was his essential role in preserving 54 million acres of wilderness in Alaska. The Cuyahoga Valley park represented an innovation in the concept. Why not do the same in the industrial heartland of the country? Almost anyone who spent time with Mr. Seiberling soon encountered his intelligence and wit. What his legislative colleagues and others appreciated was his modesty and civility. He listened to opposing views. Perhaps that stemmed from his own story, the scion of the family that founded Goodyear becoming a liberal Democrat. His calm, informed and reasoned approach proved most effective in aiding his causes. It meant that when he got his back up (say, his snapping ``Who the hell are you?'' at James Goldsmith, the corporate pirate seeking to consume Goodyear), his passion proved all the more persuasive. Most telling, Mr. Seiberling knew who he was, and didn't pretend otherwise. Even as he cut a national profile conserving public lands, he understood his leading role involved representing the city and its surroundings. He brought federal backing to the Akron-Canton airport, the Goodyear Technical Center and other projects critical to the community. He didn't duck confrontations. He felt comfortable in his own skin, and at ease in the face of opposition. John Seiberling led an admirable life. He might have been content to become the fine attorney and avid amateur photographer that he was. Instead, he jumped into the political fray and in doing so, provided an example of what it means to pursue the highest standards of public life. That is something very much worth remembering and preserving.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation that will help provide price relief for American families, open up new areas for domestic energy production, and assist us to make the transition to a new energy economy that will reduce our dependence on imported oil-- all without adding to the federal deficit. While this bill is not perfect--I would prefer to see the more comprehensive approach embodied in my ``American Innovation, American Energy'' plan--it is a step in the right direction and deserves approval. It will help us address gas prices in the short term by including a provision (as does my energy bill) to release additional oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This release would provide for a quick increase in the supply of petroleum in our consumer market and so could reduce the likelihood of further short-term increases in the price of gasoline and other refined products. And, it will do this in a way that is both cost-effective and protective of our national security interests. Under the bill, the Energy Department (DOE) would sell at least 20 million barrels of light grade oil now stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and sales would continue for 6 months or until 70 million barrels have been sold, whichever comes first. But the draw- down would not be permanent because the bill would require the energy department to acquire, through purchase (using money from the sales) or exchange, heavy grade petroleum for storage in the strategic reserve, to replace the light grade petroleum that would be sold. Right now, slightly more than 700 million barrels of oil are stored in the strategic reserve--so the amount to be sold under the bill would be only about 10 percent of the amount on hand. Importantly, the bill specifies that the amount of oil stored in the strategic reserve could not drop below 90 percent of the amount stored when the bill is enacted. The most recent data I have seen indicate that the reserve is currently filled nearly to capacity, so the bill will not cause a significant reduction in the amount stored. Furthermore, this bill will help diversify the type of oil in the SPR, meaning that this bill not only is compatible with the national security purposes of the SPR, it can actually assist in achieving them. This bill will also require that oil companies pay their fair share of royalties on flawed leases granted in 1998 and 1999. Because of mistakes made by the Interior Department, oil companies holding 70 percent of leases issued for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in 1998 and 1999 became exempt from paying any royalties, costing American taxpayers about $15 billion. And the bill will address the recently discovered ethical problems within the Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service (MMS)-- problems that were particularly rampant at the MMS office in Denver. Numerous government employees were found to have very inappropriate relationships with employees who worked for the very companies they were regulating. This bill will increase penalties for both MMS employees and companies that hold oil or gas leases, strengthen the MMS code of ethics, and strengthen the office of the Inspector General, which uncovered these problems. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes that short-term solutions and fixing past problems are no ``silver bullets'' for the factors that have led to the current high price of oil and products such as gasoline that are made from oil. We need long-term solutions as well. This bill includes opening up new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil and gas drilling. Specifically, the bill would end the current moratorium on OCS drilling and would permit leasing between 50 and 100 miles offshore if a State ``opts-in'' to allow it off of their coast, while providing protection for environmentally sensitive areas. I think that is a critical component of this provision--states must be able to have a say in drilling activity within their territory. A separate provision in the bill deals with Federal lands that have been leased for energy exploration and development under the Mineral Leasing Act but where such activities have not yet occurred--yet another provision that is also in my energy plan. While it is important to understand the reality that oil and gas exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific enterprise involving efforts not easily fitting within strict regulatory timelines, I think that this is a reasonable response to current conditions. In essence, it would bar the current holders of federal mineral leases--whether for onshore or offshore areas--from obtaining additional leases unless they are able to show that they are ``diligently developing'' the leases they already hold. The Secretary of the Interior would be responsible for spelling out in regulations exactly what would be needed to show such ``due diligence.'' These provisions also include a requirement for the Department of the Interior to offer at least one lease sale annually in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. This is an area of well-established potential that was initially made available for leasing in the Clinton Administration, and with regard to which the current Administration just today announced that 2.6 million acres would be offered at lease sales in the near future. Dictating a leasing timetable in legislation is unusual, and I have reservations about that approach--but the potentially beneficial effects on prices from tapping the reserves in this part of Alaska are undeniable. In addition, the bill would reinstate a ban on the export of Alaskan oil that was previously a matter of federal law. Oil is a globally- traded commodity, so the effect of this will be limited, but it to an extent might reduce the extent to which imports are used to supply the domestic market. And the bill calls on the President to use the powers of his office to facilitate the completion of oil pipelines into the National Petroleum Reserve and to facilitate the construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline to the continental United States to move the product to market. These are only exhortations, but I see no objection to their inclusion in the legislation. I am particularly pleased that the measure before contains a provision that I authored, along with Representatives Tom Udall and Todd Platts, to establish a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). This provision will require utilities to acquire 15 percent of electricity production from renewable resources by 2020. While I would prefer to see us adopt a RES of 20 percent by 2020, as we have in Colorado and as is in my energy plan, establishing a 15 percent by 2020 is a good step in the right direction. As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I am especially pleased to see the bill include needed extension for tax credits for renewable energy. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) in particular has been instrumental in promoting the creation of a renewable energy industry. An extended PTC will provide more market certainty and we must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008. I must add that, while I am pleased that the bill provides a three year extension of the PTC for most renewable energy sources, I am concerned that it only provides a one-year extension for wind energy. Wind is a very promising renewable energy source and a one year extension will not be as helpful for the industry. I will continue to lead the fight to extend the PTC for more than one year in fact, my energy plan includes a four year extension of the PTC for all renewable energy sources. The bill also extends the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar energy, qualified fuel cells, and microturbines for eight years. The ITC will help companies with initial investment costs in expanding these renewable energy sources across the country. The bill also authorizes new clean renewable energy bonds (CREBS) for public power providers and electric cooperatives. This is a critical tool, especially for Colorado's rural co-ops and municipal utilities. Of course, the cheapest kilowatt of energy is the one you don't use and energy efficiency also has a key role in addressing our energy needs. This bill will provide incentives to lenders and financial institutions, including the Federal Housing Administration, to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers who build, buy or remodel their homes to improve their energy efficiency. It will also establish a residential energy efficiency block grant program to improve the energy efficiency of housing. Transportation is another area of high energy use and public transportation is becoming more and more necessary as gas prices continue to rise. This bill establishes $1.7 billion in grants to transit agencies for the next two years, which will help reduce transit fares for commuter rail and buses and expands service. While I would like to see much more for transportation, such as the increase in vehicle efficiency and additional advancements in alternative fuels that are included in my energy plan, this public transportation provision is a good start. I maintain strong reservations about the pace at which this Administration is pursuing oil shale development in Western Colorado. Before commercial leasing occurs, we need to know more about oil shale development's impacts on water and local communities. Until those questions are answered, I do not believe that the federal government should rush ahead with oil shale leasing and I therefore have been fighting, with my colleague Representative John Salazar, to ensure that the necessary research and development can be completed before we move ahead. I have also been fighting to ensure that the State of Colorado has a voice in the development of oil shale, so that the wisdom of Westerners can help us avoid the pitfalls that have sunk oil shale development in the past. At the end of this month, the moratorium on commercial oil shale leasing is scheduled to expire. In the event it does, I believe that the state of Colorado should have a safety valve so that it can determine the pace of oil shale development within its borders. Section 171 of the energy bill currently before the House aims to create that safety valve, and to ensure that regardless of the Administration's desire to rush ahead with oil shale development at all costs, Colorado and other states can control the pace of development. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill deserves support. But it certainly is not all that is needed in terms of energy policy. We need to do more. I think we need to look at increasing mileage standards for new cars and trucks. Specifically, I believe we have the technology to require that all new vehicles achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2015 and, with additional American innovation, we can achieve 50 miles per gallon by 2030. I also think we need additional incentives for Americans to purchase high efficiency vehicles and for manufactures to produce many vehicles that use alternative fuels. And we need to aggressively pursue development of alternative energy sources, including solar and wind power, in order to reduce our dependence not just on imported oil but on all fossil fuels. We also need to work even harder to increase energy efficiency, so that we get a greater payoff from all energy sources. I hope today we can move this bill forward and promote positive change that will benefit our families and rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the House to vote for this needed legislation, and also encourage quick action in the Senate so that we may move it to the President's desk.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I must oppose this motion to adjourn, because I think the House should continue trying to pass legislation to improve our national energy policies. Regrettably, so far our repeated efforts to do that have been thwarted by the refusal of our friends on the other side of the aisle to support any of the proposals that have been considered. They seem ready to put a perceived political advantage over working on a bipartisan basis to achieve results. Otherwise, I cannot explain their recent votes on energy legislation. Looking back, we see that a majority of Congressional Republicans have time and again voted against sensible energy legislation. They have voted against renewable energy, against the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years--saving $1,000 in fuel costs per car per year--and against reducing transit fares for commuter rail and buses. They have voted against expedited drilling in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve and against adding a due-diligence requirement that could stimulate expedited exploration and development on other Federal lands already leased for that purpose. They also voted against releasing 10 percent of the record amounts of oil stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (to be replaced with heavy oil that is better suited for that storage), even though that addition to the supplies on the market could ease gas prices. And, finally, too many of our Republican colleagues opposed better regulation of the commodity markets, to reduce the ability of speculators to artificially increase the price of oil, even though the bill had been approved in the Agriculture Committee by voice vote and was supported by the committee's ranking Republican member. So, I certainly understand why many of our colleagues are prepared to give up for now and adjourn today in order to begin the normal August district work period. But I think we owe it to our constituents and to the country to stay here at least for now, and to continue working on energy legislation. And for that reason, I cannot vote for this motion to adjourn.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. As its name suggests, this bill is about fairness. As a nation, we have made great strides in promoting fairness in the workplace since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963. Unfortunately, I do not think the language of that bill adequately addresses the problem of gender-based wage discrimination. In particular, the language of the Equal Pay Act offers little remedy for women who are not being paid equal wages for doing equal work. The statistics describe precisely why this legislation is needed. Despite representing nearly half of the American workforce, and despite countless examples of professional women who have ascended to the highest levels of any given field, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. This bill would require that employers, in justifying unequal pay, provide evidence-based reasoning that such pay discrepancies are job- related and necessary for their business. It would help end the secret discrimination of unequal pay by prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their coworkers. And this bill would dissuade employers from practicing gender-based pay discrimination by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages--the same sanctions that already apply to discrimination based on race, disability or age. There are also some amendments that I think are important to prevent unscrupulous people from unfairly taking advantage of the provisions in this bill. As I said, this bill is about fairness, so I support the amendment from the gentle lady from Arizona, Ms. Giffords, which would clarify that a plaintiff would have to show intent to recover any punitive damages. I also support the amendment of another good friend from Arizona and a fellow supporter of earmark reform, Mr. Flake, which would prohibit any funds authorized under this bill from being used for Congressional earmarks. Women have long proven their equal measure of talent and capacity in every corner of the professional world. It's long overdue that they be compensated equally as well, so I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to recognize the benefits of the United States Route 36, US 36, Corridor project plan, and to commend the cooperative effort of several communities located along the US 36 Corridor between Denver and Boulder in developing the project. The Colorado communities along the US 36 Corridor, including Westminster, Louisville, Superior, Broomfield, Denver, and Boulder, are experiencing a tremendous period of expansion. While this growth is very positive and certainly welcome, it has also outpaced the growth of its transportation infrastructure, leading to heavy traffic delays and sometimes dangerous road conditions. In response to these conditions, the US 36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition, MCC, a coalition of officials representing the communities along the US 36 Corridor, in coordination with the Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT, and a coalition of local businesses known as 36 Commuting Solutions, developed the US 36 Corridor project plan. The US 36 Corridor project is a national model for congestion mitigation, combining bus rapid transit lanes, high-occupancy vehicle lanes and safe bicycling lanes with traditional auto traffic lanes. The project ranked among the highest congestion mitigation proposals submitted under the Department of Transportation's Urban Partnership Agreement Program, and a record of decision is expected to be issued next year that will allow for its construction to commence. Madam Speaker, I think the cooperation and ingenuity that was demonstrated in putting the US 36 Corridor project together, as well as the project's benefits, deserve recognition from Congress, as this resolution does.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to improve the workings of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). The bill, cosponsored by my Colorado colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, is entitled the Compensation and Respect for Energy Workers Act ( or ``CARE Act''). It is similar to legislation with that title introduced in the Senate by Senator Salazar, but unlike the Senate version it also includes a section that would amend the EEOICPA to expand the number of former workers at the Rocky Flats site in Colorado covered by the ``special exposure cohort'' provisions of that law. This part of the new bill is identical to section 3 of H.R. 904, which I introduced with Mr. Perlmutter last year. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program Act (EEOICPA) was enacted to compensate American workers (and certain survivors) who put their health and life on the line to serve our Nation during the Cold War. Among them were thousands of Coloradans who worked at Rocky Flats as well as some other sites covered by the EEOICPA law. Many of them developed beryllium disease, cancer, or other ailments from being exposed to beryllium, radiation, or other hazards. When I was first elected to Congress, I began working with colleagues in the House and Senate--on both sides of the aisle--to provide a measure of justice for them and those with similar problems who worked at other nuclear-weapons sites. Before the Clinton Administration, the federal government had resisted paying claims filed by injured workers. But, led by Bill Richardson as Secretary of Energy, the Clinton Administration took a different position and asked Congress to establish a compensation program. That prompted me and other Members to introduce legislation to accomplish that objective. And I was among those who strongly supported the EEOICPA provisions that were finally enacted into law in 2000. But the next year brought a new Administration that, regrettably, has not been as strong an advocate of the program as its predecessor. In fact, after the Bush Administration inherited this program, they have both mismanaged it and tried to undermine it. They seemed not to realize that this is not just about money, but about the honor of the United States. With other supporters of the program, I have worked to get the Administration to improve its implementation--and I will continue to do so. But I also have worked to correct problems with the EEOICPA law itself--and the bill I am introducing today is part of that ongoing effort. While many people have received benefits under the Program, too many face incredible obstacles as they try to demonstrate that they qualify. More than 8 years after enactment, workers have died without receiving the healthcare or compensation they deserve. In fact, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape has prevented many workers from accessing any compensation for their serious illnesses. The CARE Act is designed to expand the category of individuals eligible for compensation, improve the procedures for providing compensation and transparency, and grant the Office of the Ombudsman greater authority to help workers. Toward that end, the first 10 sections of the bill would: Expand the list of cancers for which individuals are eligible to receive compensation--this would be done by amending the relevant part of another law, the Radiation Exposures Compensation Act (RECA) because EEOICPA adopts that law's list by reference. Require the Department of Labor (DOL) to pay a claimant's estate should a claimant die after filing their claim but before receiving payment and leave no survivors. Expand the duties of the Office of the EEOICPA Ombudsman to include the ability to provide information to claimants on benefits available under Part B. Grant the Ombudsman the authority to contract for expert services to assist in the execution of its duties (e.g., individuals with expertise in health physics, medicine and toxicology). Require DOL to provide the public with access to the ``site exposure matrix'' and any other databases or site profiles used to evaluate claims for compensation. Expand the statute of limitations to 1 year to provide ample time for workers whose claims have been denied to file a petition in federal court. Require any federal agency with jurisdiction over the program to provide information to claimants in easily understandable language and, if a claim is denied, provide claimants with a detailed, written explanation of all reasons for the denial and the additional documents, evidence, or information necessary to meet the burden of proof on appeal. Require the Office the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs to directly pay service providers for personal care services and transportation to assist low-income claimants who cannot afford to cover the cost of necessary medical and transportation expenses and wait for reimbursement from the government. Require claims examiners to provide written notice to claimants who file under either Part B or Part E of potential monetary or medical compensation for which they may be eligible. Require DOL to provide a list of physicians qualified to perform medical and impairment screenings from independent medical associations and institutions of higher education. Prohibit the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Labor from destroying original documents related to any DOE facility that might reasonably be expected to be used by workers in support of filing claims under EEOICPA. And, section 11 of the bill would revise the part of the EEOICPA law that specifies which covered workers are part of what the law designates as the ``Special Exposure Cohort.'' The revision would extend this ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contractor employees, or atomic weapons employees--all terms defined by the current law--who worked at the Rocky Flats site, in Colorado, for at least 250 days prior to January 1, 2006. The result would be to help provide the Act's benefits to any of those workers who contracted a radiation-linked cancer specified in the Act after beginning employment at Rocky Flats. As the law now stands, before a Rocky Flats worker suffering from a covered cancer can receive benefits, it must be established that the cancer is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job exposure to radiation. That sounds like a reasonable requirement and it would be appropriate for Rocky Flats if we had adequate documentation of radiation exposures for the years when it was producing nuclear-weapons components as well as for the more recent time when DOE and its contractors have been working to clean it up and prepare it for closure. However, in fact there were serious shortcomings in the monitoring of Rocky Flats workers' radiation exposures and in the necessary recordkeeping--to say nothing of the slowness of the current administrative process for making the required determinations concerning links between exposure and employment. So there is a risk that a significant number of Rocky Flats workers who should be able to benefit from the Act will not obtain its benefits in a timely manner or will be denied them entirely. The bill would prevent this miscarriage of justice, by recognizing that Rocky Flats workers have been plagued by the same kinds of administrative problems that entangled workers at some other locations--administrative problems that were addressed through inclusion in the Act of the provisions related to the ``Special Exposure Cohort.'' My understating of the need for this bill came from meeting with Rocky Flats workers and their representatives and by consulting experts. I have particularly benefited from the great experience and expertise of Dr. Robert Bistline. Dr. Bistline has served as Program Manager of the Energy Department's Oversight of Radiation Protection Program at the Rocky Flats field office and has few if any peers in terms of his understanding of the problems addressed by the bill. In particular, the bill reflects these aspects of Rocky Flats history: Many worker exposures were unmonitored over the plant's history. For some estimated doses were assigned, and radiation exposures for many others are missing. As a result, there are at best incomplete records and many inaccuracies in the exposure records that do exist. No lung counter for detecting and measuring plutonium and americium in the lungs existed at Rocky Flats until the late 1960's. Without this equipment the very insoluble oxide forms of plutonium cannot be detected and a large number of workers had inhalation exposures that went undetected and unmeasured. Exposure to neutron radiation was not monitored until the late 1950's and most of those measurements through 1970 have been found to be in error. In some areas of the plant the neutron doses were as much as 2 to 10 times as great as the gamma doses received by workers but only gamma doses were recorded. As a result of these and other shortcomings, some Rocky Flats workers have been denied compensation under the Act despite having worked with tons of plutonium and having known exposures leading to serious health effects. Madam Speaker, since early in my tenure in Congress I have worked to make good on promises of a fairer deal for the nuclear-weapons workers who helped America win the Cold War. That was why enactment and improvement of the compensation Act has been one of my top priorities. I saw this as a very important matter for our country--and especially for many Coloradans because our State is home to the Rocky Flats site, which for decades was a key part of the nuclear-weapons complex. Now the site's military mission has ended and the last of the Rocky Flats workers have completed the job of cleaning it up for closure. And just as they worked to take care of the site, we in Congress need to take care of them and the others who worked there in the past, and do a better job of taking care of those who have worked at other sites as well. That was the purpose of the compensation act. I am very proud that I was able to help achieve its enactment, but I am also aware that it is not perfect. The bill being introduced today will not remedy all the shortcomings of the current law, but it will make it better.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to facilitate the establishment of additional or expanded training ranges in certain States. The bill, entitled the ``Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act,'' addresses a problem faced by many sportsmen and sportswomen and others in Colorado and some other States where population growth--and resulting public-safety concerns--has forced the Forest Service and other Federal land-managing agencies to bar target shooting on some parts of their lands where that activity was previously allowed. The result has been a serious reduction in the number of appropriate places for target shooting that are readily accessible, which unfortunately means that in some cases such shooting occurs in places that are not suitable for that purpose and where that activity can endanger public safety. My new bill would respond to this problem by revising the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act--often called the Pittman-Robertson Act--to give certain States temporary authority to use more of the Federal funds provided under that law for the establishment of new public target ranges or the enlargement or improvement of existing public target ranges. This authority would continue for ten fiscal years. It would also make some other changes to that same law in order to help qualifying States work toward that goal. The bill would apply to States where there has been at least a 2 percent growth in population since the most recent decennial census and where there has been a reduction in the acreage of Federal lands open to use for target practice and marksmanship training. Also, to allay concerns by Federal land managers about potential liability related to allowing Federal land areas to be used for target practice and marksmanship training, the bill includes provisions to make clear that--(1) such a decision will be considered a discretionary function for purposes of the Federal Torts Claim Act; and (2) any potential liability of the United States for damages related to any activity at a public target range wholly or partially funded by the Federal government will be subject to the limits specified in the Federal Torts Claim Act. And, finally, the bill includes a section expressing the sense of Congress that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management should cooperate with State and local authorities and other entities to carry out environmental remediation or other actions needed to allow target practice and marksmanship training to continue on lands managed by those Federal agencies. Madam Speaker, this bill will not increase Federal spending and it does not require any State to use any of the funds it receives under the Pittman-Robertson funds for any new purpose. But it would provide eligible States additional flexibility regarding the use of those funds if they decide to use more of those funds for establishment of new public target ranges or improvement or expansion of existing ranges. For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill's provisions: Outline of Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act This proposed bill would address both the funding and liability issues to make it easier for State wildlife departments to work with Federal land agencies on establishing and improving safe and convenient target practice and marksmanship training facilities. What the proposed bill would do Provides additional funding flexibility to states: The bill would amend the Pittman-Robertson Act to allow eligible States to increase the extent to which eligible States could use Federal funds they receive under that law to establish new, expanded, or improved shooting ranges (including acquisition of lands for that purpose). --Eligible States would be those that have experienced at least 2 percent population growth since 2000 and have seen a reduction of the extent to which target practice and marksmanship training can take place on Federal lands within their borders. --Eligible States could apply for up to 90 percent of the cost of acquiring land for and/or construction of new, expanded, or improved facilities (current law caps Federal share at 75 percent) and could retain the funds until expended (current law requires funds unused in the year received to be refunded to the Federal government). --In addition, the bill would temporarily allow eligible States to use up to 10 percent of the Pittman-Robertson funds provided for wildlife management and conservation for acquiring land for and/or construction of new, expanded, or improved shooting ranges and to assist in cleanup or other steps needed to allow Federal lands to be used for target practice or marksmanship training. This provision would expire after 10 fiscal years. Addresses liability concerns: The bill makes it clear that shooting ranges on Federal lands do not expose the Federal land agency to liability for injuries that may occur at these facilities. Encourages Cooperation: The bill states sense of Congress that Federal land managers should cooperate with States, local government, and other entities in doing what's needed to permit Federal lands to remain available for public target practice and marksmanship training. What the proposed bill would NOT do Impose a mandate on States: The bill would provide an opportunity for eligible States to receive additional funds for specific purposes, but does not require any funds to be spent for those purposes. Raise any Taxes: The bill would broaden the uses for Pittman- Robertson funds can be used, but does not increase the excise taxes from which such funds are derived.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I was not present for the vote on this resolution (H. Con. Res. 398), despite my best efforts to reach the House floor in time to do so. Had those efforts been successful, I would have voted ``no,'' because I think we should not adjourn or recess this week until completing action on legislation to revise our national energy policies--something that has not yet occurred. I left on an early flight out of Colorado this morning in an effort to reach the House in time for that vote. My flight landed just as the vote began. As soon as I got in the car, I called the cloakroom to advise that I was en route, and asked that the vote be held open until I arrived. I was no more than 10 minutes from the Capitol, and I was aware the vote was being held open already--as the first vote of the day, apparently in an effort to give Members additional time to arrive and cast their votes. However, the vote was completed as I entered the Capitol. I regret that my request that the vote be held open was not honored and that I was not able to cast my vote even though I was only seconds short of being able to do so.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill for two reasons. First, because it would provide for a quick increase in the supply of petroleum in our consumer market and so could reduce the likelihood of further short-term increases in the price of gasoline and other refined products. And, second, because it will do this in a way that is both cost- effective and protective of our national-security interests. Under the bill, the Energy Department, DOE, within 30 days would begin selling light grade oil now stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. At least 20 million barrels would be offered for sale within 30 days after sales begin, and sales would continue for 6 months or until 70 million barrels have been sold, whichever comes first. But the draw-down would not be permanent because the bill would require the Energy Department to acquire, through purchase, using money from the sales, or exchange, heavy grade petroleum for storage in the strategic reserve, to replace the light-grade petroleum that would be sold. Right now, slightly more than 700 million barrels of oil are stored in the strategic reserve--so the amount to be sold under the bill would be only about 10 percent of the amount on hand. And, importantly, the bill specifies that the amount of oil stored in the strategic reserve could not drop below 90 percent of the amount stored when the bill is enacted. The most recent data I have seen indicate that the reserve is currently filled nearly to capacity, so the bill will not cause a significant reduction in the amount stored. Also, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, says that it would be a good idea to increase the extent to which we store heavy oil in the reserve. In testimony earlier this year, Frank Rusco, GAO's acting director for natural resources and environment, said that ``to decrease the cost of filling the reserve and improve its efficiency . . . DOE should include at least 10 percent heavy crude oils in the SPR . . . Having heavy crude oil in the SPR would also make the SPR more compatible with many U.S. refineries, helping these refineries run more efficiently in the event that a supply disruption triggers use of the SPR.'' So, this bill not only is compatible with the national-security purposes of the SPR, it can actually assist in achieving them. But, Mr. Speaker, while I think this bill deserves support, I also think we should recognize that it is not a ``silver bullet'' for the factors that have led to the current high price of oil and products such as gasoline that are made from oil. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CRS, it is not easy to predict exactly how adding 70 million barrels of easily refined oil from the strategic reserve would affect the market. CRS's most recent report does point out that ``prices might decline after additional refined product entered the market,'' but the same report also notes that oil from the strategic reserve (SPR) ``is not sold at below-market prices. Bids on SPR oil are accepted only if the bids are deemed fair to the U.S. government. If the announcement itself that the SPR is going to be tapped does not prompt or contribute to a softening of prices, there may be limited interest on the part of the oil industry in bidding on SPR supply.'' This underlines the need for a more comprehensive approach to energy issues that combines short-term steps with other changes that will take effect in a longer time frame. For example, I think we should reduce the tariff--that is, the tax-- on imported ethanol, so that it will again be a safeguard against subsidizing foreign blenders rather than a trade barrier against imports of this fuel that can add to our supplies and thus further reduce the pressure on prices. I have introduced a bill (H.R. 6234, the Imported Ethanol Facilitation Act) that would do just that. In addition, I am open to increasing the extent to which Federal lands on the outer continental shelf can be subject to exploration for and development of energy resources, and I support adding a stronger due-diligence requirement to promote more rapid exploration and development on existing leases on those lands and onshore as well. We also need to continue to work to reduce the potential for artificial increases in prices through improper speculation or other market-distorting activities. And we need to keep pushing for continued aggressive development of alternative sources of energy--especially renewable sources--to reduce our dependence on petroleum as well as for greater efficiencies in the way we use energy, so that we can do more with the same or reduced amounts. In other words, this bill is not all that is required for a better energy policy. But I think it does have the potential to assist consumers in the short run, without harming the national-security purposes served by maintaining our strategic petroleum reserve. So, I will vote for it and encourage all our colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. In the time Congress has taken to debate what steps to take to address the housing crisis and its related economic impact, hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure and the U.S. economy has continued to weaken. Since last year, the House has been responding, and most of the provisions of this legislation are identical or similar to measures that we have passed previously. However, only now has the Senate acted, by passing the revised version of H.R. 3221 that is now before us. As a result, much precious time has passed--and the time to act is now. Adding to the urgency is the need to respond to the perceived problems affecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--and the Bush administration's request that Congress act to validate the steps by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to restore confidence in the soundness of those companies that are so critical, not just to the mortgage market, but the national economy and the international standing of the U.S. dollar. The provisions to implement this administration proposal have drawn serious criticism from well-informed people concerned that they do not strike the right balance between the value of supporting those entities and the value of subjecting them to the same market forces that affect other private concerns. I have carefully considered those criticisms, especially because, as a son of the West, I prefer the Federal Government's influence to be limited, in particular when it involves the free market process. Our Nation's history has shown, however, that in certain times it is the duty of the federal government to take action to help people responsibly address problems they face--particularly if, as in this case, government may have contributed to the problems. The value of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock has plummeted in the last year, down about 80 percent. The most dramatic slide occurred just weeks ago, and it was the promise that Congress would pass--and the President would sign into law--this legislation that halted the Government Sponsored Enterprises' (GSEs) freefall. With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responsible for $5 trillion worth of residential mortgages--nearly half of the value in home loans nationwide--our economy could be crippled for years. With the backing of the U.S. Treasury Department, as outlined in this bill, we can avoid such a catastrophe. This bill also places a strong regulator in position to oversee Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, and protect against any similar pitfalls in the future. On the ground in neighborhoods throughout America, the importance of this legislation is much more concrete. Simply put, this legislation will help American families at risk of foreclosure work responsibly with their lenders to stay in their homes. The number of foreclosed properties soared through the first six months of this year, with more than 340,000 American families losing their homes. This bill will help hundreds of thousands of American families remain in their homes by allowing the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to guarantee qualified loans. However, both lenders and homeowners must agree to sacrifice in order to receive the FHA's backing, with lenders having to voluntarily take significant losses by reducing the loan principal, and homeowners having to repay the government a percentage of the value of the home if they sell or refinance again. This legislation also provides States with funding to purchase, rehabilitate and sell foreclosed properties, and in the process improve the value and quality of neighborhoods hardest hit by the housing crunch. This package will help remove some of the housing industry's excess inventory by providing a refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers, and by increasing the Veterans Administration home loan guarantee limit, so that our veterans can receive the expanded home ownership opportunities they deserve for serving our nation. This legislation also creates an affordable housing trust fund, paid for with a percentage of future GSE profits, to provide acceptable affordable housing for low- and extremely low-income families--those who were too often the victims of deceitful and predatory subprime lending practices. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Colorado was one of the first to realize the devastation of this housing crisis. Foreclosed homes can be found in far too many neighborhoods, especially in Adams County just outside of Denver--serving as a sober reminder of the need for housing reform. I was encouraged today to learn that the Bush administration removed its opposition to this bill. This legislation has been carefully crafted to safeguard against fraud, corporate giveaways and speculator abuse, and to provide a foothold for our nation's housing market to begin to rebound. This bill is a major step toward a more stable housing market, a more stable economy, and more stable households throughout the Nation. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this bipartisan bill, which is designed to strengthen and improve America's intelligence capabilities. The bill strengthens intelligence by adding funding to enhance human intelligence collection, strengthening research and development in advanced technologies, and improving signals intelligence. Importantly, the bill also includes strong provisions to promote accountability, including prohibiting the use of CIA contractors to interrogate detainees, requiring a report on compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and creating a statutory, Senate-confirmed Inspector General for the entire Intelligence community. I am disappointed in what the bill doesn't include--a provision included in last year's authorization bill that would have prohibited interrogation techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. Despite White House claims that the United States does not torture prisoners, we continue to learn about Administration actions that seem to condone the use of coercive techniques in questioning prisoners. Last year, we learned about a classified Justice Department memo from February 2005 allowing waterboarding and other coercive techniques. Then there was the Executive Order signed last year that effectively opened a loophole for the CIA to practice interrogation techniques that go beyond those allowed by the U.S. military. Reports of destroyed interrogation tapes showing CIA operatives using waterboarding and other ``enhanced'' techniques are deeply disturbing, and suggest a double standard, whereby these techniques are approved for use by the CIA but not by the Department of Defense and its intelligence agencies. All this points to the need for a common standard for humane and effective interrogation techniques across the government, which is what the provision called for in last year's bill. Sen. John McCain has called the Army Field Manual techniques ``humane and yet effective.'' In my view, there is no reason why interrogation techniques that work effectively and humanely for our military interrogators cannot also work effectively and humanely for CIA and other intelligence agency interrogators. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this legislation, though I hope that the provision prohibiting interrogation techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual on Interrogation is included in the conference report. I believe it sends a message that the United States believes no part of its government is above the law, and that no interrogation method is acceptable that could not also be used on Americans in enemy custody.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to revise the 1986 law dealing with use of National Forests for ski areas in order to reflect current ways those areas are used and to provide clear authority for the Forest Service to allow additional recreational uses of those areas. I have long thought it is in the national interest to encourage Americans to engage in outdoor recreational activities that can contribute to their health and well-being, and that National Forest lands, including ski areas, can play a role by providing opportunities for such activities. And my interest in the subject was heightened earlier this year when representatives of the National Ski Areas Association brought to my attention the fact that the National Forest Ski Areas Permit Act of 1986, which speaks only to ``nordic and alpine skiing,'' does not reflect the full spectrum of snowsports for which ski areas are now used, and what they described as the absence of clear authority for the Forest Service to permit use of ski areas for other summer, seasonal, or year-round outdoor recreational activities and facilities in support of those activities. To better understand the matter, I sent a letter asking the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment whether current law could be clearer on those points. Under Secretary Mark Rey replied that the 1986 legislation indeed did not address those matters and that, if requested, the USDA ``would be happy to work with you to amend'' the law to provide the Forest Service with clear authority regarding such activities and facilities. I did request and receive technical suggestions from the Forest Service, and have considered their input as well as suggestions from the National Ski Areas Association and other interested parties in developing the bill I am introducing today. The bill intentionally uses a number of terms and phrases based on the terminology of the Forest Service's regulations, manual, or other official documents because those terms and phrases are familiar not only to the Forest Service but also to permittees and others with an interest in the management of the National Forests. Thus, as used in the bill the term ``developed recreation'' means recreation that occurs at an area which has been improved or developed for that purpose--such as camping in constructed campgrounds or developed opportunities for off-highway-vehicle use as well as downhill skiing. Similarly, the term ``natural-resource-based recreation'' is intended to have the same meaning as when used in the Forest Service manual 2300 (Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management). It also should be noted that the bill deals only with the 1986 National Forest Ski Areas Act, and would not in any way affect any other law applicable to management of the National Forests or any permits issued under any of those laws. Ski area permits under the 1986 law do give their holders a priority with respect to commercial use of the lands subject to the permits, but they do not preclude general use of those lands by the public for compatible, non-commercial uses, and the bill would not change that. In fact, the bill does not affect the status, the duration, or any other provision of any permit already issued under the 1986 law, nor does it provide for any new permits. Instead, it makes clear that the Forest Service is authorized--but not required--to allow a current or future holder of a permit under the 1986 law to provide opportunities for additional developed recreational activities (and to place associated facilities) on the lands covered by that permit if the specified requirements are met and if the Forest Service decides it would appropriate for that to occur. And it would not affect any existing or future permit related to use of lands that are not subject to ski area permits under the 1986 law or in any way reduce or otherwise modify the extent to which the Forest Service can allow any particular use on any of those lands outside ski areas. Madam Speaker, this is a narrowly-targeted bill that I think can be valuable regarding an important aspect of the management of the National Forests and in facilitating the provision of additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities on the parts of those lands that are subject to permits under the 1986 law. I think it deserves the approval of our colleagues, and for their reference I attach a more detailed outline of its provisions: outline of the Bill Section 1 sets forth findings regarding the basis for the legislation, and states its purpose. The findings note that it is in the national interest to provide, and encourage Americans to take advantage of, opportunities to engage in outdoor recreational activities that can contribute to their health and well-being; that National Forests, including those areas used for skiing, can provide such opportunities during all four seasons; that increased use of ski areas for that purpose can reduce impacts on other National Forest lands; and that it is in the national interest to revise the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act. The purpose is to amend that 1986 law so as to reflect that other snowsports, in addition to nordic and alpine skiing, occur at ski areas and to clarify the Forest Service's authority to permit additional appropriate seasonal or year-round recreational uses of lands subject to permits under that law. Section 2 would amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 in three ways: (1) by replacing current language that refers only to ``nordic and alpine skiing'' with broader terminology to reflect that additional ski areas are also used for additional snowsports, such as snowboarding. (2) by providing specific authority for the Forest Service to authorize the holder of a ski area permit under the 1986 law to provide additional recreational opportunities (and to have associated facilities) on lands covered by that permit. This authority is limited to activities and facilities that the Forest Service determines appropriate, that encourage outdoor recreation, and that harmonize to the natural environment to the extent practicable. The bill makes clear that the activities and facilities will be subject to such terms and conditions as the Forest Service determines appropriate. It also specifies that no activity or facility can be authorized if the agency determines that authorization would result in the primary recreational purpose of lands covered by a permit under the 1986 law would not be skiing or other snowsports. (3) Finally, the bill would delete from the 1986 law obsolete language related to a deadline for conversion of previously-issued ski- area permits to permits under the 1986 law, while retaining the requirement that regulations be promulgated to implement that law--a requirement that will apply to the law as it would be amended by the bill. Section 3 specifies that the bill will not affect any authority the Forest Service now has under laws other than the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, including authority with respect to recreational activities or facilities.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill. The bill is similar to one I voted for last month that dealt with Federal lands that have been leased for energy exploration and development under the Mineral Leasing Act but where such activities have not yet occurred. As I noted last month, the debate over this legislation has included statements--by some supporters and some opponents alike--that exaggerates the likely effect of enactment. For example, I believe it would be better to avoid the ``use it or lose it'' rhetoric that over- simplifies the issue and fails to reflect the reality that oil and gas exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific enterprise involving efforts that do not easily fit within strict regulatory timelines. But while that part of the bill may not be as far-reaching as some have claimed, I think it is a reasonable response to current conditions and should be passed. In essence, it would bar the current holders of federal mineral leases--whether for onshore or offshore areas--from obtaining additional leases unless they are able to show that they are ``diligently developing'' the leases they already hold. The Secretary of the Interior would be responsible for spelling out in regulations exactly what would be needed to show such ``due diligence.'' Current Interior Department regulations include provisions addressing due diligence requirements, so this is not a new concept. But I think giving it greater emphasis is appropriate in view of the continuing importance of oil even as we work to increase the availability and use of alternative energy sources. More useful in terms of energy policy, this bill will reinforce the provisions of current law that aim to prevent hoarding of leases. And providing an incentive for relinquishment of some leases may increase the opportunity for others to explore for and produce oil or gas from those lands. This approach is similar to that taken when Congress amended the coal-leasing laws by passing the Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 over President Ford's veto. That 1976 legislation provided for a due- diligence requirement as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the laws governing leasing and development of federally-owned coal resources--a provision that some analysts have said had the most immediate practical effect of any of the legislation's various provisions. As a result, for several decades the holders of federal coal leases have been required by law to diligently develop their leases, which has aided in the orderly and efficient development of the nation's coal. I think a similar reinforcement of existing law for leasing of other federal energy resources makes sense. I have a similar reaction to the other provisions of the bill--they certainly are not all that needs to be done to improve our energy policies, but they can make at least a modest contribution in the right direction. These provisions include a requirement for the Department of the Interior to offer at least one lease sale annually in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. This is an area of well-established potential that was initially made available for leasing in the Clinton Administration, and with regard to which the current Administration just today announced that 2.6 million acres would be offered at lease sales in the near future. Dictating a leasing timetable in legislation is unusual, but the potentially beneficial effects on prices from tapping the reserves in this part of Alaska are undeniable. In addition, the bill would reinstate a ban on the export of Alaskan oil that was previously a matter of federal law. Oil is a globally- traded commodity, so the effect of this will be limited, but it may, to some extent, reduce reliance on exports. The bill calls on the President to facilitate the completion of oil pipelines into the National Petroleum Reserve and to facilitate the construction of a Alaska natural gas pipeline to the continental United States to move the product to market. These are only exhortations, but I see no objection to their inclusion in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this bill is a comprehensive solution toward solving our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Nor does it come close to addressing all that we must do on energy policy. We need to do more. We can look for ways to increase exploration in offshore areas--for example, in 2006 I proposed opening up part of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to within 100 miles of the Florida coast, rather than leave the 125-mile buffer that was finally enacted, and I think that additional acreage should be made available. We should adjust the tax on imported ethanol, and I have introduced to reduce an artificial trade barrier that discourages imports of that fuel. We need to aggressively pursue development of alternative energy sources, including solar and wind power, and we should move aggressively to support research in carbon sequestration for clean coal development, and review policies that inhibit a more proactive effort with nuclear power. And we also need to work even harder to increase energy efficiency, so that we get a greater payoff from all energy sources. In short, we need a comprehensive and balanced energy policy. This bill by itself is at best a small part of that prescription--but, modest as it is, it does deserve approval and I will vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, this year we celebrate many important anniversaries in our Nation's civil space and aeronautics programs. Earlier this year, I introduced H. Con. Res 287, which celebrated the 50th anniversary of the United States Explorer I satellite, the world's first scientific spacecraft, and which marked the birth of the United States space exploration program. Since the successful Explorer I launch, we have built the world's leading civil space and aeronautics enterprise. Our human expeditions into space, our robotic science probes exploring the Earth and beyond, and our aeronautical research and development initiatives continue to deliver inspiring results and provide benefits to society. Today, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of three resolutions that mark other key milestones in our civil space and aeronautics activities: H. Res. 1315, Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; H. Res. 1313, Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the First American Woman in Space; and H. Res. 1312, Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the Space Foundation. H. Res. 1315 commemorates the 50th Anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which was established on July 29, 1958, through the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. NASA has achieved countless successes over the 50 years since its creation and H. Res. 1315 recalls many of the agency's accomplishments in human exploration, aeronautics, and space and Earth science. I strongly agree with the sentiment expressed in H. Res. 1315, ``. . . in the last fifty years, NASA has positively impacted almost every facet of our lives.'' NASA's contributions to aviation, to increased understanding of our climate, to the advancement of our knowledge of the universe, and to the development of countless technologies that have made their way into broader societal applications have fundamentally changed our lives. Madam Speaker, the applied uses of NASA research and developments have enabled weather and environmental monitoring, commercial satellite communications, and major improvements in commercial aviation. H. Res. 1315 marks NASA's successful launches of the first American manned spacecraft in 1961, the first human expedition to the Moon in 1969, and the first Space Shuttle in 1981. NASA's international cooperative ventures have allowed many of the world's nations to join together in advancing technology and knowledge through the peaceful uses of outer space. NASA's first 50 years have yielded truly remarkable discoveries and advances. I want to thank Mr. McCaul of Texas, who along with Mr. Lampson of Texas, introduced H. Res. 1315. H. Res. 1315 is an important opportunity to recognize NASA's half century of achievements and the men and women of NASA that have made them possible, and I am pleased to support it. As a result of NASA's human exploration program, we also celebrate the 25th anniversary of the first American woman in space, Dr. Sally K. Ride. H. Res. 1313 commemorates that date in June of 1983 when Dr. Ride flew aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger, making history by becoming the first American woman in space. She went on to fly a second mission in 1984. When training for Dr. Ride's third mission ended as a result of the tragic Challenger accident, she continued her contributions to NASA and the Nation as an educator and advisor. H. Res. 1313 honors Dr. Ride's passion and dedication as a tireless advocate for young women and girls to pursue education and careers in science, mathematics, and technology. The opportunities she is creating for our youth, especially girls and young women, to acquire hands-on learning in science will go far in training the next generation of leaders in science and engineering. That is something I care passionately about, and I thank my colleague, Mr. Lampson of Texas for introducing H. Res. 1313. In addition to the important role of our Federal government in the Nation's space and aeronautics programs, many non-governmental organizations provide outreach, education, and advocacy that enhance our space and aeronautics activities. That is why I strongly support H. Res. 1312, commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation. The Space Foundation, which is headquartered in Colorado Springs in my home state of Colorado, is a non-profit organization dedicated to using space to benefit humanity and furthering space exploration, development, and education. Since 1983, the Space Foundation has helped to ensure the strength and leadership of our space programs, and I am pleased that we can acknowledge the Space Foundation's endeavors in this regard. I thank my colleague, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, for introducing this resolution recognizing the Space Foundation for its 25 years of excellence and service. Madam Speaker, our nation's space and aeronautics programs are critical sources of innovation and inspiration for our Nation. The contributions of NASA, our astronauts, and our space advocacy organizations provide benefits for our society, help strengthen our economy, and help train the next generation of scientists and engineers. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1315 commemorating the 50th anniversary of NASA; H. Res. 1313 celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first American woman in space, Dr. Sally K. Ride; and H. Res. 1312 commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill. In recent days, discussion of the bill has included statements--by some supporters and some opponents alike--that I found exaggerated in their descriptions of the likely effect of its enactment. I regret that, and think it would be better to avoid the ``use it or lose it'' rhetoric that oversimplifies the issue and fails to reflect the reality that oil and gas exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific enterprise involving efforts not easily fitting within strict regulatory timelines. But while the bill may not be as far-reaching as some have claimed, I think it is a reasonable response to current conditions and should be passed. In essence, the bill would bar the current holders of Federal mineral leases--whether for onshore or offshore areas--from obtaining additional leases unless they are able to show that they are ``diligently developing'' the leases they already hold. The Secretary of the Interior would be responsible for spelling out in regulations exactly what would be needed to show such ``due diligence.'' Current Interior Department regulations include provisions addressing due diligence requirements, so this is not a new concept. But I think giving it greater emphasis is appropriate in view of the continuing importance of oil even as we work to increase the availability and use of alternative energy sources. More useful in terms of energy policy, this bill will reinforce the provisions of current law that aim to prevent hoarding of leases, and by providing an incentive for relinquishment of some leases may increase the opportunity for others to seek and obtain the right to explore for and perhaps produce oil or gas from those lands. This approach is similar to that taken when Congress amended the coal-leasing laws by passing the Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 over President Ford's veto. That 1976 legislation provided for a due- diligence requirement as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the laws governing leasing and development of federally owned coal resources--a provision that some analysts have said had the most immediate practical effect of any of the legislation's various provisions. As a result, for several decades the holders of Federal coal leases have been required by law to diligently develop their leases, which has aided in the orderly and efficient development of the Nation's coal. I think a similar reinforcement of existing law for leasing of other Federal energy resources makes sense. This bill alone is certainly not all that needs to be done to improve our energy policies. But I think it can make at least a modest contribution to achieving that, and so I will support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because of the need to protect middle-income families from a massive tax increase that will hit them if we do not act to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT. In technical terms, the bill would extend for one year AMT relief for nonrefundable personal credits and increases the AMT exemption amount to $69,950 for joint filers and $46,200 for individuals. In real-world terms, that means it will prevent a tax increase for more than 28,000 Colorado households that otherwise would be required to pay more in Federal income tax when returns are due next year. And so, Mr. Speaker, the bill overall is properly focused on tax relief for middle class families--a goal I strongly support. Some of our colleagues say they will oppose the bill because it includes provisions that would close loopholes and make other changes in the tax laws in order to offset this tax relief. They evidently are not concerned about the fact that the federal budget is deeply into deficit spending. I do have some reservations about how the bill seeks to provide AMT tax relief without making our Federal deficit worse. But I do not take a relaxed attitude to our fiscal problems, and think it is better to avoid adding to them--and that is the purpose of the offset provisions of the bill One such provision would revise current law so investment fund managers would no longer pay capital gains rates on the income they receive for investment management services income that does not reflect a reasonable return on their own invested capital. This change was approved by the House last year in H.R. 3996, which I supported. In addition, the bill would exclude from the domestic production deduction the gross receipts derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition of oil, natural gas, or any primary product thereof for large integrated oil companies. And it would freeze at 6 percent--the rate under current law--the domestic production deduction for income of other taxpayers with respect to oil, natural gas or any primary product thereof. This is also not new--it is a scaledback version of an outright repeal of this deduction for all oil, natural gas or any primary product thereof that passed the House last year. And the bill would prevent foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the United States by routing their income through structures in which a United States subsidiary corporation makes a deductible payment to a country with which the United States has a tax treaty before ultimately repatriating these earning in the tax haven country. This is a scaled-back version of a previously approved by the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 2419. Further, the bill includes a proposal that was in the president's latest budget request that will require institutions that make payments to merchants in settlement of payment card transactions to file an information return with the IRS. These provisions are not the only or perhaps even the best way to offset the revenue costs of providing a temporary fix to the AMT--but the bill's opponents have suggested no alternative except to cut unspecified amounts of spending in unspecified parts of the budget or to further add to the ``debt tax'' that has already been imposed on our children (and their children) by the irresponsible policies of the last seven years. The Senate will have to consider the legislation further, and it is possible that these provisions will be revised. But, in the meantime, the bottom line is that today we have the opportunity to provide tax relief to hundreds of thousands of middle-class families in Colorado. I think that is something I think the House should do without delay, and that is why I am voting for this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will support this bill. I will do so because, as I have consistently said, I do think the basic law in this area--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA--needs to be updated to respond to changes in technology, which was the purpose of the current, temporary law. That is why, last August, I voted for a bill (H.R. 3356) to provide such an update--a bill that was supported by a majority of the House, but did not pass because it was considered under a procedure that required a two-thirds vote for passage, which did not occur because of the opposition of the Bush Administration. It was supported by all but three of our Republican colleagues. That is also why I voted for another bill to update FISA--H.R. 3773, the ``Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseer, Reviewed, and Effective'' (or RESTORE) Act--which the House passed on November 15th of last year. Like those bills I supported earlier, this bill will replace the Protect America Act, enacted in August 2007--which I opposed. The bill makes it very clear that to conduct surveillance targeting a person in the United States, the government first must obtain an individual warrant from the FISA Court, based upon probable cause. And, importantly, it explicitly states that FISA and Title III of the U.S. criminal code are the exclusive means by which the government may conduct surveillance on American soil, and adds that any future statute must expressly authorize surveillance if the government is going to rely on it to conduct domestic surveillance. It also includes new legal protections for Americans abroad, requiring an individual probable cause determination by the FISA Court when the government seeks to conduct surveillance of U.S. persons located outside the United States. It requires prior review and approval by the FISA Court of the targeting and minimization procedures used to conduct surveillance of any foreign targets (unless in an emergency, in which case the government may authorize the surveillance and then apply to the FISA Court for approval within 7 days), and requires that this surveillance be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. And it requires the government to establish guidelines to ensure that Americans are not targeted by this surveillance (``reverse targeting guidelines''), and requires the government to provide those reverse targeting guidelines to Congress and the FISA Court. The legislation also includes important provisions to increase transparency and accountability. For example, it requires there be a comprehensive review of the President's warrantless surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department--and it provides for them to report the results to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. This report will review ``all of the facts necessary to describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use of the Program,'' as well as ``communications with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the private sector related to the Program.'' I do not find equally satisfactory another aspect of the bill that involves accountability--the treatment of pending lawsuits against various telecommunication companies that acted to implement President Bush's clandestine surveillance program. Like the bills I supported earlier, this measure would provide civil liability protection for private sector companies that provide lawful assistance to the government in the future. But it differs significantly in the way it addresses those pending lawsuits, which deal with the previous actions of the defendant companies. Those lawsuits have been consolidated and are pending in one court, but evidently have made little progress because of the Administration's argument, still awaiting court resolution, that the suits are barred because they involve state secrets. My understanding is that the defendant companies have argued that government's invocation of the state-secrets privilege has had the result of preventing them from defending themselves, although at least one company has stated in regulatory filings that the cases against it are without merit. President Bush has insisted that Congress throw these cases out of court by giving the companies retroactive immunity for whatever they might have done in connection with the surveillance program, even though the Administration and the companies themselves insist that those actions were lawful and that the plaintiffs' complaints against the companies have no merit. Regrettably, the Senate decided to comply with the president's demand on this point, and its version of this legislation would provide that retroactive immunity. I do not think that was the right decision because I agree with the Rocky Mountain News, which in a February 15th editorial said ``Letting this litigation proceed would not, as Bush [has] said . . .punish companies that want to `help America.' Businesses that want to help America need to be mindful of the Constitution--and so should the government.'' I supported removing that ``state secret'' barrier and allowing the companies to defend themselves by demonstrating to the court the evidence they say supports their arguments in a way that assures the continued security of that evidence and that avoids the public disclosure the Administration says would be adverse to the national interest. This is a process that has worked well in criminal cases, and while I am certainly not an expert on the matter, I think it can work when applied to these civil cases. In that respect, this bill is similar to the legislation I supported earlier this year. But it is not identical, and I do not think it is quite as sound. Under this bill, a district court hearing such a case will decide whether the Attorney General's certification attesting that the liability protection standard has been met and is supported by substantial evidence. In making that determination, the court will have the opportunity to examine the highly classified letters to the providers that indicated the President had authorized the activity and that it had been determined to be lawful. That is not as strong a requirement for accountability as I would prefer. However, in such cases both plaintiffs and defendants will have the opportunity to file public briefs on legal issues and the court should include in any public order a description of the legal standards that govern the order. And, importantly, this immunity provision does not apply to any actions against the Government for any alleged injuries caused by government officials. Madam Speaker, as Benjamin Franklin has warned us, people who value security over liberty will get neither--and the Bush Administration has finally agreed to end its disregard for liberty and agree to effective judicial oversight and involvement in intelligence surveillance. That agreement that is embodied in this bill, and the choice before us now is whether to reject it or to support the compromise measure now before us. After careful review, I have concluded that the bill adequately meets the test of protecting civil liberties while giving our country tools needed to effectively combat terrorism. So, while--like any compromise--the bill is not ideal, I have decided the correct decision--the one that will fulfill my responsibility to protect both our national security and the civil liberties that make our nation worth defending--is to vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to facilitate the importation of ethanol. It is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, and I appreciate his support. The bill will direct the President to lower the ethanol import tariff, so that it will never be higher than the tax-credit subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline. Historically, the ethanol tariff was linked to the subsidy, and so had the effect of precluding foreign ethanol blenders from benefiting from the subsidy. However, the recently-enacted Farm Bill will reduce the subsidy but simultaneously extend the tariff for 2 more years at $0.54 per gallon. Unless that changes, the tariff will be changed into a trade barrier that will make it even harder for ethanol imports to enter the U.S. market. This can have serious adverse consequences. For example-- By restricting supplies, it will tend to increase the price of fuel-- including both gasoline and ethanol--in the United States. It will make it harder to import sugar-based ethanol, which can work in today's cars and, like other ethanol emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline. It works against imports from friendly countries that produce ethanol while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter the United States tax- free. It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace that could permit mutually beneficial trade between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices. And it tends to increase our dependency on fossil fuels--including petroleum from the Middle East--when we should be working to reduce that dependency. By restoring the role of the tariff as an offset, not a trade barrier, my bill will prevent those consequences. In this respect, it is a companion to legislation (S. 3080) introduced in the Senate by Senator Feinstein. In addition, my bill will require the Energy and Commerce Departments to report to Congress regarding the possible effect of further reducing--or even eliminating--the tariff on ethanol on fuel supplies and prices in the United States and on the domestic production of ethanol. I have included this provision because I think it is worth exploring whether legislation to further reduce or eliminate the tariff could help reduce fuel prices without serious harm to our domestic ethanol industry. Madam Speaker, this bill alone will not do all that should be done to revise and reform our energy policies. But I think it can help, and I think it deserves the support of all our colleagues. For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill's provisions: Section-By-Section Outline Section one provides a short title, ``Imported Ethanol Facilitation Act.'' Section two sets out findings regarding the reasons for the bill. It also states the bill's purpose, which is ``to ensure that the tariff on ethanol does not exceed the tax credit applicable to blenders of ethanol, to avoid erecting a new trade barrier to imports of ethanol while assuring that foreign blenders will not benefit from the tax credit, and to require a study of potential effects of further reduction in or elimination of the duty on ethanol.'' Section three directs the president to act to ensure that the ethanol tariff will not exceed any tax credit applicable to ethanol. Section four requires the Department of Energy and the Commerce Department to report to Congress regarding the effects any further reduction--or elimination--of the ethanol tariff would have on (1) fuel supplies and fuel prices in the U.S.; and (2) the domestic production of ethanol. The deadline for this report would be 90 days after the bill's enactment.