Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. As most employers will tell you, the success of their operations depends on the quality of their employees. The same is true for the actions of the Federal Government. Our Nation's federal employees choose their path in government for love of country and dedication to our common goals. On the other hand, parents need to be able to create a bond with their new children. This bill seeks to remove the dilemma faced by many federal employees--choosing between government service or serving the best interests of children newly added to their families. Under current law, federal employees are allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a given year for the birth or adoption of a child. But like many other Americans, many federal employees cannot afford to take unpaid leave, especially with a new member of the family to support. Paid sick leave may only be used for the period that a new mother has been rendered physically incapacitated by the birth of her child, effectively penalizing those mothers who have a healthy baby with no complications. Federal employees can use paid vacation days, but the 13 days of annual leave after completing a full year of work, or even the maximum 30 days of leave saved up over several years, remains a small time frame for a parent to establish a bond with their new child. H.R. 5781 would provide four weeks--just a single month--of paid parental leave for federal employees to establish a bond with their new child. It is important to note that many successful companies offer up to twice that amount, as evidenced by the 75 percent of Fortune 100 companies that offer six to eight weeks of paid parental leave for new mothers. Americans want their Federal Government to operate as smoothly and as efficiently as possible. To accomplish this, we need the highest quality employees running it and focusing on national priorities such as homeland security and health care. This bill will help the Federal Government attract and maintain talented employees who value family as much as they value serving our Nation's government.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, it's clear that those leading the government of Iran are not friends of the United States or of our friends, including Israel. It would be folly to think otherwise. So, we are right to be concerned about the possibility that Iran could obtain nuclear weapons, and we should take seriously the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that the possibility of their developing them is ``a matter of serious concern.'' But I think a recent editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette was right to remind us that while Iran's actions ``cannot help but arouse suspicion . . . This is hardly a reason to resume rattling sabers, as some Americans seem to desire'' and that in fact ``it may be a reason to take steps toward more direct talks with the theocratic regime.'' Because I think its points deserve consideration, I am attaching the complete editorial for the information of our colleagues: [From the Gazette, Colorado Springs, June 5, 2008] An Opening for Iran Talks? The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency indicates that while there is still no solid evidence that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons, the possibility is still ``a matter of serious concern.'' Iran is still playing cat-and-mouse with the IAEA in ways that cannot help but arouse suspicion. This is hardly a reason to resume rattling sabers, as some Americans seem to desire. Indeed, it may be a reason to take steps toward more direct talks with the theocratic regime. The fact that a rival to loose-lipped Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was overwhelmingly elected as speaker of the Iranian parliament suggests that it might be a good time to take preliminary steps toward resuming the official contact between Iran and the United States. Ali Larijani, who has been critical of Ahmadinejad because of persistent inflation and other economic problems, won by a vote of 323- 31. It is unthinkable that Larijani rolled up this majority without backing from Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and the mullahs who really run the country. Most analysts interpret his victory as a signal that the mullahs are rethinking their support of Ahmadinejad. If the United States is to remain involved in the region, it is wise to recognize that while Iran poses no direct threat to the United States, it is an important regional power. In such situations, as the Godfather understood, it is important to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for these amendments today. They provide necessary funding for our troops, create new educational benefits for our veterans, and address domestic and global needs. The war funding will pay for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for the rest of this year and half of 2009. I support this because it will make it possible to provide the equipment, ammunition, fuel, and other supplies needed by our brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who have shown such extraordinary skill, determination and endurance in answering their call to service. I opposed the Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq, and voted against the resolution that authorized the President to send our armed forces into that country on the theory that this was necessary in order to deprive the Saddam Hussein regime of weapons of mass destruction. So, I understand why some of my constituents who also opposed the war want Congress to reject this funding measure. And I could not agree more that the record of the current Administration demonstrates an enormous failure of leadership. We desperately need new leadership that will bring to a close our open-ended military engagement in Iraq and will refocus on the very urgent tasks of reducing the terrorist threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But I am convinced that voting to deny funds to provide our men and women in uniform the resources they need to do their jobs is not the right way to bring about the change we need--especially because President Bush has shown he is prepared to veto funding for the troops rather than agree to change course. This bill also improves veterans' educational benefits to more closely resemble the GI Bill of Rights that made it possible for so many World War II veterans to go to college. The GI Bill of Rights helped make possible the postwar growth of the middle class that was one of the greatest achievements of the Greatest Generation. Some have complained about the cost of providing similar benefits to those who are serving today. But to put those costs into perspective, we should remember that so far our spending for military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq has exceeded $800 billion. By all indications, this bill will not be vetoed. Compromises were made on all sides to make it acceptable to the White House and the leadership of both parties. Of course, compromise means that everyone gives up something. So there is good news: The bill addresses the needs of our soldiers and provides enhanced educational benefits for our veterans--but also extends unemployment benefits to help laid-off workers, provides relief for the thousands of people flooded out of their homes in the Midwest, and prevents the implementation of new rules that would increase the cost of healthcare, among other provisions. But there also is bad news: The bill does not include all the important policy provisions included in the first version of this bill, among them a requirement that our troops begin to redeploy from Iraq, a reminder to Iraq's government that U.S. troops will not remain in Iraq indefinitely. I'm disappointed that the bill gives the President most of what he wants in Iraq spending without any significant policy constraints. Congress has tried and failed to include such constraints in previous spending bills, and here we have failed again. What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq, but as long as the architect of our current Iraq policy occupies the White House, I'm afraid that won't happen. I hope that the next Administration will give serious consideration to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group as a framework for consensus. Those recommendations would be accomplished by legislation I introduced last year, which would support a course of escalating economic development, empowerment of local government, the provision of basic services, a ``surge'' in regional and international diplomatic efforts, and lightening the American footprint in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I voted against war in Iraq because, as I said then, the Bush Administration was rushing to war without necessary international support or a clear plan to prevent the chaos that would follow after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. I was concerned a prolonged conflict would devolve into civil war. Since U.S. troops entered Iraq more than 5 years ago, we have lost thousands of our brave service men and women, seen tens of thousands more wounded, and spent half a trillion dollars in taxpayer money. Yet the President's mission is no clearer, he has still offered no exit strategy, our enemies in Afghanistan have regained their strength, and our armed forces have been stretched to the breaking point. Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the path out of Iraq. I will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on further steps we can take to change our broader Iraq policy. But today, I will vote to provide funding for our troops in the field, enhanced educational benefits for our veterans, and assistance for Americans suffering through the current economic downturn and the high costs of healthcare.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. Tornadoes cause an average of 54 fatalities and 1,500 injuries in the United States each year. Just last month in my home State of Colorado, tornadoes devastated the town of Windsor in Colorado destroying more than 100 homes and causing one death. Predicting tornado intensity and location is critical to protecting lives and property, and we must do all we can to improve our knowledge in this important area. I'm proud to say that the research at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in my district, the Second District in Colorado, contributes to this better understanding and improved forecasts of tornadoes. This amendment will further involve NASA scientists and data in this important process. I would urge Members to support this amendment just like the chairman did.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the manager's amendment. We have all worked together to fashion a constructive amendment. And I believe it includes a number of useful provisions that enhance the bill. Chairman Gordon already described them. So I am not going to restate them. But I want to note in particular that the workforce provisions included in the amendment have been under consideration for some time. We wanted to make sure however that we had the concurrence of all the stakeholders before we added any of these provisions. That has been done. The provisions will strengthen and protect the NASA workforce. I would ask the Members to support this amendment. It is a good amendment. It deserves the support of the body.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding and thank him for his leadership on the committee. I rise in support of this amendment on scientific integrity and openness at NASA. I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon for his action that we stay vigilant on this matter. A few years ago, concerns were raised about political interference in the discussion of scientific research and results by NASA scientists. These concerns about scientific openness were and are serious, and we need to ensure that all measures are in place to prevent such interference. It is true that the NASA Administrator, Dr. Griffin, took swift action in response to the reports of political interference and NASA revised the agency policy on the release of information of news and media, and I want to commend Dr. Griffin on his clear commitment to scientific openness. That said, we need to continue, Madam Chairman, our oversight on scientific integrity to ensure that Americans continue to have confidence in the important scientific research results that NASA provides to all of us and to our Nation. So I again want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his initiative, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, earlier this year, I introduced the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, a bill to reauthorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the fiscal year 2009. Today, I rise to urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this bill and send it on to the Senate. The bill passed the Committee on Science and Technology and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics with unanimous support, as our chairman pointed out. It represents a strong, bipartisan effort to ensure our continued leadership in space and aeronautics and to ensure that NASA's programs contribute to our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education efforts, to our Nation's Innovation Agenda, and to practical benefits for our citizens. I, too, want to thank Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Member Ralph Hall, and my fellow ranking member on the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Tom Feeney from Florida, for being original cosponsors, as well as providing thoughtful input into this bill. I would also like to thank the excellent staff on both the majority and minority side for their outstanding work on this bill. On my staff, my dedicated and tireless staff member, Wendy Adams, Richard Obermann, Pam Whitney, Allen Li, and Devin Bryant, as well as John Piazza have all been instrumental in moving this bill forward. I want to particularly point out the great contribution--I think the chairman would agree with me--of Dick Obermann. We benefit in the committee, the Nation benefits and this House of Representatives benefits from Dick's insights, his knowledge, and the relationships he's built. Anyone in the NASA orbit knows Dick Obermann's many, many contributions. So I want to particularly point out his great contributions to the committee and to NASA. On the minority side, I want to thank Ed Feddeman, Ken Monroe, and Lee Arnold as well. They have been very helpful in the work on this piece of legislation. Madam Chairman, the bill sets fiscally responsible policies and provisions for a balanced set of science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight programs. The baseline funding level authorized for NASA in fiscal year 2009, $19.21 billion, represents simply an inflation increase of about 2.8 percent over the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, legislation that the President signed into law. I don't want to go into great detail about the many provisions of the bill but will include my longer statement for the Record. Madam Chairman, 2008 represents the 50th anniversary of the birth of the U.S. space program and the establishment of NASA. NASA has accomplished a great deal in both space and aeronautical R&D over these past five decades, and we can all take pride in what has been accomplished. However, we cannot become complacent. The testimony and constructive input of countless hearings, witnesses, and outside experts and organizations that led to H.R. 6063 conveyed a consistent message: that NASA has not been given the funding it needs to successfully carry out all of the important tasks that the Nation has asked of it. If we fail to adequately invest in NASA now, it is unlikely that we will see a comparable record of accomplishment over the next five decades, at a great opportunity cost to the Nation. I am gratified by the support that H.R. 6063 has garnered to date, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Aerospace Industries Association, the Association of American Universities, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the University Space Research Association. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 6063 to ensure that our Nation remains the leader in space and aeronautics programs. Madam Chairman, on May 15, 2008 I introduced the ``NASA Authorization Act of 2008,'' H.R. 6063, a bill to reauthorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for Fiscal Year 2009. Today I rise to urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this bill and send it on to the Senate. This bill passed the Committee on Science and Technology and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics with unanimous support. It represents a strong bipartisan effort to ensure our leadership in space and aeronautics and to ensure that NASA's programs contribute to our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education efforts, to the Nation's innovation agenda, and to practical benefits for our citizens. I would like to thank Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member Ralph Hall, and Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Tom Feeney for being original cosponsors of this bill. Madam Chairman, this bill sets fiscally-responsible policies and provisions for a balanced set of science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight programs. The baseline funding level authorized for NASA in FY 2009--$19.21 billion-- represents simply an inflationary increase of about 2.8 percent over the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, legislation that the President signed into law. H.R. 6063 also reflects the conviction that NASA is as much a contributor to the nation's innovation agenda as any of the other agencies included in the America COMPETES Act that was enacted into law last year. Thus, includes provisions and funding directed at supporting opportunities for hands-on training of the next generation of scientists and engineers. In addition to the baseline authorization, H.R. 6063 contains a directed funding augmentation intended to help accelerate the date when the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares Crew Launch Vehicle can attain operational status. A series of policy failures over a number of years have brought us to the point where we will have an unavoidable gap in the United States' ability to get its astronauts into space independently. Providing the additional funding in FY 2009 can help narrow the gap while also putting in place the space transportation system that will help us carry out exciting and important exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit in the decades to come. Madam Chairman, NASA's programs are strongly relevant to addressing the nation's needs. In short, a properly balanced and focused NASA portfolio can pay large dividends to our society as well as to our standing in the world, and maximizing the value of the NASA portfolio to the nation is one of the main goals of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008. To that end, H.R. 6063 establishes a role for NASA in leading a cooperative international effort on Earth observations research and applications, especially with respect to climate change-one of the major challenges facing our generation. In addition, the bill includes a series of provisions to ensure that NASA's aeronautics program gets the resources it needs to remain one of the most relevant activities of the agency--one that impacts our quality of life, public safety, the vitality of the economy, and our national security. H.R. 6063 also includes provisions to ensure that the International Space Station--a unique orbiting R&D facility that represents a significant investment of resources by both American citizens and those of a host of other nations--will be utilized in as productive a manner as possible. The ISS is also a compelling example of the value of undertaking a cooperative approach to space exploration. To that end, H.R. 6063 makes clear that any human exploration initiative to return to the Moon and venture to other destinations in the solar system should be undertaken as a cooperative international undertaking under strong U.S. leadership. Madam Chairman, 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the U.S. space program and the establishment of NASA. NASA has accomplished a great deal in both space and aeronautical R&D over those past five decades, and we can all take pride in what has been accomplished. However, we cannot become complacent. The testimony and constructive input of countless hearing witnesses, outside experts, and organizations that led to H.R. 6063 conveyed a consistent message: that NASA has not been given the funding it needs to successfully carry out all of the important tasks that the nation has asked of it. If we fail to invest adequately in NASA now, it is unlikely that we will see a comparable record of accomplishment over the next five decades--at a great opportunity cost to the nation. I am gratified by the support that H.R. 6063 has garnered to date, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Aerospace Industries Association, the American Astronautical Society the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Association of American Universities, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the Information Technology Association of America, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers-USA, the National Business Aviation Association, the National Space Society, the Personal Spaceflight Federation, the Planetary Society, the Universities Space Research Association, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives support H.R. 6063 to ensure that our Nation remains the leader in space and aeronautics programs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment. This amendment is similar to the Boren amendment offered to the defense authorization package recently. That amendment passed with a voice vote on the floor. This amendment as well seeks to clarify requirements of section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to allow NASA to procure conventional fuels that contain incidental amounts of unconventional fuels. Section 526, Madam Chairman, is important because it establishes a positive benchmark for future alternative fuels, that their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions be less than or equal to those emissions from conventional fuels. The amendment clarifies section 526 while retaining the standard it sets for greenhouse gas emissions. I want to thank the Member from Texas for bringing this important amendment and urge all Members to support the amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire for yielding to me. I'm pleased to support this amendment as co-chair of the STEM Education Caucus along with my colleague, Dr. Ehlers, from Michigan. We've long worked to create emphasis on science and math education programs. These areas of study are critical to our future economic competitiveness as well as to the future of our space program. It is very appropriate to honor the life of educator and astronaut Christa McAuliffe with this scholarship program. I'm proud to support this amendment and urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Honoring Our Nation's Obligation to Returning Warriors Act (HONOR Warriors Act), along with my colleague and friend Representative John Salazar (D-CO). It is a companion bill to S. 3008, bipartisan legislation authored by Senator Kit Bond of Missouri and Senator Barbara Boxer of California. This legislation recognizes that our servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan need and deserve improved mental health care services. The HONOR Warriors Act will provide better mental health care treatment for these military members and veterans, enhance care for military families, and better prepare our troops to cope with stress related to combat. The Pentagon acknowledged recently that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major depression are affecting an ever greater number of U.S. troops. Nearly 40,000 troops have been diagnosed with PTSD since 2003, up 50 percent just last year. The RAND Corporation found even more disturbing statistics recently: Nearly 20 percent of all military servicemembers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan--300,000 total--have reported symptoms of PTSD or severe depression. More than 600,000 returning troops suffer from PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), or both. With many our servicemembers deploying for their third or fourth tours to Iraq, we can expect that these numbers will continue to rise. Treating these mental health problems is in some ways more difficult than treating wounds we can see. PTSD is the ``invisible wound'' that some soldiers don't even know they have, and the onset of its symptoms can be delayed, making it even harder to recognize. In addition, because of the stigma attached to PTSD, estimates are that nearly 50 percent of troops don't seek treatment. They are ashamed to seek help or fear that a diagnosis of mental illness will harm their careers. The recent RAND report also found that of those who do seek help for PTSD, only about half receive treatment that is considered to be ``minimally adequate.'' With its shortage of funds and trained staff, it is clear that our military mental health care system isn't prepared to deal with this growing mental health crisis. This is unacceptable. If the Pentagon can't act to help these injured servicemembers who have sacrificed so much for our country, then Congress must. That's why I am introducing this legislation--to ensure that the mental health needs of our military members and veterans are addressed now. The legislation will: Create a scholarship program to educate and train behavioral health care specialists to serve servicemembers and veterans; Give active-duty servicemembers access to Vet Centers, which currently provide readjustment counseling, outreach, and mental health care services to veterans only; Extend survivor benefits to families of military personnel who commit suicide and have a history of combat-related mental health conditions, PTSD, or TBI; Provide grants to non-profit organizations to offer services to survivors of members of the Armed Forces and veterans; Establish pilot programs to better prepare servicemembers for combat through a focus on improved prevention, early detection, intervention, and treatment of PTSD. The bill sets up two locations for these programs--Fort Carson in Colorado, and Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. With Veterans Affairs Secretary James Peake himself suggesting a few weeks ago that concerns about PTSD and TBI are overblown, it's clear that Congress needs to step in to ensure that our servicemembers and veterans suffering from the invisible wounds of PTSD and major depression are getting the support they deserve. They shouldn't have to fight another war to get proper care once they return home. Providing prompt and effective treatment to our returning troops can help prevent many of the negative effects related to PTSD and depression. It's the least we can do to repay them for the sacrifices they have made for our country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this urgently needed legislation. The latest statistics, show that the national unemployment rate has risen from 5 percent to 5.5 percent, the biggest increase in a single month in over 20 years, and now is at the highest level in nearly four years. The economy has been slowing and has been losing jobs for at least five months. In May the number of people looking for work reached 8.5 million--and nearly one in five has been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. Colorado has not been as hard hit as some other States, but we are not immune. For example, Denver will be affected by United Airlines' discontinuing its low-fare ``Ted'' carrier as well by layoffs by other airlines and companies in other sectors. And, in the Nation as a whole the number of long-term unemployed Americans is higher now than when Congress last extended unemployment benefits in 2002. This legislation will respond to that problem by immediately providing up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in every state to workers exhausting the 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits. In addition, another 13 weeks of extended benefits will be available in States with unemployment rates of six percent or higher. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will help some 3.8 million Americans. And by helping them, we help the country--because extending unemployment compensation benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy. In fact, an estimate by an independent expert--the chief economist of Moody's Economy.com-- indicates that each dollar of unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand, while the existing federal unemployment trust funds have more than enough reserves to cover the cost. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this legislation deserves prompt approval. In fact, I think it should have been passed yesterday--and would have been if just 3 more of our Republican colleagues had voted for it then, when we considered it under a procedure that required a two-thirds majority for passage. But even a day late, we still have an opportunity to do the right thing, so I urge its approval by the House.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I do not think the House should today take up the question of exercising our Constitutional authority to impeach the President and asking the Senate to try him on charges that, if proved, would result in his removal from office. That does not mean I have turned or will turn a blind eye to the numerous misjudgments of President Bush or that I think his administration has been above reproach. On the contrary, I think that the Bush Administration has been a distinct failure. I am convinced that this President will not be treated well by historians. His failures of judgment and leadership span domestic and foreign affairs in a way that will likely haunt future generations for years to come-- failures which are cited in the resolution proposed by the gentleman from Ohio. But the question now before the House is not what we think of President Bush's actions and those of his Administration. Instead, we are being asked whether we should now, today, proceed to charge that he has violated his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the duties of his office and to defend the Constitution and thus should be impeached and brought to trial in the Senate. The resolution sets forth what its author says are the specific statements and actions of the president that constitute violations of his oath. I also find those statements and actions deeply troubling and agree that they draw a picture of an Administration that has been characterized by hubris, bad judgment and arrogance. The picture is an unattractive one; but bad judgment, hubris and arrogance are not the constitutional grounds for impeachment. The resolution raises serious questions about the way this president has used his position, both in communicating with the American people and in shaping policy. But as of today I am not prepared to say that there are adequate grounds to conclude that the failures of this Administration in fact constitute grounds for impeachment--and I do not think that Members of the House should be called upon to reach that conclusion today. Before the House is asked to reach such a draconian conclusion, the president should have an opportunity to respond to the resolution's charges and the statements and actions it cites in support of those charges. Before we are asked to vote on the resolution, we should have the benefit of hearing from appropriate legal experts and other qualified witness and the Judiciary Committee should prepare a report that will provide the basis for any debate here on the floor of the House. Impeachment is not entirely a legal question. It is partly political, which is why the Constitution entrusts it to Congress and not the courts. But I think it is essential that any decision to impeach any federal official should come only through a careful, thorough process that provides adequate due process for the accused and lays the proper foundation for a sound decision. That was the process followed by the Judiciary Committee, under the able leadership of Chairman Peter Rodino, when it considered and ultimately approved articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon in July of 1974. In my opinion, that set the example of how the process should work. I think to do otherwise, as the author of this resolution seeks to do, would further weaken the civility toward our colleagues and respect for those with whom we disagree that should be the basis for our service in Congress and would only add to the polarization and rancor that are all too prevalent in the nation's political debates. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I must oppose consideration of this resolution at this time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for votes during the late afternoon and evening of May 22, 2008. For the information of our colleagues and my constituents, I want the Record to reflect how I would have voted on the following votes I missed that day. On rollcall 355, on the Akin amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 356, on the Franks amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 357, on the Tierney amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 358, on the Pearce amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 359, on the Lee amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 360, on the Braley amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 361, on the Price amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 362, on the Holt amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 363, on the McGovern amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 364, on the Motion to Recommit with instructions the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658), I would have voted ``no.'' I would have done so because the Motion to Recommit--as written-- would have effectively killed the bill by sending it back to Committee. I also objected to what the Motion attempted to do. It would have repealed Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which ensures that federal agencies do not procure or promote alternative fuels that emit, on a lifecycle basis, more greenhouse gas emissions than equivalent conventional fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources. This provision relates primarily to efforts of the Department of Defense to obtain half of its domestically used fuel from domestic synthetic sources by 2016. Specifically, the Air Force is pursuing ``coal-to-liquid'' fuel (CTL). According to both the EPA and DOE, liquid coal produces double the global warming emissions compared to conventional gasoline. An amendment adopted on the floor clarified Section 526 to ensure that federal agencies could procure conventional fuels that contain incidental amounts of unconventional fuels. With the passage of this amendment, it is my belief that there is no reason to repeal Section 526, since the Department of Defense has said that it intends to pursue CTL with carbon capture and sequestration. In addition, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Energy recommended that if DOD decides to provide financial backing to synthetic fuel production plants, it should avoid investing in processes that exceed the carbon footprint of petroleum. On rollcall 365, on Passage of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658), I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 366, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended, to H. Res. 986, a resolution recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed Forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a full accounting of the 1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict, I would have voted ``yes.'' The resolution recognizes the 35th anniversary of ``Operation Homecoming,'' when the first wave of the longest-held POWs from Vietnam left that country to return to the United States. We honor those POWs, but we also honor those brave heroes who fought and died for our country but never returned home.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation and I rise in its support. The bill will reauthorize for four years the ``Secure Rural Schools'' program under which payments are made to certain counties in which national forest lands are located. Currently, the program is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. This program is important for Colorado as well as other Western States. 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 amount may not be the same in the future, because the bill will revise the formula for distribution of payments so as to reflect the historical allocation of payments, the concentration of public land in a county, and the current economic condition of a recipient county. But Colorado will still benefit from the program. I do regret that as it comes before the House today the bill does not include provisions dealing with another program of importance to Colorado's counties--the payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT, program. Under PILT, counties in Colorado received more than 17 million dollars last year--but would have received more if the full authorized amount had been appropriated. As introduced, and as approved by the Natural Resources Committee, the bill would have provided for automatic payments under PILT at 80 percent of the authorized level in 2008, 90 percent in 2009, and 100 percent in 2010 and 2011. That would have meant that payments would not depend on annual appropriations. I have worked for years to make full PILT payments automatic, so that our counties would be assured that they would receive the full amounts authorized--and I will continue to do so. Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues have indicated they will oppose this bill because of the inclusion of provisions to reform the ``royalty relief'' afforded to some companies engaged in development of energy resources in the Gulf of Mexico. I think those provisions are sound, and deserve support, just as they did when the House approved them last year. They would ensure that the companies pay their fair share of royalties on flawed leases granted in 1998 and 1999. Specifically, companies not currently paying any royalties due to these flawed leases would have to pay new ``Conservation of Resource Fees,'' in order to be eligible for new Federal leases for drilling. In 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department issued oil and gas leases for drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico that mistakenly failed to include ``price thresholds,'' which trigger a requirement for companies to pay royalties to the Federal Government when the price of oil and gas exceeds a certain level. As a result, the companies that got these leases are exempt from paying any royalties at all--and, according to a preliminary estimate by the Government Accountability Office, that could mean that the taxpayers will be shortchanged to the tune of some $15 billion over the duration of the leases. This bill, like legislation approved in the House last year, corrects that mistake. I urge the bill's approval.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report and urge its approval. It deserves support for many reasons, beginning with its very existence--if it is approved we will have a final budget resolution in an election year for the first time for nearly a decade. To govern is to choose, and one of the most basic responsibilities for those who want to be entrusted with positions of leadership is to make hard choices. This year, Chairman Spratt and his Budget Act colleagues--and their counterparts in the Senate--have demonstrated real leadership and have reached agreement on a conference report that will enable us to make the choices needed to keep us on a responsible budgetary path. This conference report will make it possible for us to provide tax relief for the middle class; make needed investments in energy, education, innovation, and infrastructure; and to properly support our troops and veterans. And it does so while maintaining fiscal responsibility, because it complies with a strong pay-as-you-go rule and makes it possible to return the budget to surplus in 2012 and 2013, without raising taxes. One of its best features, in my opinion, is the way it encourages investment in new businesses and industries that focus on renewable energy, clean fuel technology, and energy efficiency. This will create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign energy, strengthen the economy, and ultimately help with high energy costs for consumers. It also rejects the President's budget cuts to energy programs by providing for significant increases in programs such as weatherization assistance, renewable energy, and energy efficiency; and includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for energy legislation. It also will enable us to continue working to retain and expand a skilled, technologically literate workforce and a strong research and development base. It provides for increasing funding for the Department of Education, and the National Institutes of Health. It also allows for more funding for science, space, and technology programs. In addition, it sets the stage for much-needed investment in our nation's infrastructure, including more than President Bush has proposed for discretionary transportation accounts as well as full funding of Highway and Transit programs as authorized in the highway bill and funding for the Airport Improvement Program. All these are very important for Colorado, where the pressures of population growth have put severe strains on our highways, roads, and airports. As a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly glad to be able. to support the conference report because it will enable us to provide the funding we need for national defense and to address the most critical threats facing our nation. It places a higher priority than the President's budget on programs such as Cooperative Threat Reduction and other nuclear nonproliferation programs, and on improving the quality of life for our troops and their families. The conference report also recognized the need for higher funding levels for homeland security while rejecting the President's proposed cuts in law enforcement, the COPS program, firefighters, and other first responders. And it takes an important step to help veterans get the quality health care they need and deserve by providing $3.3 billion more in discretionary funding for 2009 than the President's budget and $39 billion more over five years for veterans programs. Similarly, it strengthens the safety net for those families most in need, allowing for more funding for home energy assistance (LIHEAP), for children's health, for nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children and for the Social Services Block Grant. And it accommodates legislation to reauthorize and expand the trade adjustment assistance program and to improve unemployment insurance. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that despite claims to the contrary, the conference report does not include any tax increases--in fact, it supports significant tax relief, including continued marriage penalty relief, child tax credit, and the 10 percent bracket, and provides for an additional year of tax relief for more than 20 million Americans who would otherwise be subjected to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Nonetheless, some of our colleagues will object that it does not provide for making permanent all the tax cuts enacted since the Bush Administration took office. I supported some of those cuts--including the 10 percent tax bracket, the increased child credit, and relief from the marriage penalty--all of which should be made permanent, but this conference report is not the place for an all-or-nothing approach to the entire list. We will have time later to consider which of the rest of President Bush's tax cuts should be extended. Consistent with that more responsible approach, this conference report allows for only a small increase in revenues above the levels assumed in the President's budget--an increase that can be accomplished through closing loopholes that enable some corporations and affluent taxpayers to take advantage of offshore tax havens, and by doing a better job of collecting taxes that are already due under current law. Mr. Speaker, seven years of fiscal irresponsibility have left a legacy of deficits and debt that it will take time and work to overcome. But the sooner we begin, the sooner we will complete the job of restoring fiscal responsibility and reordering our national priorities--and now is the time to take an essential step forward by approving this conference report.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for votes during the late afternoon and evening of May 22, 2008. For the information of our colleagues and my constituents, below is how I would have voted on the following votes I missed that day. On rollcall 355, on the Akin amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 356, on the Franks amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 357, on the Tierney amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 358, on the Pearce amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 359, on the Lee amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 360, on the Braley amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 361, on the Price amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 362, on the Holt amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 363, on the McGovern amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 364, on the Motion to Recommit with instructions the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658), I would have voted ``no.'' I would have done so because the Motion to Recommit--as written-- would have effectively killed the bill by sending it back to Committee. I also objected to what the Motion attempted to do. It would have repealed Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which ensures that federal agencies do not procure or promote alternative fuels that emit, on a lifecycle basis, more greenhouse gas emissions than equivalent conventional fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources. This provision relates primarily to efforts of the Department of Defense to obtain half of its domestically used fuel from domestic synthetic sources by 2016. Specifically, the Air Force is pursuing `coal-to-liquid' fuel (CTL). According to both the EPA and DOE, liquid coal produces double the global warming emissions compared to conventional gasoline. An amendment adopted on the floor clarified Section 526 to ensure that federal agencies could procure conventional fuels that contain incidental amounts of unconventional fuels. With the passage of this amendment, it is my belief that there is no reason to repeal Section 526, since the Department of Defense has said that it intends to pursue CTL with carbon capture and sequestration. In addition, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Energy recommended that if DOD decides to provide financial backing to synthetic fuel production plants, it should avoid investing in processes that exceed the carbon footprint of petroleum. On rollcall 365, on Passage of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658), I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 366, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended, to H. Res. 986, a resolution recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed Forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a full accounting of the 1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict, I would have voted ``yes.'' The resolution recognizes the 35th anniversary of ``Operation Homecoming,'' when the first wave of the longest-held POWs from Vietnam left that country to return to the United States. We honor those POWs, but we also honor those brave heroes who fought and died for our country but never returned home.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, for the information of our colleagues and my constituents, I want the Record to reflect how I would have voted on the following votes I missed this session. On rollcall 134, to pass S. 2733, to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, 1 would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 154, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1605, providing for the consideration of H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act, I would have voted ``no.'' I would have done so because defeating the previous question would have allowed the House to consider an amendment dealing with the appropriations earmark process. I support reforming that process and think that the House should at least debate changes to it, although I reserve judgment on whether I would have supported the specific language of the amendment since it was not debated. On rollcall 158, passage of H.R. 5501, Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 162, passage of H.R. 2464, The Wakefield Act--I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 163, passage of S. 793, Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act--I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 182, on the Flake amendment to H.R. 2537, to bar use of funds provided under that bill for Congressional earmarks, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall 183, to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 886, Expressing sympathy to the victims and families of the tragic acts of violence in Colorado Springs, Colorado and Arvada, Colorado, as a cosponsor of the resolution I would have voted ``yes.'' As the resolution reminds us all, on Sunday, December 9, 2007, a troubled individual was responsible for killing several innocent people and injuring others at, first, the Youth With a Mission facility in Arvada and, a few hours later, at the New Life Church in the Colorado Springs area--where he was fatally shot by Jeanne Assam, a volunteer private security guard. The resolution rightly commends Ms. Assam and the quick response of local first responders in the city of Arvada and in Jefferson County as well as those in EI Paso County and Colorado Springs who, assisted by Federal authorities and medical professionals limited the danger to the church and local community. And it offers the heartfelt condolences of the House of Representatives to the victims and families of these tragic acts of violence in Colorado and coveys our gratitude to Jeanne Assam, city and county officials, as well as the police, fire, sheriff, Federal authorities, and emergency medical teams whose quick response saved lives. On rollcall number 185, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3548, as amended, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, as a cosponsor of that measure I would have voted ``yes.'' H.R. 3548 requires Federal agencies to use plain language in Government documents related to obtaining a service or a benefit. It responds to the fact that Government documents often are complex and difficult to understand, particularly when they are not written clearly. To address this problem, President Clinton in 1998 issued a memorandum that, in part, required Federal agencies to use plain language in all documents that explain how to obtain a benefit or service. However, while a few agencies still maintain plain language programs, efforts to promote plain language have waned. H.R. 3548 defines plain language and requires agencies to use plain language in any new document that explains how to obtain a service or a benefit or that is relevant to obtaining a service or a benefit. The bill ensures that many of the letters, forms, and other documents that people receive from the Government will be written in a clear, understandable way. Under this bill, for example, the Social Security Administration would be required to use plain language in letters that provide beneficiaries information about Social Security. I joined in cosponsoring the bill because I think it is important for those of us in Government to do more to communicate clearly with our employers, the American people, and I hope that the Senate will join the House in giving prompt approval to the legislation. On rollcall number 331, to pass H.R. 6081, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall number 332, to pass H.R. 6074, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today the President vetoed the Farm Bill conference report--a significant piece of legislation that is supported by the vast majority of the House of Representatives. While I am disappointed with the President's veto, I am proud to stand with so many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in making the Farm Bill law. This bill, while not perfect, addresses some of the most pressing issues facing our nation today. Perhaps most importantly, this bill will provide millions of Americans with access to healthy food, especially those hit hardest by the President's failed economic policies. Nearly three-quarters of the bill's funding will promote nutrition initiatives such as increased access to food stamps, emergency food assistance programs, and a program to supply our schools with fresh fruits and vegetables as a healthy snack alternative to reduce our unacceptably high ratio of obese children. This bill will help my home state of Colorado continue to lead the nation in developing renewable energy technologies, and will help our nation move closer to energy independence, while reducing overly generous tax credits for corn-based ethanol, and creating a better tax credit for the production of more efficient cellulosic biofuels, such as switch grass and wood chips. The bill also ensures that farmers in Colorado and around the nation have some protections should a natural disaster befall them. This action may foster lower future grocery prices by speeding up disaster compensation for lost crops and allowing farmers to bring new crops to market faster. Meanwhile, conservation programs included in the bill will help further protect sensitive rural fields from urban sprawl and harmful over farming, while encouraging public access to private land. Of particular interest to Colorado, this bill includes legislation I introduced that will protect the future of Colorado's unique collection of mutual ditch companies and the precious water rights that they share for the mutual benefit of all Coloradans. To be sure, I would have preferred this bill include tighter reforms on farm subsidies, especially when many farmers are reporting surging profits. But no compromise can he all things to all people, and while this Farm Bill is not perfect, it is good for Colorado and for our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in overriding the President's flawed national priorities when it comes to agriculture, energy independence and ensuring that American families have food on their tables.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I strongly 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 3-year extension of the PTC for most renewable energy sources, I am concerned that it only provides a 1-year extension for wind energy. Wind is a very promising renewable energy source and a 1-year extension will not be as helpful for the industry. I will continue to lead the fight to extend the PTC for more than 1 year. The bill also extends the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar energy, qualified fuel cells, and microturbines through the end of 2014. The ITC will help companies with initial investment costs in expanding these renewable energy sources across the country. The bill also authorizes $2 billion of 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. This bill would also benefit families who want to invest in renewable energy. It would extend the credit for residential solar property for 6 years and increase the annual credit cap, currently capped at $2,000, to $4,000. And it would expand the definition to include residential small wind equipment and geothermal heat pumps so that consumers have more options. 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, including creating a new production tax credit for cellulosic biofuels besides ethanol, as well as an extension of the tax credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel. I supported the energy bill that the House passed last year which included many of these important tax provisions, as well as the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 that the House passed earlier this year. But, for the lack of support in the Senate, these provisions have not yet made it to the President's desk to be signed into law. And this bill will also help Colorado businesses stay competitive by extending the research and development tax credit for 1 year. While again I would like to see this key tax credit extended for more than 1 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 pockets, and providing additional support for families paying for college education. 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. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this bill. I want to start by applauding Chairman Skelton for his leadership and also Ranking Member Hunter. They have done a tremendous job as have their expert staff. I am particularly grateful to Chairman Skelton and Chairman Smith for working with me to provide an important provision for Colorado. The bill prohibits the Department of Defense from transporting away from the Pueblo chemical depot in the 2009 fiscal year the hazardous wastes left after the chemical treatment of mustard agent. This language is necessary because the DOD continues to look at treating these secondary wastes offsite despite studies showing that shipping these wastes will not yield benefits and despite the clear preferences expressed by the community of Pueblo to treat these wastes onsite. Last year, Congress mandated that the DOD complete all chemical weapons destruction activities, including the destruction of 2,600 tons of liquid mustard agent housed at the Pueblo depot by 2017. The Department of Defense should get on with this approved plan to treat the secondary wastes at the depot and not delay this program any further. More broadly, our bill focuses on our military's readiness needs. After more than 5 years at war, both the Active Duty and Reserve forces are stretched to their limits. Our bill will provide what's needed to respond, including funds to address equipment shortages for Active Duty and Reserve forces, improve the quality of our military barracks, ammunition maintenance, and expand training opportunities, among other important readiness needs. It increases Army end strength, consistent with the Tauscher-Udall Army expansion bill in the last Congress. And, importantly, it will provide for a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay raise for servicemembers, boost funding for the defense health program, and prohibit increasing TRICARE and pharmacy user fee increases. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill, carefully drafted and bipartisan, and I urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``NASA Authorization Act of 2008'', a bill to reauthorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2009. I am pleased that Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member Ralph Hall, and Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Tom Feeney are joining me as original cosponsors. Their cosponsorship demonstrates the bipartisan nature of the support for NASA in this Congress, and I want to thank them for their efforts in helping to develop this legislation. In addition to providing funding and programmatic direction for fiscal year 2009, this bill is also intended to provide congressional guidance for the next Administration relative to NASA. I believe that it is critically important for Congress to do so. Without a clear statement of congressional priorities and policies for the Nation's civil space and aeronautics enterprise, we run the risk of wasting both time and scarce resources during and after the transition from one Administration to the next. I want to avoid such an outcome if at all possible. Madam Speaker, 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the U.S. space program and the establishment of NASA. NASA has accomplished a great deal in both space and aeronautical R&D over those past five decades, and we can all take pride in what has been accomplished. However, we cannot become complacent. If we fail to invest adequately in NASA now, it is unlikely that we will see a comparable record of accomplishment over the next five decades--at a great opportunity cost to the Nation. That is because NASA's programs are strongly relevant to addressing the Nation's needs. In short, a properly balanced and focused NASA portfolio can pay large dividends to our society as well as to our standing in the world, and maximizing the value of the NASA portfolio to the Nation is one of the main goals of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008. Thus, the bill emphasizes a number of important areas--areas that demonstrate the role that NASA can and should play in improving the quality of life of our citizens, enhancing our economic vitality, demonstrating American leadership in the international arena through the pursuit of challenging scientific and technological goals, and helping to advance knowledge. To that end, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 establishes a role for NASA in leading a cooperative international effort on Earth observations research and applications, especially with respect to climate change--one of the major challenges facing our generation. It builds on the recommendations of the National Academies' Earth sciences and applications decadal survey to outline a robust and challenging agenda for NASA to pursue that will help us better understand the causes and impacts of climate change as well as other Earth system phenomena. It is an agenda that will also maximize the opportunities for transitioning those research results into applications that can benefit our society in a myriad of ways. NASA's aeronautics research program is one of the most relevant activities that NASA undertakes as it impacts both public safety and our national economy, and the bill provides guidance to ensure that that aeronautics program will regain its former health and focus so that it can continue to contribute to the wellbeing of the nation. That guidance takes several forms. For example, the legislation provides enhanced funding for aeronautics, but it makes clear that the additional funding is to be used to take NASA's aeronautics research activities to a sufficiently mature state so that the results of that research can be transitioned to the commercial sector as well as to key public sector users. One of the most important examples of the latter is the interagency initiative to develop the next generation air transportation system for the nation, known as NextGen--a program that will improve both the safety and efficiency of our air travel system. The bill makes it clear that we need to do all we can to ensure that the aircraft of the future leave as small an impact on the environment as possible, whether it be noise, energy consumption, or harmful emissions--and that NASA has a critical role to play in that effort. And the bill requires an external review of NASA's aviation safety research to make sure that it is doing all that it can to protect the flying public. Finally, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 recognizes that America's human space flight activities are not, and should not, be an end in themselves. We need a results-oriented human space flight program that serves the nation's geopolitical goals in addition to advancing America's exploration of outer space. I believe that we provide the foundation for such a results-oriented approach in the bill I am introducing today. Thus, the bill includes provisions to ensure that the International Space Station--a unique orbiting R&D facility that represents a significant investment of resources by both American citizens and those of a host of other nations--will be utilized in as productive manner as possible. In addition, the ISS is a compelling example of the value of undertaking a cooperative approach to space exploration that we would do well to emulate as we embark on exploration beyond low Earth orbit. To that end, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 makes clear that any human exploration initiative to return to the Moon and venture to other destinations in the solar system should be undertaken as a cooperative international undertaking under U.S. leadership--and that such a cooperative approach will have the best chance of being successfully sustained if the President is personally involved in inviting our friends and allies to participate in such a venture. It is clear that the 21st century will see the emergence and growth of ambitious human space flight programs carried out by a number of nations. It is not in our national interest to get drawn into rerunning a ``space race'' that we already won almost 40 years ago. Instead, we should be looking to leverage that emerging global interest to promote a peaceful, cooperative approach to space exploration under American leadership. Such an approach can provide a compelling ``soft power'' rationale for NASA's human exploration program and be an approach that will deliver clear benefits to America beyond just the demonstration of our technological prowess and national commitment to space exploration. Madam Speaker, those are just three ways in which continued investment in and support for a properly focused NASA can deliver important benefits to the nation, especially if NASA works hand in hand with our colleges and universities and our commercial sector. However, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the important way in which NASA's basic and applied research activities help advance America's competitiveness and promote innovation as well as helping inspire and educate the nation's next generation of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians. That is why I and many of my colleagues consider NASA to be just as much a part of America's innovation agenda as the other agencies called out for support in the ``America COMPETES Act'' that was enacted into law last year. This bill recognizes that reality and puts NASA on the same doubling path as those agencies. However, NASA will not be able to contribute effectively in the ways I have just outlined unless we not only invest adequately in NASA's programs but, equally importantly, direct those investments in ways that maximize their utility. Thus the bill contains a number of provisions focused on each of NASA's main mission areas to ensure that NASA can make the best use of its capabilities to advance the nation's space and aeronautics agenda. Madam Speaker, I am a passionate believer in the value of America's space and aeronautics programs and the role that NASA can play in delivering significant benefits to the American people. I believe that the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 that I am introducing today will go a long way towards positioning the agency for a productive future when the next Administration takes office, and I hope that Members will support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for these amendments today. Taken together, they provide necessary funding for our troops, set the stage for a responsible strategy of phased disengagement in Iraq, and address domestic needs and global concerns. The war funding will pay for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for the rest of this year and half of 2009. I support this because it will make it possible to provide the equipment, ammunition, fuel, and other supplies needed by our brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who have shown such extraordinary skill, determination and endurance in answering their call to service. I opposed the Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq, and voted against the resolution that authorized the president to send our armed forces into that country on the theory that this was necessary in order to deprive the Saddam Hussein regime of weapons of mass destruction. So, I understand why some of my constituents who also opposed the war want Congress to reject this funding measure. And I could not agree more that the record of the current Administration demonstrates an enormous failure of leadership and that we desperately need new leadership that will bring to a close our open- ended military engagement in Iraq and will refocus on the very urgent tasks of reducing the terrorist threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But I am convinced that denying our men and women in uniform the resources they need to do their jobs is not the right way to bring about the change we need--especially because President Bush has shown he is prepared to veto funding for the troops rather than agree to change course. Achieving the needed change in course is the point of the second amendment--the policy amendment--being considered today. It includes a range of provisions, including one that requires redeployment of our troops in Iraq to begin within 30 days and that states as a goal the completion of this withdrawal within 18 months. As I've said before, I don't think there is a sustainable role for large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. While this provision sends the right message--that our troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely-- regrettably, it does not send it in the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by Democrats, and the president has already promised to veto any legislation that he says could tie his hands on Iraq. What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq. I still think the best way to achieve that consensus would be to focus on the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Those recommendations would be accomplished by legislation I introduced last year, which would support a course of escalating economic development, empowerment of local government, the provision of basic services, a `surge' in regional and international diplomatic efforts, and lightening the American footprint in Iraq. Today's policy amendment does not include the specific provisions from my Iraq Study Group bill, but it does include other important provisions--prohibiting military units that are not determined to be ``mission capable'' from deploying; prohibiting deployment of U.S. forces that have not spent sufficient time at their home stations between tours of duty; prohibiting permanent bases in Iraq; requiring that reconstruction assistance to Iraq be provided in the form of a dollar-for-dollar match with the Iraqis; and cracking down on contractors engaged in fraud and profiteering, among other provisions. These are things I think should be established policy, and I support them without hesitation. Finally, the domestic and international assistance amendment provides increases for international food aid; rejects seven of the Administration's Medicaid regulations that will increase the cost of healthcare; extends unemployment benefits; provides increases in funding for the Bureau of Prisons; and provides enhanced education benefits for veterans, among other provisions. I support these provisions because I think they are good for the country as a whole. Some are especially important for Colorado--for example, we have a direct interest in the funding increase staffing at federal prisons because our state has several such facilities and because recent events, including a riot that led to fatal shooting of inmates, have shown the need to increase those staffing levels. And particularly important for America and the future of our society is the provision to improve veterans' education benefits to more closely resemble the GI Bill of Rights that made it possible for so many World War II veterans to go to college. The GI Bill of Rights helped make possible the postwar growth of the middle class that was one of the greatest achievements of the Greatest Generation. Some have complained about the cost of providing similar benefits to those who are serving today. But to put those costs--estimated at $52 billion over the next 10 years--into perspective, we should remember that so far our spending for military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq have exceeded $800 billion. However, I do have some reservations about the way the amendment proposes to finance these benefits. To offset the cost, the amendment would impose a surtax of a half a percentage point on incomes of about $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples. It is estimated that this would increase federal revenues by some $54 billion over 10 years, while the educational benefits are estimated to cost $52 billion over that period. So the amount of the tax increase is not excessive, and it is appropriate to target it in a way to apply to those best able to afford it. But I think there is validity to the concern that some small businesses--those whose profits are not covered by corporate taxes but are claimed as the personal income of their owners--could be disproportionately affected. I think this aspect can and should be reviewed as the legislative process continues, to see if appropriate adjustments should be made. Mr. Speaker, I voted against war in Iraq because, as I said then, the Bush Administration was rushing to war without necessary international support or a clear plan to prevent the chaos that would follow after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. I was concerned a prolonged conflict would devolve into civil war. Since U.S. troops entered Iraq more than 5 years ago, we have lost thousands of our brave servicemen and women, seen tens of thousands more wounded, and spent half a trillion dollars in taxpayer money. Yet the President's mission is no clearer, he has still offered no exit strategy, our enemies in Afghanistan have regained their strength, and our armed forces have been stretched to the breaking point. Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the path out of Iraq. I will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on further steps we can take to change our broader Iraq policy. But today, I will support these amendments providing funding for our troops in the field, assistance for Americans suffering through the current economic downturn and people around the world suffering from spiraling food costs, and important policy measures to take care of our troops and remind Iraq's government that U.S. troops will not remain in Iraq indefinitely.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I think Congress should act to reform the earmark process. That's why I have introduced H.R. 595, the Stimulating Leadership in Limiting Expenditures (or `SLICE') Act, which would provide the president with a constitutionally-sound version of a line-item veto that could be used to force Congress to vote separately on any specific spending earmark. That's why I am a cosponsor of legislation (H. Res. 727) to put a moratorium on considering any bill with any congressional earmarks until a bipartisan panel has been set up and made recommendations for that reform. And that's why I am also cosponsoring the Earmark Transparency and Accountability Act (H.R. 631) which would require any earmark, to be effective, to be included in a bill's text--not just in a committee report--so it would be subject to amendment. But I cannot support this motion to recommit. If we were considering this legislation for the first time, it might make sense to consider sending it back to the Agriculture Committee for revisions. But we first considered this bill a year ago. Since then, the Senate has also acted and the differences between their version and the one we passed last year have been resolved by a committee of conferees appointed for that sole purpose. That purpose was fulfilled when the conferees filed their report, and at that point the conference committee ceased to exist. So, this motion would not really send the conference report back for more work--it would send it into oblivion. And while I know the conference report has flaws, I think they are not so great as to require us to in effect tear it up completely. So I urge rejection of this motion.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report. I would like to commend conference committee members for tackling the tough issues, offsetting costs, and producing a conference report that I can support. To be sure, this is not a perfect bill. Yet, in my estimation, no amount of negotiation could produce a conference report that all would agree is perfect. Rather, what has emerged is a farm bill that is good for my home State of Colorado and good for the country. For starters, this bill will provide millions of American families with access to healthy food. Nearly three-quarters of the bill's cost will support nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency food assistance programs, as well as an initiative to provide fresh fruit and vegetables as healthy snack alternatives for a generation of schoolchildren currently battling an epidemic obesity problem. This farm bill will help Colorado continue to lead in the development of homegrown energy programs that we need to help free us from our national addiction to oil and protect our environment. It increases investments in renewable energy technologies, while reducing the burdensome tax credit for corn-based ethanol and creating a new tax credit for the production of more efficient cellulosic biofuels. Rural America can plant their fields with confidence, thanks to the farm bill's new disaster relief program, and this provision of the bill also might significantly lower future grocery bills by speeding up compensation for farmers subject to natural disaster and allowing them to bring crops to market faster. In addition, American consumers will have added confidence knowing that this farm bill mandates critical food labeling for our meat supply, including country of origin, and improves oversight of USDA's enforcement of rules governing meat packers and stockyards. Along with promoting safe food and renewable energy production, this legislation increases spending for conservation programs by nearly $8 billion. These programs will help protect agricultural lands from urban sprawl; enhance and protect our natural resources; encourage public access to private land; and protect sensitive wetlands and grasslands, areas that are especially vulnerable in Colorado's eastern plains. Of particular interest to Colorado is that the farm bill includes provisions similar to those in a bill--H.R. 1182--I introduced dealing with the tax treatment of exchanges of mutual ditch stock. Mutual ditch companies are unique to Colorado and are organized for the mutual benefit of shared water rights rather than for profit. This provision allows for tax-free exchanges of shares of these mutual ditch companies. Another measure included in the farm bill, which I supported during consideration in the House Natural Resources Committee, will protect domestic timber producers by stopping the flow of illegally logged foreign timber imported into the United States. This bill will also help bolster America's international standing by helping to meet global food shortage demands. America is already the world's largest provider of food aid, but recent riots in developing nations around the world have shown that we must increase our efforts. This legislation will provide additional funding to purchase emergency food aid overseas, and reauthorizes the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program for infant, child and school nutrition programs in underdeveloped countries. As I said before, this bill is not perfect. I applaud the conference committee for trimming subsidies for already wealthy farmers, but I would prefer tighter reform of these programs, especially at a time when consumers must sacrifice to afford increasing food costs. And any legislation of this size and scope--especially when it is developed as a compromise between the two Chambers--is likely to include provisions that might not deserve to pass on their own. Taken in whole, however, the farm bill conference report successfully addresses the most important food and agricultural issues facing the Nation today, and fully pays for all new spending initiatives. I agree with the editorial board of the Denver Post, which wrote, ``this latest version of the Farm Bill is good for the entire country,'' and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation and I urge its approval. The bill would direct the President to temporarily suspend putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the end of the year, unless before that time the price of oil should drop below $75 per barrel. This is the quickest step we can take to increase the supply of oil on the open market, and so to bring some relief to consumers suffering from the high price of gasoline and other petroleum products. Currently, the Federal Government is putting some 70,000 barrels of oil into the strategic reserve each day, even though the reserve is 97 percent full. While there are no guarantees, economists estimate that suspending that action could reduce gas prices by 5 to 24 cents a gallon. It should not have been necessary for Congress to be considering this legislation. Current law gives the president authority to suspend diversion of oil into the strategic reserve. That authority has been used in the past, by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, and by the current President Bush, who did so in 2006. And history shows using that authority can help consumers--in 2000, after such action, the price of oil dropped by one-third, from $30 to $20 per barrel. That's why last November, with other Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, I sent a letter asking President Bush to again suspend putting oil into the strategic reserve. Regrettably, the president did not agree to that request, or to a second similar request that many of us made last month. So now Congress must act to require what the president has declined to do on his own. That is what this bill does and why I support its passage. But I think we should not stop there. There are at least five other steps to reduce the extent to which American consumers are paying the price for our flawed energy policies. Specifically, we should-- (1) Crack Down on price gouging--Speculators have contributed to oil prices increasing 82 percent in the last year. While these have been regulated markets in the past, more and more new investment tools are outside of regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or any other Federal Government oversight. That's why I am backing a bill (H.R. 594) to give the CFTC oversight over additional energy commodities trading and to establish civil and civil and criminal penalties for price gouging. (2) Consider Suspension of the tariff on ethanol imports--Suspending the 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol import tariff would mean more ethanol coming into the country, which would increase fuel supplies and lessen the pressure on prices. (3) Stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry--The Republican Congress passed an energy bill in 2005 that included about $2.6 billion in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry--an industry that has seen record profits in the last few years. I strongly support removing some of the unneeded tax credits for this industry, specifically the tax credit for taxes paid to foreign governments and the deduction for domestic manufacturing activities for major oil and gas producers. (4) Increase oil and gas drilling in certain areas--I support expanding exploration and development in appropriate areas both onshore and offshore, as long as it is done in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner. I also have proposed legislation (H.R. 3182), with the support of Representative Jeff Flake and other Members from both sides of the aisle, to relax the current embargo that prevents U.S. oil companies from competing to develop oil offshore from Cuba, where companies from other countries are currently drilling. (5) Push renewable energy alternatives--promote cellulosic ethanol and the Production Tax Credit--Increasing America's use of renewable energy sources will also help address supply in future years by providing a more diverse energy portfolio. Cellulosic ethanol has great potential to not only lower our gas prices, but also our food prices as we move away from corn-based ethanol.