Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, as Congress has debated how to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, some have said that law is completely outdated. I support revisions to reflect changes in technology since FISA was enacted, but I think it is important to recognize that the basic law is sound and does not prevent the Government from acting to protect Americans. That point was well put in a recent editorial in the Rocky Mountain News, noting that the Justice Department has reported that in 2007 the special FISA court approved some 2,370 warrants authorizing surveillance of people in the United States believed to be in contact with international terrorist organizations while denying only 3 requests for such warrants. This led the newspaper to conclude that ``The great number of warrants granted, compared to just three denied, indicates that the spy court is no great impediment to national security'' and, with regard to the Bush administration's proposals to rewrite FISA, ``The suspicion here is that the Bush administration simply doesn't want any checks on its eavesdropping powers.'' I think that is a pretty accurate appraisal. For the information of our colleagues, here is the full text of the editorial: [From the Rocky Mountain News, May 2, 2008] Spy Court Keeping Up With Wiretap Requests The Bush administration has been asserting the right to wiretap without seeking a warrant from a special court set up for that purpose under the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. However, a Justice Department report on the court's wiretap approvals suggests it is not quite the hurdle the administration made it out to be. Last year, the court approved 2,370 warrants seeking wiretaps of people in this country believed to be in contact with international terrorist organizations. The court denied just three warrant applications and partially denied another; 86 times the court asked the government to amend its applications before granting approval. The year before, the court denied only one application and that just partially. This hardly sounds like an onerous approval process. Since the number of warrants being sought has more than doubled since 9/11, it also sounds as if the court is having no problem keeping up with the workload. The suspicion here is that the Bush administration simply doesn't want any checks on its eavesdropping powers. And in seeking a rewrite of the surveillance law, the administration did in fact seek to greatly expand its powers to wiretap without warrants. The great number of warrants granted, compared to just three denied, indicates that the spy court is no great impediment to national security.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. In most circumstances, I consider it counterproductive and not in the best interest of the American people for the Federal Government to intervene in the free market process. However, in certain exceptional times, I believe it is the duty of the Federal Government to act for the greater good of our Nation. And I think we are experiencing such an exceptional moment in American history. The provisions of this legislative package will help stabilize the downward trend in the housing industry and overall economy, and prevent that trend from spiraling out of control. The danger is real. Just last month, the Pew Charitable Trusts released a study that forecast one in 25 homeowners in my home state of Colorado will be in foreclosure within the next two years if Congress does not act now to curb this impending disaster. The national forecast of homeowners in foreclosure within the next two years--one in 33--is only slightly less discouraging. If we stand by and do nothing, as some have suggested, the damage to the overall American economy could be devastating. First and foremost, this bill will help American families at risk of foreclosure to stay in their homes by allowing the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to guarantee qualified refinanced loans. To do so, however, homeowners and their lenders must agree to sacrifice. Lenders could recover no more than 85 percent of a property's current value, but could avoid the potentially greater losses associated with unloading a foreclosed property. Meanwhile, participating homeowners could remain in their home, but must repay the Federal Government a percentage of the value of the home if they sell or refinance again. The bill provides much needed measures to modernize the FHA, allowing expanded opportunities for families to secure affordable loans without having to turn to subprime lenders. The legislation also increases the Veterans Administration home loan guarantee limit, allowing our veterans to receive the dignified homeownership opportunities they deserve for honoring us with their service; reforms Government Sponsored Enterprises through strengthened regulation, while raising GSE loan limits for homes in high-cost areas; and encourages mortgage servicers to readjust at-risk mortgages by removing the threat of lawsuit. This legislation would help remove some of the excess housing inventory by offering a refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers. It would also provide additional mortgage revenue bonds for states to refinance subprime loans, and help prevent soldiers from being unfairly penalized for their service by providing more time to get their finances in order when they return from service before a lender could start foreclosure. A final important piece of this legislation would simply protect the right of States and cities to regulate their own foreclosure process. Some have argued that national banks and financial institutions should be exempt from these rules. I, however, believe it is the right of States and cities to have their own requirements and enforce their own rules throughout the foreclosure process. Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to learn of the Bush Administration's threat to veto this legislation, because I believe that it is important for us to act now to provide relief to America's stressed homeowners. It is my understanding that Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson, as well as other Administration officials, had worked with Chairman Frank to shape provisions of this legislation, so this change of heart is doubly regrettable. I hope that the President will change his mind and sign this needed legislation when it reaches his desk. This legislation has been carefully crafted to safeguard against fraud, corporate giveaways and speculator abuse. And as concerned as I was that the Federal Reserve had to devote $29 billion to prevent the collapse of investment bank Bear Stearns, I am equally concerned about the Federal Government taking action to rescue the housing market. However, without the stability that the Fed provided the investment banking industry, experts tell us that the bottom may well have fallen out of our economy. And it appears the same is true for our housing market--without the stability this legislation will help provide, it may not have the chance to correct itself and, eventually, rebound. Main Street deserves the same attention as Wall Street. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting all three components of this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008. This bill would provide $15 billion in loans and grants, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, for States to buy and, rehabilitate foreclosed and vacated housing properties in order to resell or rent them out. While I have some reservations about the balance in this bill between loans and grants, I think the potential threat to the value of American homes and the safety of our communities justifies the overall cost. Studies have shown that home foreclosures adversely affect the value of other homes in the same neighborhood, and the rate of home foreclosures in a neighborhood directly corresponds to a spike in crime in that neighborhood. In many cases, foreclosed and vacated homes have become the dens of vagrants, drug addicts and drug dealers. H.R. 5818 attempts to reduce the likelihood of these problems by helping States buy and refurbish foreclosed and vacated housing properties to make them an appealing choice for qualified families to buy or rent. In addition, this legislation includes provisions to protect against housing speculator abuse by requiring that homes purchased and refurbished by a State be resold to families whose income does not exceed 140 percent of the area median income. This bill offers further targeted assistance for those Americans who need it most by requiring that half of the bill's grant money be dedicated to housing families at or below 50 percent area median income. Finally, H.R. 5818 will direct funds to the States with the greatest need. Under this bill, each State's loan and grant authority would be based on the State's percentage of nationwide foreclosures reported during the previous four calendar quarters. This is a significant point for my home State of Colorado, which has consistently ranked among the top 10 States in percentage of foreclosures. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good measure that deserves our support. As I previously stated, the benefits of this legislation outweigh my concerns over its cost, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this important legislation, which will help State and local governments in Colorado by reimbursing them for the costs of holding aliens charged with crimes. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, was originally created to provide financial assistance to States and localities for costs they incur as a result of incarcerating criminal aliens. However, now they are only reimbursed for a portion of these expenditures. H.R. 1512 amends the law to reflect the original intent of Congress, namely to provide financial assistance to States and localities for costs they incur as a result of incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors. The SCAAP program was created in 1994. It is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, BJA, part of the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs OJP. The Department of Homeland Security aids BJA in administering the program by verifying the immigration status (or lack of status) of those for whom States seek reimbursement. Current law authorizes the appropriation of $950 million annually over the 2008-2011 period for SCAAP. For fiscal year 2007, the authorization level for the program was $850 million, and the Congress appropriated about $400 million. In 2007, however, States and localities applied to SCAAP for reimbursements totaling over $950 million. In 2003, the Department of Justice reinterpreted the statute establishing SCAAP so that reimbursement is made only if: (1) the criminal alien is convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors; and (2) the arrest and conviction occurred in the same fiscal year. The result has been a drastic reduction in the amount of reimbursements received by Colorado and other States. H.R. 1512 restores SCAAP as it was originally intended by permitting States and localities to be reimbursed for the costs of incarcerating aliens who are either ``charged with or convicted'' of a felony or two misdemeanors, regardless of the fiscal year of the incarceration and conviction. I have long supported making this overdue change, which will help many Colorado jurisdictions, and I urge approval of this essential measure.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5819, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act. Enactment of this bill will extend important programs that improve American competitiveness in the world, and I urge its adoption. The State of Colorado houses a strong and vibrant collection of cutting-edge small businesses, and businesses in my own district employ SBIR awards to promote advanced research in aeronautic, biotechnology, and other important industries. This bill will ensure that small businesses and research firms will continue to have access to the capital that enables them to compete with large firms both at home and abroad. Ultimately, this bill is about increasing competition and ensuring that good ideas are not lost for a lack of resources. This bill also modernizes the SBIR and STTR programs in order to better suit the needs of small businesses, ensuring that small businesses that receive funding from venture capital firms are allowed to receive SBIR grants. Though some suggest that this policy undermines the spirit of the program, the reality for many small businesses is that their most consistent sources of funding are from venture capital firms and the SBIR program. This bill proposes sensible limits on the participation of venture capital firms so that small businesses can continue to rely on these two important sources of funds. As co-chair of the House Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Caucus and a representative of a district with a major research institution, I support this legislation because it will help keep America more technologically and economically competitive. I commend the committees for their hard work on this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, every present and former college student knows that writing a solid essay or research paper is not easy. So, I think it's appropriate to recognize the careful effort displayed by Theresa Snyder in an essay published last month in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper. Ms. Snyder is a student at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. Her topic is a proposed water-delivery project called the Southern Delivery System, which would pipe water to that city from the Pueblo Reservoir-- part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project--with return flows back to the Arkansas River via Fountain Creek. Because of the complexity of the project, I joined others in asking the Bureau of Reclamation to provide additional time for comment on it--a request that I am happy to say has been granted. I think Ms. Snyder's essay, written in connection with a class in Western Water Policy, reflects well on her and on the quality of instruction at Colorado College. For the benefit of all our colleagues, here is the full text of her essay: [From the Pueblo Chieftain, Mar. 16, 2008] Springs Needs To Correct Fountain Creek Problems (By Theresa Snyder, Colorado College Student) First things first . . . In a time when water is becoming increasingly scarce, Colorado Springs has failed to explore its many options for responsible water use. The Springs, which has experienced rapid population growth in the past 40 years, is expected to grow by an additional 250,000 people by 2025. To supplement water supply for this urban development, a $1 billion project known as the Southern Delivery System has been proposed by Colorado Springs Utilities. The project includes storing water in Lake Pueblo and running a 43-mile long pipeline from Pueblo Dam to Colorado Springs. The city, while possessing all the required water rights to use the additional 78 million gallons a day from Lake Pueblo, currently is completing an Environmental Impact Statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Drafts of the statement led the citizens of Pueblo to wonder about their future as downstream water users. The focus of Pueblo's concern is Fountain Creek. This watershed begins as Monument Creek in Colorado Springs, flows south and joins Fountain Creek, continues to Pueblo and eventually joins the Arkansas River in Pueblo. The creek has long been used to channel return flow wastewater from Colorado Springs. As a result of the Southern Delivery System, return flows from the city into Fountain Creek would greatly increase. Anyone who walks along the creek can see the obvious problems with erosion, sedimentation and water quality already present in the creekbed. Current return flows from Colorado Springs have altered this previously intermittent stream to a year-round flow, and are to blame for the multitude of other problems in Fountain Creek. Increased sedimentation along the creek bed produces stretches of dirt with no trace of vegetation. Other sections of the river have channelized as severely as 20 feet below previous flow lines. The result is a creek that looks sprawled in some areas and like a small canyon with steep, abrupt walls in others. The Southern Delivery System would only increase average flows and consequently the sedimentation and erosion that results in an unappealing creek with muddy water. Where does all of this poor-quality, heavy-sediment water go? Downstream to Pueblo. As Colorado Springs Utilities officials prepare to launch a $1 billion project, they have failed to address a serious issue that will only worsen upon completion of the project. Clean-up of Fountain Creek should be first on the list of projects to tackle. Colorado Springs brings in the majority of its water from the Western Slope of Colorado. Seventy percent actually comes from Fryingpan-Arkansas water storage projects across the Great Divide. This means fresh, crisp mountain water. Yet the city passes on poor-quality water and disregards the negative effects the flows have on a natural ecosystem and downstream municipality. Pueblo has begun to speak up and demands that Colorado Springs dam Fountain Creek to control the overall flow of the creek. A dam would control flooding as well as mitigate the negative effects from erosion and sedimentation. Yet Colorado Springs Utilities has cited cost as the primary reason for not damming the creek. How is cost an object when the utility is prepared to shovel out $1.1 billion for more water? It seems selfish and unfair of a municipality to not only ignore a problem such as Fountain Creek but to propose a huge project that only worsens the situation. Colorado Springs is considered the ``big bully'' in this ongoing water issue. It's time for them to take a step back. First things first: Colorado Springs officials should address the issues at hand such as Fountain Creek. They should become responsible water users before they gain access to more of the precious commodity. Though they may have the legal rights to follow through with the Southern Delivery System, it's unfair and irresponsible to ignore the current mess and follow through with a project that brings more detrimental effects.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House yesterday passed my resolution, H. Res. 891, on Celebrating 35 Years of Space-Based Observations of the Earth by Landsat Spacecraft. I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Regula from Ohio, who has joined me as an original cosponsor of this resolution. It is only fitting that we celebrate Landsat and its thirty-five year record of space-based observations of the land at a time when we are beginning to address the current and future implications of climate change. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program recently recognized Landsat noting that ``Landsat data are invaluable for studying the land surface and how it affects and is affected by climate.'' I thank my colleagues in Congress for continuing to support Landsat and for enabling the development of these long time-series data that are so important for research on climate variability. The data collected by Landsat satellites are being used by almost all Federal agencies, by state, regional, and local governments, by researchers and private industry. I held a field hearing earlier this month in Colorado on the important ways in which remote sensing data, including Landsat imagery, can help our state and local officials carry out their responsibilities more effectively. The broad application of these data to provide scientific and societal benefits testifies to the nation's sound investment in space technology. We owe our thanks and appreciation to the talented and dedicated scientists, engineers, and professionals who have contributed to Landsat and its success. Mr. Speaker, there is more to be gained from the data collected by Landsat satellites, and there are still issues to be resolved to ensure that the nation can get the best return on its investment in Landsat's capabilities. However, I have no doubt that through support for the research, technology, and education required to improve Landsat data collection and applications, the returns from this national investment will continue to multiply. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the benefits derived from this important record of civil observations of the land, as collected from Landsat satellites, continue to expand for another 35 years.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008. By passing this bipartisan bill, we can help ensure that our respective States can continue to provide needed health care to citizens who are eligible for Medicaid. I have heard from a number of health care providers, hospital administrators, public health officials, and constituents in my district in regards to seven Medicaid regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. The message has been clear: these regulations have the potential to devastate the health care safety net in Colorado, pulling an extraordinary amount of funding away from the State's health care economy with the highest cost placed on the backs of the most vulnerable. Though I think that all seven regulations deserve a great deal more scrutiny and discussion, there are two regulations in particular that give me serious concern. The first, a regulation that would alter the definition of ``publicly-owned providers,'' would put 34 hospital providers in my State at risk of losing funding budgeted for serving low-income and indigent patients. The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing estimates that the State would lose $711 million over 5 years--a loss that the Department says would put ``the financial stability of the entire safety-net provider community in Colorado at risk.'' The second regulation with which I am concerned would completely eliminate Medicaid funding for the Graduate Medical Education program, pulling an estimated $60 million from Colorado's teaching hospitals over 5 years. Our teaching hospitals, which play a critical role in providing health care to underserved communities, cannot withstand this sort of hit to their budgets without severely curtailing important services. Broadly speaking, I think that these seven regulations ought to be much more carefully scrutinized. Where some were intended to change Medicaid policy without Congressional authorization, others responded to Congressional action by altering policy beyond what Congress intended. A 1-year moratorium will enable Congress to thoroughly examine these regulations to ensure that States like mine are not devastated by rules that, frankly speaking, appear to undermine the very purpose for which Medicaid was established. I am proud to support this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our State Medicaid safety-nets remain strong and viable.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I was not able to be present for three rollcall votes on Tuesday, April 22. If I had been present I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 205, on passage of H. Res. 981--Recognizing March 6, 2008, as the first-ever World Glaucoma Day, established to increase awareness of glaucoma, which is the second leading cause of preventable blindness in the United States and worldwide, Representative Baldwin--Energy and Commerce--I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 206, on passage of H.R. 5151--Wild Monongahela Act: A National Legacy for West Virginia's Special Places--I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 207, on passage of H.R. 831--Coffman Cove Administrative Site Conveyance Act--I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Jennifer Hanson for her service to our community. Jennifer Hanson, an educator with the Boulder Valley School District, has been an instrumental leader in the development of online safety protocols for our local schools and communities. Ms. Hanson has played an active role in uniting our educators, business leaders, law enforcement officials and parents in a collaborative effort to protect our youth from online predators. Jennifer Hanson should be commended for her leadership and commitment to enriching our children's educational opportunities in a safe and dynamic online environment. Jennifer Hanson was recently presented with The Spirit of Online Safety Award in appreciation of her work as the President of the Internet Safety Foundation. The Internet Safety Foundation mentored nine youths in their creation of a cutting-edge public awareness campaign about safe online practices. The culmination of their hard work will have a positive impact on our communities for years to come. Upon graduation summa cum laude from the Metropolitan State College of Denver, Jennifer taught in the Cherry Creek Public Schools for seven years. She completed her master's degree work at Adams State College in educational technology leadership and would lend her expertise as an active participant for Project Safe Childhood and Qwest's Online Safety Coalition. Ms. Hanson has also played a vital role in the establishment of the Internet Safety Summit; a statewide assembly focused on giving our communities the knowledge and tools necessary to protect our children from the dangers of the World Wide Web. Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to Jennifer Hanson for her willingness to devote herself for the betterment of our children's education and safety.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 322, I am glad to have the opportunity to vote for this important resolution today. The United States recognized the State of Israel the day it was established on May 14, 1948. In the ensuing 60 years, the people of Israel have established a democratic society, developed an advanced economy, and created a thriving culture in the face of war, terrorism, and threats to its security. H. Con. Res. 322 expresses ``enduring support for Israel as Israel pursues peace with its neighbors.'' The importance of peace in the region cannot be overstated. Without it there can be no regional stability and no security for Israel. Over the decades, the United States has played a special role in helping facilitate the peace process in the region, and I believe we must continue to play that role. For 60 years, the United States and Israel have shared strong bonds of friendship, common values, and strategic interests. Our support for the people of Israel has been a fundamental part of American foreign policy and remains so today. In the post-9/11 world and with American soldiers engaged in two wars on Islamic soil, I believe our historic alliance with the State of Israel has even greater significance. So again, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Israel on its 60th birthday and send my best wishes to the Israeli people for a peaceful and prosperous future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, as a committee member I had the opportunity last week to hear first-hand the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker when they appeared before the Armed Services Committee to update us on the status of America's military and diplomatic involvement in Iraq. There have been many comments on that testimony, but one of the best I have seen was a recent editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette. As the editorial noted, ``One of the more striking aspects of our unfortunate occupation of Iraq is an everchanging description of who `the enemy' is. At first it was the Saddam Hussein regime, and once that toppled it was covert regime loyalists. After a long period of denying that an insurgency had developed, insurgents became the enemy. Then it became al-Qaida in Iraq, although foreign and al-Qaida forces never made up more than about 10 percent of those fighting the U.S. occupation. Now it is `special teams,' presumably supported by Iran.'' In addition, the editorial commented on the speech to the Nation in which President Bush announced that although tours of duty would be reduced to 12 months, for the foreseeable future the number of troops deployed in Iraq would remain at the same level as before the ``surge'' and on the president's description of the desired outcome in Iraq. The editorial's response was ``The president spoke in broad generalities of `a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs.' Beyond holding on and hoping, however, there was no sense of how to get there from here.'' Madam Speaker, I think that sums it up very well. And, as one who opposed the Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq, I also must concur with the editorial's statement that ``The length, cost and indecisiveness of this war should make Americans more skeptical the next time a political leader suggests war, against a country halfway around the world, without a clear objective.'' For the benefit of our colleagues, here is the full text of the Gazette's editorial. [From the Gazette, Apr. 13, 2008] Iraq: No More Hold and Pray President Bush's speech Thursday, combined with the congressional appearances this week by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, suggest strongly that the U.S. strategy in Iraq until the end of this year is ``hold on and pray.'' Even the welcome news that Army combat tours will be reduced from 15 months to 12 months, no doubt welcome news to the top military chiefs who have expressed concerns publicly and privately about the military being ``hollowed out'' by the endless combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, has a whiff of unseriousness about the mission to it. Granted, as outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody told the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, the Army is ``out of balance'' because of the war. But if the president had a coherent strategy for turning the corner in Iraq, he might well have been willing to tolerate that for a while. The president spoke in broad generalities of ``a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs.'' Beyond holding on and hoping, however, there was no sense of how to get there from here. One of the more striking aspects of our unfortunate occupation of Iraq is an ever-changing description of who ``the enemy'' is. At first it was the Saddam Hussein regime, and once that toppled it was covert regime loyalists. After a long period of denying that an insurgency had developed, insurgents became the enemy. Then it became al-Qaida in Iraq, although foreign and al-Qaida forces never made up more than about 10 percent of those fighting the U.S. occupation. Now it is ``special teams,'' presumably supported by Iran. It's clear now: The longer we remain in Iraq the more enemies we make. Imagine if the Chinese army were occupying California. Opposition to that occupation would come from new quarters every week. Perhaps the most encouraging development from this week's hearings is the growing number of Republican lawmakers beginning to question administration policy. ``The people of the United States have paid an awful price,'' said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., noting that the Iraqi government had budget surpluses. ``It's time for the Iraqis to pay that price for their own protection.'' Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, John McHugh of New York, Randy Forbes of Virginia, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Steve Chabot of Ohio and even Dan Burton of Indiana all expressed impatience with the pace at which the Iraqi government is assuming responsibility. Republicans may simply be distancing themselves from an unpopular president as they face reelection bids in November. Whatever the reasons, it is encouraging to see them express the skepticism most Americans feel. The length, cost and indecisiveness of this war should make Americans more skeptical the next time a political leader suggests war, against a country halfway around the world, without a clear objective.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support ordering the previous question because I think the House should proceed to considering H.R. 5719, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act, without unnecessary delay. Some have urged that Members oppose ordering the previous question so that the House could consider legislation to make permanent all the tax cuts the Bush Administration pushed through Congress in 2001. I supported some of those reductions, but opposed others, and am not convinced that they should all be made permanent. But in any event, they will remain in effect until 2010. There is no need for us to consider today which should be extended, either as they stand or in modified form. I think instead we should proceed to the debate on H.R. 5719, and so I am voting to order the previous question.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this very timely and important measure. Its enactment will make a number of worthwhile changes in the current tax laws and the policies of the Internal Revenue Service, IRS. To protect people against identity theft, it will require the IRS to notify a taxpayer if IRS finds that someone else may have made unauthorized use of the taxpayer's identity. It will increase both the civil and criminal penalties that can be imposed on those who use misleading websites that imitate to seek to get personal information. This is important because people are losing thousands of dollars in tax refunds to such frauds. It will strengthen IRS outreach to make sure that people know that they are entitled to tax refunds or to payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC. It would also permit the IRS to refer these taxpayers to low income tax clinics and increase funding for those clinics, and strengthen taxpayer protections from ``predatory'' providers of refund anticipation loans. And it clarifies that the IRS can use its website to publicize unclaimed taxpayer refunds. To help small businesses, the bill will eliminate the outdated requirement to maintain and submit detailed call records to substantiate business use of employer-provided cell phones. Of great importance to State and local governments--including every county in Colorado--it will delay for one year the imposition of a 3 percent withholding requirement on government payments for goods and services made after December 31, 2010. Further, to protect all of us, the bill includes the ``Fair Share Act,'' which closes a loophole that now allows government contractors to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. An example of how the current law could permit this was recently reported in the press account of how a company operating under Federal contracts for reconstruction work in Iraq has listed the people doing that work as being employees of a subsidiary company based in the Cayman Islands. As a result, while people formally employed by the company with the Federal contract would be subject to the 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare (half technically paid by the employer, the other half technically paid by employees), that is not the case with people who are counted as working for a foreign company. This is not fair or just. It should not be permissible, and this bill would stop it by closing the loophole. In addition, the bill would strengthen accountability and protect taxpayers by repealing the authorization for the Internal Revenue Service to use private contractors to collect Federal income taxes. Just today, the press is reporting that this program, while perhaps well-intentioned, has cost the government--that is, the taxpayers--some $37 million more than the total amount of taxes it has collected, while the contractors have collected commissions of up to 24 percent for their efforts. The program has been marked by harassment, abusive calling, and violations of taxpayer rights and disclosure protections. The Government Accountability Office has reported that debt collectors placed over one million calls, many to innocent people, trying to reach 35,000 taxpayers and the Federal Trade Commission reports that as of last year it had received 130 complaints and the National Taxpayer Advocate has counted many more. The House has already twice voted to end this private collection program, and we should do so again today. Madam Speaker, some have criticized this bill because it includes measures to implement the requirement that taxes be paid on funds withdrawn from a Health Savings account for purposes other than those related to health care. I think the purpose of these provisions is appropriate, but it may be that they could be more finely-tuned in order to achieve that purpose in a better way--something that may occur as the legislative process proceeds. In any event, I am not convinced that whatever shortcomings there may be in that or other parts of the bill are sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the rest of the legislation. Overall, this is a good bill that will help the taxpayers and our country, and I urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for three rollcall votes on April 14th. If I had been present for those votes, I would have voted as follows: First, on rollcall No. 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 El 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 conveys 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. Second, on rollcall No. 184, to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 994, regarding National Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Awareness Day, I would have voted ``yes.'' And, third, on rollcall No. 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.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday I was unavoidably detained and unable to reach the House floor in time for two rollcall votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 165--on adoption of H. Res. 1084, Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2016, to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes--I would have voted, ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 166--on passage of H. Res. 1077, Calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and to enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated solution that respects the distinctive language, culture, religious identity, and fundamental freedom of all Tibetans--I would have voted, ``yes.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution that President Bush has regrettably made necessary. The immediate effect of the resolution will be to allow deferral of a vote on the proposed free trade agreement with Colombia. Some say that the longer-term effect will be to make approval of that agreement impossible. But I think the reality could be just the reverse, because as you have said, Mr. Speaker, at this point the odds are against its approval and so deferring the vote on the agreement could be the only way it might ever be approved. I have supported Free Trade Agreements with Bahrain, Singapore, Chile, Morocco, Australia, Jordan, Oman, and Peru, I'd like the opportunity to consider the merits of a Columbia FTA, but cannot jump to the conclusion that its provisions are fully acceptable, and I am troubled by allegations that labor organizers have been terrorized by government authorities in Columbia. It seems to me that the proponents of this agreement have the burden of making a compelling case that the agreement meets criteria Congress has insisted upon with regard to labor protections. Therefore, deferring the vote will allow additional time for the Bush Administration and the other supporters of the agreement either to the make the case that it should be approved in its current form or to work with the Colombian government and the Congress to make revisions to respond to objections raised by its opponents. It should not have been necessary for the House to act to provide that time. If President Bush had been willing to do more to resolve those objections, we would not be taking such action. But by deciding to formally transmit the agreement, which set in motion the so-called ``fast track'' procedures of the current law applicable to trade agreements, the President has brought us to this point. And while the details are different, that approach is very similar to the one the president has followed on many other matters--demanding approval of his proposals and refusing to work with Members of Congress to resolve objections or accommodate other suggestions. We have seen the pattern over and over, from the repeated vetoes of legislation to expand the State Children's Health Program, SCHIP, to revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, and with regard to more other matters than I have time to list. But this time, by adopting this resolution, we can give President Bush time to reconsider that way of doing business, and give the other proponents of the Colombia trade agreement time to make the case for why it should be approved.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of this legislation and I rise in its support. Its sole purpose and effect is to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, NLCS, as a matter of statutory law. The NLCS now includes more than 800 units, including all National Scenic and Historic Trails, National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, wilderness areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and wilderness study areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. In all, it includes some 26 million acres, or about 10 percent of the land that BLM manages. As a system it was established in 2000 by an administrative action of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. However, each of its units was originally established by Congress or through a Presidential Proclamation under the Antiquities Act of 1906 and each is managed according to its enabling authority, as well as other laws applicable to various units or portions of units, such as the Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The purpose of Secretary Babbitt's administrative action was to erect a framework to tie each unit of the NLCS together into a larger conservation system, and the result has been to increase the public recognition and understanding of these special places within the array of public lands under management of the BLM. The NLCS units include significant natural resources, including approximately 12 percent of the BLM-managed sage grouse habitat, as well as important cultural and scientific resources. For example, in Colorado the system includes the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, which has more than 6,000 archeological sites significant to Native American cultures, as well the Gunnison Gorge and McInnis Canyons National Conservation Areas (the latter of which is named for our former colleague, Representative Scott McInnis). These and the other NLCS units provide unique recreational opportunities, and their status as part of the system has proved valuable not only in terms of their recognition by the public but also as it relates to funding for their management. The bill makes that status a matter of law. At the same time, it specifies that any future additions to the system must be authorized separately--as the existing units have been--and that each unit is to be managed in accordance with all laws applicable to that unit and in a manner that protects the values for which the components of the system were designated. The legislation does not impose any new conditions on use of the lands involved, nor does it affect existing rights with respect to those lands, whether those are related to grazing or other purposes. The Congressional Budget Office says its enactment will not affect BLM's budget because BLM already has permanent authority to manage the lands in the system, subject to amounts provided annually in appropriations acts, and that enacting H.R. 2016 will not affect direct spending or revenues or the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. The bill is supported by the Bush Administration as well as by many other groups, including the Colorado-based Outdoor Industry Association as well as the American Hiking Society, National Council of Churches, Boone and Crockett Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the National Wildlife Federation. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest measure but one that deserves enactment, and I urge its approval by the House.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, on April 2nd I was unavoidably delayed and unable to be present for three votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall No. 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 No. 155, adoption of H. Res. 1605, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 156, the Carson of Indiana Amendment to H.R. 5501, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 157, the motion to recommit H.R. 5501, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 158, passage of H.R. 5501, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, this week the press reported the declassification and public release of a Justice Department memo popularly known as the ``torture memo.'' It's news that the memo has been made public, but, sadly, what it says comes as no surprise. At least since the summer of 2004, when it was reported in the press, the American people have known that after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington the Bush Justice Department advised other agencies that the President, when acting as commander-in-chief, is not bound to follow duly enacted Federal laws. After this was revealed, the Bush administration--preparing for the 2004 Presidential election--repudiated the memo. But it had guided the administration for 22 months, and experts have claimed that its startling reading of the law and the constitution led to excesses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. In 2005, Congress responded by enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act, which requires the defense department to follow the interrogation guidelines in the Army Field Manual and which prohibits the ``cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the detention, custody, or control of the United States Government.'' I strongly supported those provisions, which are often referred to as the ``McCain amendment' in recognition of their Senate author. But when President Bush signed them into law, he issued a ``signing statement'' that raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law by suggesting that he intended to reserve the right to authorize prohibited interrogation methods in some cases. Taken together, the memo and the signing statement clearly signal the Bush administration's contempt for the rule of law. As the Rocky Mountain News says in an April 3 editorial, ``This was one step on the path to the Bush administration's unfortunate assertion, until the courts knocked it down, that the president had the power to snatch an American citizen on U.S. soil and hold him incommunicado in solitary confinement indefinitely, without charge, trial or counsel.'' And the memo and the signing statement also show that the administration refuses to recognize that its contempt for the law will result in placing every American, especially those in uniform around the world, at grave risk. I think we all should remember that, in the words of the Colorado Springs Gazette, ``In the larger struggle with jihadist terrorism and those tempted to support or harbor them, the perception that the United States has a certain moral authority is invaluable. Moral authority was a key factor in the long, twilight struggle with aggressive communism we call the Cold War. Using torture undermines that moral authority.'' For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching the full text of the editorial in the April 3 edition of the Rocky Mountain News. [From the Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 3, 2008] Not Above the Law, Despite the Memo The Justice department has released the full text of the infamous 2003 ``torture memo'' brushing aside the legal restraints on military interrogators. The memo, which originated in the department's Office of Legal Counsel, argues that the president's inherent powers in wartime overrode any federal law or international treaty, raising in the layman's mind the point, Why bother to have laws and treaties? Our government is supposed to be one of checks and balances but the Office of Legal Counsel saw no check on the president's powers. The courts had no jurisdiction on what Americans did overseas and in any case ``Congress cannot interfere with the president's exercise of his authority as commander in chief to control operations during a war.'' This was one step on the path to the Bush administration's unfortunate assertion, until the courts knocked it down, that the president had the power to snatch an American citizen on U.S. soil and hold him incommunicado in solitary confinement indefinitely, without charge, trial or counsel.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, on Monday, March 31, I was unavoidably absent and so was unable to join in three recorded votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: On H.R. 3352--To reauthorize and amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, and for other purposes--I would have voted ``yea.'' On H.R. 2675--To provide for the conveyance of approximately 140 acres of land in the Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma to the Indian Nations Council, Inc., of the Boy Scouts of America, and for other purposes--I would have voted ``yea.'' On H. Con. Res. 302--Recognizing the Month of March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month--I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this measure for two reasons. First, I will support it 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, which was supported by all but 3 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 Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective'' (or RESTORE) Act--which the House passed on November 15th of last year. Second, I will support it because I think it is distinctly better than the version the Senate passed--as an amendment to the House-passed RESTORE Act--on February 12th. It does include some good features of the Senate version, including provisions that for the first time will provide statutory requirement that surveillance of the communications of Americans overseas will be done pursuant to appropriate orders of the courts. But it differs from the Senate version in some important ways, particularly in the way it addresses the current lawsuits brought against several telecommunications companies by parties who claim that the companies acted wrongly by assisting with a surveillance program involving the massive interception of purely domestic communications. 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, last month the Senate decided to comply with the President's demand on this point, and their version of this legislation would provide that retroactive immunity. I do not think that was the right decision. 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.'' That is why I think the approach taken in the measure before us is better. Unlike the Senate version, it would not short-circuit the court by preventing the cases from proceeding. Instead, it would allow the defendant companies to defend themselves by freeing them from the ``state secret'' barrier erected by the Bush Administration. Under the measure before us, the defendants will be able to demonstrate 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. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of basic fairness to allow the companies now being sued, and those that may be sued in the future, to fully defend themselves and to try to show the court why, as the defendants in the current cases claim, they are already immune under existing law. That is what this measure does--and, in fact, it does more. Unlike the Senate version, it will protect the companies from lawsuits for compliance with valid authorizations under the temporary surveillance law (the ``Protect America Act'') passed last August for the period between the expiration of that law (but not the underlying authorizations) and the enactment of more lasting FISA reform legislation. I strongly approve of that aspect of the legislation because while I did not support its original enactment, I do regret the fact that the temporary law was allowed to lapse. I thought it should have remained in effect while we in Congress work to replace it with a longer-lasting statute. That was why earlier this year, I twice voted to extend it--first, by passage of a 15-day extension (H.R. 5104) and then by voting for a bill (H.R. 5349) that would have provided a further 21-day extension. Regrettably, that second extension did not occur. Its failure was because of the opposition of President Bush and the resulting fact that all our Republican colleagues here in the House, who voted against the extension and thus allowed the ``Protect America Act'' to lapse--a fact that has been conveniently ignored by many of those who have sponsored television commercials or otherwise complained about that lapse. In any event, today we have the opportunity to make progress toward the goal of updating the FISA law in a way that will enable our intelligence agencies to obtain information needed to protect the American people while safeguarding our rights under the Constitution. That is what this measure does, and that is why I will vote for it. For the information of our colleague, I am attaching the February 15th editorial of the Rocky Mountain News that I mentioned earlier. [From the Rocky Mountain News--Friday, Feb. 15, 2008] No Immunity--Senate Veers Off Track in Its Surveillance Bill The Bush administration is in a tizzy because Congress will take its Presidents Day recess and allow the temporary ``terrorist surveillance'' act passed six months ago to expire at midnight Saturday. Earlier this week, President Bush actually suggested that al-Qaida operatives are watching the calendar, poised to plot new attacks freely with Congress absent--and U.S. intelligence officials will be largely powerless to stop them. Don't insult the American public, Mr. President. You'll still have the ability to wiretap suspected terrorists--and the warrantless surveillance powers in the bill are valid until August. Bush is riled because the House is leaving town without adopting immunity provisions in the Senate surveillance bill. The Senate version granted immunity from lawsuits--unwisely, in our view--to telecommunications firms that cooperated with the warrantless wiretaps on overseas calls. If immunity is in the final legislation--and Bush has said he'd veto any bill that doesn't include it--it would kill the 40-plus lawsuits that have been filed against telecoms in federal court. The litigation challenges the legality of the program and the actions of telecoms that cooperated with the government. If the lawsuits don't move forward, we may never learn if some telecoms compromised the privacy of innocent Americans. A grant of immunity could also set a dangerous precedent for other businesses when federal agents or local cops who don't have a court order demand private or confidential information about their customers. (Colorado Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar both voted to pass the Senate legislation and to oppose an amendment that would have stripped the immunity provisions from the bill.) Look, we think the government should have greater leeway-- and constitutionally, does have greater leeway--to monitor international communications with al-Qaida than it does to intercept domestic phone calls or e-mails. But we've largely had to take the administration's word that the wiretap program didn't go beyond the narrow confines under which it would be legal. Moreover, any program that lets the government snoop without a judge's approval deserves outside scrutiny to prevent abuses. In this instance, the lawsuits may reveal whether the wiretaps were targeted or were more like fishing expeditions. We may also learn how effectively the telecoms separated international communications from domestic calls or e-mails. The government initially tried (and failed) to quash these cases, claiming the program was so top secret that even admitting that private telecoms participated would compromise national security. Federal courts wouldn't buy that line. So AT&T and other telecoms started claiming they were victims-- Washington had persuaded them that the program was legal and they had little choice but to assist in the fight against al- Qaida. Those claims may be true, but they seem to run counter to the experience of Joe Nacchio, the former Qwest CEO who was convicted on insider trading charges last year. Two years ago it was revealed that Nacchio refused to comply with appeals from the government to participate in the warrantless wiretap program; he balked at turning over information about his customers obtained under what Qwest considered suspect legal circumstances. Court documents released in October revealed that Nacchio first met with national security officials in February 2001-- six months before the 9/11 attacks. ``Nacchio's account,'' The Washington Post reported, ``suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.'' Letting this litigation proceed would not, as Bush said Wednesday, 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.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this budget resolution, which will lay the foundation for the decisions about spending and taxes that we must make this year. Our first responsibility as Members of Congress is to provide for our national defense and homeland security, in order to safeguard the lives and liberties of the American people. For that reason, and as a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am glad to be able to say that this budget meets that responsibility by providing $537.8 billion for national defense, which is in line not only with the amounts requested but also the recommendation of our committee. I also support the budget because it puts the needed priority on moving to restore the capabilities so seriously eroded by repeated deployments and more than 6 years of war. And, even more important, it includes instructions to properly care for the men and women in uniform by rejecting TRICARE fee increases, providing funding to continue addressing problems such as those at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and calling for enhanced pay and benefits to improve the quality of life of our troops and their families. It also calls for allocating $4.9 billion more than in the current fiscal year for veterans' health care. But that is not the end of our responsibility. We also need to act responsibly to change the policies that over the last seven years have brought us deeper budget deficits and massive increases in the national debt even as we make needed investments in our society here at home. This budget meets that responsibility as well. It lays out a path that can bring the budget back to balance. It includes an essential aspect of fiscal responsibility by following the ``pay-as-you-go'' approach now embodied in our House rules, requiring that any entitlement spending increases or revenue reductions be offset, so that the bottom line of the budget is not worsened. At the same time it allows for funding priority investments in education, children's health care, veterans' health care, and innovation but also accommodating tax relief for middle-income Americans. It rejects President Bush's proposed cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and assistance to local law-enforcement agencies while accommodating $50 billion over 5 years for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). It also allows for substantially greater appropriations that the president has requested for education, and energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. And it includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to accommodate middle- income tax cuts, such as extension of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, extension of the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, elimination of most estate taxes, extension of the research and experimentation tax credit, extension of the deduction for state and local sales taxes, and a tax credit for school construction bonds. In addition, through a reconciliation instruction to the Ways and Means Committee, it allows for action to protect more than 20 million middle- income taxpayers from exposure to the alernative minimum tax, which was never intended to apply to them. As a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, I applaud the fact that the budget will allow an additional $1.98 billion over the amounts appropriated for this fiscal year for science, space, and technology. That amount will fully accommodate the commitments made in the America COMPETES Act--a measure I was proud to cosponsor and champion in the conference committee--for the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy Office of Science. Further, the budget includes increased budget authority for energy technology research programs such as those at the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which include help for small manufacturers and technology companies through the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and Technology Innovation Program. These programs have great potential to increase our economic growth and to foster innovation. As the global marketplace becomes more competitive, it is essential that we compete on the basis of improved skills and greater productivity, rather than follow the destructive path of trying to compete solely on cost with the half of the world's workers who earn less than $2 a day. That is the purpose of the America COMPETES Act, and why it is so important that we provide adequate funding for it. And it also the point of the resolution's provision saying the House should provide sufficient funding so that our Nation may continue to be the world leader in education, innovation, and economic growth and so we can stay on a path toward doubling funding for the National Science Foundation, basic research in the physical sciences, and collaborative research partnerships, and toward achieving energy independence through the development of clean and sustainable alternative energy technologies. In addition, as a member of the Natural Resources, and as a westerner, I also support the budget because it will allow for an increase of more than $6 billion in the amounts available for protection of our water and air and the sound management of our public lands and other natural resources. Mr. Chairman, it is said that to govern is to choose--and today's debate demonstrates the truth of that adage because the House must choose among four competing proposals for how the budget should be shaped in the years ahead. Before deciding to support the resolution approved by the Budget Committee, I carefully reviewed the three competing alternatives, and in each I found some things that I think have considerable merit. For example, I liked the additional investments in education, job training, and employment included in the alternative advanced by the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as the provisions regarding unemployment insurance, food stamps, and housing assistance highlighted in the Progressive Caucus alternative. And the Republican alternative includes procedures for a legislative line-item veto similar to legislation (H.R. 595) I have introduced under the name of the Stimulating Leadership in Limiting Expenditures (or ``SLICE'') Act and would place a moratorium on spending earmarks pending review of the earmarking process by a bipartisan panel--two ideas that I think could result in worthwhile reforms. But, on balance, I have concluded that the version now before us, developed in the Budget Committee under the able leadership of its distinguished Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr Spratt, is the best choice. It is a sound proposal that will enable our government to meet its responsibilities, at home and abroad, in a way that is fiscally sound and respectful of the need to provide tax relief for middle-income Americans and promoting a sound economy. I will vote for it and I urge its approval by the House.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today, along with my colleague and co-chair of the Congressional Fitness Caucus, Representative Zach Wamp, I am introducing the ``Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Act of 2008.'' If enacted, this bill will make important improvements in the way that we measure and promote health and fitness in our communities. Health care has become one of the most prominent issues of our time, and coming up with solutions to curb rising costs and address the growing numbers of uninsured Americans will take a great deal of hard work and debate. Whatever our disagreements about the best ways to fix these problems, there are simple principles upon which we can all agree. This bill focuses on one of those simple principles: that exercise makes Americans healthier. Many of us are familiar with Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a report released every five years by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. These are recommendations that help guide the way that physicians and nutritionists talk to their patients and clients about their diets and how to think of healthy food as a way of life. Similarly, HHS also releases a report entitled Physical Activity Guidelines, which summarizes current knowledge about the relationship between exercise and fitness. I would argue that these publications are of equal importance, as diet and exercise are the pillars of a healthy lifestyle. There is one difference, though, that I believe by fixing we can further promote healthy living for Americans. The difference is this: where Dietary Guidelines is mandated to be updated every five years. Physical Activity Guidelines has no such requirement. Fixing this difference will ensure that Americans have the most up- to-date information about the role and importance of exercise in their lives, just as they do now for their diets. This bill seeks to accomplish that fix. It would equalize the way that the federal government dispenses information about diet and exercise, and it would benefit ordinary people by giving them relevant information about how to become healthier. As I said. curing all of our health care ills will require a great deal of work. thought. and debate, but I believe that we can get off to a good start simply by helping Americans exercise more and, by staying healthy, go to the doctor a little less. Madam Speaker. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this simple measure to help achieve that simple goal.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of this legislation was not a surprise but still very disappointing. It was not a surprise because the President had clearly signaled his intention to reject the bill's requirement that all intelligence agencies follow the rules governing interrogation techniques followed by our military, even though the bill also authorizes supplemental funding for counterterrorism as well as funding for advanced research and development funding to help maintain our technical capacity for intelligence, to repair and replace aging and inadequate power infrastructure, and to improve training and education of linguists, analysts, and human intelligence collectors. But it was disappointing that President Bush refuses to agree to that simple requirement, because the result is to signal to the world that he refuses to recognize that the result will be to place every American, especially those in uniform around the world, at grave risk. The United States historically has led in the effort to establish and enforce the laws of war and conventions against torture. Indeed, the Army Field Manual is an outstanding example of how our modern military effectively gathers intelligence and observes international norms of conduct. The importance of that leadership and the appropriateness of the guidelines in the field manual were clearly recognized by Congress when we voted to approve the conference report's provision extending the field manual to the entire intelligence community--the provision to which the President objects and which has prompted him to veto the legislation. By extending the field manual to the intelligence community, the legislation would effectively outlaw waterboarding and similar coercive techniques. I support that because waterboarding is widely and rightly viewed as a form of torture and the refusal to renounce its use will result in greater damage to our national interests than the possible benefits of its possible use in the future. I think the case for overriding the President's veto was well made by the Colorado Springs Gazette in a recent editorial pointing out that ``the use of torture blurs the line between civilized societies and ruthless barbarians.'' As the editorial notes, In the larger struggle with jihadist terrorism and those tempted to support or harbor them, the perception that the United States has a certain moral authority is invaluable. Moral authority was a key factor in the long, twilight struggle with aggressive communism we call the Cold War. Using torture undermines that moral authority. It is telling that the firmest opponents of the use of torture tend to be military and former military people who understand the dangers to captured military personnel if it is widely believed that the U.S. engages in torture. Instead of spinning unlikely scenarios in which torture might be justified, the government should announce that America doesn't do that any more--and mean it. I agree, and that is why I will vote today to override the President's unwise veto of this important legislation. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching the complete text of the editorial: [From the Colorado Springs Gazette, Feb. 14, 2008] The High Road--Forswearing Torture Gives U.S. Moral Standing So it's out in the open now. Central Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Michael Hayden admitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that the CIA used the coercive interrogation technique known as waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, on three al-Qaida operatives in 2002 and 2003. The technique is widely viewed as torture, which is prohibited by U.S. law and international treaties. Hayden said it has not been used since 2003 but that the CIA could use it again if approved by both the attorney general and the president. The Justice Department is currently investigating the destruction of videotapes of the interrogations of two detainees held in Thailand who were reportedly subjected to waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques to determine whether destroying the tapes amounted to obstruction of justice. Public disclosure of these incidents should lead to a firm U.S. policy preventing government operatives from using torture in the future. Perhaps the best thing about the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the Republican presidential frontrunner is that McCain, who was tortured by the North Vietnamese while a POW during the Vietnam War, has expressed his firm opposition to the use of torture by the U.S. He has said that one thing that helped him endure his imprisonment was the knowledge that our side doesn't engage in such barbarity. Torture is sometimes justified as the only way to extract information from detainees when an attack is deemed imminent, and Hayden said in 2002 and 2003 that everybody expected an attack on the U.S. following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But most experienced interrogators say torture seldom if ever produces reliable intelligence, that while other techniques may take longer, they generally produce better information. At a more fundamental level, the use of torture blurs the line between civilized societies and ruthless barbarians. In the larger struggle with jihadist terrorism and those tempted to support or harbor them, the perception that the United States has a certain moral authority is invaluable. Moral authority was a key factor in the long, twilight struggle with aggressive communism we call the Cold War. Using torture undermines that moral authority. It is dismaying, therefore, that a day later White House spokesman Tony Fratto was still saying that waterboarding might be used justifiably in the future. It would have been better to acknowledge that in the wake of 9/11 the U.S. used coercive techniques, that one could understand the temptation considering the circumstances and the lack of knowledge about al-Qaida, but that we had renounced the practice. It is telling that the firmest opponents of the use of torture tend to be military and former military people who understand the dangers to captured military personnel if it is widely believed that the U.S. engages in torture. Instead of spinning unlikely scenarios in which torture might be justified, the government should announce that America doesn't do that any more--and mean it.