Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007. This bill moves forward the important principles that mental health deserves fair and equal recognition in our health care financing system and that individuals afflicted with mental health disorders deserve no less a chance at recovery than those afflicted with physical disorders. These principles do not exist for their own sake, and there are plenty of practical reasons that mental health coverage should be equal to that of other types of health coverage. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that employers lose as much as $31 billion per year in productivity costs associated with having depressed workers. The story is much the same for alcohol-related illnesses and certainly for suicide. Even if these economic realities did not exist, there remains no scientific justification for treating mental health as separate and inferior to physical health. Many attribute the historical disparities between the treatment of mental health and physical health to stigmas about the realness of mental health disorders and the credibility of those who claim to have them. If this is true, surely our scientific and health care communities have moved us beyond those stigmas and shown that mental health not only exists, but is as important to one's day to day life as any physical condition. It is time that our laws and our health care financing system caught up to our scientific knowledge in this important respect. H.R. 1424 will move us in that direction. If passed, it will bring this aspect of our private health insurance system in line with what has worked for Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program--the very same health program available to members of Congress. This is not a mandate. Employer-based health care plans will not be required to offer mental health benefits, but those group plans with 51 or more employees who do offer mental health benefits will be required to provide coverage that is no less substantial than the coverage provided for physical health. This is sound policy, and ensures that those afflicted with mental health disorders can afford the care they need to lead productive, happy, healthy lives. I am aware that there are some differences between this bill and the similar bill that passed the Senate last year. Some opponents of the House version, I think, have legitimate concerns about the effects of basing coverage on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The instances in which plans and states have adhered to the DSM-IV have not yielded the problems with overuse and treatment for the ``worried well'' that opponents predict, but the possibility that these problems could occur, I think, is strong enough that these differences should be addressed before the bill becomes law. I am hopeful that ongoing discussions between the House and the Senate will produce a bill that addresses these concerns and finds a suitable compromise. I will vote for this bill because I believe that moving it forward in the legislative process is one more important step toward the final goal of instituting equity between physical and mental health coverage, a goal I hope can be achieved this year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this legislation come to the floor today that will extend critical tax credits for renewable energy while not adding to the Federal deficit. 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 expanding the PTC to include solar, open-loop biomass, geothermal, and small irrigation power will ensure that all renewable energy sources can benefit. We must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008, and this bill will extend it to the end of 2011. 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. But this bill would also benefit families who want to invest in renewable energy. The bill 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. Of course, the cheapest kilowatt of energy is the one you don't use, and energy efficiency also has a key role in addressing our energy needs. This bill will extend the tax credit for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes. It will also extend the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction for 5 years and the modification and extension of the energy efficient appliance credit for 3 years. 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 between $4,000 and $6,000 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 ethanol produced from domestic, non-food feedstocks such as switchgrass, corn stover, sawdust, and paper pulp, 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. But, for the lack of just one more vote in the Senate, these provisions were not included in the final bill that the President signed into law. I hope today we can move this bill forward and promote positive change that will benefit rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the House to vote for this needed legislation, and also encourage quick action in the Senate so that we may move it to the President's desk.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I have reviewed two amicus briefs filed for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. One brief has been signed by a majority of our colleagues in Congress. The other was filed on behalf of the Bush administration by the Solicitor General, Paul D. Clement. I want to explain why I have decided not to join in signing the first one. First of all, I want to make clear I am aware of the importance of this case as regards the interpretation of the constitutional reach of the Second Amendment. As I said when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided Parker v. District of Columbia last year, I am convinced that the Constitution's Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. I believe the Court of Appeals' decision striking down several gun laws passed by the D.C. City Council in that case was rightly decided and persuasively reasoned with regard to that fundamental point. As one who reveres the Bill of Rights and as a strong proponent of individual liberty in other contexts, like privacy and freedom of expression, I am very comfortable asserting that the Second Amendment ought to be recognized as protecting individual rights and not just a collective right to form militias. The decision in Parker has been appealed to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and I had an opportunity to read the amicus brief in support of upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals that Members of Congress were urged to sign. After carefully reviewing the brief, I found that I agreed with the arguments in 29 of its 31 pages, which support my view about the nature of the individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. If the brief stopped there, I would support it without hesitation. However, it does not stop there. Page 30 of the amicus brief includes declarations that ``the District's handgun ban is unreasonable on its face'' and further, that ``The lower court's categorical approach in holding a prohibition on handguns to be unconstitutional per se was correct.'' Those assertions directly contradict statements in the Solicitor General's brief warning that while the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, the lower court's categorical approach to reviewing the D.C. laws in question ``could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation'' including restrictions on possession of firearms by convicted criminals, fugitives from justice, illegal immigrants, and people suffering from mental disorders. Some may ask why the many Members of Congress who signed the first brief did not similarly hesitate to so flatly contradict the arguments of the Solicitor General. It is possible that my colleagues read the brief as only trying to make clear that the lower court rightly ruled about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment and rightly rejected the absurd argument advanced by the District of Columbia that if any individual right attached to the Second Amendment it should only apply to weapons (not handguns) known at the time the founders drafted the Constitution. But if that was the intention, the amicus brief is drafted in an ambiguous way that is regrettable. I can speak only for myself, but as a non-lawyer who thinks Mr. Clement is highly qualified to serve as Solicitor General, I find it difficult to reject his concerns outright. And it is for this reason I cannot unequivocally endorse the amicus filed by my colleagues. It seems to me that the Supreme Court will need to take the Solicitor General's views into account when the Court considers the right standard for reviewing the decision of the lower court.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I regret that it is necessary for the House to consider this matter today, but I will support the resolution because I have concluded that the Bush administration has made it necessary to do so. When this is disposed of, I hope we can promptly return to the pressing needs of the American people that Congress needs to address. Last year, the Judiciary Committee began reviewing the actions of the administration related to the firings of a number of U.S. Attorneys and allegations that this was part of a pattern of improper politicization of the Justice Department. After failing to get requested information voluntarily, the Committee served subpoenas on then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. The president then invoked executive privilege and Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten, despite the subpoenas, refused to appear before the Committee. In response, the Judiciary Committee approved a resolution citing them both for contempt of the Congress. I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert on questions of executive privilege. But it seems clear to me that the administration has refused to negotiate in good faith to resolve this matter, offering only to allow some interviews under severe restrictions, including a bar to keeping of transcripts. This is not the first time Congress has sought information from a president's advisors. The Congressional Research Service reports there have been 74 instances since World War II where even sitting White House advisers, including White House counsel, have testified before Congress, including 17 between 1996 and 2001. But I am not aware of any instance in which executive privilege has been invoked as a reason why a former advisor--such as Ms. Miers--will not even make an appearance before a Congressional committee in response to a subpoena. And I am not persuaded by the administration's explanations about why it refused to allow Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolton to even appear, let alone to testify. For example, we have been assured that the President was not involved in the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys. But if that is true, how can executive privilege, which is intended to assure that a president will receive candid advice, apply to this matter? After reviewing the history of this matter, I find myself in agreement with someone who is both a lawyer and a distinguished former Member of Congress--Mickey Edwards, who during his service here as a Representative from Oklahoma chaired the Republican Policy Committee. Commenting on this matter, he has written, ``If Congressional leaders are not able to persuade the administration to reverse its position and allow Ms. Miers to testify and Mr. Bolten to produce documents, then all Members of Congress, regardless of party, should insist that the subpoenas be enforced promptly and vigorously and to use civil litigation if, as the White House has hinted, it prohibits the D.C. U.S. Attorney from performing his enforcement duties.'' I agree, and because that is exactly the purpose of this resolution, I will vote for it. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 982 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the following: ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before consideration of any order of business other than one motion that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of my esteemed colleagues and former classmates, Sir Franklin Miller, for receiving honorary knighthood by the British Government. Queen Elizabeth II, during her fall 2007 visit to Washington, DC, awarded Mr. Miller with honorary knighthood--a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire--in gratitude for his work to strengthen U.S.-U.K. defense collaboration during his career with the Department of Defense and as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush. I am pleased to recognize his commitment to America's security. Frank and I were both members of the Williams College Class of 1972. After graduating, he served as Communications Officer and Anti- Submarine Warfare Officer aboard the USS Joseph Hewes, a Knox-class frigate, with deployments in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian and Atlantic Oceans. In 1977, he returned to school and received his MPA from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. His talents at defense studies brought him to the State Department's Bureau of Political- Military Affairs from 1977 to 1979. For 22 years, he served under seven Secretaries in a series of progressively senior positions. His final assignments were twice as Acting Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy and once as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Threat Reduction. Frank Miller served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and as Senior Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security Council staff between 2001 and 2005. This made him responsible for Presidential policy initiatives in the fields of nuclear deterrence policy, strategic arms reduction, national space policy, defense trade reform, land-mines, and transforming the American and NATO militaries. He heroically assumed responsibility for the operation and management of the White House Situation Room immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001. This led him to direct interagency support of both Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. For his distinguished service, he was honored five times with the Defense Department's highest civilian award, the Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Medal. In addition, he has been awarded the Norwegian Royal Order of Merit, Grand Officer, and the French Legion of Honor, Officer. Knighthood is another fitting tribute to Sir Miller's distinguished 31-year career. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me to congratulate Sir Miller for his recent knighthood. We are grateful to Sir Miller for his outstanding commitment and service to improving the security of this country. I wish him good health, happiness, and success in his future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Vic Trujillo for receiving the ``7-Everyday Hero'' award. I am pleased to recognize his service and the many contributions he has made to our community. For the last 12 years, Lions Club member Vic Trujillo and his wife Ida volunteered side by side. Their dedication to the community blossomed into a program to prevent neighbors from going hungry while empowering youth to help others. Mr. Trujillo has continued the family's commitment to community service even after his wife's passing. Partnering with schools in the tri-town area of Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono, the Trujillos have created a canned-good competition in which area schools compete to collect the most canned goods. Prairie Ridge Elementary School won the most recent competition--collecting well over 4,000 canned food items. With the cans from other schools, this program fills the tri-town food closets each year--providing about 60 families with donated food every month. For people who do not have homes or food, this service is life-saving. To augment the canned resources, Mr. Trujillo has also encouraged these schools to sponsor a community bingo game. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Mr. Vic Trujillo for his exceptional community work and to express our appreciation for his efforts. I'm proud to acknowledge his reception of the ``7-Everyday Hero'' award and wish him good health, happiness, and success in his future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will support H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007. Overall, it is an excellent bill, but I do have a serious concern about the impact of one provision, the state maintenance-of-efforts provision, on Colorado. This bill will reauthorize the Higher Education Act and will help make our colleges and universities more affordable and accessible. I am especially pleased that this bill will help students and families trying to afford the increasing costs of college. The bill increases the maximum Pell grant award to $9,000 annually, up from $5,800. Pell Grants enable many students to attend college, but with rising tuition costs these grants have lost some of their purchasing power. This increase will allow Pell Grants to help students limit debt and expand their education opportunities. Also, Pell Grant scholarships availability will be expanded to year-round to allow students to use the funding when it best works with their schedule. Not only will H.R. 4137 increase federal aid, but it will also make the process of applying for that aid much more straightforward. Streamlining the application process for Federal aid will make it easier for students and their families to determine if they are eligible for Federal loans. The bill will also create a two-page ``FAFSA-EZ'' form for low-income students and families who qualify for the ``auto-zero'' family contribution. And the legislation will not just help students from low-income families--it will help all students become better informed by requiring that the Department of Education publicly provide a user-friendly list of all colleges and universities in the country with information on tuition and fees, average price after grant aid, recent price increases, and change in per-student spending. Textbooks are a growing--and often overlooked--cost of attending college. Students can spend hundreds of dollars on textbooks every semester, adding up to thousands of dollars by the time they graduate. The bill requires college textbook publishers to provide full pricing information about both bundled textbooks and unbundled alternatives. It also requires that publishers sell unbundled versions of every bundled textbook they sell so that students are not forced to purchase unneeded extras, such as study guides or CDs. H.R. 4137 reauthorizes two critical programs that help disadvantaged students thrive in college. GEAR-UP helps prepare low-income elementary and secondary students to succeed in college and the bill increases the authorized funding to $400 million for GEAR-UP. It also increases the authorization level for the TRIO programs--Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Services--to $950 million. The TRIO programs seek to increase high school completion and college participation and graduation rates among low-income and first- generation college students. African-American students make up nearly 50 percent of all TRIO participants. The bill recognizes the debt that our country owes to our soldiers and their families. It creates a new scholarship program for active duty military personnel and their family members to help make college more affordable. The bill also establishes support centers to help veterans succeed in college and graduate. As co-chair of the House Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education caucus, I am pleased that this bill builds upon the America COMPETES Act to expand and improve STEM education. It creates programs to bolster students' interest in STEM careers through collaborations with businesses and other stakeholders, as well as improves teacher training and development programs and focuses on recruiting teachers into high demand science and technology fields. As I mentioned, I am particularly concerned about the impact that the maintenance-of-effort provision will have on my state of Colorado. This provision ties Federal funding to state funding. Though I applaud the effort by Chairman Miller to encourage states to continue to support higher education, Colorado is in an unusual position because we have several constitutional provisions that limit the spending options of our legislature. These include the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR, and another that requires that the state increase funding for K through 12 education every year. Together with other constraints, these provisions have seriously affected the state's ability to fund higher education--and the maintenance-of-effort provision will not help matters. While the manager's amendment improved this provision, I will work to see that this issue is further addressed in conference. In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4137.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today we consider H. Con. Res. 287, Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the U.S. Explorer I Satellite and the Birth of the United States' Space Exploration Program, which I introduced last week. My statement about its introduction highlighted the inspiring accomplishments of our early space pioneers who contributed to the successful development and launch of Explorer I--America's first space satellite--and the multiple achievements of our Nation's first 50 years in space. Today, I want to focus on one of the major enablers of America's highly successful space program, namely our highly skilled science and engineering workforce. As we celebrate 50 years of exciting accomplishments in space, we witness the return on our Nation's past investments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Those investments produced the cadre of highly skilled scientists and engineers who have led our Nation in pushing back the boundaries of scientific knowledge and making possible the human and robotic exploration of outer space. Their contributions to our successes in space have also yielded critical benefits by promoting the innovation and advanced technology development that are central to America's competitiveness. As was expressed so clearly in the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report and in the America COMPETES Act that was signed into law last year, our nation's economic strength cannot be sustained without renewed investments in STEM education. Space has always been an attraction for some of America's best and brightest. Our space program provides a unique means of encouraging the pursuit of STEM fields. I urge my colleagues in Congress to support the STEM programs and educators we need to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers who will lead America's next 50 years of accomplishments in space and on Earth. And I urge you also to maintain Congress's commitment to making the investments necessary to continue a robust and vital space program for the Nation. I would like to thank my colleagues Ms. Giffords and Mr. Rohrabacher for their support of the bill, along with the original cosponsors. I urge adoption of my resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, with my Colorado colleague, Representative John Salazar. I am today introducing a bill to restore the equitable sharing between the Federal Government and the States of revenues from federal onshore mineral leases. Leasing of federally-owned onshore minerals is governed by the Mineral Leasing Act. which provides that the royalties paid by the producers are split equally between the Federal Government and the government of the State where a lease is located. This is very important for Colorado, which in recent years has received between $30 million and $60 million from this source. And many other States--especially in the West--have benefited as well. In fact, the most recent report by the Interior Department indicates that 34 States received a total of $1.9 billion pursuant to this part of the Mineral Leasing Act in 2007. Regrettably, the just-enacted appropriations bill for the Interior Department includes a provision that in effect amends this part of the Mineral Leasing Act by reducing the share of royalty funds going to affected States by 2 percent--so that Colorado and other States will get only 48 percent (instead of half) of the royalties from Federal leases within state boundaries. My understanding is that this change was prompted--at least in part-- as a way to offset some of the costs to the Interior Department of administering the leasing program and the distribution of royalty revenues. But I do not think Such a drastic change in the law should he accomplished by inclusion of such a provision in an appropriations bill, especially when it will have such a serious adverse effect on Colorado and our communities--especially those on the Western Slope-- that are experiencing the impacts of intensive development of Federally-owned natural gas and other energy resources. Accordingly, our bill would reverse this recently-enacted change and so restore the equitable division of royalty revenues provided by the Mineral Leasing Act.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing an additional bill to address the danger to Colorado's communities, water supplies, and infrastructure from the increasing risk of very severe wildfires on our forested lands. I have put a priority on reducing those risks since I was elected to Congress. In 2000, with our then-colleague, Representative Hefley, I introduced legislation to facilitate reducing the buildup of fuel in the parts of Colorado that the Forest Service, working with State and local partners, identified at greatest risk of fire--the so-called ``red zones.'' Concepts from that legislation were included in the National Fire Plan developed by the Clinton Administration and were also incorporated into the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. As a Member of the Resources Committee, I had worked to develop the version of that legislation that the committee approved in 2002, and while I could not support the different version initially passed by the House in 2003, I voted for the revised version developed in conference with the Senate later that year--the version that President Bush signed into law. Since then welcome progress has been made--in Colorado, at least--in developing community wildfire protection plans and focusing fuel- reduction projects in the priority ``red zone'' areas, two important aspects of the new law. But at the same time nature has continued to add to the buildup of fuel in the form of both new growth and dead and dying mature trees. In recognition of the serious nature of the problem, the entire Colorado delegation--both here in the House and in the Senate, too-- worked together to reach consensus on a broad-scale legislative response. The result was legislation--H.R. 3072 and S. 1797, the Colorado Forest Management Improvement Act of 2007--which I introduced last year in the House with the cosponsorship of the entire Colorado delegation and which Senators Salazar and Allard introduced in the Senate. Together with two bills I introduced last week--H.R. 5216, the Wildfire Risk Reduction and Renewable Biomass Utilization Act and H.R. 5218, the Fire Safe Community Act--the bill I am introducing today is designed to complement the Colorado Forest Management Act to respond to the increasingly widespread extent to which our State's forests are being altered by infestations of bark beetles and other insects. These insects help to balance tree densities and set the stage for fires and thereby the generation of new tree growth. And when forests are healthy and there are adequate supplies of water, their effects are relatively low-scale and isolated. But under the right conditions--such as drought, unusually warm winters, or when there are dense stands of even-aged trees--the insects can cause large-scale tree mortality, turning whole mountainsides and valleys rust red. And that is happening now in many parts of Colorado, as was made unmistakably clear recently when Federal and State foresters reported that the beetle infestation first detected in 1996 grew by a half-million acres last year, bringing the total number of acres attacked by bark beetles to 1.5 million, and has spread further into Front Range counties east of the Continental Divide. My goal in introducing legislation dealing with this issue is not to eradicate insects in our forests--nor should it be, because insects are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Instead, I seek to make it possible for there to be more rapid responses to the insect epidemic in those areas where such responses are needed in order to protect communities from increased wildfire dangers. The bill I am introducing today would add a new section to the Healthy Forests Act. which would apply only to Colorado, to specifically address insect epidemics. It would authorize the Forest Service or Interior Department to identify as ``insect emergency areas'' Federal lands that have already been slated for fuel-reduction work in community wildfire protection plans and that have so many insect-killed trees that there is an urgent need for work to reduce the fire-related risks to human life and property or municipal water supply. The Forest Service or Interior Department could do this on its own initiative or in response to a request from a State agency or a Colorado political subdivision (such as a county, city, or other local government). After receipt of such a request, a decision must be made within 90 days. In any such emergency areas, the Forest Service or Interior Department would be authorized to remove dead or dying trees on an expedited basis, including use of a ``categorical exclusion'' from normal review under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. Although categorical exclusions from NEPA are controversial, I believe they are appropriate for these emergency situations. For the information of our colleagues, here is a more detailed outline of the bill: colorado forest insect emergency response act This bill, based on provisions in the Udall-Salazar bill (H.R. 4875) of 2006, will add a new section to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to specifically address the forest insect epidemic in Colorado. It would authorize the Forest Service or the Interior Department, as relevant, to identify as ``insect emergency areas'' Federal lands in Colorado that have already been slated for fuel-reduction work in community wildfire protection plans and that have so many insect-killed trees that there is an urgent need for work to reduce the fire-related risks to human life and property or municipal water supplies. The Forest Service or Interior Department could make such a determination on its own initiative or in response to a request from any Colorado State agency or any Colorado political subdivision (such as a county, city, or other local government). The relevant Federal agency must respond to such a request by making a decision within 90 days. The bill would reduce the extent to which analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, must be done prior to implementing fuel-reduction--i.e., thinning or tree-removal projects in insect-emergency areas. This would be done in two ways: (1) by allowing the abbreviated NEPA reviews to be used for projects on any lands covered by a wildfire protection plan for a Colorado community in or adjacent to an insect-emergency area (the Act now allows this only for projects on lands within 1.5 miles of a community's boundaries); and (2) by allowing the Forest Service or Interior Department to forego NEPA analysis entirely through use of a ``categorical exclusion'' with regard to a project involving only lands that are both within an insect-emergency area and covered by a community wildfire protection plan. Before making a decision to exempt a project from NEPA review, the Forest Service or Interior Department would have to consult with relevant Federal and State agencies, seek comments from the public, and follow existing procedures for such decisions.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will reluctantly support this short extension of current law dealing with electronic surveillance related to efforts to counter the threat of terrorism. My support is reluctant because I did not vote for the current law, which I think does not properly balance the need to counteract that threat with protection of Americans' rights and liberties. But today I will support a brief extension of that law--scheduled to expire in two days' time--for several reasons. First, 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. Last August, I voted for a bill (H.R. 3356) to provide such an update. Unfortunately, while that bill was supported by a majority of the House, it did not receive the two-thirds vote required by the procedure under which it was considered, and so was not adopted. Its defeat resulted from the opposition of the Bush Administration-- supported by all but 3 of our Republican colleagues--which was demanding instead that the House approve a different version. Regrettably, that tactic succeeded and the result was passage of the current law, which I did not support. Then, last November, I again voted for a bill to update FISA, H.R. 3773, the ``Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective'' (or RESTORE) Act. That bill is not perfect, but as I said then I did not insist on perfection because I thought the House should act to correct the shortcomings of the temporary law enacted last year and because in my opinion the RESTORE Act would give the Administration the authority it says it needs to conduct surveillance on terrorist targets while restoring many of the protections that the temporary law has reduced. The House passed the RESTORE Act on November 15th, and we have been waiting for the Senate to act. President Bush has criticized the House- passed bill because it does not grant retroactive immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that assisted in the Administration's secret surveillance program without being compelled to do so by a warrant. As I said in November, I think it might be appropriate to consider that, but not until the Bush Administration has responded to bipartisan requests for information about the past activities of these companies under the program. I have not been ready to grant immunity for the companies' past activities while we don't know what those activities were. Recently, the Administration has finally relented and is allowing appropriate review of documents on this subject. But that review is not yet complete--and so the second reason I support this legislation is to allow the review to continue before Congress is required again to act on this subject. This would not be necessary if the Administration had not been so resistant to the idea of properly informing Congress and providing the relevant information, but now it is needed. Finally, because the Senate has been slow to act, I think the current law should be extended briefly to provide a reasonable opportunity for any differences between the House-passed bill and whatever the Senate may approve to be resolved through careful and thorough discussion rather than in the kind of exaggerated haste that too often leads to unsatisfactory results. Therefore, despite what I think are the very real flaws of the current, temporary law, I will support this measure to extend it for an additional 30 days.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill because we must act to reduce the risk of a potentially deep recession, provide a measure of assistance to people most at risk from the economy's troubles, and encourage job-creating investments by the private sector. But we must recognize that the bill's scope is limited and it isn't a full response to the economy's problems. Ironically, the bill's limited scope reflects its best feature--the fact that it was developed through a bipartisan process producing a broadly-supported compromise among the leadership on both sides of the aisle and the Administration. Like most compromises, it has shortcomings. For example, I think Congress should recognize growing unemployment by providing extended unemployment-insurance coverage--and doing so now would reduce the chance that action later will be too late to be fully effective. Still, as it comes before the House, this is a good bill that is undeniably timely, appropriately targeted, and--because it is temporary--will not add excessively to the budget deficit. It provides for payments--technically treated as refundable tax credits--of up to $600 for an individual and up to $1,200 for a married couple, plus $300 per child. It is estimated that some 117 million families will receive these payments, including 35 million working families--including more than 19 million with children--that would not have qualified under the original Administration proposal. Nearly $40 billion in payments, which will phase out for people with incomes of $75,000 for a single person and $150,000 for a married couple, will go to families making less than $50,000. The Treasury Department estimates a total of about $1.7 billion will go to 1,900,000 Colorado households that will receive an average of $895 each. In addition, the bill will temporarily double the amount of new investments in plants and equipment that small businesses can write off their taxes and increase the number of businesses eligible for this tax treatment. This will provide an incentive with the potential to reduce job losses and spur additional employment. As we all know, the housing market is one of the most troubled parts of the economy. The bill addresses that issue by providing a 1-year increase in Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's conforming loan limits--from $417,000 to $729,750--as well as a permanent increase in the Federal Housing Administration's loan limit, from $367,000 up to a maximum of $729,750. It also includes provisions intended to help people facing foreclosure to refinance their loans and get housing counseling that may help them avoid that outcome. If the House was operating under a procedure that allowed amendments to be proposed, the bill might be improved. For example, I would have liked to address the problem of consumer credit card debt by changing some of the predatory practices of credit card companies--even if only on a temporary basis--because as other interest rates are being cut, I wonder if credit card companies will extend a reduced interest rate to consumers who are feeling the effects of high interest rates those companies are imposing. But the choice before us today is a simple one--whether the bill should be approved or rejected. On that, I think the choice is clear and the bill should be passed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, Colorado and other Rocky Mountain States face a very real risk of severe wildfires in our forest lands, which directly threaten many communities and critical resources, including water supplies. There are several reasons. One is drought. Another is past management that over-emphasized fire suppression, even though fire is an inescapable part of the ecology of our western forests, with the result that in many parts of the forests there is an accumulation of underbrush and small-diameter trees greater than would be present if there had been more, smaller fires over the years. They provide the extra fuel that can turn a small fire into an intense inferno. The problem has been made worse by our growing population and increasing development in the places where communities meet the forests--the ``wildland-urban interface.'' And when you add the effects of widespread infestations of insects, you have a recipe for even worse to come. Many species of bark beetles, such as the mountain pine beetle, are native to our forests. They place stress on trees by burrowing through the bark. If a tree is healthy, it can defend itself by producing sap to repel and expel the invaders. But if the defense fails, the insects lay their eggs in the woody material below the bark. Once the eggs hatch, they feed on the tree's fiber and disrupt the flow of water and nutrients from the tree's roots to its needles and branches. In addition, the invading insects bring in fungi and other invaders that further damage the tree. If enough insects are able to penetrate the tree and lay eggs, the tree dies. The offspring then mature and fly to another tree and the cycle begins anew. These insects help to balance tree densities and set the stage for fires and thereby the generation of new tree growth. And when forests are healthy and there are adequate supplies of water, the insects' effects are relatively low-scale and isolated. But under the right conditions--such as drought, unusually warm winters, or when there are dense stands of even-aged trees--the insects can cause large-scale tree mortality, turning whole mountainsides and valleys rust red. That is what is happening in many mountainous areas in Colorado. And more and more our mountain communities find themselves in uncomfortable proximity to acres of dead trees, turned rust red by the insects and adding to their concerns about the danger of very severe wildfires. All Coloradans were reminded of this earlier this month, when the Federal and State foresters reported that the beetle infestation first detected in 1996 grew by a half-million acres last year, bringing the total number of acres attacked by bark beetles to 1.5 million, and has spread further into Front Range counties east of the Continental Divide. Last year, I introduced legislation to respond to this problem by, first, facilitating more rapid responses to the insect epidemic where that is needed to reduce the wildfire threats to our communities; and second, promoting research on ways to improve the health of our forest lands. That bill--H.R. 3072--was developed through broad consultation with many people in Colorado and discussions among our state's entire Colorado delegation. It is cosponsored by all my Colorado colleagues in the House, and Senators Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard introduced identical legislation in the Senate. I intend to continue to work for enactment of its provisions, as a single measure or otherwise. And that delegation measure would be supplemented in two different ways by the bills I am introducing today. One bill focuses on steps to help our communities act to reduce the potential damages their residents could suffer as a result of wildfires. It is cosponsored by our colleague from California, Representative Filner; I appreciate his support. A House companion to legislation, S. 2390, introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein, this ``Fire Safe Communities Act'' would provide incentives for at-risk communities to adopt a new model Fire Safe ordinance that will set national standards in building codes, creation of ``defensible space'' around homes, and reduction of hazardous fuels. It also would authorize new Federal grants to help communities integrate fire-resisting aspects into local ordinances, and would authorize increased Federal reimbursement of firefighting costs to participating communities. The other bill would amend the recently-enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, P.L. 110-140, to allow material removed from additional forest lands to reduce hazardous fuels to be eligible for some incentives for use of renewable biomass to generate energy. Title II of the new energy law puts new emphasis on developing biofuels that rely on additional sources of biomass, including agricultural wastes, municipal solid waste, and dedicated energy crops such as perennial grasses, fast-growing trees, and algae. Accordingly, the new law requires an expansion of the 2005 law's renewable fuel standard so as to require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel in motor fuels annually by 2022, of which 21 billion gallons must be ``advanced biofuel,'' defined as biofuel produced from feedstocks other than corn starch and having 50 percent lower lifecycle emissions than petroleum fuels. For purposes of title II, the new energy law defines the term ``renewable fuel'' as ``fuel that is produced from renewable biomass and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel.'' But its definition of ``renewable biomass'' does not include material removed from Federal or State forest lands in order to reduce wildfire risks, except to the extent that the removal occurs in the ``immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire.'' I think this definition is too narrow and would unnecessarily limit the potential incentive for private industry to assist in reducing the buildup of hazardous fuels that threaten forest-area communities in Colorado and other States. So, the second bill I am introducing today would revise the definition of ``renewable biomass'' in that part of the new energy law to include biomass removed in connection with a hazardous-fuel reduction project from lands within the wildland-urban interface, as defined in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress I have put a priority on reducing the wildfire risks to our communities. In 2000, with our then colleague, Representative Hefley, I introduced legislation to facilitate reducing the buildup of fuel in the parts of Colorado that the Forest Service, working with State and local partners, identified at greatest risk of fire--the so-called ``red zones.'' Concepts from that legislation were included in the National Fire Plan developed by the Clinton Administration and were also incorporated into the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. As a Member of the Resources Committee, I had worked to develop the version of that legislation that the committee approved in 2002, and while I could not support the different version initially passed by the House in 2003, I voted for the revised version developed in conference with the Senate later that year--the version that President Bush signed into law. Since then, in Colorado there has been very welcome progress in developing community wildfire protection plans and focusing fuel- reduction projects in the priority wildland-urban interface--which we sometimes call the ``red zone'' areas--two important aspects of the new law. But the problem remains very serious, and both H.R. 3072 and the two additional bills I am introducing today would take important further steps to address it. We cannot eradicate insects from our forests--nor should we, because insects are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Instead, we can and should act to reduce the wildfire threats to our communities--and their residents' lives and property--as well as to promote research on ways to improve the health of our forest lands. That is the purpose of H.R. 3072, and it is also the purpose of the two bills I am introducing today. For the information of our colleagues, here are outlines of both bills: Fire Safe Community Act This bill, a House companion to S. 2390, would establish new incentives for communities at risk of wildfire to improve fire-prevention efforts. Key components include: Creating a model ordinance for communities at risk of fire located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Bill will direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create a model ordinance, in partnership with the U.S. Fire Administration, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The purpose of this model ordinance is to provide a baseline for communities to become ``fire safe,'' including suggested water supply, construction materials and techniques, defensible space, vegetation management, and infrastructure standards; Developing a new $25 million grant program to assist local communities in implementing the activities and policies of the NIST model ordinance. To qualify for this grant program, communities must be located in a fire hazard area and take steps toward the implementation of the model ordinance. These grants, administered by FEMA, can be used to enforce local ordinances and codes, develop incentive programs to improve code compliance, educate local planners on fire resistant planning, zoning and home construction, as well as train local fire departments on emerging technologies such as GIS fire mapping; Providing grants to States on a 50/50 cost share basis to create or update fire hazard maps. Authorizes $15 million annually for States to develop or update statewide fire hazard maps which identify communities at risk of wildfire; Establishing incentives for communities that decide to become more fire safe by changing the federal share of firefighting and emergency expenses reimbursed under FEMA's Fire Management Assistance Grants. Currently states and local communities can have 75 percent of their firefighting and emergency service expenses reimbursed by the federal government, if FEMA determines that a fire threatened a significant number of homes and structures. Under this bill, communities in fire hazard areas that adopt the new model ordinance would be eligible to have 90 percent of their firefighting and emergency service expenses reimbursed under the Fire Management Assistance Grants program; Authorizing the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to offer grants to local communities for fire safe practices. The bill makes revisions to the authorization of the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to allow them to administer grants to local communities for model ordinance compliance and for responsible zoning and fire protection strategies. The U.S. Forest Service would administer $35 million in fire-safe grants. The Department of the Interior would administer $15 million in these grants.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the launch of the U.S. Explorer I satellite, and the birth of the United States' space exploration program. I am pleased that Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Member Ralph Hall, Rep. Tom Feeney, and Rep. Nick Lampson have joined me as original cosponsors and I thank them for their support. On January 31, 1958, the United States successfully launched its first satellite into space and began a 50-year journey of exploration and achievement in space that continues to this day. Yet the launch of Explorer I was not just a ``photo-op''. Explorer I carried a scientific package that included a cosmic ray detector and marked the first ever use of a satellite to carry out scientific research in outer space. Because of that detector, developed by Dr. James Van Allen of the University of Iowa, the United States made a significant discovery about the Earth's environment--namely, the discovery of regions of energetic charged particles trapped in the Earth's magnetic field--later referred to as the Van Allen radiation belts. In addition, Explorer I was the first in a succession of small scientific spacecraft that continue to be an integral component of the U.S. space science program and an invaluable training ground for young scientists and engineers. In light of all that, I ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in extending our profound thanks and appreciation for the contributions of the late Dr. James Van Allen and his team as well as those of the individuals at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency who made possible the success of Explorer I and the birth of our space program. Since the launch of Explorer I, the U.S. space program has maintained a record of high aspirations and remarkable accomplishments. America sent the first astronauts to the Moon and has launched robotic probes to study each of the planets in the solar system as well as the Earth's Moon. Moreover, American spacecraft have helped investigate the origin and structure of the universe and the formation of galaxies and stars-- including our own Sun. Finally, our space program has delivered significant benefits to our citizens through communications and weather satellites, navigational and positioning systems, and remote sensing satellites that have helped increase our understanding of the Earth and its environment and our ability to manage our resources. All in all, it has been an exciting half-century of U.S. human and robotic space exploration. As we honor Explorer I and the birth of the U.S. space program, it is appropriate to remember that our efforts in space exploration have inspired generations of our young people to pursue careers in science and engineering. In addition, it is clear that the scientific and engineering advances of the U.S. space program have yielded dividends that have helped promote America's technological preeminence in the world as well as foster economic growth here at home. As we look forward to the next 50 years in space exploration and utilization, it is important that Congress continue to support science and engineering educators and programs that will help prepare the men and women who will lead the United States in pushing back the frontiers of space exploration in coming years. In closing, I think that America's space program has been a vital contributor to the nation's well being and standing in the world, as well as to significant scientific and technological advances over the last five decades. It is fitting and proper that we pause to celebrate and honor the anniversary of Explorer I and the birth of the U.S. space program--and to rededicate ourselves to the pursuit of a robust and vital space program over the next 50 years. I hope that all Members will join me and my cosponsors in supporting this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution congratulating the Colorado Rockies on their National League Championship and first-ever franchise appearance in the World Series. The entire Colorado delegation joined me in introducing the resolution, and it is now cosponsored by more than 50 other Members of Congress. I greatly appreciate their support. The Rockies defied the odds this year by making it to the World Series, capturing the best hopes of Coloradans and giving us all a reason to cheer for their success. Despite a tough loss to a great team in the Boston Red Sox, we remain proud of the Rockies' efforts and astonished at their historic rise to the top of the National League. Toward the close of the season, the Rockies were the underdogs in the National League pennant race. The challenge of making the playoffs seemed as large and daunting as the mountain range for which the Rockies were named, but the team maintained an optimism and competitive spirit that kept them alive long after commentators had written them off. Winning 21 of their last 22 games prior to the World Series--an unprecedented feat in baseball history--the Rockies rolled over expectations and swept the Arizona Diamondbacks in the NLCS. The World Series proved to be a bigger challenge than the Rockies could surmount, and they lost in four games to a very talented Red Sox team. Despite the losses, the Rockies carried themselves with dignity and true sportsmanship, giving Coloradans something to be proud of. As the father of two young athletes I can say that the way the Rockies carried themselves is a tremendous example for our young people. We would have loved to have seen the Rockies bring home a victory this year, but, as Red Sox outfielder Manny Ramirez said during the ALCS, there's always next year. I know I am not alone in looking forward to watching some great Rockies baseball in the future. I urge all our colleagues to join me in congratulating the Colorado Rockies on a great season and in thanking them for serving as great examples of professional athletes practicing sportsmanship.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when the House considered this measure earlier this week, I voted for it even though I was far from enthusiastic about doing so. Now that it is before us again--because the Senate changed it--I am even less enthusiastic about it, but I have reluctantly concluded that bad as it is, it needs to be passed. And so I will vote for it again. Earlier, I said that one of its worst shortcomings, ironically, was that it was too long--rolling into one massive measure provisions from no fewer than 11 regular appropriations bills that the House passed earlier this year. And now it is even longer, because the Senate has added an additional $39 billion, all for military activities in Iraq. There is no mystery about why that happened. It happened for two reasons. The first reason is that President Bush has insisted that he will not sign the bill unless these funds were added--just as he has insisted he will veto it if it provided more funding than he has requested for domestic purposes. The second reason is that our Republican colleagues, both here and in the Senate, have made clear they will support any such veto. And the result of the president's stubborn insistence and our Republican colleagues stubborn loyalty is that of the nearly $190 billion the president requested for Iraq and Afghanistan, this bill includes $39 billion for Iraq, to be available without conditions or significant restrictions. This essentially unconditional funding approach is very different from the war funding bill I supported and the House passed last month, which would have provided targeted funding toward an ``immediate and orderly'' redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. I agree with those who say there are clear signs of progress on the security front in Iraq. But when he announced the ``surge'' of additional troops to Iraq, President Bush promised us more than progress on the security front. We sent more troops to Iraq to provide ``breathing space'' for the Iraqi government to move toward political reconciliation, and that hasn't even begun to happen. I think that in the long term, there is no sustainable role for large numbers of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq--whether refereeing a civil war or waiting for the Iraqi government to decide to act within the ``breathing space'' our brave troops have provided and our taxpayers are paying for at $9 billion per month. So I regret that this bill sends the wrong message by including no Congressional direction on how the funds for Iraq should be spent. At the same time, we all understand that this bill includes no ``strings'' on Iraq funding because the Senate simply doesn't have the votes to pass such a bill and that Republican support for a veto would prevent it from becoming law if it should be passed. What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq. I believe consensus can be found around the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which I introduced as legislation earlier this year, including supporting 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. If legislation along those lines had been agreed to, we would not find ourselves making the difficult choice presented by this bill now before us. Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the best 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. And today, I will vote for this omnibus bill because despite its shortcomings, I will not vote to deny funding for the body armor and other supplies our troops require and because in terms of funding for domestic programs, it still is a better bill than would have resulted if we had simply rubber-stamped the president's budget requests--and it includes provisions that will directly benefit Colorado and the nation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill--as I did for a similar measure last month--because of the urgent need to protect middle-income families from a massive tax increase that will hit them if we do not act to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT. But I do so with some reluctance, because unlike the versions of the legislation previously passed by the House, this version reflects the inability of the Senate to bring itself to make the legislation fiscally responsible. As changed by the Senate, this bill does not even attempt to offset the costs of changing the AMT. I still think that should not be our first choice, because for too long the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress have followed that course--their view, in the words of Vice President Cheney, has been that ``deficits don't matter.'' I disagree. I think deficits do matter, because they result in one of the worst taxes--the ``debt tax,'' the big national debt that must be repaid, with interest, by future generations. I think to ignore that is irresponsible and falls short of the standard to which we, as trustees for future generations, should hold ourselves. But, as of today we are left with no choice except to vote to protect middle-class taxpayers, or to insist on making them pay the price for the stubbornness of others. So, I will vote for this bill today, without enthusiasm but with determination to continue working for greater fiscal responsibility when the House reconvenes next year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, like many of our colleagues I have seen recent news reports about the use of pepper spray by Border Patrol officers who have been the targets of attacks by people on the other side of our southern border. I am sure that we all agree that the officers can and should defend themselves, but like others I am concerned about the extent to which use of pepper spray or other chemical agents could have unintended consequences. In that connection, I think we should carefully consider a recent editorial in the Gazette, a daily newspaper published in Colorado Springs, Colorado. As the editorial puts it: The Mexican Consulate has complained, and rightly so. The United States is not at war with Mexico, and it makes sense to maintain friendly relations with our southern neighbor. Border Patrol officials argued that the agents need to protect themselves, and that the smugglers should be blamed for hiding behind innocent people. Well, there are better ways to protect against criminals than to saturate entire neighborhoods with tear-gas canisters. For starters, the Border Patrol could engage in cooperative efforts with the Tijuana police or the Mexican federal authorities to go after the rock-throwers. I think that is a suggestion well worth exploring. For the information of all our colleagues, here is the complete text of the editorial: [From the Colorado Springs Gazette, Dec. 18, 2007] Border Patrol Should Stop Tear-Gas Attacks What would Americans think if Mexican officials routinely fired pepper spray and tear gas into California neighborhoods as a way to root out, say, smugglers who were operating from the U.S. side of the border? How would we, as Americans, feel if our houses were damaged, our neighborhoods evacuated and our children endangered because of the aggressive tactics of the Mexican police or military? Most Americans would no doubt be outraged. American officials would likely demand that Mexico cease and desist from such behavior. The anger would be perfectly justified. Mexican officials are not attacking the United States, but U.S. Border Patrol agents are attacking the Colonia Libertad neighborhood of Tijuana. Mexicans have every right to be as angry as we would be if the roles were reversed. In response to smugglers who are pelting Border Patrol agents in order to create a diversion, the Americans are stepping up their efforts. ``Agents have used pepper spray in the past, but usually aimed directly at the smugglers,'' the Los Angeles Times reported Friday. ``The new tactics, which saturate large areas, have forced dozens of temporary evacuations and sent some residents to hospitals.'' The Mexican Consulate has complained, and rightly so. The United States is not at war with Mexico, and it makes sense to maintain friendly relations with our southern neighbor. Border Patrol officials argued that the agents need to protect themselves, and that the smugglers should be blamed for hiding behind innocent people. Well, there are better ways to protect against criminals than to saturate entire neighborhoods with tear-gas canisters. For starters, the Border Patrol could engage in cooperative efforts with the Tijuana police or the Mexican federal authorities to go after the rock-throwers. We understand that the issue of illegal immigration is extremely contentious, but even those advocating tougher U.S. enforcement measures should agree that there need to be limits to the policy. It's hard to make the argument that Mexicans are trampling our sovereignty while we so eagerly trample theirs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a House resolution to celebrate 35 years of space-based observations of the Earth by Landsat spacecraft, an accomplishment that has helped revolutionize our understanding of the Earth's land surface as well as enable a wide range of applications of Landsat data that have had significant societal benefits. The Landsat program began with the launch of the first civilian Earth observation satellite on July 23, 1972, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. The satellite, originally known as the Earth Resources Technology Satellite, was later renamed Landsat 1. Since the first Landsat satellite, five follow-on spacecraft have been successfully launched to continue the space-based collection of land data. This series of Landsat satellites has established the longest, unbroken record of data on the global land surface. The extensive three and a half-decade record of Landsat data has allowed scientists to study changes to the Earth's land cover over time, including changes influenced by both human and natural causes. The applied uses of the data have served numerous purposes, including natural resource management, land use planning, cartography, and food security, to cite just a few examples. The data collected through the Landsat program are being used by many Federal agencies including NASA, the Department of the Interior and its U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Homeland Security and its Federal Emergency Management Agency, among others. In addition, academic institutions, State, county, and local governments, private industry, foreign governments, and non-governmental organizations are users of Landsat data. The broad application of these data for scientific and societal benefit testifies to the Nation's sound investment in a public good. My home State of Colorado has two companies that demonstrate the excellent commercial applications that have developed from the initial Federal investments made in space-based remote sensing exemplified by the Landsat program. DigitalGlobe in Longmont and GeoEye in Thornton have both become international leaders in the remote sensing fields. I think it is important for this body to express our collective thanks to the many scientists, engineers, and program personnel who have contributed to Landsat's success over the past three and a half decades. As a result of their efforts, Landsat data has become an indispensable source for a host of beneficial applications that have improved our quality of life and enhanced our economic vitality. In addition, Landsat data are important scientifically. For example, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program has recognized the significance of the Landsat program, noting that ``Landsat data are invaluable for studying the land surface and how it affects and is affected by climate.'' However, while today's resolution recognizes the benefits we have accrued from past investments in the Landsat program, it is clear that more can be gained from this program in the years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the benefits that are possible from civil space-based land observations, as well as from commercially available remote sensing systems, continue to be realized. By supporting the research, technology, education, and tools required to improve Landsat data collection and applications, we can look forward to further scientific advancements and societal benefits from this critical national asset. Madam Speaker, in closing, I again want to salute all those who helped make Landsat possible and who work to maintain its continued successful operation, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today with my Colorado colleague, Representative John Salazar, I am introducing a bill to authorize a feasibility study regarding a multipurpose project in the Fountain Creek watershed in Colorado. The bIll is in the House companion to a similar bill, S. 2384, the Fountam Creek Feasibility Study Act, introduced by Senator Ken Salazar. As Coloradans know, Fountain Creek is a major tributary to the Arkansas River. Its watershed, which encompasses some 927 square miles, supports a wide variety of plants and wildlife and directly affects many residents of our state--in fact, according to the 2000 census, more than 500,000 people live in the watershed's boundaries. But the effect of Fountain Creek's flows extends beyond the watershed's boundaries. Water from the watershed serves municipal, industrial and agricultural uses. Creeks within the watershed contribute about 15 percent of the--drinking water for Colorado Springs and are a source of irrigation for over 100 farms and ranches. The fertile farmland there produces wheat, com, hay, oats, and vegetable crops; there are also many working livestock ranches along Fountain Creek. But the watershed has its problems, and in recent years, issues related to Fountain Creek have tended to divide local residents who otherwise would be united by its ability to serve as an important link for commerce and recreation. Decades of neglect, increased waterflows resulting from urban development in the northern part of the watershed, increased stormwater discharges, and sewage spills have all contributed to the problems and the controversies. The watershed is subject to frequent flood damage, erosion, and sedimentation. In 1999 a major flood caused millions of dollars of damage to public and private property, and destroyed the foundations of numerous homes and roads. Indeed, earlier this year there was minor flooding from the Fountain in the Pueblo area. Farmers and ranchers near the downstream end of the watershed in particular have suffered substantial losses of productive farmland. Degradation of the water quality and thus aquatic and wetland habitats is accelerating due to wastewater spills, loss of natural vegetation, and high water volume. Simply put, Fountain Creek watershed's ecological conditions are unstable and under constant threat. Senator Salazar's bill, and this House companion to it, aim at laying a foundation stone for the work of restoring Fountain Creek and turning the corridor between Colorado Springs and Pueblo into an environmental, agricultural, and recreational ``crown jewel'' for Colorado. Under the legislation, the Army Corps of Engineers would be required to conduct a study of the feasibility of constructing one or more dams and reservoirs to provide more reliable flood and sediment control, to conserve fish and wildlife and preserve their ecosystem, and to improve the water quality throughout the watershed. The Corps' expertise and experience will be critical to determining the options for restoring the health and stability of the Fountain Creek watershed. The idea of such a multipurpose project on the Fountain is not new. It was first proposed in 1970 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after the 1965 flood that inundated communities along the Fountain Creek, including particularly the city of Pueblo. The proposal was supported by the States of Colorado and Kansas and local officials, and was even the preferred option of the Army Corps for addressing flooding in the Fountain. Like Senator Salazar, I think a similar proposal should be evaluated again, in light of changed conditions and increased flows in Fountain Creek resulting from urban development in the Colorado Springs metro area. Senator Salazar has laid out a vision to revitalize Fountain Creek and connect the communities along its bank in a regional project. The feasibility study called for in S. 2384 and this House companion would be an essential first step. I agree with Senator Salazar on the desirability of taking that step, and the bill I am introducing today is intended to assist in making it happen.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, many Americans are rightly concerned about reports that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed tapes documenting the interrogation of two suspected Al Qaida terrorists. This morning's newspapers report that the decision to destroy the tapes may have come after the matter had been discussed with legal advisers at the highest level in the Bush administration. I do not know how accurate those reports may be. But I agree with an editorial in yesterday's Gazette, the daily newspaper of Colorado Springs, that Congress should investigate this matter. In the words of the Gazette: The House and Senate intelligence committees and other congressional committees have vowed to undertake investigations into the circumstances under which those tapes were destroyed. This is an appropriate use of the legislative branch's power to oversee the activities of the executive branch, especially when allegations of illegal activity are involved. On Friday, however, the Justice Department asked the relevant congressional committees to postpone their investigations while preliminary investigations by the Justice Department and the CIA itself are under way. U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey also announced that the Justice Department would not comply with congressional requests for information at this time. This stonewalling is inappropriate and only feeds suspicion. Congress is an equal branch of government under the Constitution. As such, it has full authority to conduct investigations into the activities of executive branch employees. * * * In a democratic system the government is supposed to serve the interests of the people and eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. But the people cannot maintain vigilance over ``their'' government if the government is allowed to keep its arguably questionable activities secret. I completely agree with that succinct summary of the situation, and urge the Intellligence Committees to proceed with their inquiries. For the information of all our colleagues, I am attaching the complete text of the Gazette's editorial: [From the Colorado Springs Gazette, Dec. 18, 2007] Open Government--Congress Must Investigate Tapes' Destruction Although the circumstances are suspicious surrounding a decision by the CIA to destroy videotapes of the interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects by CIA interrogators, it is virtually impossible to know whether those tapes contain evidence of ``enhanced interrogation'' techniques that rise to the level of torture. What is certain is that all the investigations into how and why those tapes were destroyed, and who ordered their destruction, should proceed with all deliberate speed. Last week CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden gave secret testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the hundreds of hours of videotaped interrogation of two men identified as members of al-Qaida, Abu Zubaydah and Abd ai- Rahim al-Nashiri. He acknowledged that the tapes had been destroyed sometime around 2005. The House and Senate intelligence committees and other congressional committees have vowed to undertake investigations into the circumstances under which those tapes were destroyed. This is an appropriate use of the legislative branch's power to oversee the activities of the executive branch, especially when allegations of illegal activity are involved. On Friday, however, the Justice Department asked the relevant congressional committees to postpone their investigations while preliminary investigations by the Justice Department and the CIA itself are under way. U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey also announced that the Justice Department would not comply with congressional requests for information at this time. This stonewalling is inappropriate and only feeds suspicion. Congress is an equal branch of government under the Constitution. As such, it has full authority to conduct investigations into the activities of executive branch employees. At the same time, the Justice Department is urging a federal judge not to hold a hearing into the destruction of the tapes. U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy is presiding over a case involving 12 Yemeni prisoners being held at the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay on Cuba. Defense lawyers have urged such a hearing, noting that in 2005 Kennedy as the presiding judge in Zubaydah's and al-Nashiri's cases ordered that all evidence involving that case be preserved, and want to determine whether the destruction of the Zubaydah and al- Nashiri interrogation tapes violated that order. It is possible for reasonable people to differ as to whether torture is ever justified. We agree with Sen. John McCain, who knows something about torture from his experience as a Vietnam prisoner of war, that the United States should maintain the moral high ground by abjuring torture. Most experienced interrogators also note that torture is not a reliable way to acquire accurate information. A broad, informed debate on appropriate interrogation techniques is appropriate given widespread suspicion that the U.S. has used techniques that are tantamount to torture. The more information available, the more informed any such discussion will be. That's why it is deplorable that the Justice Department wants to quash congressional and judicial inquiries into the destruction of videotapes that may--or may not--have documented the use of inappropriate techniques by government operatives. In a democratic system the government is supposed to serve the interests of the people and eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. But the people cannot maintain vigilance over ``their'' government if the government is allowed to keep its arguably questionable activities secret.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this legislation, though I am deeply disappointed that it does not include several key provisions from the bill that the House passed earlier this month. The earlier version was an excellent energy bill that combined provisions developed by several different House Committees, as well as provisions from a Senate-passed bill, designed to start putting our country on a path toward energy independence, increased national security and economic growth, and addressing global warming. The Senate lacked the votes to even consider that energy bill, so it was then stripped of the Renewable Electricity Standard that I championed in the House along with Representatives Tom Udall and Todd Platts. The House's adoption of that amendment earlier this year, and its retention in the most recent House-passed version, was a high point for those of us working for positive change that will benefit rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security. But, to make matters even worse, even after that provision was dropped, for lack of just one more vote in the Senate, what remained of the House bill had to be further deformed. So, for lack of just one more Senate vote, the bill we are considering today does not extend important tax credits for renewable energy production, such as the extension of the Production Tax Credit for solar and wind energy and other renewable technologies. The PTC in particular has been critical in promoting the creation of a renewable energy industry, and I will work to win an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008. And dropped with the tax credits were the House-passed provisions dealing with the Secure Rural Schools and Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) program. Both would have been good for the Nation and particularly for Colorado because so many of our counties include large Federal land areas and therefore would have benefited directly from that part of the House-passed bill. I strongly supported all those provisions, and I intend to continue working to win their enactment either on their own or as part of some other measure. I regret that for the time being Congress is not able to do all that should be done to move us toward greater energy independence, which means greater national security, in ways that will lower energy costs, help our economy, and reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Nonetheless, with all its shortcomings, the bill the Senate has sent us will accomplish some worthwhile things and deserves to be passed. Notably, it includes the first revision in decades of the fuel- consumption standards for automobiles. This step is long overdue and will result in increasing the efficiency of all vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. I am also glad to note that it retains a provision on carbon capture and storage based upon a bill that I authored (H.R. 1933). Coal and other fossil fuels have been and will continue to be an important energy source for our country, but coal-burning power plants are also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. The carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program authorized in this bill will help us tackle this challenge while keeping our economy healthy and strong. It will authorize the Department of Energy to conduct demonstration projects for both carbon dioxide capture and carbon dioxide injection and storage. Not only will this research program help us develop this technology and make it more- economical, but it will also help us understand the implications of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide underground. In addition, this bill will encourage manufacturers to build more efficient appliances, strengthen the energy efficiency of the Federal Government, and help businesses create energy-efficient workplaces. And it will increase the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), which sets annual requirements for the amount of renewable fuels produced and used in motor vehicles. The new RFS has specific requirements for the use of biodiesel and cellulosic sources to ensure that these ethanol sources also advance along with corn-based ethanol. Furthermore, the bill includes critical environmental safeguards to ensure that the growth of homegrown fuels helps to reduce carbon emissions. Additionally, the bill will create an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to train Americans for good ``green'' jobs--such as in solar panel manufacturing and green building construction--that will be created by new renewable-energy and energy-efficiency initiatives. This will provide training opportunities to our veterans, to those displaced by national energy and environmental policy and economic globalization, to individuals seeking pathways out of poverty, to young people at risk and to workers already in the energy field who need to update their skills. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with this legislation because it came so close to being so much better. But, the bottom line is that even so it is much needed and long overdue and deserves to pass today so it can go to the president to be signed into law. I urge its approval.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to promote wildland firefighter safety and facilitate agency and congressional oversight of the Federal agencies' wildland firefighter safety practices and policies. The legislation is identical to a bill introduced by Senator Cantwell and cosponsored by my Colorado colleague, Senator Ken Salazar. That measure (S. 1152) has been favorably reported from the Senate's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and I am introducing a House companion to assist in securing enactment of the legislation. The bill would require Interior Department agencies and the Forest Service to provide Congress with an annual joint report on their wildland firefighter safety practices, including training programs and activities for wildland fire suppression, prescribed burning, and wildland fire use. This will encourage greater focus in the agencies and can assist in our oversight of these important agency activities. Ensuring timely and sufficient information on the agencies' safety practices and policies is critical to such oversight. For example, the Federal agencies currently do not specifically track the portion of their wildfire-related funding that is expended for wildland firefighter safety and training, making oversight of safety program funding difficult. Madam Speaker, wildland firefighting has long been a dangerous activity, as shown by a report from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group listing 945 fatalities resulting from wildland fire accidents since 1910. And while evidently from 1910 until the late 1970s and early 1980s, the number of Federal wildland fire fatalities was trending downward, but that trend has reversed, with the number of Federal fatalities slowly increasing since then. This disturbing trend reflects the fact that in recent years wildfire behavior has become more extreme, the wildland-urban interface has grown rapidly, and the number and size of wildfires has increased significantly. Despite improvements in wildfire fighting technologies, these and other factors combine to make wildland firefighting more complex today than ever before. The 1994 deaths of fourteen Forest Service firefighters on Storm King Mountain in Garfield County, Colorado, followed by four more deaths in the Thirtymile Fire in 2001, two in the Cramer Fire in 2003, five in the Esperanza Fire in 2006, and many others, particularly highlight the need for continual improvement in and oversight of safety policies and practices. A number of recent reports have identified serious concerns with the agencies' safety practices. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration found ``serious and willful'' violations of safety standards by the Forest Service in its investigation of Thirtymile Fire fatalities, noting that a number of them were similar to failures which occurred at the Storm King Mountain fire. It also found willful, serious and repeated violations of safety regulations during its investigation of the Cramer Fire. The agencies' growing reliance on contract wildfire fighting crews also has presented safety challenges. A report by the Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General (Report No. 08601-42-SF, March 2006) identified significant problems with oversight and administration of the Forest Service contracts and agreements for these private crews. The report's ``findings confirm the need to address serious control weaknesses with respect to the firefighting contract crews,'' which led the Inspector General to recommend, among other things, improving oversight of contract crews' qualifications and training. These and other reports highlight the need for Congress and the Federal agencies to improve oversight in the area of wildfire safety. The agencies indicated at a recent Committee oversight hearing on wildfire that they are working on making some major changes to their training and other safety programs, which further highlights the need for Congress to keep abreast of the agencies' wildfire safety program. This legislation is intended to assist in that effort, and I think it deserves the support of all our colleagues.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am far from enthusiastic about voting for this bill, but I will do so despite its shortcomings. Ironically, one of the worst shortcomings is that it is too long. It rolls into one massive measure provisions from no fewer than 11 regular appropriations bills that the House passed earlier this year, creating a ``consolidated'' omnibus that was not finished until yesterday and that very few if any Members have had a chance to completely review. I regret that once again the apparent inability of the Senate to pass all but a few appropriations bills has led to this result. This is not the way Congress should do its work. That is why I have joined as a cosponsor of a resolution, H. Res. 283, that would change the House's rules to generally bar consideration of a conference report including accounts within the jurisdiction of more than one appropriations subcommittee--and, while technically the measure before us is not a conference report, I think that it would be better not to proceed in the way we are doing today. An even greater shortcoming is that this bill fails to provide the level of funding I think is needed for some important purposes. This results directly from President Bush's insistence that he will veto any bill appropriating more money than he has requested for domestic purposes and from the blind loyalty of Republican members of Congress, both here and in the Senate, who have made clear they will support any such veto. But, despite these shortcomings, I will vote for the bill because it still is better than would have resulted if we had simply rubber- stamped the President's budget requests and because it includes provisions that will directly benefit Colorado and the Nation. On a matter of great importance for all Coloradans, and especially residents of our Western Slope, the bill retains my amendment barring BLM from proceeding with final regulations for a commercial oil shale leasing program during fiscal year 2008, plus additional language in the explanatory statement that makes clear that the Interior Department must provide adequate time for the Governor and the public to provide input before any such final regulations are adopted. This demonstrates that Congress has listened and will insist that the administration move carefully with regard to commercial-scale development of oil shale, even though the revisions of the oil shale provisions of the 2005 energy policy act approved by the House earlier this year are not included in the Senate version of the energy legislation that the House will consider later this week. Those revisions would have required that BLM issue proposed regulations and allow ample time for public comments on them. The language in this appropriations measure, which affects only final regulations, is consistent with that approach. And the bill also provides funding for many things of direct immediate benefit to Colorado, including much-needed improvements to our transportation infrastructure, the continued acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook watershed for inclusion in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, and work by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation with respect to our vital water supplies. Other examples of specific items for use in Colorado include funds for child abuse prevention and treatment programs in Golden, for career training in the health professions at Aims Community College in Greeley, for health information systems at the Avista Adventist Hospital in Louisville, for facilities and equipment to be used by Children's Hospital in Denver. The bill's provisions for the National Park System include funds for several Colorado units, including land acquisition at Mesa Verde and for construction work at Rocky Mountain National Park. It also makes a start toward the Centennial Challenge initiative which has such promise for parks in our State and nationally. And Colorado and the entire country will benefit because the measure includes funds for the vital work of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, including critical funding for the Energy Systems Integration Facility, ESIF. ESIF will be a state-of-the-art facility to accelerate research into energy systems integration and the key issues of interconnectivity and control of resources. The $55 million included in the bill for ESIF will enable NREL to begin construction on this needed facility in fiscal year 2008, and the $7 million for South-Table Mountain, STM, Infrastructure will help with initial construction on this site while the $8 million for solar equipment will allow NREL to purchase state- of-the-art solar equipment for the Solar Energy Research Facility. There is also funding for energy-related work at the Colorado School of Mines as well as for use in connection with a biodiesel project in Costilla County and the sustainable biofuels development center. In fact, the bill provides a full $486 million more than President Bush requested for investments in solar energy, wind energy, biofuels, and energy efficiency--something that I am very glad to support. In addition, I am glad that there is funding within NASA's earth science account to initiate important climate research missions as well as well as an endorsement of language in the House-passed Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations report that called for continued support for climate sensors already in development. This includes the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor, TSIS, which is being built by the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics. However, as chairman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I am disappointed that to construct a bill the President would sign, the higher funding levels for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, provided in both the House and Senate bills had to be sacrificed. It is clear that Congress recognizes the value of NASA's activities in science, aeronautics, and exploration, and I hope the President will send Congress a budget request next February that would give NASA the resources it needs to carry out its important missions. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I want to highlight some of the items in the measure that are particularly important for Colorado's servicemembers and veterans. These include $61.3 million for the parking structure and energy plant at Fitzsimmons Veterans Hospital and $7.3 million for a new F-16 facility at Buckley Air Force Base. In addition, the bill will provide $35.1 million for the Pueblo Chemical Depot, to be used for construction of on-site chemical destruction facilities, with the goal of completing clean-up at the facility by 2012. And it includes nearly $170 million to support Fort Carson in the context of the stationing of two new brigades and the new headquarters of the Fourth Infantry Division. This includes $53 million for new barracks; $18 million for an addition to Evans Army Hospital and a dental clinic; $8.3 million for a Defense Access Road to allow personnel and equipment to deploy easily from Peterson Air Force Base; $4.9 million for a new indoor range; $72 million for new unit operation facilities; and $13.5 million for construction of new facility support operations for the 13th Air Support Operations Squadron. There is also $24.5 million for an Air and Space Integration Facility at Schriever Air Force Base and $15 million to upgrade academic facilities at the Air Force Academy. Mr. Speaker, I could continue at length but will conclude by simply noting that the bill provides much-needed funding to study diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, and diabetes; to help small rural hospitals; and to provide 280,000 more underinsured Americans with access to health care. It includes more adequate funding that the president requested for education--including special education, after- school programs and Head Start, Pell grants and other student assistance--as well as for assistance to state and local law enforcement and homeland security. So, while as I said the bill has serious shortcomings and while I would change many parts of it if I alone were ``the decider'' about the matter, I think it deserves approval tonight and I will vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report and, in particular, in support of Section 327 of the report, which prohibits interrogation techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. Despite White House claims that the United States does not torture prisoners, we continue to learn about administration actions that seem to condone the use of coercive techniques in questioning prisoners. A few months ago, we learned about a classified Justice Department memo from February 2005 allowing waterboarding and other coercive techniques. Then there was the Executive Order signed in July of this year that effectively opened a loophole for the CIA to practice interrogation techniques that go beyond those allowed by the U.S. military. Reports this week of destroyed interrogation tapes showing CIA operatives using waterboarding and other ``enhanced'' techniques are deeply disturbing, and suggest a double standard, whereby these techniques are approved for use by the CIA but not by the Department of Defense and its intelligence agencies. All this points to the need for a common standard for humane and effective interrogation techniques across the Government, which is what this conference report provision calls for. Senator John McCain has called the Army Field Manual techniques ``humane and yet effective,'' and has argued for a policy by which ``we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.'' In May 2007, General Petraeus wrote to U.S. troops serving in Iraq that ``our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual . . . published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.'' There is no reason why interrogation techniques that work effectively and humanely for our military interrogators cannot also work effectively and humanely for CIA and other intelligence agency interrogators. Section 327 of the Intelligence Authorization report sends a message that the United States believes no part of its government is above the law, and that no interrogation method is acceptable that could not also be used on Americans in enemy custody. I strongly urge passage of this important legislation.