Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG)--also known as the ``Baker Hamilton Commission''--as a bipartisan foundation for long overdue strategic change in our policy in Iraq. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Representatives Frank Wolf, Michael McCaul, and Daniel Lipinski--and 41 other Members--in introducing this bill, and I am grateful for all their help in building support for this legislation. Representative Wolf deserves special recognition for the role he played in spearheading the creation of the Iraq Study Group and in pushing forward its recommendations. The ISG was created in March 2006 at the request of a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, led by Representative Wolf, and was co- chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Lee Hamilton. In December 2006, the ISG released its recommendations and outlined a bipartisan approach to bringing a responsible conclusion to the Iraq war. What this legislation does is to take these recommendations and establish them as official United States policy. Among the recommendations outlined in the bill are a new diplomatic offensive in the region that includes the creation of the Iraq International Support Group; giving the highest priority to training, equipping and advising the Iraqi military and security forces; assessing the full budgetary and personnel impact of the war in Iraq on the U.S. military; accelerating and increasing oil production and accountability including equitable distribution of oil revenues in Iraq; implementing and oversight of economic reconstruction programs in Iraq with the creation of a new Senior Advisor for Economic Reconstruction; ensuring that the President includes the cost of the war in his annual budget request; and setting conditions that can lead to redeployment of U.S. combat forces as early as the first quarter of 2008, including necessary diplomatic, infrastructure and security benchmarks. It is clear to me that a Democratic majority in Congress cannot unilaterally legislate an end to this war and expect its architect and champion--President Bush--to sign on the dotted line. In my view, the only way to end this war--and to end it in a way that minimizes the likelihood of greater regional bloodshed--is to broaden the tent of opposition, and engage concerned Republicans in pressuring the Bush Administration to change course. That is why I worked last year with Representative Joe Schwarz on a resolution insisting on benchmarks for Iraqi political stability and a process to hold the Bush Administration accountable. That is why I am introducing this bill today. Democrats and Republicans must work together to change the course in Iraq, and implementing the major policy recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group is an overdue step in this direction. As an early and consistent opponent of this war I do not believe that embracing these recommendations is the only action we in Congress must take, but it is important as a foundation. I, for one, will also continue to push for a strategy of military disengagement in Iraq and phased redeployment of our forces, because I do not believe we should ask our soldiers to referee a civil war. Ending American military participation in this war and managing the consequences of the Bush Administration's failures will not be easy and it will not come overnight, but it will come--and the ISG recommendations offer a means of moving toward these goals. Many of us embraced the ISG's recommendations when the report was first released last year, and many of us believe that the report still provides a comprehensive blueprint for a way forward in Iraq and the Middle East, from both the military and the diplomatic perspective. I do not believe the ISG recommendations or my bill will offer a complete solution, but they will offer a start. We went into war as a badly divided country; I hope we can end it differently and that is my motivation in offering this bill today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this supplemental appropriations bill today, but like many Americans who want to see an end to the war in Iraq, I am not happy about it. In fact, I am deeply frustrated and saddened by the prospect, but I also am compelled by my conscience to this vote. On Monday, Memorial Day ceremonies throughout Colorado and across the country will honor the men and women in uniform who have paid the full measure of devotion to duty in all of America's wars. But as long as the war in Iraq goes on, every day will be Memorial Day. Already, more than 3,400 of our servicemen and servicewomen have died in Iraq, and more will die before we withdraw our troops. Just last Friday, for example, 33-year old SFC Scott Brown of Windsor, Colorado, and 27-year old SGT Ryan Baum of Aurora, Colorado, were among them. A friend of Ryan's family told reporters, ``Ryan never wanted to be known as a hero, he just did his job.'' In fact, he did his job--and he is a hero. This is not a heroic day in Congress, but as his comrades are faithful to their responsibilities, we must be faithful to ours. And one of those responsibilities--even for those of us who have opposed this war--is to support those brave comrades as they continue to do what the President has ordered them to do. And now, today, all of us in the Congress face a dilemma that I foresaw 4 years ago--when President Bush first sent our forces into Iraq: having to choose either to take the guns out of the hands of our soldiers in the field or to let the President move forward with a misguided and reckless policy. Cutting off funds for supplies and equipment for our troops is one way, of course, to bring this war to an end, and I understand why many Americans believe Congress should do so. But the more responsible way to end this war, in my opinion, is to change our policy, and to avoid making an already bad situation worse. I opposed the Bush administration's decision to launch a pre-emptive war in Iraq because I believed it would be a diversion from our larger post 9-11 strategic objectives and I was not convinced that the President had an adequate plan and enough international support to secure and stabilize Iraq after overthrowing its regime. I said at the time that getting into this war would be far easier than getting out. I wrote in March, 2003 that ``success in Iraq is not just about eliminating Saddam Hussein. . . . Success in Iraq also means managing the ensuing social chaos, keeping a lid on the Middle East powder keg, thwarting terrorist attacks at home, and occupying and rebuilding Iraq--and doing all of this when our own economy is faltering, energy prices are rising and domestic priorities like health care and education are crying out for attention.'' So, I offered my own resolution to slow the rush to war in 2003 and argued for a program of coercive inspections that would have uncovered the truth about weapons of mass destruction before shedding American blood. When that was rejected, I voted against authorizing the President to send our forces into Iraq--and today, more than ever, I am convinced that my vote against the war was the right vote. Congress, nevertheless, voted to give the President the authority to go to war, and he has used that authority, to disastrous effect. I have worked to extricate us from the ongoing disaster. I was among the first in Congress to call for an exit strategy from Iraq. I have introduced legislation, cosponsored legislation, spoken out with my colleagues, published articles, traveled to Iraq to better understand the challenges we face, and asked tough questions of our military leaders during Armed Services Committee hearings. And I continue--every day--to pressure this administration in every way I can. I firmly believe that our challenge is to withdraw from Iraq rapidly--but responsibly. For me, the debate today should be about how to carry out a responsible withdrawal. And that is the point on which I find myself disagreeing with many whose passion to end this war I respect. They argue that the best way to get out is to vote today to cut off funding for our men and women in uniform, and in harm's way. I respectfully disagree, because that would sacrifice a responsible exit in favor of a rapid one--and in good conscience, I cannot support that anymore than I could support the reckless way we were led into this war in the first place. I think responsibility demands that we provide the funding necessary to keep the many thousands of brave Americans now in service in Iraq supplied. With our troops stretched thin, forced to perform longer tours of duty and short of equipment and supplies, funding for the immediate needs of these men and women in uniform cannot be held hostage to disagreements about the folly of Bush administration policies. Make no mistake--I have no doubt that the President's policies have brought our country to the brink of a national security crisis. I am angry that the President still refuses to accept a supplemental funding proposal for Iraq and Afghanistan that provides real accountability measures for ending the Iraq war. I voted to force him to adopt a different course, and when he vetoed that legislation, I voted to override that shortsighted and stubborn exercise of Presidential power. Unfortunately, and primarily because of the misguided loyalty of members of the President's party, that override effort failed, which is why we are considering the legislation now before us. I did not choose the wording of the bill that we are considering today. It is not the bill that I would have written. But it will provide the essential funding to support and protect America's sons and daughters who are in Iraq right now doing everything we have asked of them and putting their lives on the line every day. But another part is to bring pressure to bear on this administration to end this war because I don't want any more young dedicated Americans to lose their lives in this war. I want to bring them home. So far, that pressure has not been enough, as was shown by the President's veto of a bill that fully funded our troops, held the Iraqi government accountable, and demanded that the President change course and bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. It is abundantly clear that he is not prepared to adopt a better course--and as long as we lack a sufficient majority to override his veto, we Democrats can't force him to do so without Republican support. But I will persist, because I think it is up to those of us who opposed this war in the first place to show the way forward. That is why, after the Memorial Day recess I will introduce legislation that implements the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and provides a foundation for the phased withdrawal of American troops out of Iraq beginning in March of next year. So far over 40 Members of Congress--both Democrats and Republicans--have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I am hopeful that this bipartisan effort will lead to more such efforts. Republicans and Democrats alike believe that this fall is key to the future of U.S. military involvement in Iraq. By then, another funding package will be up for a vote, General Petraeus will be reporting back on the progress of the ``surge,'' and we will have other indications of progress on benchmarks based on reports that the administration will be forced to produce as part of this supplemental funding bill. I commit to continuing to do what I can every day to bring this war to an end. Today, I believe the responsible thing to do is to provide needed funds for our men and women in uniform with this bill, which also includes benchmarks for the Iraqi government--an indispensable step toward having Iraqis begin to take responsibility for their own country's future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to establish a national cemetery for veterans in southern Colorado, and I congratulate my colleague John Salazar for his work on this bill. I also want to recognize the work of my former colleague Joel Hefley and my current colleague Doug Lamborn on this issue. Establishing a national veterans cemetery in southern Colorado has been and continues to be a goal shared by the entire Colorado delegation. For over 8 years, it has also been a goal of the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee. And it has been a goal of the Department of Colorado Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Colorado chapters of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Association for Service Disabled Veterans. So many people have worked tirelessly to build support for this cemetery, and I hope they are pleased today that we are now one step closer to making it a reality. This is a particularly timely bill to consider today, as we approach another Memorial Day and as we continue to send our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. We remember the sacrifices that our veterans have made and the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform continue to make today to protect our freedom. And at a time when our country is divided over the war in Iraq, it's even more important that we honor the service of those who have given their lives for this country and of the many veterans still among us. Of course, it isn't enough just to remember--we must provide our troops and veterans with the care and support they have been promised. And we must provide them with a resting place within or as close as possible to their own communities. With a growing military retiree and veterans population in southern Colorado and particularly El Paso County--and with Denver's Fort Logan cemetery rapidly filling up its burial spaces--it makes sense to provide for the future even as we ensure that southern Colorado's veterans receive the recognition they deserve. A National Veterans Cemetery in El Paso County will also serve as an important symbol for those in the military community who have given so much to their country. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge its passage. General Leave

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Stephen E. Millard, who passed away on Saturday, May 19th, 2007, and to offer his family and friends my sympathies as they grieve and reflect on their time spent with him. In his passing, Steve leaves us all with occasion to consider our own pursuits of integrity and honesty as we remember a life distinguished by both. Steve Millard came to Colorado's Second Congressional District late in life and, at the age of 40, began a career in professional journalism with the Boulder Daily Camera. In a fairly quick manner Steve transitioned to the editorial staff of the paper and then to a well-suited perch as the editorial-page editor, which is perhaps the professional position for which he will be best remembered. Steve's editorial writing was remarkable not only for its deep well of knowledge and insight, but also for its adherence to logic and restraint. His arguments were the results of intellectual curiosity and clear thinking, not the pursuit of a political agenda. Steve chose to provoke thought with reason and forceful writing which, in a time of increased media and political sensationalism, is a sobering reminder of the public trust held in our journalists and public servants. As his family reminds us in a May 22 eulogy in the Boulder Daily Camera, Steve Millard lived his life by those same terms, setting an example of integrity, honesty, and intellectual curiosity for those who had the pleasure of knowing him. For members of the Boulder community and readers of the Boulder Daily Camera, he reminds us of the importance of engaging in issues as an informed, thoughtful citizen. As his family and friends mourn their loss, I hope my colleagues will join me in praising Stephen Millard's example and recognizing his contribution to the public discourse.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I cannot support this motion. If the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the so-called Ethics Committee) were to report such a resolution, it would be a matter demanding careful consideration by the House. But that is not the case with this resolution. It has not been considered by the Ethics Committee or by any other Committee and its author seeks to have the full House of Representatives act on it without having the benefit of any hearings before it is debated here on the floor. To me, Madam Speaker, that is not the appropriate way to proceed. The resolution combines elements of an indictment--in the form of allegations stated as facts--with those of a verdict in the form of a conclusion that there has been a violation of the Rules of the House. I do not know whether any or all of the allegations are true, and so I cannot say whether or not the proposed verdict would be just. Rather than ask the House to vote today on those allegations and the proposed verdict, I think the resolution's author should bring the matters dealt with in this resolution to the attention of the Ethics Committee so they can be considered in a way that allows for a fair process aimed at determining the facts and making such recommendations as the facts will support. Because that has not been done, I think the resolution is premature at best and so I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to support H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007. America has long been a center for science and engineering discovery. Just looking back over the 20th century, American ingenuity has been truly incredible. From Ford's Model T in 1908 and on to the personal computer in 1981, American innovations have transformed our Nation and the world, again and again, creating whole new industries and occupations. Going forward, new innovations will continue to be critical, both in maintaining a solid industrial and economic base and increasing our standard of living. Federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, NSF, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, play a key role by funding cutting-edge research and training the next generation of scientists and engineers. Without Federal investment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math, STEM, research and education, very little of this achievement would have been possible--and we must continue this strong Federal support to reinforce our global competitiveness and our prosperity. H.R. 2272, of which I am a cosponsor, will help strengthen and improve research and education efforts at NSF and NIST, helping to ensure that the United States continues to be a science and technology leader. Specifically, the legislation will reauthorize both NIST and NSF, as well as update the High Performance Computing Act of 1991. For NSF, H.R. 2272 will continue the effort to double its funding over a 10 year time period by authorizing almost $21 billion for fiscal years 2008-2010. The bill will also encourage the participation of more scientists who have not received NSF funding in the past through 1-year seed grants. By targeting these grants toward these new recipients, the legislation will help support early career researchers and encourage higher-risk research. The legislation also includes a needed funding increase for overall laboratory research at NIST. As part of the American Competitiveness initiative, NIST will use these funds to expand upon its world-class research, ensuring that the United States will continue to be globally competitive in many industries. I am also pleased to see that the legislation reauthorizes and gradually increases funding for key technology transfer programs like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program and the Technology Innovation Program, TIP. NIST is particularly important to me because one of its key laboratories is located in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. The Boulder labs employ more than 350 people and serve as a science and engineering center for significant research across the Nation. A critical component of this legislation is that it includes funding for construction at these laboratories. NIST's Boulder facilities have contributed to great scientific advances, but they are now over 50 years old and have not been well maintained. Many environmental factors such as the humidity and vibrations from traffic can affect the quality of research performed at NIST. In fiscal year 2007, NIST-Boulder will begin an extension of Building 1 to make room for a Precision Metrology lab. This new facility will allow for incredibly precise control of temperature, relative humidity, air filtration and vibration to advance research on critical technologies, such as atomic clocks telecommunications, and nanomaterials. To complete this extension, NIST will need further funding in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. H.R. 2272 authorizes this critical funding. As co-chair of the STEM Education caucus, I am also pleased that H.R. 2272 contains support and funding for NSF's STEM education programs. These programs include the Math and Science Partnerships program and the Noyce Scholarships program, as well as several STEM education grants that focus on teacher professional development. These will help increase the number of well-qualified science and math teachers across the country, both through creating more teachers from current college students and by providing better training for the teachers already in our schools. I would like to thank Science and Technology Committee Chairman Gordon, as well as Ranking Member Hall and the other original cosponsors, for introducing this critical bipartisan legislation and working to bring it to the floor today. I think we all recognize that investing in basic research and STEM education is critical for a strong economy and national security, and H.R. 2272 will help us improve the critical support for STEM education and research. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in stong support of this bill. I applaud Chairman Skelton for his leadership in guiding this bill to the floor today. He and Ranking Member Hunter have done a tremendous job, and they have been ably supported by the expert staff of our committee. I'm grateful to Chairman Skelton for working with me to include things important for Colorado, including limits on how the Army can pursue possible expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado. I agree with Senator Salazar and others in the Colorado delegation that any expansion, if it takes place at all, must be conducted in a way that it is a win-win situation for the Army and for Colorado and that any expansion plan should not involve condemnation of private land. My proposal will shine a necessary caution light before the Army charges forward, and force the Army to do what it has so far failed to do--that is, to make a compelling case for why the proposed expansion is necessary to meet the training needs of our soldiers in the 21st Century. Other provisions I offered in the bill include: Funding for a new squadron operations facility for the Colorado Air National Guard; promoting agreement between the Air Force and the city of Pueblo about flight operations at the Pueblo airport; urging the Defense Department to use on-site disposal of chemical weapons stockpiled at the Pueblo Chemical Depot; asking the Army to track pilots who train at the High- Altitude Aviation Training School in Eagle, Colorado; reporting on opportunities for leveraging Defense Department funds with States' funds to prevent disruption in the event of electric grid or pipeline failures and encouraging the Defense Department to leverage Energy Savings Performance Contracts with Energy Conservation Investment Program funds to provide additional opportunity for renewable energy projects; and naming a housing facility at Fort Carson in honor of our former colleague Joel Hefley. I am also pleased that the Committee adopted two of my amendments, including one to repeal a provision adopted last year that makes it easier for the president to federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement purposes during emergencies. By repealing this, my amendment restores the role of the Governors with regard to this subject. My other amendment will continue the office of the Ombudsman that assists people claiming benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and expands its authority. Mr. Chairman, this bill rightly focuses on our military's readiness needs. After 5 years at war, both the active duty and reserve forces are stretched to their limits. The bill will provide what's needed to respond, including a substantial Strategic Readiness Fund, adding funds for National Guard equipment and training, and establishing a Defense Readiness Production Board to mobilize the industrial base to address equipment shortfalls. It also provides important funds for the Base Realignment and Closure process, including $62 million to assist communities expected to absorb large numbers of personnel as a result of the BRAC decision. This funding is especially important to Colorado, given that Fort Carson in Colorado Springs will add 10,000 soldiers and will be home to 25,000 troops by 2009. The bill provides substantial resources to improve protection of our troops, including additional funds for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, body armor, and up-armored Humvees for our troops in the field. The bill enlarges the Army and Marine Corps, consistent with the Tauscher-Udall Army expansion bill in the last Congress. And it will provide for a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for service members, boost funding for the Defense Health Program, and prohibit increasing TRICARE and pharmacy user fee increases. The bill incorporates provisions from the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, which recently passed the House and was driven by the revelations of mistreatment and mismanagement at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These provisions establish new requirements to provide the people, training, and oversight needed to ensure high-quality care and efficient administrative processing at Walter Reed and throughout the active duty military services. The bill also establishes a Military Mental Health Initiative to coordinate all mental health research and development within the Defense Department, and establishes a Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative to allow emerging technologies and treatments to compete for funding. Given the increased use of the National Guard and Reserves in recent years, the bill gives important new authorities to the National Guard to fulfill its expanded role, including authorizing a fourth star for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, making the National Guard Bureau a joint activity of the Department of Defense, and creating a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the president on how best to use the National Guard for civil support missions. The bill also requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to consider how to incorporate more National Guard and Reserve personnel into positions at Northern Command, based in Colorado. I'm pleased that the bill fully supports the goals of the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs and the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction program, consistent with the 9-11 Commission recommendations. The bill also slows development of a Reliable Replacement Warhead and the construction of a new plutonium production facility, and establishes a bipartisan commission to evaluate U.S. strategic posture for the future, including the role that nuclear weapons should play in our national security strategy. I also want to mention funding for missile defense in the bill. The bill increases missile defense funding for systems that address current needs and vulnerabilities, while reducing funding for less mature and higher risk systems. The cuts in missile defense programs in the bill have been cause for concern among some on the other side of the aisle. But the bill funds 93 cents of every dollar of the president's missile defense request, so the cuts are far from extreme. It fully funds the budget request for the Patriot PAC-3 missile, the Ground Based Missile Defense System, and THAAD development and deployment, and adds funding for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. But it makes reductions to the Airborne Laser program and funding for the 3rd BMD Site which the Administration has proposed building in Eastern Europe. Importantly, the bill provides for an independent study to examine the political, technical, operational, force structure, and budgetary aspects of the proposed European missile defense deployment; an independent study to examine the future roles and missions of the Missile Defense Agency; a 2 year extension of the requirement for GAO to annually assess the missile defense program; and assurance that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has access to all MDA operational test evaluation information. In my view, the bill strikes the right balance with regard to missile defense. I did not support the amendment by Rep. Franks (R-AZ) to increase missile defense funds because I believe the Committee takes a better approach in its bill. Likewise, I did not support the amendment offered by Rep. Tierney (D-MA) to decrease missile defense funds because I thought it went too far in the other direction. There are emerging and real, near-term threats facing the Nation, the warfighter, and our allies that we need to be able to counter, so I think it would be irresponsible to terminate the longer-term missile defense programs, as Rep. Tierney's amendment proposed to do. Finally but no less importantly, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report on the implementation of the Joint Campaign Plan for Iraq, on national reconciliation efforts on the part of the Iraqi government, and on metrics to measure American efforts in Iraq, based on assessments by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. The bill also requires the Secretary to produce a report outlining the direction of U.S. activities in Afghanistan along with indicators of progress, and the bill establishes a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering today does an excellent job of balancing the need to sustain our current warfighting abilities with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. It is critical that we are able to meet the operational demands of today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world. This is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report because it will begin the process of changing our budgetary course. While it is not identical to the version passed by the House earlier this year, like that resolution it is clearly preferable to budgets adopted by the House in previous years. For the 6 years before the convening of this 110th Congress, the administration and the Republican leadership insisted on speeding ahead with misguided fiscal and economic policies. Ignoring all warning lights, they plowed ahead, taking us from projections of surpluses to the reality budgets deep in deficit and heaping higher the mountain of debt that our children will have to repay. Many of us said it was urgent to stop persisting in that error and voted for alternatives, including those proposed by the Blue Dog Caucus. But year after year our Republican colleagues insisted on taking their marching orders from the White House, moving in lockstep to endorse the Bush administration's insistence that its economic and fiscal policies must continue without change. I admired their discipline, but I could not support their insistence on driving us deeper into the swamp of fiscal irresponsibility that has left a debt burden of more than $30,000 for a typical middle-income family of four in Colorado. But that was then--and now, in this new Congress under new management, by passing this conference report we can begin to undo the damage they have done. The conference report is better in its fiscal responsibility and in its priorities. It follows the tough ``pay as you go'' budget rules to begin to reverse the budget deficits and to put us onto the path to a balanced budget. And under this plan, by 2012, domestic discretionary funding would fall to the lowest level, as a share of the economy, in at least a half century while spending as a percentage of GDP will be lower in 2012 than it has been in any budget adopted under President Bush--1 percent lower than it will be this year and lower than it has been in any year since 2001. Despite assertion by its critics, the conference report does not include any tax increases. To the contrary, it supports tax relief that would benefit the middle class--including extension of the child tax credit, 10 percent bracket, and marriage penalty relief--and provides for estate tax reform. And it provides for immediate Alternative Minimum Tax relief, preventing more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from being hit by the tax. This is important because while in 2004 only 32,000 Colorado families were subject to the AMT, if nothing is done, this year that number will rise to 234,000 families in Colorado and hundreds of thousands more in other States. At the same time, it takes steps to crack down on wasteful or fraudulent spending in Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance programs and it supports actions to collect unpaid taxes as well as providing additional resources to reduce claims backlogs in the Veterans Administration, Social Security Administration, and other agencies. Further, it directs House committees to identify wasteful and lower priority spending that can be cut. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly glad to note that the conference report is also realistic and responsible about the need to maintain our national defense and honor our promises to our troops and veterans. In addition to meeting the needs of the active-duty force, it allows for increasing funding for veterans' health care and services by $6.7 billion above the 2007 enacted level, and $3.6 billion above the President's budget. This is a priority for me, because it will help ensure that the 427,957 veterans in Colorado receive care worthy of their sacrifice. It is also critical for the 17,419 Coloradans, who have served their country in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will need VA health care services. It also provides more funding for urgent homeland security needs and to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In doing so, it rejects cuts to vital first responder and terrorism prevention programs that would happen if we adopted the President's budget for fiscal 2008. Like the House-passed version, it recognizes the importance of research, development, and education in keeping our economy strong and our country secure. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee and chairman of its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am particularly supportive of it for that reason--and as one of the Chairs of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I welcome its support for research and development of renewable and alternative energy technologies. As for education, the conference report allows for substantially more funding for helping Colorado's public elementary, middle and high schools educate the 768,600 children now enrolled, with more resources to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, special education and Head Start. By contrast, if we followed the President's budget, 31,296 Colorado children would not receive promised help in reading and math and the Head Start program--which serves 9,820 Colorado children--would be cut by 1.5 percent below the 2007 level. These investments to a growing economy for America's families are needed because, according to the Census Bureau, family income in Colorado has dropped by $4,041 since 2000, while health care and energy prices are climbing. But still more is needed. So, I am glad that the conference report provides for increasing funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--to help cover the 176,230 of Colorado's children who do not have health insurance. And because it is so important for Colorado's ranchers, farmers, and rural communities, I strongly support the part of the conference report that supports policies to strengthen the farm bill's economic benefits. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Bush Administration does not like this conference report. After all, it rejects the Administration's misguided priorities. But it's disappointing that so many of our Republican colleagues still are so willing to unquestioningly follow the President's lead. And, while I suppose it's to be expected, it's particularly unfortunate that they have decided to attack this conference report by resorting to recycling the old, tired and false claim that it is ``the largest tax increase in history.'' But the facts are otherwise. The conference report does not affect the top-heavy tax cuts the Bush administration and the Republican leadership pushed through since 2001--they remain in place as they stand, which means they will not expire for 4 years. I did not vote for all of those tax cuts, but I did support some that are most important for middle-income Coloradans. So, I am glad that the conference report provides for extensions of those in 2011, including an extension of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the ten percent individual income tax bracket. And when the rest of the tax cuts come up for reconsideration, Congress can and should consider whether to extend them, as they are now or in modified form. I support that approach, which is quite different from the alternative approach that would have been taken by the Republican alternative that the House rightly rejected earlier this year. It would have insisted on locking in all of the Bush tax cuts--the ones I did not support as well as those I did--and would have put top priority on making them all permanent. I did like some things in the Republican alternative--including a constitutionally-sound line-item veto similar to my Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (``SLICE'') legislation--but overall I thought it was not a responsible approach and I could not support it, just as I could not support the other alternatives debated in the House. Regarding one of those alternatives, in reviewing the formal record of rollcall 209, the vote on the Kilpatrick substitute, I found I am recorded as having voted ``yes.'' However, I had intended to vote ``no,'' and my recollection is that I did vote ``no.'' Unlike all those alternatives, and like the resolution passed by the House, this conference report is well balanced in its combination of fiscal responsibility and refocusing priorities. I will support it and I urge its approval by the House.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I applaud Chairman Skelton for his leadership in guiding this bill to the floor today. He and Ranking Member Hunter have done a tremendous job, and they have been ably supported by the expert staff of our committee. I'm grateful to Chairman Skelton for working with me to include things important for Colorado, including limits on how the Army can pursue possible expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado. I agree with Senator Salazar and others in the Colorado delegation that any expansion, if it takes place at all, must be conducted in a way that it is a win-win situation for the Army and for Colorado and that any expansion plan should not involve condemnation of private land. My proposal will shine a necessary caution light before the Army charges forward, and force the Army to do what it has so far failed to do--that is, to make a compelling case for why the proposed expansion is necessary to meet the training needs of our soldiers in the 21st century. Other provisions I offered in the bill include--funding for a new squadron operations facility for the Colorado Air National Guard; promoting agreement between the Air Force and the city of Pueblo about flight operations at the Pueblo airport; urging the Defense Department to use on-site disposal of chemical weapons stockpiled at the Pueblo Chemical Depot; asking the Army to track pilots who train at the High- Altitude Aviation Training School in Eagle, Colorado; and reporting on opportunities for leveraging Defense Department funds with States' funds to prevent disruption in the event of electric grid or pipeline failures and encouraging the Defense Department to leverage Energy Savings Performance Contracts with Energy Conservation Investment Program funds to provide additional opportunity for renewable energy projects; and naming a housing facility at Fort Carson in honor of our former colleague Joel Hefley. I am also pleased that the committee adopted two of my amendments, including one to repeal a provision adopted last year that makes it easier for the president to federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement purposes during emergencies. By repealing this, my amendment restores the role of the Governors with regard to this subject. My other amendment will continue the office of the Ombudsman that assists people claiming benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and expands its authority. Mr. Chairman, this bill rightly focuses on our military's readiness needs. After 5 years at war, both the active duty and reserve forces are stretched to their limits. The bill will provide what's needed to respond, including a substantial Strategic Readiness Fund, adding funds for National Guard equipment and training, and establishing a Defense Readiness Production Board to mobilize the industrial base to address equipment shortfalls. It also provides important funds for the Base Realignment and Closure process, including $62 million to assist communities expected to absorb large numbers of personnel as a result of the BRAC decision. This funding is especially important to Colorado, given that Fort Carson in Colorado Springs will add 10,000 soldiers and will be home to 25,000 troops by 2009. The bill provides substantial resources to improve protection of our troops, including additional funds for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, body armor, and up-armored Humvees for our troops in the field. The bill enlarges the Army and Marine Corps, consistent with the Tauscher-Udall Army expansion bill in the last Congress. And it will provide for a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for service members, boost funding for the Defense Health Program, and prohibit increasing TRICARE and pharmacy user fee increases. The bill incorporates provisions from the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, which recently passed the House and was driven by the revelations of mistreatment and mismanagement at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These provisions establish new requirements to provide the people, training, and oversight needed to ensure high-quality care and efficient administrative processing at Walter Reed and throughout the active duty military services. The bill also establishes a Military Mental Health Initiative to coordinate all mental health research and development within the Defense Department, and establishes a Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative to allow emerging technologies and treatments to compete for funding. Given the increased use of the National Guard and Reserves in recent years, the bill gives important new authorities to the National Guard to fulfill its expanded role, including authorizing a fourth star for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, making the National Guard Bureau a joint activity of the Department of Defense, and creating a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the President on how best to use the National Guard for civil support missions. The bill also requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to consider how to incorporate more National Guard and Reserve personnel into positions at Northern Command, based in Colorado. I'm pleased that the bill fully supports the goals of the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs and the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction program, consistent with the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The bill also slows development of a Reliable Replacement Warhead and the construction of a new plutonium production facility, and establishes a bipartisan commission to evaluate U.S. strategic posture for the future, including the role that nuclear weapons should play in our national security strategy. I also want to mention funding for missile defense in the bill. The bill increases missile defense funding for systems that address current needs and vulnerabilities, while reducing funding for less mature and higher risk systems. The cuts in missile defense programs in the bill have been cause for concern among some on the other side of the aisle. But the bill funds 93 cents of every dollar of the President's missile defense request, so the cuts are far from extreme. It fully funds the budget request for the Patriot PAC-3 missile, the Ground Based Missile Defense System, and THAAD development and deployment, and adds funding for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. But it makes reductions to the Airborne Laser program and funding for the 3rd BMD Site which the Administration has proposed building in Eastern Europe. Importantly, the bill provides for an independent study to examine the political, technical, operational, force structure, and budgetary aspects of the proposed European missile defense deployment; an independent study to examine the future roles and missions of the Missile Defense Agency; a two year extension of the requirement for GAO to annually assess the missile defense program; and assurance that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has access to all MDA operational test evaluation information. In my view, the bill strikes the right balance with regard to missile defense. I did not support the amendment by Representative Franks to increase missile defense funds because I believe the Committee takes a better approach in its bill. Likewise, I did not support the amendment offered by Representative Tierney to decrease missile defense funds because I thought it went too far in the other direction. There are emerging and real, near-term threats facing the Nation, the warfighter, and our allies that we need to be able to counter, so I think it would be irresponsible to terminate the longer-term missile defense as Representative Tierney's amendment proposed to do. Finally but no less importantly, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report on the implementation of the Joint Campaign Plan for Iraq, on national reconciliation efforts on the part of the Iraqi government, and on metrics to measure American efforts in Iraq, based on assessments by GEN David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. The bill also requires the Secretary to produce a report outlining the direction of U.S. activities in Afghanistan along with indicators of progress, and the bill establishes a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering today does an excellent job of balancing the need to sustain our current warfighting abilities with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. It is critical that we are able to meet the operational demands of today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world. This is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today in order to congratulate the Durango High School Aerospace Design Team for their recent selection as finalists in the International Space Settlement Design Competition. As one of only eight teams chosen worldwide--and only three from the United States--the Durango High School team represents the best that our public education system has to offer. The International Space Settlement Design Competition is a serious endeavor, incorporating elements of engineering, logistics, creativity, business sense, and scientific acumen into a grand proposal where the competitors design a future habitat for humans on another planetary body. Students are held to rigorous standards; scientific concepts must be realistic extensions of current technologies and proposals are expected to provide budgetary details as well as specificities on how humans would live in the proposed settlement. The winning results are proposals that one would expect to see decades in the future, and are judged by engineers with expertise in the relevant fields. As chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee and a co-chair of the House Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Caucus, I have a deep appreciation of what the Durango team has accomplished. I have long advocated the inclusion of a rigorous science program in our public education system and I applaud the results of Durango High School's emphasis on science education. Their success is a consequence of their strong education in the hard sciences and I am sure that these students will help ensure a better future for our Nation. The Durango High School Aerospace Design Team will soon be competing against the rest of the finalists at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the team on its success so far and to wish them the best of luck in the next and final leg of the competition.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the life-long accomplishments of a Coloradan who has served as a role model for achievement and made a substantial impact on our State, Mr. James C. Hague, Jr. On Saturday, February 25, 2007, a group of family and friends met to celebrate the 98th birthday of this truly wonderful and special person. Jim was born on February 24, 1909 in Plainview, Texas and moved to Dallas, Texas in 1912. After working in the oil refining industry as a helper in 1927, he became a chemist. During the Hoover Administration he worked for the government and was initiated into Pipefitters Local 195 in Beaumont, Texas on May 31, 1937. In 1939, Jim married his wife Ethel, a union which lasted for 58 years. He has two stepsons, 2 grandsons and 1 granddaughter. He and Ethel moved to Denver in October 1951 at which time Jim transferred his union card to Pipefitters Local 208, a membership still active today. Jim worked at the Rocky Flats Weapons Plant as a pipefitter in the initial construction of the facility. Jim has always been active in the civic arena. He became a member of the Westminster City Charter Convention in 1957 and, as a result of his participation, Westminster established a City Manager/Home Rule government. Jim assisted in writing the Charter for Westminster which was approved by the voters in 1958. Jim was also instrumental in establishing the Central Colorado Library District for Arapahoe, Adams, Boulder, Denver, Clear Creek, Gilpin and Jefferson Counties. He remained a member of the Library District for 14 years and was Chairman for 12 years. Jim is an active member of the Adams County Democratic Party; he has walked many miles in precincts and made many phone calls for candidates and was even featured in several commercials for former Senator Tim Wirth. Jim is well known by Democrats throughout the State of Colorado. Jim is a truly interesting and fascinating person. He has tales to tell of yesterdays and always makes a contribution to today. Our future is much brighter for having Jim Hague in our lives. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him the very best and a long healthy life with much happiness.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time, and acknowledge her leadership on this rule, as well as the leadership of the gentleman from Washington, for having the kind of debate we should have on the floor of the House. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the bill. I want to applaud Chairman Skelton for his leadership in guiding the bill to the floor today, and also acknowledge Ranking Member Hunter and our expert staff on the committee. I want to particularly acknowledge the way in which Chairman Skelton worked with me on important items for Colorado, including limits on how the Army can pursue possible expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. Others include funding a new squadron operations facility for the Colorado Air National Guard; promoting an agreement between the Air Force and the City of Pueblo about flight operations at the Pueblo airport; urging the Defense Department to use on-site disposal of chemical weapons stockpiled at the Pueblo Chemical Depot; asking the Army to track pilots who train at the High Altitude Aviation Training School in Eagle, Colorado; and naming a housing facility at Fort Carson in honor of our former colleague, Joel Hefley. I am also pleased that the committee adopted two of my amendments, including one to repeal a provision adopted last year that makes it easier for the President to federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement purposes during emergencies. By repealing this, my amendment restores the role of the Governors with regard to this subject. Madam Speaker, the bill rightly focuses on our military's readiness needs. After 5 years at war, both the active duty and the Reserve forces are stretched to their limits. The bill will provide what is needed to respond, including a substantial Strategic Readiness Fund and additional funds for National Guard equipment and training. It enlarges the Army and the Marine Corps, consistent with the Tauscher-Udall Army expansion bill in the last Congress, and it will provide a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for servicemembers, boost funding for the Defense Health Program, prohibit increasing TRICARE and pharmacy user fees, and establish a Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative to allow emerging technologies and treatments to compete for funding. Madam Speaker, this is an excellent bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, on May 9th, during rollcall vote 318, on final passage of H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization bill, I was detained and unable to reach the House floor in time to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' On May 14, because of business in Colorado, I was not present for the following three votes: Rollcall vote 342, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1124, to extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999--had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 343, to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 223, supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims--had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 344, to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 385, recognizing National AmeriCorps Week--had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a revised bill to designate as wilderness most of the lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park and to expand the Indian Peaks Wilderness. The bill is cosponsored by my Colorado colleague, Representative Musgrave, and an identical measure is being introduced in the other body by Colorado's two Senators. Over a period of months, we have worked together to develop this bipartisan legislation that will provide important protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country, adding well over 200,000 acres in the park to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The wilderness designation for the park will cover some 94 percent of the park, including Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of the Park are included in the wilderness that would be designated by this bill. At the same time, the wilderness boundaries have been drawn so as to allow continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, and areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park management and visitor services, In addition, specific provisions are included to assure that there ill be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities. The lands designated as wilderness will become part of the National Wilderness Preservation System that was established by the Wilderness Act and will be managed in accordance with that Act and the provisions of the bill. The bill's provisions amplify this by specifying that--(1) no new reclamation projects will be allowed in the wilderness area; (2) nothing in the bill will create a ``buffer zone'' around the wilderness and that non-wilderness activities visible or audible from within the wilderness will not be prohibited; (3) the National Park Service can act to control fire, insects, and diseases, including use of mechanical tools within the wilderness; and (4) nothing in the bill will reduce or restrict the current authority of the National Park Service to manage the Park's lands and resources. The bill is similar to measures previously introduced by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs (as well as others introduced before that), and ones I introduced in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress. However, it does include a number of adjustments and refinements that reflect discussion within the Colorado delegation in Congress and with interested parties in Colorado. Like H.R. 4935 of the 109th Congress, the new bill includes designation of wilderness designation of more than 700 acres In the Twin Sisters area south of Estes Park. These lands were acquired by the United States and made part of the park after submission to Congress of the original wilderness recommendation for the park in the 1970s, and so were not included in that recommendation. They are lands of a wilderness character and their designation will not conflict with any current uses. On the west side, the town of Grand Lake and Grand County requested that about 650 acres inward from the Park boundary around the town be omitted from the wilderness designation in order to allow the Park to respond to potential forest fire threats. As was the case previously, this bill accommodates that request. Also like that previous measure, the bill responds to the request of the Town of Grand Lake, Grand County and the Headwaters Trails Alliance (a group composed of local communities in Grand County that seeks to establish opportunities for mountain biking) and the International Mountain Bicycling Association to omit from wilderness designation an area along the western park boundary, running south along Lake Granby from the Town to the park's southern boundary. This will allow the National Park Service to retain the option of authorizing construction of a possible future mountain bike route within this part of the park. Similarly, the bill would expand the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area by 1,000 acres in the area south of the park and north of Lake Granby. The lands involved are currently managed as part of the Arapaho National Recreation Area, which would accordingly be reduced by about 1,000 acres. As did the previous bill, this bill includes a section that will authorize the National Park Service to lease an 11-acre property (the Leiffer tract) that was donated to the National Park Service in 1977. Located outside the park's boundaries, it has two buildings, including a house that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Park Service would like to have the option of leasing it, but current law allows that only for ``property administered . . . as part of the National Park System,'' and this property does not qualify. The bill would allow the Park Service to lease the property as if it were located inside or contiguous to the park. Also like previous measures, the bill addresses the question of possible impacts on water rights--something that can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. It reflects the legal reality that it has long been recognized under the laws of the United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive Federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national park itself. And it reflects the geographic reality that the park sits astride the continental divide, meaning there's no higher land around from which streams flow into the park, and thus there is no possibility of any diversion of water occurring upstream from the park. In recognition of these legal and practical realities, the bill includes a finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation or appropriation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation. New provisions in this bill deal with the Grand River Ditch, created before Rocky Mountain National Park was established and partly located within the park. The owners of the ditch are currently working to conclude an agreement with the National Park Service with respect to operation and maintenance of the portion of the ditch within the park, and the bill provides that after conclusion of this agreement the strict liability standard of the Park Resources Protection Act (which now applies to any damage to park resources) will not apply so long as the ditch is operated and maintained in accordance with the agreement. The owners of the ditch would remain liable for damage to park resources caused by negligence or intentional acts, and the bill specifies that it will not limit or otherwise affect the liability of any individual or entity for damages to, loss of, or injury to any park resource resulting from any cause of event occurring before the bill's enactment. In addition, the bill specifies that its enactment will not restrict or otherwise affect any activity relating to the monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of the ditch that was authorized or approved by the National Park Service as of the date. of the bill's enactment. And the bill also provides that use of water transported by the ditch for a main purpose (or main purposes) other than irrigation will not terminate or adversely affect the ditch's right-of-way. Madam Speaker, the matters dealt with in this bill have a long history. The wilderness designations are based on National Park Service recommendations presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. That they have not been acted on before this reflects the difficult history of wilderness legislation. One Colorado statewide wilderness bill was enacted in 1980, but it took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a second statewide national forest wilderness bill. Since then, action has been completed on bills designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge portion of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area, and the James Peak area of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests. We now need to continue making progress by providing wilderness designations for other deserving lands in Colorado, including lands that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain National Park that are dealt with in this bill. Lands covered by the bill are currently being managed protect their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, but will make it clear that within the designated areas there will never be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that interfere with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the mountains. This is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As nearby land development and alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's landscape. Further, the park's popularity demands definitive and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for development within the park. While only about one tenth the size of Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain sees nearly the same number of visitors each year as does our first national park. At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue improvements to park roads and visitor facilities. In summary, Madam Speaker, this bill will protect some of our Nation's finest wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any existing opportunity for new water development. It is bipartisan and will affirm the commitment of all Coloradans to preserving the features that make our State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think it deserves prompt enactment. For the information of our colleagues I am attaching a summary of the legislation: Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Bill Summary Wilderness Designation.--The bill designates as wilderness approximately 249,339 acres within Rocky Mountain National Park, in Colorado. Wilderness Management.--The lands designated as wilderness become part of the National Wilderness Preservation System that was established by the Wilderness Act and will be managed in accordance with that Act and the provisions of the bill. The bill's provisions amplify this by specifying that-- (1) No new reclamation projects will be allowed in the wilderness area; (2) Nothing in the bill will create a ``buffer zone'' around the wilderness and that non-wilderness activities visible or audible from within the wilderness will not be prohibited; (3) The National Park Service can act to control fire, insects, and diseases, including use of mechanical tools within the wilderness; and (4) Nothing in the bill will reduce or restrict the current authority of the National Park Service to manage the Park's lands and resources. Potential Wilderness.--Specified lands within the Park not now eligible for wilderness designation because they are being used for purposes inconsistent with such designation will be designated as wilderness when those uses end. Wilderness Exclusions.--Specified lands within the Park are excluded from the wilderness designation and from the category of ``potential wilderness.'' These lands include-- (1) lands occupied by the Grand River Ditch and the lands 200 feet on each side of the ditch; (2) lands owned by the St. Vrain & Left Hand Water Conservancy District, including Copeland Reservoir and the Inlet Ditch from North St. Vrain Creek; (3) lands owned by the Wincentsen-Harms Trust; and (4) lands adjoining Grand Lake in an area called the ``East Short Trail Area'' discussed below. Water Rights.--The bill includes findings about Colorado state court decisions holding that the Park already has existing sufficient water rights and that there is no need for the Federal Government to reserve or appropriate further water rights to fulfill the purposes of the wilderness designation; and the bill states that neither it nor any action taken out pursuant to it will constitute an express or implied reservation of water or water rights for any purpose. Grand River Ditch.--The bill provides that--(1) lands occupied by the Grand River Ditch and the lands 200 feet on each side of the ditch are excluded from wilderness; (2) upon conclusion of an agreement between the National Park Service and the ditch's owners on operations and maintenance of the Grand River Ditch, the strict liability standard of the Park Resources Protection Act (which now applies to any damage to park resources) will not apply so long as the ditch is operated and maintained in accordance with the agreement. The owners of the ditch would remain liable for damage to park resources caused by negligence or intentional acts; (3) the bill will not affect any liability for damage to park resources occurring before the bill's enactment; (4) the bill will not restrict any activity related to monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of the ditch that was authorized or approved by the National Park Service as of the date of the bill's enactment; and (5) use of water carried by the ditch for a purpose other than irrigation will not adversely affect the ditch's right-of- way. Colorado-Big Thompson Project.--The bill includes provisions specifying that its enactment will not restrict any activity related to monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of the project's facilities that were allowed as of the date of the bill's enactment or prohibit or restrict the conveyance of water through the Alva B. Adams Tunnel for any purpose. East Shore Trail.--The bill requires the National Park Service to identify an alignment for a bicycle trail within the ``East Shore Trail Area'' that is excluded from the wilderness. The Park Service will decide whether to authorize construction of the trail and until construction is authorized, lands in the ``East Shore Trail Area'' will continue to be managed to maintain the option of its being designated as wilderness in the future. Indian Peaks Wilderness and Arapaho Recreation Area.--The bill adjusts the boundaries of the Indian Peaks Wilderness and the Arapaho National Recreation Area so as to reduce the recreation area by about 1,000 acres and increase the wilderness by about 1,000 acres. Leiffer Tract Lease Authority.--The bill allows the National Park Service to lease the ``Leiffer tract,'' a parcel of Federal land located outside the Park's boundary but managed by the National Park Service that includes an historic cabin and several other buildings. Any lease would be under an existing law that requires leased property to be used for activities consistent with the purposes of the Park and compatible with National Park Service programs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, in reviewing the formal record of rollcall 209, the vote on the Kilpatrick substitute to H. Con. Res. 99, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008, I find I am recorded as having voted ``yes.'' However, I had intended to vote ``no,'' and my recollection is that I did vote ``no.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this supplemental appropriations bill. Among other things, it will provide critically important funding for farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado who were hit hard by storms last winter. Thousands of cattle were killed. While I have not seen a final total of the damage resulting from this winter's storms, it seems evident that they will be even worse than those resulting from an October 1997 storm that killed approximately 30,000 cattle and cost farmers and ranchers an estimated $28 million. The struggles that family agriculture producers and small counties face are significant and are having a negative impact on the livelihood of hundreds of farmers and ranchers and their communities. Besides heavy crop and livestock losses and increased production costs associated with rapidly escalating input costs, many producers also face infrastructure losses that pose serious, long-term challenges to economic recovery. So, I am pleased that the bill includes financial assistance for our beleaguered farmers and ranchers, as well as for many others in other parts of the country who need and deserve assistance.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, like H.R. 2237, this bill has serious flaws. However, while I could not vote for H.R. 2237, which would have required rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, I will vote for this emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I could not support H.R. 2237 for two reasons: First, I do not support the idea of rigidly insisting on a date certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. I remain convinced that we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines for military actions and focus instead on realistic diplomatic and political goals. Second, I am very troubled by the provision that would prohibit funding for troops described as being part of the ``surge.'' My concerns do not reflect support for the administration's strategy. On the contrary, I still think an open-ended escalation--and that is the reality behind the Administration talk about a ``surge''--is no substitute for what is really needed, which is a strategy for containing civil war and a wider regional war. That is why in January, I voted against President Bush's plan to increase the number of troops deployed in Iraq--a course he took against the best advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, military leaders, and other policy experts who have warned against extending our military commitment in Iraq. But now nearly 14,000 additional troops have been deployed, and I think it would be irresponsible to vote to cut funding for their weapons and equipment and for all they need to keep them alive and fighting for our country in the midst of Iraq's civil war. In short, while I remain convinced that it was a strategic mistake to go to war in Iraq in the way that the Bush administration did, the fact is that we are still deeply engaged there--and while our troops are in the field, we must provide them what they need. On the other hand, I will vote for H.R. 2206, the revised Supplemental Appropriations bill, primarily for the same reason that I voted for the previous supplemental appropriations bill. I believe we must vote to provide America's men and women in uniform with the equipment and resources they need and with the best health care they may require when they come home. I think it would be grossly irresponsible not to provide these resources. And we must hold the president accountable to the benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi government--including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects. The bill seeks to hold the president accountable by ``fencing'' half the funds until the Secretary of Defense reports on meeting the benchmarks and Congress votes again to release the remaining funds. I am not convinced that is a workable approach. But, I do not think its effectiveness will be tested, because I do not think it will become law in its present form--partly because the president has said he will veto it if it should reach his desk and partly because every indication is that the Senate will take a different approach. Under these circumstances, I think the most important thing is for the House to pass a supplemental appropriations bill today and then to proceed to a conference with the Senate without further delay. I hope that the result will be a bill that will both provide essential funding for our troops and also hold the president accountable--but for that hope to be realized, it is necessary for the House to act today, and so I will vote for the supplemental appropriations bill now before us.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of one of our great space pioneers, Walter M. ``Wally'' Schirra. Schirra was one of the original seven Mercury Astronauts and the only Astronaut to fly in all three of the earliest manned space programs: Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. During one of his missions, Schirra conducted the first rendezvous of manned spacecraft in orbit, considered one of the most challenging tasks in space flight at the time. Schirra was a great astronaut and a great American. What many of my colleagues may not realize is that Schirra became an active businessman and citizen in Colorado after retiring from the space program. I and my fellow Coloradans will miss him. For the benefit of my colleagues, I have attached an article from the Rocky Mountain News about Schirra's impact in Colorado. [From the Rocky Mountain News, May 4, 2007] Astronaut Left Mark on State (By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News) Walter M. ``Wally'' Schirra had a long career in Colorado as a businessman, civic activist and environmental consultant in the decade after he retired as an astronaut. And like two of his fellow astronauts, John Glenn and Scott Carpenter, he also lived part of the year near Vail, where his daughter Suzanne had been an artist. In one of his last public appearances in Colorado, Schirra, an avid horseman, took part in a ceremony celebrating an exhibition of cowboy hats at the Buffalo Bill Memorial Museum. The show included Schirra's hat, which sported drawings of trout and elk and pins from range rides he had gone on. ``He was very personable, very accessible, very down to earth,'' said Steve Friesen, the museum director. ``He was a regular guy, but at the same time I had the feeling of standing next to someone who was a major part of history in my life. It was pretty cool.'' Schirra moved to Denver shortly after leaving NASA in March 1969. He became president of Regency Investors, a subsidiary of Denver financier John M. King. He later split from King to form his own company, Environmental Control Corp., which later became part of another company called Semco Inc. The firm worked on environmental impact studies for projects such as a coal gasification plant in Wyoming. He was an avid sportsman. In October 1973, Schirra was part of a group that purchased 29 acres west of Fort Morgan near the Platte River for use as a sportsman's club. He also once hosted a television series called The Outdoor Life. In May 1978, he was named host of a weekly public affairs television program on then KOA Channel 4 called Scope with Wally Schirra. Schirra was active in Colorado Republican politics. In 1972, he was master of ceremonies for a downtown Denver rally for then-Vice President Spiro Agnew. In 1979, he was an honorary chairman for Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign in Colorado. In the early 1970s, his civic work included crusades for the Colorado chapter of the American Cancer Society to an organizing committee that tried unsuccessfully to bring the winter Olympics to Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, last week I was pleased to have the opportunity to vote to extend the Torture Victims Relief Act (TVRA). I have been a cosponsor of this legislation since 2003. In the last Congress, the bill became law, but it authorized appropriations only through the end of fiscal year 2007. So it's important that Congress act to renew it before the current authorization expires. H.R. 1678 authorizes for two years additional appropriations for domestic centers and programs for the treatment of victims of torture, for foreign centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. There is no question about the need for this funding. Two-thirds of the world's countries still practice torture. An estimated 500,000 torture survivors live in the United States, and about 1,100 refugees and 400 asylum seekers enter my state of Colorado alone each year. Repressive governments use torture to target the very leaders who share our principles of freedom and democracy. Without their voices, communities are fearful. But torture treatment can undo the legacy of torture and reclaim the leaders who stand with us in promoting human rights and the rule of law. I am proud that one of the most effective domestic torture treatment centers is located in Colorado. This year is the tenth anniversary of the Rocky Mountain Survivors Center (RMSC), which has served over 1,000 survivors of torture from over 53 different countries and regions around the world, in 35 languages. The RMSC is working hard to ensure that torture survivors in Colorado become functioning members of the citizenry through its in-house Legal Services, physical and mental healthcare, psychosocial services, and interpreter services. Most recently, RMSC introduced a community development effort to bring the topic of torture and its impact to newcomer communities in Colorado and hear from those newcomers what that impact has been on the larger community, the families of survivors and the survivors themselves. The Rocky Mountain Survivor Center also educates providers, healthcare systems, and community members about torture and how to work to heal the wounds of torture, as well as how to work to ameliorate and eradicate torture itself. The RMSC stands firmly as a voice for the voiceless in Colorado and as a beacon of hope for those whose hope has been stolen by torture. Domestic centers like RMSC receive funding from the Office of Refugee Settlement in the Health and Human Services Department and other private sources to assist survivors of torture and war trauma and their families. But levels of funding for the domestic and international parts of this program don't begin to match authorization levels. Domestic torture treatment programs were funded at almost $10 million in FY 2007 (and have been funded at this same level since 2000), fully $15 million short of authorized levels. International torture treatment centers were funded at $8.5 million in FY07, $4.5 million short of authorized levels. And the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Fund for Victims of Torture was funded at $6.5 million in FY07, $1.5 million short of authorized levels. The Torture Victims Relief Act is vitally necessary for the work of rehabilitation in this country, but the domestic portion of the bill is woefully underfunded to accomplish this task. There are well over 500,000 survivors of torture in America today, many of whom do not get the services they need because of the shortage of funds. The U.N. Fund and international portions of the bill should also be generously funded to ensure America's leadership in the fight against torture throughout the world through partnerships and building capacity at centers devoted to healing of torture victims. When Congress adopted the Torture Victims Relief Act last year, we made a commitment to ensure our population of victims of torture wouldn't be left behind. Now is the time to fulfill that promise and demonstrate that survivors of torture won't be forgotten on our watch. So I am pleased that this bill passed overwhelmingly in the House, and I urge my colleagues to demonstrate the same enthusiasm when considering appropriation levels for TVRA programs in the next fiscal year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, in reviewing the formal record of rollcall 209, the vote on the Kilpatrick substitute to H. Con. Res. 99, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008, I find I am recorded as having voted ``yes.'' However, I had intended to vote ``no,'' and my recollection is that I did vote ``no.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, in my view an act of violence against one person is an act of violence against all of us Our actions toward each other should--and our policies as a nation must--be based on compassion and understanding of human experiences if we are to truly have a nation of liberty and justice for all. In other words, I think in our country all of us, regardless of our race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, should be able to live our lives free from violence, intimidation, and discrimination. That is why I believe Congress must pass legislation to make it more likely that people who are guilty of violent crimes based on bias are properly prosecuted, convicted, and punished. The result will not be to end hate--nor to make hate a crime--but to establish that our government will not tolerate hate and bigotry that manifests itself in violence against anyone. Because I support that result, since first coming to Congress I have cosponsored and voted for legislation similar to the measure now before us. And that is why I will vote for this bill today. The bill will amend the Federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of that person. It also will authorize the Department of Justice to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance to help local law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute acts that are both crimes of violence under Federal law or a felony under State, local, or Indian tribal law; and also are motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim. And to further assist State, local, and tribal officials with the expenses related to hate crime cases, the bill would authorize the Attorney General to establish a grant program to be administered by the Office of Justice Programs that would have a particular focus on combating hate crime committed by juvenile offenders. The bill also will broaden Federal coverage of hate crimes under two scenarios. First, under any circumstance, it will prohibit willfully inflicting bodily injury to any person, attempted or otherwise, through the use of fire, a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person. Second, it will prohibit the same conduct, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the four bases covered by the first scenario, in circumstances involving specific jurisdictional ties to the Constitution's interstate commerce clause. Under either scenario, offenders could be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine, or for any term to life imprisonment if the crime resulted in the victim's death, or involved murder, kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, rape, or attempted rape. The bill addresses two deficiencies in current law that limit the Federal Government's ability to work with State and local law enforcement agencies and have led to acquittals in some cases in which Federal jurisdiction has been asserted to backstop local efforts. One is the fact that current Federal law provides no coverage for violent hate crimes committed because of the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The other is that current law requires proof that the crime was committed with the intent to interfere with the victim's participation in one of six specifically defined federally protected activities. The bill addresses both those limitations and provides the Justice Department tools to effectively act against bias-motivated violence by assisting States and local law enforcement agencies and by pursuing Federal charges where appropriate. This is the same approach Congress took in the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996. It is important to note that even after enactment of this bill, State and local authorities will deal with the overwhelming majority of hate crimes--and the bill is drafted to ensure that the Federal prosecution of hate crimes will be limited to cases that implicate the greatest Federal interest and present the greatest need for Federal intervention. The bill is not intended to federalize all rapes, sexual assaults, acts of domestic violence, or other gender-based crimes. In fact, for a hate crime case to be prosecuted federally, the Attorney General, or a high-ranking subordinate, would have to certify that pertinent state or local officials (1) were unable or unwilling to prosecute; (2) favored Federal prosecution; or (3) prosecuted, but the investigation or trial's results did not satisfy the Federal interest to combat hate crimes. This certification requirement is intended to ensure that the Federal Government will assert the new hate crimes jurisdiction in a principled and properly limited fashion, consistent with procedures under the current Federal hate crimes statute. It should also be noted that the bill respects and protects First Amendment rights. It will not bar or punish name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any person or group--it deals only with violent criminal actions--and includes a provision explicitly stating that conduct protected under the speech and religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment is not subject to prosecution. In short, the bill does not criminalize speech or advocacy, and its enactment will not jeopardize anyone's right to associate, to denounce, to hold fast to a religious belief, or to do anything else protected by the Constitution's First Amendment. Mr. Speaker, crimes motivated by bias are not as rare as many of us would like to think. Since 1991 the FBI has received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes. In 2005, the latest year for which data are available, the FBI received reports from law enforcement agencies identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents, with more than half being racially-motivated and others reflecting religious bias (17.1 percent), sexual orientation (14.2 percent) and ethnicity/ national origin bias (13.7 percent). And, unfortunately, Colorado is not immune--in 2005 our state reported 59 crimes based on racial bias, 22 reflecting religious prejudice, 16 related to sexual orientation, 27 involving ethnic bias, and 1 involving a person's disability, and there have been more since then. These sobering statistics demonstrate that the legislation before us is appropriate and necessary--especially because it is generally understood that hate crimes are often not reported as such. Accordingly, I support the bill and urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. I am a cosponsor of this important legislation, which reauthorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST has not been completely reauthorized since 1992, yet it is the lead federal agency in much cutting-edge technology, such as semiconductor research and nanotechnology. NIST is particularly important to me because one of its key laboratories is located in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. The Boulder labs employ more than 350 people and serve as a science and engineering center for significant research across the nation. A critical component of this legislation is that it includes funding for construction at these laboratories. NIST's Boulder facilities have contributed to great scientific advances, but they are now over 50 years old and have not been well maintained. Many environmental factors such as the humidity and vibrations from traffic can affect the quality of research performed at NIST. In Fiscal Year 2007, NIST-Boulder will begin an extension of Building 1 to make room for a Precision Metrology lab. This new facility will allow for incredibly precise control of temperature, relative humidity, air filtration and vibration to advance research on critical technologies, such as atomic clocks telecommunications, and nanomaterials. To complete this extension, NIST will need further funding in Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009. H.R. 1868 authorizes this critical funding. The legislation also includes a needed funding increase for overall laboratory research at NIST. As part of the American Competitiveness initiative, NIST will use these funds to expand upon its world-class research, ensuring that the United States will continue to be globally competitive in many industries. I am also Pleased to see that the legislation reauthorizes and gradually increases funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. The MEP program has a network of centers across the nation to help small and medium-sized manufacturers develop and commercialize their research. Minimal Federal investment has yielded substantial benefits to manufacturers across the country. In Colorado, the Colorado Association for Manufacturing and Technology (CAMT) hosts the Colorado MEP (CMEP) program and has helped Colorado's more than 6,000 manufacturers save millions of dollars. Over the last 6 years, CMEP has decreased costs for Colorado manufacturers by almost $17 million and increased sales by more than $4 million--so I believe that this is a program that we must continue to support. This legislation also replaces the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) with the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). The ATP has been a valuable resource to small manufacturers by funding technology development. The TIP will build upon and improve this program to help small U.S. manufacturers remain competitive in the increasingly competitive global market. I would like to thank Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman Wu and Ranking Member Gingrey, as well as Science and Technology Chairman Gordon, for introducing this critical legislation and working to bring it to the floor today. In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1868.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be present at the time of the vote on the motion to recommit H.R. 1429. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to help address the critical issue of childhood obesity which is caused by physical inactivity and sedentary lifestyles. Nearly 15 percent of American children and teenagers are obese. One quarter of the children between the ages of 5 and 10 already show the early warning signs of heart disease. Cases of adult-onset diabetes in children--which used to be almost unheard of--have exploded tenfold in the last two decades. This is occurring as recess and physical education classes are being phased out of too many schools across the country. And too many communities lack adequate access to safe places and facilities for kids to play so the United States is being forced to confront an epidemic of childhood obesity. This is unacceptable and action needs to be taken. Congress, the Bush administration, and private enterprise along with the philanthropic groups and health organizations need to reinvest to ensure that our children are living healthy lives. Last Congress I wrote to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to request a study about the relationship between areas such as public lands and public health. GAO was unable to provide such a study in part because there were no consistent or adequate data from which to draw a conclusion. To help better identify this relationship I am introducing companion legislation to S. 651 authored by Senator Harkin. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with the support of Congresswoman Granger, Congressman Boswell, Congressman McIntyre and Congressman Cummings. The bill ``The PLAY Every Day Act,'' will help to advance national physical-activity benchmarks for children and adults alike. The legislation will specifically do two things. First, it will mandate the creation of a well-validated evaluation tool called the ``community play index.'' This index would be used to identify barriers which prevent people from being physically active in particular communities. Second, it will assist local coalitions to use this index as they craft plans to promote physical activity and wellness in their communities. While this bill is far from a comprehensive solution to the rise in childhood obesity it is an important step in the process. I urge the swift consideration of this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Comprehensive Learning Assessment for Students and Schools Act or ``CLASS Act of 2007.'' This legislation makes practical and meaningful reforms to the No Child Left Behind Act. The importance of ensuring that each child in America is given the opportunity to reach his or her full potential cannot be overstated. Having an educated workforce is a matter of economic competitiveness and it is a matter of national security. I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, in 2001 because it placed much needed focus on accountability and on closing the socalled ``achievement gap'' in this country by targeting the achievement of low-income and minority students. These remain laudable and important goals. Since the law was enacted 5 years ago, I have met with students, parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and others to discuss the real-world effects of this Federal mandate. What I have learned is that there is broad consensus in favor of establishing high standards and accountability, but there is also an emerging consensus that the law has had some unintended consequences. In 2005, several stakeholders in Colorado's education community, including representatives from the Colorado Association of School Executives, the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Colorado Education Association, and the Colorado Board of Cooperative Educational Services Association, produced a policy paper suggesting meaningful reforms to the NCLB. The policy paper's prescriptions mirror what I have heard first hand from constituents in my district and other Coloradans. My legislation addresses many of these suggested reforms. First, the way that the Department of Education currently measures Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP, does not yield an accurate metric for actual student progress in our Nation's schools. For example, in Colorado in 2004, the Boulder Valley School District met 140 of 142 required performance targets, Littleton Schools met 124 of 128, and Durango met 91 of 94. Yet under the ``all or nothing'' rules of NCLB each of these districts were labeled as failing. The CLASS Act would allow schools to use longitudinal growth to measure student proficiency to calculate AYP more accurately. Longitudinal growth measures a student's progress from previous years as opposed to comparing the scores of one cohort of students one year to an entirely different cohort the following year. By focusing directly on individual students, we can develop a much better understanding of ways to improve the grade-level learning process. In addition, the CLASS Act would require that multiple measures be used to assess AYP. These would include: the proportion of State report card indicators met, a performance index score, student drop-out rate, and a measure based on individual student achievement gains over time by disaggregated groups. When a school is required to offer transfer choices and supplemental services to a school because that school has failed to meet all of its AYP targets, transfer choice and supplemental services will only be available to students who fall under the one of the subgroups that failed to meet an AYP target. For example, if the students with disabilities subgroup is the only one within a school to not achieve AYP, then only those special education students would be offered transfer options and supplemental services. This common-sense measure allows schools and districts to target resources where they are needed most. Second, two federal mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and NCLB are conflicting. Whereas NCLB requires that students progress at similar rates, IDEA expressly states that students with disabilities progress at different rates. NCLB requires that students progress be measured by a ``proficient score'' on a standardized test; IDEA is based on an Individual Education Program (IEP) team decision with a test score as just one factor. The CLASS act would allow a student's IEP to be taken into consideration when determining the assessment level under which a student would be tested for the purposes of NCLB. Third, the CLASS Act would acknowledge the fact that becoming fluent in a new language is a complex process that occurs over time. It is unfair and unproductive to require students, while they are learning English, to be tested in both the acquisition of a new language and in the subject content. The CLASS Act would exclude the performance of students with limited English proficiency who have resided in the United States for less than three years, so as to avoid any distortion in measurement resulting from the new arrivals of such students. NCLB has provided critical tools for parents, teachers, and administrators to understand how children are learning and what schools and families can do to improve education. But in order for accountability assessments to be meaningful, they need to be transparent and fair. Madam Speaker, the CLASS Act goes a long way toward achieving the goal of transparent and fair assessments of student progress without compromising the critical goal of demanding excellence in our public education system. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.