Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill in its present form. Having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I have a solemn responsibility to vote against even the most politically popular proposals when there are serious doubts about the constitutionality of the legislation. And this bill, transparently brought forward to help the Republican majority whip up public emotions on the eve of a tough election, poses serious constitutional problems--in short, I think it violates the 24th Amendment. That amendment, added to the Constitution in 1964, says that the rights of Americans to vote in federal elections ``shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax'' and that Congress ``shall have the power to enforce'' that part of the Constitution. But instead of enforcing that constitutional bar on making voting a taxable event, this bill would require states to choose between making some people pay to vote and paying to provide them with the identification that the bill says will be required if they want to exercise that right. The bill's supporters say the bill is constitutional because it says that states cannot make everyone pay for identification--they have to provide it free to people who cannot afford the ``reasonable cost'' of providing it. But the 24th Amendment is not ambiguous on whether it is permissible to make some people pay to vote, so long as they can afford it. Instead, it makes clear that no Americans--regardless of their income-- can be forced to pay ``any . . . tax'' in order to vote. And while some may argue that paying for a government-issued ID is not a tax, but just some kind of ``user fee,'' I am not persuaded--and I would remind them of the words of Richard Darman, OMB Director under President Reagan, who said that ``if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like duck, it is a duck, [and] euphemisms like user fees will not fool the public.'' That's one of the reasons the National Association of Counties (NACO) opposes the bill--because, as they say in their letter to the Speaker and Minority Leader, ``we fear that any fee imposed on other voters [besides those claiming to be too poor to afford an ID] could be characterized as a poll tax and be subject to challenge in court.'' Further, aside from the constitutional questions, both NACO and the National Conference of State Legislatures oppose the bill because it would impose a burdensome unfunded mandate on every state and every local government. And, as the Conference points out, the bill ``is duplicative'' and ``adds bureaucratic burdens that are completely unnecessary. The REAL ID Act, flawed though it is, already requires a new state identification system based on legal presence . . . This second identification system would be used only for voting [but the Help America Vote Act] . . . and state and local election procedures already address identification needs [while] . . . This legislation contains only a vague promise to reimburse states for the cost of providing voter ID's to indigent individuals. There is no specific appropriation for this . . . and little likelihood for one.'' If the Republican leadership had been willing to allow the House to consider amendments, changes could have been made to remove any doubts about its constitutionality and to avoid burdening the state and local governments with unnecessary burdens. However, instead the leadership insisted on bringing the bill to the floor under a procedure that prevented that--one of the reasons that many have questioned whether the real purpose of the bill is less to respond to potential election fraud and more to make it harder for some citizens to vote. I am not opposed to a carefully constructed and constitutional bill that would enhance workplace identity, which is why I support H.R. 98. Nor am I opposed to legislating in order to ensure that non-citizens and others ineligible to vote are prevented from voting fraudulently. And I am hopeful that once the heat of this election season passes, the House will return to a more deliberative and bipartisan way of doing business on this issue and others. But, in the meantime, I think this bill does not merit enactment as it stands because its defects outweigh whatever value it may have as a supplement to the existing state and federal laws against election fraud.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the assistance of several public-spirited individuals working at GeoEye, the world's largest commercial satellite imagery company. GeoEye, which acquired another company, Space Imagining, earlier this year, now operates a constellation of three Earth imaging satellites-- Orb View-2, Orb View-3 and IKONOS--that contribute to an international network of more than a dozen regional ground stations, an image archive, and advanced geospatial imagery processing capabilities that are among the best in the world. GeoEye has a strong presence in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District and recently demonstrated the value of their corporate presence in our state. Last month, the Boulder County Sheriff and others responded to a report that a young Marine was missing after a fall in Eldorado Canyon State Park. This search effort involved hundreds of volunteers and a significant number of law enforcement officials, and of course the missing Marine's parents were deeply concerned about their son's disappearance, and conventional search methods were proving to be ineffective. As the search was underway, my office was asked to contact GeoEye to see if they might be able to provide imaging data that could be used to find him. Within moments of my request, GeoEye was offering up satellite imaging of the Eldorado Springs area and other forms of assistance to the Boulder County Sheriff's Department and to the Marine's family. No questions asked. No request for payment in return for services rendered; just a neighborly helping hand. I want to express my deep public appreciation for the employees at GeoEye, who were quick to offer the company's assistance and who demonstrated a true sense of community spirit in a difficult situation. While the law says ``corporations'' are also ``persons,'' I think it is noteworthy when a company responds to a crisis in the way ordinary citizens do. After all, companies are organized--and properly so--for financial profit and economic benefit. We don't expect corporations, particularly large ones, to exhibit the very human qualities that neighbors or friends do. And that is why I want to commend GeoEye and thank the company for their quick response and their offer to help. I want to particularly thank Mr. Matt O'Connell, the CEO of GeoEye, Mr. Mark Brender, the Vice President for Comms/Marketing at GeoEye, and to Kim Goff, Kerri Rose and Val Webb. They generously gave of their time and expertise to help the community. Ms. Webb called my District Office to follow up on the case several times to offer additional assistance. That kind of personal effort certainly impressed me and my staff. Please join me in commending these individuals and thanking them for their public-spiritedness. They remind us that with the right leadership, corporations are not necessarily abstract institutions lacking the qualities we look for in good friends and neighbors, but are, at their best, integral parts of the community at-large.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill, for several reasons. To begin with, as the debate in the Resources Committee made clear, this is not the kind of measure that should be considered under a procedure that rigidly limits debate and prevents consideration of any amendments. Instead, it is a controversial proposal that can affect many parts of the country. All members whose districts could be affected--or who have concerns for other reasons--should have the opportunity to propose amendments that they think would improve the legislation. But regardless of the procedures controlling debate today, I think the bill has such serious flaws that it should be rejected--which was why I voted against it in committee. As others have noted, it would make a drastic change in current law regarding the regulation of Indian gaming, changes that do not properly reflect and respect the status of tribal governments and that have led the majority of tribes and tribal organizations to oppose the legislation. I do not think such far-reaching changes are necessary to address the problems cited by the bill's supporters. On the contrary, I think the Interior Department already has ample authority to resolve those problems through regulation. Finally, some have suggested that the legislation should be passed to resolve questions raised in 2004 when two tribes now based in Oklahoma asserted a claim to lands in Colorado. However, I do not think that is accurate. Nothing in this bill would prevent tribes from making such land claims in the future. And because no legislation can bind a future Congress, the bill would not prevent a legislative settlement of such claims--the professed goal of those asserting the Colorado claim--which could involve authorization of Indian gaming on some of the lands involved. I urge the House to reject this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Anna Schubert, an excellent young scholar who has a bright future ahead of her. Anna was selected by the Alliance for Affordable Services to be the recipient of a $2,000 scholarship for the 2006-2007 school year. While there are many deserving scholars in our communities, it is worth noting the outstanding caliber of students such as Anna. Young people like Anna will lead our country into the future, achieve new breakthroughs in science and medicine, and protect our environment for future generations. Anna will have the opportunity to receive an additional $1,000 every year of her undergraduate career, a goal that is accomplished by keeping a 3.5 overall grade point average. Although an arduous task for any student, I am confident this exceptional young lady will achieve it through her hard work and dedication. It is an honor for the State of Colorado and this Nation to have bright, young individuals that are excelling beyond barriers. Such ambitions are necessary qualities in the next generation for the United States to maintain its leadership role in this new century. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our congratulations to Anna Schubert and her family. We wish her the best in both her undergraduate career and in all her future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Alex Trujillo, who has served for 35 years in the federal government, most recently as the Region VIII Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A personable, thoughtful and caring individual, Mr. Trujillo has worked closely with my office on numerous occasions to ensure that beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and Children's Health Programs are receiving reliable information from which to base their healthcare decisions. Under Mr. Trujillo's direction, nearly 92 percent of beneficiaries in Region VIII now have prescription drug coverage. This is a remarkable number of people receiving much needed healthcare coverage, especially in a time of rising prescription drug costs. Over the past four decades, Medicare has grown to become a critical provider of healthcare services for millions of Americans. More often than not, recipients of Medicare are not fully aware of all of the advantages and health benefits to which they are entitled. Consequently, many beneficiaries pay a higher premium for their healthcare or do not understand where and how they can make savings. One of Alex Trujillo's accomplishments has been his leadership in improving public education about Medicare. During his tenure, Region VIII has measured an increase in responsible healthcare decision-making by beneficiaries that not only provides better quality healthcare, but also utilizes services more efficiently. This is an important accomplishment considering that Region VIII provides services for 3.2 percent of the U.S. population. It is also one of the biggest regions geographically, with a coverage area that stretches from Colorado to Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota and South Dakota. Mr. Trujillo's attention to rural communities has also been noteworthy. Following his graduation from college in 1971, Mr. Trujillo entered public service at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For the last 20 years he has worked for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). He gained valuable experience in the Divisions of Medicare and Health Standards and Quality, and also served as the Assistant Regional Inspector General for the Office of Investigations and Office of the Inspector General. In short, he knows the landscape of these agencies and developed a reputation for exceptional service. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our appreciation to Alex Trujillo for his record of service in the federal government.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I cannot support this bill in its present form. I understand and appreciate the views of its proponents, many of them in Colorado, who are distressed about the fact that three slaughterhouses in this country are in the business of preparing horse flesh for human consumption--primarily in other countries. The bill's supporters do not think this is appropriate, and that Congress should exercise its authority over interstate commerce in order to put an end to this business. That is what this bill is intended to do. I can understand the discomfort many Americans have about consumption of horse flesh, although of course it has been and remains an accepted practice in some places. But emotional concerns cannot be the only guiding force in legislation regarding the way livestock is managed, and prohibiting slaughter of horses for human consumption--the main market for horse flesh at this time--would have unintended consequences this legislation fails to address. The hearings held by the Agriculture Committee made it clear that there the current horse sanctuaries do not have the capacity to care for the additional unwanted horses--which otherwise would be handled by slaughterhouses that would result from the bill's enactment. That was one reason the committee, on a bipartisan basis reported the legislation unfavorably. I voted for an amendment that would have delayed implementation of the bill until the Agriculture Department determined that adequate sanctuaries were ready. Unfortunately, that amendment was not adopted. Similarly, state and local governments--including the Colorado Department of Agriculture and the Commissioners of Adams County--are concerned that shutting off the slaughterhouse outlet will lead to an increased number of unwanted horses being abandoned and left to be dealt with by local authorities. I am attaching letters from the Colorado Commissioner on Agriculture and Adams County Commissioners who oppose this legislation. I voted for an amendment to provide federal reimbursement to local governments faced with such a problem. However, that amendment also was rejected. Because of these problems, I cannot vote for the bill as it stands. Finally, I must note that with the nation at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, everyday Americans struggling with a mediocre economy and high energy costs, there are more pressing issues Congress needs to address than this one.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, skiing and snowboarding are exhilarating activities that allow individuals and families to enjoy a natural environment and participate in physical activity. To help spread this message, I am introducing a resolution urging the president to declare January as National Ski and Snowboard Sports Month. This resolution notes the increase in adult and childhood obesity along with the negative consequences of overweight and obese people including a decrease in the average life span and rising health care costs stemming from related illnesses. It also highlights the role winter sport activities can play in addressing chronic inactivity and the positive effects of participating in physical activity. ``Ski and Snowboard Month'' would remind citizens of the importance to maintain a consistent exercise program and healthy lifestyle twelve months out of the year. Winter sports offer unique opportunities to allow all Americans a chance to be together outside and enjoy the season.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of the worst kind of political game playing. After months and months of short workweeks and long breaks, now the Republican leadership has brought the House into session late today-- and for what? Certainly not for a simple vote on raising the minimum wage--even though that's long overdue. No, instead the purpose of this grab-bag of a bill is to provide political cover for people who want to say they voted to raise the minimum wage but don't want their votes to actually produce that result. That's why the Republican leaders have chained onto the minimum-wage increase the deadweight of an estate-tax revision bill like the one the House passed last month--a bill so badly flawed that it has already reached dead end in the other body. They know that the added weight will mean that even if this bill is launched from the House it will not fly, and will never reach the President's desk. It's a cynical move. And it's a lost opportunity--because if the estate-tax part of this bill were good enough to give the package a long-shot chance of enactment, the bill would merit support. But, like the version we passed last month, the estate-tax part of this bill does not have that chance, because it does not represent a true compromise. While benefiting only a very few--the very largest estates--it would irresponsibly reduce federal revenue at a time when the country is at war and the budget is already deeply in deficit. And to make matters worse, it includes unrelated provisions that are even less fiscally responsible, such as a special tax break for timber companies that would reopen a loophole that was closed when President Reagan signed the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986. My opposition to this bill does not mean I am opposed to reducing estate taxes. When the House considered the estate-tax bill last month, I supported an alternative that would have raised the amount of an estate excluded from taxes to $6 million per couple and increased this to $7 million by 2009. This not only would have provided relief for small businesses and family farmers, but it would have done so in a much more fiscally responsible way, because it would have reduced revenues by much less than this bill. It also would have simplified estate-tax planning for married couples, who could carry over any unused exemption to the surviving spouse and so assured that the full $7 million would be available. Furthermore, that alternative would have transferred the revenue from the estate tax to strengthen the Social Security trust fund, a change that, according to the Social Security Actuary, would solve one quarter of the trust fund's shortfall. If the Republican leadership allowed us to vote on that--even as an added burden on a bill to raise the minimum wage--I would vote for it. But they could not do that, because that kind of true compromise--a reasonable and responsible compromise that would have a good chance of approval in the Senate--would not fit their plan to use the estate tax as a weight to sink the minimum wage increase. So, once again, I have no responsible choice but to oppose what the Republican leadership has put before us and to vote against this cynical maneuver disguised as a serious legislative proposal.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of the financial services industry, including both banks and credit unions, to our economy. I support and applaud the steps they have taken toward better services and improved products, but I think there is some need for some changes. That is why I have introduced a bill dealing with credit cards and am cosponsoring H.R. 2317, to update the regulation of credit unions. My support for credit unions does not reflect hostility to banks because I do not think credit unions represent a threat to the continued success of banks. In 2005, bank profits reached a record level. Banks have a 94 percent share of the financial services industry, and the net growth in bank assets in 2005 was nearly as much as the combined total assets of all credit unions in the country. So I do not think modest changes that are in H.R. 2317 represent a real threat to the continued success of the banking industry. When we return in September, we should have an opportunity to consider both H.R. 2317 and my bill, H.R. 5383, the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of the financial services industry--including both banks and credit unions--to our economy. I support and applaud the steps both have taken toward better services and improved products. However, I think there's a need to change some of the rules involving credit cards and I also think we need to remember the need for diversity in the industry. That's why I am cosponsoring H.R. 2317, to update the regulation of credit unions, and have introduced a bill dealing with credit cards. The last major changes to the Federal Credit Union Act were in 1998, and since then there has been time to identify unnecessary and outdated provisions and develop legislation that would make common sense improvements. That is the background for H.R. 2317, the Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act (or ``CURIA''), introduced by our colleagues, Representatives Ed Royce and Paul E. Kanjorski. It combines a series of regulatory enhancements that will allow credit unions to operate more effectively and efficiently. These changes can help improve productivity and efficiency in a competitive and dynamic marketplace, and will translate into better and lower-cost service to credit union members. The current bill improves upon similar bipartisan legislation introduced in the 108th Congress, and its broad support is shown by the fact that it has no fewer than 121 cosponsors. That support reflects the reality that credit unions--with 87 million members nationwide and 1.5 million just in Colorado--provide choice in the financial services industry. My support for credit unions does not mean hostility to banks, because I do not think credit unions represent a threat to the continued success of banks. Credit unions remain member-owned not-for- profit institutions directed by volunteer boards that pool their resources to help each other. And while credit unions have changed and grown, that has not prevented banks from growing as well. In 2005, bank profits reached a record level of $134.2 billion. Banks have a 94% share of the financial services industry, holding more than $10 trillion in assets. In fact, the net growth in bank assets in 2005--$626 billion--was nearly as much as the combined total assets of all credit unions in the country while one of the biggest banks has assets that exceed the $669 billion in assets held by all the credit unions. In view of these realities, I am not persuaded that the modest changes in credit-union regulation included in CURIA represent a real threat to the continued success of the banking industry--and there is no doubt they can and will benefit consumers. Similarly, consumers will benefit from the common-sense changes in the rules governing issuance of credit cards that would be accomplished by enacting H.R. 5383, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which I introduced earlier this year. That bill reflects the reality that Congress needs to do more to promote responsibility by those who provide credit, beginning with credit card companies. Like a similar (but not identical) bill introduced by Senator Dodd, my bill takes some simple, common-sense steps to stop abusive practices, educate cardholders, and stiffen the penalties for violations. I hope that when we return in September, the House will have an opportunity to consider both H.R. 2317, the Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act, and H.R. 5383, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support of this legislation. India is the world's largest and most diverse democracy and a strong ally and friend of the United States. As a member of the India Caucus, I recognize the benefits of increased economic, security, and cultural cooperation between India and the United States and am proud that in recent years the relationship between our two countries has made rapid advances in so many areas. Because of the growing importance of that relationship, it made sense for the Bush Administration to consider expanding the U.S.-India strategic partnership to include civilian nuclear energy development. In the context of our friendship with India, I support the concept of civilian nuclear cooperation, and I will support this legislation today. U.S. law prohibits nuclear cooperation with countries that have not pledged under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--like India--to forgo nuclear weapons. H.R. 5682 carves out an exception for India to allow it to gain access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in exchange for opening 14 out of 22 of its nuclear facilities to inspections under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Importantly, the bill requires that India and the International Atomic Energy Agency negotiate a safeguards agreement and that the Nuclear Suppliers Group approve an exemption for India before Congress votes on the final cooperation agreement. That means Congress will have a chance to vote up or down once more, this time on the final negotiated agreement. I think that's the right approach. In exchange for getting access to sensitive nuclear technology and fuel supplies, India has promised to continue the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs and not to transfer the nuclear technology to third parties. But the deal would not prevent India from ramping up its military nuclear program. Whether or not India actually begins building more nuclear arms is less important than the fact that it will have the capability to do so, and it is unclear what actions countries like China and Pakistan might take in response to that new reality. I tend to agree the statement by Rep. Berman (D-CA) in his additional views on H.R. 5682 that ``only a halt on fissile material production would make this deal a net plus for nonproliferation.'' In the July 2005 joint statement between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India committed to ``assume the practices and responsibilities'' of other advanced nuclear powers. With four of the five recognized nuclear weapons states already having stopped producing fissile material for nuclear weapons and China believed to have halted production, it would seem that India should be able to ``assume'' this important practice. Yet the agreement itself does not include any promise by India to cease its production of fissile materials. So I remain concerned about the potential effects of the agreement on our broader nonproliferation goals, since the real has ramifications far beyond the U.S.-India relationship. That's why I supported an amendment based on a proposal by former Senator Sam Nunn to allow the exports of nuclear reactors and technology to India but not the transfers of reactor fuel until it had been determined that India had halted the production of fissile material for its weapons program. We must try to strike the right balance between strengthening our relationship with India and also maintaining our robust and time-tested international nuclear nonproliferation regime. I will support the bill today, but once the agreement has been negotiated and before Congress takes its final vote on the deal, I plan to carefully scrutinize the agreement to ensure that it strikes a balance I can support.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in Colorado and not present for three recorded votes on Monday, July 24, 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 394, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1496, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a pilot program under which up to 15 States may issue electronic Federal migratory bird hunting stamps--I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall 395, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 203, the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act--I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall 396, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5534, to establish a grant program whereby moneys collected from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program are used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative fuels--I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which embodies a bipartisan and bi-cameral agreement that includes important provisions to protect children. The bill will create a National Sex Offender Registry with uniform standards for the registration of sex offenders, including a lifetime registration requirement for the most serious offenders. This is a vital step to improve the current patch-work quilt of 50 different state systems for identifying and tracking sex offenders. The bill also authorizes much-needed grants to help local law enforcement agencies establish and integrate sex offender registry systems. Under the bill, states will be required to maintain sex offender registries accessible to the public on the Internet and to make failure to register a felony. Sex offenders will be required to provide DNA samples and will be subjected to more frequent in-person verification of information about their residences and workplaces. The bill targets child-exploitation enterprises and registered sex offenders who commit offenses against minors, including obscene visual representations of sexual abuse of children and sex trafficking of children. It includes several provisions designed to better combat child pornography, including authorizing civil and criminal asset forfeiture in child pornography cases. And it authorizes new grant programs that will help local law enforcement agencies combat sexual abuse of children by enabling them to hire more people, add computer hardware and software, and take other steps to apprehend sex offenders who violate registry requirements. It also authorizes a new grant program for the National Crime Prevention Council, a private, nonprofit organization that has expertise in promoting crime prevention programs through public outreach and media campaigns. The bill also authorizes 88 new prosecutors within the U.S. Attorneys' Offices to prosecute child sex offenses, including child exploitation, child sexual abuse, and child obscenity and pornography offenses. It authorizes 10 additional Justice Department task forces to address Internet crimes against children. It authorizes the Justice Department to provide grants to states, local governments, and nonprofit organizations to establish and maintain programs to educate children and parents on the best way to be safe using he Internet. It authorizes the Justice Department, in consultation with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to develop and carry out a public awareness campaign to demonstrate how to better protect children when using the Internet. And it authorizes the Justice Department to provide fingerprint-based background checks to child welfare agencies as well as to private and public educational agencies so they can carry out background checks on prospective adoption or foster parents, private and public teachers, and school employees. As a cosponsor of H.R. 4005, the National Police Athletic League (PAL) Youth Enrichment Reauthorization Act of 2005, I am also glad to note that the version of the bill now before the House includes provisions similar to those of that bill. The PAL program brings youth under the supervision and positive influence of a law enforcement agency and expands public awareness about the role of a police officer in the local community and reinforces responsible values and attitudes instilled in young people by their parents. It utilizes educational, athletic and recreational activities to create trust and understanding between police officers and youth. It is based on the conviction that young people--if they are reached early enough--can develop strong positive attitudes towards police officers in their journey through life toward the goal of maturity and good citizenship. A volunteer-driven organization with an estimated 80,000 volunteers across the country supporting all levels of programming, PAL has a 90- year history of caring and providing alternatives for youth at risk. Today, it offers structured and personal guidance in a safe, friendly environment and provides a variety of activities, from organized competitive sports, recreational activities, arts and educational programming to cultural and social skill development programs. This bill will help it carry out that important work. I do have concerns about some aspects of the bill, including a provision allowing some juvenile offenders over 14 to be included in publicly available sex offender registries. However, on balance I think this is a good, strong bill and I support its enactment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5684, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. While the agreement would provide some benefits both for the people of the U.S. and Oman, I think the agreement contains more flaws than benefits, and I believe it must be rejected. The agreement, which is similar to free trade agreements (FTA)s with Middle Eastern countries Morocco and Bahrain, would provide the U.S. and Oman duty-free access for almost all consumer and industrial goods, with special provisions for agriculture, textiles and apparel. Both countries would phase out all tariffs on the remaining eligible goods within 10 years. I have supported a number of trade agreements to expand access to foreign markets for exports as part of a long-term strategy to strengthen the American economy. While expanding market access for American industry, financial markets and farmers is critical, I believe it needs to be done responsibly, accounting for the treatment and protection of workers and the environment. This agreement makes efforts to do so but in my opinion needs to go further. Regarding the agreement's labor provisions, I am concerned that Oman is not in compliance with International Labor Organization (ILO) core labor standards. There are no labor unions in Oman today. The royal decree issued by Sultan Qaboos--which prohibits forced labor and endorses the use of collective bargaining and strikes--is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. It's important that the provisions in the recent decree be implemented before Congress considers this agreement. Regardless of the outcome of today's vote, I urge the Administration and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to monitor and take necessary steps to ensure the implementation of this decree. I think the Administration and the USTR would be well served by including labor provisions, such as those contained in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, in the body of future trade agreements and making them subject to sanctions via dispute resolution procedures. The dispute resolution procedures continue to fall short in FTAs negotiated by the Bush Administration, and the Oman FTA is no exception. It is important that the United States takes step to ensure our trading partners provide workers with basic labor rights. I am also concerned about reports that the U.S.-Oman FTA would create a new right requiring the U.S. to allow any Omani company to buy U.S. port operations. Given the uproar earlier this year over the news that Dubai Ports World had been permitted to take over the operations of several U.S. ports, it seemed only reasonable today to pass the Cardin amendment, which would close the loophole in the current trade agreement that allows a foreign company with operations in Oman to operate U.S. Port facilities. But the Republican leadership would not allow the amendment to be considered. Expanding the liberalization of trade in goods and services between the U.S. and Oman can help us build a stronger relationship with a strategic country in the Middle East. I firmly believe the Bush Administration squandered this opportunity by not paying sufficient attention to national security concerns and by not ensuring basic labor standards in the agreement, which is why I must oppose H.R. 5684 today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, at best this bill is a mistake. At worst, it is a cynical political stunt. Either way, it should not pass. It seeks to end the ability of Federal courts--including the Supreme Court--``to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance'' as the pledge is now worded. It responds to a 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that both the 1954 law that added the words ``under God'' to the pledge and a local school district's policy of daily recitation of the pledge as so worded were unconstitutional. (The ruling later was modified to apply only to the school district's recitation policy.) The Supreme Court reversed that decision because the plaintiff did not have legal standing to challenge the school district's policy. But the Republican leadership evidently finds the possibility of a similar lawsuit so alarming--or maybe they think it presents such a political opportunity--that they back this bill to keep any Federal court from hearing a lawsuit like that. I cannot support such legislation. It mayor may not be constitutional--on that I defer to those with more legal expertise than I can claim. But I have no doubt it is not only unnecessary but even misguided and destructive. I have no objection to the current wording of the Pledge of Allegiance. After the Ninth Circuit's decision, I voted for a resolution--approved by the House by a vote of 416 to 3--affirming that ``the Pledge of Allegiance and similar expressions are not unconstitutional expressions of religious belief'' and calling for the case to be reheard. But this bill is a different matter. It may be called the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' but that is inaccurate and even misleading--because it not only fails to protect the pledge but also would undercut the very thing to which those who recite the pledge are expressing their allegiance. It doesn't protect the pledge because even if it becomes law people who don't like the way the pledge's current wording would still be able to bring lawsuits in state courts. So, even if Colorado's courts upheld the current wording, the courts of other States might not. And the bill says the U.S. Supreme Court could not resolve the matter. That would mean there would no longer be a single Pledge of Allegiance, but different pledges for different States--and the Constitution's meaning would vary based on State lines. That would directly contradict the very idea of the United States as ``one Nation'' that should remain ``indivisible'' and whose defining characteristics are devotion to ``liberty and justice for all.'' And that would be completely inconsistent with the idea of the Republic (symbolized by the flag) to which we pledge allegiance when we recite what this bill pretends to ``protect.'' How ironic--and how pathetic. As national legislators, as U.S. Representatives, we can and should do better. We should reject this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support changing the Constitution along the lines of this proposal--so I will not vote for this resolution. Under our federal system, there are many matters where the states have broad latitude to shape their laws and policies in ways their residents think fit, subject to the U.S. Constitution's provisions protecting individual rights. And one of those areas has been family law, including the regulation of marriage and divorce. But this amendment would change that. Adoption of this amendment would for the first time impose a constitutional restriction on the ability of a state to define marriage. And it would do so in a way that would restrict, not protect, individual rights that now are protected in at least some states. I think this is not necessary or appropriate. Some of the resolution's supporters say it is needed so a state whose laws ban same-sex marriages or civil unions will not be forced to recognize such marriages or unions established under another state's laws. They say this could happen because Article IV of the Constitution requires each state to give full faith and credit to another state's public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. But my understanding is that this part of the Constitution has never been construed to require states to recognize the validity of all marriages of people from other states. Instead, over the years various states have refused to recognize some out-of-state marriages--and the ``full faith and credit'' clause has not been used to force them to do otherwise--because marriages are not judgments but civil contracts that a state may choose to recognize as a matter of comity, not as a constitutional requirement. As if this were not enough, in 1996 Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. That law says ``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'' Not everyone supported that bill at the time. But it did pass, and now that law is on the books and has not been successfully challenged. Given this history, I am not convinced that this constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent the full faith and credit clause being used to compel a state to recognize a same-sex marriage. Moreover, when you focus on the language of the proposed amendment it becomes clear that protecting states is not its real purpose. That purpose could be achieved by an amendment to the full faith and credit clause--perhaps by putting language along the lines of the Defense of Marriage Act into the constitution itself. But that is not what is being proposed here. Instead, this amendment would restrict states, by establishing a single definition of marriage--the only definition that any state could recognize. And, unlike other constitutional amendments, it would not protect individuals either. It would write into the Constitution a new limit on what legal rights they could hope to have protected by a state or the federal government. If adopted, this amendment would restrict individual liberties instead of expanding them. So, I think it is clear the real purpose of this amendment is to lay a foundation for discrimination against some Americans on the basis of their sexual orientation. In good conscience, I cannot support that. Mr. Speaker, no proposed constitutional amendment should be taken lightly. On the contrary, I think such proposals require very careful scrutiny and should not be adopted unless we are convinced that a change in our fundamental law is essential. I do not think this resolution meets that test, and so I will vote against it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I object to--and voted against-- the restrictions the Republican leadership has imposed on our consideration of this resolution. Those restrictions made it impossible for the House to even consider changes to this resolution, including parts to which I must take strong exception. I do agree with some parts of the resolution. For example, I agree that ``the United States is currently engaged in a global war on terrorism to prevent future attacks against American civilian and military interests at home and abroad.'' Furthermore, I agree that the House of Representatives ``supports efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks here and abroad, including through the use of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.'' And, I do support making clear that the House ``condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens, including members of the Armed Forces, as well as individuals and organizations that support United States efforts.'' But, like most Members of Congress, I cannot of my own knowledge say it is true that, as the resolution states, the tracking program that is the subject of the resolution ``only reviews information as part of specific terrorism investigations and based on intelligence that leads to targeted searches,'' or that the program ``is firmly rooted in sound legal authority'' or that it ``consists of the appropriate and limited use of transaction information while maintaining respect for individual privacy,'' or that it ``has rigorous safeguards and protocols to protect privacy.'' In fact, to paraphrase Will Rogers, most of us--Members of Congress as well as members of the public at large--know about this only what we have read in the newspapers or heard over the airwaves. So, it is ironic, to say the least, that so many are so ready to describe and praise the program's details and at the same time condemn those who told us about those details. In short, I think the resolution should not be adopted at this time because its conclusions are based too much merely on the assertion of claims for which no solid evidence has been presented. For that reason, I will vote against it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I agree with President Bush that an America now ``addicted to oil'' needs to reduce its dependency on petroleum and other fossil fuels. And as a chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I strongly support legislation aimed at achieving that goal, including greater investments in renewable energy sources (such as wind, sun, and biofuels) that also will boost our economy, create jobs, and revitalize rural communities. Still, some additional development of the oil and gas resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would be desirable to help meet our immediate needs, and I could support appropriate legislation to achieve that result. Unfortunately, I do not think this bill is appropriate, and I cannot support it as it stands. The bill's provisions dealing with the OCS are excessively complicated and costly, and the bill also includes a plethora of unrelated and unnecessary provisions, including changes in the rules for onshore leases and a section dealing with oil shale royalties that I think is particularly troublesome. In the Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that would have made this a much simpler bill. It would have deleted all the complicated provisions dealing with State legislation, different rules for different parts of the offshore lands, and the disposition of Federal revenues--not to mention the section about oil shale. It would have replaced all that with a short and simple requirement for the Interior Department to lease within a year the lands within the so- called ``181 Area'' in the Gulf of Mexico. My amendment was essentially identical to a bill--S. 2253--introduced by Senators Domenici and Bingaman with 28 cosponsors, from both sides of the aisle and already approved by the Senate's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by a bipartisan vote of 16 to 5. Its groundwork has been laid by the Department of the Interior over a number of years, including completion of environmental reviews and consultation with coastal States and the public. The amendment would have put only two limits on the requirement for leasing the 181 area. First, it said that one part--the part east of a ``military mission line''--could only be leased if the Defense Department had agreed in advance that development there can be done without interfering with military activities. That responded to issues raised by Secretary Rumsfeld last year in a letter to the Senate's Armed Services Committee. And, second, the amendment said there could be no leasing within 100 miles of the Florida coastline. That, of course, responded to concerns about potential adverse effects on that State's coastal areas. According to the Mineral Management Service, the whole 181 area has about 930 million barrels of recoverable oil and more than 6 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. And the same agency's numbers show that even if the Defense Department were to say there would be no leasing east of the military mission line, there would still be about 800 million barrels of recoverable oil and nearly 5 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the rest of the 181 area. Thus, my amendment would have cleared the way for rapid development of significant new supplies of energy. And it would have done so without the complications that caused the Administration to testify that they have ``serious concerns'' about the bill as it stands. If our goal is to get more energy from offshore areas, I think it would make more sense to start with simple and straightforward legislation that's based on sound science and that has some strong support, including from a significant number of our colleagues in the other body. My amendment followed that approach--but, unfortunately, the committee did not adopt it. As a result, we must vote today on this seriously flawed bill which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will ``increase net direct spending by about $900 million in 2007, $3.2 billion over the 2007-2011 period, and $11.0 billion over the 2007-2016 period.'' Those are sobering numbers. And even if the bill is revised along the lines proposed by some of its supporters, I expect any change in that estimate to be marginal, and will have no significant effect on the bottom line. I am not ready to support increased mandatory spending on the scale that will result from this bill while our country is at war and we are running persistent budget deficits that must be financed by increases in the national debt our children will be required to repay with interest. And I think if anything CBO underestimates the potential costs of this bill to the taxpayers, because their estimate does not discuss all of the provisions not directly related to offshore leasing. For example, while the estimate does discuss section 17's requirement that the Interior Department comply with lessees' requests for the government to repurchase and cancel leases (and compensate their holders) under certain circumstances, it does not note that the chances of such required payments are increased by section 19, which would impose a series of tight deadlines which the Interior Department must meet if it is to avoid a demand for compensation. It could be that CBO isn't able to estimate how much money that might cost--and, even if they could, that estimate would not include other costs, including the likelihood that the deadlines will lead the Interior Department to put so much emphasis on speed that they will be less careful in the way they assess potential problems and will not ensure appropriate steps to mitigate those problems. This would not be good for the owners of private surface properties underlain by Federal minerals, for affected communities, or for the environment. Further, the estimate does not even mention section 24, which would prohibit the Department of the Interior from adjusting the fees it charges for actions related to mineral leases. This applies to both offshore and onshore leases, and could result in requiring the taxpayers to shoulder the burden of paying for things that otherwise would be the responsibility of the mineral lessees. And, CBO says nothing about Section 29, which deals with oil shale. Colorado has lots of oil shale, so we have a special interest in the subject. But it's important for the whole country, as an energy resource, and it's important to all taxpayers because most of it, as Federal property, belongs to them. That means that all the taxpayers have an interest in how it is developed and what return they the taxpayers, will get for this resource. And both those interests--in oil shale as an energy source and in fair treatment for the taxpayers--are reflected in current law. Specifically, section 369(o) of the 2005 Energy Policy Act says the Secretary of the Interior will set royalties and other payments for oil shale leases at levels that will do two things--first, ``encourage development'' of oil shale; and, second, ``ensure a fair return to the United States,'' meaning to the taxpayers. I was not a big fan of most parts of last year's energy bill, but I think that provision is good policy. So, I am troubled that part of section 29 of this bill would repeal it and replace it with what can only be described as legislative price fixing. The relevant part of section 29 starts by telling the Secretary of the Interior to ``model'' tar sand and oil shale royalties on the royalty program now used in one Canadian province. But then it goes on to say that the Secretary would have to reduce the actual rates in accordance with ``a sliding scale'' based on a complicated formula based on the monthly average price of ``NYMEX West Texas Intermediate crude oil at Cushing, Oklahoma.'' I'm not an expert on oil prices, but it's easy to understand what is involved here. It's Congressional micromanagement in the form of legislating a formula for royalty rates. It's an attempt to have Congress--not the Secretary--decide a very technical issue that could affect a lot of money. And it's the kind of thing that should raise suspicions in anybody who cares about making sure the taxpayers get a fair shake, especially because the supporters of the bill have made it clear that they put more emphasis on encouraging production than on ensuring that the Federal Government-- and the local Governments with whom the revenues are to be shared--will get a fair return. As the Interior Department proceeds to implement the current law, there will be ample opportunity for all of us to weigh in if we think the Secretary is not doing a good job in setting royalty rates. In the meantime, I think Congress should not try to set the rate through legislation. That was why I opposed including a similar provision in the reconciliation legislation when the Resources Committee debated it earlier this year, and why I was glad when it was finally dropped from that legislation. But, like a bad penny, it turned up again in this bill--and is still the same bad idea as before. So, in committee I offered an amendment to strike this attempt at long-term political price-fixing, and to replace it with the language of the current law that says the Secretary is to set royalties that will encourage development and ensure a fair return to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, that amendment was not adopted, either, which is another reason I cannot support the bill. In fairness, I should note that the bill does include some worthwhile provisions. One example is the provisions aimed at closing OCS royalty- rate loopholes that have unduly reduced the return to the taxpayers. Another is section 23, which deals with support for accredited petroleum and mining schools, applied geology and geophysics programs, and individuals pursuing degrees in petroleum and mining engineering and related subjects. Overall, though, the bill's good parts are so outweighed by its defects that I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Space Environment Center is a part of NOAA's National Weather Service, and it is the only civil provider of space weather warnings. These warnings enable government and private sector operators to take actions to minimize disruptions in service and damage to critical infrastructure. Last year, the Space Environment Center received a $4 million cut, a cut of about 44 percent from its $7 million budget. NOAA, in order to prevent degradation of services reprogrammed funds from other programs to continue the operations of the Space Environment Center. But in this cycle, if the Center receives $5 million as proposed in the bill, it will be forced to make substantial cuts in its staffing. As a national critical system, should the capabilities of the center go down, the Air Force currently provides data as a back-up. However, with this proposed budget, the center will not be able to maintain a liaison position with the Air Force, potentially harming its operations and the continuity of its services. So, in that spirit, with that background, Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. Would you agree that the space weather warnings are a vital service to many of our space-based assets and that more funding is needed for the Space Environment Center? And if so, would you be willing to work in conference to increase funding for the center?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's response and willingness to work on this issue. I thank my colleague, Mr. Mollohan, from the great State of West Virginia for yielding time to me.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Wolf, of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I had offered to introduce an amendment today to make a modest increase of $2.2 million for the Space Environment Center, returning its funding to the President's requested level of $7.2 million. However, Mr. Chairman, after discussing this with your staff, I have decided not to offer the amendment but would like to engage you in a colloquy.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with this bill and regret that I cannot support it. I do not support repeal of the estate tax, but I have long supported reforming it. So, I took hope when I heard that the Republican leadership had decided to abandon its misguided drive for its permanent repeal and to focus instead on its revision. I hoped that at last we would have a chance to vote on a measure that would strike the right balance, protecting family-owned ranches, farms, and other small businesses while recognizing the need for fiscal responsibility in a time of war. But when I reviewed the details of the bill now before us--even to the limited extent that was possible--I realized that once again I had hoped in vain. The bill would exempt the first $10 million of an estate for a couple ($5 million for an individual) and would link the estate tax rate to the capital gains rate, which is currently 15 percent, but which is slated to return to 20 percent after 2010. Under the bill, the value of an estate under $25 million would be taxed at the capital gains rate, and the portion above $25 million would be taxed at two times the capital gains rate. While this is different in some ways from previous versions, it does not represent a true compromise. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the bill would reduce revenues by $280 billion between 2007 and 2016, with a reduction of $61 billion, or 75 percent as much as full repeal, in 2016. In other words, the revenue reduction from this bill would be greater--65 percent greater--than simply making the 2009 rates permanent. And to make matters worse, the bill includes some unrelated provisions that are even less fiscally responsible, most notably a special capital gains tax break for timber companies that well could result in profitable companies paying no tax at all. Under current law, if a tree-owning company cuts and sells some of its trees, the income is taxable as regular corporate income. But this bill would allow those companies to exclude 60 percent of that income from tax. The result would be to restore a loophole that was closed when President Reagan signed the landmark tax reform act of 1986. Before that, the largest paper and wood products corporations benefited from favorable treatment to a remarkable extent. For example, one of those companies told its shareholders that for the period of 1981 to 1983 it made $641 million in U.S. profits--but it not only paid no taxes but in fact had so many excess tax breaks it actually received $139 billion in tax rebates. Another company reported $167 million in pretax profits, yet instead of paying part of that in federal income tax, it got $8 million in tax rebates. And another reported $400 million in pretax profits, but instead of paying taxes, got $99 million in tax rebates. In 1986, recognizing the unfairness of this kind of legal tax avoidance, Congress closed the loophole. But this bill would undo that reform, bringing back an exclusion for timber income that strongly resembles the pre-1986 tax break. The bill says this change would be temporary, sun setting at the end of 2008, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that during that two-plus year period it would reduce revenues by $940 million. But if this tax break is extended--and we can be sure its beneficiaries will lobby for its extension beyond 2008--the long-term cost to the Treasury will certainly be more. I oppose these provisions, which I think should not be part of this or any other legislation. My opposition to this bill does not mean I am opposed to reducing estate taxes. I supported an alternative that would have raised the amount of an estate excluded from taxes to $6 million per couple and increased this to $7 million by 2009. This not only would have provided relief for small businesses and family farmers, but it would have done so in a much more fiscally responsible way, because it would have reduced revenues by much less than this bill. It also would have simplified estate-tax planning for married couples, who could carry over any unused exemption to the surviving spouse and so assured that the full $7 million would be available. Furthermore, that alternative would have transferred the revenue from the estate tax to strengthen the Social Security trust fund, a change that, according to the Social Security Actuary, would solve one quarter of the trust fund's shortfall. But, unfortunately, the Republican leadership actively worked against that alternative and so my hopes for that true, reasonable compromise were thwarted. As a result, I have no responsible choice but to oppose this bill and to hope that as the legislative process continues it will be sufficiently revised that I can support it. Time will tell whether that hope, too, will be in vain.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise with great respect for my friends on my side of the aisle when it comes to this proposal today. I took an interest in this starting 2 years ago when it seemed to me we needed some additional tools to bring these budget deficits under control. We have gone from surpluses to enormous deficits, and from reducing our national debt to increasing the debt tax on our children; and it is my opinion that this bill will help us begin to bring our budget back into balance. As has been mentioned here, it follows the approach of our former colleague Charlie Stenholm, and it also mirrors what 43 Governors have, as our friend Congressman Castle mentioned earlier today. It also mirrors a bill that I introduced in the last Congress as well. So, in sum, this will promote accountability. It will promote transparency. It is a small start. I believe that it balances the constitutional responsibilities between the President and the Congress; and perhaps if we pass this today, then we create some momentum so that we move toward putting PAYGO back in place and reining in the earmark situation that we now face in this Congress that in part has led us to these enormous deficits. So let's pass this. Let's work together. Let's find a way to balance the budget and not pass on the debt tax to our children. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and, again, I rise in support of this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, over the last 5 years we've seen a dramatic change in the Federal budget--a change for the worse. We've gone from budget surpluses to big deficits, and from reducing the national debt to increasing the ``debt tax'' on our children. There's no mystery about how this happened. Partly, it was caused by a recession. Partly, it was caused by the increased spending needed for national defense, homeland security, and fighting terrorism. And in part it was caused by excessive and unbalanced tax cuts the president pushed for and Congress passed. This bill does not directly address those major causes of our budgetary problems. Fixing them will take long-term work on several fronts, including taxes. And it will take stronger medicine than this--such as restoring the ``PAYGO'' rules that helped bring the budget into balance in the past. That's why I thought the House should have been able to at least debate a stronger version of this bill, in the form of the substitute proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt. And that's why I voted against the Republican leadership's restrictive rule that prevents even debating that substitute. But, even so, I support this bill because it can help, at least a little, to promote transparency and accountability about spending items and tax breaks. We have heard a lot of talk about spending ``earmarks''--meaning spending based on proposals by Members of Congress instead of the Administration. Some people are opposed to all earmarks--but I am not one of them. I think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and I think Congress as a whole has the responsibility to decide how tax dollars are spent. And earmarks can help fund nonprofits and other private-sector groups to do jobs that Federal agencies are not able to do as well. In short, not all earmarks are bad. In fact, I have sought earmarks for various items that have benefited Coloradans--and I intend to keep on doing that. And a similar case can be made for targeted tax breaks, as well. Still, we all know some bills have included spending earmarks or special tax breaks that might not have been approved if they were considered separately. That's why the President--like his predecessors--has asked for the kind of ``line-item veto'' that can be used by Governors in Colorado and several other States. And that's why about 10 years ago Congress actually passed a law intended to give President Clinton that kind of authority. But the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that the legislation was unconstitutional. And I think the Court got it right. I think trying to allow the President to in effect repeal a part of a law he has already signed--and saying it takes a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress to restore that part--went too far. I think that kind of line-item veto would undermine the checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches of the government. So, I could not support that kind of line-item veto. But this bill is different. It is a practical, effective--and, best of all, Constitutional-- version of a line-item veto. It is not unprecedented. It follows the approach of legislation passed by the House of Representatives several times during the Clinton administration under the leadership of our former colleague Charlie Stenholm and others, including Tom Carper, Tim Penny and John Kasich. It also is similar to bills I introduced under the heading of measures to ``Stimulate Leadership in Cutting Expenditures,'' or ``SLICE.'' Under this bill--as under SLICE--the President could identify specific spending items he thinks should be cut--and Congress would have to vote, up or down, on whether to cut each of them. Current law says the President can ask Congress to rescind--that is, cancel--spending items. But Congress can ignore those requests, and often has done so. This bill would change that. It says if the President proposes a specific cut, Congress can't duck--it would have to vote on it, and if a majority approved the cut, that would be that. So, it would give the President a bright spotlight of publicity he could focus on earmarks or special tax breaks, and it would force Congress to debate those items on their merits. That would give the President a powerful tool--but it also would retain the balance between the Executive and Legislative branches. I think that is very important, and I appreciate having had the opportunity to work with Mr. Ryan and others to fine-tune the bill while it was being considered in committee. I think the result has been to improve the bill considerably. Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution Congress is primarily accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars are spent. By making the taxing and spending processes more transparent and specific, this bill can promote that accountability. Of course, without knowing what the President might propose to rescind, I don't know if I would support some, all, or any of his proposals. But I do know that people in Colorado and across the country think there should be greater transparency about our decisions on taxing and spending. And I know that they are also demanding that we be ready to take responsibility for those decisions. This bill will promote both transparency and accountability, and so I urge its approval.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that East High School from Denver, CO, placed third in the national finals competition of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.'' From April 29 to May 1, 2006, approximately 1,200 students from across the country participated in the 19th annual We the People competition-- the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The We the People program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. The We the People national finals are a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which the students ``testify'' before a panel of judges on constitutional topics. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. In Colorado, I have made a priority of dispatching my staff to serve as ``judges'' in competitions at all levels within my district and throughout the State. Through them I can attest to the skill, intellect and diligence that characterize the East High School team. Congratulations to the members of the East High School team: Michelle Buchanan, Darien Combs, Lila Creighton, Paula Davis, Joshua Figueroa, Sophia Galleher, Rose Green, Jonathon Hammond, Meghan Harrington, Kathryn Havranek, Than Hedman, Collin Hornsby, Noah Hubbell, Mackenzie Jacobs, Elizabeth Kochevar, Clay Lemar, Zach Levek, Christopher Linsmayer, Elise Mann, Gabe Mann, Logan McHenry, Tyler McNamara, Sarah McNaughton, Zena Price-Broncucia, Rachel Romer, Claire Sanderson, Cary Shapiro, Amy Stanesco, Amy Steinhoff, Alex Stevens, Zachary Susel, Elizabeth Trower, and Will VanTreuren. I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Ms. Edna Sutton, who was responsible for preparing the class for the national finals competition. Also worthy of special recognition are Ms. Jackie Johnson, the State coordinator, and Mr. Loyal Darr, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People program in my district. I am an unequivocal supporter of the We the People program. Nothing is more important to a healthy democracy than a civicly educated and informed citizenry. East High School's team is a shining example of the bright future of tomorrow's leaders. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues in the House, please join me in congratulating these young constitutional experts for their outstanding achievement.