Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, this amendment will undo an important provision of the Bankruptcy Code that was enacted just 2 years ago in the bipartisan Bankruptcy Abuse, Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. It will increase risk for student lending, risk that the lending market will respond to by restricting the availability of credit.

The bankruptcy law currently allows student loans to be discharged if the graduate is facing an undue hardship. This policy provides balance by protecting truly unfortunate graduates, while still preserving the integrity of student loans.

This amendment will eviscerate this policy by removing the undue hardship requirement for private sector student loans, allowing these loans to be discharged 5 years after graduation. Federally guaranteed loans can still be discharged only upon a showing of undue hardship. Accordingly, the private market, which is the most sensitive to risk, bears the burden of this change. Students looking for loans in the future will have a hard time finding them. Inevitably, students would encounter higher interest rates, shorter payment periods, and other more restrictive lending terms as lenders look to avoid potential losses in bankruptcy.

The amendment, in short, would damage, not advance, the cost of education. There is no free lunch and there is no free bankruptcy. We can do better for our students, and we can do better for our system of higher education. This amendment would undo an important provision of the Bankruptcy Code enacted just 2 years ago. If there is one thing that is important in commercial law, including bankruptcy law, it's stability. Lenders and investors must have confidence that Congress will not constantly change the rules of the game.

We will send the wrong message if a mere 2 years after BAPCPA's passage we begin to tinker with the provisions of the new bankruptcy law. Regrettably, the pattern is already beginning to emerge in this Congress. It can and should be stopped.

Capricious treatment of creditors in bankruptcy can have only one effect, the chilling of lending and investment. Changes in the Bankruptcy Code ought to receive the scrutiny of the Judiciary Committee. Since the Davis amendment is not being considered by the Judiciary Committee, the congressional experts on bankruptcy have had no opportunity to vet it through in regular order. This amendment will do more harm than good and will affect the availability of student loans in the future.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to start out by thanking Chairman Conyers, who has worked extraordinarily hard for a very long period of time, as he pointed out, on this bill; and also Mr. Danny Davis, who has been a real brick and worked very hard on this.

I rise in support of this concurrent resolution making corrections to H.R. 1593, the Second Chance Act of 2007.

On November 13, 2007, the House passed the Second Chance Act of 2007. This resolution makes technical changes in three sections of the bill.

First, the resolution modifies sections 111 and 112 to require that States pay no less than 50 percent of grant funds to establish reentry courts and the Prosecution Drug Treatment Alternative program.

Second, the resolution eliminates in section 231(g) the technical requirement that eligible elderly prisoners who qualify for early release also satisfy the existing law for the compassionate release program.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Second Chance Act. This is an important bill not only to ex-offenders but to our communities and families.

This bill is a modest, commonsense response to the increasing number of offenders returning to our communities each year.

The Second Chance Act is a bipartisan approach to prisoner reentry that will better coordinate Federal agencies and policies on prisoner reentry with an eye towards less crime and taxpayer savings.

The Second Chance Act addresses important areas for offenders and communities, including: jobs, housing, substance abuse, mental health treatment, and support for families.

This legislation brings together State and local governments to work together on the problem of prisoner reentry.

A modest expenditure to help transition offenders back into their communities can save taxpayers millions of dollars in the long run because the cost of paying for inmates is a serious burden to our citizens.

The average cost to house a Federal inmate is over $25,000 a year. If we can reduce recidivism we can save taxpayers millions of dollars.

I supported the Second Chance Act when our former colleague Representative Rob Portman introduced the bill in 2004. He should be acknowledged for his diligent work on this important issue and paving the way for us to be here today.

After Mr. Portman left Congress, I took over as the primary sponsor and this Congress I cosponsored this legislation for the reasons I have stated.

I believe there are some fundamental ideas that we hold as Americans.

The first is that there is a God and that we will all at some point face divine judgment.

You don't have to believe in God to be an American, but most Americans, believers or not, when given a choice will support limiting government to promote the welfare of their fellow man.

For believers like me, this legislation does that.

It is part of our Judeo-Christian ethics that we have a responsibility to care for widows, orphans and those less fortunate, including, always and explicitly, prisoners.

The issues addressed in the Second Chance Act are not only safety and cost savings but reflect a moral imperative.

The President laid out in his State of the Union Address in 2004 the need for this bill, stating, ``America is the land of second chance and when the gates of prison open, the path should lead to a better life.''

This bill will give those released from prison a better chance to improve their circumstances by turning away from crime and turning into productive contributing citizens.

I want to thank Congressman Danny Davis, Chairman Conyers, Judiciary Ranking Member Lamar Smith and Congressman Sensenbrenner, Congressman Forbes, and Congressman Coble for their work and leadership on this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support the Second Chance Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, as Veteran's Day approaches, I rise in strong support of all who have ever worn the uniform. From the fields of Bunker Hill to the streets of Baghdad, and everywhere in between, American service members represent the very best of our Nation and deserve more than we can ever repay. But today I want to pay particular tribute to a resident of my district who is part of an elite club-- Ernal Underwood is one of twelve Pearl Harbor survivors currently living in the State of Utah.

Mr. Underwood joined the Navy on January 7, 1941. Less than 1 year later Mr. Underwood found himself docked at Pearl Harbor on the USS Helena. On December 7, 1941 an aerial torpedo struck the USS Helena while Mr. Underwood was climbing down a ladder below the deck, on his way to write his wife a letter.

After his ship was hit, Mr. Underwood immediately ran to his battle station, picked up his weapon, and engaged the enemy. Mr. Underwood fired until his gun became too hot. After he ran to fetch a bucket of water in order to cool it down, on the way back to his station, he said he had an impression to ``stop.'' A few seconds later fire from an enemy aircraft pelted the cement on both sides of him. Fortunately, Mr. Underwood came away unscathed. Mr. Underwood's best friend was not so lucky. Later, Ernal Underwood was asked to identify the charred body of his best friend, Benjamin Vasser. Mr. Underwood found his buddy badly burned, but alive enough to blink a response to him. That was the last time Mr. Underwood would see his friend alive.

Less than 2 years later on July 6, 1943, Ernal Underwood found himself in the middle of the Kula Gulf battle in the South Pacific. That day the USS Helena suffered three direct hits from enemy torpedoes. The ship broke

into three pieces and the order to abandon ship was given. Despite three broken vertebrates, a broken ankle, and a large gash in his head, Mr. Underwood treaded water through the night and into the next day before being rescued by a Navy destroyer.

Madam Speaker, it is because of heroes like Ernal Underwood that we enjoy the freedom we have today. Men who asked nothing from their country, but gave everything. We owe them more than words, medals, or honors. What we as a Nation can do to say thank you to these heroes is leave our country and our world better than we found it. I ask that my colleagues join with me in honoring Ernal Underwood and thousands of veterans like him whose sacrifice left a world freer, stronger, and more prosperous.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I would like to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee. We have worked on this bill or ideas surrounding this bill for, I think, over 10 years now. It is now on the floor. It has been done with grace and with dignity, and I appreciate the gentleman's approach.

We come from very, very different districts. About two-thirds of my State is public lands, very little of the gentleman's State is public lands. And so we differ. We have a different approach, and I think that's very appropriate, just as the gentleman pointed out with regard to Mr. Heller and his district.

So we have differences, and we come at these things differently. And in that context, I hope that the gentleman will consider accepting my amendment. On the other hand, our colleagues here today will recognize the importance of this amendment.

My amendment would strike section 517 of the bill before us. The amendment is necessary so common consumer products remain affordable. If section 517 is not stricken, Americans will see an increase in the cost of everyday products, such as glass, ceramics, paper, plastics, rubber, detergents, insulation, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, to name just a few.

Section 517 deals with common varieties of industrial minerals. Unfortunately, this provision would put industrial minerals that are clearly identifiable as unique, and thus ``locatable,'' under the mining law into this category despite existing law that has labeled them as locatable.

Industrial minerals have been classified as locatable since 1872 under the General Mining Law. These minerals were never intended to be included in the Mineral Materials Act. The Mineral Materials Act was designed to deal with bulk sales of common deposits of sand and gravel. Moving industrial minerals into the Mineral Materials Act would make it impossible for these operations to continue to extract these unique industrial minerals.

Industrial minerals should not be treated the same as rocks and sand and gravel that can be loaded in the back of a truck and hauled away. Yet section 517 would do just that. Under the Mineral Materials Act, minerals are disposed of by non-competitive processes for small quantities and by competitive bidding contracts for terms of 10 years or less. However, it can take 50 years to extract industrial minerals, and the investment for doing that tends to be in the 50 to $100 million range.

Competitive bidding contracts of a maximum term of 10 years will remove any incentive by industrial mineral companies to research and explore for new reserves.

After spending resources to discover reserves; and if also awarded the contract, the company will not be guaranteed the necessary time to actually extract the minerals and develop the resource. This will force our mining industry to move overseas and will result in the loss of thousands of high-paying jobs here in America.

Not only will section 517 create uncertainty for mine operators but will also impose a significant administrative burden on BLM.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

In the first place, I believe that what the gentleman was just talking about was metallurgical-grade silica and different from the summary we've just had.

I think, though, in response to his main argument, it is an amazing comment on the bulk of this bill that the producers of industrial minerals prefer to be under the new regime than to be under the uncertainty that would be created. They need certainty to develop minerals over 50 years instead of 10 years. And so while the gentleman's comment is well taken, I would suggest to him that the industry actually prefers my amendment, regardless of the fact that it incurs these other burdens.

And, finally, I would take exception to the reference of this as a scam. The fact that we don't have tax dollars coming to the Treasury based upon reserves that are being developed does not mean that Americans aren't better off because they have lower prices for paper, which requires kaolin, a locatable clay that makes paper cheaper.

So this is a matter of policy; it is not a matter of scams. And I urge my colleagues to recognize that, to recognize the burdens that this would create on very common products that we produce with these locatable minerals, and to vote in support of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Utah, my colleague, for recognizing me and organizing this event, and you've seen his blue chart. I grew up thinking that blue meant Republicans. We had this anomaly here recently, because red normally meant the Soviets. I have here a map of the United States, and when Ronald Reagan saw this map it was in red, that is, the public lands that you see mostly in the western part of the United States were in red. He looked at that and he compared that to a Soviet state, and he said he'd never seen so much government domination as is expressed by that since the Soviet Union.

So, not being partisan about these issues, which are really in fact not partisan, let me just suggest that there is something terrifically wrong with the Federal Government owning so much of these States. You can see that in Nevada, 93 percent of the State is owned by the Federal Government. In Utah, it's over 70 percent. In California, it's about 50 percent. This is a huge amount of public ownership of our lands.

As a result, you can see also that the ownership by the Federal Government is spread around the whole United States. In fact, there are about 19,000 counties in the United States that have public lands of some sort in them, and in those counties the Federal Government pays to those counties money that substitutes for the taxes that those counties would otherwise receive. We call this payment in lieu of taxes, and it's fair.

It's fair in the East where we have small amounts of land and the payments are substantial, but it's not fair in the West where we've taken a vast amount of public lands out of the system, and therefore, States can't actually have any kind of revenue stream from those public lands.

Now, the blue map that you saw that represented how much of the Western States is owned by the Federal Government is interesting, and Mr. Bishop I think is going to come back and talk about this startling fact, but it is clear that all of the people in the Western part of the country pay more in the way of taxes per family, per capita and otherwise, than in the eastern part of the country.

It's also clear that in the western part of the country, where we have this domination of Federal lands, that we pay less per pupil for schools than people in the East do. So we tax more and we pay less, and the reason we do that is because of the ownership of public lands by the Federal Government.

This leaves us in a difficult circumstance where it's just plain harder to grow in the West. Now, I've got to count my State, which is by many measures the best place in the country to do business, and I don't want to suggest there's a problem there. In fact, we love our public lands because people can go out and recreate, and that's why people who are high-tech and others want to come to Utah. It's a great place to live and to work and be. But you have to buy into the fact that if the Federal Government owns that property, you have to pay more in the way of taxes.

I have many friends who live in the Northeast who have said to me over time, these are America's lands. And if you look at the map, you have got a little bit of New Hampshire and Maine and there's a sprinkling around here in the eastern part of the country. But when they talk about America's lands, they're talking about the public lands in the West.

I spent some time at Disneyland one day with my wife and kids, and that can be very long and painful. We finally got into the ``Honey, I Shrunk the Kids'' exhibit, and I thought as we got to the door that we were almost ready to get on the ride, but then we got through the door and we had a long, long, half-an-hour-long line to wait through to get into the exhibit.

I was uptight, irritated. They had to pass by people like me. They had pictures of America flashing on the walls, and I noticed a picture from my district. I thought, well, that's nice. Two pictures later there is another picture from my district. Three pictures later there was another. The fact is, we have beautiful, beautiful lands in the West, and we welcome everyone to come out and join us on those lands.

But if they are America's lands, then we have a responsibility as Americans to pay the costs of those lands. If we are not going to use them productively, if we are not going to tax them for productive use, then we have an obligation in America to pay for those lands.

Is that a handout or a hand in our pockets by the Federal Government? This is, in fact, not a handout at all.

Every county in the country taxes its public lands. Every county does. Every

State has a regime for taxing public lands. But we can't, because the Federal Government is sovereign, we can't tax lands that are owned by the Federal Government.

So if you want people to be there for search-and-rescue when you get lost in some of the beautiful parts of my county or my State, we expect to be paid for that. It's not an expectation that's vacuous or whiny, it's an expectation based upon what we are giving up in these western States and in Utah, in particular.

I thank the gentleman. In fact, I paid, I think, $3.09 the last time I bought gas. When I took my daughter, one of my daughters up to school about 5 years ago, there was a gas war. We had low prices. It may have been 6 years ago. I paid 75 cents a gallon for gas and of that 75 cents, 42 cents was tax. We are not paying 42 cents on a gallon of gas that is over $3.

These are amazing numbers. Why we are there? Well, we are there because we have had policies that have restricted the development of oil and gas. There are two things I want to comment on just quickly in response to that question.

The first is that we have 250 billion tons of coal in America representing about 6 or 800 billion barrels of gasoline if we did coal- to-liquids. A lot of people know that we are the Saudi Arabia of the world for coal, but very few people understand that we have more oil in our shale that's easily recoverable in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah than exists in all of Saudi Arabia.

If you look at the more difficult or more expensive to recover from shale, it's two or three times everything that you have in the Middle East. If we could just develop the oil that's in our shale, we would do remarkably well for America.

Let me just give you a sense of this. In other words, think of all the oil that comes out of Saudi Arabia, all the oil that comes out of Venezuela, all the oil that comes out of Mexico. We could easily replace that at a teeny fraction of the oil we have available in shale in this country. By the way, you asked the question, Mr. Bishop, is it possible to actually get the oil out of that shale?

Well, the Estonians have been doing it for 60 years. They have been producing oil out of shale for 60 years. The shale that we have in Utah is better, has much more oil, and, in fact, in 60 years, we have made massive progress technologically. The answer is unequivocal. We can do it.

The Federal Government owns the bulk of this shale. We need to assure that we can do it quickly without the kind of burdens. Let me just take a moment to tell you, we have a mine in Utah, it cost $330 million to develop that mine in 1977. The first thing I did when I came to Congress was to stop the BLM from spending $50 million to shut that mine up so it would be, as they said, safe.

We have now released that mine, but it has taken almost 2 years in a mine that's already developed to get to the point of licensing that so the people that lease the mine can produce. Their production is based on a very narrow, limited set of circumstances. We are in the way. The Federal Government is in the way of energy self-sufficiency for the United States. The people of America ought to say we want to get out of the way.

By the way, for the people of America, this body is actually an interesting place. People do what Americans want us to do. If you want cheaper oil, tell your Congressman to get with it and help us change the policies so we can develop our oil, particularly the oil and gas in the shale in the United States.

I know that Mr. Peterson is going to talk about oil and gas.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3564. I would like to, first of all, thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on this issue. I appreciate working with her.

I am delighted that H.R. 3564, which would reauthorize the Administrative Conference of the United States, is being considered on the floor today. I urge support of this measure. I also urge the Appropriations Committee to appropriate funds to ACUS so that this organization can once again become a living, breathing reality.

Madam Speaker, I am a believer in the adage that the government that governs best governs least; but when the government does govern, it must govern as its best. ACUS is just the organization to help us achieve that goal. Before its funding ceased some years ago, it laid down a decades-long track record of productive activity that was remarkable, unmistakable, and probably unparalleled.

Over the course of its 28-year existence, the conference issued more than 200 recommendations, some of which were governmentwide and others that were agency specific. It issued a series of recommendations eliminating a variety of technical impediments to the judicial review of agency action and encouraging less costly consensual alternatives to litigation.

The fruits of these efforts include the enactment of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990, which established a framework for the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution. In addition to this legislation, ACUS served as the key implementing agency for the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty- Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act. The Conference also made recommendations regarding implementation of the Congressional Accountability Act and played a key role in the Clinton administration's National Performance Review with respect to improving regulatory systems.

Madam Speaker, time and again, ACUS took the small amount of taxpayer funds that we appropriated and produced enormous savings in the costs incurred and imposed by Federal regulatory agencies. That record is so clear that I can say with absolute confidence that, if we were not to authorize ACUS, we would effectively authorize waste in the rest of the Federal Government. I can say with equal confidence that if the Appropriations Committee were not to appropriate funds to ACUS after the Congress passes this bill, it would effectively appropriate waste by the Federal Government to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars.

Many of you may know my enthusiasm for ACUS, and it will not surprise you that hordes of experts, officials and stakeholders outside of these walls, share that same enthusiasm as well, including Justices Scalia and Breyer, both of whom worked with ACUS in an earlier part of their careers.

To quote just one legal luminary, ``If the conference didn't exist, it would have to be invented.'' Thankfully, we don't need to invent it. We did that long ago. We know it was a great invention. All we need to do is to reauthorize it today and to appropriate funds for it.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 721, which recognizes the 60th anniversary of Mendez v. Westminster decision, which ended the segregation of Mexican and Mexican American students in California schools.

I would like to take a moment to thank the gentlewoman and chairman of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee for her statement. She and her sister, who is also on the floor with us today, are remarkable people. They may have come to Congress under even different circumstances, but it is good for America that this impediment was removed from their lives and the lives of many other people of Mexican and Mexican American descent here in the United States.

All Americans should understand that, along with Brown v. Board of Education, many Federal court decisions signaled our country's shift away from the obnoxious principle of ``separate but equal.'' One such decision was Mendez v. Westminster in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a decision by the full court, held that the segregation of Mexican and Mexican American students into separate so-called ``Mexican schools'' was unconstitutional.

That decision in 1945 vindicated the rights of a group of children of Mexican American fathers, Thomas Estrada, William Guzman, Frank Palomino, Lorenzo Ramirez, led by Gonzalo Mendez, who challenged the practice of school segregation in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles and began a journey that led Mexican Americans nationwide to greater equality.

Those courageous and loving fathers stood for themselves and for some 5,000 others, all citizens of the United States of Mexican descent. As the court held: ``By enforcing the segregation of school children of Mexican descent against their will and contrary to the laws of California, respondents have violated Federal law as provided in the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution by depriving them of liberty and property without due process of law and by denying to them the equal protection of the laws.''

Following that decision, in 1947 California Governor and future Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren signed into law a repeal of the last remaining school segregation statutes in the California Education Code.

Before those loving fathers brought the case of Mendez v. Westminster, there was a crack in the American melting pot. Their courageous actions repaired that crack, brought all Americans closer, and brought America closer to her most cherished ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Ms. Loretta Sanchez as she spoke of the importance of this remembrance today. It is important as Americans that we look back and understand. Life was not always as it is now. It has been different. America is a better place, and this bill is one that commemorates why we are a much better place today. I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge you to support the Patent Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 1908.

Certain aspects of our patent system have not been amended since 1954, but our economy has changed dramatically since then and it's time our patent system caught up.

H.R. 1908 was introduced and is supported by the bipartisan leadership of the Judiciary Committee and was approved by the committee in a unanimous voice vote.

For the sake of our Nation's ability to innovate, grow and compete, we must pass this legislation.

The danger of not reforming our patent system is real and we are witnessing its effects today.

Patents of questionable validity are limiting competition and raising prices for consumers--a fact noted by the Federal Trade Commission in a 2003 report.

In addition, current interpretations of patent law by district and appellate courts have veered far from what Congress originally intended.

The result is that companies are diverting resources from R&D to pay for legal defense.

Because interpretations of patent law are so off-course, the U.S. Supreme Court has had to intervene in an unusually high number of patent cases in recent years.

In one case, the Court explicitly called for Congress to take action.

We have been debating patent reform for years. Such issues as post- grant review and damages apportionment have been components of various patent reform bills in the House and Senate over the course of the last several sessions and have been discussed at length in nearly every forum, from Congressional hearings to the media.

One issue that generated the most debate in previous Congresses-- injunctions--was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 in much the same way as proposed legislation would have done.

Yet despite predictions from some that reforming the standards for granting injunctions would grind innovation to a halt, patent holders still are granted injunctions today to protect their intellectual property. In fact, the patent system is healthier as a result.

H.R. 1908 will restore fairness and common sense to the standards for awarding reasonable damages.

Today, patent holders regularly are awarded damages based on the value of an entire product, even if the patent in question is one of literally thousands of other patented components comprising the product.

Additionally, H.R. 1908 will give trained patent examiners greater ability to review patents and enhance patent quality.

Innovation is indeed threatened not by changes to the system, but by the status quo.

After years of debate, it's time for action.

One area of particular interest to me is the language in the manager's amendment dealing with venue reform.

I am pleased the Chairman included venue reform language in the manager's amendment.

At the Judiciary Committee, Representative Zoe Lofgren of California offered an amendment that I cosponsored that would inject sanity into the patent litigation system.

The venue reform language will create a real and substantial relationship between the parties and the acts of infringement by denying the ability to manufacture venue for hopes of gaming the judicial system.

During years of efforts on litigation reform, we have learned about what some have referred to as Judicial Hell Holes.

These locations are where judges apply laws and procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner.

The underlying legislation's intent is to bring fairness and balance into the patent system.

And the venue language will bring fairness and balance to patent litigation.

This amendment will not close the court house door on any plaintiff.

But it will require legitimate nexus for where claims may be brought.

The nexus requirements of the amendment will prevent groups or entities from artificially manipulating presence in a judicial district just to game the system to file suit.

Swift passage of H.R. 1908 will stimulate innovation, competition and growth--great news for consumers, workers and our global economic leadership.

I urge support of H.R. 1908.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank first of all my colleague, Rob Bishop, for yielding me time and my colleague, Jim Matheson, for bringing this resolution before us. We appreciate his introduction. This is an area that he represents. It is an area that I have represented in the past. It's an area which I expect to represent in the future if we get the fourth, if the Senate will act on giving a vote to the District of Columbia and a fourth seat to the State of Utah.

I rise in support of this resolution and in support of the thousands of miners throughout Utah and the rest of the United States and throughout the world who undertake this difficult and dangerous work.

After weeks of watching demonstrations, videos and explanations of the process, no American can doubt the courage and dedication of these brave men and women who work in darkness so that the rest of us can work with light.

John Wayne defined courage the way a miner would define it. ``Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway.'' The miners of Utah saddle up every day, and they deserve our thanks.

Miners Kerry Allred, Don Erickson, Juan Carlos Payan, Brandon Phillips, Manuel Sanchez and Jose Luis Hernandez all ``saddled up'' in the best traditions of Utah and make us proud.

The tragedy on August 6 is indelibly imprinted on the hearts and minds of all Utahns. But as it always has in times of need, America's best responded. The rescue effort spared no expense and left no stone unturned in trying to reach the six sons of Utah trapped below. In the process three rescuers lost their lives and more were injured.

Americans should take heart to know that we have such men as Gary Jensen, Brandon Kimber, and Dale ``Bird'' Black who would risk their lives for others. The Bible tells us that greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for another. Imagine the love, dedication, and courage it takes to lay down one's life for a friend or stranger.

In moments such as these, politicians tend to try to do too much and accomplish too little. While there will be time to decide what, if anything, we need to do to ensure that such tragedies as these can be averted, now is the time for elected representatives for the people to thank those involved on behalf of the people.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, ``The true test of civilization is not the census, nor the size of cities, nor the crops, no, but the kind of man the country turns out.'' Utah and America turn out the best, and for that we thank their families, our communities, and Almighty God.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Congress has granted the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to grant temporary refuge to aliens from particular countries under temporary protected status. If there is an ongoing armed conflict in the country and the return of nationals would pose a serious threat to their security, if there has been a natural disaster in the country resulting in a substantial but temporary disruption of living conditions, or if there exists extraordinary temporary conditions in their country that prevent aliens from returning in safety, the Secretary can grant TPS status to the nationals for as long as 18 months. He can later extend the TPS period for additional periods of as long as 18 months.

Nationals of Liberia have been granted TPS because of civil unrest in Liberia; however, that status expires on October 1 of this year. This legislation would direct the Secretary to extend TPS to nationals of Liberia through September 30, 2008. I support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to support this bipartisan legislation. S. 975, which approves an interstate firefighting compact, is certain to accomplish great things for the States involved.

This compact would facilitate the rapid sharing of desperately needed firefighting resources between the States of South Dakota, North Dakota, Colorado, and Wyoming to combat wildfires that each State could not handle alone.

Those of us from Western States know all too well the menace to human lives, property, wildlife, and the grand natural beauty of our Nation that these wildfires present every year. This compact would help those States fight dangers without compromising any of these States' abilities to protect against fires at home and without impinging on any Federal firefighting authorities.

To facilitate coordination with the Federal authorities, this compact would allow representatives of the U.S. Forest Service to participate as observers of the compact's meetings. The compact is modeled on a similar compact for the Pacific Northwest, to which Congress consented in 1998.

I urge you to support this legislation so that we do not lose a single minute in helping these States to fight fires and benefit this compact's vital provisions.

I am pleased to present this legislation because interstate compacts is an area of the House Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction, and I would like to invigorate that. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, which has jurisdiction over interstate compacts, I hope to see more interest in this area as a powerful tool for States to work together in a cooperative manner to deal effectively with the cross-jurisdictional policy issues that are arising in our country. I am sure that the subcommittee Chair, Linda Sanchez, shares this desire; and I look forward to working with her more in this important area.

All around the country, there are many compacts addressing a myriad of issues, from the most cutting-edge climate change issues to the most mundane tax issues. These compacts must under the Constitution be presented to Congress for consent before the States may enter into them. I commend the States involved in this compact for doing things the right way in bringing this compact to Congress for consent.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and then to come to visit the natural wonders in these States that this compact is sure to help protect.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, every year approximately 40,000 people in the United States die in road crashes. The number worldwide is even more devastating, over 1.2 million. These tragedies are overwhelming to the victims and their families and lead to numerous unintended physical, emotional and financial hardships.

H. Con. Res. 87 supports a world day of remembrance for road crash victims on the third Saturday of every November. According to the World Health Organization, 90 percent of motorist-related deaths occur in low and middle income countries. The countries are in need of improved road systems, increased prevention initiatives, and education programs for new drivers.

Too many of these road crash fatalities can be prevented through legislation, consistent enforcement and better education on the use of safety precautions such as seatbelts, child restraints and helmets. Drunk driving prevention programs and campaigns such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving are useful tools to bring awareness to such tragedies.

Communities and families worldwide must work together to prevent road crashes and related deaths. These traffic accidents injure or disable more than 50 million people. It is time we take these numbers into perspective to end dangerous and life-threatening vehicle crashes.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 87.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, Dr. Karl Carson, a father, musician and public servant, led an honorable life of community service. Over the years the tremendous contributions he made to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, certainly merit the naming of a post office in his honor.

Dr. Karl Carson was born in 1915 in Wichita, Kansas. He was raised on a dairy farm and milked cows each day before leaving for school. While in high school, he met his wife Wilma Schull, with whom he had five children. Dr. Carson demonstrated a deep devotion to his family as a loving husband, father and grandfather.

He attended Fort Collins State University in Kansas on a music scholarship and paid for his education by singing at weddings and other social occasions.

After graduating, he served honorably in the U.S. Navy Reserve during World War II as a communications officer aboard the USS Strive. This service marked the beginning of a lifetime of serving his community and country.

After the conclusion of his military service, Dr. Carson received a doctorate degree in dental surgery from the University of Nebraska. In 1954, he moved to Fort Collins, Colorado, with his family and established his own dental practice. Dr. Carson enjoyed a successful 43-year long dental career. He was recognized for his excellence in dentistry by the Colorado Dental Association in 1991 with a Distinguished Service Award.

In 1965, Dr. Carson began his noteworthy career of public service as a member of the Fort Collins City Council. He was subsequently elected by the City Council to be mayor in 1968.

During his mayoral term, he initiated a program called Designing Tomorrow Today, which was the catalyst for building the downtown library, city hall and the Lincoln Center. Dr. Carson also regarded his support of adding fluoride to Fort Collins water supply as one of his greatest achievements.

Dr. Carson will be remembered for his legendary record of community service. Beyond serving as the director of downtown Fort Collins development, the Colorado League of Cities and President of the Colorado Municipal League, he was a member of the Kiwanis Club for over 60 years.

Regarded by many of the fathers of Fort Collins, Dr. Karl Carson undoubtedly left his mark on the Colorado community. Let us recognize his legacy of community service and devotion to family by naming this post office in his honor.

Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 2570.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my friend and colleague from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) has mentioned that there are 2 trillion barrels of oil. That is a conservative estimate. Estimates go way, way, way beyond that. The only way we are going to know how much oil there is is if we actually have the opportunity to unleash the creativity of the American genius to go after that oil and develop it.

Mr. Lamborn also said that we expect to have a large production by 2011, 4 or 5 years from now. The fact is, we could have big production out of shale much sooner than that if we continue on the path that we are on. If we delay, we will not have that opportunity.

I have an amendment that I am going to offer in a few minutes, and I will continue to talk about this point.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would limit the effects of the amendment by my colleagues from Colorado to Colorado.

I am deeply troubled by my colleagues' zeal to stop oil shale leasing and development in the West. Oil shale is not a new idea. In fact, the lands in question were once part of a strategic reserve. Rather than limiting our energy resources, I am offering this amendment in an attempt to make sure that Americans have the opportunity to be energy independent and to create more American jobs.

Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming hold a conservative estimate of 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Formation. We have one or two times the total crude oil reserves of the whole world and triple the amount of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Two trillion barrels of oil is enough to meet current U.S. demands for hundreds of years.

At a time when the price of consumer goods and services are soaring in large part because of the cost of energy resources, why would we intentionally hinder our ability to develop our most promising resource? It is no secret that the environmental community does not want shale development to succeed in this Nation, but we have environmental laws that are designed to protect our Federal lands. If those laws are not sufficient, let's talk about those issues as opposed to simply putting up roadblocks to this promising resource. Increased global demands, skyrocketing energy prices, geopolitical instability, concerns about peak oil production and supplies are all economic factors that we believe make oil shale an attractive natural resource to help solve our country's dependency problems.

The U.S. and world demand for oil is increasing, and we will not be able to conserve our way out of this dilemma. We must as a country look to other sources of energy. Many experts agree that oil shale in Utah can be a major part of the solution. Issues regarding environmental and community impact will need to be addressed at a local, State and Federal level and also by private industry. I believe Utah and the region can look to Canada's oil sands to see what other countries have done to develop their resources and the benefits that come with such development. Canada has invested vastly in oil sands and has seen a huge return in royalties. Oil sands are now a $20 billion-per-year industry in a remote area of Canada.

We cannot leave our constituents holding the bag on higher energy prices. Development of oil shale as well as oil, gas and renewable energy technologies will lighten the load of our constituents. Successful development of oil shale can help solve the Nation's energy dilemma and also bring millions and eventually billions of dollars to the Federal Treasury, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming through royalties and mineral lease moneys.

We have heard that we need to be energy independent. How, then, can we criticize the BLM for moving forward in helping us achieve this goal? We should be encouraging the responsible development of oil shale so that we can in part fulfill our desire to keep from relying on foreign and often unstable nations for our energy resources. These are nations that hate us and who use our American dollars to hurt our interests.

I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and resist the urge to destroy the potential of oil shale before it is developed. I would encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to allow States that want to develop oil shale, that they be allowed to develop that oil shale.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his point of order and would point out, I understand that the Governor of Colorado, a Democrat, has decided that he doesn't want oil shale development in Colorado and my Democratic colleagues have opposed oil shale development in Colorado. It is true that in Colorado there are major projects that are underway and that have begun with some small-scale demonstration projects. That is fine for Colorado. It does not make sense for America to impose on Utah and Wyoming the same concerns that the Democratic leadership of Colorado wants to have in Colorado. And so I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The fact is I think, having looked at the industry, the likelihood of significant oil shale development, oil coming out of shale, is more likely to be from entrepreneurial sources that are not dependent upon these vast, vast projects that are being done in Colorado.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

No, no. If the Udall amendment passes, then my amendment would become irrelevant. But I think under the rules of the body today, we were not able to do a second-degree amendment which is what I would have preferred. That being the case, the fact is Colorado has expressed itself I think pretty clearly here today that they don't want this development and, in fact, the case is different in Colorado than it is in Utah. I think that the opportunity for entrepreneurial development of oil shale should not be inhibited by frivolous government regulations. We have laws in place. In Utah,

we are not going to do things that don't make sense environmentally.

That is true. This would delay the development of oil shale. The Udall amendment would delay it in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. My amendment would limit that effect to just Colorado and allow Wyoming and Utah to develop their shale as they wish.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the Udall amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.