Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today with my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), to speak in favor

of H.R. 1023, the Charles ``Pete'' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act.

This bill is a thoughtful measure that establishes an awards program to encourage efforts by amateur astronomers to detect and catalog near- Earth asteroids.

As the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) pointed out, near- Earth asteroids are of interest for a number of reasons. Scientifically, they provide a window into the earliest days of the solar system. Some of the near-Earth asteroids are also thought to contain valuable minerals and ores that could be mined by future generations. Finally, there is a growing consensus that near-Earth asteroids have impacted the Earth at various times in its history, resulting in widespread extinction of animals and plants. For that reason alone, I think it makes very good sense to learn more about these objects.

NASA, of course, has been conducting research on asteroids and comets for a long time. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that the amateur astronomy community offers an important additional source of observations. Moreover, as one who is very interested in promoting science education and outreach, I believe that H.R. 1023 offers a constructive, low-cost way of stimulating public interest in astronomy.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) on his initiative. I think it is a sensible measure. I urge my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1023.

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

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

I will be brief. I just want to second what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has outlined here, that the Earth has been hit over geologic times by a number of asteroids and bodies outside the orbit of the Earth. And it would be a smart thing for us to do to better understand the potential impacts and effects.

Secondly, I just wanted to lend my voice to those of us here who admired Pete Conrad and think this is a very suitable way to keep his legacy alive and to inspire, particularly young people, as we have discussed here today, to go into this exciting world of astronomy and space exploration. Pete Conrad is a shining example of that.

It is with pride and excitement that I want to acknowledge the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). I urge all the Members to vote for this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes some items that I strongly support, and other things that I think should not have been included. On balance, I will vote for it because I think it would unrealistic and irresponsible to do otherwise.

Funding for Military Activities

Most of the money appropriated by this legislation is for our ongoing military activities, especially in Iraq. Passage of this conference report will bring the total cost of operations in Iraq to well over $200 billion--and by now, two years after President Bush prematurely announced the end of major military activities in Iraq, I think even those who have been uncritical supporters of the Administration should be deeply concerned about the escalating costs, not just in money but in casualties.

The time has come--in fact, it is long since past--for the Administration to be candid about the costs not just of the war in Iraq but of the Administration's overall foreign policy. This should be the last time that the Administration or the Congress pays those costs through a supplemental appropriation bill instead of the regular budgetary and appropriation process. The American people deserve to know in advance what they will be asked to pay to support the Administration's policies.

Nonetheless, Congress must not fail to supply our troops. Funds in this conference report will pay for more resources, including body armor and military equipment, needed to safeguard their lives. The conference report also includes important provisions to raise the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and to include a new insurance benefit of up to $100,000 for soldiers who have suffered traumatic injuries. The report also increases funding for body armor for the Army and Marines, add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision equipment, and electronic roadside-bomb jammers--and includes funding for contract linguists for the Army.

Further, there is an imperative need for this funding. The Defense Department reports that

operating funds for the Army are nearing exhaustion and that it will be necessary to transfer more than $1 billion from other accounts to continue essential activities at home and abroad until these supplemental funds are available.

In short, the choice before us today is to vote for this supplemental or, by voting against it, to in effect require an immediate halt to military operations not just in Iraq but elsewhere.

And while I remain convinced it was an error to rush into war in Iraq, I am equally convinced it would be just as much an error to rush to withdraw.

We do need a strategy to get us out--which is why I'm pleased that the conferees included language directing the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with a report that identifies security, economic, and Iraqi security force training-performance standards and goals, accompanied by a timetable for achieving these goals.

But an immediate departure is neither good strategy nor would it mean peace for Iraq.

I recently returned from my second trip to Iraq--this time as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee. As a critic of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, I did not go there to confirm my opposition to the war, but rather, to gain knowledge based on face-to- face conversations with our military leaders, the Iraqi leadership, an extraordinary group of Iraqi women, and most important for me, with our troops on the ground.

I am convinced that there can be no successful exit strategy without first doing what is needed to enable the new Iraqi government to take up the burden of providing security. That will take time and money, and in the meantime we must maintain our efforts. As the former head of American forces in northern Iraq, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, said recently, ``We don't want a rush to failure.''

So, for me, the need to support the military funding in this conference report--however unpleasant--is clear.

Other Funds

The conference report also provides funding for tsunami disaster relief as well as for assistance in Darfur, food aid to Sudan and Liberia, and for peacekeeping programs, most of which are for Sudan. Importantly, the bill appropriates the president's request of $200 million for economic development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Immigration Provisions

Other parts of the conference report are problematical, particularly the inclusion of provisions like those in the ``REAL ID Act,'' legislation that I opposed when the House passed it in February. I believe these provisions will not strengthen national security, but will create undue difficulties for asylum seekers and excessively expand the powers of the Secretary of Homeland Security. This is a controversial issue that should have been addressed separately, not incorporated into this legislation.

An editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News says this part of the conference report ``has much more to do with immigration than security'' and is just ``one piece of a policy, poorly thought out and scarcely debated at all, and likely to have unintended consequences.'' I think that is an accurate description.

The Conference report also includes a provision that would revise the H-2B visa program, under which people can come into the country legally for seasonal non-agricultural work.

Several industries in Colorado are heavily dependent on the H-2B visa program to provide seasonal employees--some in the summer and some in the winter. While most of these companies try hard to find Americans to fill these jobs, they have not been fully successful. And the current limit on the numbers of visas has made it difficult for many of them to find the people they need. So, they have been asking Congress to revise the program.

However, while I am pleased that the report attempts to provide relief to companies struggling to find eligible employees, the specific provisions have some problems and may detrimentally affect some of the companies that have employed people entering under the H-2B program. This is particularly true for companies whose busy season is in the winter, such as the ski industry. They would actually be detrimentally affected by this provision because they do not rehire the same workers every year, and thus do not benefit from the provisions in the conference report that will exempt previously hired workers from the overall limit on the number of visas.

I wrote to conferees to urge a solution to the H-2B visa problem that would be equitable for both the winter and summer industries. Regrettably, the conference report does not fully meet that test. Still, it does make a good start to addressing the H-2B visa problem. I hope that we will be able to build on this foundation in the future so as to protect the interests of both summer and winter industries.

State Regulation of Hunting and Fishing

The conference report also includes, as Section 6063, provisions to reaffirm the authority of the States and Territories to regulate hunting and fishing.

This part of the conference report is identical to the text of H.R. 731, which I introduced in the House, and to S. 339, introduced in the Senate by Senator Reid of Nevada. I applaud Senator Reid's leadership in having this included when the Senate considered this supplemental appropriations bill and I am glad that it was accepted by the conferees. It will do two things--

(1) Declare as Congressional policy that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and non-residents; and

(2) Provide that courts should not use Congressional silence as a reason to impose any commerce-clause barrier to a State's or tribe's regulation of hunting or fishing.

Its purpose is to reaffirm the authority of States and Territories to regulate hunting and fishing by resolving questions that have arisen in the wake of a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held that some Arizona limits on non-resident hunting permits had constitutional defects.

Ideally, of course, legislation of this sort should be handled through the regular authorization process, and I had hoped that the Resources Committee would have taken it up by now. However, State fish and wildlife agencies will soon be considering regulations for coming seasons, and it is important that questions about their authority be resolved without unnecessary delay.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new about a State's having different rules for resident and nonresident hunters or anglers. Colorado draws that distinction in several ways, and many other States do so as well.

And while there have been challenges to the validity of such rules, until recently the Federal courts have upheld the right of the States to make such distinctions. For example, in 1987 the Federal district court for Colorado, in the case of Terk v. Ruch (reported at 655 F. Supp. 205), rejected a challenge to Colorado's regulations that allocated to Coloradans 90% of the available permits for hunting bighorn sheep and mountain goats. But a recent Court of Appeals decision marked a change--something that definitely is new.

In that case (Conservation Force v. Manning, 301 F.3rd 985; 9th Cir. 2002), the Federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit held that Arizona's 10% cap on nonresident hunting of bull elk throughout the State and of antlered deer north of the Colorado River had enough of an effect on interstate commerce that it could run afoul of what lawyers and judges call the ``dormant commerce clause'' of the Constitution.

Having reached that conclusion, the appeals court determined that the Arizona regulation discriminated against interstate commerce--meaning the ``dormant commerce clause'' did apply and that the regulation was subject to strict scrutiny, and could be upheld only if it served legitimate State purposes and the State could show that those interests could not be adequately served by reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives.

The appeals court went on to find that the regulations did further Arizona's legitimate interests in conserving its population of game and maintaining recreational opportunities for its citizens, but it remanded the case so a lower court could determine whether the State could meet the burden of showing that reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives would not be adequate.

Because of the decision's potential implications for their own laws and regulations, it was a source of concern to many States in addition to Arizona. In fact, 22 other States joined in supporting Arizona's request for the decision to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Colorado was one of those States, and Senator Ken Salazar, who was then Colorado's Attorney General, joined in signing a brief in support of Arizona's petition for Supreme Court review.

Regrettably, the Supreme Court denied that petition. So, for now, the 9th Circuit's decision stands. Its immediate effect is on States whose Federal courts are within that circuit--namely those in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington as well those of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. But it could have an effect on the thinking of Federal courts across the country.

The purpose of this part of the conference report is to forestall that outcome, and so far as possible to return to the state of affairs prevailing before the 9th circuit's decision. It is intended to speak directly to the ``dormant commerce clause'' basis for the 9th Circuit's decision in Conservation Force v. Manning.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that lawyers and judges use that term to refer to the judicially established doctrine that the commerce clause is not only a ``positive'' grant of power to Congress, but also a ``negative'' constraint upon the States in the absence of any Congressional action--in other words, that it restricts the powers of the States to affect interstate commerce in a situation where Congress has been silent.

Section 6036(b)(1) would end the perceived silence of Congress by affirmatively stating that State regulation of fishing and hunting-- including State regulation that treats residents and non-residents differently--is in the public interest. This is intended to preclude future application of the ``dormant commerce clause'' doctrine with regard to such regulations. And Section 6036(b)(2) would make it clear that even when Congress might have been silent about the subject, that silence is not to be construed as imposing a commerce-clause barrier to a State's regulation of hunting or fishing within its borders.

These provisions are neither a Federal mandate for State action nor a Congressional delegation of authority to any State. Instead, they are intended to reaffirm State authority and make clear that the ``dormant commerce clause''--that is, Congressional inaction--is not to be construed as an obstacle to a State's regulating hunting or fishing, even in ways that some might claim adversely affect interstate commerce by treating residents differently from nonresidents.

It's also important to note that this part of the conference report is not intended to affect any Federal law already on the books or to limit any authority of any Indian Tribe.

Section 6036(c) is intended to prevent any misunderstanding on these points.

Section 6036(c)(1) specifies that the bill will not ``limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce.''

Thus, to take just a few examples for purposes of illustration, this part of the conference report will not affect implementation of the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Lacey Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, or the provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act dealing with subsistence.

Section 6036(c)(2) similarly provides that the bill is not to be read as limiting the authority of the Federal government to temporarily or permanently prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the Federal lands--as has been done with various National Park System units and in some other parts of the Federal lands for various reasons, including public safety as well as the protection of fish or wildlife.

And Section 6036(c)(3) explicitly provides that the bill will not alter any of the rights of any Indian Tribe.

These provisions are narrow in scope but of national importance because it addresses a matter of great concern to hunters, anglers, and wildlife managers in many States. I think they deserve broad support.

conclusion

In conclusion, while this conference report is far from perfect, I think it deserves to pass and I will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, today is Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, known in Hebrew as Yom Hashoah.

This is an appropriate date for this purpose because it is the anniversary of the beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. But in reality, Americans and all other civilized people should consider every day a Holocaust Remembrance Day because forgetting the evils of the past can too easily be the prelude to their recurrence.

And never was this truer than this year, as we mark the 60th anniversary of the final days of the Second World War when Allied soldiers moving across Europe encountered and liberated concentration camp prisoners.

Advancing from the west, U.S. divisions freed the prisoners in the Dora-Mittelbau, Buchenwald, Flossenburg, and Dachau concentration camps in Germany and the Mauthausen camp in Austria. In northern Germany, British forces liberated Bergen-Belsen and Neuengamme. And Soviet troops, after liberating Auschwitz in Poland in January 1945, in May, 1945 liberated the Stutthof, Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbruck concentration camps inside Germany.

We now understand that many people in Allied countries had known, in greater or lesser detail, about what had occurred in the camps. But it was these Allied soldiers who fully exposed the full horror of Nazi atrocities--and the combat-hardened soldiers were unprepared for what they found.

There were stacks of dead bodies, and barracks filled with dead and dying prisoners, while the stench of death was everywhere. And the camps still housed thousands of emaciated and diseased prisoners who resembled skeletons because of forced labor and lack of food. Many were so weak that they could hardly move. Disease remained an ever present danger and the liberators had to burn down many of the camps to prevent the spread of epidemics.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower made a deliberate visit to the Ohrdruf camp in order to witness personally the evidence of atrocities that ``beggar description.'' Publicly expressing shock and revulsion, he urged others to see the camps first-hand, lest ``the stories of Nazi brutality'' be forgotten or dismissed as merely ``propaganda.''

In the years that have followed, our memories of these atrocities have sometimes dimmed. But they have been refreshed by new histories or exhibits such as those in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum here in Washington, while new barbarities in other parts of the world have reawakened some of the horror that was felt by Eisenhower and the other liberators of Europe.

And the sights and sounds of the liberated camps, so fresh in 1945, helped shape the laws and institutions that arose from the ashes of war.

Military tribunals prosecuted captured Nazi officials under a variety of charges, many of which paralleled what were later defined as ``crimes against humanity.'' The best-known of these prosecutions, of course, were those in Nuremberg, Germany, between November 1945 and August 1946 under the auspices of the International Military Tribunal (IMT). Prosecutors and judges from the 4 occupying powers tried some of the leading officials of the Nazi regime on four counts, including a newly defined count of ``crimes against humanity,'' in which significant evidence relating to the Nazi effort to murder the European Jews was introduced. Several prominent Nazis were sentenced to death, others received prison sentences, and a few were acquitted.

The Nuremberg trials, and others that followed, have had a major impact on international law over the last 60 years. The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the recently created International Criminal Court are all part of the legacy of Nuremberg and of ongoing efforts of the world community to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.

Today, on this Day of Remembrance, we should all look back to the horrors of the Holocaust. But we must also look at the world around us and ahead to what is to come.

If there had been any doubt, the 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington, like the killing fields in Cambodia and so many other terrible events, made it clear that we have not reached the end of history--or the end of violence driven by fanaticism. As we struggle to respond to the challenges of our time, we must remember the need for eternal vigilance against those who are prepared to sacrifice others in the name of what they perceive as some transcendent cause.

Our fate, and the fate of humanity, depends on our remembering and our understanding.

Mr. Speaker, I am today reintroducing a bill to facilitate the acquisition by the federal government of mineral rights or other non-Federal interests in lands that are located within the boundaries of the Rocky Flats site in Colorado.

The bill is cosponsored by my Colorado colleague, Representative Beauprez. It is identical to a bill we cosponsored in the 108th Congress.

background

In the 1950s, the Federal Government bought land at Rocky Flats for use as a production facility for nuclear-weapon components. However, the purchase did not include all the mineral rights, some of which remained in private ownership.

Production at Rocky Flats ended more than a decade ago. Since then, the Department of Energy, through its contractors, has been working to have the site cleaned up and closed.

rocky flats wildlife refuge act

In 2001, Congress passed legislation I sponsored with Senator Wayne Allard to guide the future of Rocky Flats. Under that legislation--the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001--once the cleanup and closure are accomplished, most of the land at Rocky Flats will be transferred from the Department of Energy to the Department of the Interior and will be managed as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The refuge act includes some provisions related to the non-Federal minerals--primarily sand and gravel--at Rocky Flats. It says ``nothing in this [law] limits any valid, existing . . . mineral right'' except for ``such reasonable conditions on access . . . as are appropriate for the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats and for the management of the refuge.'' And it says that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOE and Interior is to ``address the impacts'' mineral rights ``may have on the management of the refuge, and provide strategies for resolving or mitigating these impacts.''

These provisions were included in the refuge act in order to make clear that while these mineral rights are to be respected as private property, future development of the minerals could have adverse effects on the land, wildlife habitat, and other values of the future wildlife refuge. That is why Congress directed the agencies to consider these potential future effects and work to find ways to mitigate those impacts.

So far, however, the Energy and Interior Departments have not been able to agree on what to do about the minerals.

I think the best way to handle this would be for the federal government to acquire the minerals. However, neither DOE nor Interior has made this a priority, and the current budgetary situation places constraints on such acquisitions.

purpose of the bill

The Udall-Beauprez bill is intended to make it more feasible for the Interior Department to acquire some or all of the minerals. It would do that by giving the Secretary of the Interior two additional methods (either instead of or in addition to purchase for cash) for completing such acquisitions--

(1) by giving ``credits'' that could be used instead of cash to pay for oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf; and

(2) by allowing federal lands or minerals anywhere in the country to be exchanged for the Rocky Flats minerals (under current law, such exchanges can only occur within the same state--Colorado lands/minerals for other Colorado lands/minerals).

The bill has no compulsory provisions. It would not require that any of the non-Federal interests at Rocky Flats be acquired by the government. It also would not require anyone to accept anything other than cash for any interests that the government may acquire--any transaction involving the new ``credits'' or any exchange could take place only with the concurrence of the party selling minerals to the United States. It would merely provide the Interior Department with new tools--in addition to those it already has--for such acquisitions.

In addition, the bill includes a provision to make clear that the Federal government cannot expand the Rocky Flats site by obtaining any non-Federal lands or interests in lands that are outside the site's boundaries except with the consent of the owners of those lands or interests.

In developing the original bill, I sought and obtained technical assistance from the Interior Department, gave careful consideration to comments from local governments and others in Colorado, and made revisions to earlier drafts of the legislation in response to points raised in those comments.

Mr. Speaker, this bill--the ``Rocky Flats Minerals Acquisition Act''--is narrow in scope. However, I think it can assist in successful implementation of something that is very important for all Coloradans-- the establishment of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. I think it deserves the support of every Member of the House.

For the information of our colleagues, here is a short outline of the revised bill:

Outline of Rocky Flats Minerals Acquisition Bill

background

When the ongoing cleanup of the Rocky Flats site is

completed, it will be closed and most of the site will be

transferred to the Interior Department for management as a

National Wildlife Refuge. Within the site's boundaries there

are some privately-owned mineral rights (primarily sand and

gravel). Federal acquisition of at least some of these

mineral rights would further sound management of the site as

a wildlife refuge. However, the current budgetary situation

makes it difficult to complete such acquisition.

The purpose of the bill is to provide the Interior

Department with two additional tools to assist in the

acquisition of mineral rights or other non-Federal property

at Rocky Flats: authority to provide ``credits'' (instead of

or in addition to cash) that could be

used for bonus bids or royalties for mineral leases on the

Outer Continental Shelf; and authority to provide eligible

BLM lands (or interests) anywhere in the country in

exchange for the interests acquired at Rocky Flats

(waiving the current requirement that exchanges must be

within the same state).

Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing the Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act. I introduced similar bills in the 107th and 108th Congresses.

The bill is intended to help local communities identify ways to protect the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern sections of the Denver-metro area, especially the region just west of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site. The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes much of the land in this backdrop area, but there are other lands involved as well.

Rising dramatically from the Great Plains, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains provides a scenic mountain backdrop to many communities in the Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado. The portion of the range within and adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation.

The open-space character of this mountain backdrop is an important esthetic and economic asset for adjoining communities, making them attractive locations for homes and businesses. But rapid population growth in the northern Front Range area of Colorado is increasing recreational use of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and is also placing increased pressure for development of other lands within and adjacent to that national forest.

We can see this throughout Colorado and especially along the Front Range. Homes and shopping centers are sprawling up valleys and along highways that feed into the Front Range. This development then spreads out along the ridges and mountain tops that make up the backdrop. We are in danger of losing to development many of the qualities that have helped attract new residents. So, it is important to better understand what steps might

be taken to avoid or lessen that risk--and this bill is designed to help us do just that.

Already, local governments and other entities have provided important protection for portions of this mountain backdrop, especially in the northern Denver-metro area. However, some portions of the backdrop in this part of Colorado remain unprotected and are at risk of losing their open-space qualities. This bill acknowledges the good work of the local communities to preserve open spaces along the backdrop and aims to assist further efforts along the same lines.

The bill does not interfere with the authority of local authorities regarding land use planning. It also does not infringe on private property rights. Instead, it will bring the land protection experience of the Forest Service to the table to assist local efforts to protect areas that comprise the backdrop. The bill envisions that to the extent the Forest Service should be involved with federal lands, it will work in collaboration with local communities, the state and private parties.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe it is in the national interest for the federal government to assist local communities to identify ways to protect the mountain backdrop in this part of Colorado. The backdrop beckoned settlers westward and presented an imposing impediment to their forward progress that suggested similar challenges ahead. This first exposure to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West helped define a region. The pioneers' independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day. We need to work to preserve it by protecting the mountain backdrop as a cultural and natural heritage for ourselves and generations to come. God may forgive us for our failure to do so, but our children won't.

For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a fact sheet about this bill.

Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act

Generally: The bill would help local communities preserve

the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern sections of

the Denver-metro area in a region generally west of the Rocky

Flats Environmental Technology site.

Front Range Mountain Backdrop: The backdrop consists of the

mountainous foothills, the Continental Divide and the peaks

in between that create the striking visual backdrop of the

Denver-metro area and throughout Colorado. Development in the

Denver-metro area is encroaching in the Front Range backdrop

area, and thus adversely affecting the esthetic, wildlife,

open space and recreational qualities of this geographic

feature. Now is the time to shape the future of this part of

the Front Range. There is a real but fleeting opportunity to

protect both protect Rocky Flats--a ``crown jewel'' of open

space and wildlife habitat--and to assist local communities

to protect the scenic, wildlife, and other values of the

mountain backdrop.

What the bill does: Study and Report: The bill requires the

Forest Service to study the ownership patterns of the lands

comprising the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in a region

generally west of Rocky Flats, identify areas that are open

and may be at risk of development, and recommend to Congress

how these lands might be protected and how the federal

government could help local communities and residents to

achieve that goal.

Lands Covered: The bill identifies the lands in southern

Boulder, northern Jefferson and eastern Gilpin Counties in

the Second Congressional District; specifically, an area west

of Rocky Flats and west of Highway 93, south of Boulder

Canyon, east of the Peak-to-Peak Highway, and north of the

Golden Gate Canyon State Park road.

What the bill would NOT do: Affect Local Planning: The bill

is designed to complement existing local efforts to preserve

open lands in this region west of Rocky Flats. It will not

take the place of--nor disrupt--these existing local efforts.

Affect Private Property Rights: The bill merely authorizes

a study. It will not affect any existing private property

rights.

Affect the Cleanup of Rocky Flats: The bill would not

affect the ongoing cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats nor

detract from funding for that effort, and will not affect

existing efforts to preserve the options for wildlife and

open space protection of Rocky Flats itself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rodolfo ``Corky'' Gonzales, one of Colorado's most influential civil rights leaders who passed away on April 12, 2005. While I did not have the pleasure of getting to know this remarkable man in person, it is impossible not to know of his extraordinary political career in Denver, Colorado.

Raised during the Great Depression, Corky Gonzales rose from poverty to become one of the founding leaders of the Chicano Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and in doing so he gave voice to the aspirations of millions of people, particularly in the Latino communities of the southwestern United States.

Corky Gonzales first rose to prominence as champion boxer during the late 1940's and early 1950's. His fearlessness in the ring served him well when he decided to use his voice and not his fists to champion the cause of equality.

Growing up poor in Denver shaped his sense of justice--and instilled a very deep commitment to improve the lives of so many in the so-called ``Mexican-American'' community of the times, and he was one of the first of his generation to call public attention to the civil rights struggle of Latino people after decades of indifference, benign neglect and outright discrimination.

Gonzales also was an accomplished poet and lover of art and literature often extolling the virtues of education and urging his followers to use their minds as a means of fighting injustice. Anita, his oldest daughter, has said that the standard bill of fare in the Gonzales household was not the latest fad or fashion, but discussions on art, literature, politics and philosophy. In this regard, Corky was a true ``Renaissance man''--although I suspect he would flinch at that description.

In 1965 he founded the ``Crusade for Justice'' which became a Mecca for likeminded individuals committed to the cause of justice and equality for those on the margins of society. While the nation's television news covered the marches in Selma and the civil rights struggle of African-Americans throughout the South, young Corky was raising a similar voice for equality in the West.

In 1967 he wrote a celebrated epic poem ``I am Joaquin'' which many describe as the greatest poem to come out of the Chicano Civil Rights Movement. The poem, an odyssey of self discovery and affirmation of ethnic pride quickly became a blueprint for social action and a clarion call to an entire generation of Americans young and old alike.

He was not without his detractors, but anyone who attempts to achieve anything of lasting importance seldom is, and for people of my generation, he was a much needed voice for change. To his followers and to those who loved and respected him he was ``the hurricane that rose from the barrios of Denver to lift his people into the 21st century.''

This fearless warrior left an indelible imprint on our society and future generations of leaders. But for his early journey, paving the way for others, Colorado might never have witnessed Federico Pena as Mayor of Denver or Ken Salazar as a United States Senator. Corky launched the idea of Chicano Pride long before it became fashionable to celebrate Hispanic identity.

Had he been born a few decades later perhaps, the young boxer might have exchanged his gloves for a seat in this House, but his contributions to our country and to the communities of color that are so deeply a part of the mosaic of the Southwestern United States remain a testament to his memory.

In the Chicano and Mexican-American communities in my part of the country there is a deep sense of pride in being called to service. Corky Gonzales was like all great heroes, a human being who contributed to the great tradition of being involved in something greater than his own self-interest. In that great tradition it is my pleasure to declare . . . Rodolfo ``Corky'' Gonzales, Presente!

Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing the Western Waters and Farm Lands Protection Act.

The bill's purpose is to make it more likely that the energy resources in our Western states will be developed in ways that are protective of vital water supplies and respectful of the rights and interests of the agricultural community. It would do three things:

First, it would establish clear requirements for proper management of ground water that is extracted in the course of oil and gas development.

Second, it would provide for greater involvement of surface owners in plans for oil and gas development and requires the Interior Department to give surface owners advance notice of lease sales that would affect their lands and to notify them of subsequent events related to proposed or ongoing energy development.

Finally, it would require developers to draft reclamation plans and post reclamation bonds for the restoration of lands affected by drilling for federal oil and gas.

The bill is based on one I introduced in the 108th Congress that was endorsed by the Colorado Farm Bureau. I have made revisions suggested by the American Farm Bureau Federation, which has indicated its support for the bill as I am introducing it today.

Mr. Speaker, the western United States is blessed with significant energy resources. In appropriate places, and under appropriate conditions, they can and should be developed for the benefit of our country. But it's important to recognize the importance of other resources--particularly water--and other uses of the lands involved-- and this bill responds to this need.

Purposes of Legislation

The primary purposes of the Western Waters and Farmlands Protection Act are--(1) to assure that the development of those energy resources in the West will not mean destruction of precious water resources; (2) to reduce potential conflicts between development of energy resources and the interests and concerns of those who own the surface estate in affected lands; and (3) to provide for appropriate reclamation of affected lands.

Water Quality Protection

One new energy resource is receiving great attention--gas associated with coal deposits, often referred to as coalbed methane. An October 2000 United States Geological Survey report estimated that the U.S. may contain more than 700 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of coalbed methane and that more than 100 tcf of this may be recoverable using existing technology. In part because of the availability of these reserves and because of tax incentives to exploit them, the West has seen a significant increase in its development.

Development of coalbed methane usually involves the extraction of water from underground strata. Some of this extracted water is reinjected into the ground, while some is retained in surface holding ponds or released and allowed to flow into streams or other water bodies, including irrigation ditches.

The quality of the extracted waters varies from one location to another. Some are of good quality, but often they contain dissolved minerals (such as sodium, magnesium, arsenic, or selenium) that can contaminate other waters--something that can happen because of leaks or leaching from holding ponds or because the extracted waters are simply discharged into a stream or other body of water. In addition, extracted waters often have other characteristics, such as high acidity and temperature, which can adversely affect agricultural uses of land or the quality of the environment.

In Colorado and other States in the arid West, water is scarce and precious. So, as we work to develop our domestic energy resources, it is vital that we safeguard our water--and I believe that clear requirements for proper disposal of these extracted waters are necessary in order to avoid some of these adverse effects. That is the purpose of the first part of the bill.

The bill (in Title I) includes two requirements regarding extracted water.

First, it would make clear that water extracted from oil and gas development must comply with relevant and applicable discharge permits under the Clean Water Act. Lawsuits have been filed in some western states regarding whether or not these discharge permits are required for coalbed methane development. The bill would require oil and gas development to secure permits if necessary and required, like any other entity that may discharge contaminates into the waters of the United States.

Second, the bill would require those who develop federal oil or gas-- including coalbed methane--under the Mineral Leasing Act to take steps to make sure their activities do not harm water resources. Under this legislation, oil or gas operators who damage a water resource--by contaminating it, reducing it, or interrupting it--would be required to provide replacement water. And the bill requires that water produced under a mineral lease must be dealt with in ways that comply with all Federal and State requirements.

Further, because water is so important, the bill requires oil and gas operators to make the protection of water part of their plans from the very beginning, requiring applications for oil or gas leases to include details of ways in which operators will protect water quality and quantity and the rights of water users.

These are not onerous requirements, but they are very important-- particularly with the great increase in drilling for coalbed methane and other energy resources in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and other western states.

Surface Owner Protection

In many parts of the country, the party that owns the surface of some land does not necessarily own the minerals beneath those lands. In the West, mineral estates often belong to the federal government while the surface estates are owned by private interests, who typically use the land for farming and ranching.

This split-estate situation can lead to conflicts. And while I support development of energy resources where appropriate, I also believe that this must be done responsibly and in a way that demonstrates respect for the environment and overlying landowners.

The second part of the bill (Title II) is intended to promote that approach, by establishing a system for development of federal oil and gas in split-estate situations that resembles--but is not identical to--the system for development of federally-owned coal in similar situations.

Under federal law, the leasing of federally owned coal resources on lands where the surface estate is not owned by the United States is subject to the consent of the surface estate owners. But neither this consent requirement

nor the operating and bonding requirements applicable to development of federally owned locatable minerals applies to the leasing or development of oil or gas in similar split-estate situations.

I believe that that there should be similar respect for the rights and interests of surface estate owners affected by development of oil and gas and that this should be done by providing clear and adequate standards and increasing the involvement of surface owners.

Accordingly, the bill requires the Interior Department to give surface owners advance notice of lease sales that would affect their lands and to notify them of subsequent events related to proposed or ongoing developments related to such leases,

In addition, the bill requires that anyone proposing to drill for federal minerals in a split-estate situation must first try to reach an agreement with the surface owner that spells out what will be done to minimize interference with the surface owner's use and enjoyment and to provide for reclamation of affected lands and compensation for any damages.

I am convinced that most energy companies want to avoid harming the surface owners, so I expect that it will usually be possible for them to reach such agreements. However, I recognize that this may not always be the case--and the bill includes two provisions that address this possibility: (1) if no agreement is reached within 90 days, the bill requires that the matter be referred to neutral arbitration; and (2) the bill provides that if even arbitration fails to resolve differences, the energy development can go forward, subject to Interior Department regulations that will balance the energy development with the interests of the surface owner or owners.

As I mentioned, these provisions are patterned on the current law dealing with development of federally-owned coal in split-estate situations. However, it is important to note one major difference-- namely, while current law allows a surface owner to effectively veto development of coal resources, under the bill a surface owner ultimately could not block development of oil or gas underlying his or her lands. This difference reflects the fact that appropriate development of oil and natural gas is needed.

Reclamation Requirements

The bill's third part (Titles III and IV) addresses reclamation of affected lands.

Title III would amend the Mineral Leasing Act by adding an explicit requirement that parties that produced oil or gas (including coalbed methane) under a federal lease must restore the affected land so it will be able to support the uses it could support before the energy development. Toward that end, this part of the bill requires development of reclamation plans and posting of reclamation bonds. In addition, so Congress can consider whether changes are needed, the bill requires the General Accounting Office to review how these requirements are being implemented and how well they are working.

And, finally, Title IV would require the Interior Department to--(1) establish, in cooperation with the Agriculture Department, a program for reclamation and closure of abandoned oil or gas wells located on lands managed by an Interior Department agency or the Forest Service or drilled for development of federal oil or gas in split-estate situations; and (2) establish, in consultation with the Energy Department, a program to provide technical assistance to state and tribal governments that are working to correct environmental problems cased by abandoned wells on other lands. The bill would authorize annual appropriations of $5 million in fiscal 2005 and 2006 for the federal program and annual appropriations of $5 million in fiscal 2005, 2006, and 2007 for the program of assistance to the states and tribes.

Mr. Speaker, our country is overly dependent on fossil fuels, to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy. We need to diversity our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources. However, for the foreseeable future, petroleum and natural gas (including coalbed methane) will remain important parts of our energy portfolio--and I support their development in appropriate areas and in responsible ways. I believe this legislation can move us closer toward this goal by establishing some clear, reasonable rules that will provide greater assurance and certainty for all concerned, including the energy industry and the residents of Colorado, New Mexico, and other Western states. Here is a brief outline of its major provisions:

Outline of Bill

Section 1.--This section provides a short title (``Western

Waters and Farm Lands Protection Act''), makes several

findings about the need for the legislation, and states the

bill's purpose, which is ``to provide for the protection of

water resources and surface estate owners in the development

of oil and gas resources, including coalbed methane.''

Title I.--This title deals with the protection of water

resources. It includes three sections:

Section 101 amends current law to specify that an operator

producing oil or gas under a federal lease must--(1) replace

a water supply that is contaminated or interrupted by

drilling operations; (2) comply with all applicable

requirements of Federal and State law for discharge of water

produced under the lease; and (3) develop a proposed water

management plan before obtaining a lease.

Section 102 amends current law to make clear that

extraction of water in connection with development of oil or

gas (including coalbed methane) is subject to an appropriate

permit and the requirement to minimize adverse effects on

affected lands or waters.

Section 103 provides that nothing in the bill will--(1)

affect any State's right or jurisdiction with respect to

water; or (2) limit, alter, modify, or amend any interstate

compact or judicial rulings that apportion water among and

between different States.

Title II.--This title deals with the protection of surface

owners. It includes four sections:

Section 201 provides definitions for several terms used in

Title II.

Section 202 requires a party seeking to develop federal oil

or gas in a split-estate situation to first seek to reach an

agreement with the surface owner or owners that spells out

how the energy development will be carried out, how the

affected lands will be reclaimed, and that compensation will

be made for damages. It provides that if no such agreement is

reached within 90 days after the start of negotiations the

matter will be referred to arbitration by a neutral party

identified by the Interior Department.

Section 203 provides that if no agreement under section 202

is reached within 90 days after going to arbitration, the

Interior Department can permit energy development to proceed

under an approved plan of operations and posting of an

adequate bond. This section also requires the Interior

Department to provide surface owners with an opportunity to

comment on proposed plans of operations, participate in

decisions regarding the amount of the bonds that will be

required, and to participate in on-site inspections if the

surface owners have reason to believe that plans of

operations are not being followed. In addition, this section

allows surface owners to petition the Interior Department for

payments under bonds to compensate for damages and authorizes

the Interior Department to release bonds after the energy

development is completed and any damages have been

compensated.

Section 204 requires the Interior Department to notify

surface owners about lease sales and subsequent decisions

involving federal oil or gas resources in their lands.

Title III.--This title amends current law to require

parties producing oil or gas under a federal lease to restore

affected lands and to post bonds to cover reclamation costs.

It also requires the GAO to review Interior Department

implementation of this part of the bill and to report to

Congress about the results of that review and any

recommendations for legislative or administrative changes

that would improve matters.

Title IV.--This title deals with abandoned oil or gas

wells. It includes three sections:

Section 401 defines the wells that would be covered by the

title.

Section 402 requires the Interior Department, in

cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, to establish

a program for reclamation and closure of abandoned wells on

federal lands or that were drilled for development of

federally-owned minerals in split-estate situations. It

authorizes appropriations of $5 million in fiscal years 2005

and 2006.

Section 403 requires the Interior Department, in

consultation with DOE, to establish a program to assist

states and tribes to remedy environmental problems caused by

abandoned oil or gas wells on non-federal and Indian lands.

It authorizes appropriations of $5 million in fiscal years

2006, 2007, and 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this conference report.

It not only is no better than the version of the budget resolution previously passed by the House, it is significantly worse in several ways.

In my opinion, it reflects only the priorities of the Republican leadership, not the right priorities for our country.

Over the last five years the federal budget has reversed a decade of progress that saw the budget go from the $290 billion deficit when President Clinton took office to a surplus of $236 billion in 2000, which was where things stood when the current President Bush came to office.

Since then, we have gone from projected surpluses to undeniable deficits. The toxic combination of recession, necessary spending for defense and homeland security, and excessive and unbalanced tax cuts have taken us to the largest deficits in our Nation's history--a $375 billion deficit two years ago, a deficit of $412 billion last year, and for this year, according to the Bush Administration itself, a deficit of $427 billion.

That is three record-setting years in a row. And, regrettably, this conference report reflects neither a serious effort to reduce deficits nor an attempt to increase fairness.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, following the path suggested by the Bush Administration and this budget resolution will add $5.135 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years.

It is true that the Republican leadership claims this conference report will put us on the path to cut the deficit in half by 2009. But this bit of Enron bookkeeping rests on omitting enormous predictable costs--including the $200 billion five-year cost of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax and realistic five-year costs for military activities in Iraq.

And this conference report not only fails to recognize the deficit as a problem, it sets the stage for new tax cuts for selected beneficiaries. In all, these could amount to as much as $106 billion over the next five years, and the tax-writing committees are instructed to report bills worth $70 billion in the next few months.

Further, the conference report sets the stage for reducing the ability of States, local governments, and charities to provide essential services to the many thousands of families who are struggling to stay above water in this time of a sluggish recovery from recession. I do not think this is the right way to go.

I also have very serious concerns about other aspects of this conference report.

For one thing, it continues the pattern of spending 100 percent of the Social Security surplus--a total of $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years. We cannot continue on this reckless and irresponsible fiscal path. That is why I supported an effort to require the Budget Committee to instead bring forward a conference report that would ensure that the Social Security surplus would not be spent for any purpose other than Social Security. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership opposed that effort, and it was not successful.

In addition, the conference report calls for $34.7 billion in mandatory spending reductions, including $10 billion in Medicaid cuts and billions in other cuts that could affect pension programs, student loans, and food stamps.

And further, on top of the cuts in social services, the conference report cuts discretionary spending on environmental and natural resource programs to the extent that over the next five years funding for these programs would be cut 21 percent below the level needed to maintain current status.

These punitive cuts threaten a wide range of programs that ensure the health of our communities and protect our natural resources. Among the programs that could be most severely affected are clean water infrastructure investments, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, oceans and coastal protection, and agricultural conservation.

Finally, the budget resolution clearly will pave the way for legislation as a part of the reconciliation process to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. I cannot support this.

When the House first debated this budget resolution, I supported an alternative that would have provided more resources for important priorities and would have laid the basis for more responsible tax policy. It was better fiscally and better in terms of the education of our children, the health care of our veterans, the development of our communities, and the quality of our environment.

Unfortunately, that alternative was not adopted--and this conference report not only does not resemble that alternative, in several respects it is even worse than the House-passed resolution. As a result, I must vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution with my colleagues Mr. Ehlers, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Ruppersberger recognizing the contributions to science resulting from the Hubble Space Telescope and congratulating all those who have helped make Hubble one of the most important astronomical instruments in history.

On April 25, 1990, the Hubble Space Telescope was launched into orbit. In the years since the launch, Hubble has sent back images that have expanded our understanding of the universe beyond anyone's expectation. For the last fifteen years, school children, scientists, and interested citizens around the world have eagerly welcomed new images from Hubble--images that have provided an exciting keyhole into the wonders of our universe.

Hubble's scientific contributions have amazed us all for fifteen years. Just this week, NASA and the European Space Agency released images taken by Hubble of the largest and sharpest images of the Eagle Nebula and the Whirlpool Galaxy. Last year Hubble detected oxygen and carbon in the atmosphere of a distant planet, the first time the elements have been found at a world outside our solar system. Hubble also contributed to the finding of new evidence about recently discovered ``dark energy.'' Hubble measured properties of light from 16 exploding stars, or supernovas, to find that the dark energy that pervades the universe might be what Einstein originally called the ``cosmological constant.'' This discovery supports the theory that instead of ripping apart, the cosmos will continue expanding very slowly for at least the next 30 billion years.

These are just recent discoveries. Hubble remains one of the most productive scientific instruments in history, and certainly NASA's most productive scientific mission, accounting for 35 percent of all its discoveries in the last 20 years. The Hubble has provided proof of black holes, insights into the birth and death of stars, spectacular views of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's collision with Jupiter, the age of the universe, and evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. In short, Hubble has become a symbol of scientific excellence.

In addition to its past and potentially future scientific discoveries, Hubble provides information used by approximately one million teachers per year across the U.S. Hubble has also opened up the wonders of space to our youth and to all our citizens. As we struggle to keep our students interested in the sciences, images from Hubble inspire our youth to continue to believe that they can become astronauts and astronomers. Hubble images have brought the wonders of space down to the level of the classroom.

Of course, Hubble could not have been the success it has been without the countless scientists, engineers, civil servants, contractors and other individuals and organizations that built and launched Hubble and then utilized its images to great effect. They have all contributed to making Hubble the national treasure it is today. So this resolution is intended to honor them and their commitment to science and the benefits it brings to our country and our world.

The Hubble has provided inspiration worldwide to young and old, scientists and non-scientists alike. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the 15th anniversary of the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope and the knowledge we have gained about our universe from this important astronomical instrument.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, because this bill may reduce the likelihood that girls will seek family planning assistance when they are faced with a pregnancy and does not include an exemption to protect the health of the young mother.

This bill is intended to ensure that parents are involved with a girl's decision to have an abortion, even if they cross a State line in an effort to avoid State parental notification laws. As the father of a teen-aged daughter I completely sympathize with the idea that parents be involved in helping their children through crises, including that of an unwanted pregnancy, and if my daughter found herself in this situation I hope that she would feel comfortable coming to me and my wife for guidance and support. Not every family functions with love and support, however, and if we intend to legislate in this area we must be careful to do so with an eye on the exception and not the rule.

In some families, young women are the victims of parental abuse, including sexual abuse. In the case of unwanted pregnancy, these girls may have another trusted adult, often a relative like a grandparent, in whom they feel comfortable seeking support and guidance from, and will turn to for assistance when faced with a pregnancy. I would much rather see a girl seek the guidance of a trusted adult than no one at all. This bill will make it a crime for an adult who is not the parent to take a girl across State lines to obtain an abortion if the girl's home State requires parental notification. Girls will be less likely to seek the assistance of a trusted adult if they know the adult could face criminal charges for assisting in obtaining an abortion.

I also have concerns that this bill does not include an exemption for the health of a mother. In t1e Supreme Court case Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court struck down Nebraska's Partial-birth abortion ban because it did not include such an exemption. This bill requires a physician to wait 24 hours before performing the abortion on a girl from a State with a parental notification law, even if the parent of the girl is present. If an abortion is needed to protect the health of the mother, a doctor would have to wait 24 hours before they could perform the procedure. Though I am not a lawyer, based on the precedent set in the aforementioned court case, I have concerns that this bill would be unconstitutional should it become law.

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act does not ensure that girls will seek the support and guidance of the parents when faced with a pregnancy. Instead it increases the likelihood that they will not seek the guidance of any adults, which could harm themselves and the fetus they are carrying. For these reasons, I cannot vote in support of

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bob Mansanares, one of my fellow Coloradans on the occasion of his retirement from government service. For 32 years Bob has been one of our State's most dedicated public servants.

He began his Federal career in 1973 as a claims representative for the Social Security Administration and went on to become the Regional Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. At the time of his retirement and since July 2001 he has directed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program.

Bob, born in Del Norte, Colorado, to Martin and Ernestine Mansanares, is the oldest of four siblings. Money was scarce in his home but there was always food, clothing and a roof over his head. Above all he had the things that money cannot buy, love and the support of his family and friends. So while Bob grew up poor he never considered himself a victim or disadvantaged. One of his fondest childhood memories is fishing the streams of the valley with his father. Del Norte is an agricultural rural community and Bob and the family did farm labor as a child, picking potatoes and picking peas for a penny a pound to make ends meet. It was there that Bob acquired his work ethic and his unshakable faith in the working men and women of this country. He went from those humble beginnings to be the first in his family to go to college. In 1968 he was recruited by the Migrant Action Program to attend the University of Colorado at Boulder earning his degree in 1972.

While he was a student in college, Bob was torn between making a lot of money and devoting his life to public service. Fortunately for us, he chose the latter and has spent his entire Federal career in programs that focus on workers benefits and entitlements. He chose to repay in some small measure the debt he felt he owed to the community and to those less fortunate than he. As a former farm worker he became keenly aware of the working poor who had little or no knowledge of the benefits and entitlements available to persons who suffered from work related injuries or disabilities.

Over the course of his 32 year career his work philosophy has always been to make the process easier, to avoid acronyms and technical terminology which many find difficult to understand. Under his purview the process has become more user friendly. This lay approach to claiming benefits has been the key to his many successes. Another of Bob's notable achievements is serving as Commissioner on the Veterans Claims Adjudication Commission to review and write the report of findings, conclusions and recommendations for the disposition of claims to the VA.

The joy of his life has been Mary, his wife of 34 years, and their four children, Nick, Elissa, and David. His oldest daughter, Christie, died tragically in an automobile accident in 2001.

Bob has always been a modest man, avoiding the limelight and the accolades he so richly deserves. That is why I chose to honor him now for a lifetime of service, particularly those who might otherwise get lost in the federal bureaucracy.

Bob's simple philosophy includes ``taking it one day at a time,'' and that is what he plans to do. Bob's mother passed away in 2001 and since then he has been telling his father that if he waited until he retired they would spend many days fishing the streams of his youth in his beloved San Luis Valley. Bob, good luck to you and Martin, may the fish always bite and may the sun always be at your back, as you ``take it one day at a time.''

Enjoy your retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support this legislation.

There is nothing I'd rather vote for than a balanced energy bill that sets us on a forward-looking course--one that acknowledges that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy.

But at a time of sky-rocketing oil prices, this bill doesn't do what it needs to do--help us balance our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix.

The bill is not all bad, of course. I support most of the provisions developed by the Science Committee, and I commend Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for their bipartisan approach.

In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me.

I am also pleased that this bill includes the Clean Green School Bus Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean, alternative fuel buses.

H.R. 6 also includes provisions from my bill, the Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Act, which would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and demonstration of distributed power hybrid energy systems. It makes sense to focus our R&D priorities on distributed power hybrid systems that can both help improve power reliability and affordability and bring more efficiency and cleaner energy resources into the mix.

Unfortunately, though, this bill--like the ones we've debated twice before--remains all too reminiscent of that old Western movie--``the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.'' In fact, over the years it has only gotten worse and uglier.

One of the ugliest parts is the provision that would open to drilling the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

On that question, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds. The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/ subarctic ecosystems.''

Estimates are that there is six months' supply of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain. While the economically recoverable amount could increase along with higher oil prices, we know for certain that drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of renewable resources.

But the idea of opening the refuge is only one example of misplaced priorities or flawed policies concerning this legislation.

This bill would provide oil and gas companies massive forgiveness of royalty payments. It would shift the cost of MTBE cleanup from MTBE manufacturers to taxpayers--an unfunded mandate on our communities. That should not have been included in the bill.

Further, the bill significantly weakens the Clean Air Act by exempting states from having to clean up their dirty air if some of their pollution comes from ``upwind'' states. It would exempt industry from requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act when they inject diesel fuel and other harmful chemicals into the ground during drilling.

It would repeal the heart of the National Environmental Policy Act for energy projects by eliminating the requirement that agencies examine alternatives that could lead to lesser harm or greater benefits. It would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, a law that protects consumers and investors from corporate abuses.

And then there are all the things the bill would not do. It would not increase vehicle fuel economy standards, which have been frozen since 1996. Raising CAFE standards is the single biggest step we can take to reduce oil consumption, since about half of the oil used in the U.S. goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles. The bill does not give federal regulators the tools they need to prevent and punish the Enrons of the world who manipulate power markets. The bill does not suspend deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and instead put the oil on the marketplace, which could bring gasoline prices down.

Most importantly, according to analyses conducted by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, our need for imported oil will increase by 75 percent in twenty years under provisions in this bill.

Coloradans on average are already paying $2.25 for a gallon of regular gas. This bill will do nothing to bring those prices down.

Of the bill's total $8.1 billion in tax incentives, $7.5 billion (or 93 percent) is for traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. The oil and gas industries are getting these massive subsidies from the taxpayer at the same time that their profits have never been higher.

I don't always agree with President Bush. But I think he is absolutely right about one thing--at $55 a barrel, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.

Instead, we need a strategy to wean our nation from its dependence on foreign oil.

Colorado is uniquely positioned to take advantage of alternative energy opportunities, such as wind and sun. Voters approved Amendment 37 last year, which is making a difference in our energy supply. Colorado is leading the nation in this area.

Not only are we producing cleaner, cheaper energy, we are also providing economic development in rural Colorado in places like Sterling and Holyoke. In fact, I am going to be doing a Harvesting Energy Tour in Northeastern Colorado this weekend with former Colorado House Speaker Lola Spradley, representatives from the Colorado Farm Bureau and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union and renewable energy companies to talk about how renewable energy can be an economic development boon for rural Colorado.

But we need federal incentives to help move renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies to the mainstream, and yet only 7 percent of the incentives in this bill would promote their development.

That's why--along with my colleague Representative Zach Wamp, who co- chairs the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus with me--I offered amendments to the bill to make it more balanced. Our amendments would have extended the renewable energy production tax credit until 2008, would have extended the tax credit that individuals receive for purchasing hybrid vehicles, and would have increased and extended the business and residential solar tax credits. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership didn't allow them to be debated and voted on.

I also tried to improve the Resources Committee's energy bill provisions with an amendment dealing with oil shale language in the bill. The bill requires the Interior Department to set up a new leasing program for commercial development of oil shale, with final regulations to be in place by the end of next year. In other words, it calls for a crash program to meet a short, arbitrary deadline.

My amendment would not have barred oil shale development. Instead, it would have said that before we leap again, we should take a look and have a clear idea of where we are apt to land.

Colorado has the most significant amounts of oil shale--and also the most experience with oil shale fever. In Colorado, we have had several bouts of oil shale fever. The last one started during the 1970s energy crisis and ended abruptly on ``Black Sunday'' in 1982. That was when Exxon announced it was pulling out of the Colony shale project, an event that left an impact crater from the Western Slope to downtown Denver. That was followed by an exodus of other companies that had been working on oil shale--which led to an

exodus of jobs and of Coloradans who had nowhere else to turn.

Under my amendment, Interior would be told to prepare regulations for a new oil shale leasing program--and to get them finished ``promptly'' after finishing the analysis required by NEPA and the regular process for developing new federal regulations.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the Resources Committee opposed my amendment, and so it was not adopted. The result is that this part of the bill is much uglier than it should be.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need a plan in place to increase our energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30 percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home.

This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology that exists today. Given the magnitude of the crisis ahead, we can surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil.

Two days ago, at the opening of the Abraham Lincoln Museum in Springfield, President Bush attempted to draw parallels between his goal of expanding freedom in the world and Lincoln's effort to expand freedom in the U.S. I have some questions about that comparison, but I do think it is good to consider Lincoln's example when we debate public policy.

In fact, I wish President Bush and the Republicans would draw a few more parallels to Lincoln in their approach to energy policy--because, as that greatest of Republican Presidents said, ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. Our present is piled high with difficulties. We must think anew and act anew--then we will save our country.''

And while we are not engaged in a civil war, our excessive dependence on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security. We have an energy crisis. We need to think anew to devise a better energy policy in order to save our country from this energy crisis.

Unfortunately, too much of this bill reflects not just a failure but an absolute refusal to think anew. Provision after provision reflects a stubborn insistence on old ideas--more tax subsidies, more royalty giveaways, more restrictions on public participation, more limits on environmental reviews--and a hostility to the search for new approaches.

Maybe we could have afforded such a mistake in the past. But now the stakes are too high--because, as I said, energy policy isn't just an economic issue, it's a national security issue. America's dependence on imported oil poses a risk to our homeland security and economic wellbeing. And so, Mr. Chairman, I must vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.

I think our colleagues from Connecticut and Massachusetts have very well explained why the amendment should be adopted.

On that, I don't think there is a need to try to add to what they said except to say that the amendment will protect one of the most special places in our country without much real cost in terms of our ability to maintain needed energy supplies.

But I do want to take just a moment to add a personal note.

As Congress has debated this and similar energy bills, there has been some discussion of the history of the Alaska Lands Act and how its authors might vote if they were still Members of Congress.

Some have even suggested that my father, Mo Udall, would oppose this amendment and support opening the coastal plain to drilling.

That's an interesting thought. Of course, all we really know is that if things were different, they would be different.

But I have my own opinion on the subject--and I think speculation along those lines is not based on history.

I think that the prime sponsors of the Alaska Lands Act, including my father, would support the Markey-Johnson amendment.

Of course, that isn't really the point, anyway--the real issue before us isn't about the past, but about the future.

And it is up to us--not our predecessors--to decide, not just for ourselves but for our children and their children.

But if people want to consider some words from the past, I would direct their attention to the original Committee report on the Alaska Lands Act, dated April 7, 1978.

On page 149, the report points out that ``the Committee has noted the eloquent statements of a number of prominent Alaskans'' about the idea of building a pipeline across the coastal plain.

``For example,'' the report continues, ``Senator Ted Stevens . . . told the Council on Environmental Quality that `Some have appropriately compared [that idea] with slicing a razor lade across the face of the Mona Lisa.''

I think that is a good summary of what could happen if we do not adopt this amendment.

I am not saying that Senator Stevens would support the amendment--I am sure he wouldn't.

I am saying that I think he aptly described what will happen if the coastal plain is opened to drilling.

And that is why I will vote for this amendment, and why I urge its adoption by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the ground breaking of the Freedom Park Memorial located in Edwards.

Once built, the Freedom Park Memorial will feature a building and a lakeside memorial park to celebrate freedom and to commemorate the personal sacrifices of the men and women who have served in our Armed Forces and our emergency services.

The idea for the Freedom Park Memorial originated with several local veterans, including Buddy Sims, and has grown into a valley wide grass roots effort including a steering committee, the board of directors and their subcommittees, Eagle County community leaders, the three county commissioners, business professionals, military veterans, and emergency service personnel from local police and fire departments, and mountain rescue.

Mr. Speaker, the Freedom Park Memorial will be used as an educational tool for visitors, teachers, and students. It will feature a ``Time Wall'' that will list the conflicts involving United States forces since the Revolutionary War. The Freedom Park will also commemorate emergency responders. In addition, the names of Eagle County residents who lost their lives while serving in the armed forces will be inscribed in the Veterans Memorial; Eagle County emergency responders who lost their lives in duty will have their names inscribed at the Emergency Responders Memorial.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing The Freedom Park Memorial and to celebrate the personal sacrifices of the men and women of Eagle County who have served in our Armed Forces and our emergency responders.

Mr. Speaker, I do not support this bill in its present form--and, since the Republican leadership has made it impossible for the House to even consider any amendment, I have no choice but to vote against it.

In recent years, Colorado has been one of the states with the greatest increase in bankruptcy filings. Opinions vary about the causes, but this fact does suggest a need to consider whether the current bankruptcy laws should be revised. So, I am not opposed to any change in the current bankruptcy laws, and in fact I think some of the bill's provisions would make reasonable adjustments in those laws.

But this legislation was first developed years ago and neither its supporters nor the leadership have been willing to give any real consideration to adjusting it to better reflect current conditions.

In particular, I think that the bill should have been amended to more appropriately address the financial problems being encountered by some members of the regular Armed Services as well as by members of the National Guard who have been called to active duty in Iraq or elsewhere.

If the motion to recommit had prevailed, the bill would have been amended to exempt from the means test at least those National Guard and Reservists whose debt resulted from active duty service or was incurred 2 years of returning home from their service. Unfortunately, the motion was not adopted.

For me, this is a very serious matter and the lack of such an amendment is one of the main reasons I cannot support the bill.

Under these circumstances, I am not persuaded that the bill now before us is the right

prescription for Colorado or our country. I think it still needs work-- and because of both its shortcomings and the refusal of the leadership to permit consideration of any changes, I cannot support it.