Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to expand broadband access into rural areas so that millions of Americans in this country are not left behind in our increasingly information-dependent society. I am introducing this bill with my colleague from Colorado, Rep. John Salazar, and I greatly appreciate his support.

History has shown us that improvements in information-sharing have resulted in increased productivity, a better-educated society, and the growth of technology. The development and mainstream use of the Internet has changed how we conduct business and how we provide community services, and has revolutionized information sharing throughout the world.

The benefits the Internet has provided are invaluable. However, access to this technology has created a divide between haves and have- nots in our country. High speed broadband Internet is commonplace in most urban and suburban areas. Yet although nearly a quarter of the nation's population lives in rural America, rural access to broadband is either nonexistent or extremely costly.

Many rurally based industries are dependent on the rapid transfers of information. Being able to utilize broadband technologies would increase their productivity, efficiency, and in turn, profits. For example, accurate and timely weather predictions allow farmers to better gauge the necessary rate of fertilizer application necessary or use of irrigation to maximize their crop yield. Broadband technologies make in-depth predictions of temperature and rainfall accessible by any farmer throughout the world.

Hospitals are dependent on being able to send and receive information in order to save lives. However, many rural hospitals can barely afford to provide basic health services to their patients, let alone pay for access to broadband technology if it is even available.

Schools in rural areas are also at a disadvantage without access to the Internet. As students leave these schools to study at universities or to compete in the workforce, they start at a disadvantage to other students who have been educated from kindergarten with constant access to the information available online.

Comparisons have been drawn between broadband and the rural electrification. It took assistance from government and industry to bring electricity to rural areas in the 1930s. That kind of assistance is what is needed today to bridge the digital divide. Congress passed legislation in 2002 establishing a grant and loan program within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to help fund broadband deployment in rural areas. But the broadband program is oversubscribed and underfunded. The president's FY06 request is down 34% from FY05 levels of $545 million.

We need to push for funding for the RUS broadband program, but that isn't enough. Providing access to broadband technologies in rural America is an expensive endeavor for telecommunication companies. The cost of establishing a network to rural areas is hard to recover simply through subscriber fees. Most companies require an incentive before making such an investment. My bill, similar to the bill my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, recently introduced, provides that necessary incentive.

First, my bill provides a tax incentive for companies that invest in broadband access in rural regions of our country. Specifically, broadband providers can expense the cost of equipment for, installation of, or connection to broadband services in the first year of service. It also encourages the development of ``next generation'' technology, typically more expensive, through the same type of incentive.

My bill also supports research in technologies that enhance broadband service and provide more effective and less expensive service to rural areas. It directs the National Science Foundation to conduct research into both the availability and access of broadband technologies. Research into advanced technologies that can provide telephone, cable television, and Internet service will enable the same equipment to provide these services and hopefully reduce costs in the process, allowing increased access.

Finally, my bill creates an office in the Department of Commerce to coordinate federal resources relating to rural broadband access. In the past, several agencies have been involved with the development and deployment of broadband. This office will provide a central point within the government to monitor this effort and reduce overlap within other agencies.

I believe this is important legislation that will provide rural regions the tools they need to increase economic opportunity and improve their quality of life. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding young woman in my district, Heather Ray. Heather is a sophomore at Northglenn High School. She was recently honored with the Human Rights Campaign 1st Annual Colorado Youth Award. Heather was selected for her exceptional commitment to diversity.

Specifically, she was instrumental in forming a diversity group at Northglenn High School called ``Students Teaching Not Discrimination'' or STAND. This organization is designed to give students a safe environment to talk about issues involving sexual orientation, discrimination and the peer pressure that can often lead young people to contemplate dropping out of school, or even worse, suicide.

Heather and her fellow students in STAND have spoken out against the violence and hatred that so many young people are subjected to, and no matter what your position or religious views may be on controversial issues like gay marriage or sexual orientation, I believe we can all applaud this young woman for having the courage of her convictions, and for pursuing a constructive vehicle to explore these issues.

Heather's teacher and mentor, Victoria Bull, describes Heather as an exceptional young person who not only cares passionately about equal right and human dignity but is also tenacious in her desire to affect change. Heather understands the importance of language and insists that those around her take care to make sure their words reflect the values of respect due all human beings. She plans to become a lawyer or a teacher so that she can continue to educate about and defend human rights.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Heather for her commitment to diversity. I join her family and friends in acknowledging her courage and idealism.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for this budget resolution. It does reflect the priorities of the Republican leadership, but I do not think those are the right priorities for our country.

Over the last five years the federal budget has gone from projected surpluses to undeniable deficits. The result has been to reverse 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.

Unfortunately, the combination of recession, the need to increase 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, the budget resolution before us reflects the proposals of the Bush Administration--and we know, or should know, what that means.

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. I do not think this is the right way to go.

That is why I voted for the more responsible and better balanced alternative offered by the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt.

That alternative budget combined a balanced budget, real budget discipline, and protection for Social Security while still providing the same resources for Defense and Homeland Security as the Republican budget.

The alternative also 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.

It would have brought spending in the domestic discretionary accounts back to baseline, that is, to current services, enough to prevent them from being eroded away by inflation, but not any significant increase.

Unfortunately, that alternative was not adopted, and the only remaining choice is to vote for or against the Republican leadership's proposal. Because I am convinced that it is not right for our communities or our country, I must vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this supplemental appropriations bill today.

I have been a critic of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. But I think even those who have supported it should be deeply concerned about the escalating cost of our efforts there. If approved, the President's emergency supplemental appropriations request will bring the total cost of our operations in Iraq so far to over $200 billion. This amount gives me pause, but Congress must not fail to supply our troops.

When I visited Iraq last year, I met with our troops and it is clear to me that more resources, including body armor and military equipment, are needed to safeguard their lives. The bill we are considering today provides these resources. It includes important provisions to raise the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and to increase funding for add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision equipment, and electronic roadside-bomb jammers. It includes funding for contract linguists for the Army and additional body armor for the Army and Marines. And thanks to the passage of the Markey-Blumenauer amendment, which I supported, the bill reaffirms the U.S. commitment to the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

It also provides funding for tsunami disaster relief, $1.3 billion to train and equip Afghan security forces and the Afghan army, $92 million for Darfur and $150 million for food aid to Sudan and Liberia, and $580 million 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.

But large as it is, the bill still falls short in some respects. More funding is needed for veterans' health care and mental health care and helping members of the National Guard transition back to civilian life.

And most problematically, the House-passed rule incorporated into the bill the REAL ID Act, legislation that I opposed when the House passed it in February. I opposed it again by voting against the rule. I believe the REAL ID Act does not strengthen national security, but it does create undue difficulties for asylum seekers and excessively expands the powers of the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The bill also lacks answers to some tough questions. How many more supplemental requests like this one does the administration plan to present to Congress? What is our post-election strategy in Iraq? Can we account for the billions of dollars already spent in Iraq, and are the remaining billions of dollars in reconstruction funds being well spent? Why can't we get a solid answer about the numbers of trained and equipped Iraqi troops?

That lack of information is why I voted for an amendment proposed by Representatives Tierney and Leach to create a Select Congressional Committee--based on the Truman Committee that existed during World War II--to investigate and study the awarding and carrying out of Government contracts to conduct military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Adoption of that amendment would have improved the bill. The failure of this amendment makes it even more important that we continue to ask questions, not only to provide accountability to American taxpayers, but also to keep faith with the real needs of our troops in the field. Estimates of future U.S. costs in Iraq are mind-boggling--ranging from $400 billion to $600 billion over the next decade. That's why it's so important for us to do the job right this time, The more effectively we use these billions to train and equip Iraqi troops, the more quickly Iraqis will be able to fend for themselves, which means a ticket home for our troops.

So the bill could be improved--and I have supported amendments that would do that. But the bottom line is that we need to provide the funding necessary to keep our troops supplied and protected. With our troops stretched thin, forced to perform longer tours of duty and short of equipment and supplies, funding for our men and women in uniform must not be held hostage to disagreements about the wisdom or folly of Bush administration policies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the hard work of David Lee Bucknam, a dedicated public servant in Colorado who recently passed away.

Mr. Bucknam, who was 60 when he died November 22, 2004, spent 24 years directing the inactive-mine reclamation program of the Colorado Division of Mineral and Geology (Division), sealing abandoned mines and restoring the soil and water they contaminated.

Earlier today, I introduced two bills designed to address the barriers hampering the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines in Colorado and throughout the west. The introduction of these bills reminded me of Mr. Bucknam and others like him who worked hard to protect the public and promote wise environmental stewardship. Mr. Bucknam worked with me and my staff on this legislation I am introducing today and I would like to take this opportunity to express my posthumous appreciation for his assistance and for all the work he did for Colorado.

Mr. Bucknam was born in Brockport, New York in 1944 and arrived in Lakewood, Colorado when he was 10. He became an avid and skilled mountaineer and skier, getting an early start in the Denver Junior Group of the Colorado Mountain Club in his teens. In the ``Juniors'' he headed climbing trips and outings, taught mountaineering skills to other teens and adults, and shared his love of the outdoors. He continued to climb throughout the western United States, in the Himalayas, in Canada and in Mexico.

Mr. Bucknam taught junior high history and geography for several years, worked for the Colorado Land Use Commission and then for over 24 years with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. He retired as Director of the Office of Active and Inactive Mines, and when asked what he did, he always smiled and said he ``closed up old mines''. Under his leadership, Colorado's Inactive Mine Reclamation Program and the Colorado Mine Safety and Training program were nationally recognized. He was a mentor and role-model for many of the employees in the Department. His competence and dedication--coupled with his compassion for his co-workers and his leadership on national issues-- made a lasting impact not only on the Division, but the state and the nation as well. In 1990 he served as president of the National Association of Abandoned Mined Land Programs and continued to provide leadership to the Association by serving on several national committees.

During his tenure at the Division, he helped secure access to about 400 abandoned mines

a year out of an estimated 20,000 in the state in order to address the problems they created and reclaim the surrounding land and water. He also helped work on the endless problem of underground coal fires, of which at least 29 subterranean fires still smolder in coal seams throughout Colorado.

Mr. Bucknam's love of the outdoors, his service to his state and community, and his work on addressing the legacy of mining activity are all worthy of recognition. My staff and I wish to express our thoughts and wishes to his family and coworkers.

Mr. Speaker, terrorism must be fought, but we must resist the temptation to answer the extremism of terrorists with denials of the very principles the terrorists are attacking.

That is why many of us have been so concerned about the way the Administration has dealt with two American citizens they identified as ``enemy combatants.''

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that one, Yaser Hamdi, must be tried or released. But it found a technical reason to avoid a similar decision regarding the other, saying that the case had been brought in the wrong district court.

Now the case has been renewed in the correct district court, and has brought a ruling that an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News says ``dealt, one hopes, a fatal blow to the assertion of an unchecked presidential power to jail a citizen indefinitely and with no access to due process.''

I share that hope.

For the information of our colleagues, here is the complete text of the editorial:

[From the Rocky Mountain News, Mar. 2, 2005]

Justice, Finally, for Jose Padilla

The most egregious assertion of power in the Bush

administration's war on terror was the president's right to

jail any American indefinitely without trial. The president

merely had to designate that person an ``enemy combatant.''

That unwelcome unilateral expansion of presidential

prerogatives was used only twice--on Yaser Esam Hamdi, a

U.S.-born Saudi; and Jose Padilla, an American petty

criminal.

Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in 2001, sent to

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then shipped to a Navy brig when

the feds learned he could claim U.S. citizenship. Last June,

the Supreme Court ruled that the administration had to either

try him or release him, and even though Hamdi, now 24, was

presumably so dangerous that he had to spend over two years

in solitary, the administration tamely sent him back to his

parents in Saudi Arabia on the grounds that he no longer had

any information to give.

Padilla, now 34, wasn't so lucky. Even though an appeals

court had ruled that Padilla, too, should be tried or

released, the Supreme Court said his case should have been

filed in South Carolina instead of New York. Now a federal

judge in South Carolina, Henry Floyd, has ruled and dealt,

one hopes, a fatal blow to the assertion of an unchecked

presidential power to jail a citizen indefinitely and with no

access to due process--a judge, lawyer, habeas corpus,

charges, a trial, all the basic constitutional safeguards.

``The court finds that the president has no power, neither

express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to

hold petitioner as an enemy combatant,'' Floyd wrote.

Well said.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a House resolution recognizing the goals and ideas of the National Time Out Day, which the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) and over 50 other health care organizations are celebrating on June 22, 2005 to promote the adoption of a new protocol for preventing medical errors in the operating room.

The number of individuals who are affected by medical errors is astounding. In 2000, the Institute of Medicine released a report entitled ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The report revealed that between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized people in the U.S. die each year due to medical errors, and thousands of others suffer injury or illness as a result of preventable errors. To address this problem, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has developed a universal protocol which calls for surgical teams to call a ``time out'' before surgeries begin in order to verify the patient's identity, the procedure to be performed, and the site of the procedure. The Joint Commission has required nurses, surgeons and hospitals throughout the country to adopt this protocol effective July 1, 2004, in order to curb the alarming number of deaths and injuries due to medical errors.

AORN has created an Internet website and distributed 55,000 tool kits to healthcare professionals to help them implement the universal protocol, and they are celebrating National Time Out Day on June 23 to promote the protocol and its adoption. National Time Out Day has been endorsed by a distinguished group of healthcare organizations, including the American College of Surgeons, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American Hospital Association, and the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management.

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, this issue is about health care access and patient safety. I think it is important for Congress to recognize and congratulate perioperative nurses and representatives of surgical teams for working together to reduce medical errors and to ensure the improved health and safety of surgical patients. Fewer medical errors will result in better outcomes for patients, fewer medical malpractice suits, which in turn will help keep malpractice insurance rates and health care premiums down. I urge the House to adopt the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing legislation designed to help promote the cleanup of abandoned and inactive hardrock mines that are a menace to the environment and public health throughout the country, but especially in the west. I introduced a bill aimed at that result in the 107th Congress, and in the 108th introduced a revised version that incorporated a number of changes developed in consultation with interested parties, including representatives of the Western Governors' Association, the hardrock mining industry, and environmental groups.

Today, I am introducing two separate but complementary bills that together include the provisions of the bill I introduced in the 108th Congress. This two-bill approach reflects the fact that while the Resources Committee has jurisdiction over the proposed funding legislation, the provisions dealing with liability fall within the responsibility of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. In other words, while the one-bill approach had the virtue of being comprehensive, the two-bill approach may facilitate Congressional action. But it remains the fact that both bills are equally necessary for a complete response to the problem.

The background: For over one hundred years, miners and prospectors have searched for and developed valuable ``hardrock'' minerals--gold, silver, copper, molybdenum, and others. Hardrock mining has played a key role in the history of Colorado and other states, and the resulting mineral wealth has been an important aspect of our economy and the development of essential products. However, as all westerners know, this history has too often been marked by a series of ``boom'' times followed by a ``bust'' when mines were no longer profitable. When these busts came, too often the miners would abandon their workings and move on, seeking riches over the next mountain. The resulting legacy of unsafe open mine shafts and acid mine drainages can be seen throughout the country and especially on the western public lands where mineral development was encouraged to help settle our region.

The problems: The problems caused by abandoned and inactive mines are very real and very large--including acidic water draining from old tunnels, heavy metals leaching into streams killing fish and tainting water supplies, open vertical mine shafts, dangerous highwalls, large open pits, waste rock piles that are unsightly and dangerous, and hazardous dilapidated structures.

And, unfortunately, many of our current environmental laws, designed to mitigate the impact from operating hardrock mines, are of limited effectiveness when applied to abandoned and inactive mines. As a result, many of these old mines go on polluting streams and rivers and potentially risking the health of people who live nearby or downstream.

Obstacles to cleanups: Right now there are two serious obstacles to progress. One is a serious lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private person or entity can be held liable. The other obstacle is legal. While the Clean Water Act is one of the most effective and important of our environmental laws, as applied it can mean that someone undertaking to clean up an abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in the first place. As a result, would-be ``good Samaritans'' understandably have been unwilling to volunteer their services to clean up abandoned and inactive mines.

Unless these fiscal and legal obstacles are overcome, often the only route to clean up abandoned mines will be to place them on the nation's Superfund list. Colorado has experience with that approach, so Coloradans know that while it can be effective it also has shortcomings. For one thing, just being placed on the Superfund list does not guarantee prompt cleanup. The site will have to get in line behind other listed sites and await the availability of financial resources. In addition, as many communities within or near Superfund sites know, listing an area on the Superfund list can create concerns about stigmatizing an area and potentially harming nearby property values.

We need to develop an alternative approach that will mean we are not left only with the options of doing nothing or creating additional Superfund sites--because while in some cases the Superfund approach may make the most sense, in many others there could be a more direct and effective way to remedy the problem.

Western Governors want action: The Governors of our western States have recognized the need for action to address this serious problem. The Western Governors' Association has several times adopted resolutions on the subject, such as the one of June, 2004 entitled ``Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines'' sponsored by Governor Bill Owens of Colorado along with Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Governor Kenny Guinn of Nevada.

Outline of the two bills: My two bills are based directly on those recommendations by the Western Governors. One addresses the lack of resources, while the other deals with the liability risks to those doing cleanups.

Bill to provide funds for cleanups: To help fund cleanup projects, one bill--entitled the ``Abandoned Hardrock Mines Reclamation Funding Act''--would create a reclamation fund paid for by a modest fee applied to existing hardrock mining operations. The fund would be used by the Secretary of the Interior to assist projects to reclaim and restore lands and waters adversely affected by abandoned or inactive hardrock mines.

A similar method already exists to fund cleanup of abandoned coal mines. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) provides for fees on coal production. Those fees are deposited into the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund and used to fund reclamation of sites that had been mined for coal and then abandoned before enactment of SMCRA. Similarly, my bill provides for fees on mineral production from producing hardrock mines.

In developing this bill, I have followed the lead of a 1999 resolution of the Western Governors Association. That resolution notes that ``While society has benefited broadly from the metal mining industry, problems created by some abandoned mine lands [are] a significant national concern. . . [and] industry can play an important role in the resolution of these problems through funding mechanisms'' as well as in other ways.

In accord with that suggestion, the bill provides for fees on producing hardrock mines on federal lands or lands that were federal before issuance of a mining-law patent. Fees would be paid to the Secretary of the Interior and would be deposited in a new Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund in the U.S. Treasury. Money in that fund would earn interest and would be available for reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines and associated sites.

In developing the bill, I decided that a one-fee-fits-all approach would not be fair. Instead, the bill provides for only modest fees and a sliding scale based on the ability of mines to pay.

Mines Exempt From Fees--To begin with, the bill would entirely exempt mines with gross proceeds of less than $500,000 per year. That means many--probably most--small operations, such as Alaskan prospectors working individual placer claims, will not be liable for any fees.

Calculation of Fees--For more lucrative mines, fees would be based on the ratio of net proceeds to gross proceeds. If a mine's net proceeds were under 10% of gross proceeds, the fee would be 2 percent of the net proceeds. For mines with net proceeds of at least 10 percent but less than 18 percent of gross proceeds, the fee would be 2.5 percent of net proceeds. Mines where the net proceeds were at least 18 percent but less than 26 percent of gross proceeds would pay a fee of 3 percent of net proceeds. If the net proceeds were at least 26 percent but less than 34 percent of gross proceeds, the fee would be 3.5 percent of net proceeds. Where the net proceeds were at least 34 percent but less than 42 percent of gross proceeds the fee would be 4 percent of net proceeds. Mines with net proceeds equal to at least 42 percent but less than 50 percent of gross proceeds would pay a fee of 4.5 percent of net proceeds. And mines whose net proceeds were 50 percent or more of the gross proceeds would pay a fee of 5 percent of the net proceeds.

For the purpose of calculating these fees, the bill defines gross proceeds as the value of any extracted hardrock minerals that are sold, exchanged for good or services, exported ready for use or sale, or initially used in manufacture or service. Net proceeds are defined as how much of the gross proceeds remain after deducting the costs of mine development; mineral extraction; transporting minerals for smelting or similar processing; mineral processing; marketing and delivery to customers; maintenance and repairs of machinery and facilities; depreciation; insurance on mine facilities and equipment; insurance for employees; and royalties and taxes.

Based on Nevada Model--This way of calculating fees resembles one used by Nevada, which collects similar production-based fees from mines in that state. However, the fees in my bill are more moderate than those set by the Nevada law in one important respect--Nevada imposes its maximum fee rate on all mines with net proceeds of $5 million or more, regardless of the ratio between those net proceeds and the gross proceeds. My bill does not do that--instead, all of its fees are based on the ratio. In other words, under my bill a mine with earnings (i.e., net proceeds) of more than $5 million per year still might pay the minimum fee if those earnings were less than 10 percent of the gross proceeds.

Offset Provision--Under current law, the United States does not receive royalties from production of hardrock minerals from federal lands. Over the years, there have been frequent proposals to establish royalties for hardrock production, in order to provide a greater return to the American people. I think there are strong arguments in favor of such an approach. Accordingly, this bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to reduce payments under this title so as to offset any royalties hardrock producers may pay in the future pursuant to changes in current law. This is intended to avoid the chance that implementation of a royalty would result in inequitable treatment of a producer covered by both the royalty and Title I of this bill.

Estimated Proceeds From Fees and Use of Fund--There are not sufficient data available to say exactly how much money the fees would bring into the new reclamation fund each year. However, the United States Geological Survey does have information about the number of operating copper and gold mines and the State of Nevada has data about the money raised by their similar fee system. By extrapolating from those data, it is possible to estimate that the fees provided for in my bill would generate about $40 million annually for the Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund.

Funds in the new reclamation fund would be available for appropriation for grants to States to complete inventories of abandoned hardrock mine sites, as mentioned above. A state with sites covered by the bill could receive a grant of up to $2 million annually for this purpose. In addition, money from the fund would be available for cleanup work at eligible sites.

To be eligible, a site would have to be within a state subject to operation of the general mining laws that has completed its statewide inventory. Within those states, eligible sites would be those--(1) where former hardrock-mining activities had permanently ceased as of the date of the bill's enactment; (2) that are not on the National Priorities List under the Superfund law; (3) for which there are no identifiable owners or operators; and (4) that lack sufficient minerals to make further mining, remining, or reprocessing of minerals economically feasible. Sites designated for remedial action under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 or subject to planned or ongoing response or natural resource damage action under the Superfund law would not be eligible for cleanup funding from the new reclamation fund.

The Interior Department could use money from the fund to do cleanup work itself or could authorize use of the money for cleanup work by a holder of one of the new ``good Samaritan'' permits provided for in the other bill I am introducing today. Among eligible sites, priorities for funding would be based on the presence and severity of threats to public health, safety, general welfare, or property from the effects of past mining and the improvement that cleanup work could make in

restoration of degraded water and other resources. The first priority would be for sites where effects of past mining pose an extreme danger. After that, priorities would be sites where past mining has resulted in adverse effects (but not extreme danger) and then those where past mining has not led to equally serious consequences but where cleanup work would have a beneficial effect.

Further, the bill recognizes that in Colorado and other states there are often concentrations of abandoned mining sites that vary in the severity of their threat to the public health and the environment but that can and should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. Therefore, it provides that sites of varying priority should be dealt with at the same time when feasible and appropriate.

Bill to provide protection for ``Good Samaritans'': To help encourage the efforts of ``good Samaritans,'' the second bill--entitled the ``Abandoned Hardrock Mines Reclamation Facilitation Act''--would create a new program under the Clean Water Act under which qualifying individuals and entities could obtain permits to conduct cleanups of abandoned or inactive hardrock mines.

These permits would give some liability protection to those volunteering to clean up these sites, while also requiring the permit holders to meet certain requirements.

The bill specifies who can secure these permits, what would be required by way of a cleanup plan, and the extent of liability exposure. Notably, unlike regular Clean Water Act point-source (``NPDES'') permits, these new permits would not require meeting specific standards for specific pollutants and would not impose liabilities for monitoring or long-term maintenance and operations. These permits would terminate upon completion of cleanup, if a regular Clean Water Act permit is issued for the same site, or if a permit holder encounters unforeseen conditions beyond the holder's control. I think this would encourage efforts to fix problems like those at the Pennsylvania Mine.

Together, these two bills can help address problems that have frustrated federal and state agencies throughout the country. As population growth continues near these old mines, more and more risks to public health and safety are likely to occur. We simply must begin to address this issue--not only to improve the environment, but also to ensure that our water supplies are safe and usable.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to provide for completion of a land exchange that involves Pitkin County, Colorado, on one hand and two federal agencies--the Forest Service and BLM--on the other.

The bill would direct a land exchange under which the county would transfer two items to the Forest Service: A 35-acre tract (known as the ``Ryan property'') near the ghost town of Ashcroft; and 18.2 acres (patented mining claims) on Smuggler Mountain near Aspen, Colorado.

In return, the Federal government would transfer to the county 3 items: A 5.5 acre tract south of Aspen known as the ``Wildwood'' parcel, which the county will reconvey to private ownership after reserving a permanent public easement for a trail; 5.92 acres in 12 scattered locations on Smuggler Mountain that abut or are near lands now owned by the county; a 40-acre tract of BLM land along the Crystal River, which will be subject to a permanent conservation easement limiting future use to recreational, fish and wildlife, and open space purposes.

The bill requires standard appraisals of all properties involved. If the lands going to the county are worth less than what the county is giving to the federal government, the county will waive additional payment. On the other hand, if the lands provided by the county are worth less than those the county is to receive, the county will either pay cash to equalize or will convey an additional tract (160 acres in the Sellers' Meadow area near Hagerman Pass) to make up the difference.

The bill is fair, balanced, and not controversial. A similar measure (S. 100) has been introduced by Colorado's senior Senator, Wayne Allard, with the cosponsorship of Senator Ken Salazar.

For the information of our colleagues, here is a summary of the legislation and a list of groups that have expressed their support for its enactment.

Summary of Proposed Pitkin County (Ryan Property) Land Exchange

United States gets

35 acre Ryan Property in the White River National Forest

near Ashcroft and Aspen, Colorado. Forest Service acquisition

of property will complete the Ashcroft Preservation Project,

which was initiated by the Forest Service in 1980 to

consolidate National Forest land ownership in and around the

historic Ashcroft Townsite. The Ryan Property and surrounding

lands are: (1) an extremely popular sightseeing and

recreation destination; (2) heavily used for nordic skiing on

public and private trails associated with the Ashcroft

touring center; (3) abut the popular Cathedral Lake Trail and

Trailhead; and (4) contain historic structures associated

with the World War II 10th Mountain Division.

18.2 acre Grand Turk and Pontiac patented mining claims on

Smuggler Mountain directly above Aspen. Smuggler Mountain is

a heavily used recreational area where the Forest Service is

trying to consolidate its ownership, where feasible.

Pitkin County gets

5.5 acre ``Wildwood'' parcel south of Aspen, which will re-

conveyed by the County into private ownership. Conveyance

will be subject to a permanent public easement for the East

of Aspen Trail.

5.92 acres in 12 scattered mining claim remnants on

Smuggler Mountain. The 12 parcels (ranging from 1.5 to 0.02

acres in size) abut or are near existing County owned lands.

40 acre BLM parcel (Parcel 79) along the Crystal River near

Carbondale, Colorado. Pitkin County must grant BLM a

permanent conservation easement on the parcel for continued

public access, and limiting future use to recreational, fish

and wildlife and open space purposes only. Easement

requirement will not reduce parcel's exchange value.

Additional exchange provisions

Exchange values will be deemed equal if Forest Service

appraiser determines approximate equal value. If the

appraiser determines value is owed by Pitkin County, the

County will additionally convey to the Forest Service the 160

acre Sellar Park property,

a Forest inholding currently owned and managed by Pitkin

County as open space.

Endorsements: As of September 7, 2004 proposed the exchange

has been endorsed by: Aspen Valley Land Trust; Aspen

Historical Society; Ashcroft Ski Touring; The Conservation

Fund; Crystal River Caucus; Friends of Ashcroft; Wilderness

Workshop; Aspen Center for Environmental Studies; Aspen

Skiing Company; Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County;

City of Aspen; Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Assn.;

Roaring Fork Conservancy; Crystal-Maroon Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in cautious support of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. While I believe the public should be able to trust that the content of programming during peak viewing times is age-appropriate for children, I am concerned that strict regulations, if improperly applied, can result in infringements on our right to free speech.

Parents ought to be able to watch or listen to public broadcasting without fear that obscene material is foisted on their children. The Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) role in encouraging and enforcing decency regulations provides parents with a level of security that their family can watch television together or listen to the radio on the way to school without concern about the appropriateness of the information for their children.

As our society's values have changed with different trends, the FCC has provided a standard to guide broadcasters and encourage them to take into account the diversity of their audience when making programming decisions. This bill will retain these standards and dramatically increase the amount a broadcaster can be fined for each violation. While I support keeping broadcasters accountable to the public, I believe excessive fines could be a slippery slope toward violations of first amendment rights and public access to a diverse discussion of ideas. I am, therefore, supporting this legislation but with a deep concern that Congress may well have to re-examine the nature of these fines in future legislation, particularly if they have the effect of prior restraint on first amendment freedoms.

In light of recent scrutiny of indecent material, many broadcasters, artists, and performers are looking toward unregulated airwaves, such as cable and satellite radio. If these programs and performers move to these arenas, the quality of public airwaves leaves with them. The free flow of ideas is the cornerstone of our society, and opens the minds of Americans to different ideas, cultures and lifestyles. Public television and radio provides a medium for these ideas to reach all Americans, not just those who can afford it.

So it is with some deep hesitation that I vote for this bill, as I hope it will not set a dangerous precedent of excessive fines and regulation on television and radio content and possibly infringe on our first amendment rights, but instead ensure that broadcasters are aware and accountable for the content which they air.

I am including an editorial printed in the Rocky Mountain News in March 2004, which I think raises important concerns to consider regarding the increase in fines that this bill will administer.

[From the Rocky Mountain News, March 15, 2004]

Congress Should Retreat in `Indecency' War

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives stampeded

Thursday to pass a bill to appease voters offended by the

Superbowl display of Janet Jackson's breast. Unfortunately,

all of Colorado's House delegation (with the exception of

Mark Udall, who did not vote) displayed a herd mentality.

The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, H.R. 3717, raises

the maximum fine for a decency violation to $500,000, an

amount that applies both to on-air personalities and to

broadcast outlets. But because broadcasters often own many

outlets, and programs often air in multiple markets, the

total fine for even a single slip of the tongue (or the

wardrobe) can be astronomical. The legislation was introduced

in January, before the Super Bowl, so it is probably just

coincidence that the new fine amounts to just about one

dollar for each of the more than 500,000 complaints about the

halftime show that flooded into the offices of the Federal

Communications Commission. But the rapid passage is certainly

no coincidence. Public outrage spooked Congress into acting.

The vote was 391-22, with Ron Paul, R-Texas, the lone

Republican to stand up against congressional censorship.

A Senate measure, S. 2056, has similar provisions for

raising fines, but also suspends

for a year FCC rules about how many media outlets a company

can own while the General Accounting Office investigates

whether consolidation in the broadcast media is connected

with indecency on the airwaves. It's awaiting action by the

full Senate.

We're glad there is still lots of full-throated public

reaction against sleaze in the media (even if the public is

often fickle about what it considers inappropriate). The FCC

is supposed to uphold some standards, which is why it

monitors complaints and spells out the rules for what

constitutes ``exhibitionism,'' ``obscenity'' and

``blasphemy.'' But the best pressure, we believe, is the

voice of thousands of individual consumers making their views

known to the companies that market the stuff.

We understand that few politicians, especially with an

election nearing, are willing to risk being accused of

``defending indecency.'' But Congress should tread lightly in

such matters. A law broad enough to ensure that no one's ear

or eye is offended will end up silencing speech--indignation

at government policies, for example, expressed in strong

language--that ought to enjoy full constitutional protection.

``It's a shame we have to address this issue,'' declared

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, ``but when members

of the broadcast industry violate the boundaries of

reasonable tolerance, that's exactly what we're forced to

do.''

Forced? Panicked is more like it, and the spectacle is

embarrassing.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to give the President and Congress new and effective--and, more importantly, constitutional--powers to weed out wasteful Government spending.

Over the last four years, there has been a dramatic change in the federal budget--and it has been a change for the worse. It has gone from annual surpluses to annual deficits, meaning we have gone from debt reduction to increasing the ``debt tax'' that our children will have to pay.

In part, this was the result of recession. In part, it was caused by the need to increase spending for national defense, homeland security, and fighting terrorism.

And in large part it was the result of the excessive and unbalanced tax cuts that Congress passed in those same years.

This bill does not directly address those major causes of our budgetary problems. Responding to them will require long-term work on several fronts, including tax policy. But I think this bill can provide one useful tool that will help in the larger effort.

It deals with the increasing number of individual, earmarked items included in appropriations bills.

Some people are opposed to all earmarks. I am not one of them. I think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and that Congress as a whole can and should exercise its judgment on how tax dollars are to be spent. So, I have sought earmarks for various items that have benefited Colorado and I will continue to do so.

At the same time, I know--everyone knows--that sometimes a large appropriations bill includes some earmarked items that might not be approved if they were considered separately, because they would be seen as unnecessary, inappropriate, or excessive.

That's why presidents have long sought the kind of ``line-item veto'' that is available to the governors of several states--and why Congress passed a law attempting to give that authority to President Clinton.

The supporters of that legislation argued that making it possible to cut unnecessary individual items out of a spending bill could help make the government more prudent in the way we spend taxpayer money.

But while the diagnosis was right, the proposed remedy of a line-item veto went too far--further than the Constitution permits. That's why it was struck down in court.

My bill is a better prescription--one that will work and that will pass constitutional muster.

Under this legislation, whenever the President wants to cut a particular spending item in an appropriations bill he would be able to require Congress to reconsider and vote separately on rescinding that item, under tight deadlines and without amendment.

That would be an important change, because while current law authorizes the president to propose rescissions--that is, deletions-- from appropriations that Congress has approved, there is no requirement that Congress take any action on those proposals.

My bill would change that by requiring Congress to consider and vote on whether the president's proposed rescissions should be approved.

So, like the line-item veto act, this bill would let the President throw a bright spotlight onto spending items and have Congress vote on them separately, up or down, without changes and in full public view.

The bill is entitled the ``Expedited Rescissions Act of 2005.'' It is based on one introduced by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs which in turn was patterned after, but stronger than, legislation passed by the House in 1993.

Unlike the bill that the House passed in 1993, my bill would not let the Appropriations Committee come up with its alternative way to rescind the same amount of money that would be cut by the President's proposed rescission. Instead, it would require that the actual rescission proposed by the President--that one, without any amendment, and with no alternative to it--be voted on by the Congress.

Unlike the line-item veto, this bill is constitutionally sound. It does not attempt to give to the President the basic law-making authority that the Constitution vests solely in the Congress. Constitutionally, the line-item veto act could not be effective--it wasn't real. This bill would give the President authority that could be used effectively--it is real.

The President and the Congress alike need to have an effective, constitutionally valid alternative to the line-item veto that can be used to revoke parts of a spending bill that could not withstand a separate up-or-down vote. This bill will meet that need.

For the information of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill's provisions:

Outline of Expedited Rescissions Act of 2005

The bill would amend the Budget Act by adding a new section providing for expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions.

The new section would authorize the president to propose rescission of any budget authority provided in an appropriations Act through a special message that includes a draft bill to make that rescission. The new section would require the House's majority leader or minority leader to introduce that bill within two legislative days. If neither did so, any Member could then introduce the bill.

The House Appropriations Committee would be required to report a bill introduced pursuant to the new section of the Budget Act within seven days after introduction. The report could be made with or without recommendation regarding its passage. If the committee did not meet that deadline, it would be discharged and the bill would go to the House floor.

The House would debate and vote on the bill within 10 legislative days after the bill's introduction. Debate would be limited to no more than four hours and no amendment, motion to recommit, or motion to reconsider would be allowed. If passed by the House, the bill would go promptly to the Senate, which would have no more than 10 more days to consider and vote on it. Debate in the Senate would be limited to 10 hours and no amendment or motion to recommit would be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, the House has considered similar legislation in 1999, 2002, and 2003. On each of those occasions, I voted ``no''--not because I was unalterably opposed to Congress acting on this subject, but because in my judgment the defects of those bills outweighed their potential benefits.

When it was announced that this bill would be considered, I hoped that the pattern would be broken and that this time I would be able to support the legislation. And if the Conyers substitute had been adopted, that would have been the case.

Adoption of the substitute would have greatly improved the legislation. It would have reaffirmed the authority and ability of each State's Attorney General to carry out his or her duties under State law. It would have made sure that the bill would not prejudice people with complaints about violations of their civil rights. It would have properly focused the legislation on class actions unrelated to personal injuries. It would have added important protections for the public's right to know about the proceedings in our courts. And it would have made other changes that would have improved the bill.

Unfortunately, the substitute was not adopted--and I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I must vote against the bill.

That conclusion is reluctant because in several ways this bill is better--or, more accurately, less bad--than its predecessors.

Unlike earlier versions, S. 5 would not have a retroactive effect, so it would not affect pending cases. It also does not include a provision for immediate interlocutory appeals of denials of class action certification, or for a stay of all discovery while the appeal was pending. And in several other ways, it differs for the better from previous versions.

However, while the bill is less bad, in my opinion it still is not good enough. I remain unconvinced that the problem the bill purports to address is so great as to require such a sweeping remedy, and I am still concerned that in too many cases the side-effects of this treatment will be more severe than the disease.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important rights we have as Americans is the ability to seek redress from the courts when we believe our rights have been abridged or we have been improperly treated. And, when a complaint arises under a State law, it is both appropriate and desirable that it be heard in State court because those are the most convenient and with the best understanding of State laws and local conditions.

Of course, it is appropriate to provide for removing some State cases to Federal courts. But I think that should be more the exception than the rule, and I think this bill tends to reverse that. I think it excessively tilts the balance between the States and the Federal government so as to throw too many cases into already-overburdened Federal courts--with the predictable result that too many will be dismissed without adequate consideration of their merits.

So, while I respect those who have urged the House to pass this bill, I cannot vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot in good conscience vote for the REAL ID Act, H.R. 418 because, despite the intention of the bill's sponsors to strengthen our borders, it has the opposite effect, by making homeland security and an effective war against terrorism more difficult with unnecessary provisions aimed at legitimate asylum seekers. Moreover, I am guided in my judgment about this bill by the opposition of the National Governors Association and the National Council of State Legislatures.

This bill tightens asylum laws in a way that inhibits, rather than enhances our national security. Currently individuals who participate in terrorist activity are not allowed to gain asylum status in this country. Terrorists have not been able to use the current asylum system to gain entry into the country, thus the tightening of these laws only make gaining asylum status more difficult for those legitimately seeking asylum. Provisions such as requiring applicants to prove the ``central reason'' for their persecution or allowing judges to require applicants to produce corroborating evidence are unnecessary.

While national security must be our top priority, immigration policy should not create unnecessary requirements for legitimate asylum seekers who are arguably our best allies in the fight against international terrorism. The asylum provisions of this bill will not enhance our security or our standing in the world.

I also have concerns that the bill allows and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws which he or she deems necessary to complete the construction of barriers along any and all U.S. borders. Some have argued that this provision is needed to ensure the construction of a fence along three and half miles of the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego. However, the language of the bill is not limited to the construction of a fence in this location. Instead, it instructs the Secretary to waive all laws for all U.S. borders; this includes the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border, and maybe even the border between Alaska and Russia. The bill also removes any judicial review of the waiving of these laws.

This would give far too much unchecked authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security and does not provide the protection of judicial review of this authority.

There are two amendments, one offered by my colleagues Mr. Nadler and Mr. Meeks, and the other offered by Mr. Farr, which would strike portions of the bill that do not address our national security regard the asylum system and our borders. However, in light of their failure, I am left no option but to vote against this bill.

I find the driver's license standards established in this bill to be unnecessary as well as they already exist in current law. Last fall's Intelligence bill, which I supported, included a provision which already implements the 9/11 Commission Report's recommendations to create national minimum standards for driver's licenses. This provision allowed for states to participate with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security in a rulemaking process.

H.R. 418 repeals these provisions and replaces them with standards established without state input. The issuance of driver's licenses has always been within state jurisdiction. Even with the measures passed in the Intelligence bill, states will largely be organizing and conducting the implementation of these standards. Their participation in establishing and implementing driver's license standards is essential for these provisions to be successful. This bill simply ignores state involvement all together in these standards.

Though the bill does provide grants for the costs of implementing these standards, with the current fiscal climate, many states fear they will be left with the burden of paying a portion of these costs. Most states are faced with the same fiscal crisis that the federal government is currently experiencing. Creating an unfunded mandate for states is unfair, especially when they are excluded from the rulemaking process.

There are portions in this bill which I believe are beneficial to our national security. For instance, I am pleased the amendment offered by Mr. Sessions passed by a voice vote, as it will strengthen our ability to ensure the deportation of individuals who are illegally present in the United States.

Unfortunately, the egregious measures in the bill far out weigh the beneficial provisions. Thus, I must vote against this bill and hope that the Senate will remove the portions of this bill which are unnecessary and attack the balance of power in our country.

Mr. Speaker, together with my Colorado colleague, Representative John Salazar, I am introducing legislation to provide permanent funding for two programs that are very important to counties and other local units of government in Colorado and many other States.

Our bill is identical to one introduced in the 108th Congress by Scott McInnis when he represented Colorado's 3rd Congressional District. He was a leader on this issue, and we are joining to work to complete this job that he began.

Under the bill, the full amounts authorized under both the payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) program and the refuge revenue sharing program would be made available to the Secretary of the Interior annually, for distribution to eligible local governments in accordance with those programs.

This would eliminate the requirement for annual appropriations for PILT and refuge revenue sharing purposes and would shield them against the kind of political shortsightedness demonstrated in the budget recently submitted by President Bush, which proposes to inflict a severe cut in the funding available for PILT.

While both programs are significant, PILT is particularly important for counties in Colorado and other states that include large expanses of federal lands. In 2004, for example, counties in Colorado received more than $17.6 million out of a total of $244.3 million distributed nationwide.

Congress created the PILT program in response to a recommendation of the Public Land Law Review Commission, chaired by Representative Wayne N. Aspinall, who represented what was then Colorado's Fourth Congressional District. It reflected a recognition that a system of payments based on acreage was more equitable and reliable than one tied to management decisions such as timber harvests or other uses.

Counties use their PILT payments for a wide variety of purposes, including some--such as law enforcement, fire fighting, and search and rescue--that are directly related to the federal lands within their boundaries and the people who use those lands.

For nearly two decades after the program was established, PILT funding remained level but the value of PILT payments was eroded by inflation. In 1995, Congress amended the law to raise the authorization level. However, since 1995, no budget request--from either President Clinton or President Bush--has requested more than two-thirds of the amount authorized by the PILT Act. As a result, the burden on county taxpayers has not been reduced to the extent that Congress intended when it passed the 1995 legislation.

Our bill would ensure full implementation of that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today my fellow colleague from Colorado, Representative Beauprez, and I are again introducing a resolution to honor this Nation's children and express the desire to mark the first Wednesday in March as National Children's Day.

The resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives urging the President to proclaim that the first Wednesday of March each year should be named National Children's Day in honor of the future generations of our country.

The Great Sioux Nation can be used as a role model to lawmakers in America as we debate any bill here on the floor of the House of Representatives. They place a high value on the children of the tribe, as they represent the future of the tribe. When important decisions are being made, the Sioux always discussed what the impact of the decision would be, not on the current generation, or the next generation, but the seventh generation out.

The Sioux Nation placed a priority on the future of the tribe, through its children. I believe that it is important that we, as lawmakers, keep the importance of our future in mind as we make decisions everyday here in Congress.

In that spirit, I believe this legislation is fitting as it honors the importance of our Nation's children and the role that we as adults have in the upbringing of a child. Through special attention from the adults in a child's life, that child is more likely to experience success throughout their life. This resolution urges adults to set aside time throughout the day to support a child in their life or community.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and spend some time with a child in their lives.