Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor a good friend and a hard-working public servant, Ms. Elaine Valente. Elaine is retiring as a Commissioner for Adams County, Colorado after 16 years of dedicated service.

Commissioner Valente was born and raised in Adams County Colorado. She and her husband Larry own the successful Valente's Deli, are proud parents of two accomplished children, and are passionate community activists.

Elaine's interest in her community began long before assuming her role as County Commissioner. She severed on the Adams County Planning Commission, the city of Westminster Urban Renewal Authority, the Westminster Planning Commission, the Citizen's Evaluation for Retention of Judges, and the School District 50 Superintendent's Parent Advisory Committee.

Her deep passion to give something back to her community and to help improve Colorado is what motivated her to run for County Commissioner in 1988. Elaine was victorious in that election and quickly became an outspoken advocate for Adams County's communities. As Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners she took and interest in many issues affecting her constituency, helping pave the way for future economic development, transportation improvements, air traffic investments and reform of county services. When I was elected to Congress in 1998 I knew that one of my first objectives was to learn as much as I could from Elaine, not only about one of Colorado's fastest growing communities, but also about effective public service.

Elaine is the kind of person who speaks her mind with a blend of honest bluntness and old-school graciousness. As a daughter of Italian- Americans she also established a reputation for leadership on behalf of ethnic minorities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Elaine Valente and in wishing her success in all her future endeavors. It has been a true privilege to work with such a remarkable woman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor Mr. Ted Strickland, outgoing Commissioner for Adams County, Colorado.

In the last 5 years I have appreciated working with the Board of Adams County Commissioners, and I have found Commissioner Strickland to be a good source of wisdom and experience. I certainly wish him well on his retirement.

Commissioner Strickland was born and raised in Austin, Texas. After serving in the military he came to Colorado. Ted began a successful career in the oil and gas industry, becoming Vice President of Petroleum Information.

Feeling drawn toward public service, Ted ran for election to the Colorado House of Representatives. He served 2 years in the House before being elected to the Colorado State Senate, where he served as Senate President and later as a candidate for Governor in 1986.

Ted's obvious passion for public service led him to run for Adams County Commissioner in 1996. Once on the Commission he continued his hard work for those he represented. He served on the E-470 Public Highway Authority Board, the Front Range Airport Authority Board, the Adams County Economic Development Board, the Adams County Water Quality Association, and on the Denver Regional Council of Governments. With such a wide scope of reach, Commissioner Strickland has left an important legacy in Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Ted Strickland and in wishing him well on his retirement from local government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Open Studios on celebrating their 10th Anniversary of providing exemplary educational and cultural programming for artists and art lovers in the Boulder community. Open Studios is one of Colorado's outstanding arts organizations, offering opportunities to gain a broader understanding and appreciation of the visual arts.

Founded by Gary Zeff in 1994, Open Studios' first event was held in Boulder, Colorado during October of 1995. Every fall since then, Open Studios has invited the public to create self-guided tours of approximately 135 studios featuring painters, sculptors, woodworkers, furniture makers, weavers, photographers, papermakers, jewelers, potters and other fine visual artists. These tours allow the public to meet the artists one-on-one in their studios and watch them work.

Participating artists include an educational component in their studio setting. Many frequently engage the visitors by demonstrating their artistic skills and technique. Visitors are encouraged to ask questions about particular aspects of their work and their artistic process. At some studios, materials are available for adults and children to try their hand at creating art. Open Studios enhances the public tours with a unique Guidebook containing all the participating artists, an easy-to-read tour map, and an Art Resource Directory.

Prior to the public tours, a preview exhibit is held locally along with an artists' reception. The general public is joined at this free event by arts designers, art consultants, dealers, gallery owners, private collectors, and other artists. Open Studios has established an excellent reputation in the community. In the 10-year history, attendance has increased from about 20,000 studio visits to over 70,000. Its programs are implemented by an exceptional, dedicated staff with the sound stewardship of an innovative Board of Directors.

Open Studios has a mission of education. That mission has been expanded over the years to include not just educational opportunities in the studios during the two week event, but also community activities especially for children. Six years ago, Open Studios coordinated with the Director of Special Education of the Boulder Valley School District to provide art supplies and instruction to Halcyon School. With the success of the program at Halcyon, the educational program has been expanded to include six more Boulder Valley schools. There is no charge to the schools, and Open Studios pays artists for their time with a grant from the Boulder Arts Commission.

Throughout the decade, Open Studios has worked to bring art to the community in a myriad of different ways. Open Studios has assisted my office with the annual United States Congressional High School Art Competition for the past four years. In 2000, Open Studios brought William Ivey, the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, to speak to Colorado communities and artists about the direction of the national art movement. In 2001, Open Studios arranged an opportunity for citizens to create cards to thank the members of the New York City Police and Fire Departments for their work and their sacrifices on 9/ 11. And this past year, Open Studios engaged the Boulder community in painting America's largest paint-by-number, a 1000-square foot painting displayed on a building in downtown Boulder.

The arts enhance the quality of every aspect of our lives. Open Studios has become a vital part of the community and has added to the quality of life of the citizens of Colorado. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Open Studios for its accomplishments and its commitment to providing an unsurpassed cultural program to Coloradans. I wish its staff and Board continued creativity and success in the future.

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 makes 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 a 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 regarding 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 altogether 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 outweigh 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, today I am introducing a bill to reaffirm the authority of each state to regulate hunting and fishing within its boundaries, and especially a state's authority to enforce laws or regulations that differ in the way they treat that state's residents and people residing elsewhere.

A similar Senate bill has been introduced by Senator Reid of Nevada, who introduced a related measure in the 108th Congress. He has been the leader on this matter, and I am proud to join in the effort.

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 percent 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 he U.S. Supreme Court.

Colorado was one of those States, and our then-Attorney General, Ken Salazar, 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, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington as well those of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marinas. But it could have an effect on the thinking of federal courts across the country.

The bill's purpose is to forestall that outcome, and so far as possible to return to the state of affairs prevailing before the 9th circuit's decision.

The bill would do two things:

First, in Section 2(a), it would declare that the policy of Congress is 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, in Section 2(b), it would provide that silence on the part of Congress is not to be construed by the courts as imposing any barrier under the commerce clause of the constitution to a state's regulation of hunting, fishing, or trapping.

These provisions are 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 2(a) of the bill 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.

Section 2(b) 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.

This bill is neither a federal mandate for state action nor a Congressional delegation of authority to any state. Instead, it is 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 to 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 the bill is not intended to affect any federal law already on the books or to limit any authority of any Indian Tribe. Section 3 of the bill is intended to prevent any misunderstanding on these points.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is 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 it deserves broad support.

For the information of our colleagues, here is a brief outline of the bill and a letter of support from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies:

Outline of Bill

Section One provides a short title--``Reaffirmation of

State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and

Fishing Act of 2005.''

Section Two has two subsections:

Subsection 2(a) states that it is the policy of Cogress

that it is in the public interest for each state to continue

to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife for any purpose

within its boundaries, including by means of laws or

regulations that differentiate between residents and non-

residents with respect to the availability of licenses or

permits for particular species, the kind and numbers of fish

or wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in

connection with issuance of hunting or fishing licenses or

permits.

Subsection 2(b) states that silence on the part of Congress

is not to be construed to impose any barrier under the

commerce clause of the Constitution to a state's regulation

of hunting or fishing.

Section Three specifies that the bill is not to be

construed as--limiting the applicability or effect of any

Federal law related to the protection or management of fish

or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce; limiting the

authority of the federal goverment to prohibit hunting or

fishing on any portion of the federal lands; or altering in

any way any right of any Indian Tribe.

Section Four defines the term ``state'' as including the 50

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands.

International Association

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,

Washington, DC, February 9, 2005.

Hon. Mark Udall,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Udall: The International Association of

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, whose government members include

the fifty state fish and wildlife agencies, strongly supports

your bill to reaffirm state regulation of resident and non-

resident hunting and fishing. This bipartisan bill is

necessary to address the recent decision of the Ninth Circuit

in Conservation Force v. Manning, 301 F.3d 985 (9th Cir.

2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1112 (2003). That unprecedented

decision concluded that hunting of big game in Arizona

substantially affects interstate commerce such that

differential treatment of residents and nonresidents must be

strictly scrutinized by federal courts.

By subjecting to strict scrutiny analysis under the dormant

Commerce Clause state preferences for residents in highly

prized species, the Ninth Circuit decision strikes at the

ability of states to maintain the level of local sacrifice

and contribution necessary to produce big game.

We appreciate your interest in rectifying the problems

caused by the Ninth Circuit ruling and appreciate also the

effort of your staff to assure the bill is sharply drawn so

that it neutralizes the effect of the court ruling, but

beyond that neither enlarges nor diminishes state authority.

The limitations provisions of section 3 are written to insure

that no existing federal or tribal authority relating to fish

and wildlife would be affected.

Both resident and nonresident hunters and anglers

contribute to conservation, yet it is essential to

conservation efforts in the several States that the level of

hunting and fishing opportunity for residents not be eroded.

The passion and unity that derives from direct involvement by

residents in fish and wildlife programs is a critical asset

in resource protection and management. The bill you have

introduced reaffirms that the states are the appropriate

stewards of fish and wildlife resources within their borders,

the hallmark of the highly successful model of fish and

wildlife protection and management in the United States.

Permit numbers, license fees, hunt areas and season dates are

best handled through the legislative and rulemaking processes

at the state level.

Thank you again for your initiative in taking this bill

forward. We look forward to working with you and your staff

to achieve enactment of the bill.

Terry Crawforth,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Ft. Lewis College's Winter Graduating Class of 2004. 1 was unable to attend the ceremony and would like to enter some remarks into the record on behalf of the graduates.

I was asked to serve as the commencement speaker for the December 18th graduation ceremony in Durango, Colorado where Ft. Lewis College is located. Ft. Lewis College is a fine institution of higher learning in the West, and Durango happens to be one of my favorite places in Colorado. For my colleagues who have not had the opportunity to visit Durango, I can tell you that it embodies much of the majesty of the Rocky Mountains and the West. From the high country lakes to the red- rocked canyon lands to the breathtakingly rugged San Juan Mountains, Durango is truly awe-inspiring nature at its finest. I was very much looking forward to talking to these graduates in this beautiful part of our State.

Drawing on my experience as a climber and outdoorsman, I was going to talk to the graduates about the lessons they could learn from the natural world around them as they embarked upon their next journey. I hoped to remind them that they are surrounded by beauty and should take time to take note of the quality of air and light around them. Much like being atop our San Juan Mountains, they too were on the roof of the,world. Not only can they look down with a sense of pride from the peak they have just climbed in earning their degree. From this new found height they can see the myriad peaks on the horizon for the first time because they have worked hard to better themselves through education. They can now see the boundless opportunities available to them. Among these opportunities are those involving public service.

A friend and man I admire, Senator John McCain, has said that military service gave him an opportunity to serve a cause bigger than personal self-interest. I could not say it any better, and I hope all graduates take this underlying message to heart whether they enter military service or not. Senator McCain's wisdom speaks to all of us.

I want to take this opportunity to recognize their hard work and the support of their families and congratulate them on their graduation. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Ft. Lewis College Winter Graduating Class of 2004. I know I join their friends and family in taking great pride in this laudable achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor University of Colorado Regent Susan Kirk. Regent Kirk was elected to represent the First Congressional District in 1992 and was re-elected in 1998 by an overwhelming margin. She was elected chair of the board in 1997 where she provided leadership on the creation of a Women's Studies degree and the application for transfer and conveyance of the Fitzsimmons property. Susan had served the maximum 12 years allowed when her term ended in 2004.

Regent Kirk has been a tireless champion of women's and children's rights, equal opportunity and treatment, and expanding access to higher education. Her altruistic efforts in the community are legendary. She and her husband Dick established the Susan Kirk Scholarship for female students in the Graduate School of Public Affairs. She has also been a contributor to and advocate for the Center for Women's Health Research. Susan Kirk is a key player in many, if not most, charitable endeavors in our community.

Susan held leadership roles at the University of Colorado during both triumphs and challenging times. She has always been more interested in staying true to friendships and looking for solutions than in stirring controversy and grabbing headlines. The strength and grace of her leadership has meant a great deal to our community and is something I personally admire.

I ask my colleagues to join me recognizing my friend, Susan Kirk for her immeasurable contribution to the University of Colorado. I wish her and her husband Dick much health and happiness in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend, Joan Fitz-Gerald. Senator Fitz-Gerald is the first woman to lead the Colorado State Senate and is the only female Senate President in the entire country.

When you meet Joan, who stands at about 5'1", the first image that comes to mind is not necessarily that of a woman capable of breaking ceilings, glass or otherwise. Yet she has done just that since she first ran for Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder in 1990. At the time, many people thought that she had been recruited to run for County Clerk and Recorder as little more than a Democratic place holder on the ballot. No Democrat had won in a county-wide election in the previous 15 years and no woman had ever held the position of County Clerk and Recorder in the history of Jefferson County. But Joan has always been more interested in breaking glass ceilings than in being a place holder. She campaigned hard on a solid platform and won that election. She served in the Clerk and Recorder's office until 1998. In 2000, she ran for the Colorado Senate.

Again she waged an uphill battle in a district that was traditionally difficult for a Democrat and was once again successful against popular convention of the time. Her victory gave Democrats the one seat majority they needed to take back control of the Senate. When the Democrats lost their majority the following election cycle, Senator Fitz-Gerald again made history by become the first female Minority Leader of the Senate.

In this past election cycle, Joan was one of the key leaders to orchestrate a plan to take back the Senate for the Democrats. She did this while caring for her ailing mother and caring for her brother who was diagnosed with leukemia. She lost both within 11 days of one another after the election.

It is a sign of the sincerity and strength of one's character when friends and foes alike agree about another person's character. Anyone who knows her, friend or foe, will say that she is a fighter. More than that she is also a person interested in advancing the goals of community service. She may be on the verge of becoming Colorado's Harry Truman. But then again, maybe Harry Truman was Missouri's Joan Fitz- Gerald.

Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald is a strong, smart, savvy woman. I am proud that she is the Colorado State Senate President and even more proud that she is my friend. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in honoring Joan Fitz-Gerald for her achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a good friend and a hard-working public servant, Ms. Elaine Valente. Elaine is retiring as a Commissioner for Adams County, Colorado after 16 years of dedicated service.

Commissioner Valente was born and raised in Adams County Colorado. She and her husband Larry own the successful Valente's Deli, are proud parents of two accomplished children, and are passionate community activists.

Elaine's interest in her community began long before assuming her role as County Commissioner. She served on the Adams County Planning Commission, the City of Westminster Urban Renewal Authority, the Westminster Planning Commission, the Citizen's Evaluation for Retention of Judges, and the School District 50 Superintendent's Parent Advisory Committee.

Her deep passion to give something back to her community and to help improve Colorado is what motivated her to run for County Commissioner in 1988. Elaine was victorious in that election and quickly became an outspoken advocate for Adams County's communities. As Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners she took an interest in many issues affecting her constituency, helping pave the way for future economic development, transportation improvements, air traffic investments and reform of county services. When I was elected to Congress in 1998 I knew that one of my first objectives was to learn as much as I could from Elaine, not only about one of Colorado's fastest growing communities, but also about effective public service.

Elaine is the kind of person who speaks her mind with a blend of honest bluntness and old-school graciousness. As a daughter of Italian- Americans she also established a reputation for leadership on behalf of ethnic minorities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Elaine Valente and in wishing her success in all her future endeavors. It has been a true privilege to work with such a remarkable woman.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to provide additional resources for use by the Federal land-managing agencies to restore lands damaged as a result of improper activities and to promote public education about the use of the Federal lands. My Colorado colleague, Representative Tancredo, is cosponsoring the legislation. I greatly appreciate his support.

The bill is based on one part of a bill introduced by Representative Tancredo that I cosponsored in the 108th Congress. The purpose of that bill was to improve the ability of the land-managing agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Interior Department as well as the Forest Service in the Agriculture Department--to adequately enforce the rules that apply to uses of the lands they manage.

In the Resources Committee, Mr. Tancredo and I worked with Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, and other Members, to develop a substitute that included a number of improvements in the bill. The Resources Committee approved that substitute, which included provisions similar to those in the bill I am introducing today. However, after the Resources Committee completed its work, the measure was reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, which made further changes before the bill went to the House floor.

The most significant change was deletion of the provisions of the bill that allowed the agencies to retain fines paid for violations of land-use regulations and to use those funds for repairing damages to the lands and for public education. I regretted that change because in addition to more adequate authority to enforce regulations, the land- managing agencies need more resources--more money and more people--if we want them to do a better job.

The House passed the bill as revised by the Judiciary Committee, but the 108th Congress adjourned before the Senate could complete action on it. Accordingly, Mr. Tancredo is reintroducing the House-passed bill and I am cosponsoring that measure. My bill is in effect a companion to his legislation.

As approved by the Resources Committee, the Tancredo-Udall bill of the 108th Congress would have helped with that by allowing the agencies to use money from fines to help pay for some of the restoration work caused by violations of regulations and for public education.

The bill I am introducing today is similar. It would allow agencies to use money collected as fines to be used for repairing damage caused by the actions that lead to the fines or by similar actions. It would also allow them to use the money to increase public awareness of regulations and other requirements regarding use of Federal lands. And it provides that any of the money not needed for those purposes would be credited to the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, this is a modest bill but an important one. I think it deserves the support of

our colleagues and I will do all I can to achieve its enactment into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a significant leader in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. Mr. Ted Strickland, outgoing Commissioner for Adams County, will be leaving his post after eight years of diligent service.

Commissioner Strickland was born and raised in Austin, Texas. After serving in the military he came to Colorado and began a successful career in the oil and gas industry, becoming Vice President with the Petroleum Information company.

Drawn towards public service, Ted ran for election to the Colorado House of Representatives. He served two years in the House before being elected to the Colorado State Senate. His 24 years in the Senate, 12 of which he served as President of the Senate, were a notable accomplishment.

During that time, he and his wife, Luann, settled in Strasburg, Colorado, on the southern edge of Adams County. Ted's continued desire for public service then led him to seek and win election as an Adams County Commissioner in 1996. As a county commissioner, he continued his hard work for those he represented. He served on the E-470 Public Highway Authority Board, the Front Range Airport Authority Board, the Adams County Economic Development Board, the Adams County Water Quality Association, and on the Denver Regional Council of Governments. With such a wide scope of reach, Commissioner Strickland has left a mark as a valuable public servant.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Ted Strickland and in wishing him success in all his future endeavors. Wherever his motivations should take him, I am sure success will follow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an important leader in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. Ms. Elaine Valente, outgoing Commissioner for Adams County, will be leaving her post after 16 years of dedicated service.

Commissioner Valente was born and raised in Adams County. She and her husband Larry own the successful Valente's Deli, are proud parents of two accomplished children, and are passionate community activists.

Elaine's interest in her community began long before assuming her role as County Commissioner. She severed on the Adams County Planning Commission, the City of Westminster Urban Renewal Authority, the Westminster Planning Commission, the Citizen's Evaluation for Retention of Judges, and the School District 50 Superintendent's Parent Advisory Committee.

That deep passion to give something back and to help improve the community in which she lives motivated her to run and win election as a County Commissioner in 1988. After her election, Elaine began a noteworthy carrier as a public official. Serving as Chairman of the commissioners, she took an interest in many issues affecting her constituency, helping pave the way for future county development and responsible economic achievement. Elaine's heartfelt desire for progress in the county she knew from birth allowed us all to bask in the results of her accomplished career.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Elaine Valente and in wishing her success in all her future endeavors. It has been a true privilege to work with such a remarkable public servant.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ron Stewart for his many years of public service and the many contributions he has made to the people of Colorado. I want to thank him on behalf of all Boulder's citizens for the depth and diversity of contributions he has made to ensure that Boulder County remains a very special place to live.

A lifelong resident of Longmont, Ron has been active in Colorado politics for over 30 years. During college he organized the Young Democrats in Longmont for several years and was elected Chair of the Boulder Democratic Party at the age of 21. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Colorado and did graduate work at the University of Colorado in Denver in Public Administration. He served as Executive Director of the Colorado State Party from 1972 through 1975 and was elected to the Colorado Senate in 1976 where he served two terms, retiring as Senate Minority Leader.

Before being elected as Boulder County Commissioner in 1984, Ron was a member of the Mile High United Way Board of Directors and Chairman for the Political Action for Conservation. From 1977-1982 he served on the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee, and he was a member of the Colorado Environment Lobby Board of Directors from 1985-1986.

He has earned several honors, including ``Outstanding Senator'' in 1984 from the Colorado Social Legislation Committee and ``Friend of Education Award'' from the Colorado Education Association in 1986, and has received awards from PLAN Boulder County, Boulder County Audubon, and the Colorado Chapter of Trout Unlimited. He also has been recognized nationally for his work on intergovernmental cooperation. This year, the American Planning Association bestowed upon him the very prestigious Distinguished Elected Official Award.

As a county commissioner, Ron has served with distinction from 1985- 2005. He has been a visionary in the development of Boulder County's Open Space Program, leading the effort to protect the county's natural beauty and preserve its agricultural heritage. Commissioner Stewart has gained nationwide respect and admiration for his commitment to orderly land use planning that is built on cooperation and consensus, particularly through the Super-IGA. In presiding over an era of de- centralization of services, Commissioner Stewart has been a vigorous advocate for improving county government accessibility. In developing new ways to involve stakeholders in the county's policy making process, he has done much to make government more understandable to its constituents. In trying to find ways to lessen the impacts of policy changes on those constituents least able to adjust to them, he has shown his compassion for the less fortunate.

I am particularly appreciative of the work Commissioner Stewart has done to invigorate the Boulder County social services delivery system, by fostering collaboration in program development and management, leading the way to innovative problem-solving, the most notable examples being the Genesis and IMPACT programs. Commissioner Stewart's advocacy for enhanced funding of social programs has made all the difference in a number of ballot questions, notably the Worthy Cause Tax, and as a result, Boulder County's nonprofit human service agencies get the support they need.

Commissioner Stewart has been a careful custodian of the taxpayers' dollars, managing the county's budget with restraint and according to the highest ethical standards. He has consistently represented the Office of County Commissioner with grace and dignity.

On a personal level, I know Ron to be a remarkable leader, a dependable colleague, and a kind person with an infectious laugh. It is my sincere hope that his retirement from the office of County Commissioner will open the door to a future of rewarding experiences. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in thanking Ron Stewart for all of the good and important work he has done for Boulder County and Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Paul Danish for his decades of exemplary public service to Colorado. Paul is one of Boulder's outstanding political and journalistic figures, and I want to thank him on behalf of all Boulder's citizens for his fine service as County Commissioner for the past twelve years. He has shared his skills, experience, humor, and passions with us, and he is much treasured in turn by his community.

Born in Chicago, Paul moved with his family to Colorado in the 1940s and attended the University of Colorado in 1960. He received a bachelor's degree in history from CU and did graduate work in political science. To put his student period in perspective, he was instrumental during his years at CU in the transformation of the University Memorial Center cafeteria from the Indian Grill to the interim Roaring Fork to the lasting Alfred Packer Grill.

Paul Danish's journalism career began with the student newspaper, Silver and Gold, which later changed its name to the Colorado Daily. He has been a reporter for the United Press International, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Boulder's Town and Country Review. He was technical editor for the Joint Institute of Astrophysics in Boulder and the Negev Institute for Arid Zone Research in Beer Sheva, Israel. His work experience includes being a special assistant to the late University of Colorado President Roland Rautenstraus and editor for Talmey-Drake Research in Boulder.

He served as a Boulder City Council member from 1976 to 1982. In the early 1970s, Boulder residents were seriously concerned about the adverse impact of unplanned growth on the area's environment. Paul authored Boulder's original growth management plan which was passed by the voters in 1976. The Danish Plan limited population growth by restricting the number of building permits that could be issued each year for residential subdivisions. After the expiration of the Danish Plan in 1982, Boulder has continued to successfully manage growth based on his original strategies.

Paul has never hesitated before political rough and tumbles, and in 1995, he won a well-fought four-way campaign to fill the vacancy for Boulder County Commissioner. Who among the 300-some vacancy committee members will ever forget the speech-of-a-lifetime he gave the day of that vote? He has never been `short' on the free give and take of ideas, or on his irresistible tendency to be honest and forthright, or on time for coffee with a friend.

As a county commissioner, Paul has been very involved in the cleanup and future use of the Rocky Flats site. He has been an effective advocate for an aggressive cleanup, protecting worker safety, and ensuring that former workers are compensated for any adverse health effects they may have encountered while working there. He has also worked tirelessly for sound land-use and sensible growth throughout the county. Citizens of Boulder will miss his tenacious commitment to policies that serve the environment and the education and health of people.

For many years, Paul wrote columns for the Colorado Daily after it became privately owned, and he was a contributing editor to the Soldier of Fortune magazine. His writings are always alive and kicking with subjects ranging from prairie dogs and Greek agoras to national politics and international issues. In person, he combines a distinguished intellect with a genial sense of fun. A volunteer on the way to work for his early campaigns could always find his headquarters by the peals of laughter emanating from his gardens and front door. And he continues to throw great celebration parties in Boulder's finest tradition.

Paul Danish has made important contributions to the protection and preservation of the quality of life in Boulder County, as well as to the diversity of views in our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Paul Danish for the courageous stands he has taken for the people of Boulder and his unswerving dedication to principles of free expression. I wish him congratulations on his accomplishments and good health and happiness to him and his family in the future.

Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing a bill to make it more likely that red tape and missing documents will not frustrate Congress's attempt to provide compensation and care for some nuclear-weapons workers made sick by on-job exposure to radiation.

The bill is similar to one I introduced in the 108th Congress. Like that bill, this one is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez. I greatly appreciate his support.

The bill would revise the part of the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (``the Act'') that specifies which covered workers are part of what the law designates as the ``Special Exposure Cohort.''

The revision would extend this ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contractor employees, or atomic weapons employees--all terms defined by the current law--who have worked at the Rocky Flats site, in Colorado, for at least 250 days or will have worked there that long by January 1, 2006.

The result would be to help provide the Act's benefits to any of those workers who contracted a radiation-linked cancer specified in the Act after beginning employment at Rocky Flats.

As the law now stands, before a Rocky Flats worker suffering from a covered cancer can receive benefits, it must be established that the cancer is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job exposure to radiation.

That sounds like a reasonable requirement--and it would be appropriate for Rocky

Flats if we had adequate documentation of radiation exposures for the years when it was producing nuclear-weapons components as well as for the more recent time when DOE and its contractors have been working to clean it up and prepare it for closure.

However, in fact there were serious shortcomings in the monitoring of Rocky Flats workers' radiation exposures and in the necessary recordkeeping--to say nothing of the slowness of the current administrative process for making the required determinations concerning links between exposure and employment.

This means there is a real risk that a significant number of Rocky Flats workers who should be able to benefit from the Act will not obtain its benefits in a timely manner or will be denied them entirely.

The bill would prevent this miscarriage of justice, by recognizing that Rocky Flats workers have been plagued by the same kinds of administrative problems that entangled workers at some other locations--administrative problems that were addressed through inclusion in the Act of the provisions related to the ``Special Exposure Cohort.''

My understanding of the need for this bill came from meeting with Rocky Flats workers and their representatives and from consulting experts.

I have particularly benefited from the great experience and expertise of Dr. Robert Bistline. Dr. Bistline has served as Program Manager of the Energy Department's Oversight of Radiation Protection Program at the Rocky Flats field office and has few if any peers in terms of his understanding of the problems addressed by the bill.

In particular, the bill reflects these aspects of Rocky Flats history--

Many worker exposures were unmonitored over the lifetime of the plant. Even within the past month a former worker from the 1950's was monitored under the Former Radiation Worker Program and found to have a significant internal deposition that had been undetected and unrecorded for more than 50 years.

No lung counter for detecting and measuring plutonium and americium in the lungs existed at Rocky Flats until the late 1960's. Without this equipment the very insoluble oxide forms of plutonium cannot be detected and a large number of workers had inhalation exposures that went undetected and unmeasured.

Exposure to neutron radiation was not monitored until the late 1950's and most of those measurements through 1970 have been found to be in error. In some areas of the plant the neutron doses were as much as 2 to 10 times as great as the gamma doses received by workers but only gamma doses were recorded. The old neutron films are being re-read but those doses have not yet been added to the workers records or been used in NIOSH's dose reconstructions for Rocky Flats workers.

Radiation exposures for many workers were not measured or were missing, therefore, the records are incomplete or estimated doses were assigned. There are many inaccuracies in the exposure records that NIOSH is using to determine whether Rocky Flats workers qualify for compensation under the Act.

The model that has been used for dose reconstruction by NIOSH in determining whether Rocky Flats workers qualify for compensation under the Act is in error. The default values used for particle size and solubility of the internally deposited plutonium in workers are in error. Use of these erroneous values reduces the actual internal doses for claimants by as much as 3 to 10 times less than the Rocky Flats records and autopsy data indicate.

Some Rocky Flats workers, despite having worked with tons of plutonium and having known exposures leading to serious health effects, have been denied compensation under the Act as a result of potentially flawed calculations based on records that are incomplete or in error as well as the use of incorrect models.

Mr. Speaker, since early in my tenure in Congress I have worked to make good on promises of a fairer deal for the nuclear-weapons workers who helped America win the Cold War. That was why enactment and improvement of the compensation Act has been one of my top priorities. I saw this as a very important matter for our country--and especially for many Coloradans because our state is home to the Rocky Flats site, which for decades was a key part of the nuclear-weapons complex.

Now the site's military mission has ended, and the Rocky Flats workers are pressing to complete the job of cleaning it up and preparing it for closure. But while they are taking care of the site, we in Congress need to take care of them and the others who worked there in the past.

That was the purpose of the compensation act. I am very proud that I was able to help achieve its enactment, but I am also aware that it is not perfect. Last year Congress made important changes that will remedy some of its shortcomings. This bill will make it better yet.

For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching an outline of the bill's provisions:

section 1: short title, findings, and purpose

Subsection (a) provides a short title, ``Rocky Flats Special Cohort Act.''

Subsection (b) sets forth several findings regarding the need for the legislation.

Subsection ( c) states the bill's purpose: ``to revise the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act so as to include certain past and present Rocky Flats workers as members of the special exposure cohort.''

section 2: definition of member of special exposure cohort

Subsection (a) amends section 3621(14) of the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (EEOICPA). The effect of the amendment is to provide that a person employed by the Department of Energy or any of its contractors for an aggregate of at least 250 work days at Rocky Flats before January 1, 2006 would be a ``member of the Special Exposure Cohort.'' Under EEOICPA, a member of the special exposure cohort suffering from one of the cancers specified in the Act is covered by the Act if the cancer was contracted after the person began employment at a covered facility.

Subsection (b) provides that someone employed by the Energy Department or any of its contractors for an aggregate of at least 250 work days at Rocky Flats before January 1, 2006 may apply for compensation or benefits under EEOICPA even if the person had previously been denied compensation or benefits under the Act. This is to make clear that the subsection (a)'s change in the law will apply to people who had applied previously.