Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Glenn Porzak, a world-renowned mountain climber who has remained an active climber and contributor to the climbing community even into his 50s. Glenn has not only excelled at the physically challenging ascents of the world's tallest peaks, he has also developed a distinguished reputation as a staunch legal defender of his client's water rights as well as a contributing member of his community.

Glenn recently returned to his home in Boulder, Colorado, from successfully reaching the summit of Cho Oyu, the world's sixth-highest peak in the Himalayas. Like all of the high peaks in the world, the 26,940-foot Cho Oyu is a challenging peak, and his ascent is a noteworthy achievement. This achievement is even more impressive given that it marks his fifth successful ascent of one of the world's 14 peaks higher than 8,000 meters (26,250 feet). With the ascent of Cho Oyu, Glenn has now reached the summit of one of these high peaks in each of the past three decades. He previously summited Mt. Everest, Makalu (the fifth highest in the world), Mount Shisha Pangma (the thirteenth highest) on which he made the first American ascent, and Lhotse (the fourth highest) on which he also led the first American ascent.

For those who climb high peaks and know of the physical demands, logistical complications and harsh environmental conditions involved, having the stamina and wherewithal to continue these climbs is remarkable. And he did it with the help of his expedition team, which was made up of members who were each over 50. As Glenn put it in a recent news story in the Boulder Camera about this ascent, ``Many people are familiar with the adventure book `Into Thin Air' [the Jon Krakauer book about the illfated Everest expedition in 1996 when five people lost their lives]. Well, we referred to our 50-something expedition as `Into Gray Hair.' ''

Glenn carries his energy and enthusiasm for climbing into his law practice and his other activities. He is very dedicated to his law practice, where he works to further Colorado's environmental causes on issues such as water rights, conservation and real property law. Glenn somehow also finds time to lead and work for numerous community efforts such as a Board of Trustee of the University of Colorado, past chairman of the board for the Colorado Outward Bound School, and president of the American Alpine Club and the Colorado Mountain Club. Anyone that knows Glenn can attest to his incredible stamina and enduring perseverance. .

Glenn is a lifelong resident of the State of Colorado. He graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder, receiving a Bachelor of Arts with distinction in 1970 and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Colorado School of Law in 1973. After completing his education, he quickly became a member of one of the oldest and largest law firms in the Rocky Mountain West, Holme Roberts & Owen LLC. Glenn went on to become a partner with this firm in 1980 and remained so until 1996, when he became the managing partner of Porzak Browning & Bushong LLP. It was during this time that he began to specialize in environmental law.

Over the course of Glenn's 31-year career, he has worked tirelessly to provide all Coloradans with sound legal counsel on many issues. His focus on conservation and water litigation has been the key to his many successes. Some of his notable achievements include: Obtaining the first federal contracts for water from Green Mountain and Ruedi Reservoirs; negotiating the wide-ranging agreement between the Denver Water Department

and Summit County to secure water for residents; successfully adjudicating over 125 applications for water rights, changes of water rights, and plans for augmentation and exchange; and negotiating major conservation easements and open space acquisitions for the Meadowdale Ranch, Lily Lake, Caribou Ranch, and Cal-Wood Ranch, all important open space projects in Colorado.

Most likely due to his extensive knowledge of and love for the environment, Glenn has taken it upon himself to become an elite and avid mountain climber. He completed over 1,100 summer and winter ascents of peaks over 11,000 feet and climbed numerous other mountains around the world. Because of these experiences, Glenn has been asked numerous times to contribute written pieces for outdoors publications. He has also led various mountaineering clubs and organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the ongoing achievements of Glenn Porzak in mountaineering and in conservation law. Following his ascent of Cho Oyu, Glenn has been quoted as saying that it's time that he started acting his age and suggesting that his expeditions to summit peaks higher than 26,250 feet are over. As those who know Glenn are aware, he has said this before. So, I would not be surprised to see Glenn back on the mountain making yet more climbs. The allure of the outdoors and the majestic peaks are that strong. It is the same allure that calls me to the outdoors and the adventurous challenges that they present. Glenn's passion for the outdoors and his legal work are an inspiring reminder of the determination of the human spirit to surmount any obstacle and meet any challenge--and especially that age needs not be a limiting factor. I'm sure that Glenn will remain active in these and other important endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, after the horrific attacks of September 11, Americans understand the significance and seriousness of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Developed in a bipartisan manner after long study and debate, the recommendations (if implemented) would radically reorganize the intelligence community and unify government efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks. Of course, once the depth of the failure of our intelligence agencies became clear after 9-11, many of us recognized the need for such reform. The question Congress asked the 9-11 Commission to answer was--how?

We got an answer in the form of the 9-11 Commission report. The Commission put forth forty-one in depth recommendations to serve as a proposed blueprint for intelligence reform. While I believe Congress should not necessarily rubber-stamp the Commission's work, I also believe that we should honor the bipartisan spirit of the Commission by working in a similarly bipartisan way to reach agreement on the best way to implement the recommendations.

That is what has been so deeply disappointing about the process in the House. While the Senate--through an open and deliberative process-- reached agreement on a substantive bill that reflects the views of both parties, the Commission, and the families of 9-11 victims, the House has played shameful politics with intelligence reform.

The Republican bill (H.R. 10) only fully implements eleven of the 41 recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, while it ignores some of the most important Commission recommendations. For instance, it fails to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient authority over the budgets and personnel of intelligence agencies. It fails to include a strong National Counterterrorism Center. It fails to strengthen the Nunn-Lugar programs and other nonproliferation programs to secure nuclear materials around the world. It fails to create an integrated border screening system to improve security at our borders. It fails to improve communications for first responders. It fails to create a government-wide Civil Liberties Oversight Board to review the use of intelligence powers and address civil liberties concerns. The list goes on.

Meanwhile, the bill includes dozens of extraneous provisions that the Commission did not recommend and that are opposed by the Commission, families of 9-11 victims, human rights and civil liberties groups, and some by the White House itself. The provisions include new authority allowing the President to completely undo the intelligence reforms passed by Congress, expedited removal of undocumented immigrants without judicial review, revocation of visas, exceptions to the UN Convention Against Torture, and allowing the U.S. government to spy on individuals without proving they are connected to a foreign government or terrorist group, among others.

These extraneous provisions aren't just objectionable because of their content--they are objectionable because at a time when we most need to think of country before politics, to find ways to come together to make our country safer, not ways to further divide us, the Republican leadership is more interested in scoring political points than in passing responsible legislation.

Even so, I am voting for H.R. 10 today because I believe that we need intelligence reform. This bill does not go far enough to protect the American people, but it is better than no reform at all. The good news is that the Senate--by a 96-2 vote--produced a bipartisan bill that should help strengthen the Senate's hand (and the voice of reason) in the conference committee. With the President supporting the Senate bill and every Republican in the Senate voting for it, it seems to me that House Republicans' misguided criticisms of the bill in conference won't carry much weight.

I am optimistic that the conference report will more closely reflect the Senate bill. As 9/11 Commissioners Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote in the Washington Post last month, ``We should not wait until another [intelligence] failure takes place, until another commission has a task as somber as ours. We welcome refinements to our recommendations through the legislative process. But the time has come to act.''

H.R. 10 is not the legislative refinement Commissioners Kean and Hamilton had in mind, nor is it mine. But it is a start. As the legislative process continues, I will do all I can to help move the bill in the right direction. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will do the same. At a time when our security is at risk, Congress must set politics aside and pass intelligence reform legislation that will truly make America safer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, it would be better if we did not have to be considering this special rule, but I will support it because I support the conference report and hope it can be passed as soon as possible. There are things in the conference report that I do not like, and there are some things I hoped that would be included that have been left out, but my concerns are outweighed by my strong approval of several provisions that are included.

One is the renewal of the Energy Savings Performance Contracts program. This is the best tool we have to encourage energy efficiency in the Federal Government, but its authorization ended a year ago; and since then, it has been in limbo. So this is a very important provision.

The conference report also makes many improvements in the compensation program for people injured while working in the nuclear weapons program. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), was just discussing these important provisions. It is also important for Colorado because we are the home of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Waste complex, a former nuclear weapons site. And with the rest of our delegation, I have been pressing to make sure that the people who work there are properly treated. That is the purpose of this compensation program. Right now, the program has serious problems; but this conference report, as I have suggested, goes a long way towards solving them.

The report consolidates the responsibility for handling claims in the Labor Department, which can help untangle red tape for thousands of claims; and it provides that the Federal Government, not the States, will pay claims and provide medical benefits, something that is vital because otherwise many people will not be paid, even though they have valid claims. Further, it makes sure that people will be paid by making payments an entitlement. These are all great steps forward and long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Ranking Member Skelton) and all of the other conferees, as well as the Committee on Armed Services staff and the staff of the other committees involved. Their task was not easy because the administration has not been particularly helpful, but we can all be proud of this outcome. They deserve our thanks, Mr. Speaker, and the conference report deserves our approval.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 480, expressing the sense of Congress that ``National Take a Kid Mountain Biking Day'' should be established in honor of Jacob Mock Doub.

The youth of today's America are becoming less and less active. The U.S. Surgeon General reports the percentage of overweight children has nearly tripled in the past two decades. Forecasts also predict the current generation of children in the United States could actually have a shorter life span than their parents as the epidemic of childhood obesity expands.

Promoting physical activity and diet are critical in addressing the rise of childhood obesity and youth inactivity and Congress should be supportive in addressing this important issue. Certainly more needs to be done but this resolution is a step in the right direction to raise awareness and move the discussion forward.

The resolution also honors Jacob Mock Doub, a young man who had a great passion for life and for cycling. He encouraged many young people like himself to get involved with the activity.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching an item from the International Mountain Biking Association, IMBA, that provides additional information about Jacob Mock Doub.

Jacob Mock ``Jack'' Doub

Jul. 11, 1985--Oct. 21, 2002.

One year ago this October we unexpectedly lost a great

friend and brother when Jack Doub died from complications

from an injury received during practice for the Snowshoe

NORBA National downhill race last June. To honor Jack's

spirit and love of biking we have in association with IMBA,

helped to establish the Jack Doub Memorial Fund to promote

and encourage other ``kids'' to learn and live to ride. To

understand Jack and his love of biking is to understand our

wishes to continue his memory. Jack was born to two energetic

and loving parents who greatly enjoyed the outdoors and early

on Jack enjoyed the same. Skiing at age 18 months, he became

an unbelievable freestyle and backcountry skier . . . the

best. In life Jack learned to climb, to kayak, to motocross

race, and to fly fish. By age 11 Jack's fly-fishing skills

and abilities to see and catch fish were legend. It was

almost unbelievable that he literally could do anything he

wanted and at levels of skill that others only dream about,

all of this while quiet, reserved, and humble.

Ultimately Jack was introduced to biking at age 11 near

Grandfather Mountain, N.C. He saw a friend riding, doing a

few tricks and he wanted to learn to wheelie. He was hooked.

Within a week he could wheelie like crazy and soon obtained a

new Gary Fisher Super Caliber on which he won essentially

every cross-country race he entered for two years. Although

remaining the best fly fisherman around at age 13, biking had

become Jack's obsession. It was at age 13 that Jack obtained

a Santa Cruz Super 8 and began racing downhill as well; again

nothing but success. One of Jack's greatest sparks was

participating in mountain bike ``dirt'' camp during the

summer of 1998 at Snowshoe, WV, and this is also where he

raced his last race.

From age 14 to 17 Jack rode primarily downhill and dual

slalom. He found it difficult to train and ride downhill and

dual slalom and have the energy to race cross-country on the

same day. Cross-country was great but Jack was an adrenalin

junkie . . . fast and furious. The neat thing about Jack

however was not his desire to race and to win but his

absolute love of being on the bike. Whether he podiumed or

came in 23rd, his response was always, ``it was great.'' He

never complained or had excuses and no matter how bad the

mechanical failure or the crash, he always finished . . .

never a DNF or withdrawal. For Jack, it was all about the

bike . . . cross-country, downhill, dual slalom, trials, or

as always just playing in the yard; there were very few days

that he didn't touch the bike.

Jack rode many bikes and greatly loved his Spooky, his

intense M1, and his Santa Cruz Heckler but his real favorite

was his Foes Zigzag on which he came in second at the NORBA

Snowshoe National in junior expert dual slalom in his last

race ever. His accident occurred the next day in downhill

training where as usual he was trying to air a major jump and

obstacle . . . he later rode but never raced again. His

accomplishments were extensive and are too numerous to detail

nor would that be his focus.

Jack's last ride occurred approximately one week before he

died. He was excited to ride a new trail with a group of us.

Out of shape but never out of energy, he wheelied the mile to

the trail including down a 200 yard hill all the way on a

wheelie manual to a nose manual. As usual we were all amazed.

During the two hour ride we rode hard, played hard and had

worlds of fun. Jack rode through the pain and upset stomach

while laughing and smiling and could only talk of getting

back in shape and coming back. God, do we miss that next ride

with Jack.

Despite all of Jack's great accomplishments and skills, his

greatest strength was involving and encouraging others to

ride, especially children. Jack would skip chances to hang

out with his peers just to go to Hobby Park and teach young

kids to ride and jump dual slalom . . . he did this even

while injured. On occasions he was known to stop in a race

and help other individuals. During one 12 hour race he rode

two extra laps just to give his friends a break and lessen

their pain so as to have more fun. Most importantly he

greatly enjoyed seeing his friends do well, especially ``Tone

Dog'', ``Magoo'', Jonathan, and Will. Jack's smiles were as

big or bigger for their successes than for his own. Jack at

heart wanted others to encounter and love life and biking as

much as he did.

Jay de Jesus wrote in a letter to Jack's dad, Jay after

Jack's death; Jack was . . . ``up all night doing manuals and

wheelies all the way across the courtyard at Snowshoe

Village, the same nice, intelligent, bike-crazy kid with the

ever present smile . . . every night, just riding on and

on.'' There are no real answers to Jack's passing away, just

a huge void. May that void be filled with our smiles and

those of other kids experiencing the awesome joy of biking

and as Jack would want us to do . . . ``riding on and on''.

The Jack Doub Memorial Fund hopes in some small way to

continue his spirit and memory to that end. Jack Doub . . .

orange helmet, red hair and blue jeans . . . rest in peace

brother as you ride in our hearts and memories forever.

Friends of Jack Doub.

Mr. Speaker, there is much to dislike about the process that has brought this conference report before the House, and there certainly are things to dislike in the conference report itself.

This is not the best way to do business, and this conference report certainly is not an ideal legislative produce. On the contrary, it is filled with flaws and with provisions that are unnecessary at best.

However, with all its flaws, I will vote for the conference report.

I will vote for it because we need to make the changes in tax laws needed to end the escalating retaliatory tariffs that are being imposed because our current laws are not in compliance with our international agreements. This is a matter of great urgency and this conference report responds to it.

I will vote for it because it includes provisions to encourage American corporations doing business abroad to repatriate their overseas earnings for investment here at home. This has great potential to stimulate investment in new plant and equipment as well as in the research and development that support innovation, job creation, and prosperity.

I will vote for it because I think the provisions related to foreign tax credits will increase the competitiveness of America's information- technology companies in global markets.

I will vote for it because it includes provisions to ensure that employee stock-purchase plans and incentive stock options are not subject to payroll taxes--provisions that are very important to thousands of Coloradans and the companies that employ them.

And I will vote for it because it includes provisions that will help us lessen our dependence on fossil fuels--something that is very important because clean power production provides greater reliability for our electricity system, promotes cleaner air and water, and benefits our economy and our national security.

The conference report will extend and expand the renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) to apply to other renewable energy technologies, including solar energy, geothermal energy, open-loop biomass, and small irrigation power. An extended PTC will provide more market certainty, and expanding the

PTC to include solar, open-loop biomass, geothermal, and small irrigation power will ensure that all renewable energy sources can benefit.

Solar, wind, hydropower, biomass and geothermal energy are each potentially enormous energy resources. Every state has renewable energy potential. However, renewable resources are not spread uniformly across the country. Current tax law creates regional and technological inequities by failing to provide uniform benefits for all renewable energy resources. For example, the production tax credit enacted in 1992 has spurred significant new investment, but it only applies to power plants using wind power and closed-loop biomass. Allowing equal access to all the renewable energy sources will not only spur renewable energy investment, but it will also ensure that all renewable energy sources are allowed to compete fairly.

Also, importantly, I will vote for this conference report because as it stands it will not increase the deficit--meaning that as it stands it will not increase the national debt that will have to be repaid, with interest, in the future.

In making that statement, I refer to the conference report ``as it stands'' because I fully recognize that the present budgetary effect of the conference report reflects the fact that some of its provisions will come into effect in stages, or are temporary, or both.

I recognize--as we all recognize, Mr. Speaker--that in the future there will be proposals to extend some or all of the temporary provisions or to speed up the implementation of those that are scheduled to take effect in stages. And I recognize--as we all must-- that adoption of those proposals will have budgetary consequences that should not be ignored.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice here and now that while I am voting for this conference report as it stands, I am making no commitment to supporting any of those proposals. If I still have the honor of serving in this House when any such proposal is considered, I will consider it carefully but I will not support it unless I am convinced that it merits approval.

And, further, I want to give notice here and now that my vote for this conference report should not be read as meaning that I fully support each and every one of its provisions. That is certainly not the case, and in fact I hope that I will have the opportunity to support efforts to remove or repair many of those provisions in the future.

I could cite many examples, but let me mention just one--the fact that the conference report does not included all the provisions of the Senate bill related to tobacco and tobacco products. Omission of key parts of those provisions means we are missing an opportunity to take an important step toward better health for many Americans, especially children. This is a very bitter disappointment.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in the days ahead there will be a great deal of public discussion of this conference report in Colorado and across the country. There will be many who will hail it as marking the dawning of a great new day. Many others will bewail parts that they think are examples of bad legislation.

I think the second group will have much ammunition. But I also am sure that the rhetoric on both sides will be excessive. My evaluation is that the bill is too flawed to be a model, but that its merits do outweigh its flaws, although not by very much.

Mr. Speaker, because I was part of a Congressional delegation that traveled to Iraq, I missed several votes last week.

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall No. 469, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 785, waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 470, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 794, waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill ( H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 471, on adoption of H. Res. 794, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 480, adoption of the conference report on H.R. 1308, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5051, the Leonard C. Burch Post Office Building Designation Act.

Leonard Burch served as chairman of the Southern Ute Tribe for 30 years. He became the youngest chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in south-western Colorado in 1966. Although it was criticized at the time, his decision to reinvest tribal royalties back into the tribal corporations has proved to be far sighted. Through this reinvestment the Southern Ute Indian Tribe is one of the wealthiest Indian tribe in the country.

In an effort to regain the rights to the resources on their land, Chairman Burch taught himself the intricacies of the oil and gas business. As a result, he was instrumental in the Southern Ute Tribe becoming the primary beneficiary of their own mineral rights. Under his leadership the tribe was able to acquire several commercial buildings, multiple energy companies, including the largest natural gas company in the state of Colorado, a real estate company, and a casino.

Chairman Burch championed the cause of tribal sovereignty. He was able to bring the Southern Ute Indian Tribe from relative obscurity into one of the most prominent and wealthy tribes in the country. The Southern Ute Tribe's business success can be used as a positive example for Native American tribes throughout the country. Chairman Burch was the driving force behind this success story.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and the Colorado delegation in honoring the life and accomplishments of Chairman Leonard Burch and support the designation of the Ignacio Main Post Office as the Leonard C. Burch Post Office Building.

For more information about the life of Chairman Burch, I am attaching an obituary published in The Durango Herald on August 2, 2003.

Leonard Cloud Burch

Leonard Cloud Burch, the longtime leader of the Southern

Ute Indian Tribe who advocated economic self-sufficiency,

died Friday, Aug. 1, 2003, at Mercy Medical Center.

Mr. Burch, 69 who died after suffering a heart attack on

Thursday, served as chairman of the Southern Ute Indian

Tribal Council for more than 32 years. He was first elected

tribal chairman in 1966.

Under his leadership the Southern Utes became an economic

force in the Four Corners and the largest employers in the

country.

Starting with interests in natural-gas wells, the Utes used

revenues from businesses to fund improvements in tribal

education, health and social services. He was invited by five

separate U.S. presidents to conferences on American Indian

policies at the White House.

He received numerous awards, including: the Durango Citizen

of the Year Award (1997), the 15th annual Martin Luther King

Humanitarian Award (2000) and the Council of Energy Resources

Tribes' Achievement Award (2002). He was also recognized for

his commitment to regional water resources development.

To settle various water claims by regional tribes,

including the Southern Utes, Mr. Burch advocated development

of the Animas-La Plata Project, a water-storage project now

under construction south of Durango.

He was born on Dec. 24, 1933, to Sam and Clara (Cloud)

Burch. Upon graduation from Ute Vocational High School in

Ignacio, he enlisted in the U.S. Air Force, and he served

four years. After his return from service, Mr. Burch worked

for five years with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He married

Irene Coolidge, who had also attended school in Ignacio.

He is survived by his wife; seven daughters, Leonora Bravo

of Ignacio, Leona Burch of Ignacio, Lena Mae Burch of

Missoula, Mont., Lisa Burch-Watts of Ignacio, Leora Lucero of

Ignacio. Laurena Burch of Albuquerque, and Lynnette Sage of

Ignacio; 14 grandchildren; a brother, Anthony Burch of Two

Rivers, Alaska; a sister, Bertha Grove of Bayfield; a half-

brother, Everett Burch of Bayfield; and a half-sister, Judy

Lansing-Burch of Ignacio.

A viewing and a visitation will be from noon to 8 p.m.

Monday at Hood Mortuary. A

public memorial service will be at 10 a.m. Tuesday at the

SunUte Recreation Center in Ignacio.

Donations honoring Mr. Burch should be made to the Leonard

Burch Scholarship Fund, PO Box 2717, Durango CO 81302 or to

the American Heart Association.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this amendment because I am concerned that whatever benefits it might have are outweighed by the costs to the taxpayers that it would entail.

The current jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit is certainly extensive--from Alaska to Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas and including California, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

The populations of several of these states have increased considerably in recent years, and it can be anticipated that the caseloads of the Ninth Circuit will continue to increase accordingly. So, there might be something to be said for realigning the judicial districts now included in the Ninth Circuit.

However, I do not think that it is appropriate for the House of Representatives to make such an important decision on the basis of the very brief consideration that we are being permitted today.

And I certainly think that before making such a serious decision, we should consider how it would affect the ability of the federal courts to do their job.

Regarding that aspect of the matter, I think we should all pay careful heed to the analysis of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts contained in a May 14th letter from its Director, Leonidas Ralph Meacham, to Senator Feinstein.

Discussing proposals to divide the Ninth Circuit in ways similar to that proposed in this amendment, Mr. Meacham wrote ``The judiciary is not in a position to absorb any of the additional costs'' that would result. He goes on to say that dividing the Ninth Circuit into three circuits--which is what this amendment would do--``would likely require one-time start-up funding ranging from $16.7 million to $18.9 million for space alterations, information technology and telecommunications infrastructure, furniture, and law books. In addition, a new courthouse would have to be built'' (and another modernized) that would cost millions more. Also, according to Mr. Meacham, ``The judiciary would also require an additional $21.7 million annually in recurring personnel and operating expenses.''

At a time when our courts are already hard-pressed for funding and the overall federal budget is drowning in red ink, I think we should not lightly incur such additional costs--and certainly not on the basis of a mere 40 minutes of debate on this amendment.

Instead, any measure to realign the Ninth Circuit--or any other part of the federal courts, for that matter--should be carefully reviewed in committee and then considered by the House of Representatives under procedures that allow full consideration of its potential benefits and the costs that would be involved.

If such a measure is considered under those considerations, I will review it carefully and will support it if I am convinced that it deserves approval. However, I have not reached that conclusion about this amendment and so I will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and congratulate my Colorado colleague, Mr. Tancredo, for his leadership in introducing it.

I joined as a cosponsor of this bill because I also want to improve the ability of the land-managing agencies to adequately enforce the rules that apply to uses of the Federal lands.

That is also why I also introduced a related bill--H.R. 751, the Responsible Off-road Vehicle Enforcement and Response Act, or ``ROVER.'' My bill is narrow. It deals only with enforcement of the regulations for use of vehicles on National Forest lands and public lands managed by BLM. This bill goes much further. In addition to the forests and BLM lands, it also applies to lands managed by the National Park Service and the refuges managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. And it addresses the enforcement of all regulations, not just those related to use of vehicles.

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.

After the Resources Committee completed its work, the measure was reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, and the bill now before the House reflects changes made in that committee. It also includes the provisions of H.R. 1038, the Public Lands Fire Regulations Enforcement Act of 2003--also approved by the Resources and Judiciary Committees last year--which would increase the maximum fine for violations of regulations related to campfires. I also cosponsored that measure.

As I said, I do support the legislation before us. I hope the House will approve it, because legislation for better and more consistent enforcement of regulations is needed. However, we need to recognize that it is only one part of a bigger picture.

Even more than new legislation, it seems to me, the land-managing agencies need more resources--more money and more people--if we want them to do a better job.

As approved by the Resources Committee, H.R. 3247 would have helped with that, too, by allowing the agencies to use money from fines to help pay for some of the restoration work caused by violations of regulations, as well as for offsetting the administrative costs involved in enforcement of those regulations. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee evidently had some concerns about that part of the legislation, and so the bill now before us does not include those provisions.

This is something that I think should be addressed in the future, and I will seek to work with other Members to do that. Today, however, we can take an important step forward by passing this bill, and I urge the House to approve it.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support changing the Constitution along the lines of this proposal--so I will not vote for this resolution.

Under our federal system, there are many matters where the states have broad latitude to shape their laws and policies in ways their residents think fit, subject to the constitution's provisions that protect the rights of individual citizens.

One of those areas has been family law, including the regulation of marriage and divorce--but this amendment would change that.

Adoption of this amendment would for the first time impose a constitutional restriction on the ability of a state to define marriage. And it would do so in a way that would restrict, not protect, individual rights that now are protected by at least some state constitutions.

In my opinion, this is neither necessary nor appropriate.

Some of the resolution's supporters say it is needed so a state whose laws ban same-sex marriages or civil unions will not be forced to recognize such marriages or unions established under another state's laws.

They say this could happen because Article IV of the Constitution requires each state to give ``full faith and credit'' to another state's ``public acts, records, and judicial proceedings.''

But my understanding is that this part of the constitution has not required states to recognize the validity of all marriages of people from other states. In fact, over the years various states have refused to recognize some out-of-state marriages--and the ``full faith and credit'' clause has not been used to validate marriages because marriages are not ``judgments'' but ``civil contracts'' that a state may choose to recognize as a matter of comity, not as a constitutional requirement.

As if this were not enough, in 1996 Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the ``Defense of Marriage Act.'' That law says ``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.''

Not everyone thinks this was a good thing for Congress to do--I myself am not sure that it was. But the fact is that this law is on the books and has not been successfully challenged.

Given this history, I am not convinced that this constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent the ``full faith and credit'' clause being used to compel a state to recognize a same-sex marriage.

Moreover, when you focus on the language of the proposed amendment it becomes clear that protecting states is not its real purpose.

That purpose could be achieved by an amendment to the ``full faith and credit'' clause--perhaps by putting language along the lines of the ``Defense of Marriage Act'' into the constitution itself. But that is not what is being proposed here.

Instead, this amendment would restrict states, by establishing a single definition of marriage--the only definition that any state could recognize.

And unlike other constitutional amendments, it would not protect individuals either. It would write into the constitution a new limit on what legal rights they could hope to have protected by a state or the federal government. If adopted, this amendment would restrict individual liberties instead of expanding them. I think it is clear the real purpose of this amendment is to lay a foundation for discrimination against some Americans on the basis of their sexual orientation. In good conscience, I cannot support this.

Mr. Speaker, no proposed constitutional amendment should be taken lightly. On the contrary, I think such proposals require very careful scrutiny and should not be adopted unless there we are convinced that a change in our fundamental law is essential. I do not think this resolution meets that test, and so I will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which would expedite an exchange of lands between the city of Golden, Colorado and the Federal Government.

The bill was introduced by Colorado's senior Senator, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. The House passed a similar measure last year. I joined my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez, in introducing the House version.

Under the bill, the city of Golden will receive about 9.84 acres that now are part of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. The City needs the land to construct a short pipeline--about 125 feet long--to bring water into a storage facility where it will be held for use by the city and its residents.

In return, the City will transfer to the United States several parcels of land that are now inholdings within National Forest boundaries.

These inholdings include lands near Argentine Pass, which straddles the divide between Clear Creek County and Summit County and are crossed by the Continental Divide Trail. Adding those lands to the National Forest will reduce possible conflicts and increase public access to areas of high recreational value. So, this exchange is not only in the interests of the city of Golden and its residents, but in the public interest as well.

The bill also includes a provision under which the City would be authorized to start work on the pipeline while the exchange proceeds, and further provides that if for some reason the exchange cannot be completed, the city will buy the lands that are needed for the pipeline.

I want to thank the leadership of the Resources Committee, especially Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for making it possible for the bill to be on the House floor today.

It is a modest bill but one that is very important for the city of Golden and its residents. It is bipartisan and non-controversial, and I urge the House to agree to its passage so it can go to the president to be signed into law without further delay.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill, which would repeal a number of local laws adopted by the District of Columbia City Council and would prohibit the passage of similar local laws in the future.

The laws in question deal with regulation of firearms. But that is not the reason for my opposition.

Instead, I oppose the bill because I think its enactment would be an abuse of our authority as Members of Congress. Its effect would be to reduce the right of self-government for one group of Americans--those who reside in Washington, DC.

I know the Constitution gives Congress the power ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia--even though the residents of the district are not fully represented in either the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.

But Congress, through the Home Rule Act, has authorized the district's residents to elect a city council and mayor who will be immediately responsible for governing the city.

I am convinced this was the right thing to do. I support home rule for Washington, DC, because I think Americans who live in the district deserve to be able to govern themselves as much as possible consistent with the necessary functioning of the Federal Government. And this bill flies in the face of that principle.

It's true that the bill includes a ``finding'' that its enactment ``is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the rights of its citizens under the second amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.'' But I don't think that settles the matter.

I take seriously my oath to uphold the Constitution. But I am not convinced that fidelity to that oath requires a vote to repeal these local laws--especially since as far as I know there has been no successful challenge to their constitutionality in all the years they have been on the books.

And I certainly don't think fidelity to my oath requires me to support a reduction in the authority of the D.C. City Council to pass similar laws in the future, as this bill would do.

Further, while there is plenty of room to debate whether repealing these particular laws would or would not enhance public safety--just as there is room to debate whether the laws themselves are desirable or effective--I think that debate should not take place here in Congress. The laws this bill would repeal were duly adopted by the elected government of the district and they have not interfered with the orderly functioning of the Federal Government. So, in my opinion, decisions about retaining, amending, or repealing these local laws should be made by the city council--a body that is elected by and accountable to the people who are subject to them.

Instead, by passing this bill Congress would substitute its judgment for that of the local elected government--in effect denying their constituents the right to govern themselves on this subject.

We cannot--and we should not--do that to the residents of Colorado or any other State. I do not think we should do it to the people who live here in Washington, DC. We may not think these local laws are well- designed. But I think we should allow those covered by the laws to decide that for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the distinguished service of Ms. Barbara Volpe, President of the Public Education & Business Coalition (PEBC) in Denver, Colorado.

Ms. Volpe has been working with the PEBC for 15 years. Under her leadership the organization has tripled its size and developed an outstanding national reputation. With Ms. Volpe's steady guidance the PEBC has successfully completed a merger between two

non-profits, assembled a high-caliber, professional staff, and created extraordinary initiatives such as the Boettcher Teachers Program.

Sadly, Ms. Volpe has decided that the time has come for her to leave the PEBC. Her dedication and commitment to her community serve as an inspiration to others in the field.

I ask my colleagues today to join me in thanking Ms. Barbara Volpe for her outstanding leadership and service. She certainly deserves our utmost appreciation. Her presence at PEBC will surely be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Paul Tudor Jones II for his passionate dedication to conservation techniques and land stewardship practices of his Blue Valley Ranch located in Grand County, CO.

Mr. Jones was the 2004 recipient of the Middle Park Land Trust Land Steward of the Year Award. This annual award is given to the Grand County, CO landowner who most exemplifies the mission of the Middle Park Land Trust in land management and conservation practices who help preserve Grand County's scenery, agriculture, water, wildlife and biodiversity for today and future generations.

Mr. Jones first purchased a portion of the Blue Valley Ranch in 1994, he re-acquired the water rights and began a holistic approach to ranch management which includes wildlife conservation, agricultural production, stream enhancement, recreational activities and in essence, the preservation of our local heritage. The Blue Valley Ranch now encompasses 25,000 acres and is thriving.

The primary focus of the Blue Valley Ranch is wildlife conservation. The ranch has worked in partnership with the Colorado Division of Wildlife on many projects including the reintroduction of antelope south of the Colorado River, sage grouse monitoring and habitat restoration, and wild turkey transplants on both public and private land.

Habitat improvements for both wildlife and livestock have been prescribed burns, forest treatments, crops, and a rotational grazing system.

Many miles of the Blue River and adjoining tributaries that were vulnerable to low flows, high temperatures, and predators have been restored to a more natural condition.

It is a credit to Mr. Jones that agricultural production continues on the Blue Valley

Ranch. Each year, the Ranch puts up hay and runs cattle as well as buffalo.

On behalf of the residents of Grand County CO, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Paul Tudor Jones II for his dedication and commitment to land management and conservation practices and for being selected as the 2004 Middle Park Land Trust Land Steward of the Year Award.

Mr. Chairman, this bill seeks to prevent any federal court--including the Supreme Court--from considering ``any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance . . . or its recitation.''

As we all know, introduction of the bill was prompted by the 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in what is known as the ``Newdon'' case. That decision held that the 1954 legislation adding ``under God'' to the pledge and a California school district's policy of daily recitation of the pledge with those words were both unconstitutional. (That court later modified the decision to apply only to the school district's recitation policy.)

The school district and the United States both appealed to the Supreme Court--and on June 14th the Supreme Court reversed the decision, on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have legal standing to challenge the school district's policy.

But the Republican leadership of the House evidently is afraid that somebody else might bring a similar lawsuit--and that prospect that is so alarming to them that they have brought forward this bill, which would prevent any federal court from hearing a lawsuit like that.

I cannot support such legislation. It may or may not be constitutional--on that I defer to those with more legal expertise than I can claim. But I think it clearly is not just unnecessary but misguided and destructive.

I have no objection to the current wording of the Pledge of Allegiance. After the court of appeals announced its decision in the Newdon case I voted for a resolution--approved by the House by a vote of 416 to 3--affirming that ``the Pledge of Allegiance and similar expressions are not unconstitutional expressions of religious belief'' and calling for the case to be reheard.

But this bill is a different matter.

The bill may be called the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' but that is not accurate. In reality, it not only fails to protect the pledge but also would undercut the very thing to which those who recite the pledge are expressing allegiance.

The bill fails to protect the pledge because even if it becomes law people who don't like the way the pledge is worded would still be able to bring lawsuits in state courts--and the Supreme Court could not review how state's courts ruled on those suits.

So, while Colorado's courts might uphold the current wording, the courts of other states might reach a different conclusion--meaning there would no longer be a single Pledge of Allegiance, but different pledges for different states, and the First Amendment's meaning would vary based on state lines.

And that would be directly contrary to the very idea of the United States as ``one nation'' that should remain ``indivisible'' and whose defining characteristics are devotion to ``liberty and justice for all''--that is, to the very Republic (symbolized by the American flag) to which we pledge allegiance when we recite the pledge this bill pretends to ``protect.''

How ironic--and how pathetic. As national legislators, as Untied States Representatives, we can and should do better. We should reject this bill.