Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this bill.

Parts of the bill advance good policy.

The most welcome provision in the bill is the $106 million included for the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP), a program the Administration has tried to eliminate for several years. Last year, MEP served more than 18,000 small manufacturers across the country. In 2002, MEP assistance resulted in $2.79 billion in increased/retained sales, $681 million in cost savings, $940 million investment in modernization, and 32,000 jobs created and retained. Every federal dollar appropriated for MEP leverages $2 in state and private-sector funding, which means that a small federal investment of $106 million translates into billions of dollars in benefits for the economy in terms of jobs created and retained, investment, and sales. While it is overdue, the appropriators' acknowledgement of MEP's importance is welcome--especially as manufacturers continue to experience tough economic times.

The bill also provides essential funding for the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, as well as for Office of Justice programs such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance program.

The bill improves on the President's request in some cases. It includes funding for the

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and state and local law enforcement assistance--less than the current funding level for these programs, but at much higher levels than the request. I do hope that conferees will see fit to increase funding to current levels for these programs in the final version of the bill.

On the international side, I'm pleased that the bill increases funding for education and cultural exchange programs, which are the most effective public diplomacy programs we can fund, and that it directs the State Department to establish a new permanent office to plan for reconstruction and post-conflict stability, making clear the preeminent role of the State Department--not the Pentagon--in such planning.

The bill also includes important language prohibiting any funds from being used in any way to support or justify the use of torture by any U.S. government official or contract employee. It also directs the Justice Department's Inspector General to submit a report to Congress detailing all internal and interagency documents regarding the obligation to the U.S. under the Geneva Conventions and related international agreements. I'm glad that the House supports this critical provision on a bipartisan basis, as the Administration to date has refused to provide these documents.

But I only reluctantly support this bill for the reasons I have expressed year after year--namely, that it attacks the Department of Commerce laboratories in my district in Colorado, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The trend of cutting these agencies to the bone continues. It continues not because there is fat to cut at these facilities, but because the Subcommittee allocation simply doesn't provide enough money to go around.

Under the bill as it stands, the NIST and NOAA laboratories will see more jobs lost and more cuts in funding. The bill cuts NIST fully 15 percent from last year's levels. Funding for NIST's Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS)--at $376 million--is at least 9 percent below the request. Never mind that the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, which the House will pass this week, includes $425 million in FY2005 for STRS. The bill includes funding for important construction projects, but at levels 18 percent below the request.

The bill reduces NOAA funding by $543 million--a 15 percent cut from FY2004 levels. The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which funds the important work being conducted in the labs in my district, is funded at $319 million in the bill--12 percent below the request level, and 16 percent below FY2004 levels. The bill zeros out funding for Abrupt Climate Research and Paleoclimate research, and the overall NOAA budget for climate and global change research has been reduced by an additional $6 million. These NOAA research programs are vital to improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change-- something the president has said is a priority for his administration.

In addition to concerns about reduced funding for NOAA, I am also concerned about language included in the bill's report. The report notes: ``The Committee continues to believe that resource limitations require NOAA to act expeditiously on laboratory consolidation. The Research Review Team report provides a necessary first step toward rationalization of the enterprise-wide research effort.'' As far as I am aware, the Committee has never provided a definition for ``laboratory consolidation.'' If done because of ``resource limitations,'' it seems to me that ``consolidation'' is just a code word for program elimination. I will continue to fight to ensure that before NOAA takes any steps in this direction, it must provide Congress with further explanation as to the reasons for and outcomes expected from such action.

Mr. Chairman, clearly I have deep concerns about the parts of this bill that affect my district and that affect science and technology funding at the Department of Commerce. But the bill includes funding for many other deserving programs. So I will vote for this bill, and will work to see that it is improved in conference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of the Thorne Ecological Institute (TEI), its record of providing ecological education and environmental awareness to countless numbers of young people, and its development of forward-looking environmental policies.

I believe that many of the problems which face our Nation can be solved through better understanding and awareness of our natural surroundings. For 50 years, the Thorne Ecological Institute has been dedicated to fulfilling this goal by giving hands-on experience to children and adults in Colorado.

In 1954, Dr. Oakleigh Thorne, II, established the Thorne Ecological Institute in hopes of bringing environmental education to the community of Boulder, Colorado. He taught a variety of courses at the University of Colorado at Boulder, working to increase his students' understanding of the environment and its complex interrelationships. His goal was to ``connect people to nature,'' and the last 50 years have seen this goal met with great success. To this day, the Thorne Ecological Institute maintains its commitment to environmental education, now with a focus on children and young people in the Colorado's Front Range. Innovative programs like Project BEAR--Building Environmental Awareness and Respect--reach inner-city children and establish a connection with the wonders of nature, an invaluable accomplishment and contribution to our society.

In addition to their outstanding efforts with children, the Institute was a catalyst in establishing environmental organizations in Colorado, including the first chapters of the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and the Denver Audubon Society. These organizations have been essential to the protection and promotion of Colorado's environment, and their impact is a direct result of Dr. Thorne's pioneering work.

I would also like to recognize the Thorne Ecological Institute for its innovation within environmental policy. The City of Boulder has been honored nationally for its policy of buying open-space to ensure a high quality of life for its residents. We must remember, though, that the Institute played a critical role in developing this landmark policy. Moreover, long before the Environmental Protection Agency required environmental impact studies, the TEI was conducting them in Colorado to increase understanding of the consequences of commercial development and to lay the foundation for their mitigation.

Mr. Speaker, environmental understanding and protection of environmental quality are things close to my heart--and the Thorne Ecological Institute has been at the forefront of the environmental movement in the Rockies for 50 years. Under the leadership of Dr. Oakleigh Thorne, II, the TEI has fulfilled the dream of connecting people to nature. I congratulate the Thorne Ecological Institute for its accomplishments and ask my colleagues to join me in appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize Mr. Penfield Tate III of Denver, CO, for his outstanding career of public service and his inspiring role as father and husband. I would like to thank him on behalf of all Coloradans for the depth and diversity of contributions he has made to ensure our public life.

Before my election to Congress, I served in the Colorado House of Representatives with a number of remarkable individuals who made a difference through their legislative excellence. I also served with some legislators noted for their warm, energetic personalities. However, in my experience there are very few people as gifted-- personally and professionally--as Pen Tate.

Every day I worked with him reaffirmed the ideal qualities of a public official: idealistic, caring, optimistic, intelligent and principled. Spirited in debate, Pen was, nevertheless, always a gentleman, being open-minded and respectful to everyone with whom he worked. As a state representative, state senator, and mayoral candidate he was a tireless seeker for solutions to some of Colorado's most pressing problems, and a peerless advocate for children, seniors, workers, and civil rights, causes he championed both in and out of the State Capitol.

Since ending his tenure in the Colorado Legislature, Pen has returned to his law practice in Denver. He has also been given more time to spend with his wife Faye and daughter Elleana. Although he has returned to life as a private citizen, Pen remains as dedicated to his causes today as he was during his time in the legislature. He is active in many charitable organizations and gives generously to his community.

Not surprisingly, Pen's contagious combination of effective legislator and humanitarian has inspired members of his community to award him numerous civic distinctions. His unyielding pursuit of justice and equality was recognized with the 2003 Civil Rights Award given by the Anti-Defamation League. Most recently, Pen was awarded the 2004 Father of the Year by the National Father's Day Council and the American Diabetes Association. This impressive award is only a token of appreciation to a man who dedicates so much of his time to his family. I am attaching a newspaper report of this honor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting such an honorable person and his distinguished career in public service. My family and I wish him, his wife, Faye, and their daughter, Elleana, good health and happiness in their future together.

[From the Denver Post, June 19, 2004]

A Tip of the Hat to Tate the Dad

Mayoral adviser is one of six men honored as regional Fathers of the

Year

(By Erin Cox)

For Elleana Tate, daughter of Denver lawyer and former

state senator Penfield Tate III, it only takes a little task

for Daddy to make her happy. ``Tuck me in,'' said 14-year-old

Elleana, flashing her smile at her father. Tate, nestled next

to his disabled daughter on a couch in his 27th-floor

downtown Denver office, looked at her with soft eyes. ``Tuck

you in still?'' Tate said, beaming.

Tate, partner in a Denver law firm, adviser to Mayor John

Hickenlooper, winner of a 2003 Civil Rights Award and former

state senator, is first and foremost a father. The National

Father's Day Council and the American Diabetes Association

honored him as a 2004 Father of the Year, along with five

other Denver men. ``It sometimes feels strange to get honored

for the things you ought to do,'' Tate said in his acceptance

speech Tuesday night. The diabetes association also named

Jeffrey Campos, Thomas Dyk, Steve Kelley, Jay Leeuwenburg and

Sam Pegues as regional Fathers of the Year.

The National Father's Day Council was established in 1931

to promote the then little- known Father's Day holiday and

has been honoring exceptional fathers across the nation since

1942. Tate was selected for the award because of his ability

to balance his personal life with a successful career,

organizers said. Tate's list of qualifications for what makes

a Father of the Year is a little different. ``You have to be

loving. You have to be patient, generous, consistent and

persistent,'' he said. ``It's a continual reinforcing of

things.''

Elleana, who has mild cerebral palsy and limited eyesight,

spends a lot of time with Tate getting that reinforcement and

fatherly support. Born premature, Elleana has made frequent

trips to hospitals and surgery rooms during her life. Tate is

always there. ``I'm bouncing off the walls, and he's very

reasoned, measured, thoughtful,'' said Elleana's mother, Faye

Tate. The struggles with Elleana's health and its potential

limits have brought Elleana and her father close. She has

been by Tate's side on the campaign trail and at his law

firm.

Little exceeds Tate's affection for his daughter, whose

artwork hangs on the door of his office. ``He spends a lot of

time instructing Elleana,'' Faye Tate said. ``He lets her do

everything. He lets her try everything.'' Elleana was barely

out of the toddler stage when she rode her first horse, with

the urging of her father and despite her mother's fears.

Tate believes there is no other way to parent. ``I don't

know what she can or can't do until she tries. I don't know

what she likes until she tries it,'' he said.

Tate's grandfathers and father shaped his approach to

fatherhood. As a child, Tate spent summers with his three

sisters and cousins at his grandfather Tate's farm, where his

grandfather ``was everybody's babysitter. He spent a lot of

time talking to you. They really made sure you were connected

to family,'' Tate said. Tate's maternal grandfather, an

immigrant from Jamaica, taught him to keep contact with

extended family, and Tate's own father, Penfield Tate II,

taught him about friendship. ``My dad was my best friend. He

was my law partner and best man at my wedding,'' Tate said.

Tate and Elleana are best friends, too. ``We keep secrets

from Mom sometimes,'' Tate said. ``We talk about boyfriends

now, and boys.'' Elleana wiggled on the couch and gave an

enthusiastic nod at the subject. She and her dad share a

special language. ``They talk in code,'' said Tate's sister,

Paula Tate. ``We'll hide under the pillows and just talk

about stuff,'' he said. A father must be ``firm and fair. And

playful,'' Tate said.

Tate brushes off the feat of balancing an impressive public

career and the role of loving father. ``It's all a matter of

scheduling,'' he said. ``When you work, you work. When you're

home, you're home,'' he said. Even though fatherhood is a job

in itself. ``You really have to enjoy being a dad,'' Tate

said. ``It's too much work not to enjoy it.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time. I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), the manager of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the bill does not provide for any new investigations or other projects by the Corps of Engineers. However, as the chairman knows, last year's energy and water bill included $40,000 for the Corps to proceed with a preliminary restoration plan for South Boulder Creek.

After enactment of the appropriations bill, at the request and recommendation of the Corps, the project was moved from section 206 to programming as a General Investigation Study. The President's budget then proposed an additional $100,000 for this General Investigation Study. I regret that money for that purpose is not included in the bill because recent technical analysis shows that some 2,500 homes in the study area are subject to possible flood damage.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about how interruption of funding could affect this project and the people who live in the area.

So, I would like to ask whether the chairman would be willing to work with me as the bill goes to conference to try to enable the Corps to do its work.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.

I would like to ask the same question of the distinguished ranking member.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and I would like to elaborate upon the issues that are involved in securing Israel and peace in the Middle East.

I support the statements in the resolution declaring that the United States is strongly committed to the security of Israel and its well- being as a Jewish state and that there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until Israel and the Palestinians, and all countries in the region and throughout the world, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. I think it is vitally important that the resolution reemphasizes the U.S. commitment to the security of Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders, and to preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any threat.

However, I am concerned about the perception that the President's letter prejudges the final outcome of negotiations on issues like borders and refugees. It's important to recognize that Prime Minister Sharon's plan cannot be seen as a substitute for negotiations, that it is a first step, not the last. The plan can provide a window of opportunity, a short-term opening that might enable the two parties to return to the negotiating table. Only there, through mutual agreement, can Israel and the Palestinians resolve some of the most sensitive issues--and only then can there be real peace and security for Israel, which is so vital for Israel, the region and for the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution which recognizes the importance of suicide prevention and raising awareness of suicide within the nation.

Suicide occurs in our nation at a rate of 30,000 suicides annually and kills youth six nine times more often than homicide. It is also the second fastest growing cause of death among college-age students. However, studies have shown that 95 percent of suicides are preventable. It is a silent epidemic that is preventable and awareness is the key to that prevention.

There are several programs throughout the country which put in hundred of hours, most from volunteers, to provide support services to prevent suicide as well as support to the families and friends who have lost loved ones to suicide. I would like to highlight one of these organizations which is based in my district in Colorado, but works throughout the country and internationally. The Yellow Ribbon International Suicide Prevention Program' provides resources to teachers, parents, and those at the most risk of suicide. They go into schools to raise the level of discussion about suicide and ways to seek help. The more suicide is talked about, the more likely those thinking about suicide will take action and ask for assistance.

Many who are considering suicide do not know where to turn for help, or even how to ask for help. Under the Yellow Ribbon International Suicide Prevention Program, Yellow Ribbon Ask 4 Help cards are made available to schools, teachers, counselors, and parents. These cards provide a simple way for individuals to ask for help, especially for those who cannot utter the words ``I need help.''

It is also important to remember that suicide does not only affect our youth, but people throughout the phases of life. In fact, the largest number of suicide deaths occurs among men between the ages of 35-44. The National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, within the Department of Health and Human Services recommends and encourages organizations to expand there service to focus on elementary ages as well as the elderly.

My concurrent resolution recognizes the importance of suicide prevention and awareness, as well as reaffirms the commitment to the priorities expressed in H. Res. 212 and S. Res. 84 which were both passed in the 105th Congress. Lastly this bill states that the week of September 19, 2004 should be recognized as Yellow Ribbon Suicide Awareness and Prevention Week.

I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation to help prevent suicide and to wear a yellow ribbon the week of September 19, 2004 to raise awareness of this global epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a House resolution supporting the goals and ideas of the National Time Out Day, which the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) and over 50 other health care organizations are celebrating on June 23, 2004 to promote the adoption of a new protocol for preventing medical errors in the operating room.

The number of individuals who are affected by medical errors is astounding. In 2000, the Institute of Medicine released a report entitled ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The report revealed that between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized people in the U.S. die each year due to medical errors, and thousands of others suffer injury or illness as a result of preventable errors.

To address this problem, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has developed a universal protocol which calls for surgical teams to call a ``time out'' before surgeries begin in order to verify the patient's identity, the procedure to be performed, and the site of the procedure. The Joint Commission is requiring nurses, surgeons and hospitals throughout the country to adopt this protocol beginning July 1, 2004, in order to curb the alarming number of deaths and injuries due to medical errors.

AORN has created an Internet website and distributed 55,000 tool kits to healthcare professionals to help them implement the universal protocol, and they are celebrating National Time Out Day on June 23 to promote the protocol and its adoption.

National Time Out Day has been endorsed by a distinguished group of healthcare organizations, including the American College of Surgeons, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American Hospital Association, and the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management.

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, this issue is about health care access and patient safety. Fewer medical errors will result in better outcomes for patients, fewer medical malpractice suits, which in turn will help keep malpractice insurance rates and health care premiums down.

I think it is important for Congress to recognize and congratulate perioperative nurses and representatives of surgical teams for working together to reduce medical errors and to ensure the improved health and safety of surgical patients--and that is the purpose of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Congress definitely needs to respond to the retaliatory tariffs imposed on American exports because of the World Trade Organization's rulings addressed by this bill.

But, we do not need to pass the bill as it stands--in fact, we shouldn't.

The bill is unbalanced and excessive. It includes provisions that could provide new incentives for American companies to move overseas. I am concerned that it could allow companies to simultaneously outsource much of the work needed to make a product and at the same time benefit from a tax break for ``domestic production.''

The bill is unduly tilted toward large companies rather than the small businesses that are the source of most jobs in our country. It also includes billions of dollars worth of new narrow special-interest tax breaks, as well as other provisions that supposedly will raise revenue to offset the corporate tax incentives. Those offsets include provisions for outsourcing IRS debt collection, which I think is a bad idea, and creating additional paperwork for charitable contributions.

Of course, the bill also includes desirable provisions. If they stood alone, or were part of a bill that otherwise was acceptable, I would be happy to vote for the legislation. And I did support the motion to recommit, which would have greatly improved the bill.

If the motion to recommit had been adopted, the result would have been to provide an incentive to manufacturers to keep jobs in the United States by reducing corporate tax rates for domestic production by 3.5 percent.

The motion to recommit also would have removed the provisions that provide incentives to move jobs overseas and the targeted special interest provisions. It would have provided better treatment for small businesses, farming cooperatives, and domestic manufacturers.

At the same time, the motion to recommit would have retained such desirable provisions as those extending small business expensing, the research and development tax credit, and renewable energy credits as well as the same temporary foreign income repatriation provisions as those in the Senate-passed version of this legislation.

Unfortunately, the motion to recommit was not successful, and so I cannot support this bill in its present form.

I expect that a conference committee will be appointed to resolve differences between this bill and corresponding legislation passed by the Senate. I hope that this will result in a revised and improved version that deserves enactment.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is important for everyone, because all Americans have a stake in the work of the agencies that if funds. But it is especially important for Coloradans and the residents of the other Western States that have large Native American populations and that are so immediately and directly affected by the management of the Federal lands.

So, I would like to be able to support the bill--but, regretfully, the bill falls too far short of what is needed for me to be able to do so. My opposition to the bill does not reflect any lack of respect of Chairman Taylor or for our colleague from Washington, Mr. Dicks, the distinguished and able ranking member of the subcommittee. I think that in general they have done the best they could with the very limited allocation of funds that was made available to them.

In particular, I think they should be commended for their efforts to provide funds for reducing the hazardous fuels that have built up in our forests and for responding to wildfires that threaten so many western communities. However, in many other areas the bill falls far short of what I think should be acceptable. It does not provide enough for the essential operations of the National Park System or the other parts of the Federal lands that provide recreational opportunities for so many people, as well as supplying the fresh water and sound habitats that are essential for fish and wildlife.

And it conspicuously fails to make the necessary investments, including land acquisitions and other steps, needed to respond to the increased stress on open spaces and natural resources from the rapid and ongoing population growth in Colorado and other States. This failure breaks the promises of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and flies in the face of the more recent agreement between the appropriations committee and the large majority that voted for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act sponsored by our colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young. And, even worse, it also breaks faith with the future and with the future generations that would be the beneficiaries of those investments.

For example, we should be providing funds to complete the acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook watershed that the city of Golden, Colorado, has agreed to sell for inclusion in the National Forest System. We also should provide funds to complete the acquisition of the lands that are to become part of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve and to constitute the new Baca National Wildlife Refuge, as well as to complete other needed acquisitions in other parts of Colorado. But, instead, the bill includes no funds at all for these or any other acquisition projects--not only in Colorado but anywhere else. This is not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that today is not the end of the story. The Senate still has to act on this appropriations bill, and I expect that a revised version of the legislation will come before the House at a later date. My hope is that the result of that progress will be a bill that is sufficiently improved that it will deserve the support of the entire body. For the time being, however, I cannot support this bill and will vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I considered offering an amendment dealing with RS 2477 claims that was printed in the Record. I will not offer that amendment today, but I do want to briefly explain the problem that it was intended to address.

Last year, the House adopted a similar--not identical, but similar-- amendment. Unfortunately, it was dropped in conference. So, the original need for an amendment remains. The need is to protect not just Federal lands but also private property and the public interest. All three are threatened by the plans of the Interior Department to go ahead with back-room land deals that fly in the face of Congressional intent.

The Interior Department would do this by issuing ``disclaimers of interest''--documents like deeds that cede land--under new rules that allow the disclaimers to be issued to applicants who wouldn't have been eligible before. And the Interior Department has announced it is ready to give those ``disclaimers'' to parties seeking them in order to clear the way for building roads under an 1866 law. That law--one of the 19th-century laws to promote settlement in the West--granted rights-of- way ``for the construction of highways'' on Federal lands.

It later became section 2477 of the Revised Statues--or RS 2477. It was repealed in 1976, but the repeal did not affect existing rights, and did not set a deadline for claiming those rights. So, there is no way of telling how many claims might be made or what lands could be affected.

RS 2477 claims can involve not just Federal lands but also lands that once were Federal but that now belong to other owners. That includes millions of Acres that now are ranches or farms, or residential subdivisions, or single-family homes, or private cabins in the mountains like ones owned by some of my constituents. Also at risk are millions of acres in the National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as wilderness areas and areas that deserve protection and as wilderness areas.

This problem is not new, but it is very serious. It needs to be resolved--but not the way the Interior Department wants to resolve it.

What the Interior Department wants is to negotiate in secret and then issue the ``disclaimers'' I described. They started that process with the State of Utah. And other parties--including the current Administration in Colorado--are starting to ask for deals of their own. That is the wrong way to resolve this.

What is needed is for Congress to settle it with new legislation-- which is what Congress told the Clinton administration when they tried to handle it administratively. To make sure they got the message, Congress passed a law that says any new RS 2477 rules must be authorized by Congress.

That law is still on the books--and repeating that message would be the purpose of the amendment. The Administration says that message is irrelevant. They say they can go forward, in the face of that law passed by Congress. Others disagree. For starters, a recent GAO opinion says that the Interior Department's agreement with Utah violates that law. The Interior Department says they think GAO is wrong about that.

But whether GAO is right or wrong, one thing is for sure--if the Interior Department goes ahead on its present course, it is headed for nothing but more litigation. The best way to resolve this issue is by enacting new legislation, after public hearings and open debate.

That's why I have introduced a bill--H.R. 1639--to do just that. My bill would set a deadline--four more years--for filing RS 2477 claims. It would establish a fair, open administrative process for handling those claims. And it would set another deadline for any lawsuit challenging the result of that administrative process.

Maybe my bill could be improved, and some of our colleagues may want to propose their own ideas--that is the legislative process. And that is how this issue should be resolved, not by backroom deals or clever maneuvers to try to side-step Congress. Instead of trying to

side-step Congress, the Administration should work with the Resources Committee and the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to impose on the time of the House by calling for a vote on this amendment today. Still, the problem has not gone away. Congress should address it--and sooner, or later, we will have to address it. For the moment, however, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to seek to have the Resources Committee address the issue.

I yield back any time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4545, the so-called ``Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004.''

My opposition is based both on grounds of the bill's content and the process by which it has been considered. I don't believe this bill is good policy, nor do I think it should have been brought up in a way that severely limited debate and completely eliminated the opportunity for the House to even consider any amendments.

The bill's title--gasoline price reduction--is more of a slogan than an accurate description of the measure. And like any good advertising slogan, it has a certain appeal. But it is not an example of truth in advertising.

I do believe that the bill's authors had the right goals in mind when drafting this bill. But reducing the ``proliferation'' of boutique fuels won't affect today's high gas prices. According to EPA, clean air protections add, at most, a nickel to the price of a gallon of gasoline. There are many other factors that can affect supply and price, such as merger activity, refinery shutdowns, and pipeline capacity. Besides, gas prices have risen across the nation, not just in states with cleaner fuel requirements.

The bill we are considering today would amend the Clean Air Act by allowing the EPA and the Department of Energy to grant waivers to states, if there is a fuel shortage, to use fuel or fuel additives, which might contribute to air pollution. The bill would give the EPA Administrator authority to waive cleaner-burning gasoline or diesel requirements indefinitely if there is a ``significant fuel supply disruption,'' a term that the bill does not define.

I am concerned that this bill would give EPA limitless authority to streamline current regulations. In addition, since the bill calls for the EPA Administrator merely to deem a waiver ``necessary,'' I am concerned that EPA's decision might not be subject to judicial review, or that any review would be very limited.

Finally, this bill appears to put considerations of price before those of health. It contains no obligation to mitigate or make up for the excess air pollution that may occur over the waiver period.

I understand that the more than 100 different fuel blends across the country have periodically resulted in regional price spikes, which is something we should try to address. A leading voice on energy in the other body has pressed for action from the Administration using legal authorities that the President already has. He has called first for an in-depth study to analyze the impact that federal, state, and local boutique fuels programs have on our nation's gasoline marketplace and to come up with specific recommendations for action.

I think the House should be considering mandating such a study--not passing legislation that won't address gas prices and that gives EPA unlimited authority that could be used to weaken important clean air protections. But because no amendments are permitted, that proposal cannot even be considered in connection with this bill. So, I cannot support it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from New Mexico because I share his concern on the extent to which the proposed regulations would revise the system of forest planning put in place during the Reagan administration. There are many reasons to support this amendment, but I want to focus for a couple of minutes on the reduction of public involvement that I believe would result from this amendment not being passed.

The National Forest Management Act was landmark legislation that greatly increased the extent to which the public could hold the Forest Service accountable. It included a mandate for the agency to base its management decisions on sound science on one hand and, on the other hand, to ensure extensive public participation in the forest planning process.

If we truly look at these new regulations, they would downgrade forest plans and effectively exempt them from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and would thus limit opportunities for public involvement.

This amendment, if we really look at it, would just simply impose a moratorium on the proposed new regulations. And I think that makes good sense because whatever the problems with the current planning regulations, I do not think they should be just swept away without more intensive oversight by this body and by the other body; and that has occurred so far.

This is particularly important because these new regulations were developed without any input from a committee of scientists; and this is a stark departure, a stark departure, from the process that has been used in connection to the development of any other changes in the National Forest Management Act regulations.

In fact, during the public comment process, many of the scientists on whom we depend asked for the withdrawal of these proposed new regulations.

So, in short, this amendment just simply maintains the public involvement that I think we all value and we all acknowledge has been important, because, as my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee) pointed out, it gives the taxpayers, who, by the way, own this land, a chance to be involved, and if we pass this amendment, we maintain that public involvement while we in the Congress take time to look further at these proposed changes.

There has been a lot of talk here about forests and forest management as we move into a new fire season. This amendment would not change the work that is under way in managing our forests more effectively, given the 100 years that we have faced of suppressing wildfire, not understanding the ecological processes in our forests. This does not prevent that planning from proceeding, it does not prevent us from responding.

My colleague from Washington also talked about the need for more resources so we can do the requisite thinning and fight the fires when they start.

So, in sum, this amendment ought to be supported. We ought to maintain public involvement in this important process. The past has proven that this process works. I urge adoption of the Udall amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to underline the point that independent scientific review has led us to make many of the right decisions so our forests are protected and our lands are managed in a way for the long-term interests of future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Udall amendment.

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, Vice Admiral Richard Truly, director of DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), announced that he plans to retire in early November after more than seven years as NREL's director.

Although I am not greatly surprised by this announcement, I am saddened by it. I know that a national search will soon be launched to select the Admiral's successor, and I expect that his successor will represent NREL well in future years. But Admiral Truly has so vividly marked the last five years I've spent working on renewable energy policy in the House of Representatives. It is hard to imagine NREL without him.

In a letter to staff, Admiral Truly wrote, ``I honestly believe that it is at the intersection of our energy use, our environment, our economic well being and our national security that society finds the greatest engineering and scientific challenges on Earth today. Each of you at NREL are at the heart of this challenge and opportunity. What you do really, really matters to our nation and our world. I feel a deep privilege to have been a small part of your successes over these years.''

This last statement exemplifies the Admiral's approach to leadership. He was always quick to credit NREL staff for their achievements and believed in the importance of teamwork. He was admired by his colleagues at NREL and, I think, inspired them to work harder and aim higher.

For the Admiral, no challenge was too great. He wasn't content to rise to the rank of vice admiral in the Navy. He was also a naval aviator, test pilot and astronaut, logging more than 7,500 hours of flight. His astronaut career included work in the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory program, and NASA's Apollo, Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz and Space Shuttle programs. He piloted the 747/Enterprise approach and landing tests in 1977. He lifted off in November 1981 as pilot aboard Columbia, the first shuttle to be reflown into space, establishing a world circular orbit altitude record. He commanded Challenger in August-September 1983, the first night launch/landing mission of the Space Shuttle program. For all these achievements, President Reagan awarded the Presidential Citizen's Medal to Admiral Truly in 1989. Admiral Truly capped off his space career by serving as NASA's eighth Administrator under President George H.W. Bush from 1989-1992.

During his seven years at NREL, Admiral Truly has raised the visibility of the laboratory to new heights. NREL is considered the premier laboratory for renewable energy research and development and a leading laboratory for energy efficiency R&D. As a world leader in the development of these technologies, NREL is involved in fifty different areas of scientific research, from solar photovoltaics and wind energy to hydrogen fuel cells and distributed energy generation.

As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I have worked hard to increase funding for NREL's important research and generally to raise the profile of renewable energy and energy efficiency in Congress. It has been an uphill climb, as these programs have had to compete for funding with others. What has inspired me to keep fighting the fight has been knowing that Admiral Truly and his team are back in Colorado, pushing technological limits, dreaming up new ways for us to transition to a clean energy future. Admiral Truly may not be with NREL in the years to come, but I know he will always be there in spirit, urging us all to continue to aim for the stars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and express my opposition to the other energy bills we are considering today and tomorrow as part of what the Republican leadership is calling Energy Week.

I would like to start with this bill, the Renewable Energy Project Siting Act. As the Members know, I am co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, so some may wonder how I can be opposed to the bill. And the answer is that the bill is not what it claims to be, and I oppose it for what it really is.

Voting against the bill does not mean opposing the development of clean renewable energy technologies. Instead, it means being opposed to rushing the development of energy projects without first subjecting them to the full environmental and public health review required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

In my experience and my understanding of the history, environmental analysis has not held up siting of a sound renewable energy project; so there is no need for the bill. If we look at the simple purpose of NEPA, it is to require that the Federal Government looks before it leaps to make sure that the benefits of a project do not come at the expense of the environment. That is a sound rule, and it should be maintained. So for that reason I cannot support this bill.

At this point let me, if I might, briefly discuss the other energy bills on this week's agenda. There is no doubt that we in the Congress need to pass a comprehensive energy bill. But the bills we will be considering this week will not address the real problems we face today, high energy prices and finite supplies of fossil fuels. Instead, at most it merely postpones the inevitable transition from hydrocarbons that we need to make by subsidizing oil and gas production at the expense of cleaner and more efficient technologies. Drilling in the wildlife refuge in Alaska will not help us get out of this bind, which is again one of the reasons I will oppose that bill when it is considered tomorrow.

And the other bill we will consider tomorrow, to make it easier for refineries to restart and be developed in areas of high unemployment by relaxing environmental regulations, will not do anything to affect oil prices and could create environmental hazards for the residents of these areas.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Republican leadership is forcing this debate on these bills we have already considered not only indicates a lack of imagination but also an admission that they have no plan to address rising gas prices and the energy needs of this country.

This appears to be an exercise in politics, not policy. If we get serious in

this House about addressing our energy concerns and developing a real energy policy, I know we can find common ground. But this week's showboating is not serious. I urge my colleagues to oppose these bills.

Offered By: Mr. Udall of Colorado

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following new title:

Mr. Speaker, I have agreed to become a co- sponsor of H.R. 3619, the Employee Free Choice Act, but not before considerable thought and deliberation. Among other things, this legislation gives workers the right to unionize and be recognized by the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB) when a majority of the workers sign a card circulated by union organizers. I continue to remain skeptical of any election system in which voters are not free to make their decisions in private. A simple card check system could arguably provide opportunities for group pressure and even coercion and I am convinced that the secret ballot process works best in most cases. However, I am disturbed by reports citing example after example of employers using heavy handed techniques to discourage workers from organizing a union shop in the first place and intimidating and even illegally firing workers who decide to join a union.

I am particularly troubled by a recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that gives employers carte blanche to intimidate union organizers. In a 2-1 party line vote, the NLRB has decided that an employer may explicitly inform workers who are about to vote on whether to form a union that workers in two other facilities lost their jobs after they formed a union. It is my understanding that the regional NLRB director ruled against the employer, saying that the memo circulated by the employer ``clearly implied'' the union was responsible for the firings at the other two hotels and insinuated similar firings could happen if the workers voted for the union. However, the two NLRB Bush appointees overruled the regional director's decision and claimed the memo ``did not exceed the bounds of permissible campaign statements.'' The Democratic appointee was the lone dissenter.

This decision sends a clear message to employers that just about anything goes when it comes to union busting. And the message is equally clear to unions: if you try to organize, you could be fired. This is an untenable situation and the Employee Free Choice Act is, therefore, an opportunity to try to equalize the playing field between union organizers, union busters, and now the NLRB. In short, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that the NLRB under the Bush Administration is more interested in busting unions than in protecting workers' rights to form and join unions. In this atmosphere, a shot across the bow is needed and this legislation does that.

On balance, I would prefer a policy that energizes and funds the NLRB. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we may have to wait for a new Administration to provide this balanced leadership. Co- sponsorship of this legislation, even with its flaws, sends an important and necessary message to the Administration to clean up its act.