Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department recently released information about the alleged offenses of Jose Padilla, described by the Deputy Attorney General as ``a trained, funded, and equipped terrorist.''

If the allegations are accurate--and I have no reason to doubt them-- that description seems very apt. But that cannot be the end of the story.

That's because, as the Rocky Mountain News notes, Jose Padilla is something else as well--``an American citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil two years ago and who thus enjoys, or should enjoy, certain rights--including the right to either be charged with a crime or freed from detention.''

But, as the same editorial correctly points out, ``Instead, he still faces no charges, and the legality of his imprisonment awaits a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.''

When this case was considered by the Supreme Court, the Administration argued that by passage of Public Law 107-40, a resolution ``to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States,'' Congress authorized such detentions. But as one who voted for that resolution, I disagree with that interpretation of its terms.

Here, too, I share the view of the Rocky Mountain News that ``surely Congress did not mean to grant the executive branch unchecked discretion over the imprisonment of Americans for as long as the war against Islamic jihadists continues. That would amount to the suspension of a fundamental right for years--perhaps for generations, for all we know.''

And I share the hope that the Supreme Court will ``reaffirm the right of citizens--every citizen--to full and timely access to legal counsel and the judicial system. And that includes even those who may have been in league with international terrorists and who planned to blow up high-rise apartment buildings on their behalf.''

For the benefit of our colleagues, I attach the full text of the editorial cited above:

[From the Rocky Mountain News, June 3, 2004]

Padilla's Plots Don't Negate his Rights

We are perfectly willing to entertain the likelihood that

the Justice Department's latest portrayal of alleged

terrorist Jose Padilla is accurate, including the monstrous

plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings. Padilla met

with top al-Qaida leaders, according to Deputy Attorney

General James Comey, discussed detonating a ``dirty bomb'' in

the United States and finally agreed to a scheme involving

apartment buildings. He would rent rooms in several

complexes, seal them and fill them with natural gas, and

detonate them all at once.

Padilla is ``a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and

equipped terrorist'' who accepted ``an assignment to kill

hundreds of innocent men, women and children,'' Comey told

reporters this week, and the description sounds about right.

But Padilla is something else, too: an American citizen who

was arrested on U.S. soil two years ago and who thus enjoys,

or should enjoy, certain rights--including the right to

either be charged with a crime or freed from detention.

Instead, he still faces no charges, and the legality of his

imprisonment awaits a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

With its latest revelations, the Justice Department

obviously is seeking to influence public opinion and perhaps

even the court itself, although we don't begrudge it the

attempt. But the new information fails to alter the basic

problem with designating U.S. citizens arrested in this

country as ``enemy combatants'' for purposes of removing them

from normal criminal justice procedures and then

interrogating them over lengthy periods of time without

benefit of counsel. If the president's say-so is enough to

have kept Padilla in custody for two years without a criminal

charge, then nothing in principle prevents any one of us from

the same fate. Federal agents have been known to arrest the

wrong people, after all, and then to resist admitting their

mistakes.

Fortunately, Padilla's case is apparently unique in the war

on terror, despite routine claims that the Bush

administration tramples indiscriminately on constitutional

rights. Another U.S. citizen who also has been held in a Navy

brig without normal access to counsel, Yaser Esam Hamdi, was

captured in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance. He too

deserves full constitutional protections, in our view, but

there is at least some sense in which being arrested at

O'Hare Airport and then held incommunicado for months on end,

as Padilla was, is more worrisome for civil liberties than

being treated in the same fashion after capture in a foreign

combat zone.

We realize courts in this nation's past have said Congress

has the authority to suspend certain civil liberties during

wartime emergencies. Moreover, a congressional joint

resolution passed after 9/11 authorized the president ``to

prevent any future acts of international terrorism against

the United States.'' But surely Congress did not mean to

grant the executive branch unchecked discretion over the

imprisonment of Americans for as long as the war against

Islamic jihadists continues. That would amount to the

suspension of a fundamental right for years--perhaps for

generations, for all we know.

No, the Supreme Court must reaffirm the right of citizens--

every citizen--to full and timely access to legal counsel and

the judicial system. And that includes even those who may

have been in league with international terrorists and who

planned to blow up high-rise apartment buildings on their

behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ronald A. Hellbusch, Director of Public Works and Utilities for the City of Westminster, Colorado. Ron is retiring after 32 years with the City. Combined with the 16 years as the City Manager of Brighton, Colorado, Ron has provided 48 years of dedicated service to these northern Denver communities.

Ron began his career at the City of Westminster as a seasonal laborer in the street, water, sewer and park divisions while finishing high school and college. In 1960, he was appointed as the assistant city manager for the City of Westminster and was instrumental in developing the city's surface water supply system from its previous groundwater system when he was appointed water development coordinator by the City Council in 1963. Hellbusch left the City of Westminster in 1966 to serve as city manager for the City of Brighton, Colorado, where he served for 16 years.

He resumed his career with the City of Westminster in 1984 as the Director of Public Works and Utilities, directing the water distribution and wastewater collection systems, water and wastewater treatment, water supply acquisition, long range water supply planning and development, street operations and maintenance, street replacement and rehabilitation, and concrete replacement. The Department of Public Works and Utilities has 128 authorized employees, has an annual operating budget of more than $24 million, and a capital improvement project budget of approximately $7 million annually.

In 1996, Ron was selected as one of the American Public Works Association's 1996 Top Ten Public Works Leaders for his outstanding contributions to the public works profession. Ron also received the William E. Korbitz Award presented by the Colorado Chapter of the American Public Works Association at the 14th Annual Awards Luncheon in January 2000. He represented the city on various city and community groups including the Woman Creek Reservoir Authority Board, American Public Works Association Colorado Chapter and National Committees including the Leadership and Management Technical Committee, State Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) Roundtable Board Member, and the Colorado Water Congress serving as its president in 2003.

In the community, Ron has served the Westminster Presbyterian Church as a ruling elder and as the chairman of the Church's corporate affairs committee. Also, Ron chaired the stewardship committee over a four-year period and was a Sunday school teacher. In addition to the Westminster church activities, Ron was active during his years in Brighton, Colorado, both in the Presbyterian Church and community.

Ron's accomplishments with his Public Works and Utilities team include acquiring and developing a long-term, build-out water supply; the reclaimed water program; the completion of the Standley Lake dam renovation in collaboration with the cities of Northglenn and Thornton; employee driven quality service/competitive service program; the long- term street improvement strategy plan; utility planning and funding; developing a highly motivated and skilled employee team; encouraging innovation in membrane water treatment; use of technology in utility planning; a department-wide maintenance management program; numerous intergovernmental and regional cooperative agreements on water and public works programs; outsourcing programs such as street sweeping an annual trash pickup; and employee success in numerous national awards for programs and facilities, including recognition by the American Public Works Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation and the Denver Regional Council of Governments.

Ron has also been involved in the cleanup and closure of the former Rocky Flats nuclear

weapons facility just west of Westminster. For the past couple of years he has represented the City on a number of issues associated with the cleanup of this site, protecting surrounding drinking water supplies, ensuring worker safety, and with the site's future use. He was an early and strong supporter of preserving the acres of open space and ,vildlife habitat that exist on this site. He was instrumental in helping win the support of the neighboring communities for the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act so that this site could become an asset not only to the citizens of Westminster, but all of the surrounding communities.

Ron is an example of the important role that our local officials play in maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for our Nation's citizens. His dedication to his community and collaboration with neighboring communities stands as a shining example of the rewards that come from such service--not only to the community leader, but the lives touched by that service.

As Westminster City Manager Brent McFall stated, ``Ron Hellbusch has had a distinguished career with the City of Westminster and in the field of public works and utilities. He is nationally recognized as a leader in public works and as a water and wastewater provider. His shoes will be very hard to fill. We appreciate Ron's efforts over all these years on behalf of Westminster. He will be missed.''

I join Manager McFall in those comments. In Ron's retirement letter to City Manager Brent McFall, he indicates that ``there are streams and lakes not fished, outdoors to explore, stories to write, vistas to photograph, music to enjoy, books not read and tennis games to play. . . it is time to retire.'' That may be true and I am envious of the opportunity he now has to enjoy those activities. But we cannot forget that Ron helped enhance the lives of people who live, work and raise a family right there in Westminster and Brighton.

I wish Ron well in his retirement and know that he will stay engaged in community affairs no matter where his retirement may take him.

Mr. Chairman, I have strong reservations about this bill, but I will support it.

We are three years into our war on terrorism and still engaged in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no doubt that we must continue to focus on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our military personnel, and we must give our military the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world.

In particular, we must respond to the needs of our men and women in uniform in Iraq as they struggle against a persistent and dangerous insurgency with too few troops and inadequate supplies.

That's why I'm in favor of increasing protection for our troops in Iraq through funding provided in the bill for expedited production of armored Humvees, body armor, and armored trucks. And I'm also in favor of provisions in the bill authorizing the largest increase in military end-strength in decades--increasing active duty Army by 30,000 personnel and the Marine Corps by 9,000. Our army is overstretched, and we can't and shouldn't continue to rely on National Guard, reservists, and private contractors to fill in the gaps. I'm pleased also that the bill includes provisions--such as the continuing extension of TRICARE coverage--to ease the particular hardships that our campaign in Iraq has

The bill includes provisions authorizing $25 billion in response to the president's most recent supplemental budget request for the war in Iraq. The costs of our Iraq mission continue to skyrocket, adding to our ballooning federal deficit and shortchanging domestic programs. But these costs must be paid. So I am encouraged that this bill doesn't give the president a blank check. Instead, it breaks down the $25 billion and specifies that certain amounts be spent on operations and maintenance, personnel, and weapons procurement.

I support the BRAC provisions in the bill. BRAC is an important process that has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. But no process should go forward blindly, without taking into account changing facts on the ground. In my view, given the uncertainty of the current wartime environment, it makes sense to give Congress time to consider what resources our military might need in the future. We are still making decisions regarding the number of troops needed in Europe and Asia and where they should be located. Many of them may return to the U.S. This bill itself increases troop strength by 39,000--and it isn't clear how this increased end-strength will figure in to the next BRAC round. The Department of Defense is still completing its global posture review, yet as reported by CongressDaily recently, DoD officials have no plans to share the review with Congress. Yet that review no doubt informs the BRAC process in ways that Congress needs to understand.

So I think it's important for Congress to have a year to review reports from DoD on its global basing strategy and its infrastructure needs.

I'm also in favor of provisions in the bill establishing new rules for the interrogation of prisoners and commending the actions of Joseph Darby, the brave soldier who first notified authorities of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

The bill also provides for our men and women in uniform an across- the-board pay increase of 3.5 percent, boosts military special pay and extends bonuses, and funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations. These are all necessary and important provisions that I support.

I do have a number of serious reservations about the bill.

I don't believe it addresses 21st century threats as well as it could. With the exception of the Crusader artillery system and the Comanche helicopter, the Administration and Congress have continued every major weapons system inherited from previous administrations. So although the bill brings overall defense spending to levels 18 percent higher than the average Cold War levels, it doesn't present a coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities.

I am strongly opposed to the authorization of $10 billion to deploy a missile defense system that doesn't work and that wouldn't protect against the terrorist threats that we face today.

And I'm strongly opposed to the funding provided in the bill to study the feasibility of developing nuclear earth-penetrating weapons and to authorize previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons. Low-yield nuclear weapons have an explosive yield of five kilotons or less--``only'' a third of the explosive yield of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) require the United States to work towards nuclear disarmament, rather than further increase the size and diversity of our arsenal. By continuing the development of new U.S. nuclear weapons at the same time that we are trying to convince other nations to forego obtaining such weapons, we undermine our credibility in the fight to stop nuclear proliferation.

I also was disappointed in the way the bill was handled here on the floor of the House.

Not only was inadequate time allowed for debating this important and far-reaching measure, the House was prevented from even considering amendments on some aspects of the bill--such as the missile defense system--or was able only to consider amendments that were too narrow in scope.

An example of the latter is the amendment by my friend from Tennessee, Mr. Wamp.

The Wamp amendment is well-intentioned, and by itself it would do no harm. So, it is not surprising that it was adopted by a voice vote. However, I am concerned that adoption of the amendment may send the wrong signal to the Administration and to the Cold War warriors it is supposed to help.

The amendment would change one small part of the compensation program established by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).

Originally enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act, that compensation program is split into two parts.

One is administered by the Department of Labor for workers exposed to radiation, beryllium and silica. It has worked fairly well--something that can't be said about the second part.

The second part, commonly referred to as Subtitle D, is administered by the Department of Energy and covers workers exposed to radiation, and other toxic hazards.

Under Subtitle D, DOE is required to use physicians panels to evaluate whether an illness is work related, and relies upon state workers' compensation programs to assure payments for wage loss and medical benefits.

The Wamp amendment would fine-tune the way the physicians' panels work and smooth the linkage to state workers' compensation programs.

But these are marginal changes at best--and they would do nothing to fix the most serious problem with Subpart D.

That problem is that, by DOE's own admission, for too many people Subpart D simply will not work.

In fact, as many as 50 percent of claimants may find that even if a physicians panel finds their illness is covered, there is no ``willing payer'' that will follow through by providing compensation. Colorado is one of the states where this can happen, along with Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, Kentucky, Missouri, and other states.

The GAO recognizes this ``willing payer'' issue is one that cannot be ignored. The federal government should not make compensation under the program depend on geography. EEOICPA needs to be amended to make sure that doesn't happen.

Furthermore, so far DOE has processed fewer than 2 percent of its caseload under Subpart D. In fact, I am told that as of March of this year, there were approximately 22,000 claims pending--and only ONE had been paid, even though DOE had spent approximately $50 million to administer this part of the law. On the other hand, the Department of Labor has processed 97 percent of its 52,000 claims it has received and issued over $825 million in payments and medical benefits.

The Wamp amendment well might improve DOE's claims processing--which certainly need improving. But it will not guarantee payments for meritorious claims in Colorado and other states across the nation. Too many of our cold war veterans are headed down a dead end street. Speeding the trip isn't the answer--we need to change the route.

The Wamp amendment won't do that. That was why I hoped the House would have been able to consider the amendment filed by my friend from Ohio, Mr. Strickland.

The Strickland amendment would have required the President to submit to Congress a proposal for legislation to establish a Federal payer for Subpart D claims, if legislation to solve the problem is not enacted during this Session of Congress.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow the House to even consider that amendment, just as they refused to permit consideration of the amendment I filed with my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez.

The purpose of our amendment was to help some people who worked at DOE's Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant.

Some of them are suffering from cancer or other conditions because they were exposed to radiation or other hazards while they were working there. So they are covered by the EEOICPA program.

For those who worked at most sites, coverage requires a finding that their condition is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job exposure. That's a reasonable requirement--provided there is adequate documentation of exposures. But, unfortunately, over the years there were serious problems with the way DOE kept records at Rocky Flats. So, as things stand now, there is a real risk that many Rocky Flats workers who should be covered will not get coverage in time to benefit from it, because their claims are tied up in red tape.

Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, despite my concerns and disappointments, I do think enactment of this bill will help support our men and women in uniform and help them win the peace in Iraq and to defeat terrorism in Afghanistan. And, while in my view Congress was wrong to allow the president to rush us into war in Iraq, I think it now is imperative to provide our men and women in uniform with what they need.

So I will support this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Technology Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology Act of 2004.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a lynchpin to commercial activities of the private sector and the health and safety of all Americans--from its small-scale measurement activities that support the development of nanotechnology energy to its investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Lynchpins are noted for their reliability and criticality, and as such they are frequently overlooked until they break. That is the situation NIST finds itself in today. FY04 budget cuts are causing drastic cutbacks in NIST programs and causing NIST to lay off its employees. These reductions in NIST's budget and in its workforce threaten future U.S. competitiveness and the health and safety of Americans.

The bill I'm introducing today is an attempt to reverse this downward spiral. This bill would put NIST back on a positive growth track. It authorizes funding for NIST's standards support activities based on the FY05 budget request, and also includes funding for NIST's role in the implementation of the Help America Vote Act. The bill then provides a 5% increase for these support activities in FY06, FY07 and FY08. The bill also provides full funding for NIST to renovate its existing laboratory infrastructure. Many of NIST's labs are over fifty years old and are not suitable to house NIST's high-quality research equipment. This is especially true at NIST's Boulder, Colorado facility. This bill also provides full funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.

The Science Committee has repeatedly heard from industry about the importance of funding for NIST's laboratory activities and for the ATP and the MEP programs. My bill is based on these recommendations.

Less than three weeks ago, the Science Committee held a hearing on NIST. Panelists included representatives from a chemical industry company, an information technology association, a biometric company, a nanotechnology company, and a fire safety association. They were all unanimous in their support for NIST and the need to increase its funding.

As one witness succinctly stated when asked about what other countries were doing in the standards area and what it meant to U.S. competitiveness: ``So the question becomes where do we want to place ourselves as a nation. Do we want to be the lead dog on the sled or do we want to be somewhere else in the line? And my perspective is that our nation's interest is served better and our future is served better and our people are served better if we are the lead dog on the sled.''

I urge my colleagues on the Science Committee and my colleagues in the House to support this legislation to help the U.S. remain the lead dog on the sled.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 3722, the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments of 2004.

First and foremost, I oppose the way this bill was brought to the floor. There have been no committee hearings or markups. Instead, the bill was rushed to the floor under suspension so that no amendments could be offered to. the bill. There has not been any proper debate on this piece of legislation.

Studies have estimated that there are between 8-12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Hospitals throughout the country, but particularly in border states, are overcrowded and often cannot afford to provide vital services to their patients. The Medicare bill which recently became law provided for a total of $1 billion over four years to reimburse hospital expenses incurred by providing medical services to illegal immigrants. While the Medicare bill does not mandate the use of the reimbursement program, many hospitals depend on these funds simply to remain open.

The Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments will require further paperwork to be done by doctors and nurses in hospitals who are already overworked and overburdened. These doctors and nurses are not trained to enforce immigration law and should not be expected to do so. We should not use hospitals to fight the influx of illegal immigration but rather should provide more resources to law enforcement so that they can better enforce immigration laws.

This bill also has the potential to discourage illegal immigrants from seeking treatment for life-threatening conditions. Immigrant women who become victims of domestic violence may not seek help for fear of being deported. Pregnant women may not seek prenatal care or even go to the hospital for the birth of their children out of fear of being separated from their families and deported. It is likely that this bill will actually increase the cost of emergency services because illegal immigrants are more likely to wait until their conditions have worsened and require more expensive treatments.

Doctors and nurses create important trust-based relationships with immigrant communities which may be broken if this legislation is enacted. Discouraging immigrants from seeking medical assistance will have ill effects on our public health as well. Without proper treatment, communicable diseases such as tuberculosis are likely to spread and cause a much larger public health hazard.

I also have many concerns about requiring doctors and nurses to ask so many questions of their patients. It is not always possible or practical to ask such questions of every patient who enters the hospital; as a result, doctors and nurses might have to pick and choose those they ask, opening themselves up for accusations of profiling and possible legal recourse. This also may slow the delivery of medical treatment, as patients will have to provide documentation of their citizenship or immigrant status.

These are just some of the concerns this bill raises, and none of them has been adequately discussed. H.R. 3722 clearly is controversial and thus deserves to be properly debated on the floor, with amendments allowed to be offered. For all the reasons I've outlined, I must vote against suspending the rule and passing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same so that H.R. 3722 can be considered under normal procedures.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Rick Crandall of Aurora, Colorado for his lifetime of achievement and service to his family, community, and country.

Mr. Crandall served his country honorably with the U.S. Air Force in Guam. Following his service, Mr. Crandall created the popular radio talk-show ``The Breakfast Club'' emphasizing the sacrifices made by American veterans. On his show, Rick interviews veterans about their experiences on and off the battlefield. The show made history in 2000 when he went ``on the air'' from the American Cemetery above Omaha Beach. Rick's radio venue has been warmly welcomed by the veteran community and he has received special recognitions from the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars for his work.

Mr. Crandall has been an outstanding advocate for several other causes as well. He holds annual charity events for the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association. He has also been helpful for community organizations like the Aurora Senior Center, Rainbow Bridge, and the Denver District Attorney's Office. Most notably, Rick hosts an annual golf tournament which raises funds for the local Meal on Wheels.

Rick Crandall has made service a life-long pursuit. His latest undertaking is the establishment of the Colorado Freedom Memorial in Aurora. This memorial honors the thousands of Coloradans who have given their lives serving in combat for the United States since the Spanish- American War. The Colorado Freedom Memorial is just in its introductory stages, so Mr. Crandall surely has a project to keep him active for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to honor a man who has given so much to so many. Rick has been an inspiration to our Nation's youth by promoting community service and activism. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognition of Rick Crandall and the commitment he has made to improving his community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2201.

I want to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall as well as Subcommittee Chairman Radanovich and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen for their leadership in having the Resources Committee act so promptly on this bill. And I greatly appreciate the cooperation from the Veterans' Affairs Committee that has made it possible for the bill to come to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to help the government and the public to keep track of the many important war memorials on public lands throughout our country.

It would also provide for a report to Congress to determine if there should be a permanent fund within the Treasury for the upkeep of these memorials.

These memorials remind us that the freedom we enjoy in the United States has not just been given to us--Americans have made great sacrifices, including their lives, to protect our way of life.

Unfortunately many of these memorials don't receive the care they deserve and have fallen into disrepair.

These memorials may not be as large as those on the National Mall or Arlington Nation Cemetery but they are just as important and should be taken care of.

In 2002, Congress agreed to a resolution expressing the need for cataloging and maintaining public memorials. The bill would follow through by taking the first step of cataloging our public war memorials.

By cataloging and reporting to Congress on the condition of all war memorials on public lands and by considering how to maintain them we make sure that our veterans are not forgotten.

Passage of this bill will be a step toward renewing our commitment to honor our Nation's veterans. I urge approval of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm holding my nose and voting against H.R. 4280, which would limit medical malpractice awards. I am not pleased that we are voting on this bill again, since an identical bill is languishing over in the Senate and I doubt that by passing it today we will jolt the Senate into moving on the bill. I think the vote today has more to do with politics than with policy.

I think we're beating a dead horse. Both sides have dug in and aren't willing to compromise. In the meantime, we aren't doing anything to reform our medical liability system and we aren't doing anything to make health care more affordable and accessible for Americans. Our system is inherently adversarial and we've continued this fingerpointing game and done nothing to improve patient safety and health care access, which is what we're really talking about here.

I think we need a system that is non-punitive and encourages openness and improvement so that doctors can report medical errors without fear of being sued. This will help us understand medical errors and improve procedures and patient safety. Fewer medical errors will result in fewer medical malpractice suits, which in turn will help keep malpractice insurance rates and health care premiums down. That's why I voted for H.R. 663, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, which would create a voluntary medical error reporting system under which patient safety organizations would receive, on a confidential basis, and analyze information on reported errors. They would then be expected to develop and disseminate evidence-based information to help providers implement changes in practice patterns that help to prevent future medical errors. In addition to this legislation, I think we should explore ideas like alternate dispute resolution, no-fault systems, and medical courts.

I also want to make it clear that I am not opposed to capping damages because I think it helps keep health care costs down and keeps doctors accessible, like in my home State of Colorado where we have caps. However, I think H.R. 4280 sets low and arbitrary limits on damages, which will hurt those at the bottom of the income scale the most. Also, I don't think we should be shielding large and powerful HMOs and drug companies from liability.

Mr. Speaker, ultimately this issue is about health care access and patient safety. If we aren't going to compromise, I hope we'd start thinking outside the box on how to end the logjam on tort reform. I offer these ideas as a way to get there, because we aren't going to get there from where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the coalition that has dedicated years of energy to restoring Colorado's Lower Blue River for the community, the economy and the environment.

One of the most cherished aspects of Colorado life is the access to pristine views and the wide variety of outdoor activities. Summit County provides both, sitting in the heart of Colorado's mountain country. With scenic mountains, majestic forests, and wild rivers, this region is world-renowned for its remarkable vistas and outdoor activities.

For decades the Blue River was designated a Gold Medal fishery. However, in recent years the Blue River in Summit County has been impacted by nearby historic mining activities and other development, as well as years of drought. The river became so shallow below the Dillon Dam that native fish species were unable to live in this river's habitat. This not only damaged the various fish, it also hurt the local fishing industry which relies so heavily on vacationing anglers.

Facing a major environmental and financial problem, a diverse group of citizen groups united behind the idea of restoring the Blue River to its original state. Among these groups were Trout Unlimited, the Town of Silverthorne, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Summit County, the United States Forest Service, and the National Forest Foundation. These groups worked together to raise the money to return the river to its natural width, thus restoring the riparian habitat. Moreover these enhancements have helped bring the community together and have proven to be a model for similar restoration projects.

The restoration has been a tremendous success. Mr. Andy Gentry, president of the local Trout Unlimited chapter, received a national award recognizing his role in the project. The American Public Works Association selected the project as one of the most outstanding projects in the nation.

In addition to the national recognition and appreciation, the most rewarding aspect of the restoration project was returning the Blue River to its natural beauty. Anglers can now fish for trout in its sparkling waters. Hikers can walk the trails adjacent to the river and take in the wonderful views.

Mr. Speaker, the Blue River Restoration Project is a shining example of collaborative and successful outdoor public works projects. It is a model for future projects and proves that groups of concerned citizens can cooperate to improve the environment and enhance the quality of life in their communities. This is especially important as hunting and fishing activities significantly contribute to the health of Colorado's economy--as well as the health of the environment.

I have attached a newspaper story about this accomplishment.

[From the Summit Daily, May 2, 2004]

Restoration Named `Exemplary Project'

(By Christine McManus)

Silverthorne.--After receiving a third award for their Blue

River restoration efforts, local Trout Unlimited members are

looking for other stream beds in the county to improve for

fish habitat.

The most recent accolade for the Blue River project came

April 17 when the Colorado Trout Unlimited (TU) honored the

local Gore Range Anglers chapter of TU and its partners with

the Exemplary Project Award.

``The one constant about trout is they like to live in

beautiful places. Summit County fits that perfectly,'' said

Andy Gentry, president of the local chapter.

Trout Unlimited and its partners worked together to narrow

the channel of the Blue River.

With declining stream flows during the ongoing drought, and

only minimal releases from the Dillon Reservoir Dam, the 120-

foot wide channel below the dam provided water too shallow

for fish to survive.

The restoration project generally narrowed the channel to

30 feet wide.

The project preserved the Gold Medal status of the fishery,

as declared by the Colorado Division of Wildlife on 13 rivers

in the state.

The Exemplary Project Award from Colorado Trout Unlimited

recognizes outstanding projects that have a significant

impact on coldwater fisheries.

The award also recognizes successful partnerships between

Trout Unlimited and other local and state groups, local

governments and/or state and federal agencies.

Partners who worked on the Blue River restoration included

the town of Silverthorne, the Northwest Colorado Council of

Governments (NWCCOG), the National Forest Foundation, the

Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service and

Summit County.

Gentry said the project would not have been done without

all the partners.

``The Blue River Restoration Project has made a significant

impact on the county and the fishery,'' said Kevin

Batchelder, Silverthorne town manager.

``This project really showed how many different government

entities, nonprofit organizations and local organizations can

work together to make a lasting impact on their community.''

Trout Unlimited and NWCCOG hope to work with other local

governments and nonprofit organizations on additional river

restoration projects, said Gentry and Liz Finn, NWCCOG

assistant executive director.

The chapter is putting together a list of river restoration

projects they would like to explore this summer.

The Upper Blue River, the Tenmile Creek, Swan River

drainage and Lower Blue River are being considered, Gentry

said.

``Hopefully other Summit County governmental entities and

groups find projects for Trout Unlimited to be involved in as

well,'' Gentry said.

In January, the Colorado Chapter of the American Public

Works Association selected the project for the Project of the

Year Award in the Utility Drainage and Environmental in the

Small Communities category.

In September 2003, Gentry won the National Trout Unlimited

Distinguished Service Award for his efforts with the Blue

River Restoration Project.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution because I strongly agree with most of what it says. But I think its focus is too narrow and it does not say all that needs to be said.

The portions of the resolution calling for action are addressed solely to the Secretary of the Army. Intentionally or not, that suggests that the Army alone--not the Defense Department as a whole, and not any other part of the Administration--bears responsibility for the shocking abuses the resolution rightly condemns.

But what's involved here is not just an Army problem. It is much bigger than that. It involves not just the armed forces but civilian members of the intelligence community as well as civilians working for private companies under contract with the government.

This morning's newspapers report that President Bush has privately admonished the Secretary of Defense and that the Justice Department is examining the involvement of Central Intelligence Agency personnel as well as contract employees in suspicious deaths of detainees.

Clearly, the events at Abu Ghraib prison are only part of a bigger picture.

The resolution rightly complains about the fact that Congress was not properly informed of the abuses at that prison or the investigation of those abuses. But I am concerned that this failure to inform the Congress and the American people may not have been an isolated failure but just another instance of the Bush Administration's standard operating procedure.

In short, while this resolution is right in condemning the abuses at Abu Ghraib--and accurate in saying that they are offensive to the principles and values of the American people--passage of this resolution, by iself, is not an adequate response on the part of the House of Representatives.

We need to insist that the Administration--all of it, not just the Secretary of the Army--take strong action to change the policies and attitudes that made the abuses at Abu Ghraib possible. And we need to insist that all those responsible for those policies and attitudes be held accountable.

And that means Congress itself must do more than make speeches and pass resolutions. We must insist on finding out for ourselves; and for those we represent--the American people. They must bear the costs--in blood and treasure--for the Administration's actions in Iraq and around the world.

Those costs will be made all the greater by abuses like those cited in this resolution and the policies and attitudes that have produced them, and Congress must take an active role in making necessary changes.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the winners of the sixth annual Energy Challenge which took place April 4 at Winter Park, Colorado. Fourteen teams of engineering students from colleges and universities across the country competed for awards for designing, constructing and racing snowboards constructed entirely from paper. The winning team was Miami University with a total score of 88.8. The team's board measured 83 percent paper fiber.

The Energy Challenge is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the American Forest and Paper Association, and Institute of Paper Science and Technology at Georgia Tech. It is designed to help the pulp and paper industry, one of the most energy intensive industries in the U.S., reach the goal of creating an energy efficient manufacturing process by the year 2020.

The contest rules required the snowboards to be made of at least 80 percent paper fiber. The total score was based on factors such as best snowboard performance, gross weight, materials composition, board volume, compressive strength, aesthetics, novelty of design, and written reports. The teams also participated in a slalom race that included rollers and a rail slide.

The winning Miami University team members included: Margaret Huseman, Den Van

Lear, Colleen O'Donnell, Michael Loufman and Joel Hahn. The team engineered their snowboard with materials such as chemical wood fiber, corrugated board and liner board. They cleverly used a Formica finish, which has 75 percent paper content, on the bottom of the board to improve its gliding ability on the snow. The second place winner was the Savannah College of Art and Design and Pasadena City College finished third overall.

The Congressional Ski and Snowboard Caucus sees the Energy Challenge as a great example of how public-private partnerships can bring together ideas like energy efficiency, outdoor recreation and fitness in order to create a more sustainable and healthy world. The caucus is interested in promoting skiing and snowboarding to encourage fitness and create an appreciation for the environment. The Energy Challenge demonstrates that through greater use of renewable materials, we can create jobs, protect the environment, and make our nation more energy independent.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating these teams and honoring their creativity and innovation.

Mr. Speaker, the public lands are the property of all the American people, and we all have a stake in their condition. That's why it's encouraging to see various groups working together to remedy problems on those lands.

Just last week, for example, members of the Longmont-based Trailridge Runners Four-Wheel Drive Club joined Sierra Clubbers, other environmentalists, and U.S. Forest Service employees to help restore a degraded meadow in the Lefthand Canyon area of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, in Colorado. Volunteers helped grade and reseed areas of the meadow that have been eroded by four-wheeling activities. The impetus for this was a $250,000 grant procured by the four-wheel group.

Their efforts drew the attention of the Daily Camera in Boulder, which praised them in an editorial that rightly noted the ``The land doesn't care if we're Democrats or Republicans, recreationalists or preservationists, bird watchers or mountain bikers. And no matter how gingerly we tread, all who use public lands contribute to the impacts. And coming together to help heal the land beats pointing fingers any day.''

I join in congratulating this exemplary cooperative effort. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching the full text of the Camera's editorial.

[From the Boulder, Colorado Daily Camera, Apr. 21, 2004]

Seeds of Cooperation

Land is the beneficiary of volunteer efforts

Especially when budgets are tight at the local, state and

federal levels, our public lands can use all the help they

can get.

So it's nice to know that volunteers are so often willing

to invest their own sweat, time and scraped knuckles in

personal stewardship when public money isn't there. They

can't fill all the gaps, but every bit helps.

And it's even better when disparate groups--even

antagonists--can all agree that whatever their differences,

it's the land that matters. That was the case Saturday, when

members of the Longmont-based Trailridge Runners Four-Wheel

Drive Club joined Sierra Clubbers, other environmentalists,

and U.S. Forest Service employees to help restore a degraded

meadow in Lefthand Canyon.

The impetus for this laudable cooperation was a $250,000

grant procured by the four-wheel group. Volunteers helped

grade and reseed areas of the meadow that have been eroded by

four-wheeling activities.

Groups that often come under fire for most environmental

degradation--though the culprits are usually a small

minority--increasingly recognize the value of reaching out

and caring for the land. In this case, it's four-wheelers,

but on Boulder Open Space, dog advocates routinely hold mass

poop baggings, and a group of trail runners last fall pitched

in a remarkable 180 hours of trail work in exchange for

permission to hold a grueling race up Mt. Sanitas.

The land doesn't care if we're Democrats or Republicans,

recreationalists or preservationists, bird watchers or

mountain bikers. And no matter how gingerly we tread, all who

use public lands contribute to the impacts. And coming

together to help heal the land beats pointing fingers any

day.

Mr. Chairman, I have concerns and reservations about this bill--but I will vote for it.

I will vote for it because I think we need to recognize and respond to the risk that a terrorist attack or some similar event might kill or disable enough of our colleagues that it would be impossible for the House of Representatives to play its vital role in our constitutional government. And this bill does take a first step in addressing this problem.

However, I think it would have been better for the House to have had more time to fully debate the measure, and that it should have been taken up under a less-restrictive procedure that would have allowed consideration of more amendments.

Elections are central to our political system. They are essential to assure that our government is based on the will and the preferences of the American people. But the conduct of elections can be as difficult as it is important--ask any State official with responsibility in this area. So, we need to proceed carefully and thoughtfully when we legislate on this subject--more carefully and with more opportunity for considering revisions than was permitted under the procedures established by the Republican leadership for today's debate.

As that debate made clear, some of our colleagues--including some for whom I have the highest respect--think it would be better to go further than this bill, or any simple statutory change, can go. They would prefer to address the problem through a constitutional amendment.

While I am very reluctant to consider changing the Constitution, I do think that on this subject, the possibility of a constitutional amendment should not be ruled out. However, in the meantime I think we need to do what can be done short of such a fundamental change. That is what this bill does, and that is why I will vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of TEA LU. However, I am disappointed that it does not include language to close a dangerous loophole in a 30-year-old law that allows school districts to use 15-passenger vans to transport students to and from athletic trips and other school activities.

I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1641, to remedy the problem. It would prohibit the purchase, rental or lease of 15-passenger vans for use to transport students. I understand that the ranking member is amenable to working with me and others in conference to ensure we put an end to this practice that puts schoolchildren's lives on the line every day.

Is this the understanding of the gentleman from Minnesota?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his remarks and look forward to working with him.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this resolution.

For 3 years, the administration and the Republican leadership have insisted on speeding ahead with misguided fiscal and economic policies. Ignoring all warning lights, they have taken us where we are today-- with an economy in the ditch and a budget deep in deficit.

And, despite their claims to the contrary, when you look at the full picture you can see that this budget resolution offers only more of the same.

For example, while they claim that they are putting the budget on track to cut the deficit in half, that claim is based on the fact that this budget covers only 5 years instead of the usual 10 years. When we broaden the picture to cover the full decade, we see that the deficit would be increasing again, meaning that we would be adding more and more debt that would have to be repaid--with interest--by our children and grandchildren. This is not a policy that deserves our support.

We should be changing course, not persisting in error. That is why I supported the Spratt substitute, and why I also voted for the Blue Dog substitute. Neither was perfect--and in particular I thought the Blue Dog substitute would have not allowed for adequate investments in science and research or for environmental protection--but each was preferable to the Republican budget now before us.

In particular, the Democratic alternative proposed by Representative Spratt would have fully protected Social Security while putting us

on the road to balance the budget in 2012, while running up a public- debt burden that would be a full $34 billion less than the Republican budget in the next 5 years.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this resolution will pass, because our Republican colleagues have received their marching orders from the White House, and are in moving in lockstep to endorse the Bush administration's insistence that its economic and fiscal policies must continue without change. I admire their discipline, but I am convinced their judgment is faulty. I do not share their view, and I cannot follow them as they take us further into the swamp.