Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Coach Ceal Barry of the University of Colorado Women's Basketball Team. On February 24, 2004, in a decisive 75-56 victory over Kansas, Coach Ceal Barry distinguished herself and her team as one of the highest placed coaches in Division I history--winning her 500th game.

This is Coach Barry's 21st season with the University of Colorado. The mainstream popularity of women's basketball has certainly grown over the past couple of decades. But those of us who are fans of women's basketball have long known that when folks talk about the game, they are more often than not talking about Ceal Barry's Lady Buffs.

A generation of female athletes has grown up admiring the CU women's basketball team. The success of the Lady Buffs has served as an inspiration and a source of pride for athletes throughout Colorado. With Coach Barry at the helm, the Buffs have secured four league titles and five conference tournament wins. Her Lady Buffs have made 10 appearances in the NCAA tournament, five trips to the Sweet 16 and three journeys to the Elite Eight.

Coach Barry demands that her players develop strength of character both on and off the court. She certainly walks her talk in this regard. Her players consistently meet high academic standards that can be held up against any program in college sports. It is a testament to this expectation that in all of the years that Barry has coached at CU, all but one player who stayed until her senior year has graduated. She builds her players up by setting high expectations and tolerating nothing less. She has said that she holds the belief that ``people build confidence through results,'' meaning you not only get strong to prepare for success, but that it is only through success that you ultimately believe in your strength.

I have had the opportunity to know Coach Barry through the years and certainly consider Ceal to be a friend. Not long ago, I was partnered with Ceal against another twosome in a round of golf. I can honestly say that I have first hand knowledge of the motivating power that this fierce competitor inspires. Suffice it to say, I quickly fell in line with the obvious if not stated expectation that I bring my best possible game. And this was a ``friendly'' round of golf.

So I congratulate you, Ceal, on your 500th win, but I cannot say that I am surprised. Your talent, vision and leadership are undeniable. You and your Lady Buffs are a source of pride for women's basketball, for CU and for all of Colorado. Colorado salutes you. Well done, coach. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Coach Ceal Barry on this laudable achievement. I wish you continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, during March, we celebrate National Peace Corps Day, honoring the 168,000 Americans who have served as volunteers since the creation of the Peace Corps in 1961. These amazing men and women have served our Nation in 136 countries. Peace Corps volunteers have made enormous contributions in the areas of agriculture, business development, education, health, and the environment, and in so doing have improved the lives of individuals and communities around the world. The Peace Corps has become an enduring symbol of our Nation's commitment to encourage progress and create opportunity in the developing world.

My own background as an educator and director at Outward Bound for 20 years taught me about the importance of national and community service. But I also have strong connections to the Peace Corps--through my great State of Colorado and through my family. Colorado has one of the highest levels of recruitment of Peace Corps volunteers nationwide, and returned Peace Corps Volunteers in the 2nd Congressional District alone number over 500. Of course, the most important Peace Corps connection for me is my mother, who served as a volunteer in Nepal decades ago.

Because of these connections I have a special interest in advancing the ability of the Peace Corps to play an important role in these new times. I believe we must work to continue to promote world peace and friendship through the people-to-people approach of the Peace Corps. That's why I worked with my colleague Representative Sam Farr last year to introduce legislation known as the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act that would strengthen and expand the Peace Corps. The bill passed the House as part of H.R. 1950, a bill authorizing programs at the Department of State. I am hopeful that the Senate will pass the bill before the end of the 108th Congress.

The Peace Corps is one of the most admired and successful initiatives ever put in place. I'm proud that the following young people from the 2nd Congressional District are presently serving in countries all over the world: Vanessa Adams, Ben Armitage, Molly E. Boynoff, Ryan G. Burgess, Millicent S. Butterworth, Yun Chang, Shaun P. Cosgrove, Brian P. Cox, Shaun P. Cronin, Gene F. Defosse, Nicholas J. Detsch, Aryn M. Fleegler, Brooke S. Franke, David Gelvin, Marion C. Hackman, Jessica E. Hanson, Bret G. Harry, Dustin A. Hinrichs, Anna D. Jankowski, Betty J. Kelly, Joseph R. Kelly, Rebecca J. Knerl, Wendy L. Maxwell, Kerith (Kay) M. Miller, Stephanie A. Ogden, Sarah K. Oltmans, Johanna S. Patrick, Benjamin J. Ploeger, Matthew N. Rice, Paul J. Robyn, Trent W. Ruder, Kate A. Rudkin, Kathleen M. Shannon, Melinda E. Simonson, David W. Sparkman, Robert B. Sweetman, Amanda R. Tennant, Michelle L. Tinkler, Ryan P. Van Duzer, Gabrielle Varani, Michael J. Walzak, Anthony R. White, Barry M. Wick.

A pebble tossed into a still pond creates ripples that begin small and grow larger. Peace Corps volunteers have had this same effect on the people they have touched. The Peace Corps experience exemplifies how individuals can make a tremendous difference in the lives and perceptions of people in developing countries as well as people right here at home.

National Peace Corps Day honors the volunteers, past and present, and reaffirms our country's commitment to helping people help themselves throughout the world. Today I honor all of the men and women who have selflessly and generously served our country in the Peace Corps.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as its author, I obviously support passage of this concurrent resolution. I am pleased to be here today with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner) to discuss what the gentleman has just acknowledged is an important resolution. I also want to extend my thanks to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), for making it possible for the House to consider H. Con. Res. 189 today. I am also grateful to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, for his support of the resolution.

Last year, I introduced this resolution calling for a worldwide program of activities to commemorate the 50th anniversary for the most successful global scientific endeavor in human history, the International Geophysical Year of 1957 and 1958. It is hard to imagine not commemorating the historic global undertaking that was the historic International Geophysical Year, popularly remembered as the IGY.

The 60 nations and 60,000 scientists who participated in the IGY left an ongoing legacy that is beyond measure. Satellite communications, modern weather forecasting, modern natural-disaster prediction and management,

from volcanic eruptions to El Nino, they are legacies of IGY scientific activities that spanned the globe and breached the space frontier.

In a broader context, the IGY marked the coming of age of international science. Globally coordinated activities which save millions of lives today, such as the campaigns to contain and find cures for SARS and AIDS, owe their working model to the scientists from throughout the world who banded together to implement the IGY.

My resolution calls for an IGY-2 that would be even more extensive in its global reach and more comprehensive in its research and applications. After all, the frontiers of science are continually expanding. The biological sciences, genetics, computer sciences, and the neurosciences, among others, have made tremendous advances worldwide during the half century since the IGY.

IGY-2 would not only promote research, but it would also provide a stage for showcasing the new scientific developments and a forum for presentation and discussion of their continually unfolding significance. It is entirely fitting that the United States take the lead in launching an IGY-2 and that Congress, and particularly the House, provide the impetus.

In 1985, to mark the 35th anniversary of the IGY, Congress passed a resolution authored by Senator Spark Matsunaga calling for a year of globally coordinated space activity. At President Reagan's direction, the U.S. led a worldwide planning effort that culminated in the implementation of an International Space Year in 1992, which made major scientific contributions, notably in the field of global environmental monitoring.

So we have both scientific and congressional precedent for the U.S. to take the lead internationally in calling for an IGY-2. I join my colleagues along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner) to join me in promoting this initiative in support of modern science and international scientific cooperation. I urge adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding group of young people in my district, the 4th Annual Udall Youth Task Force.

Every year, I invite high school students throughout the Second Congressional District of Colorado to participate in the Udall Youth Task Force. The Task Force is set up for the purpose of helping young people in the district to become more engaged with their government. Each fall, Task Force members convene to set an agenda of topics they wish to tackle throughout the school year. This year's Task Force has proven to be exceptionally insightful about the issues facing our country. From the war in Iraq, to the environment, to concerns about the erosion of civil liberties, these students show clear understanding about the goings on in Washington, DC, and around the world.

I am aware of the fact that the Task Force members have very busy schedules between jobs, sports and other extracurricular activities. That is why I am so heartened and honored by the fact that these young people have taken the time to be a part of this program. It is inspiring to watch these future leaders of America take interest and pride in their government.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this exceptional group of young people. We all benefit from their contributions to this great system, and it is my greatest hope that their participation in the Udall Youth Task Force has sparked an interest in public service that will continue throughout their lives.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the New York Times published an opinion piece on payroll system problems in the military--specifically in our National Guard. The piece quoted a letter from a soldier in my district, SGT Daniel Romero, who was killed in an explosion in Kandahar, Afghanistan, nearly two years ago.

In a letter to a fellow sergeant, Sergeant Romero wrote, ``Are they really fixing pay issues [or] are they putting them off until we return? If they are waiting, then what happens to those who (God forbid) don't make it back?''

Sergeant Romero was referring to payment problems that he and his fellow soldiers had experienced. In a November 2003 report that studied the payroll processes of six Army National Guard units called up to active duty, GAO found--among other things--that some soldiers did not receive payments for up to six months after mobilization. Payment problems are not limited to the Guard, but as my colleague Representative Shays pointed out, the payroll process is antiquated, designed for a time when members of the Guard were not often called up to active duty.

The following piece asks an important question: ``As we mobilize troops from around the country and send them off to fight and possibly die in that crucible of terror known as combat, is it too much to ask that they be paid in a timely way?''

SGT Daniel Romero died for our country. He was a brave and dedicated soldier who proudly served when his nation called on him to fight in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan.

It is the very least we can do to ensure we work as hard for soldiers like SGT Romero as they work for us. That's why I believe that fixing these payment problems should be an immediate priority for the Department of Defense.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 15, 2004]

An Insult to Our Soldiers

(By Bob Herbert)

Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, is chairman of the House

Committee on Government Reform. He tells a story about

Sergeant Daniel Romero of the Colorado Army National Guard,

who was sent to fight in Afghanistan.

In a letter dated March 23, 2002, Sergeant Romero asked a

fellow sergeant: ``Are they really fixing pay issues [or] are

they putting them off until we return? If they are waiting,

then what happens to those who (God forbid) don't make it

back?''

As Mr. Davis said at a hearing this past January,

``Sergeant Romero was killed in action in Afghanistan in

April 2002.'' The congressman added, ``I would really like to

hear today that his family isn't wasting their time and

energy fixing errors in his pay.''

As we mobilize troops from around the country and send them

off to fight and possibly die in that crucible of terror

known as combat, is it too much to ask that they be paid in a

timely way?

Researchers from the General Accounting Office, a

nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, studied the

payroll processes of six Army National Guard units that were

called up to active duty. What they found wasn't pretty.

There were significant pay problems in all six units. A

report released last November said, ``Some soldiers did not

receive payments for up to six months after mobilization and

others still had not received certain payments by the

conclusion of our audit work.''

This is exactly the kind of thing that servicemen and

women, especially those dealing with the heightened anxiety

of life in a war zone, do not need. Maj. Kenneth Chavez of

the Colorado National Guard told a Congressional committee of

the problems faced by the unit he commanded:

``All 62 soldiers encountered pay problems. . . . During

extremely limited phone contact, soldiers called home only to

find families in chaos because of the inability to pay bills

due to erroneous military pay.''

These problems are not limited to the National Guard. But

one of the reasons the Guard has been especially hard hit is

that, in the words of another congressman, Christopher Shays,

its payroll system is ``old and leaky and antiquated,''

designed for an era when the members of the Guard were seen

as little more than weekend warriors.

That system has been unable to cope with widespread call-

ups to extended periods of active duty and deployment to

places in which personnel qualify for a variety of special

pay and allowances, particularly in combat zones.

The G.A.O. report said, ``Four Virginia Special Forces

soldiers who were injured in Afghanistan and unable to resume

their civilian jobs experienced problems in receiving

entitled active duty pay and related health care.''

The country is asking for extraordinary--in some cases,

supreme--sacrifices from the military, and then failing to

meet its own responsibility to provide such basic necessities

as pay and health care.

``The military knows that it's really blown it,'' said Mr.

Shays, who heads a subcommittee of the Government Reform

Committee. He noted that National Guard and military reserve

units were given enhanced roles in the aftermath of the cold

war. But the payroll systems (and some other basic functions)

were not upgraded accordingly.

``This is a huge problem,'' he said.

And it is not likely to be solved soon.

``Anything that could be done in the short term is kind of

like Band-Aids, things that will hopefully result in fewer

errors but will not fix the problem,'' said Gregory Kutz, who

supervised the G.A.O. report.

A lasting solution to the pay problems, he said, will

require a completely new system.

Defense Department officials insist they are working

simultaneously on short-term fixes and the creation of a

brand new system. Patrick Shine, acting director of the

Defense Finance and Accounting Service, told me that a 49-

step ``plan of action'' has been developed in response to the

G.A.O. report.

He said he hoped that a completely new payroll system could

be unveiled in the spring of 2005.

I asked how confident he was about the deadline. ``Well,''

he said, ``I'll be very honest with you. I don't think we're

all that different from private companies, seeing sometimes

slippages in schedules.''

But he was optimistic, he said.

Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why I sought and obtained unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1673, the bill to establish a Department of Peace.

I joined as a cosponsor of a similar bill in the 107th Congress. That bill was introduced in July 2001, a year after the observance of UNESCO's International Year for the Culture of Peace in 2000 and in the context of a UNESCO resolution declaring an International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children 2001-2010.

I cosponsored H.R. 2459 in the spirit of these events and at the urging of a very persuasive group of young high school students from my district because I wanted to underline the symbolic importance of promoting justice and democratic principles to expand human rights and developing policies that promote the peaceful resolution of conflict. I do not believe these ideas require the establishment of a new bureaucracy.

After careful review, I have determined that while the bill's goals are idealistic and worthy, its specific provisions and practical application are problematic. In particular, I think that endorsing the establishment of a new bureaucracy--even if only symbolically--would not be appropriate at a time when the federal budget is in deep deficit. The recent recession and the urgent need to spend more for national defense and homeland security, combined with excessively large and unbalanced tax cuts have brought us to the point where both the entire Social Security surplus and massive borrowing--which will have to be repaid with interest--are required to cover the shortfall.

Under these circumstances, I think proposals for further expansion of the federal government must be subject to even more strict scrutiny. In that light, I have reviewed the legislation that I have supported and have concluded that it is no longer appropriate for me to remain as a cosponsor of H.R. 1673.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I was not present for several recorded votes because pressing business required me to remain in Colorado. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall No. 42--H. Res. 519--Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the earthquake that occurred in San Luis Obispo County, California, on December 22, 2003, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 43--H. Res. 392--Congratulating the Detroit Shock for winning the 2003 Women's National Basketball Association championship, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 44--H. Res. 475--Congratulating the San Jose Earthquake for winning the 2003 Major League Soccer Cup, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 45--On approving the Journal, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall No. 46--S. 1881: to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make technical corrections relating to the amendments by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 47--H. Con. Res. 373: expressing the sense of Congress that Kids Love a Mystery is a program that promotes literacy and should be encouraged, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 48--Amendment to H.R. 339 offered by Mr. Scott (VA) to add a new section which provides that the bill does not apply to an action brought by a State agency to enforce a State consumer protection law concerning mislabeling or other unfair and deceptive trade practices, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 49--Amendment to H.R. 339 offered by Mr. Watt to limit the provisions of the bill only to cases brought in Federal court, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 50--Amendment to H.R. 339 offered by Mr. Andrews to permit civil liability suits to be brought in cases related to a food that contains a genetically engineered material unless the labeling for such food bears a statement providing that the food contains such material and the labeling indicates which of the ingredients of the food are or contain such material, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall No. 51--Amendment to H.R. 339 offered by Mr. Ackerman to expand the definitions in the act to exclude any establishment that manufactures or sells meat from downed animals for human consumption from the protections of the bill, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall No. 52--Amendment to H.R. 339 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (TX) to provide that the bill would not apply to civil actions that allege a product claiming to assist in weight loss caused heart disease, heart damage, primary pulmonary hypertension, neuropsychological damage, or any other complication which may be generally associated with a person's weight gain or obesity, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 53--Amendment to H.R. 339 offered by Mr. Watt to strike section 3(b) of the bill which provides that a qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment of the bill shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 54--Final passage of H.R. 339, to prevent legislative and regulatory functions from being usurped by civil liability actions brought or continued against food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations for claims of injury relating to a person's weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain or obesity, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall No. 55--Final passage of H.R. 3717, to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmissions of obscene, indecent, and profane material, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 56--Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 15, Commending India on its celebration of Republic Day, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 57--Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 540, as amended, expressing the condolences and deepest sympathies of the House of Representatives for the untimely death of Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Western Waters and Farm Lands Protection Act.

The bill's purpose is to make it more likely that the energy resources in our Western states will be developed in ways that are protective of vital water supplies and respectful of the rights and interests of the agricultural community.

Toward that end, it addresses three aspects of oil and gas development.

First, it establishes clear requirements for proper management of ground water that is extracted in the course of oil and gas development.

Second, it provides for greater involvement of surface owners in plans for oil and gas development and requires the Interior Department to give surface owners advance notice of lease sales that would affect their lands and to notify them of subsequent events related to proposed or ongoing energy development.

Finally, the bill would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to require developers to draft reclamation plans and post reclamation bonds for the restoration of lands affected by oil and gas drilling.

This bill is based on H.R. 3698, which I introduced last December. Since then, I have consulted with people interested in this subject, to see whether further refinements of the legislation would be appropriate. The bill I am introducing today reflects those conversations, and in particular incorporates a change in the wording of section 102 proposed by the Colorado Farm Bureau.

That section deals with application of the Clean Water Act to waters extracted from an underground formation in connection with development of oil and gas, including coalbed methane. The Colorado Farm Bureau was concerned that the wording of the corresponding section in H.R. 3698 might be read as applying to other activities in addition to oil and gas development. That was not my intention, but to remove any doubt on that point, I agreed to the proposed revision, which is included in the bill I am introducing today.

Mr. Speaker, the western United States is blessed with significant energy resources. In appropriate places, and under appropriate conditions, they can and should be developed for the benefit of our country. But it's important to recognize the importance of other resources--particularly water--and other uses of the lands involved-- and this bill responds to this need.

Its primary purposes are--(1) to assure that the development of those energy resources in the West will not mean destruction of precious water resources; (2) to reduce potential conflicts between development of energy resources and the interests and concerns of those who own the surface estate in affected lands; and (3) to provide for appropriate reclamation of affected lands.

Water Quality Protection

One new energy resource is receiving great attention--gas associated with coal deposits, often referred to as coalbed methane. An October 2000 United States Geological Survey report estimated that the U.S. may contain more than 700 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of coalbed methane and that more than 100 tcf of this may be recoverable using existing technology. In part because of the availability of these reserves and because of tax incentives to exploit them, the West has seen a significant increase in its development.

Development of coalbed methane usually involves the extraction of water from underground strata. Some of this extracted water is reinjected into the ground, while some is retained in surface holding ponds or released and allowed to flow into streams or other water bodies, including irrigation ditches.

The quality of the extracted waters varies from one location to another. Some are of good quality, but often they contain dissolved minerals (such as sodium, magnesium, arsenic, or selenium) that can contaminate other waters--something that can happen because of leaks or leaching from holding ponds or because the extracted waters are simply discharged into a stream or other body of water. In addition, extracted waters often have other characteristics, such as high acidity and temperature, which can adversely affect agricultural uses of land or the quality of the environment.

In Colorado and other states in the arid West, water is scarce and precious. So, as we work to develop our domestic energy resources, it is vital that we safeguard our water--and I believe that clear requirements for proper disposal of these extracted waters are necessary in order to avoid some of these adverse effects. That is the purpose of the first part of the bill.

The bill (in Title I) includes two requirements regarding extracted water.

First, it would make clear that water extracted from oil and gas development must comply with relevant and applicable discharge permits under the Clean Water Act. Lawsuits have been filed in some western states regarding whether or not these discharge permits are required for coalbed methane development. The bill would require oil and gas development to secure permits if necessary and required, like any other entity that may discharge contaminates into the waters of the United States.

Second, the bill would require those who develop federal oil or gas-- including coalbed methane--under the Mineral Leasing Act to do what is necessary to make sure their activities do not harm water resources. Under this legislation, oil or gas operations that damage a water resource--by contaminating it, reducing it, or interrupting it--would be required to provide replacement water. For water produced in connection with oil or gas drilling that is injected back into the ground, the bill requires that this must be done in a way that will not reduce the quality of any aquifer. For water that is not reinjected, the bill requires that it must be dealt with in ways that comply with all Federal and State requirements.

And, because water is so important, the bill requires oil and gas operators to make the protection of water part of their plans from the very beginning, requiring applications for oil or gas leases to include details of ways in which operators will protect water quality and quantity and the rights of water users.

These are not onerous requirements, but they are very important-- particularly with the great increase in drilling for coalbed methane and other energy resources in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and other western states.

Surface Owner Protection

In many parts of the country, the party that owns the surface of some land does not necessarily own the minerals beneath those lands. In the West, mineral estates often belong to the federal government while the surface estates are owned by private interests, who typically use the land for fanning and ranching.

This split-estate situation can lead to conflicts. And while I support development of energy resources where appropriate, I also believe that this must be done responsibly and in a way that demonstrates respect for the environment and overlying landowners.

The second part of the bill (Title II) is intended to promote that approach, by establishing a system for development of federal oil and gas in split-estate situations that resembles--but is not identical to--the system for development of federally-owned coal in similar situations.

Under federal law, the leasing of federally owned coal resources on lands where the surface estate is not owned by the United States is subject to the consent of the surface estate owners. But neither this consent requirement nor the operating and bonding requirements applicable to development of federally owned locatable minerals applies to the leasing or development of oil or gas in similar split-estate situations.

I believe that that there should be similar respect for the rights and interests of surface estate owners affected by development of oil and gas and that this should be done by providing clear and adequate standards and increasing the involvement of these owners in plans for oil and gas development.

Accordingly, the bill requires the Interior Department to give surface owners advance notice of lease sales that would affect their lands and to notify them of subsequent events related to proposed or ongoing developments related to such leases.

In addition, the bill requires that anyone proposing the drill for federal minerals in a split-estate situation must first try to reach an agreement with the surface owner that spells out what will be done to minimize interference with the surface owner's use and enjoyment and to provide for reclamation of affected lands and compensation for any damages.

I am convinced that most energy companies want to avoid harming the surface owners, so I expect that it will usually be possible for them to reach such agreements. However, I recognize that this may not always be the case--and the bill includes two provisions that address this possibility: (1) if no agreement is reached within 90 days, the bill requires that the matter be referred to neutral arbitration; and (2) the bill provides that if even arbitration fails to resolve differences, the energy development can go forward, subject to Interior Department regulations that will balance the energy development with the interests of the surface owner or owners.

As I mentioned, these provisions are patterned on the current law dealing

with development of federally-owned coal in split-estate situations. However, it is important to note one major difference--namely, while current law allows a surface owner to effectively veto development of coal resources, under the bill a surface owner ultimately could not block development of oil or gas underlying his or her lands. This difference reflects the fact that appropriate development of oil and natural gas is needed.

Reclamation Requirements

The bill's third part (Titles III and IV) addresses reclamation of affected lands.

Title III would amend the Mineral Leasing Act by adding an explicit requirement that parties that produced oil or gas (including coalbed methane) under a federal lease must restore the affected land so it will be able to support the uses it could support before the energy development. Toward that end, this part of the bill requires development of reclamation plans and posting of reclamation bonds. In addition, so Congress can consider whether changes are needed, the bill requires the General Accounting Office to review how these requirements are being implemented and how well they are working.

And, finally, Title IV would require the Interior Department to--(1) establish, in cooperation with the Agriculture Department, a program for reclamation and closure of abandoned oil or gas wells located on lands managed by an Interior Department agency or the Forest Service or drilled for development of federal oil or gas in split-estate situations; and (2) establish, in consultation with the Energy Department, a program to provide technical assistance to state an tribal governments that are working to correct environmental problems cased by abandoned wells on other lands. The bill would authorize annual appropriations of $5 million in fiscal 2005 and 2006 for the federal program and annual appropriations of $5 million in fiscal 2005, 2006, and 2007 for the program of assistance to the states and tribes.

Mr. Speaker, our country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy. To lessen this dependence and to protect our environment, we need to diversity our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix. However, for the foreseeable future, petroleum and natural gas (including coalbed methane) will remain important parts of a diversified energy portfolio--and I support their development in appropriate areas and in responsible ways. I believe this legislation can move us closer toward this goal by establishing some clear, reasonable rules that will provide greater assurance and certainty for all concerned, including the energy industry and the residents of Colorado, New Mexico, and other Western states. Here is a brief outline of its major provisions:

Outline of Bill

Section One--This section provides a short title (``Western

Waters and Farm Lands Protection Act''), makes several

findings about the need for the legislation, and states the

bill's purpose, which is ``to provide for the protection of

water resources and surface estate owners in the development

of oil and gas resources, including coalbed methane.''

Title I--This title deals with the protection of water

resources. It includes three sections:

Section 101 amends current law to specify that an operator

producing oil or gas under a federal lease must--(1) replace

a water supply that is contaminated or interrupted by

drilling operations; (2) assure any reinjected water goes

only to the same aquifer from which it was extracted or an

aquifer of no better water quality; and (3) to develop a

proposed water management plan before obtaining a lease.

Section 102 amends current law to make clear that

extraction of water in connection with development of oil or

gas (including coalbed methane) is subject to an appropriate

permit and the requirement to minimize adverse effects on

affected lands or waters.

Section 103 provides that nothing in the bill will--(1)

affect any State's right or jurisdiction with respect to

water; or (2) limit, alter, modify, or amend any interstate

compact or judicial rulings that apportion water among and

between different States.

Title II--This title deals with the protection of surface

owners. It includes four sections:

Section 201 provides definitions for several terms used in

Title II.

Section 202 requires a party seeking to develop federal oil

or gas in a split-estate situation to first seek to reach an

agreement with the surface owner or owners that spells out

how the energy development will be carried out, how the

affected lands will be reclaimed, and that compensation will

be made for damages. It provides that if no such agreement is

reached within 90 days after the start of negotiations the

matter will be referred to arbitration by a neutral party

identified by the Interior Department.

Section 203 provides that if no agreement under section 202

is reached within 90 days after going to arbitration, the

Interior Department can permit energy development to proceed

under an approved plan of operations and posting of an

adequate bond. This section also requires the Interior

Department to provide surface owners with an opportunity to

comment on proposed plans of operations, participate in

decisions regarding the amount of the bonds that will be

required, and to participate in on-site inspections if the

surface owners have reason to believe that plans of

operations are not being followed. In addition, this section

allows surface owners to petition the Interior Department for

payments under bonds to compensate for damages and authorizes

the Interior Department to release bonds after the energy

development is completed and any damages have been

compensated.

Section 204 requires the Interior Department to notify

surface owners about lease sales and subsequent decisions

involving federal oil or gas resources in their lands.

Title III--This title amends current law to require parties

producing oil or gas under a federal lease to restore

affected lands and to post bonds to cover reclamation costs.

It also requires the GAO to review Interior Department

implementation of this part of the bill and to report to

Congress about the results of that review and any

recommendations for legislative or administrative changes

that would improve matters.

Title IV--This title deals with abandoned oil or gas wells.

It includes three sections:

Section 401 defines the wells that would be covered by the

title.

Section 402 requires the Interior Department, in

cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, to establish

a program for reclamation and closure of abandoned wells on

federal lands or that were drilled for development of

federally-owned minerals in split-estate situations. It

authorizes appropriations of $5 million in fiscal years 2005

and 2006.

Section 403 requires the Interior Department, in

consultation with the Energy Department, to establish a

program to assist states and tribes to remedy environmental

problems caused by abandoned oil or gas wells on non-federal

and Indian lands. It authorizes appropriations of $5 million

in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Lenny Martinelli of Boulder, Colorado for his exemplary service to the Colorado community.

In 1987, two cities on opposite sides of the world, in countries on opposite sides of the political spectrum, collaborated to bring their respective traditions, culture, and history to one another in a peaceful manner. During a time of great conflict and tension, the cities of Boulder, Colorado, and Dushanbe, Tajikistan, united as the Sister Cities. Over the next three years, dozens of Tajikistani painters, woodcarvers, and ceramicists worked on completing Dushanbe's gift to Boulder, the Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse. The result was a magnificent structure and a wonderful restaurant that offers exquisite cuisine and atmosphere.

The success and beauty of the Teahouse would not have been possible without the leadership and management of Lenny Martinelli. For six years, Lenny has provided the direction, character, and culinary expertise for one of Colorado's most impressive restaurants. As proprietor of the Teahouse, Lenny has been responsible for maintaining the impressive reputation and quality of the Soviet Union's largest gift to the United States.

But Mr. Martinelli's dedication to the Sister Cities reaches beyond the walls of his restaurant. Every year he organizes a community cultural celebration on the Persian New Year of Navrus. He holds annual fundraisers to help finance Dushanbe's Cyber-Cafe, which is Boulder's gift to its sister city. A very positive and talented man, Lenny also is a constant advocate for worldwide unity and global awareness.

Mr. Speaker, the Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse is a world-class facility. Its lovely architecture and artwork make it the largest example of ancient Persian art in the country. Its food is an awesome assimilation of the greatest tastes from across the East. As the name indicates, it has one of the most impressive collections of teas in the world. Adding to the overall excellence of the Teahouse is Mr. Martinelli's great proprietorship which has kept the Teahouse as one of the premiere dining facilities in the Rocky Mountain region.

Through his role in the Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse, Lenny Martinelli has demonstrated the greatest attributes of a global community. I urge my colleague to join me today in honoring him for his accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution, although I do not approve of the manner in which it is being debated. The fact that the House is not permitted even to consider amendments means that our debate will be incomplete because the resolution covers only some of the issues that are relevant to understanding where we are one year after the beginning of military action by coalition troops in Iraq.

On this one-year anniversary, there is no question but that the House should commend the Iraqi people ``for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime.''

The resolution also very appropriately commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution, a key step toward what all Americans hope will be the Iraqi people's creation of a new, free, and democratic Iraq.

And there is no question but that the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the Coalition forces should be commended for serving in Iraq. For me, this is the most important clause in this resolution.

We may not all agree on whether going to war a year ago was the right course for the U.S. to take--indeed, I was not persuaded that it was, and so I voted against the war resolution in 2002. But we can all agree that our brave men and women in uniform deserve our support, our respect, our gratitude for their service--and in the cases of over 550 servicemen and women, their giving what Lincoln rightly called the last full measure of devotion by sacrificing their lives.

But I must qualify my support for one clause in this resolution--the clause that asserts ``the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq.''

I believe that Saddam out of power is infinitely better than Saddam in power. Saddam can no longer terrorize his people and his neighbors in the region. The Iraqi people are now able to move into an era of freedom--an incredible step forward for a country that has been brutalized for so long.

And it's true that the U.S. and the world are now living free of fear from Saddam's possible use of weapons of mass destruction or his possible assistance to terrorists.

But, while the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime has liberated the Iraqis and freed us from some worries, I think there are still some things to fear.

I still fear the consequences of the Bush Administration's ``you're either with us or you're against us'' approach. This approach rushed the diplomatic process at the United Nations and dismissed a strategy of ``coercive inspections.'' This same approach caused Pentagon leaders to exaggerate intelligence claims and mangle the planning for the post- war occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. And by going in without broader support and without an adequate post-war plan, the Administration made long-term success in Iraq much more difficult to achieve.

So I'm afraid we're stuck with a heavy burden for years to come. I'm afraid that America won't be safer if it continues to have to focus so much of our attention and resources on our mission in Iraq. I'm afraid America won't be safer if we continue to spend so much in Iraq--$120 billion and rising--because it will mean we have that much less money to

spend on ways to keep us safe from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, from terrorists in other areas of the world, or from potential threats right here at home. That would be troublesome enough if we were paying for it ourselves, through taxes--it is even more worrisome that the Administration is insisting on putting the burden on our children, who will have to repay with interest the massive amounts we are borrowing to cover the budget deficit.

I'm afraid that unless we return to a foreign policy that reflects American priorities--putting a priority on promoting political and economic freedom and human rights; more closely cooperating with allies and friends; and more truly respecting international law and institutions--we risk fueling the very terror that we ultimately hope to prevent.

I don't believe that the answer to these fears is to cut and run by prematurely pulling our troops out of Iraq. On the contrary, I believe we have to work that much harder to work with the international community to win the peace and to assist the Iraqi people to establish a new, free, and democratic Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to take this moment to reflect on this one-year anniversary. We can look back at the last year with pride at the service and sacrifices of our troops and with admiration for the Iraqi people, who are working hard to find their way in this new post-Saddam world. And we can look back at this last year to learn lessons from what we did right. But we also need to understand our mistakes and what we did wrong in Iraq so that we can move forward with a better understanding and greater confidence in our mission in the months and perhaps years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1673.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the Hubble Space Telescope and recommending reconsideration of future servicing mission to Hubble. I am very pleased that a number of my colleagues are joining me as original cosponsors of this bill--including Representatives Bartlett, Hoyer, McDermott, Akin, Gordon, Lampson, and Ruppersberger.

I wish this resolution weren't necessary. I am introducing it in response to NASA's decision made in mid-January to cancel all future space shuttle missions to the Hubble Space Telescope, including SM-4, the next flight that would have installed the new Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and the Wide Field Camera 3 instruments--both largely completed at a cost of about $200 million. Installation of these instruments would have provided over a factor of ten improvement in Hubble's imaging and spectroscopy, and in addition to replacement gyros and batteries, would make Hubble's final years its most scientifically capable and productive. If SM-4 goes forward, Hubble will continue to operate until 2012. Without the mission, Hubble will likely die in orbit sometime in 2007.

My goal in introducing this resolution is simple--I want to call attention to the Hubble Space Telescope's contributions to scientific research and education and ensure that any decision affecting its future is made carefully and seriously and for the right reasons. Precisely because of Hubble's extraordinary contributions in the past and promised contributions in the future, I also believe that the decision to cancel the planned servicing mission to Hubble should be considered by an independent panel of experts.

Finally, I want to try to ensure that the planning for the servicing mission continues at least until the panel comes up with its recommendations and until NASA provides a timetable of compliance with recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board

report, since NASA's compliance will allow both a Hubble servicing mission and a mission to the International Space Station to be carried out safely. Since NASA Administrator O'Keefe cited safety concerns as the main reason for the cancellation of the mission, it seems to me that NASA must state how and when it plans to comply with the CAIB recommendations. Once the shuttles are deemed safe enough to fly, a trip to Hubble will be as safe as a trip to the Station. Indeed, there are some who argue that the Hubble mission will be the safer of the two.

Hubble's scientific contributions continue to amaze us all, year in and year out. A few weeks ago Hubble detected oxygen and carbon in the atmosphere of a distant planet, the first time the elements have been found at a world outside our solar system. Hubble also contributed to the finding of new evidence about recently discovered ``dark energy.'' Hubble measured properties of light from 16 exploding stars, or supernovas, to find that the dark energy that pervades the universe might be what Einstein originally called the ``cosmological constant.'' This discovery supports the theory that instead of ripping apart, the cosmos will continue expanding very slowly for at least the next 30 billion years.

These are just recent discoveries. Hubble remains one of the most productive scientific instruments in history, and certainly NASA's most productive scientific mission, accounting for 35 percent of all its discoveries in the last 20 years. The Hubble has provided proof of black holes, insights into the birth and death of stars, spectacular views of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's collision with Jupiter, the age of the universe, and evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

So to me--and to so many others who have voiced their opposition to NASA's decision--it seems as though canceling the mission is premature at best.

I would rather not cynically believe, as some do, that the Hubble is being abandoned primarily to enable the president's Moon-Mars initiative to get underway. But there doesn't seem to be any other explanation that makes sense.

I have long believed that NASA needs a new vision for the future--but before this Congress and future Congresses commit to the president's expensive plan, NASA must first generate broad public support and scientific backing for it. Today, as the general public and the scientific community alike call for Hubble to be saved, NASA risks undermining its efforts to sell its Moon-Mars initiative to the public--not an auspicious beginning for a vision that will require billions and decades to complete.

I have attached a February 29 editorial from the New York Times calling for the administration to reconsider its decision. The final paragraph concludes, ``The gains from extending Hubble's life are real and achievable and should not be sacrificed for a distant exploration program that for now is mostly wishful thinking and can surely be delayed a bit.''

The gains from extending Hubble's life are indeed real and achievable. In addition to its past and potentially future scientific discoveries, Hubble provides information used by approximately one million teachers per year across the U.S. The demand for research time on the telescope far exceeds the time available. The scientific imagery and data Hubble provides is integral to the work of researchers in universities across the country and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution will be welcomed by school children, scientists, and interested citizens around the world who understand that Hubble is a national treasure that we should not prematurely condemn to death. I look forward to working with Members of the House, including my colleagues on the Science Committee, to move forward with this important initiative.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 29, 2004]

Premature Death for the Hubble

By all accounts the Hubble Space Telescope is one of the

most productive scientific instruments in history. Orbiting

high above the distorting effects of Earth's atmosphere, it

has peered far out into space and back toward the beginnings

of time, producing images of startling clarity. It has

detected extremely faint objects that can't be seen from the

Earth, calibrated the age and expansion rate of the universe,

detected supermassive black holes in the cores of galaxies

and generally helped revolutionize our understanding of the

universe. A distinguished panel of astronomers judged

that Hubble ``has arguably had a greater impact on

astronomy than any instrument since the original

astronomical telescope of Galileo.''

Yet now, just as Hubble was scheduled for a major

rejuvenation, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration has consigned it to slow death. The agency has

canceled a planned servicing mission that would have upgraded

Hubble's instruments and extended its life past the end of

the decade, making it likely that the telescope will run out

of battery power and functioning gyroscopes by about 2007.

Congress needs to prevent the premature loss of this valuable

instrument.

Cancellation of the servicing mission is being justified on

safety grounds, but that is not the whole story. Indeed, it

looks as if Hubble is being sacrificed primarily to make way

for President Bush's grand new plans to send astronauts to

the Moon and Mars in future years. Once the shuttles are

deemed safe enough to resume flying, probably early next

year, a shuttle flight to Hubble will be no more risky--and

possibly even less risky--than flights to the space station.

The real safety issue comes up if something goes wrong. A

shuttle near the station might find safe haven and help in

repairs. A shuttle near Hubble could not.

Our guess is that with NASA on high alert after the

Columbia tragedy, the next shuttle flights will be the safest

ever. Astronauts are paid to take risks, and there would be

no shortage of volunteers for a Hubble mission that seems no

more risky than other flights and a lot more important

scientifically.

The Bush administration argues that Hubble has passed its

prime, that its uniqueness is diminishing, that advances in

ground-based telescopes enable them to do some of Hubble's

work and that future breakthroughs will require telescopes

able to search in other wavelengths than those used by

Hubble. There is a germ of truth in all those contentions,

but a parade of experts have argued that Hubble, if serviced

and updated, has years of great work ahead. There seems

little doubt that the science still to be done on Hubble is

far more important than anything likely to be accomplished on

the space station.

The chief reason for Hubble's demise is almost certainly

NASA's need to use its shuttles to finish building the space

station by 2010 so that the shuttles can be retired and the

money used for the president's Moon-Mars exploration

initiative. The agency will be lucky to complete the station

on time even with all three remaining shuttles devoted to the

task. Servicing the Hubble would be a diversion.

The administration essentially argues that the scientific

returns from extending Hubble's life are not worth the risk

and effort of a servicing flight. Our feeling is just the

opposite. The gains from extending Hubble's life are real and

achievable and should not be sacrificed for a distant

exploration program that for now is mostly wishful thinking

and can surely be delayed a bit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and in support of Representative Lofgren's substitute.

On the surface, this bill appears to be an effort to protect pregnant women from violence. However, it actually does little to prevent violence against women, instead it dangerously opens the door to undermine a women's right to choose. The vast majority of domestic violence cases do not occur under federal jurisdiction, thus this bill would not help any of these women.

I believe that if we are going to create a crime for causing harm during a woman's pregnancy, we should also include efforts to prevent violence against women without opening up the abortion debate. H.R. 1997 does not provide protections for the mother; in fact the mother is hardly mentioned in the text of the bill. Instead it focuses solely on the ``child in utero.''

The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, achieves that which the Unborn Victims of Violence Act only attempts to do. That is to provide protection to pregnant women who are assaulted. And it does this without opening up the abortion debate. This substitute focuses on protecting women. Specifically, this substitute will make the assault of a pregnant woman which results in the interruption or termination of her pregnancy a federal offense. I believe the Lofgren substitute does a better job of achieving the intentions of H.R. 1997 supporters than the original bill. Not only does Representative Lofgren's substitute remove the abortion debate from this bill, but it provides protection for the mother and her pregnancy, not just the fetus.

It is important to mention that this approach can only be used if the assailant has been convicted of the underlying offense, the assault to the mother. I believe that the best way to protect women from violence is not to attempt to provide legal rights to her fetus, but rather to protect the mother herself, and work to prevent domestic violence first.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not address the issue of violence against women. This bill will undermine a woman's right to choose, and have little affect on domestic violence in this country. As a result, I cannot vote in favor of this bill as it stands. This chamber needs to stand up against violence against women, especially pregnant women, and I believe Representative Lofgren's substitute does this. Thus, I will be voting in favor of this substitute and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

The bill is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez. I appreciate his support.

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

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

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

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

That sounds like a reasonable requirement--and it would be appropriate for Rocky Flats if we had adequate documentation of radiation exposures for the years when it was producing nuclear-weapons components as well as for the more recent time when DOE and its contractors have been working to clean it up and prepare it for closure.

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

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

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

My understating of the need for this bill by meeting with Rocky Flats workers and their representatives and by consulting experts. I have particularly benefited from the great experience and expertise of Dr. Robert Bistline. Dr. Bistline has served as Program Manager of the Energy Department's Oversight of Radiation Protection Program at the Rocky Flats field office and has few if any peers in terms of his understanding of the problems addressed by the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was the purpose of the compensation act. I am very proud that I was able to help achieve its enactment, but I am also aware that it is not perfect. The bill being introduced today will not remedy all the shortcoming of the current law, but it will make it better.

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

Section 1: Short Title, Findings, and Purpose

Subsection (a) provides a short title, ``Rocky Flats

Special Cohort Act.''

Subsection (b) sets forth several findings regarding the

need for the legislation.

Subsection ( c) states the bill's purpose: ``to revise the

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act so as

to include certain past and present Rocky Flats workers as

members of the special exposure cohort.''

Section 2: Definition of Member of Special Exposure Cohort

Subsection (a) amends section 3621(14) of the Energy

Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (EEOICPA). The

effect of the amendment is to provide that a person employed

by the Department of Energy or any of its contractors for an

aggregate of at least 250 work days at Rocky Flats before

January 1, 2006 would be a ``member of the Special Exposure

Cohort.'' Under EEOICPA, a member of the special exposure

cohort suffering from one of the cancers specified in the Act

is covered by the Act if the cancer was contracted after the

person began employment at a covered facility.

Subsection (b) provides that someone employed by the Energy

Department or any of its contractors for an aggregate of at

least 250 work days at Rocky Flats before January 1, 2006 may

apply for compensation or benefits under EEOICPA even if the

person had previously been denied compensation or benefits

under the Act. This is to make clear that the subsection

(a)'s change in the law will apply to people who had applied

previously.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to acknowledge Ms. Doris Cherry, who has recently been named ``Employee of the Year'' by Congressional Guest Services, for her 28 years of exemplary service at the Longworth Cafeteria.

Ms. Cherry is well known by members of my staff and other congressional offices for her extraordinary reputation of friendliness and warmth. While she is being recognized as the ``Employee of the Year'', I daresay that if a poll were taken of the many thousands of people who use the Longworth Cafeteria, she would easily win any competition where customer service, patience and genuine kindness were at stake.

At a time when civility in human relations is arguably at low ebb, people like Doris Cherry remind us that a simple smile can make an enormous difference in all of our lives. She treats her job as an art, and not just a profession.

Doris has the kind of personality that warms the heart. She is a person we can all learn from. Perhaps her last years in Longworth will be spent on the other side of the cash register? She would make a great candidate for office and would no doubt have many admirers on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following article from Roll Call newspaper in the Record, as a fitting tribute to this very gifted woman.

Cafeteria Worker Is Employee of the Year

(By Zach Miller)

For 28 years, Doris Cherry has been a regular sight in the

Longworth Cafeteria. Working the checkout lines for the past

15 years, she is the friendly face at the end of a long line

of hungry staffers. This year, Guest Services has named her

Employee of the Year.

``I am very excited and very happy,'' Cherry said of the

award, but in her now-trademark selfless attitude she added,

``I am happy when my customers are happy. They come to the

Food Court for a break. My job is to make them leave with a

smile.''

Born in Clinton, N.C., Cherry came to Washington, D.C., as

a child. In 1976, she started work in the Longworth Cafeteria

as a line server before becoming a grill cook and deli

server. After a decade of making food, Doris moved to the

checkout line registers, where she became the warm and kind

fixture collecting money from House patrons and in return

giving them a smile and a hello.

Cherry's manager, Eran Nuran, said she is a sweet person

who genuinely cares about everyone she meets. ``She is one of

the most dependable team members here at Long-worth.

Customers will line up to 20 people at a time to get a chance

to speak to Doris. Other registers will be open, but they

think she is worth the wait,'' Nuran said.

Cherry once received a letter from a regular customer

informing her he was leaving his job. In the letter the

customer confessed that even though his office had free

coffee every morning prepared for the staff, he would come to

the cafeteria and pay for a cup just so he could say hello to

her.

Cherry and her husband, Reginald, have four children and

seven grandchildren.