Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two important cases regarding the balance between national security and the rights of American citizens. And in a February 24th editorial, the Rocky Mountain News clearly explains why we all have a stake in the outcome of the cases involving Yasr Hamdi and Jose Portillo.

While both evidently are American citizens now being held as unlawful combatants, their cases are not identical. As the editorial explains:

Both men are citizens, but the incarceration of Hamdi seems

less convincingly a civil-rights incursion than the

incarceration of Padilla. While Hamdi deserves his day in

court, grabbing a prisoner at the site of armed hostilities

in a foreign country is a different matter from picking

someone up at a domestic airport.

And, in the words of the editorial, here is the bottom line:

The obvious issue with Padilla is that if the

administration can stick him away as long as it likes without

an indictment or court proceedings of any kind, why can't it

do the same thing with any of us?

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point, and exactly why the Portillo case is so important. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching the full text of the editorial.

[From the Rocky Mountain News, Feb. 24, 2004]

Padilla Deserves Due Process--Still

Some argue the Bush administration was justified in

arresting a U.S. citizen and holding him for two years

without due process because, after all, he was in league with

terrorists. The logical fallacy here is known as begging the

question--you assume the conclusion in the proposition.

How can the administration know Jose Padilla was a

terrorist intent on mass killings through use of a ``dirty''

bomb without due process? And if this can be proven, why

doesn't the government initiate a trial?

The Supreme Court is now going to take on the question of

whether the administration violated the Constitution in

holding Padilla, arrested in Chicago after a trip abroad, and

Yaser Hamdi, captured in a battlefield in Afghanistan. Both

men are citizens, but the incarceration of Hamdi seems less

convincingly a civil-rights incursion than the incarceration

of Padilla. While Hamdi deserves his day in court, grabbing a

prisoner at the site of armed hostilities in a foreign

country is a different matter from picking someone up at a

domestic airport.

The obvious issue with Padilla is that if the

administration can stick him away as long as it likes without

an indictment or court proceedings of any kind, why can't it

do the same thing with any of us?

It's hard to see how the Supreme Court could side with the

administration in the Padilla case, even if a few other

presidents, most notably Abraham Lincoln during the Civil

War, have gotten away with the suspension of due process.

Moreover, there is language both in Article I of the

Constitution and the Fifth Amendment that allows exceptions

to due process protections when there is a public danger. We

simply don't believe that language would be correctly applied

to the Padilla situation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the legacy after the passing of a good man and fine coach, Russell ``Sox'' Walseth, Jr. ``Sox'' was a member of the University of Colorado family as a student, athlete and coach. With the university ``Sox'' coached both the men's and women's basketball. He holds the distinction of the winningest coach in CU men's basketball history but also holds the highest winning percentage of any coach in the history of the University of Colorado.

His contribution to the University and the community was great and he will clearly be missed by family, friends and fans.

For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching several items from the (Boulder, Colorado) Daily Camera.

[From the Daily Camera, Jan. 29, 2004]

Russell M. ``Sox'' Walseth, Jr.

Russell M. ``Sox'' Walseth, Jr. of Boulder died Wednesday,

Jan. 28, 2004, of natural causes in Boulder. He was 77.

The son of Russell M. Walseth and Marie J. Gehan Walseth,

he was born April 6, 1926, in Aberdeen, S.D. He married

Eleanor Hahn on Oct. 9, 1953, in Denver. She died on Oct. 6,

1997. He married Joan Mabee Funk on July 19, 2002 in Boulder.

He graduated from Pierre High School in Pierre, S.D. He

earned a bachelor of science degree and a master's degree in

education from the University of Colorado.

He was enlisted in the Navy during and after World War II

from 1944 to 1946.

Mr. Walseth spent 38 years at CU, starting as an athlete in

the 1940s when he lettered a combined six times in both

basketball and baseball.

He became head men's basketball coach prior to the 1956-57

season and coached the next 20 Buffalo teams. The winningest

coach in CU men's basketball history with a 261-245 record,

the Buffs won three Big Eight titles under his direction, in

1961-62, 1962-63 and 1968-69. He was the Big Eight Conference

coach of the year on five occasions. All three of his Big

Eight champion teams represented the conference in the NCAA

regional tournaments. Eventual NCAA champion Cincinnati

eliminated the Buffs in the first two appearances, while his

third tourney team may have represented his best coaching job

in his tenure as he piloted a sophomore-dominated team to the

league title and NCAA berth.

He retired from coaching in the spring of 1976 and remained

on in an administrative position with the athletic

department. But four years later in 1980, and CU hit with

budget woes, athletic director Eddie Crowder asked him if he

would come out of retirement to help the program to which he

had devoted much of his adult life. Sox answered that call

and coached the CU women's team between 1980 and 1983,

compiling an impressive 77-21 record. That mark included his

43-0 record at home, and earned coach of the year accolades

one time.

Mr. Walseth was the first and one of the few men to have

coached both the men's and women's programs at the same NCAA

school. The basketball floor at Coors Events/Conference

Center is named after him. In 1998, he was inducted into the

Colorado Sports Hall of Fame, and four years later, he was a

member for the fourth class inducted into CU's Athletic Hall

of Fame.

He was a member of Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic Church of

Boulder. He received five Basketball Hall of Fame Awards, two

from Colorado and three from South Dakota. He was also the

recipient of the Robert Stearns Award on June 8, 1967.

Survivors include his wife of Boulder; two sons, Joe

Walseth of Denver and Nick Walseth of Boulder; one daughter,

Cynthia Axley of Arvada; and four grandchildren.

A Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated at 1:30 p.m.

Saturday at Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic Church, 2312 14th

St., Boulder. The Rev. Daniel Flaherty of St. Louis Catholic

Church of Louisville and the Rev. William E. Dreslin of

Sacred Heart of Jesus will be co-celebrants.

Contributions may be made in his name to the CU Foundation,

in care of Russell ``Sox'' Walseth Scholarship Fund, 369

University Campus Box, Boulder, CO 80309.

M.P. Murphy & Associates Funeral Directors is in charge of

arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an important leader in the business community of Colorado. Ms. Sharon Vigil, president and chief operating officer of the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, will be leaving her post after 14 years of service.

Established in 1978, the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has proven to be an outstanding member of the Colorado business community. Whether through influencing legislation, providing technical assistance to Hispanic businesses and professional associations, or strengthening the network of Colorado businesses as a whole, the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has been an exceptionally effective organization.

Sharon Vigil was born in Walsenburg and raised in Pueblo, later attending school in Boulder at the University of Colorado. As an active member of the civil rights movement during the 1970s, she developed an early reputation as a leading voice in support of equal opportunity for minorities and women in business. She has a long history of exceptional and diversified management skills and is well-regarded for her experience in the fields of marketing and public relations. But above all, she is a motivated woman who uses both her mind and heart in working for the Hispanic community.

In the early 1990s Ms. Vigil brought her considerable skills to the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, becoming President and Chief Operating Officer in 1995. Under her guidance, membership grew to more than 1,300, elevating the Chamber's success and positioning the organization as the largest and most influential minority chamber in the state.

I met Ms. Vigil early in my career as a legislator and was immediately impressed by the enthusiasm she brought to the job of promoting economic opportunities in the Hispanic community. One of my fondest recollections of her is the pride and joy she had in showing me the Hispanic Chamber's facility in Denver. She walked me through several floors of offices and made sure I met and spoke to all the vendors and officers.

As a dedicated leader, Ms. Vigil has diligently worked to assist countless Hispanic business owners throughout Colorado and the Denver Metropolitan area. It is that admirable and distinguished service that motivates me to acknowledge this remarkable community leader.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Sharon Vigil and in wishing

her success in all her future endeavors. It has been a true privilege to work with her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Sundance Institute and Sundance Film Festival for the many contributions the Institute and Festival have made to the arts and art education. The Institute and Film Festival are world renowned and have expanded the appreciation of arts while also providing encouragement and new venues for emerging young talent. It is a cherished, exciting and vibrant part of the American arts and humanities landscape, and I hope it will continue to thrive for many years to come.

Founded by actor and director Robert Redford in 1981, the Institute is dedicated to the development of artists of independent vision and the exhibition of their new work. The Institute nurtures emerging screenwriters and directors and provides a supportive environment to explore path-breaking and innovative themes. It is guided by the primary aim of supporting artists whose work reflects an original, compelling vision.

Since its creation, the Sundance Institute has become most known for its annual film festivals in Park City, Utah. Over the years, the Festival has become one of the most prestigious and important of all film festivals. Its selections and award winners have achieved wide acclaim, notoriety and artistic prominence. As a result, the Festival's influence on filmmaking has been extensive.

However, the Sundance Institute has become much more than a catalyst for the Film Festival. It has expanded its scope to include a range of programs all designed to promote innovative filmmaking. It provides workshops for screenwriters and filmmakers so that they can expand their thinking and hone their craft in a creative environment away from the pressures of the marketplace and with the guidance of respected, veteran filmmakers.

It has also established a Native American Program which supports new work by both emerging and established Native writers, directors, and producers. The commitment of the Sundance Institute to supporting Native American cinema is woven throughout its history and resides side-by-side with its contributions to American cinema. Rooted in the recognition of a rich tradition of storytelling and artistic expression by Native Americans, the Institute's Native American Initiative is a means of supporting the development of Native filmmakers and exhibiting their work.

Today, the Native American Initiative maintains its full commitment to Native cinema in a multi-tiered effort that tracks and provides support to two to four projects and four producers each year, as well as programming the Native Forum at the Sundance Film Festival. More recently, the Native American Initiative has broadened its efforts to scout for Native playwrights, music composers, and non-fiction arts writers to participate in the Institute's other developmental programs and to include indigenous artists from all of North America and the South Pacific in its initiative. At its core, the Native American Initiative supports the creative control of indigenous artists in filmmaking and other art forms supported by the Institute programs.

The Institute also holds professional conferences for film producers focusing on the professional and business aspects of independent film production such as marketing, financing, and distribution. It also has a long history of supporting documentary filmmakers through a year- round program which encourages the exploration of innovative nonfiction storytelling, and promotes the exhibition of documentary films to a broader audience. And it supports the growth of a more thoughtful and incisive body of writing about the arts through its screenwriting program. Now in its second year, the Program offers writers of creative nonfiction the opportunity to immerse themselves in Sundance Labs in the U.S. and abroad, and at the Sundance Film Festival, in order to more deeply understand and articulate the nature of the creative process in a range of art forms.

When choosing Fellows for its programs and films for the Festival, the Institute is committed to encouraging the recognition of diverse voices--Native American, African American, Asian, Latino, and women filmmakers, among others. The films and plays developed or premiered by Sundance over the past two

decades reflect the diversity of American culture and have been seen by millions of people. In all of its work, Sundance embraces the values of independence and community.

The Sundance Institute is not just about making films--although that is clearly its primary focus. It also is about nourishing the artistic process and defending free artistic expression. There are many talented voices and visionaries in America from all cultures, ethnic backgrounds and walks of life. The Sundance Institute provides a wonderful haven for these talents.

For all of these important contributions, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the Sundance Institute for keeping filmmaking and the arts exciting and vibrant and for providing an opportunity for Americans from all walks of life to participate in our film heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Sam Mamula of Breckenridge, Colorado for his exemplary public service.

Mr. Mamula has proven his dedication to Breckenridge. He has held a variety of local government positions during his residency, including 8 years on the town planning commission and 8 years on the town council before becoming Breckenridge's mayor.

The citizens of Breckenridge have benefited greatly from Mr. Mamula's dedicated leadership. Specifically, Mr. Mamula has taken leadership roles in Breckenridge's use of biodiesel in its diesel municipal vehicles which is reducing pollution in Colorado.

Mr. Mamula has also been a tireless advocate for affordable housing in Summit County and was recognized nationally when Breckenridge won an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Award for Smart Growth Achievement in the built projects category for the Wellington Neighborhood affordable housing project. This project included a cooperative partnership among the town of Breckenridge, Summit County, the Environmental Protection Agency, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and a private developer.

The dedication, enthusiasm and activism with which Mr. Mamula has pursued his work deserves our most sincere thanks. Thus, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Sam Mamula for his service and many contributions to his community. He is much appreciated

For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching a copy of a recent story about Mr. Mamula that appeared in the Summit Daily News.

[From the Summit Daily News, Jan. 28, 2004]

Mamula To End a Political Era

We have to admit it. We are big Sam Mamula fans. Nobody is

sorrier than we are that the Breckenridge mayor is stepping

down after one term as hizzoner.

Mamula is a quote machine without peer, except for County

Commissioner Tom Long. In this business, we like that.

The thing about Mamula is that he always makes a point. We

like that even better.

Usually, his point is about the quality of life in the

greater Breckenridge area. With Mamula at the top spot in

town, locals knew they had somebody battling for the soul of

the Summit.

We say that with due apologies to The Summit Foundation,

which considers itself the ``Soul of the Summit,'' and with

good reason.

But the battle for soul--quality of life--is really fought

in the trenches of planning commissions and town councils

where hundreds of small decisions add up to something ugly if

somebody isn't on guard.

Ironically, one of Mamula's biggest achievements on behalf

of the town and taxpayers will occur after he's left office--

the huge open space purchase of the B&B Mines property in the

Golden Horseshoe.

The deal is scheduled to close in June.

Mamula spent eight years on the town planning commission

and eight years on the town council before ascending to

mayor. It was a good run.

``It was a tough decision. I stalled to the last minute,''

said the reluctant retiree who needs to spend more time with

his convalescing wife.

``I really like being mayor. I liked being on the town

council and I liked being on the planning commission. It

really has been a labor of love for me rather than a carrying

out of duties,'' he added.

Mamula called it ``fulfilling'' to work with a ``great town

council and staff.''

``With a town manager like Tim Gagen, being mayor is

'relatively simple, frankly,'' Mamula said.

Mamula vows to stay involved in the town but promised not

to become a ``town council observer.''

``There has got to be something I can cut out of this whole

thing that someone is going to let me do,'' he added.

We hope so, too.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform our colleagues that the week of March 1 to March 5, 2004 will be Colorado Nonprofit Week and to express my gratitude for nonprofit organizations in Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have dedicated our energy to help solve the problems which persist in America. However, in a country as large and diverse as ours, there are many problems that cannot be addressed by government alone. Nonprofit organizations throughout the nation play powerful roles in sustaining our communities and providing resources to help solve a myriad of problems. In Colorado alone, there are over five-thousand charitable nonprofit organizations that devote tireless effort year after year to improve the quality of life in our communities. In appreciation, the State of Colorado honors these organizations and the causes they champion by declaring the week of March 1st to March 5th to be Colorado Nonprofit Week.

In Colorado, there are hardly any social problems that do not have a group of dedicated individuals trying to solve them. Indeed, there are nonprofits addressing such diverse challenges as promoting arts and humanities, protecting animals, sheltering the homeless, providing job training and saving open space, to identify just a few. Colorado's nonprofits have succeeded in raising awareness for their causes in recent years. As a result, the number of nonprofits organizations in Colorado and the magnitude of services they provide have more than doubled in the last decade.

These organizations give hundreds of millions of dollars and countless hours of volunteer time to address their respective issues, yet are rarely given the credit they deserve. By recognizing the contributions of the nonprofit sector during Colorado Nonprofit Week, we acknowledge the exemplary public service and positive direction they provide for our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing Colorado Nonprofit Week and in thanking nonprofit organizations for all of the good and important work they do in Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my cautious support of H.R. 3030, the reauthorization of the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG).

The Federal government sponsors several programs which fight poverty on all levels. The CSBG ties these programs together and provides extra support and flexibility to meet the individual needs of each state. Many public and private organizations which fight poverty will benefit the lives of many more people throughout the country as a result of the help these grants provide.

This bill makes several changes that enhance the quality of services these grant sponsor. For example, organization, when applying for the grant, must submit a detail plan about the type of services they will provide as well as criteria which effectively judge if the organization has meet the goals outline in their submitted plan. by establishing local goals, each organization can tailor their efforts to meet the needs of their clientele, while maintaining a high standard of service and effetive use of taxpayer dollars.

I am also pleased that this bill continues to require funding to improve economic conditions and encourage self-sufficiency for the poor in rural areas. The rural poor face different barriers to reach self- sufficiency than those in urban areas and thus require different types of services to reach a level of independence.

I do have many concerns that efforts to protect against religious discrimination in hiring made in both committee and through amendments to this bill were not adopted by this chamber. While I believe that it is important that religious organizations maintain their religious character, I do not favor discrimination of any kind with federal dollars.

That being said, I believe that this ultimately is a good bill and the efforts made through the Community Service block Grants provide important services to the poor in our country. As a result, I will vote in favor of H.R. 3030 and am hopeful that the Senate will provide protection against hiring discrimination and that that language will remain in the final version of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two faithful public servants who are constituents of mine, Barbara and Frederick McGehan.

Fred McGehan, the Public Affairs Officer and Director of the Boulder Public Affairs Office at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, is retiring in February after 30 years of service at NIST. Barbara McGehan, the Public Affairs Officer for the NOAA Research Laboratories in Boulder, retired at the end of 2003, after 21 years of service to the Federal Government, 18 years dedicated to serving the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder. I've had the pleasure of working with both Fred and Barbara for the last five of their many years in the Federal Government.

After earning her Bachelor of Arts in History and Government at the State University of New York at Buffalo, Barbara worked for U.S. Rep. Richard McCarthy in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1965 to 1968. She worked for the Maryland Democratic Party from 1971 to 1973. She and Fred moved to Colorado in 1977, where Barb worked at the Sacred Heart of Mary Church, first on the church newsletter and later as a substitute teacher at Sacred Heart School.

In November 1985, Barbara started at NOAA in Boulder with the program that became the NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory (FSL). She worked for FSL until 1994, when she accepted the position of Public Affairs Officer for NOAA in Boulder.

Fred graduated from Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1963 with a B.A. degree in English, and afterward from Columbia University with a graduate degree in journalism. Fred put his education and training to good use by working as a general assignment reporter at the Providence Journal in Rhode Island, and then covering science, space and medicine for Newhouse National News Service and the Baltimore Sun. With his experience in news reporting under his belt, Fred began his ``next career'' in public affairs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (then known as the National Bureau of Standards) in its headquarters laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in 1974.

When he and Barb moved to Boulder in 1977, Fred continued his work at NIST as a science writer and public affairs specialist before taking over as Public Affairs Officer and Director of the Boulder Public Affairs Office. In his public affairs capacity and also while serving as Executive Officer and Acting Director of the NIST Boulder Laboratories and at various times during his nearly 30 years at NIST, Fred also has devoted enormous energy to working with the community.

Fred and Barbara have three grown children and are active in St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Boulder. Fred is an avid fan of Colorado Rockies baseball.

Of course, after so many decades of service, Fred and Barb deserve to have all the time in the world to spend with their children, be active in their community, and go to ball games. I'm sure they plan a very active retirement.

But Barb and Fred will be missed by their colleagues and by the millions of Americans who benefit every day from NOAA and NIST research and services. They were outstanding public affairs officers and advocates for their respective labs. During my visits to NIST and NOAA, they both helped me understand the many ways in which the labs influence people's everyday lives.

More importantly, Fred and Barb inspired me to continue my fight for Federal funding for research activities at NOAA and NIST and for infrastructure improvements that these labs so direly need. Fred and Barb have my assurance that I will continue to work in Congress to advance the needs and promote the tremendous achievements of Boulder's NIST and NOAA labs.

Mr. Speaker, as our country wrestles with the consequences of the war in Iraq, I think it is more important than ever to encourage thoughtful and critical discussion of America's role in the world and to be open to a continuing public dialogue on the wisdom of our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe.

Whether one supported the war or not, I believe our responsibility as elected representatives of the people must include maintaining an open mind on these matters, and to seek out the judgment and opinions of those who may have experiences unique from our own.

In this regard, I would like to submit for the Record a copy of remarks written by Mr. Ibrahim Kazerooni, an Iraqi dissident who fought against the regime of Saddam Hussein and who is now a respected clerical leader of the Muslim community in Colorado. I met Mr. Kazerooni shortly after the infamous attacks on our country on September 11, 2001 and have found his insights on the problem of terrorism and democracy in Iraq to be unique and well worth the attention of my colleagues.

[From the Denver Post, Dec. 7, 2003]

Iraq War Makes Us Less Safe, Not More

(By Ibrahim Kazerooni)

Having been imprisoned and tortured several times by the

former Baathist regime of Iraq, I came to expect any

absurdity from that dictatorship.

Under the Baathists, the people of Iraq were fed a steady

stream of government-generated lies on just about everything.

The regime skillfully operated under the premise that as long

as you said something often enough, it didn't have to be true

in order to get people to believe it.

Even though the Baathist regime is gone, it appears the

Bush administration has adopted their practice of

intentionally misleading the public--in this case, the

American public--through the incessant repetition of false

information.

For example, we continue to be told by the White House that

taking over Iraq was necessary for the war on terrorism,

despite the

absence of credible evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and

the former regime of Saddam Hussein.

On June 26, The Associated Press reported, ``The U.N.

terrorism committee has found no evidence to support Bush

administration claims of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda,

and the United States has provided the committee with no

proof.''

This should not be surprising, since the secular Saddam

Hussein was notorious for brutally crushing any and all

Islamist elements in Iraq. As a result, the Islamists and the

Baathists had nothing but pure disdain and mistrust for one

another.

One of the most respected authorities on terrorism and

defense issues, the International Institute for Strategic

Studies, reported Oct. 15 that the invasion and occupation of

Iraq has had the effect of ``swelling its [al-Qaeda's] ranks

and galvanizing its will.''

Beyond that, the administration's mismanagement of post-war

Iraq has created ripe conditions for terrorism to thrive, to

the point where it is now feared Iraq is exporting terrorism

to its neighbors.

The White House and others also continue to insist that the

security situation in Iraq--upon which everything depends,

especially reconstruction--is improving. Yet, the facts

reveal that the insurgency is spreading.

Part of the reason for the spread of the insurgency is the

resentment we've generated among ordinary Iraqis, the very

people we said we came to liberate. Dr. Rajaa Habib Kbuzai,

handpicked by the Bush administration to sit on the Iraqi

Governing Council, said in September, ``There is considerable

discontent with the coalition forces, the majority of whom

treat the Iraqi people with violence and contempt.''

This analysis is shared by Marco Calamai, a special

counselor to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in

Iraq, who resigned his position in November because he said

the U.S.-led CPA has created ``delusion, social discontent,

and anger'' among Iraqis and allowed terrorism to ``easily

take root.''

Calamai's view was confirmed by a classified CIA report

leaked in November, which found that more Iraqis are

``flooding to the ranks of the guerrillas'' and predicted the

security situation in Iraq would continue to get worse as the

insurgency spreads across the country.

We invaded Iraq on the premise that the Baathist regime

possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and would

share them with al-Qaeda. Not invading, we were told, could

likely result in ``mushroom clouds'' over American cities.

However, not only was the supposed link to al-Qaeda grossly

absent, so are the alleged WMDs. The failure to find Iraq's

alleged WMDs is entirely consistent with Secretary of State

Colin Powell's statement on Feb. 24, 2001, in Cairo: ``He

[Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability

with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to

project conventional power against his neighbors.''

Powell's statement reflects the statements of Iraqi

scientists and Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel,

who defected to the West in 1995 and was later murdered by

his father-in-law for defecting. He told U.N., U.S. and

British experts debriefing him in August 1995, ``I ordered

destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons--biological,

chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed.''

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has not only distracted

us from the war against al-Qaeda and diverted billions of

dollars from homeland security to operations in Iraq, it has

actually increased al-Qaeda's recruiting and created more

sympathizers for the organization among the world's 1.2

billion Muslims.

As long as the White House arrogantly continues to mislead

the public with fabricated intelligence and sugar-coated

assessments, we cannot possibly expect to win the war on

terror.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Michael Katz of Boulder, Colorado for his exemplary public service.

Over the past 25 years, Michael Katz has been a successful and well- respected federal public defender for Colorado and Wyoming. Since 1978, he has handled thousands of cases, giving quality legal counsel to defendants who could not afford representation. In doing so, he has demonstrated and protected some of the most precious aspects of our democracy and Constitution. Unfortunately, Michael will be retiring this year. Instead of pursuing justice, he and his wife Susan will be pursuing the beauty of the Atlantic Coast as they sail from Chesapeake Bay to Key West.

Michael began his law career in a small law firm with a staff of only three lawyers in a modestly-sized office. Over the years, he has been unswerving in his commitment to environmental protection. Yet his dedication to principles of justice and fairness enabled him to defend environmentally destructive people with professional integrity. Along the way he has also defended criminals whose civil liberties and individual rights are guaranteed by our Constitution.

He has persevered through every challenge, putting justice and the Constitution ahead of his personal beliefs. His tireless dedication has gained national acclaim and respect, as well as leading his office to prominence. After years of hard work, his retirement is well earned. The people of Colorado and Wyoming will certainly miss him and his honorable service to the justice system.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Michael Katz for his relentless defense of our Constitution. I wish Michael and his family good health and happiness in their future together.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with my colleague from New Mexico, Representative Tom Udall, in introducing the Western Waters and Surface Owners Protection Act.

The western United States is blessed with significant energy resources. In appropriate places, an 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 our bill responds to this need. It has three primary purposes. The first is to assure that the development of those energy resources in the West will not mean destruction of precious water resources. The second is 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 the third is 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 the development of this gas.

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 on the surface and allowed to flow into streams or other water bodies, including ditches used for irrigation.

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 New Mexico 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 we 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 our bill.

Our 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. Our 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, our 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 farming and ranching.

This split-estate situation can lead to conflicts. And while we support development of energy resources where appropriate, we 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 our 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:

We believe 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, our 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.

We think that most energy companies want to avoid harming the surface owners, so we expect that it will usually be possible for them to reach such agreements. However, we 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 our bill a surface owner ultimately could not block development of oil or gas underlying his or her lands. This difference reflects our belief 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 we support their development in appropriate areas and in responsible ways. We 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 Surface Owners 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 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 will vote against this conference report. I can support neither the process by which it was assembled nor the misshapen result of that process.

Once again the House is being asked to vote on a massive omnibus measure that rolls together the thousands of specific accounts that properly should be included in no fewer than seven separate regular appropriations bills. This is exactly what happened last year, and it is just as objectionable now as it was then.

I do not blame our appropriations committee for this. I have the greatest respect for both its Chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, and its ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey. They and their colleagues did their work, and the House passed all of the regular appropriations bills, in a timely fashion.

Unfortunately, however, the Senate did not follow suit--and the leadership of both chambers insisted on taking control of the process in order to accommodate the desires of the Bush Administration. As a result, the bill before us today not only has provisions not considered by either chamber, it also omits some things that were approved by both bodies. And while it does provide essential funding for many purposes, in several important respects it falls far short of what is needed.

For example, one of my biggest concerns is how this conference report deals with important scientific facilities of two agencies--the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)--in Colorado.

I voted against the commerce department funding bill when the House considered it earlier this year because it included severe reductions in funding for these facilities. I could not support such cuts, not just because these facilities employ so many Coloradans, but also because the work done there is so important for our country.

Still, even though that part of the House bill was seriously inadequate, I hoped that the Senate would not make the same mistake and that the conference report would more appropriately recognize the needs of these facilities--but, as I have reviewed the conference report, that hope has faded.

noaa laboratory funding

The conference report isn't as clear as it could be. For instance, it hasn't been possible to determine whether or not the report includes $4.5 million to pay rent for NOAA's Boulder labs. In fact, even NOAA's budget office isn't sure whether or not that money was included.

Similarly, it isn't readily apparent how the research funding breaks down and at what levels the Colorado labs are funded--apparently program accounts have been padded with an ``administrative charge,'' though we don't know the amount, there are across-the-board rescissions that also affect program accounts, and there are huge numbers of earmarks in the bill that take from program funds. Furthermore, it isn't yet clear whether or not jobs will be lost at NOAA.

One thing that is possible to discern--through inference--is that NOAA's Space Environment Center (SEC) is funded at $5.3 million. This is barely two-thirds of the base funds needed by SEC, which suffered similar shortfalls last year, and 40 percent less than the President's $8.3 million FY04 request.

This is more than disappointing--in my opinion, it is irresponsible. Let me briefly explain what leads me to that conclusion.

In October, the Science Committee's Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee held a hearing to fully examine the issue of space weather and who should be responsible for its forecasting. We heard testimony from representatives of NOAA, the Air Force, and NASA, along with officials from the electric power, satellite, and airline industries, which are the predominant users of the SEC's forecasts.

From that hearing, it was clear that:

The services that NOAA's SEC provides are relied upon heavily by government and many critical private sector industries;

The SEC functions cannot be easily transferred to another agency without huge expenditures and temporary to intermediate loss of forecasting services; and

Even at the House approved funding level of $5.3 million, the SEC would have to significantly reduce current services at a time when our industries are more vulnerable to space weather.

With our country increasingly vulnerable to these solar events, it is short-sighted and penny-pinching to reduce the services provided by the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1685, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003.

The Basic Pilot Verification program was created in 1997 to assist employers in verifying the eligibility of prospective employees to work in the U.S. Currently the program is only available to employers in six States. Recently I voted against a bill to expand and extend the program, H.R. 2359, because I thought an expansion of this program deserved more debate and allowance for amendments to fix some of the more problematic parts of the bill.

The Senate-passed measure that we are considering today, S. 1685, is an improvement on the House bill.

Unlike the House bill, this bill does not open up access to the databases of the Homeland Security Department and the Social Security Administration to other Federal agencies or to State and local government agencies. I had grave concerns about the infringement of civil liberties in the House bill, which would have permitted widespread sharing of employee information. I am also pleased that concerns already identified by the Department of Homeland Security about the Basic Pilot program are being addressed. I still have apprehensions that the data used in this program is not always up-to- date or accurate, specifically in regard to the visa status of employees. However, I am hopeful that the Homeland Security Department report required under this legislation will address these concerns so that they can be resolved by the time the program is expanded to all fifty states.

The Basic Pilot Verifications program provides an efficient and effective method for ensuring that employers are hiring eligible employees. I hope that through the extension and expansion provided for in this bill, this program will provide accurate information about prospective employees and continue to address the needs of American employers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the outstanding work of Hank Stovall. Hank served for 24 years on the Council for the City and County of Broomfield as a member for Ward 4 and as Mayor Pro Tempore for a number of years.

Along with his colleagues on the city council, Hank helped make Broomfield the diverse and vibrant community that it has become today. He has also helped preserve the high quality of life that citizen in this community at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains have come to expect and appreciate.

The citizens of Broomfield have benefited greatly from Hank's dedicated leadership. He helped secure a quality transportation system in the Broomfield region, including support for the Northwest Parkway, an important highway that will connect this community with the Denver International Airport and other important access roads in the region. This Parkway will also include an open space buffer that will add to the quality of the Broomfield neighborhoods as well as increase transportation efficiency and access. He also worked with coalition to improve the US 36 highway corridor and the Broomfield intersections to this important highway corridor.

He also has helped ensure that Broomfield's transition from a city to a county was smooth, effective and successful. He and his colleagues recognized the importance of establishing Broomfield as a city and county so as to better serve its citizens. Before the conversion to a county, residents were required to travel to four distant county offices as the city was spread across four separate counties. By making Broomfield a county, the citizens of this community can now enjoy the efficiencies that come with that designation as well as further develop the sense of community that he and others have sought to accomplish.

Hank has been involved in many regional and State governmental committees, authorities, task forces and coalitions. All of this work was designed to promote effective governmental function and quality services to citizens and communities in the Broomfield region.

But perhaps his most lasting legacy will be his leadership on issues related to Rocky Flats, the former U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons production facility just south of the city and county. He brought his knowledge of nuclear issues to the table as strategies and approaches for cleaning up this facility were being discussed and developed. He insisted that the cleanup be thorough, cost effective and protective of the health, safety and environment of the surrounding communities. He was also a strong proponent of preserving the open space resources at this site and was an early advocate of designating the site as a national wildlife refuge. His support, as well as the support of other leaders surrounding the site, helped make this a reality.

He remained very concerned with public health and safety issues related to this site and its cleanup, closure and conversion to a national wildlife refuge. He was especially concerned about the health and safety of the workers at the site and pushed for instituting a high level of safety in all facets of the work done there.

Hank leaves the Broomfield County and City Council with a long and distinguished record of accomplishment and service. The citizens of Broomfield enjoy a quality of life, a strong sense of community and a solid reputation for service and leadership on regional issues because of Hank's involvement and public service work. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Hank every success in his future endeavors and hope that he remains active in community and regional issues for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2417. I voted for this bill earlier this year, but I cannot support it today.

I have concerns about a provision in the conference report that would expand financial surveillance authority of our intelligence agencies. I also had concerns about this provision in the first version of the bill that passed the House, but I supported the bill then in the hope that the language would be further clarified in the final conference report. It has not been.

Whereas currently banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions are required to provide certain financial data to authorized intelligence agencies and the Treasury Department, this legislation would expand the list of institutions to include car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, casinos, and other businesses.

This expanded definition of ``financial institution'' may indeed be necessary for effective counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and international operations of the United States. But since this will represent such a significant expansion of the powers of our intelligence agencies, I believe it is important that it be clear and not go further than necessary.

In particular, I am concerned that the language in the conference report only vaguely limits this expanded definition to financial information. I understand that report language makes this distinction more explicit, but that bill conferees objected to including this clarifying language in the conference report itself. The legislative intent of this provision is to expand surveillance in the area of financial--not other--information, but there are no assurances that this intent will be observed when the legislation is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, this provision in the conference report involves the privacy rights of Americans--rights that I believe strongly we must protect even as we work to combat terrorism. Because I'm concerned that this conference report does not strike the right balance, I am voting against it today.