Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor LeRoy Carlson for his three decades of exemplary work with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Leroy Carlson is one of Colorado's outstanding field biologists, preserving and protecting the Rocky Mountain region's wildlife.

Lee received his bachelor's degree from Colorado State University in Wildlife Biology and his master's degree in 1974 with an emphasis on the wildlife impacts from oil shale development. He began his career in Galveston, Texas as a field staff biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service where he did permitting work for the Army Corps of Engineers on housing developments, levies and wetlands.

After 2 years in Texas, Lee moved to the Lakewood, Colorado offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service where he worked for the next 27 years until his retirement in 2003. His innovative approaches to a wide range of issues enabled him to provide oversight and protection to the region's threatened and endangered species and to guide many of the region's largest projects to successful completion.

Lee's ability to coordinate the protection of wildlife was most evident on large Federal projects, such as the Animas-LaPlata water project in Southwest Colorado. He earned the respect of all involved during his 3-year oversight of negotiations between the Bureau of Reclamation, the regional Native American tribes, local water users and regional environmental groups. From these contentious discussions, the San Juan Recovery Program was created, which provided significant mitigation for fish and wildlife resources and included an additional 7 years of research on listed fish.

His experience and problem solving attitude in managing complex water projects led to the successful re-issuance of agency water permits on projects throughout the Roosevelt and Arapahoe National Forests. Lee also provided skilled leadership on the Platte River Program for endangered species conservation, involving multiple States and Federal agencies. The Platte River Program included a unique approach to conserving listed wildlife species through the conversion of water use to financial contributions paid by project developers.

When the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) needed a new way to address U.S. Fish and Wildlife endangered species requirements, Lee developed an innovative solution that included staffing within CDOT to help that agency evaluate the impacts on wildlife so that the needs of CDOT could be met in a timely manner. His plan became a model for future projects and allowed CDOT to determine project impacts for the next 20 years and develop mitigation plans. The Short Grass Prairie Project received two national awards for the creative approaches Lee used with State and Federal agencies. This became the Colorado model for the Prebles Project in the East Plum Creek area, protecting the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse, a rare species that was placed on the Endangered Species list in 1998.

Lee's service and achievements show how a skilled public servant can make important contributions to the quality of our natural environment, as well as our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking LeRoy Carlson for his far-reaching accomplishments and his commitment to the protection of our wildlife resources. I wish him good health and happiness in the future.

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 United States 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 am going to vote for this conference report.

It has flaws. But if its provisions are properly implemented it can help reduce the risk of severe wildfire damage that now threatens lives and property in many communities in Colorado and other States--and for me that is the bottom line.

I am convinced we need to act to protect our communities and their water supplies. For that, a variety of things must be done, including working to reduce the built-up fuels that can increase the severity of the wildland fires that will periodically occur nearby.

That's why I have introduced legislation to expedite those thinning projects. It is also why last year I joined with my Colorado colleague, Representative McInnis, and other Members to develop a bill that was approved by the Resources Committee.

I voted for that bill last year, and if H.R. 1904 as it came to the House floor earlier this year had been the same as that bill, I would have voted for it again. But it wasn't the same bill, which was why I voted against it.

Instead of building on last year's work in the Resources Committee, the Resources and Agriculture Committees this year brought forth a quite different measure--one that added a long list of new provisions while omitting some of the key parts of last year's bill. As a result, it has taken much longer than I though it should have for us to reach the point of being ready to vote on a measure that has a good chance of clearing both chambers and being sent to the President for signing into law.

Because H.R. 1904 as passed by the House rejected key compromises that we worked our last year, the bill encountered more resistance in the Senate than otherwise would have been the case, and it was that much harder to shape compromises on a number of difficult points.

However, in the end the Senate passed a bill that made important improvements on the House version--and this conference report, while far from perfect, is itself a definite improvement over the legislation that I voted against earlier this year.

Let me briefly outline some of the ways in which the conference report is enough of an improvement over the House bill that I can and will vote for it today:

funding focus

Like the Senate bill, the conference report requires that at least 50 percent of all thinning-project funds be spent in the interface areas. Last year's Resources Committee bill would have required 70 percent of the money to be spent in the interface, but H.R. 1904 as passed by the House did not include any such requirement. So, the conference report is an improvement over the House bill in this area.

wildland/urban interface

I think the highest priority for fuel-reduction work needs to be on the forest lands where accumulated fuels present the most immediate risks to our communities--those within the wildland/urban interface, or the ``red zone,'' as it is called in Colorado--and to municipal water supplies. These are the places where forest conditions present the greatest risks to people's lives, health, and property, and so they should be where our finite resources--time, money, and people--are concentrated.

To properly focus on these areas, we have to properly identify them. In that regard, I had no quarrel with the provisions of H.R. 1904 as passed by the House. By referring to lands within either an ``interface'' or ``intermix'' community, it provided an appropriate limitation on the discretion of the agencies without drawing an arbitrary mileage line that would not appropriately reflect the reality that a community's exposure to the risk of wildfire depends on terrain, forest conditions, and other factors that can vary greatly from one place to another and over time.

However, proper focus also requires assured priority status for funds to carry out projects to protect communities and their water supplies. The bill reported by the Resources Committee last year required that at least 70 percent of the funds provided a for fuel-reduction purposes would have to be used for such projects--but no similar provision is included in H.R. 1904. I offered an amendment to restore the provision, and its absence was a major reason I voted against the House bill.

The Senate bill had a basic limit of one-half mile from a community's boundary, with some exceptions--if a larger area was identified in a community protection plan developed through a collaborative process; or if land near a community was steep; or if there was a geographical feature that would provide a firebreak within three-quarters of a mile, in which case the interface would go to that feature. The ``community protection plan'' provision was particularly good, in my opinion, because it did not require an arbitrary cutoff, and because it allowed both Federal and non-Federal land to be included. The rest of the definition was problematical.

The conference report improves somewhat on the Senate bill. It (1) retains the ``community protection plan'' part of the definition; (2) keeps the basic one-half mile limit; but (3) allows the interface to go to 1\1/2\ mile, if the slopes are steep or if there is a firebreak- feature within that distance and the lands are very susceptible to fire. Like the Senate bill, it

also defines the interface as including a route identified as necessary for escape from a threatened community.

I think it is well established that reducing the fuels closest to structures pays big dividends in terms of reduced fire risks. However, I do into favor defining the interface in terms of arbitrary lines on the map, because fires do not respect those lines and because our experience in Colorado has shown that some of the high-priority ``red zone'' areas are extensive. A prime example is the Hayman fire--it was among the largest in our State's history, but all of the lands involved were within the ``red zone'' as defined by our State Forester (a definition that is included in my bill, H.R. 1042).

Nonetheless, on balance, I think the conference report is acceptable on this point because of the emphasis that it puts on community- protection plans. This should encourage at-risk communities, like those along the Front Range, to develop protection plans and to encourage owners of non-Federal lands to join in working to reduce fire risks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support a Medicare drug bill, but I can't support this bill. Instead of giving us a foundation to build on, I believe it will compromise the effectiveness of a very popular healthcare program for seniors in order to deliver an inadequate, unreliable and unfair drug benefit. Under this bill seniors will pay higher premiums, higher deductibles and higher prices for drugs. It will force seniors into HMOs, and millions of seniors will lose drug benefits that they get through their retirement plans. Instead of crafting a drug bill, the Republican leadership has used the opportunity to dismantle Medicare and turn it over to private insurance and drug companies.

I have long believed that Congress should act to help seniors with their prescription drug expenses. Congress should give seniors greater choice in coverage, but it should not force seniors into HMOs in order to get a drug benefit. Colorado could be chosen as part of the demonstration project under this bill, which would force seniors into HOMs in order to get the drug benefit. According to a recent analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, most seniors would see increases in their premiums with some facing increases as high as 88 percent. Colorado seniors would pay some of the highest premiums in the country. For example, seniors in Adams County, CO would pay $100 a month while seniors in some parts of North Carolina will pay $58 a month. Why should Coloradans pay higher premiums than seniors in other parts of the country for the exact same benefit?

It's no wonder that seniors in my district are skeptical about this plan. Let's not forget, we tried private competition in Medicare when HMOs were allowed to participate in the program as a result of legislation that passed in 1997. Seniors were told that managed care was better able to deliver healthcare services to them. Managed care aggressively courted seniors to join Medicare+Choice plans and then dropped them because they couldn't make a profit. That left millions of seniors searching for doctors and coverage. Now, this bill includes billions of dollars in subsidies to managed care to provide coverage. If privatization is such a good idea, why do insurance companies need these large subsidies in order to participate in Medicare?

There are a few provisions in this bill that I support, such as the payment increases for hospitals and physicians and other providers. In fact, I have consistently voted to increase provider payments and I have cosponsored legislation to change the flawed formula upon which these payments are based. But those payments should have been brought up separately rather than as part of the Medicare bill.

It is grossly ironic that Medicare will pay for a senior's care following a stroke but will not pay for the anti-hypertension drugs that prevent them. The time is ripe to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit, but not as proposed in this legislation. I had hoped that we would vote on a bill that created a fair, workable, financially sound prescription drug benefit. But I am not willing to set in motion forces that will lead to the destruction of a program that seniors and the disabled have trusted for nearly 40 years in exchange for a feeble prescription drug benefit. We should work to get it done right rather than get it done right now.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this legislation.

We all know that this 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 must pass a bill that helps us balance our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix.

Unfortunately, this bill doesn't provide that balance. And for the most part it not only falls short of meeting the challenges of our time, in many ways it can be described as an energy policy for the nineteenth century.

Of course just as no bill is perfect, even this bill is not totally bad.

For example, I am pleased that legislation I've initiated is being considered as part of this bill.

The bill includes the Federal Laboratory Educational Partners Act of 2003, legislation I introduced with my colleague Rep. Beauprez that would permit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and other Department of Energy laboratories to use revenue from their inventions to support science education activities in their communities.

The bill includes the Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Act, a bill I introduced to direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and demonstration of distributed power hybrid energy systems. It makes sense to focus our R&D priorities on distributed power hybrid systems that can both help improve power reliability and affordability and bring more efficiency and cleaner energy resources into the mix.

The bill includes my High Performance Schools Act, which would enable our school districts to build school buildings that take advantage of advanced energy conservation technologies, daylighting, and renewable energy to help the environment and help our children learn. As included in the conference report, my bill would be expanded to help state and local governments improve not only energy efficiency in schools, but also in public buildings in general.

I am also pleased that this bill includes the Clean School Buses Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean, alternative fuel buses.

But despite these bright spots, most of the bill is bad policy--bad for the environment, bad for the taxpayers, and bad for the country.

Like its predecessor in the last Congress, this bill puts all its eggs in one basket, the wrong basket. For every step the bill takes to move us away from our carbon-based economy, it takes two in the opposite direction.

The bill fails to take any steps whatsoever to require that the nation reduce its dependence on oil or improve the fuel economy of our cars, trucks, and SUVs. In fact, the bill makes it more difficult to update fuel economy standards by adding new requirements for redundant studies to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's CAFE standards-setting process.

By contrast, just today we learned that China is preparing to impose minimum fuel economy standards on new cars for the first time--rules that will be significantly more stringent than those in this country. This is great news for the world--but what an embarrassing proof that we won't even do as much for our own national security and the environment.

That contrast speaks volumes about this bill's priorities, which are the priorities of this Administration.

This bill not only does nothing to decrease our dependence on oil--it also does almost nothing to control demand. But increasing production while ignoring demand is a recipe for disaster.

The Administration boasts that this bill is a balanced approach because it would promote the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. But aside from a few provisions on electrical appliances and heating systems, the bill does little to promote energy conservation. And although there are some tax incentives for renewable fuels, they pale in comparison to the lavish tax breaks the bills gives the oil and gas industry.

And for all we hear from the Administration about the hydrogen provisions, the bill doesn't go far enough. It's all well and good to authorize billions of dollars to deploy hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, but the bill includes no production or deployment requirements or even goals to ensure that a meaningful number of hydrogen vehicles will be delivered to consumers.

As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I define a balanced bill as one that gives more than a passing nod to the development of alternative sources of energy. The Senate version of this bill included sensible provisions to require large utilities to get modest amounts of their power from renewable sources. Although 13 states have already passed their own versions of such a Renewable Portfolio Standard, and although the energy bill conferees just yesterday voted to include the RPS in the conference report, the Republicans stripped it out late last night. If this were really about jobs, as the Republicans claim, they would have retained the RPS provision--which experts say could create millions of new jobs in this country.

I won't even get into some of the other egregious provisions, such as the incentives in the bill for new nuclear and coal development, and the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, the main law to protect consumers from market manipulation, fraud, and abuse in the electricity sector.

Nor will I complain in detail about process--the fact that Democrats were shut out of conference proceedings, that we don't even know the cost of this 1100-page bill that we were able to review in its entirety only last night, that Republican conferees have essentially been buying votes over the last week to ensure the bill's passage.

An example of this vote-buying is the bill's language to allow polluted areas to have more time to reduce smog pollution but without having to implement stronger air pollution controls, placing a significant burden on states and communities down-wind of these urban areas.

There are other provisions related to public health that should never have been included in this bill. The bill eliminates protections for underground drinking water supplies from potential damages caused by hydraulic fracturing. The bill also provides a special liability waiver for MTBE producer who face lawsuits from states and localities for polluting their water supplies, thereby shifting cleanup costs to taxpayers.

Bad for the country, the bill is particularly bad for the West.

Many of its provisions will directly and immediately affect Colorado and other western States. We have important resources of oil and gas, as well as great potential for solar energy and wind energy. I support energy development in appropriate places and in ways that balances that development with other uses and such other vital resources as water and the people, fish, and wildlife that depend on it. Unfortunately, here again this bill does not reflect the needed balance.

Instead, it combines big subsidies for energy development with lessening of the procedural and substantive requirement that have been established to protect our lands, water, and environment.

Overall, the oil and gas title of the bill is intended to stimulate increased production from both the Outer Continental Shelf and onshore lands. It combines a series of royalty reductions, so companies will pay the public less for the oil, gas, and other energy resources developed on publicly-owned lands.

It also would completely exempt oil and gas construction activities-- including roads, drill pads, pipeline corridors, refineries, and other facilities--from the stormwater drainage requirements of the Clean Water Act.

It also has provisions designed to speed up establishing rights-of- way and corridors for oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines. Under section 350, within 2 years the federal agencies are to designate new corridors for oil and gas pipelines and electricity transmission and facilities on Federal land in the eleven contiguous Western States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. And it provides for a pilot project to speed up the processing of federal permits related to oil and gas development in several parts of the BLM lands. This includes the Glenwood Springs Resource Area in Colorado as well as areas in Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

Nothing in the bill would increase the resources available to BLM or the other federal land managing agencies to carry out their other responsibilities in connection with management of the affected lands. As a result, this bill has the potential to essentially repeal multiple-use management and to make energy development the dominant use on the public lands.

Similarly, the bill includes a requirement for a study and report on opportunities to develop renewable energy on the public lands and National Forests as well as lands managed by the energy and defense departments--including units of the National Wilderness Preservation System and wilderness study areas, National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, and other environmentally-sensitive areas. At best, this is a prescription for controversy. At worst, it threatens to open the door for incompatible development on lands that should be left as they are.

These are big steps backward. So is the provision that would allow geothermal-energy leases to be in effect converted into claims under the Mining Law of 1872.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we need a well-designed policy to meet the challenges of our time, not a policy that will diminish our energy security. With the Middle East--the world's main oil-producing region-- in turmoil, we must question the predictability of future foreign oil supplies. Fully 30 percent of the world's oil supply comes from the volatile and politically unstable Persian Gulf region. Yet with only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home.

This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. I only wish my colleagues in the House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology that exists today.

In much the same way that America set about unlocking the secrets of the atom with the ``Manhattan Project'' or placing a man on the moon with the Apollo program, we can surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil.

This bill would continue our addiction to finite and politically unstable energy resources, while undermining public health, the environment, and ultimately our national security itself. It should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. But I do have reservations about a number of provisions included in it.

As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I have worked for years to increase--or at a minimum, hold steady--funding for DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development programs. So I am disappointed that for yet another year, the bill shortchanges these important clean energy programs.

Given our finite supply of fossil fuels and increasing global demand, investing in clean energy is more important than ever. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests, helping provide strategies and tools to address the environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades. By reducing air pollution and other environmental impacts from energy production and use, they also constitute the single largest and most effective federal pollution prevention program.

Investments in sustainable energy technologies meet multiple other public policy objectives. Far from decreasing, U.S. dependence on imported oil has increased to record levels over the past 25 years. These programs are helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports, thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds of new domestic businesses, supporting thousands of American jobs, and opening new international markets for American goods and services.

While these technologies have become increasingly cost-competitive, the pace of their penetration into the market will be determined largely by government support for future research and development as well as by assistance in catalyzing public-private partnerships, leading to full commercialization.

For our investment in these technologies to pay off, our efforts must be sustained over the long term. This bill does not do that. This bill is fully $75 million less than last year's bill in the area of research energy research. Much of this reduction is used to fund a new Office of Electricity Transmission and Distribution. Cuts to renewable energy accounts are also used to boost hydrogen programs fully $38 million above last year's levels. Although I'm certainly supportive of both the electricity and hydrogen programs, I believe they should be additive to take advantage of the synergies they present with the other important and established programs at DOE. Instead, the bill cuts biomass/ biofuels by $14.4 million, solar energy by $9.4 million, and geothermal by $3.8 million.

I believe that the reductions in funding levels for the core renewable energy programs are ill-advised at a time when the need for a secure, domestic energy supply is so crucial. Clean energy technologies have a critically important role to play in promoting public health and enhancing the energy security of the nation by promoting fuel diversity, harnessing safe and abundant domestic resources, and expanding the use of small-scale, dispersed technologies.

Overall, the bill provides necessary funding for some important Army Corps of Engineers projects and for DOE's Office of Science and non- proliferation programs. It also includes critical funding for defense environmental management programs--in particular, funding for Rocky Flats, the former weapons production site in Colorado. Funding in this bill keeps Rocky Flats on track for finishing cleanup and closure by the end of 2006.

So on balance, Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill contains more good than bad. Although I am not satisfied with the levels of funding in this bill for DOE's clean energy programs, I will continue to work to increase funding for these programs in years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Don Mock for his exemplary public service as a member of the Boulder City Council from 1996 through 2003. I would like to thank him on behalf of all Boulder's citizens for the depth and diversity of contributions he has made to ensure that our city remains a very special place to live.

Raised in Florida, Don received his BS and MS in Physics from the University of Florida, and his PhD in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Washington. He has worked as a Research Assistant in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and as a Support Scientist for the Physical Oceanography Group of the NASA/ Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In 1989, Don moved to Colorado to work as Systems Manager for the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Since 1991 he has been a Systems Manager and later a Director of Computing and Network Services at the Climate Diagnostics Center of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Environmental Research Laboratories.

In 1996, Don was appointed to the Boulder City Council and elected a year later to another term. On the Council, he quickly earned the respect of his colleagues for his intelligence, sound judgment, and moderate approach to a wide range of issues. He provided thoughtful and skilled leadership in the areas of budget policy, taxes, transportation, affordable housing, school overcrowding and the environment. Don was actively engaged in resolving the status of the 9th and Canyon hotel site and was a strong proponent of the comprehensive rezoning project to address commercial growth issues.

He has served successfully in such diverse organizations as the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the Bureau of Conference Services and Cultural Affairs, the Boulder Community Celebrations, and the Dairy Center for the Arts. An important part of his focus on Council has been sensible growth management, sustainable use of resources, and a strong, stable economy.

Prior to his appointment to Council, Don was chair of the City's Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and served four years as a co-chair of the Whittier Neighborhood Association, as well as two years on the Steering Committee for the Pine Street/Whittier Traffic Mitigation Project. In 1995, he was especially effective in working with the Citizens for Parks and Recreation to successfully pass the Parks Ballot Issue which led to new acquisitions of park land in the city of Boulder. Over the years, Don has been unswerving in his commitment to policies that serve the environment, the education and health of people, and principles of integrity and fairness.

I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Councilman Mock for his years of public service and his contributions to the people of Boulder, Colorado. I wish him continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Spenser Havlick, who this month is retiring from membership on the Boulder, CO, City Council. Elected to the council in 1982, Spense has had 21 years of distinguished public service.

Born in Oak Park, IL and raised in Green Bay, WI, he received his B.A. Degree from Beloit College, his M.A. from the University of Colorado in limnology and his Ph.D. in environmental planning and water resource management from the University of Michigan.

He became the Assistant Dean and Director of the College of Environmental Design at the University of Colorado in Boulder in 1975. His research and teaching focused on natural hazard mitigation, the citizen's role in the planning process, and the impact of urbanization on the environment. He has written on ecology and design and is preparing another book on transportation management and traffic calming.

He has taught at the University of Michigan and Murdoch University in Western Australia, consulted for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Information Agency.

With this outstanding academic background, Spense has been a champion of the values that embody the spirit of Boulder. His commitment to defending these values made him a distinctive member of the council.

A passionate environmentalist, Spense had a two-decade struggle with transportation problems and worked diligently to promote public transportation, rail service between Denver and Boulder, bicycle paths, city open space and pedestrian walkways.

In his role as professor of environmental design at the University of Colorado, Spense encouraged his students to adopt Boulder's environmental values. He urged students to give up their cars, get more exercise and walk, or use alternative transportation.

A top vote getter in all his elections, Spense promoted a strategy to find more affordable housing, worked on growth management, led the effort for the largest purchase of open space in the history of Boulder and worked to streamline the city's budget in tough economic times.

Spense's civic commitment is demonstrated through his service on the City Council Environmental and Transportation Committees, as an Eco- cycle block leader, and as a Commissioner for the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority.

The City Council of Boulder, CO, has been fortunate to have had Spenser Havlick as a member for the past 21 years. On behalf of Boulder's residents, I wish him well as he continues to pursue his commitment to a better community and State.

Mr. Speaker, when this House voted on H.R. 1588 in May, I voted against it. I didn't think the bill as it stood then was one I could endorse. The conference report that we are considering today is marginally better. Although I still have strong reservations, I will support the conference report.

We are 2 years into our war on terrorism and still engaged in military action in Iraq. There is no doubt that we must continue to focus on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our military personnel, and we must give our military the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world.

That's why I'm in favor of provisions in the bill that support those men and women who have put their lives on the line in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill provides an average 4.15 percent pay raise for service members, boosts military special pay and extends bonuses, and funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations.

I am pleased that the report includes provisions recognizing the importance of non-citizen soldiers and the many sacrifices and contributions they have made. The report eases the naturalization process for these soldiers and their families, reducing to one year the length of service requirement for naturalization during peacetime; allowing soldiers to apply and take oaths for citizenship overseas; and granting permanent resident status to the surviving family of U.S. citizen soldiers who are granted posthumous citizenship as a result of death incurred in combat.

I'm also pleased that this bill will allow approximately one-third of eligible disabled military retirees to receive both their retirement and disability benefits. I would have preferred that the bill extend this ``concurrent receipt'' to all disabled retirees, but this is a great improvement on the bill the House considered earlier this year-- which included no such provisions. I am also pleased that the bill extends the military's TRICARE health coverage to National Guard and reservists and their families if servicemembers have been called to active duty. These are all necessary and important provisions that I support.

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

I don't believe it addresses 21st century threats as well as it could. With the exception of the Crusader artillery system, the Administration and Congress have continued every major weapons system inherited from previous administrations. So although the bill brings overall defense spending to levels 13 percent higher than the average Cold War levels, it doesn't present a coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities.

The bill still includes provisions that would exempt the Department of Defense from compliance with some requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). There is broad-based support for existing environmental laws--as there should be--and these laws already allow case-by-case flexibility to

protect national security. The Pentagon has never sought to take advantage of this flexibility, so it strains belief that these laws are undermining our national security. Indeed, the General Accounting Office has found that training readiness remains high at military installations notwithstanding our environmental laws. I am not persuaded that the changes to these acts proposed by the military are justified.

The bill still includes worrisome provisions to overhaul DOD's personnel system. Although they are improved from the bill the House considered earlier this year, these provisions would still strip DOD's civilian employees of worker rights relating to due process, appeals, and collective bargaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that this conference report rolls back civil service protections, environmental protections, and our work in the area of nuclear nonproliferation. But some of these provisions were improved in conference, and the addition of concurrent receipt provisions for our nation's veterans is critical. In view of these changes to the bill, added to my belief in the importance of supporting our men and women in uniform, I will support the conference report today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Middle Park Land Trust and the Denver Water Department for their efforts in creating an outstanding conservation easement for Colorado's citizens in Grand County, Colorado.

Open space in Grand County and the rest of our state is coming under increasing pressure because of the rapid expansion of Colorado's population. In response, Grand County's elected officials and citizens partnered together to begin a 7-year odyssey to protect and preserve the open ranges, meadows and ridges in the Fraser Valley. Through a series of deed restrictions, conservation easements and open space development, more than 20,000 acres of land are now under some form of protection from development in Grand County.

The Denver Water Department was encouraged to ``donate'' properties they owned because of the efforts of Grand County citizens to raise approximately $6,000 in funds to help cover some of the costs related to monitoring lands in perpetuity and to provide funds to pay legal fees in case the easement is questioned in court.

The Colorado General Assembly partnered in this historic easement by passing legislation that changed tax deductions to tax credits and increasing the value of allowable easements from $100,000 to $260,000, thus encouraging the development of multiple land trusts across the state.

Road and trail easements are now being developed to connect the towns of Fraser and Winter Park while protecting connecting routes and surrounding lands. Once again, citizens in the county, Fraser's local library and county officials have been encouraged in their efforts by the historic conservation easement crafted by Grand County citizens.

The Middle Park Land Trust has had its most successful and productive year. I applaud their innovative conservation efforts and encourage more partnerships like this, not only in Colorado's pristine mountain counties, but throughout the country as we seek to preserve our Nation's beautiful lands for now and for generations to come. Present and future generations will be thankful for the foresight in preserving some of the landscapes such as these in Grand County that inspire, enhance wildlife and recreational opportunities.

I have attached a copy of a local newspaper story about this important effort.

[From the Winter Park Manifest Oct. 29, 2003]

Meadows Are Open Forever

(By Harry Williamson)

As you take your drive into the Fraser Valley this week,

check out the meadows on the west side of Highway 40 just

south of Tabernash.

Ignoring a couple of dilapidated, ancient cabins way back

in the trees, there's not a spec of building to be seen. It's

just horses and the occasional coyote moving among the

sagebrush.

And that's the sight you're going to see forever--never a

house, never businesses bordering the highway--thanks to a

deal finalized by the county, the Middle Park Land Trust and

the Denver Water Department.

Completing seven years of work, a conservation easement has

been signed that protects the 514 acres, part of the old

Stadelman Ranch, from any type of development ever taking

place.

In addition, the approximately 300 acres on the east side

of the highway is also protected by deed restrictions signed

by the landowners that prohibits any building in those

meadows. The only land that is not removed from possible

future building is the approximately 160 acres at the far

north end, just before Tabernash, which is owned by the city

of Arvada.

And, the approximately 45 acres of meadow in the Hidden

River Ranch subdivision, located just north of the meadows on

the west side of the highway is also removed from development

by a deed restriction.

So what you see today in those meadows, is pretty much what

you're always going to get.

``In all of our surveys concerning what land local

residents wanted to see protected, these meadows were always

very high on the list,'' said Cindy Southway, Land Trust

director.

The easement on the west side meadows was signed between

Denver Water and the county, which was assisted by the Land

Trust in developing the agreement.

Denver Water also owns the slightly more than 900 acres

atop the ridge further west of the meadows, heavily-treed

land that the agency likely plans to sell for development.

Commissioner James Newberry said that under the agreement a

developer would be able to use the meadows as a portion of

the open space required to develop the remainder of the land

under the county's Rural Land Use Process, which requires at

least 66 percent open space. This type of land development

was developed by the county in 1999 as a way to maintain the

rural character of the county.

County officials said that since the land atop the ridge is

not included in an urban growth area, as designated by the

county's master plan, the only way it can be developed is

through the rural land process.

Southway said that if and when the land is sold for

development, it is hoped that a new conservation easement

could be developed between the new owner and the Land Trust.

``We're in the business of holding these easement, and we

could work with that developer to tighten it (the easement)

up to get them tax benefits,'' she said.

The effort to get the meadows under easement was started

approximately seven years ago by the Land Trust, then called

the Grand County Land Conservancy. The idea, however,

floundered over the years for various reasons, including

Denver Water's hesitance to make what the Land Trust referred

to as a ``donation'' to cover some of the cost of

``monitoring the land for perpetuity. Southway added that

funds are also needed to be held in reserve to pay legal fees

in case the easement is ever questioned in court.

She said that when a landowner balks at making a donation,

then the Land Trust does fundraisers to obtain the funds,

with approximately $6,000 raised for the Denver Water

project.

Newberry said that the county, involved in other

discussions with Denver Water, suggested a few months ago

that negotiations on the easement possibility be resumed. He

said that due to state legislation passed last year counties

are now able to hold non-development easements.

``Once Denver Water started talking about it, we got this

thing done in record time, considering there was a government

entity on the two ends of the deal,'' Newberry said.

He added that the negotiations, once restarted, took just

under three months.

Newberry said another agreement has been finalized where

Denver Water has donated an easement of an existing old farm

road that extends along the bottom of the ridge. He said the

county's plan is to make the roadway part of the Fraser

Valley Parkway, which has been a concept for the last 20

years as an alternative route to Highway 40. Officials said,

once developed, the roadbed would be a 60 feet wide collector

road consisting of two lanes.

He said the county has already acquired the necessary

right-of-way for the parkway from County Road 522, through

two developments near Tabernash and on through, via the

Denver Water road, to County Road 50.

Newberry said the county is currently working with the town

of Fraser, the library and the people who own the land

between County Roads 50 and 73 to identify and purchase a

road easement. Once this route, to also include a trail

easement, is determined the road would connect with the

existing parkway. Plans are for the parkway to then run

through a still-to-be-determined route through the Rendezvous

subdivision and on through the town of Winter Park.

Southway said 2003 has been a very successful year for the

Middle Park Land Trust, which was started in 1995. She said

that, during the year, approximately 1,400 acres have either

been put under easement or that an agreement is being

finalized. She added that its been her agency's most

productive year, due in large measure to legislation passed

last year that gives Colorado tax credits for land put under

a conservation easement.

She explained that the state before was like the federal

government where a tax deduction was given.

``The State of Colorado changed to a tax credit, and

increased the maximum value of the easement allowable for the

credit from $100,000 to $260,000. These tax credits are

dollar for dollar, and they're a commodity, they can be sold.

This makes it much more attractive for landowners, who retain

ownership and use of the land. They just can't develop it,''

she said.

``The exciting thing is that it has been a great year for

land trusts all across Colorado,'' she added.

Southway said that there are currently approximately 20,000

acres of land now under some form of non-development easement

in Grand County.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an innovative and significant agreement between the various communities in Boulder County, Colorado. Working together in a spirit of cooperation, the nine municipal communities in the county came together with Boulder County to produce this agreement which will help promote wise planning and smart growth management and thereby preserve the quality of life in the county and these communities.

Called the Boulder County Countywide Coordinated Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement (or the Super IGA), this plan was signed on October 16, 2003 by Boulder County and the communities of Boulder, Erie, Jamestown, Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, Lyons, Nederland and Superior.

In Colorado, as in many States, intergovernmental agreements are typically created to address common management issues between neighboring communities. With this Super IGA, communities within the entire county have come together to address common concerns and issues and have established a roadmap for the benefit of all residents of the county.

Over the past few years, county and city officials labored to come to terms on an accord that outlines growth boundaries for development, provides land use regulations that prevent growth into hazardous areas like flood plains, and designates buffer zones between communities. An IGA of this magnitude, across nearly 800 square miles, consisting of a dozen different municipalities, and encompassing over 300,000 people, is a remarkable achievement.

This Super IGA is based on more than 10 underlying plans that inherently permit flexibility through an open amendment process. It is that basic flexibility that will likely drive this 20 year agreement, allowing the various governing bodies to strive for their individual success, yet within the framework of a larger consensual accord.

This innovative and forward-looking approach to planning and growth management is indeed exciting. Clearly, as this is a new approach, we all are watching this carefully and hope that it is successful. But its very creation shows that communities can come together and work toward common goals. Boulder County and these communities have embarked on an approach which I hope will continue to foster positive intergovernmental relationships, and strengthen the sense of our collective community. It's an example of the things that local communities can do to make sure that growth and development complement the needs and desires of citizens and local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the creators of this Boulder County Super IGA, and in wishing them continued success. For our colleagues' information, I am attaching an article from the Colorado Daily newspaper.

[From the Colorado Daily, Oct. 16, 2003]

``Super IGA Now Rules Local Land Use in Boulder

(By Richard Valenty)

Mayors from Boulder County municipalities joined Boulder

County Commissioners in signing the Boulder County Countywide

Coordinated Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental

Agreement Thursday at A Spice of Life Event Center in

Boulder.

Fortunately, the document has a short name, the ``Super

IGA.'' The Super IGA partially coordinates at least ten

smaller Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA), called Underlying

Plans.

IGA's, in general, often involve land use regulations to

prevent situations like development in naturally hazardous

areas like flood plains, or to manage growth by creating

buffers of open space between communities. For example, the

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is a joint land use plan

between the city and county of Boulder, thus is an IGA

between the two entities.

``These IGA's are sort of a shared vision by the county and

by various cities and towns about where growth will happen,

and what parts of the county we want to see remain rural in

the future,'' said Ron Stewart, Boulder County Commissioner.

Representatives of the city of Boulder, Boulder County,

Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, Erie, Jamestown, Lyons,

Nederland and Superior signed the Super IGA. The town of Ward

is not participating, since federal

lands and county open space surround it and therefore urban

sprawl is not a concern.

According to Stewart, the Super IGA agreement is the

culmination of years of hard work.

``I've been working on this for about the last three

years,'' said Stewart. ``Also, the city managers and

administrators throughout the county have been very helpful

in putting this together. Every city council in the county

ultimately voted in favor of this. Our county attorney told

me that by the time we got it done, it was on its 30th

draft.''

The City of Lafayette was the last county municipality to

agree to be part of the Super IGA. According to Stewart, it

was difficult to create a draft that would satisfy everybody.

``Lafayette simply had more concern about the agreement

than other cities, and it took us longer than others to work

those issues out,'' said Stewart. ``After the drought last

year, they wanted assurance that they could build new

reservoirs for water storage.''

Not all of Boulder County was covered by an IGA before

Thursday, but the Super IGA contains a clause to ``cover

additional unincorporated areas not covered by any Underlying

Plan.''

``The Super IGA covers additional territory in the county

that would have been outside the area of those agreements,''

said Stewart.

The Super IGA document is also designed to limit annexation

plans of one entity from encroaching on another entity's

Influence Areas, according to the document.

``The Super IGA says that everyone will respect each

other's planning area, and that one town isn't going to be

providing utility services in somebody else's planning

area,'' said Stewart. ``It's the kind of commitment to

planning and to a shared vision that allows us to keep the

quality of life that we have in Boulder County.''

Stewart added that Boulder residents should not fear

situations like the city of Jamestown trying to influence the

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, since Underlying Plans

would only be amended by members of the underlying IGA.

``No group or committee is created out of the formation of

the Super IGA,'' said Stewart. ``If anyone wants to change a

land use designation, the various underlying IGAs would have

to be amended. In our Comprehensive Plan, the city and county

of Boulder could change it without the approval of the rest

of the Super IGA.''

Also, the Super IGA states that additional issues such as

sales tax revenue sharing, affordable housing and library

services could eventually become parts of regional

agreements.

``There isn't any serious talk of revenue sharing right

now,'' said Stewart. ``That paragraph is meant to state that

there is additional work that could be done in terms of

regionalism.''

James Burrus, Boulder County media information officer,

called the signing of the Super IGA ``truly historic.''

Burrus indicated that this is the only agreement of its kind

in Colorado, and Stewart believes it has some national

significance as well.

``There are places in America where they do this kind of

planning, setting urban growth boundaries, but these are

places where the law requires it to happen,'' said Stewart.

``The historic thing here is that nobody required anybody to

do this. It was done voluntarily.

``This is really a statement that even in a state like

Colorado, where land use laws don't encourage a lot of

cooperation, we were all able to get on the same page on a

voluntary basis,'' said Stewart.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Mr. Dennis Dougherty, the CEO of Visual Electronics, Ltd. Dennis has not only been a leading entrepreneur in Colorado, he is also an active leader of the Human Rights Campaign and an outspoken proponent of civil rights. Still a Republican, despite my entreaties to the contrary, Dennis is living proof that one can be a hard-driving and successful businessman and also contribute to causes that are beyond self-interest and the so-called ``bottom line.''

A Colorado newspaper recently published a profile on Dennis Dougherty and included some highlights of his career in the ever-changing high technology sector. I would like to share a few items that describe Dennis and his contributions to both the private and public sectors:

As the hands-on director of a 25 year old customer service-

oriented company, Dougherty has weathered tough economic

times by stressing attention to client satisfaction. Visual

Electronics marketing manager, Kim Johnson, said, ``If you

make a client happy, they're going to come back to you.''

Dennis was raised in Omaha, Nebraska and served in Vietnam

after being drafted by the Army. Dennis served honorably and

in a time and place where being an ``out gay person'' was

unheard of and dangerous.

Through 12 hour work days and a continuing commitment to

meet the needs of his customers, Dennis built a multi-million

dollar company providing ACD monitoring systems for call

centers, 911 emergency operations, help desks and tech

support lines. Visual Electronics is, in its own way, a prime

example of the growth potential in technology services.

Dougherty has also been a regional and national

philanthropist, supporting human rights work, aimed at

establishing equal rights for gays and lesbians. Dennis is

also a major supporter of the Colorado AIDS Project and the

National Sports Center for the Disabled in Winter Park,

Colorado.

Coloradans are proud of Dennis Dougherty and the contribution he and his company have made to our state. Through his attention to detail, his strong people skills, his sales acumen and his outstanding commitment to his work colleagues, Dennis and Visual Electronics, Ltd. are valuable members of our business community and I am proud to recognize him today.

Mr. Speaker, when this House voted on H.R. 1588 in May, I voted against it. I didn't think the bill as it stood then was one I could endorse. The conference report that we are considering today is marginally better. Although I still have strong reservations, I will support the conference report.

We are 2 years into our war on terrorism and still engaged in military action in Iraq. There is no doubt that we must continue to focus on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our military personnel, and we must give our military the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world.

That's why I'm in favor of provisions in the bill that support those men and women who have put their lives on the line in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill provides an average 4.15 percent pay raise for service members, boosts military special pay and extends bonuses, and funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations.

I am pleased that the report includes provisions recognizing the importance of non-citizen soldiers and the many sacrifices and contributions they have made. The report eases the naturalization process for these soldiers and their families, reducing to one year the length of service requirement for naturalization during peacetime; allowing soldiers to apply and take oaths for citizenship overseas; and granting permanent resident status to the surviving family of U.S. citizen soldiers who are granted posthumous citizenship as a result of death incurred in combat.

I'm also pleased that this bill will allow approximately one-third of eligible disabled military retirees to receive both their retirement and disability benefits. I would have preferred that the bill extend this ``concurrent receipt'' to all disabled retirees, but this is a great improvement on the bill the House considered earlier this year-- which included no such provisions. I am also pleased that the bill extends the military's TRICARE health coverage to National Guard and reservists and their families if servicemembers have been called to active duty. These are all necessary and important provisions that I support.

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

I don't believe it addresses 21st century threats as well as it could. With the exception of the Crusader artillery system, the Administration and Congress have continued every major weapons system inherited from previous administrations. So although the bill brings overall defense spending to levels 13 percent higher than the average Cold War levels, it doesn't present a coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities.

The bill still includes provisions that would exempt the Department of Defense from compliance with some requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). There is broad-based support for existing environmental laws--as there should be--and these laws already allow case-by-case flexibility to protect national security. The Pentagon has never sought to take advantage of this flexibility, so it strains belief that these laws are undermining our national security. Indeed, the General Accounting Office has found that training readiness remains high at military installations notwithstanding our environmental laws. I am not persuaded that the changes to these acts proposed by the military are justified.

The bill still includes worrisome provisions to overhaul DOD's personnel system. Although they are improved from the bill the House considered earlier this year, these provisions would still strip DOD's civilian employees of worker rights relating to due process, appeals, and collective bargaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that this conference report rolls back civil service

protections, environmental protections, and our work in the area of nuclear nonproliferation. But some of these provisions were improved in conference, and the addition of concurrent receipt provisions for our nation's veterans is critical. In view of these changes to the bill, added to my belief in the importance of supporting our men and women in uniform, I will support the conference report today.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill as a necessary first step toward greater protection for the millions of Americans who have invested in mutual funds.

Anyone who reads the daily newspapers is aware of the need for greater vigilance by the Securities and Exchange Commission to prevent continued practices by fund managers and others that enrich favored individuals and groups at the expense of the majority of mutual-fund shareholders.

I do understand that there are concerns about some parts of the bill, including a provision that would authorize an increase in the fees charged for redemption of fund shares, presumably as a way to reduce the likelihood of some transactions that would have adverse effects on other shareholders.

I have heard from people in Colorado who think that the costs to shareholders of such fee increases would outweigh its benefits, and I think they make some good points in support of that view.

However, my understanding is that while the bill would authorize such fee increases, it does not mandate them. And, on balance, I think the potentially adverse effects of this provision are outweighed by the desirable changes to current law that would be made by other parts of the bill.

So, I will vote for the bill as a necessary first step to respond to a real and urgent problem. My hope is that it will be further refined as the legislative process proceeds in the other body and possibly in conference.

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

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill which was introduced by our colleague and my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). As a cosponsor of the bill, I want to thank the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), as well as the Committee on Education and the Workforce chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for making it possible for the House to consider the bill today.

As my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has explained, the bill would reauthorize the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. The institute is part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, which is located at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Its purpose is to provide mediation and facilitation to help resolve environmental conflicts.

The bill would authorize appropriation of $4 million annually for the institute's work in fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The institute's projects involve a wide range of environmental natural resource and public lands issues. It provides impartial, nonpartisan expertise and services to all parties involved, and works with private individuals and organizations as well as with Federal, State, local agencies and Indian tribes.

Over the past 5 years, it has had requests for assistance in more than 100 cases across 30 States. And there is every indication that the number of requests will increase in the years ahead.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill that will reauthorize an important program that aims at resolving conflicts and reducing the need for litigation. I urge its approval.

Again, I want to thank the leaders of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing this important bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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