Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Senate recently passed a revised version of H.R. 1904, the ``Healthy Forests'' bill and the administration has made plain its desire that action on this legislation be completed soon.

The bill deals with several other matters, but most attention has been focused on Title I, which deals with forest-thinning projects on federal lands.

I support well-designed thinning projects that are focused where they will do the most good--but I do not think such projects, alone, will be enough.

To illustrate what I have in mind, I want to bring to the attention of our colleagues a story from the Boulder, Colorado Daily Camera.

The story focuses on the efforts of homeowners in Boulder County to protect their homes and the way that their efforts paid off during wildfires. Such ``defensible space'' measures, based on common sense can be readily adopted by homeowners, and there are many available sources of assistance. For example, in our state the Colorado State Forest Service has a program to help private property owners assess their property for fire and develop a plan to help reduce risks. These and other programs--such as actions by local government to require the use of fire-resistant materials and other steps to reduce fire risks-- can go a long way to help prevent and reduce the losses from wildfires. It would also be desirable for the nation's insurance industry to lend its assistance to encourage people whose insured property is in forested areas to take some responsible steps to make their homes more defensible from fire.

We cannot stop all fires--nor should we, because fire is a natural part of many forested ecosystems. But we can work together to reduce the risks to lives and property. We need to look beyond jurisdictional boundaries and help encourage all techniques--such as defensible space--that will make homes, communities and watersheds more resistant to the more catastrophic and damaging effects from fire when it inevitably does come.

[From the Daily Camera, Nov. 4, 2003]

Fire Precautions Save Homes

fire-resistant materials, thinned trees credited

(By Mary Butler)

All his neighbors told David Mitchell that they thought his

house had burned in last week's Overland Fire outside of

Jamestown.

``But when I drove up to the place the next morning,'' he

said, ``about a 2-foot ring around the house wasn't burnt.''

The 2,800-square-foot home on County Road 87, where several

other homes burned to the ground, was unscathed.

Mitchell credits efforts made to create ``defensible

space,'' such as thinning trees, how his home was positioned

and his driveway's alignment, for helping to spare the house

from the fast-moving fire's path Wednesday.

Even if flames came close enough to lick the home's

exterior, he said, fire-resistant materials such as Rastra

concrete, Styrofoam blocks and steel roofing used to build

the house would have delayed its ignition.

``The fire was so hot, if we had made the building from

wood, it would have caught fire anyway,'' he said.

Since the early 1990s, Boulder County has required new

homes and large additions to homes in unincorporated mountain

communities to be built with wildfires in mind.

``When you build a new house, you're required to have a

fire mitigation plan,'' said Eric Philips, county wildfire

mitigation coordinator.

For instance, cedar shake shingles are banned from use on

mountain homes. In some areas, ``noncombustible'' materials

such as stucco, stone and cement siding are required. Tree

thinning is also a must.

A site-by-site evaluation is made to determine what

mitigation efforts ought to be made, Philips said.

Taking such precautions is thought to have saved at least

one neighborhood in Southern California, where wildfires

ravaged thousands of homes in recent weeks.

The New York Times on Sunday dedicated a front-page story

to the Stevenson Ranch neighborhood. The story described the

neighborhood's streets as wide, the homes' roofs as fire

retardant, the landscaping as moist and the surrounding

hillsides as irrigated and cleared of brush.

Some of the homes' features include double-glazed window

panes that resist heat and breakage, stucco-sealed eaves to

keep sparks from getting into attics and oversized address

numbers for easy identification. Even some of the swimming

pools are equipped with valves that allow firefighters to

draw the water, the article said.

Whether homeowners' fire-prevention measures made a

difference in the Overland Fire, Philips said, has yet to be

assessed.

But many Lefthand Canyon-area homeowners, including

Mitchell, say they did.

``Thinning trees gives us a fighting chance,'' said Nolan

Farmer, whose Overland Road home was within 40 yards of the

3,500-acre blaze.

He credits tree thinning a team of Boulder County inmates

did on his property seven years ago for saving his property.

The work was well worth the $50 he paid then, Farmer said.

Farmer also built his house with a metal roof, sealed

redwood siding and without decks in the event that flames

might come up against his home of 12 years.

John and Susan Bernart's Overland Road home, which

overlooks the hillside blackened in the blaze, wasn't

directly threatened by the fire.

But John Bernart says he had peace of mind knowing that its

straw-bale and stucco construction could hold its own against

wildfire. Besides being energy efficient, the insulating

materials are also extremely fire resistant.

``There are straw-bale houses that are 500 years old in

Europe,'' Bernart said. Still, he said, ``We're hopeful we

won't have to face this kind of threat again. Our strike of

lightning has come and gone.''

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to be able to vote for the final version of this supplemental appropriations bill, but I'm afraid the minor changes made in conference were not enough to overcome my grave reservations about the bill. So I cannot support this conference report.

I voted against the resolution that authorized the president to begin military actions in Iraq at a time and under conditions of his own choosing, regardless of the likely costs and sacrifices that would be required. I was concerned that the Bush Administration had a plan only for invasion, not for the subsequent ``peace'' and occupation, and was too ready to go it alone.

But Congress unwisely authorized the president to make Iraq the center of our war on terrorism, even without broad-based international support, and did so without a responsible debate that fully weighed the pros and cons of this strategic choice.

In short, I did not think Congress should give the president such a blank check--but we did, and the bills are coming due.

Now President Bush has asked Congress for an emergency appropriation of $87 billion--the largest supplemental appropriation in history. His request comes when our economy is weak, there are escalating needs for national defense, homeland security, and domestic programs--and he is still pressing for more tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy.

Of course, the Iraq bills must be paid. We must support our troops. And I support helping Iraq rebuild. It is in our national interest to have a stable Iraq, which will mean a safer environment for our troops and will be their ticket home. But I don't believe that our children should pay for the entire $87 billion. In the past, our wars have been paid for by the generations that fought them. That is a reasonable policy and I think it should be true for Iraq.

If none of this money is to be a loan--and that is what the conference report provides--we should roll back the president's tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. But we are not being allowed to vote on that idea. The Republican leadership refuses to let the Congress debate who should pay, or debate about priorities--in the war on terrorism or here at home.

Rejecting this flawed bill will not immediately cut off funds for our troops. CRS has confirmed that they have enough money to continue operations well into next year. There is no reason we can't have the normal ``pay-as-you-go'' approach that provides funding in installments and only after certain benchmarks and milestones are met. And the Bush Administration showed its hand when it threatened to veto any bill that includes loans as part of the reconstruction of Iraq. If the debate were about supplying the troops, why would the president think of vetoing their money?

I will not vote to spend billions in Iraq unless the administration does what it should already have done--that is, to provide detailed plans for Iraq's reconstruction and security; make concerted efforts to secure increased international participation under a UN resolution; demonstrate greater flexibility and openness toward questions of control over reconstruction and democratization; and craft a fiscally responsible plan to provide for the billions of dollars necessary.

To merely rubber stamp administration requests, as this conference report essentially does, is a neglect of our congressional duties, and I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Colorado's Regional Transportation District (RTD) for being named the best transit agency in the United States and Canada by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

The APTA represents 1,500 public transportation agencies nationwide. This award is given for large systems that provide more than 30 million passenger trips per year, and is based on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the member agencies. The award measures performance over a 3-year period, and recognizes outstanding service and operations from 2000 to 2002.

Denver has been named the most congested city of its size in America and the third most congested city nationally. So, RTD's task is a big one. But it has performed admirably--keeping its operating costs competitive, increasing its ridership and delivering outstanding service to its customers. The District provided more than 81 million passenger miles last year within the seven county metropolitan Denver area, operating over 1,100 buses over 179 routes and 49 light rail vehicles. At the same time, through an aggressive accident prevention program, RTD has reduced accidents over the 3-year period by 54 percent. To date in 2003, accidents have been reduced an additional 32 percent below last year's levels, reaching another all-time record low. And, with an attentive response to Colorado's ever-growing population, RTD has continued to add rail and bus transit services and been able to reduce traffic congestion by 13 percent by providing mass transit options throughout the metropolitan area. Congestion costs have been reduced by $220 million annually, reducing air pollution, fuel consumption, and drive times.

With its sites on the future needs of the metropolitan region, new light rail systems are being planned and developed. A recent public- private partnership with the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the City and County of Denver and local landowners, a development effort will renovate historic Union Station and the surrounding 19 acres to create an intermodal facility that will develop and expand transportation systems and commercial opportunities in central Denver.

RTD has been recognized for its quality, its sophisticated operations and its many safety improvements. Employees at the District benefit from General Manager, Cal Marsella's hands-on management style, and RTD has been recognized for its advancement of minority and female employees, and sensitivity to low-income and disabled customers through eco-passes and specially equipped buses. RTD's internal management has focused on strong marketing and community relations, policy development, financial management, and improved departmental and safety operations. With a concerted effort to provide innovative approaches to challenging transportation needs, Marsella has guided his 2,400 employees and 725 private service provider employees to achieving this outstanding award.

I think Mary Blue, the RTD Chairman of the Board, put it well when she commended the staff by saying ``Winning APTA's highest award shows that our prudent policies and sensible fiscal approach have paid off. This is a win not only for our employees and board members, but also for our passengers and taxpayers.''

The Denver metropolitan area and Colorado are fortunate to have the Regional Transportation District provide outstanding service to its residents. We applaud their performance and celebrate the well deserved recognition they have received from the American Public Transportation Association.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. And as I begin to make some comments about it, I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) explained, this bill would expedite an exchange of lands between the city of Golden and the Federal Government. I join the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) in introducing the legislation. I want to extend my thanks for his initiative and for his great cooperation and hard work on this important piece of legislation, particularly the people of Golden and of this particular area.

I also want to join the gentleman in extending my appreciation to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), and the

ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), as well as our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for making it possible for us to move the bill quickly to the floor of the House.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) whose district abuts our district and without whose help we could not have moved this legislation.

The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) exhaustively and with great detail explained what this measure does. And I wanted to just emphasize that not only does the legislation meet the needs and interest of the city of Golden, but it also benefits the public interest as well. The gentleman explained that this land that would be exchanged helps the Continental Divide Trail so that it can move ahead with the important work that it is doing on a noncash basis. This transfer does not involve resources so they can put them towards completing the trail and maintaining the trail.

It also gives the city of Golden certainty that it can proceed with this project, and if for some reason the exchange cannot be completed, the city will buy the lands. It has made a good faith commitment toward doing this.

In conclusion this is a win-win-win across the board. It will help us respond to what has been an unprecedented drought in our State. It is an example of how, if we work together in Colorado and in this Congress, we can meet the increasing needs for water in the west.

This is a bill that on its surface may appear to be modest, but it is very important for the city of Golden, for our Colorado residents, and for all the Americans who will take advantage of the Continental Divide Trail. I would urge its support and its adoption. It is bipartisan and noncontroversial. I would like to thank, again, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) for his hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his work on behalf of this legislation today.

As a Coloradan but also as an American, I rise to tell the body what a beautiful and unique place the Black Canyon is. This bill which has already passed the Senate, would revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in Colorado. It was introduced by our senior Senator, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. A similar bill was introduced by our colleague here in the House and the chairman of our Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

They took the initial lead back in 1999 and 2000 in securing the enactment of the legislation that established the National Conservation Area and redesignated the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument as a national park. They deserve our special thanks today for their leadership and then also for making it possible for this bill to be on the House floor today.

The bill today authorizes additions to both the park and the National Conservation Area, the NCA. And according to the Interior Department, these transactions should meet the present and future land requirements for the park.

The present land owners are willing sellers and the legislation is also supported by the Montrose County Commissioners, the Montrose Chamber of Commerce, and the local and national land trusts involved in the project. So you can see it has widespread support.

The bill also provides for the expansion of the conservation area which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, by the addition of about approximately 5,759 acres that were acquired by the Federal Government in February of 2000 from a willing seller through a land exchange. This acquisition was not completed in time to include the lands within the original conservation area boundaries, so we have come back to the Congress now to make that the law.

The parcel includes approximately five miles of the Gunnison River and provides important resource values and recreational opportunities.

Finally, there are an additional 1,439 acres of adjacent BLM-managed public lands that are in the public estate, but would now be transferred over to the conservation area.

So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan, noncontroversial bill. It will add important lands to both the park and the conservation area, help the economy in that area, and also make sure that Americans of all stripes and backgrounds can enjoy an even greater section of this beautiful part of Colorado. So I would urge its adoption by the full House today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I will be brief; but I did want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his work on behalf of this important piece of legislation and commend my cousin, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), for bringing this bill forward.

Those of us who live in the greater Southwest know that these archaeological sites are not only great attractions but they add to our quality of life and our sense of history in the greater Southwest. We also understand that these sites have much to teach us about what the people who lived in the Southwest experienced 1,000 and more years in the past, and I think they successfully lived on the land; but they also, in the long run, did not survive, it appears, or they moved to other parts of North America, and the lessons that are hidden in these ruins and these archaeological sites I think can help us be better stewards and live on the land lightly in the Southwest.

I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), as well, because we understand this is a great example of a public-private cooperative effort where landowners' rights are acknowledged and respected but also the interests of the public, and the public good are acknowledged in this important legislation.

So I rise in support and urge the House to adopt this significant piece of legislation for all of us who live in the Southwest.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Margaret ``Mardy'' Murie, one of America's true heroines.

Born in Seattle, Washington in 1902 and reared in Fairbanks, Alaska when it was truly the western frontier, Mardy and her husband, Olaus, were instrumental in the development of the American conservation and land protection movement. Her passing on October 19 at

102 years old marks the departure of one of this country's most impassioned conservation leaders.

From her early upbringing in Alaska, Mardy gained a deep respect and love of the region's vast rugged terrain--its unspoiled lands and its remarkable wildlife.

As the first woman graduate of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, she became a tireless advocate for the protection of Alaska as a national treasure. She once said, ``When I was a child, Alaska seemed too vast and wild ever to be changed, but now we are coming to realize how vulnerable this land is. I hope we have the sensitivity to protect Alaska's wilderness . . .''

Upon graduation in 1924, Mardy married naturalist Olaus Murie and together they formed a partnership to not only protect this spectacular land, but other parts of the remaining American wilderness.

As an author and a lifelong activist, she inspired her husband, her family and her fellow citizens to build an entire conservation movement. For decades, the Murie family traveled the Alaskan wilderness, and once established in Wyoming, where Olaus served with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they studied the biology of both regions--its mossy tundra, its streams, grassy sloughs, its elk, coyote and moose, and its wilderness.

While her children were growing up, Mardy became an active community member, serving on the school board, campaigning for education and the local library and promoting activities for local youth. In World War II, she grew a victory garden and managed a dude ranch.

In 1944, the Muries moved to Moose, Wyoming, where their home would become a center of the wilderness movement. Following Olaus' retirement from federal service, he accepted the directorship of the Wilderness Society, later to serve as its president.

Through her wilderness experiences with Olaus, Mardy became a fierce advocate for the protection of the Brooks Range in Alaska. She authored a book, Two in the Far North, which chronicled their summer-long adventure to this Alaskan region and inspired countless others to visit the Arctic area and fight for its protection.

Their dedication and effort paid off in 1960, when the Arctic National Wildlife Range--later renamed a National Wildlife Refuge--was created.

In 1964, the Muries and many other conservationists won another major victory when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Wilderness Act into law. Working for the National Park Service, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and the Izaac Walton League at various times in her historic career, Mardy explored additional areas in Alaska and other parts of the country to determine their suitability for wilderness designation.

These continuing efforts helped achieve enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter signed into law the bill that my father had sponsored in the House of Representatives.

Mardy Murie was the recipient of numerous prestigious awards honoring her outstanding environmental work. She was awarded the Audubon Medal in 1980, the John Muir Award in 1983, the Robert Marshall Conservation Award in 1986, and an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from her alma mater, the University of Alaska. As she neared her 100th birthday in 2002, Mardy was honored with the J.N. Ding Darling Conservationist of the Year Award, the National Wildlife Federation's highest tribute.

In 1998, President Clinton awarded Mardy the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our country's highest civilian award. At the event presenting her this distinction, President Clinton said ``For Mardy Murie, wilderness is personal. She and her husband, Olaus, spent their honeymoon on a 550-mile dogsled expedition through the Brooks Mountain Range of Alaska. Fitting for a couple whose love for each other was matched only by their love of nature.''

Margaret Mardy Murie was a national treasure. As a pioneer of the American conservation movement, she was and will continue to be an inspiration to us all. Her commitment to this country's wilderness sites will be a lasting legacy to the beauty of this nation and the importance and value of preserving our wild landscapes. May her spirit and inspiration live on in all of us for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot vote for this conference report.

The annual appropriations bill for the Interior Department and related agencies is important for the whole country, but particularly for Colorado and other states that include extensive tracts of Federal lands.

It benefits all Coloradans for the Interior Department and the Forest Service to have the funding they need to do their jobs. I also support many other things that are funded in this bill, such as energy conservation programs of the Department of Energy, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.

However, when the House first considered this bill, I found it so flawed that I could not support it. I voted against it in hopes that after the Senate acted and the bill came back to the House from conference it would be improved enough so that I could vote to send it to the President for signing into law.

To a degree, that hope has been realized. The conference report does include some definite improvements on the House-passed bill.

Perhaps most importantly, the bill would provide $400 million to repay the accounts from which the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other agencies had to take funds in order to fight forest fires. This is a very great improvement over the House-passed bill, as is the fact that the conference report restores $70 million for Forest Service wildfire preparedness to keep firefighter readiness at the 2003 level, and also would provide $2.5 billion for the National Fire Plan--$1.8 billion for the Forest Service and $694 million for the Department of the Interior--which is $126 million above the President's request and includes an increase of $289 million for wildfire suppression, $11 million for hazardous fuels reduction, and $9 million for State and community fire assistance.

Those are good provisions that deserve support. And, in addition the conference report also includes some items of special value to Colorado.

For example, I am particularly glad that the conference report-- unlike the House-passed bill--includes $2.5 million to enable the Forest Service to continue its acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook watershed, in Clear Creek County, now owned by the city of Golden. Together with others in the Colorado delegation, I have been working to complete this multi-year project, and am pleased that the conference report would enable it to go forward.

Similarly, the conference report improves on the House-passed bill by providing $9 million for the acquisition of lands in the San Luis Valley--$7 million for the portion of the lands that will become a new National Wildlife Refuge and $2 million to round out the Great Sand Dunes National Park.

I strongly support this, as I also do the provisions of the conference report that would provide the Forest Service with $1 million for acquiring lands in an elk corridor in the White River National Forest and the same amount of needed work on the Continental Divide Trail, the National Park Service with funds for planning for a new curatorial facility at Mesa Verde cultural center, and the Bureau of Land Management with money for acquisitions in the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument.

But in other respects the conference report not only fails to improve on the House-passed bill, but actually is even more flawed--so flawed that I think it deserves to be rejected.

Two aspects of the conference report are particularly bad, in my opinion--one involving language that is included, and one involving a provision of the House bill that has been dropped.

The conference report includes a remarkable legislative rider that says--

nothing in the American Indian Trust Management Reform Act of

1994, Public Law 103-412, or in any other statute, and no

principle of common law, shall be construed or applied to

require the Department of Interior to commence or continue

historical accounting activities with respect to the

individual Indian Money Trust until the earlier of the

following shall have occurred:

(a) Congress shall have amended the American Indian Trust

Management Reform Act of 1994 to delineate the specific

historical accounting obligations of the Department of the

Interior with respect to the Individual Indian Money Trust;

or

(b) December 31, 2004.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems clear that this provision is intended to at least temporarily allow the Department of the Interior to refuse to comply with a recent decision in the pending Cobell v. Norton litigation dealing with the management of Indian trust accounts.

Whatever might be said in its favor, it is not the kind of thing that should be included in an appropriations bill. In fact, it would be subject to a point of order under the rules of the House except for the decision of the Republican leadership to waive the normal rules.

The subject matter of this provision is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. As a member of that committee, I share the view of Chairman Pombo that the inclusion of this language--which was not in either the House or Senate bill--in the conference report is ``an affront'' to our committee. I also share the Chairman's view that its enactment could make it even harder for our committee to play a constructive role in trying to resolve a situation that is a serious problem for both Native Americans and the Interior Department as well.

And at the same time this was being put into the conference report, section 337 of the House-passed bill was being deleted. That section was added when the House adopted a revised version of an amendment I had offered to protect not just Federal lands but also private property and the public interest.

It would have done that by preventing the Interior Department from going ahead with secret negotiations leading to back-room land deals under which the Interior Department would issue ``disclaimers of interest'' that would give away the government's claim to an interest in land.

For decades, the Interior Department issued such disclaimers to people who were on record as owning the lands involved. It was a legal technicality--important for the people involved but not a tool for changing the management of sensitive Federal lands or creating problems for private land owners. But that has changed because the Interior Department has changed its regulations. It has adopted new rules to claim broad authority to issue ``disclaimers'' to parties that wouldn't have been eligible under the old rules--and it has announced it is ready to give those `'disclaimers'' to parties seeking them in order to clear the way for building roads.

This involves the lingering ghost of the Mining Law of 1866. That was one of the 19th-century laws to promote settlement and development in the West. Among other things, it granted rights-of-way ``for the construction of highways'' on Federal lands. That provision later became section 2477 of the Revised Statutes--or RS 2477.

In 1976, RS 2477 was repealed. But the repealing law did not affect existing rights under RS 2477, and did not set a deadline for claiming those rights. So, there is no way of telling how many claims might be made or exactly what lands are affected.

But we do know that RS 2477 claims can involve not just Federal lands--lands that currently belong to the American people--but also lands that once were Federal but that now belong to other owners. That includes the

lands that were homesteaded, as well as patented mining claims and the lands that the Federal government gave to the states, the railroad companies, and other entities during the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Millions of acres of those lands now are ranches or farms, or residential subdivisions, or single-family homes, or private cabins in the mountains like ones owned by some of my constituents. And millions of acres of those lands now belong to the Native Corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Also at risk are millions of acres that are still owned by the American people--including National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as wilderness areas and areas that deserve protection as wilderness areas. This problem is not new, but it is very serious. It needs to be resolved--but not the way the Interior Department wants to resolve it. What the Interior Department wants is to negotiate in secret and then issue ``disclaimers.'' They have already started that process with the State of Utah. And other parties--including the current state Administration in Colorado--are starting to ask for deals of their own. These backroom talks need to stop. Instead of making deals, the Bush administration needs to come to Congress for new legislation.

That was what Congress told the Clinton administration when Secretary Bruce Babbitt moved to change the Interior Department's RS 2477 regulations. To make sure that Secretary Babbitt got the message, Congress passed a law that says any new RS 2477 rules must be authorized by Congress. That law is still on the books. But the Bush administration says that is irrelevant because the new ``disclaimer'' regulations are not covered, even though they intend to use their new rules for RS 2477 claims. It's an interesting argument--but, frankly, it reminds me of the argument about defining the meaning of the word ``is.'' In other words, it may be clever, but it fails the test of common sense.

Of course, the administration also says they will only make deals that are in the public interest, so Congress doesn't need to get involved. But the best way to promote the public interest is to involve the public--not to make secret deals. And the best way to resolve this issue is by enacting new legislation, after public hearings and open debate. That's why I have introduced a bill--H.R. 1639--to do just that. My bill would set a deadline--four more years--for filing RS 2477 claims. It would establish a fair, open administrative process for handling those claims and would set another deadline for any lawsuit challenging the result of that administrative process. Maybe my bill could be improved, and some of our colleagues may want to propose their own ideas--that is the legislative process. And that is how this issue should be resolved, not by backroom deals or clever maneuvers to try to side-step Congress.

That is why I offered my amendment--to block the administration from trying to circumvent Congress. And while my original amendment was not adopted, the House did adopt a narrower version proposed by Chairman Taylor himself.

That part of the House bill would have barred implementation of the new ``disclaimer'' regulations with regard to any lands within a designated National Monument, Wilderness Study Area, National Park System unit, National Wildlife Refuge System unit, or lands within the National Wilderness Preservation System.

This did not go nearly far enough, in my opinion. It did not address and would not protect all lands that could be affected by the new regulations. However, it would have protected some of the most sensitive parts of America's public lands.

That was why last week more than 100 of our colleagues joined the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, and me in sending a letter urging the conferees to at least include the House language in the conference report. We thought that was a very reasonable request, especially since that part of the House bill had been written by the chairman of the relevant appropriations subcommittee and that the administration had not expressed any opposition to it during the debate on the House floor.

However, our request was not granted, and the House's provision on this subject was omitted from the conference report. As a result, nothing in the conference report will restrain the Interior Department from implementing its new ``disclaimer'' regulations in ways that could have serious consequences for the National Parks, National Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, or the wilderness and wilderness-study areas.

Of course, I hope that won't happen. I hope that the administration will recognize that proceeding in that way will yield only unnecessary controversy and protracted litigation. I do have hope--but, frankly, I have little confidence. The administration seems determined to press ahead, and I expect that they are headed straight for the courts.

There are other things I dislike about this conference report--for example, the fact that it includes a provision to extend the recreation fee demonstration program for 15 months, which is another instance of a violation of the House's rule against including legislation in an appropriations measure. Even so, if the Indian trust provisions had been omitted and the House-passed restrictions on the new ``disclaimer'' rules had been included, I might still have been able to support it. However, I have concluded that I cannot vote for the conference report as it now stands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability for bringing the ``Green Star'' program to Vail, Colorado, and Eagle County.

In an effort to educate and encourage local residents and businesses to develop environmentally sound practices, the Green Star program is improving air and water quality, reducing energy use and waste streams and providing environmental benefits to area communities. Vail's Green Star Chapter is the tenth program initiated nationwide and the first of its kind in Colorado. It is this progressive environmental leadership that I wish to highlight today.

On October 7, The Alliance was honored by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment with its Environmental Achievement Award through the Environmental Leadership Program.

Founded in 1990, the Alaska-based Green Star Program encourages business owners and private residents to reduce waste, conserve energy and prevent pollution.

Through education, technical assistance and a nationally recognized award program, Green Star helps citizens become more environmentally sensitive without jeopardizing their budgets. Green Star standards demonstrate that waste reduction is not only environmentally responsible, but can also save money and help businesses attract customers.

Green Star Awards are given when organizations meet at least 12 of the 18 standards. Awards are given for general waste reduction, air quality improvement and reduction of air pollution. Businesses participate by educating employees, improving purchasing methods, controlling litter, reducing toxic usage, promoting water conservation and monitoring utility usage.

The Air Quality Award is Green Star's newest award, unveiled in 1999, focusing on outdoor air quality improvement activities. The standard encourages the reduction of air emissions through technical improvements, behavioral changes, and outreach and education activities. Through the improvement of equipment, better vehicle maintenance, supporting alternative transportation modes and education, air standards improve for all residents in a community.

Schools can also participate in the Green Star program. Through education on pollution prevention, recycling, composting, energy efficiency, and waste reduction and prevention, students can promote programs that protect our environment. Free trainings, workshops, and onsite consultations from Green Star experts help schools set standards in their area.

Events can earn Green Star recognition by reducing waste and recycling. With a goal of reducing the overall waste stream, efficiency is increased and a wide range of materials can be recycled. Green Star loans free bins for the length of events, encouraging reuse of cans, bottles, cardboard and paper.

Green Star's eco-friendly program was launched in the town of Vail, Eagle County and in partnership with the Environmental Committee for the Vail '99 World Championships in 1998.

Eagle County residents are actively working to have their residences certified as Green Star homes. Through a $2.50 monthly purchase of wind power, homeowners can keep thousands of pounds of pollutants from entering the atmosphere each year.

As Colorado works to preserve and protect its pristine mountain ranges, treasured forests and spectacular wilderness areas, we applaud the residents of Vail and Eagle County for setting the standard in environmental education and conservation. I have enclosed an article from the Vail Daily newspaper about this effort.

[From the Vail Daily, Oct. 18, 2003]

Local Environmental Green Star Program Recognized by State

(By Matt Zalaznick)

Patsy Batchelder says making your home environmentally

friendly isn't very hard at all--you can recycle (just about

anything), buy some wind power and not drive as often, among

other things.

Batchelder's home in Vail's Potato Patch neighborhood has

been certified by a local conservation group as one of the

most environmentally friendly homes in the valley. And those

certifications, called the ``Green Star'' program, have now

been recognized by the state health department.

``I think it's something any household can achieve

easily,'' Batchelder says. ``I would definitely like to

encourage others to do it.''

The ``Green Star'' program is spearheaded by the Eagle

Valley Alliance for Sustainability, which has been awarded an

Environmental Achievement Award by Colorado Department of

Public Health and Environment's Environmental Leadership

Program. The organization received the award at a ceremony

Oct. 7 at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

``Every year, I look forward to learning about these

exciting and innovative projects undertaken by businesses and

organizations throughout Colorado,'' said Douglas Benevento,

executive director of the Health Department. ``It is a

privilege to recognize them for their commitment to business

practices that improve air and water quality, reduce energy

use and waste streams, and provide benefit for dozens of

communities.''

The local Green Star program is a points-based program that

encourages Eagle County homeowners to reduce waste and

improve energy efficiency at home on a points basis, says

Adam Palmer, of the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability.

Enrollees must meet 12 of 17 requirements and they receive

technical assistance, an energy audit, a video tape of a

walkthrough with an infra-red camera that pinpoints heat loss

areas in the home, a certificate and decals for a $50

enrollment fee. The goal of the program is for homeowners to

become more aware of the how their homes and lifestyles

affect environment--and also save money, Palmer says.

``In the households we've certified so far, we've found

some unexpected sources of energy loss,'' Palmer says. ``It

provides a foundation on which to guide future conservation

actions, rather than wasting time and money on something that

may not provide a significant return.''

Matt Scherr, who owns a home in Minturn, says he joined the

program because he was frequently angered by the lax

environmental policies of governments and large businesses.

``I first have to commit myself to things I'm wanting from

others,'' says Scherr, whose home is going through the

certification process.

The Green Star program runs the gamut from installing

better insulation and windows to re-using plastic bags.

``We're avid Ziploc bag washers,'' Scherr says. ``We also

re-use plastic water bottles. I bought a case and have been

using the bottles for the last year.''

Scherr says he is installing additional insulation in his

attic and putting in double-paned windows. He also closes off

rooms he doesn't use very often and only turns on heat in

those rooms when he is going to use them.

One of the Green Star program requirements is that the home

gets part of its energy needs from renewable sources.

Residents can take part in the Wind Power Pioneers program

available from Holy Cross Energy to meet the requirement,

Palmer says.

``For as little as $2.50 per month, you can get part of

your energy from the wind and keep thousands of pounds of

pollution out of the air each year,'' says Palmer.

Eagle resident John Gitchell, who is a member of the Eagle

Valley Alliance for Sustainability's board, is also getting

his home Green Star certified.

``The practical piece of it is we're going to improve our

energy efficiency this year,''

Gitchell says. ``But this is kind of a lifestyle audit in a

way.''

The Green Star program also measures how much a family

drives and flies, what conservations call an ``ecological

footprint.''

``Both my wife and I work and live in the same town, so we

got some points for points for that,'' Gitchell says.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert an article in the Record that takes a look at the latest shape of the comprehensive energy bill. The author of the article is Ken Bossong, coordinator of the Sustainable Energy Coalition, a coalition of 60 national and state environmental, business, consumer, and energy policy organizations founded in 1992 to promote increased use of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus--of which I and Representative Zach Wamp are co-chairs--works closely with the Coalition to coordinate events and briefings and to otherwise spread the word in Congress and throughout the nation about the importance of clean energy.

We're told there will be a vote on the conference agreement very soon, but few Members--even fewer on our side of the aisle--know what is in the final report. But from what has been reported in the press, it seems likely that the bad in the bill outweighs the good. By not taking into consideration opposing views, the Republicans have crafted an unbalanced bill--one that ultimately doesn't address the energy needs of this country today or into the future.

[From SolarAccess.com News, Oct. 20, 2003]

A Faltering Energy Bill

(By Ken Bossong)

Barring a major train wreck--which remains within the realm

of possibility--congressional conferees may have a final

energy bill ready for votes in the U.S. Senate and House of

Representatives by the end of this month. The final product,

representing more than three years' work, will undoubtedly be

described by its authors as ``comprehensive'' and

``balanced.'' In reality, it will be neither.

Among the pressing issues facing the United States today

are those of growing oil and natural gas imports--

particularly from politically unstable regions of the world,

escalating environmental and economic damage from greenhouse

gas emissions that contribute to global climate change, and

an electrical generation and transmission system that is

unreliable and--due to its reliance on large central station

facilities--insecure. Yet the emerging energy bill will do

little to address any of these issues; in fact, it may very

well exacerbate all three.

Among the best strategies for addressing these energy

problems are greatly expanded energy efficiency initiatives

and investments in decentralized renewable energy

technologies. Yet the energy bill will probably offer little

more than crumbs for sustainable energy while continuing and

expanding federal support for the mature, polluting fossil

fuels and nuclear power industries.

It is supremely ironic that completion of work on the

energy bill may correspond to the thirtieth anniversary of

the OPEC oil embargo that began on October 17, 1973. Over the

past three decades, total U.S. oil imports have nearly

doubled with imports now accounting for more than half (54

percent) of the nation's oil consumption. Yet the energy

bill largely fails to address oil consumption in the

transportation sector--which now accounts for more than

two-thirds of U.S. oil use--by not including provisions to

substantially raise automobile fuel economy standards. It

even fails to include the Senate bill's directive (passed

by more than 90 votes) that would set a goal of reducing

oil consumption by one million barrels per day by 2013 (a

modest 5 percent of current consumption). Instead it opts

for a ``drain America first'' strategy that may include

drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, opening the

door to expanded oil exploration in moratorium areas, and

facilitating expanded development in other ecologically

sensitive areas as well as subsidies for an Alaskan

natural gas pipeline.

It is true that the final legislation will likely

incorporate a Renewable Fuels Standard that will mandate that

5 percent of liquid fuels be derived from renewable sources

which could be a boon to the domestic ethanol and biofuels

industries. Yet these fuels will be burned in increasingly

inefficient cars and SUVs which means they will be wasted and

ultimately not reduce the nation's dependency on petroleum

imports.

Similarly, natural gas imports have been inching upwards

and now exceed 15 percent of total U.S. consumption with

future imports increasingly likely to come in the form of

expensive LNG shipments from politically unstable sources

such as Algeria, Nigeria, and Oman.

Presently, more than a quarter of the natural gas used is

burned in inefficient and wasteful electricity generating

stations. The most environmentally-sound approaches to

curbing this waste, and hence imports, include improving the

efficiency of (or reducing) electricity end-uses, expanding

the use of combined power and heating systems for electrical

generation, and displacing natural gas generating plants with

renewable electric technologies. A recent study by the

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy shows that

even modest gains in energy efficiency and renewable energy

production from these kinds of policies would help reduce gas

prices substantially.

Yet the energy bill provides, at best, only limited support

for any of these strategies. Its efficiency title is expected

to include new standards to improve the efficiency of

building transformers, torchiere lighting fixtures, exit

signs, traffic lights, unit heaters, and compact fluorescent

bulbs, as well as directives to the U.S. Department of Energy

to set new efficiency standards on several other products.

Small tax incentives for combined heat and power as well as

efficient new homes, commercial buildings, refrigerators,

clothes washers, and fuel cells are also probable.

While steps in the right direction, they fall far short of

the aggressive efficiency standards, tax incentives, and

public benefits fund to support efficiency programs needed to

make a serious dent in electricity consumption. That is, the

bill completely lacks aggressive measures needed to moderate

electricity demand that would reduce the risk of future

blackouts while cutting air pollution and greenhouse gas

emissions. Moreover, the tax provisions are likely to

eliminate incentives for hybrid vehicles, the nation's best

chance to save oil in the next twenty years.

The most important provision to expand the use of renewable

electricity production and displace natural gas, a Renewable

Portfolio Standard (RPS), now appears certain to end up on

the conferees' cutting room floor. Even if a token RPS

somehow makes it into the final bill, it is apt to be a

provision significantly weaker than those already enacted by

many states and far below the projected technical and cost-

effective potential for electricity generated from solar,

wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower resources (i.e., 20

percent or more by 2020).

Failure to include a strong RPS coupled with weak or non-

existent energy efficiency standards also insures that the

final energy bill will do very little to address the

growing problem of climate change. Indeed, a climate

change title does not even exist in the bill.

Proponents of the bill suggest that it includes provisions

that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and point to

increased renewable energy authorization levels such as the

$300 million over five years to establish a solar electric

(photovoltaic) energy program for the procurement and

installation of solar electric systems in new and existing

public buildings. Left unsaid, though, is that an

``authorization'' is merely permission to spend a certain

amount of money if the funds can be found; an

``authorization'' is not an ``appropriation.''

In reality, federal funding levels for renewable energy

programs--i.e., the appropriations--have been cut during each

of the last three budget cycles, notwithstanding

authorization levels that would allow for significantly

higher funding. Given the massive budget deficits now being

forecast as a result of the White House's tax cuts and the

war in Iraq, it is extremely dubious that the recent downward

funding trend will be reversed; in fact, it is highly

probable that renewable energy budgets will be slashed even

further regardless of the authorization levels included in

the energy bill.

Moreover, the levels of federal support given to renewables

in the form of direct appropriations and tax incentives are

likely to be swamped by those being proposed for the fossil

fuels and nuclear industries which have been estimated to

total $18 billion. These include $1.1 billion to build a new

nuclear power plant, $400 million in loans for oil and gas

development loan, guarantees to build a new coal plant that

may cost $2-$3 billion, and $350 million for hydrogen

production from polluting sources. Not included in this

figure is the extension of the Price-Anderson Act which

shields nuclear utilities from most liability in the event of

a major accident; the precise dollar value of this is

incalculable but conservatively worth tens of billions of

dollars in saved insurance costs.

Consequently, the unbalanced financial incentives provided

for in the energy bill for competing energy sources may

actually worsen the competitive position of renewable energy

technologies in the marketplace.

That would further compound the problems with the

reliability of the nation's electrical grid as highlighted by

the August blackout in the Northeast and the long power

outages in the mid-Atlantic following Hurricane Isabel not to

mention the national security risks posed by excessive

reliance on highly-centralized and large-scale power

generating facilities. Distributed renewable energy electric

technologies are uniquely suited to lessening these problems.

However, the energy bill fails to create the regulatory

framework to tap this potential and, in fact, through

provisions such as the proposed revocation of the Public

Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) as well as the Public

Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), could make the situation

worse.

At the least, the energy bill should include mandatory net

metering and interconnection standards to enable renewable

energy generators to tie into the grid rather than the

essentially optional, advisory guidelines that it now

includes.

It should also include a long-term renewable energy

production tax credit (PTC), including a tradable credit for

public power and rural cooperatives, that benefits the cross-

section of renewable energy technologies. To provide some

stability and predictability in the marketplace, any such tax

incentive should be enacted for at least five to ten years.

By comparison, the proposed renewal of the Price-Anderson Act

is 20

years. However, the energy bill now provides for only a

three-year PTC extension. Such a short-term PTC threatens to

continue the start-and-stop cycle that has plagued the

renewable energy industry, particularly wind energy

developers, for more than a decade as investments dry up when

the existing PTC is set to expire and its supporters scurry

around madly trying to get another extension.

Wind energy advocates may be tempted to support the pending

energy bill arguing that a three-year PTC is far better than

no PTC just as the solar investment tax incentives,

geothermal reforms, Renewable Fuels Standard, and hydropower

relicensing components are important and generally positive

provisions that will benefit their respective industries.

Similarly, advocates of energy efficiency can point to some

gains that may come from the bill if enacted as now written.

However, when weighed against the lopsided provisions to

advance fossil fuels and nuclear power, it is questionable

whether the end result will actually move this country closer

to a sustainable energy future.

Moreover, the recent series of closed-door, Republican-

dominated, conference meetings in which the House-Senate

energy bill is being finalized, and which have largely

excluded those Democrats who have championed the bill's

efficiency and renewable energy provisions, have provided

nuclear and fossil fuel lobbyists an opportunity to further

skew the bill the wrong way.

Consequently, even if the Congress approves and the

President ultimately signs an energy bill this year, the

nation's energy policy work won't be done. The bill that is

likely to emerge is one that will evade the problems of

energy imports, global warming, and electric grid stability.

It is also one that will fail to incorporate an adequate

Renewable Portfolio Standard, auto fuel efficiency standards,

aggressive appliance and industrial efficiency standards,

mandatory net metering and transmission standards, and a

sufficient mix of tax incentives and federally-funded R&D

programs to move the nation away from its reliance on fossil

fuels and nuclear power.

Under the circumstances, while many weary renewable energy

and energy efficiency advocates may wince at the prospect, it

would likely be far better to have no energy bill than the

one that seems to be nearing completion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Colorado's Regional Transportation District (RTD) for being named the best transit agency in the United States and Canada by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

The APTA represents 1,500 public transportation agencies nationwide. This award is given for large systems that provide more than 30 million passenger trips per year, and is based on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the member agencies. The award measures performance over a 3-year period, and recognizes outstanding service and operations from 2000 to 2002.

Denver has been named the most congested city of its size in America and the third most congested city nationally. So, RTD's task is a big one. But it has performed admirably--keeping its operating costs competitive, increasing its ridership and delivering outstanding service to its customers. The District provided more than 81 million passenger miles last year within the seven county metropolitan Denver area, operating over 1,100 buses over 179 routes and 49 light rail vehicles. At the same time, through an aggressive accident prevention program, RTD has reduced accidents over the 3-year period by 54 percent. To date in 2003, accidents have been reduced an additional 32 percent below last year's levels, reaching another all-time record low. And, with an attentive response to Colorado's ever-growing population, RTD has continued to add rail and bus transit services and been able to reduce traffic congestion by 13 percent by providing mass transit options throughout the metropolitan area. Congestion costs have been reduced by $220 million annually, reducing air pollution, fuel consumption, and drive times.

With its sites on the future needs of the metropolitan region, new light rail systems are being planned and developed. A recent public- private partnership with the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the City and County of Denver and local landowners, a development effort will renovate historic Union Station and the surrounding 19 acres to create an intermodal facility that will develop and expand transportation systems and commercial opportunities in central Denver.

RTD has been recognized for its quality, its sophisticated operations and its many safety improvements. Employees at the District benefit from General Manager, Cal Marsala's hands-on management style, and RTD has been recognized for its advancement of minority and female employees, and sensitivity to low-income and disabled customers through eco-passes and specially equipped buses. RTD's internal management has focused on strong marketing and community relations, policy development, financial management, and improved departmental and safety operations. With a concerted effort to provide innovative approaches to challenging transportation needs, Marsala has guided his 2,400 employees and 725 private service provider employees to achieving this outstanding award.

I think Mary Blue, the RTD Chairman of the Board, put it well when she commended the staff by saying ``Winning APTA's highest award shows that our prudent policies and sensible fiscal approach have paid off. This is a win not only for our employees and board members, but also for our passengers and taxpayers.''

The Denver metropolitan area and Colorado are fortunate to have the Regional Transportation District provided outstanding service to its residents. We applaud their performance and celebrate the well-deserved recognition they have received from the American Public Transportation Association.

Madam Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill in the manner in which it has been brought to the floor.

The Basic Pilot program was intended to streamline the process of identifying employees eligible for work in the United States. Though the Basic Pilot program has been successful for many employers in the six participating States, there are enough serious questions about its workings that I do not believe it is ready to be implemented in all fifty States.

The bill will open up the database used in this program to all government agencies, including local and state governments. This is far more than a simple extension. There are no privacy protections for individuals in this bill. The database can be used for a plethora of reasons, not limited to the verification for employment by local, State, and federal governments across the country. This will open the door to abuse.

The database has proven to have out of date information specifically in regard to visa status. Before this program is used nationwide it is imperative that the system be purged of these inaccuracies. This poses threats that both hinder a person's legal ability to work, as well as allow ineligible individuals to obtain employment.

The program itself is not the issue at hand. The intentions of the Basic Pilot program are good for employers, employees and our economy in general. It modernizes and speeds the ability of Americans to start working. However, these intentions are fruitless if the program is not effective or efficient. Before we open this program up to the rest of the country we must ensure that it is free of the kinks that have come up since its beginning. Then and only then, should this system be available for employers throughout the country.

This bill clearly goes beyond a simple extension. It is controversial. The Basic Pilot Extension Act deserves hearings, debates, and amendments to be offered. Thus, I must vote against suspending the rule and passing this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same so that H.R. 2359 can be considered under normal procedures.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for this supplemental appropriations bill.

I voted against the resolution that authorized the President to begin military actions in Iraq at a time and under conditions of his own choosing, regardless of the likely costs and sacrifices that would be required. I was concerned that the Bush administration had a plan only for invasion, not for the subsequent ``peace'' and occupation, and was too ready to go it alone.

But Congress unwisely authorized the President to make Iraq the center of our war on terrorism, even without broad-based international support, and did so without a responsible debate that fully weighed the pros and cons of this strategic choice.

In short, I did not think Congress should give the President such a blank check--but we did, and the bills are coming due.

The people of Iraq are freer with Saddam Hussein out of power--at least for now--but our go-it-alone policies have left us with few friends willing to help cover the costs of his removal or Iraq's reconstruction. And with both the stories Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddam himself among the missing, it remains an open question whether the major result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq will be to make America safer or to fuel anti-American sentiment and support for terrorism in the Islamic world. It would be a terrible irony if the way we have waged this war means a critical loss of precious momentum against al-Qaeda and the creation of conditions for more attacks on our country.

So now, President Bush, having gotten us into one hell of a mess, is asking Congress for an emergency appropriation of $87 billion--the largest supplemental appropriations in history.

He is requesting this enormous sum at a time when our economy is weak and when domestic programs are being shortchanged. With 2.7 million jobs lost since 2001, we are on track to see a net loss of jobs over a presidential term for the first time since the Great Depression. New estimates project $5 trillion in Federal deficits over the next decade. And the president wants more tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy, despite escalating needs for national defense, homeland security, health care and education.

With the bills coming due, there are several questions to consider. First, should they be paid? I think the answer is yes. I support equipping our troops. And I support the concept of helping Iraq rebuild. I think a stable Iraq is in our national interest. A stable Iraq means a secure Iraq, which leads to a safer environment for our troops and eventually their ticket home.

But I don't support the idea that American taxpayers should pay for the entire $87 billion package.

And that leads me to the second question--who should pay the bills for Iraq? The bill we are voting on today puts the responsibility for rebuilding Iraq squarely on the shoulders of the American people, who didn't ask for this burden. It puts the responsibility on the shoulders of our children, as they will inherit the debt this $87 billion package will incur. And they didn't have a say in selecting the administration that has led us into this quagmire. Still, we ask them to sacrifice.

The Administration says its reconstruction proposal is like the Marshall plan for Europe after World War II. But the Marshall plan was not a $20 billion handout: It provided loans as well as grants. One way to offset reconstruction costs could be to provide loans to Iraq, conditioned on being matched by funds from other donors. Another way is to persuade our allies to forgive part of Iraq's $200 billion debt. The House voted yesterday on a resolution urging Germany, Russia, and France to do just that.

But the best way to offset reconstruction costs is to roll back the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. That's why I would have preferred the Obey substitute. Under this plan, the entire $87 billion bill would be paid for by canceling the tax rate cut for individuals with incomes in the top 1 percent. The substitute would take funds from the reconstruction portion of the bill and add them to programs that help our active and reserve forces and their families with their health care. It would also add funds to repair and replace equipment used in operations and construct water treatment facilities for our troops in Iraq. It would create accountability by requiring a detailed report from the President describing how funds in the previous supplemental have been spent, how funds appropriated in this bill will be spent, and the level and types of funding needed for the future. The substitute would also convert $7 billion of the reconstruction package to loans at a trust fund at the World Bank to leverage additional World Bank loans.

But we weren't allowed to vote on this substitute. Nor were we allowed to change the terms of the debate. For weeks now we have been debating where money should be spent. We should have been debating who should pay--because so long as we refuse to discuss that, we will not be facing all the realities.

We should also have been debating about the priorities on the war on terrorism. I have always believed that Iraq was not the imminent threat this administration made it out to be. While we have been preoccupied with Iraq, we've deprived Afghanistan of the funding it needs--and now that country threatens to revert to the lawless haven for terrorism it was before 9-11. The bill includes some funding for Afghanistan, but not enough.

And we should have been debating more broadly about this country's priorities, period. Sending $87 billion to Iraq undermines our ability to address unmet domestic priorities. The amount the President has requested is more than twice the amount of the Homeland Security Department's entire budget for FY2004--and yet we will still haven't provided our States and local governments with the assistance they need to improve the security of American citizens.

The leadership has refused to allow the House to even consider changing the tax cuts--in the same way that they are insisting on combining the reconstruction costs with the funds necessary to support and supply the troops. This is not the way we should do our work.

So I cannot vote for this bill today.

Rejecting this flawed bill will not immediately cut off funds for our troops. CRS has confirmed that they have enough money to continue operations at least for the rest of this year.

It seems clear that the Senate will pass a different version of this bill. If the House considers a revised version of the bill, I hope it is one I can vote for.

But today I must vote to send the bill back to the President, with this message: I will not vote to spend billions in Iraq unless the administration does what it should already have done--that is, to provide detailed plans for Iraq's reconstruction and security; make concerted efforts to secure increased international participation under a U.N. resolution; demonstrate greater flexibility and openness toward questions of control over reconstruction and democratization; and craft a fiscally responsible plan to provide for the billions of dollars necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dan Corson, who will retire next month as a member of the Boulder, Colorado City Council.

Elected to the Council in 1997, Don has had a notable career in public service.

Dan graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from Miami University in Ohio, received a Master of Arts degree from the University of Denver, and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Colorado Law School. He clerked for Judge Luis Rovira in Denver District Court and worked as an attorney in civil litigation.

As a member of Colorado Preservation, Inc., the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Historic Boulder and the Colorado Heritage Area Partnership, Dan has been a strong contributor to saving Colorado's history. Dan also served as a member of the City of Boulder's Planning Board and the City Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and shared his expertise to benefit the community and the state.

Dan now serves as the local government liaison for the Colorado Historical Society, working with citizens and local government officials interested in establishing historic preservation commissions by offering technical advice, drafting ordinances and resolutions and offering training regarding conducting meetings, preservation law and design review. Dan also administers grants to both local governments and the Historic Preservation Fund grants from the National Park Service.

Committed to providing progressive leadership on the City Council, Corson worked diligently to forge a strategy to find more affordable housing for Boulder citizens, while tightening the city's budget during difficult economic times. He also supported the largest purchase of open space in the city's history.

With the unique combination of public, private and nonprofit experience, Dan Corson has been an admirable public servant committed to bringing wisdom and innovative ideas to city government.

On behalf of the residents of Boulder, I thank him for his service on the Boulder City Council and wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a revised version of a bill to facilitate the acquisition by the Federal Government of mineral rights or other non-Federal interests in lands that are located within the boundaries of the Rocky Flats site in Colorado.

The bill is cosponsored by my Colorado colleague, Representative Beauprez. It is based on H.R. 2653, which I introduced earlier this year, but includes a number of changes reflecting suggestions by Representative Beauprez. I greatly appreciate his support for this measure.