Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my disappointment with and strong opposition to this bill.

It is one thing to make government more lean; it is another thing to cut jobs year in and year out at facilities all over the country--not because there is fat to cut at these facilities, but because the Subcommittee allocation simply doesn't provide enough money to go around.

Under the bill as it stands, important scientific facilities in my district in Colorado--the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-- will see approximately 200 jobs lost, maybe more. NOAA's labs in Boulder will see a cut of 40 percent in funding in FY2004--that's nearly cutting its budget by half in one year! I don't have as precise information on NIST, but I am told NIST stands to lose roughly 300 jobs between its labs in Maryland and Colorado--fully 10 percent of its staff.

The bill doesn't fund mandatory cost-of-living increases for both NIST and NOAA--so funds for these increases come out of programs and out of the salaries of workers who are left without jobs. Further, the bill does not include funding for safety, maintenance and major repairs required at NIST's campus in Colorado. Without quality laboratory facilities, NIST cannot provide the standards and measurement support industry requires. The bill includes just two-thirds of base funds for NOAA's Space Environment Center in Colorado, which suffered similar shortfalls last year.

Perhaps most insulting of all--the bill would provide no funds for NOAA's facility in Colorado to pay its $4.5 million in rent. Conferees cut out funding for the rent in last year's bill at the last minute-- which is maybe more understandable, as we all know that sometimes odd things happen in conference in the middle of the night. But this cut is far more egregious. It is one thing when programs are trimmed back--it is another when cuts in a bill literally take the clothes off our employees' backs. NOAA is a Federal agency. How can the Federal Government not pay its rent? How is NOAA supposed to meet this shortfall? Its workload remains the same, but NOAA's resources and workforce are getting progressively smaller.

I thought our goal is to create jobs! This bill will put hundreds of Federal employees out of work!

And the bill hurts the private sector too. It cuts by two-thirds the Manufacturing Extension Program, which assists thousands of small and medium-sized manufacturers across this country. This bill entirely eliminates the Advanced Technology Program, which helps small high-tech start-up companies bring research results to the proof-of-concept stage.

With manufacturing jobs being lost every month and high-tech companies struggling, now is not the time to turn our backs on the manufacturing community and our small high-tech entrepreneurs.

So, Mr. Chairman, I must completely oppose this bill. Unless the bill is greatly improved in conference, it will continue a pattern of bleeding these agencies dry--agencies that do so much to support our Nation's economy and the public's well-being. As the bill stands, it does not deserve the approval of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, though there are provisions in it that concern me.

First, I voted against the rule as it prevented the House from considering important amendments. Among them were amendments urging U.S. leadership, by participating in negotiations on climate change, to reduce greenhouse gases and providing funding for removal of land mines and agricultural redevelopment of former mine fields.

The rule did allow the consideration of an amendment that passed by just five votes, reversing the position taken by the House International Relations Committee on funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). I voted against that amendment, and I am discouraged by the continuing refusal of the House to consider the facts when it comes to UNFPA. Allegations against UNFPA in China have never been substantiated despite the fact the program has endured more scrutiny than any other UNFPA program. But despite the findings of the Administration's own investigation team in July 2002 that UNFPA is not engaged in any coercive activity in China, President Bush canceled the $34 million allocated for UNFPA in FY2003 and requested no money for the program in FY2004. I will continue to fight for funding for UNFPA's important mission and for the right of foreign organizations that provide information about reproductive health care to receive U.S. aid.

The House also voted on an amendment sponsored by Representatives Hostettler, Gallegly, and Tancredo. I want to clarify the reasons for my opposition to this amendment, which sets standards for consular identification cards issued by foreign governments and used in the United States. The amendment provides that if foreign governments do not abide by the strict U.S. standards, the U.S. government will refuse to issue any visas to foreign nationals from those countries.

I believe protecting our national security requires that we know who is in our country, and I agree that establishing a set of standards for consular identification cards would increase their legitimacy and decrease fraudulent use of the cards. But I did not believe that the Hostettler amendment approached the problem in the right way. Forcing foreign governments to abide by U.S. standards for consular identification cards is an unprecedented attempt to change how a country relates to its own nationals in a host country, and is likely in breach of the Foreign Missions Act and the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs. Implementation of this amendment would also set a very dangerous precedent for our embassies abroad. In addition, I understand that the Administration will soon unveil its own proposal for standardization of these consular identification cards. So in my view, the Hostettler amendment not only had technical problems, but it was also premature.

Despite these concerns, I am a strong supporter of our foreign aid programs and our international institutions, and so I support this bill.

I am pleased that the bill authorizes assistance to the Palestinian Authority to improve the Palestinian economy and living conditions of the Palestinian people. I am pleased that the bill includes increased funding for the Migration and Refugee Assistance program. I am also pleased that the bill includes funding for UNESCO and that it permits the U.S. to pay its full assessment for U.N. peacekeeping efforts in each of the next two years.

Most importantly, I am pleased that the bill includes the Hyde-Lantos amendment authorizing the Millennium Challenge Account program and reauthorizing the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps provisions come from H.R. 250, the Peace Corps Charter for the 21th Century Act, a bill that I introduced with my colleague Representative Farr earlier this year.

We worked across party lines, with the Administration, and with returned Peace Corps volunteers to come up with this important bill.

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

Because of these connections I have a special interest in advancing the ability of the Peace Corps to play an important role in these new times.

As Americans, we are proud of our country, our freedoms, our democracy, our diversity. We know how fortunate we are to live in the United States. And yet we were sent a clear message on September 11th that we are not necessarily viewed abroad the way we view ourselves at home. Why is this so? More importantly, how can we change this?

One way is to continue to promote world peace and friendship through the people-to-people approach of the Peace Corps. After more than forty years of existence, the Peace Corps remains one of the most admired and successful initiatives ever put in place. But it needs to be updated to reflect the realities of our 21st century world, and that's what the Farr-Udall bill will do.

The bill we're introducing today meets the Administration's challenge to double the size of the Peace Corps to 14,000 by 2007. The bill also goes beyond this to propose a new post-9-11 ``Charter'' for the Peace Corps. Other highlights:

It spells out a commitment to recruit and place Peace Corps volunteers in countries where they could help promote mutual understanding, particularly in areas with substantial Muslim populations.

It establishes training programs for Peace Corps volunteers in the areas of education, prevention, and treatment of infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS.

The bill creates a grant program to enable Returned Peace Corps Volunteers to use their experience and expertise to continue to carry out the goals of the Peace Corps through specific projects.

This bill will pave the way for an expanded and refocused Peace Corps that can take on the new challenges that September 11th has presented to us, a Peace Corps that can be--as Sargent Shriver stated--``a pragmatic and dramatic symbol of America's commitment to peace.'' I believe that passage of the Peace Corps Charter for the 21St Century will help us head in this direction.

Again, I thank my colleague Representative Farr for working with me so closely on this legislation. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate to agree on final text and to move this bill closer to enactment.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my colleagues, Representatives Frost, Abercrombie, Issa, Rush, Ross, Wynn, Blumenauer, Millender-McDonald, Filner, Udall (NM), and Jo Ann Davis (VA), in introducing the Small Business Telework Act to assist our nation's small businesses in establishing successful telework programs for their employees

Across America, numerous employers are responding to the needs of their employees and establishing telework programs. In 2000, there were an estimated 16.5 million teleworkers. By the end of 2004, there will be an estimated 30 million teleworkers, representing an increase of almost 100 percent. Unfortunately, the majority of growth in new teleworkers comes from organizations employing over 1,500 people, while just a few years ago, most teleworkers worked for small to medium-sized organizations.

By not taking advantage of modern technology and establishing successful telework programs, small businesses are losing out on a host of benefits that will save them money, and make them more competitive. The reported productivity improvement of home-based teleworkers averages 15 percent translating to an average bottom-line impact of $9,712 per teleworker. Additionally, most experienced teleworkers are determined to continue teleworking, meaning a successful telework program can be an important tool in the recruitment and retention of qualified and skilled employees. By establishing successful telework programs, small business owners would be able to retain these valuable employees by allowing them to work from a remote location, such as their home or a telework center.

In addition to the cost savings realized by businesses that employ teleworkers, there are a number of related benefits to society and the employee. For example, telecommuters help reduce traffic and cut down on air pollution by staying off the roads during rush hour. Fully 80 percent of home-only teleworkers commute to work on days they are not teleworking. Their one-way commute distance averages 19.7 miles, versus 13.3 miles for non-teleworkers, meaning employees that take advantage of telework programs are, more often than not, those with the longest commutes. Teleworking also gives employees more time to spend with their families and reduces stress levels by eliminating the pressure of a long commute.

Mr. Speaker, our legislation seeks to extend the benefits of successful telework programs to more of our nation's small businesses. Specifically, it establishes a pilot program in the Small Business Administration (SBA) to raise awareness about telework among small business employers and to encourage those small businesses to establish telework programs for their employees.

Additionally, an important provision in our bill directs the SBA Administrator to undertake special efforts for businesses owned by, or employing, persons with disabilities and disabled America veterans. At the end of the day, telework can provide more than just environmental benefits and improved quality of life. It can open the door to people who have been precluded from working in a traditional office setting due to physical disabilities.

Our legislation is also limited in cost and scope. It establishes the pilot program in a maximum of five SBA regions and caps the total cost to five million dollars over two years. It also restricts the SBA to activities specifically proscribed in the legislation: developing educational materials; conducting outreach to small business; and acquiring equipment for demonstration purposes. Finally, it requires the SBA to prepare and submit a report to Congress evaluating the pilot program.

Several hurdles to establishing successful telework programs could be cleared by enacting our legislation. In fact, the number one reported obstacle to implementing a telework program is a lack of know-how. Our bill will go a long way towards educating small business owners on how they can draft guidelines to make a telework program an affordable, manageable reality.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter). I want to thank the gentleman for working with me. I also want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who cannot be here today, for her support of this amendment.

The Udall-Porter amendment would add $30 million to a number of renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy. The programs to be increased, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal technology, biomass and biofuels, Zero Energy Buildings, hydropower, and the Renewable Energy Production Incentive were identified by my friends in the clean energy community as programs particularly in need of additional funding.

When taken together, these programs fall $33 million below fiscal year 2003 levels. So the $30 million funding increase we are proposing still falls short of fiscal year 2003 levels, so we consider this amendment to be a modest one.

The $30 million increase for renewable energy programs would come from funds for Yucca Mountain's nuclear waste disposal account. I want to make clear that my aim in proposing this amendment is to restore funds to critical clean energy programs, not to deprive Yucca Mountain of funds it may need.

Indeed, I know that at least two of Yucca's programs, local impact assistance and external oversight funds, are very important to Nevada's communities. Our amendment does not seek to take funds from these accounts. But the bill we are considering today includes $335 million for the nuclear waste disposal account. This is fully $174 million over the President's request. So the Udall-Porter amendment would still leave the Yucca account at $144 million over the request.

Given the importance of the clean energy programs, particularly at a time when we are all concerned about our energy security, I believe that our amendment helps strike a greater balance in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want this to be a negative debate. My goal is to focus on the importance of developing a diverse and balanced long- term energy policy, one that requires us to think beyond today's gasoline prices and beyond next year's election. I want to talk about the real crises that will develop 10 or 20 years from now when oil prices will probably go up permanently as a result of increasing global demand and passing the peak in global petroleum production.

We have not done enough to prepare for this eventuality, but investing in clean energy programs is one way to start. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our Nation's interest, helping to provide strategies and tools to address the environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades.

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 last 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. 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 as well as by assistance in catalyzing public-private partnerships.

Not only economic independence, but also environmental health and lower energy costs are advanced by our investment in renewable energy. But in order for these investments to pay off, we have got to have a sustained commitment over the long term. It is time to recognize the value of clean energy research to our communities and to our world and to commit to sustaining our investment in clean energy for years to come.

Our amendment does not do all that should be done, but it does greatly improve the bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I should note finally our intention that funding for these programs be allocated at levels described in tables that I will provide here as a part of the Record. The table is as follows:

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding, and I think the passion of my good friend from Tennessee is self-evident here today; and I look forward to working with him on this very important, crucial aspect of energy independence and how we can create jobs, protect the environment, make ourselves more secure in the long term.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would just say to him that that is the case. The President's proposal is about $174 million below what is proposed in this legislation.

And I, too, do not want to interfere with the work that is going on in Nevada when it comes to Yucca Mountain, but this would direct $30 million from the $174 million, more than the President recommended, into this account, which would help us hurry the future, bend the curve, and get us to the point where these technologies are available to all Americans, thereby creating jobs, protecting the environment, and, frankly, making us more secure on the international front.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to protect not just Federal lands but private property in the public interest. It would do that by preventing the Department of Interior from going ahead with secret negotiations leading to back-room land deals.

Under those deals, the Department of Interior would issue disclaimers of interest. A disclaimer of interest is like a deed. It gives away the government's claim to an interest in land. For decades, the Department of Interior issued them 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 landowners.

But a few months ago that changed when the Department of Interior changed its regulations. The new rules give the Department of Interior broad authority to issue disclaimers to parties that would not have been eligible under the old rules, and the Department of Interior has announced it is ready to give those disclaimers to parties seeking them in order to clear the way for building roads.

Congress needs to stop that. We need to rein in the Department of Interior, and we need to do it now. Members can get an idea why by looking at this map here. It shows some of the potential RS-2477 claims just in a part of the California desert that is San Bernardino County. We can see how these claims could slice through national park system lands, wilderness areas, and even Federal lands used for military bases.

Private property is also at risk. This problem is not new, but it is serious. It needs to be resolved, but not the way the Department of Interior wants to resolve it.

When the Interior Department wants to negotiate in secret and then issue the disclaimers I described, it is not taking us down the right path. Instead of making deals, the Bush administration needs to come to Congress for new legislation. That is what this 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, and repeating that message is the purpose of my amendment. The best way to resolve this is by enacting new legislation after public hearings and open debate. That is why I have introduced a bill, H.R. 1639, to do just that. My bill would set a deadline, 4 more years, for filing RS 2477 claims. It would establish a fair, open administrative process for handling these claims. And it would set another deadline for any lawsuit challenging the result of that administrative process.

Mr. Chairman, I hoped my amendment would not be necessary tonight. That is why I sent, along with 80 Members, the Secretary a letter on this subject. In our letter we urged Secretary Norton not to try to use the new disclaimer regulations to deal with RS 2477 claims. In short, we warned the Interior Department that it was asking for trouble if it went ahead with its plans. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, our warning has not been heeded. The Interior Department evidently intends to go full steam ahead. So to protect the public, we need to call a halt by adopting my amendment. Then this issue can be resolved by new legislation. Instead of trying to sidestep the Congress, the administration should work with us. I am certainly ready to work with them; and I believe Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, and other members of the Committee on Resources on both sides of the aisle would be willing to do the work that is necessary. But before that can happen, the administration has to change course. That is why we need to adopt this amendment.

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

amendment offered by mr. Taylor of north carolina to amendment no. 1

offered by mr. udall of colorado

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment may be described as perfecting my amendment, but it really does not do that. My amendment would block the Interior Department from making backroom deals to give away public lands and threaten private landowners. This amendment would say that backroom deals are okay as long as the Interior Department minds its manners while it is making them. The amendment says that there should not be any deals involving the national parks and some other parts of the Federal lands; but it does nothing to protect the national forests, the national trails system, the wild and scenic rivers system or any of the national conservation areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Worse, it does nothing at all to protect millions of acres of public lands that deserve protection as wilderness. That includes lands in Colorado, Utah, and other States that would be designated as wilderness under bills that are pending in Congress right now.

Worst of all, the amendment does nothing to protect private lands or the lands owned by States and local governments. RS 2477 is not just about Federal lands. It involves lands that were owned by the Federal Government at one time or another between 1866 and 1976. That is more than 100 years, and it is most of the West. It includes the millions of acres that were homesteaded, given to the States, granted to railroad companies, or claimed under mining laws. My amendment protects those lands from backroom deals. The Taylor amendment does nothing to protect them.

In short, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment because it does not do what we should do. We need to rein in the Interior Department, not just tell them to play nicely. We need to tell the administration to come to Congress for legislation to resolve the RS 2477 issue. This amendment, although I know it is well-intended, would not do that. It does not cover all of these lands. The amendment is mostly cosmetic, and it falls short of what is needed.

Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I would urge rejection of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1 minute.

In closing, I want to make three points. I want to urge the House to preserve its institutional prerogatives to make sure that we are making the law and we are supporting the law we passed in the past by supporting the Udall amendment.

Second, I understand what Utah has done; and there are some good steps forward as my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), has pointed out. But this is not just about Utah; it is about the entire West and wherever these claims can be made.

Finally, my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), is on the right track; but under his perfecting amendment, we leave out private lands, military lands, national forest lands, tribal lands, national conservation areas, public lands generally, areas of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic rivers, and national trails, an enormously important list.

Please vote against the Taylor secondary amendment and support the Udall amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for yielding me time.

I just wanted to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who I know had great affection for my father and my father had great affection for him.

There is nothing in my amendment that would affect the access rights provided under the Alaska Lands Act, the law that was sponsored by my father, as my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), mentioned. There is nothing in this amendment that would affect the access rights; and I take that legislation very seriously and would do everything in my power and will do everything in my power to continue to support, to keep the faith of that language.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Reclaiming my time, I look forward to discussing that further with the gentleman. I thank him for his comment.

I would urge a yes vote on the Udall amendment, and I rise in opposition to the Taylor second degree amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, today, I regretfully rise in opposition to this bill.

I did not support the Farm Security Act that was signed into law last year. But now that it has been signed into law it should be properly funded and this bill does not do that.

In fact, some good programs are no longer funded under this bill, including the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Improvements program and the Conservation Security Program. Not funding these programs steers our agriculture policy in the wrong direction.

The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Improvements would help farmers improve energy efficiency and even sell back energy created on their farms. This program would help farmers become more profitable as the margins on their commodities get smaller. But this program, which was supported by Congress last year, is zeroed out.

The Conservation Security Program has provided an incentive program for farmers to improve the ecological management of working lands. This program rewarded farmers for taking proper care of their land to prevent erosion and to help keep the land fertile. This often means not maximizing the full profitability of the land during a growing season to ensure that the land will continue to be productive in the future. Again, this is a program that was supported by Congress last year but the Majority Party in the House has decided not to fund it.

There is a long list of other programs that are cut: From the Women, Infant, and Children program, which helps insure that young children and their mothers get the nutrition they need; to Farm Ownership Loans, which help farmers and ranchers buy their own facilities; to the Rural Housing Service, which helps rural residents obtain adequate and affordable housing; and the list goes on and on.

The annual Agriculture Appropriation Bill often is not very controversial and I have supported it in the past. But this year's bill will hurt America's farmers and ranchers because it doesn't provide the funding needed. This is particularly true for those farmers and ranchers who are still reeling from the effects of drought.

There are a lot of critical programs that are funded in this bill and I would like to support the bill, but on balance it does not do enough and therefore I cannot.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time to talk about how this bill is woefully inadequate in funding biomedical research, especially Parkinson's research, which is near and dear to my heart, as I believe it is to many Members of this body.

Over the last 5 years, Congress took on the charge of doubling the NIH budget, and we accomplished that goal. It was a worthy goal. It still is a worthy goal because this added funding for NIH will help find cures and better treatments for some of the world's deadliest diseases. The bill will bring to a halt this progress that we have made in funding biomedical research.

There is just an increase of 2.5 percent, the smallest percentage increase in 18 years. It falls short of what is needed to just keep up with research inflation costs, which NIH estimates at 3.3 percent for the year 2004. So the bulk of the increased funding will go to these multiyear research projects that are in place, thereby leaving very little time and very little money for new research.

The bill provides only a 3.9 percent increase for Parkinson's disease, not enough to keep up with inflation and grant renewal costs, and definitely little or nothing left over for new or expanded research efforts.

Madam Chairman, we have heard that tax cuts are the answer to all of our problems, and now those tax cut chickens are coming home to roost. We do not have the resources to meet these research needs. We see research cuts, and I want to conclude there is not a Member of this body as a Congressman, but as a son, a father, a nephew, a friend, Parkinson's disease is known as the most uncommon common disease in our country. We cannot go more than four or five people in asking them a question, do they know anybody with Parkinson's disease, before we hear somebody who will say, yes, I know somebody, a friend, an uncle, a sister, somebody in my community that has Parkinson's disease. We know colleagues in this body that have Parkinson's disease. We ought to honor them and support Parkinson's disease research in the way that we can find a cure for this terrible disease.

Offered By: Mr. Udall of Colorado

Amendment No. 1. At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Sec. 3.____. None of the funds made available by this Act

may be used to implement amendments to Bureau of Land

Management regulations on Recordable Disclaimers of Interest

in Land (subpart 1864 of part 1860 of title 43, Code of

Federal Regulations) as adopted on January 6, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bayaud Industries, a non-profit corporation that enables disabled individuals to contribute to their communities by providing them job training and placement.

Since 1969 Bayaud Industries has provided job training and placement to thousands of individuals with mental, emotional, and physical disabilities. Even after placement, Bayaud Industries continues its support, making sure that each of their clients has a case worker they can turn to even after they start their first job. Bayuad's mission is simple--to provide hope, opportunity, and choice by using employment as a means through which people with disabilities can participate in mainstream life.

Many working individuals find satisfaction in their jobs because they feel they have the opportunity to do something useful everyday. Groups of disabled Americans and advocates for individuals with disabilities have told me that employment can provide a sense of worth and accomplishment that many people with disabilities live without. In addition, they say that disabilities can keep people isolated from their communities, creating a sense of loneliness and dulling social skills. Employment can take individuals with disabilities off of the sidelines, provide them an opportunity to be involved in daily life, and a chance to interact with members of the community.

Unfortunately, according to the Mental Health Association the unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities is approximately 75 percent, and for those with psychiatric disabilities it is at almost 80 percent. Some of these statistics can be attributed to those individuals with such severe disabilities that they are unable to work, however much of that percentage is made up of individuals with disabilities who have never had the training or help they need to find the jobs they can do.

The need for a company like Bayaud Industries is clear. Bayaud provides an invaluable link between individuals with disabilities and employment. By being that link they are changing lives on a daily basis. They make a difference every day by opening doors for members of America's disabled community that many of them never knew existed before.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing 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.

In the 1950's, the Federal Government bought land at Rocky Flats for the use as a production facility for nuclear-weapon components. However, the purchase did not include all the mineral rights, some of which remained in private ownership.

Production at Rocky Flats ended more than a decade ago. Since then, the Department of Energy, though its contractors, has been working to have the site cleaned up and closed.

In 2001, Congress passed legislation I sponsored with Senator Wayne Allard to guide the future of Rocky Flats. Under that legislation--the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act 0f 2001--once the cleanup and closure are accomplished, most of the land at Rocky Flats will be transferred from the Department of Energy to the Department of the Interior and will be managed as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The refuge act includes some provisions related to the non-Federal minerals--primarily sand and gravel--at Rocky Flats. It says ``nothing in this [law] limits any valid, existing . . . mineral right'' except for ``such reasonable conditions on access . . . as are appropriate for the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats and for the management of the refuge.'' And it says that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOE and Interior is to ``address the impacts'' mineral rights ``may have on the management of the refuge, and provide strategies for resolving or mitigating these impacts.''

These provisions were included in the refuge act in order to make clear that while these mineral rights are to be respected as private property, future development of the minerals could have adverse effects on the land, wildlife habitat, and other values of the future wildlife refuge. That is why Congress directed the agencies to consider these potential future effects and work to find ways to mitigate those impacts.

So far, however, the Energy and Interior Departments have not been able to agree on what to do about the minerals, and the MOU has not been completed.

I think the best way to handle this would be for the Federal Government to acquire the minerals. However, neither the DOE nor Interior has made this a priority, and the current budgetary situation places constraints on such acquisitions.

My bill is intended to make it more feasible for the Interior Department to acquire some or all of the minerals. It would do that by giving the Secretary of the Interior two additional methods (either instead of or in additional to purchase for cash) for completing such acquisitions--

(1) by giving ``credits'' that could be used instead of cash to pay for oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf; and

(2) by allowing federal lands or minerals anywhere in the country to be exchanged for the Rocky Flats minerals (under current law, such exchanges can only occur within the same state--Colorado lands/minerals for other Colorado lands/minerals).

The bill has no compulsory provisions. It does not require that any of the non-Federal interests at Rocky Flats be acquired by the government, and it does not require anyone to accept anything other than cash for any interests that the government may acquire. It would merely provide the Interior Department with new tools--in addition to those it already has--for such acquisitions.

In developing the bill, I sought and obtained technical assistance from the Interior Department. I also have given careful consideration to comments from local governments and others in Colorado, and have made revisions to earlier drafts of the legislation in response to points raised in those comments.

Mr. Speaker, this bill--the ``Rocky Flats Minerals Acquisition Act''--is narrow in scope. However, I think it can assist in successful implementation of something that is very important for all Coloradans-- the establishment of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. I think it deserves the support of every Member of the House.

For the information of our colleagues, here is a short outline of the bill:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the town of Georgetown, Colorado, for being selected by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as one of its 2003 Dozen Distinctive Destination locations. This designation acknowledges the outstanding work of the residents of Georgetown in protecting, respecting and celebrating their unique history and cultural heritage.

Anyone who has spent time in Georgetown knows of the wealth of historical structures that have been preserved and protected. This heritage provides a lasting reminder of the early years of mining and living in rugged mountainous areas of Colorado and the West.

Georgetown, the county seat of Clear Creek County, was established in 1864, when the discovery of the Belmont Lode started a stampede of prospectors and ultimately gave the town its nickname, ``Silver Queen of the Rockies.'' The town still operates under an 1868 charter from Colorado's territorial legislature.

As the National Trust notes in its announcement of this designation: ``Many vestiges of the town's heyday remain, including the Georgetown Loop Railroad, a marvel of engineering, hailed as the most complex railroad loop in the world at the turn of the century. Today, the historic railroad is still thrilling passengers as it traverses the Devil's Gate High Bridge, soaring 95 feet above Clear Creek. A year- round vacation wonderland, Georgetown's spectacular setting provides unlimited opportunities for fun. Summer months offer trout fishing, back-country hiking, biking, rafting and more--while during ski season, Georgetown is a convenient base for hitting the nearby slopes.''

It was for these reasons and more that the National Trust, the country's largest private, nonprofit preservation organization, named Georgetown to its 2003 list of America's Dozen Distinctive Destinations, an annual list of unique and lovingly preserved communities in the United States.

In recognizing Georgetown, the National Trust singled out the Hamill House Museum, completed in 1879 as the home of silver baron William A. Hamill and adorned with furnishings delivered from its owner's birthplace in England. Another notable landmark is the Hotel de Paris, built in 1876. In its heyday, it was one of the finest hotels and gourmet restaurants in the state. Today the Colonial Dames operates the hotel as a museum.

Also noted by the National Trust are the town's holiday celebrations, which include a Christmas Market, Santa Lucia Processional, and horse- drawn wagon rides.

This is the fourth time the National Trust for Historic Preservation has compiled a list of A Dozen Distinctive Destinations. More than 50 destinations in 27 states were nominated by preservation organizations and local communities. Georgetown was selected because it met the National Trust's criteria of well-managed growth, a commitment to historic preservation with a protected historic core and meaningful context, interesting and attractive architecture, cultural diversity, activities for families with children, an economic base of locally- owned small businesses, and walkability for residents and visitors.

The National Trust also noted that Georgetown residents have taken forceful action to protect their town's character and sense of place and have worked hard to preserve the historic and scenic assets of their communities, with rewards that transcend town limits. In so doing, Georgetown has preserved its quality of life for its residents and tourists alike. Georgetown and towns like it in Colorado and throughout the west preserve the allure of the western lifestyle and the respect that settlers had and still have for the special places that have been established.

In announcing the places on the list of distinctive destinations, Richard Moe, the President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, had this to say about Georgetown: ``It is encouraging to see communities so committed to the preservation of their historic landmarks, the revitalization of their downtown areas, and the protection of their unique heritage. Georgetown represents a truly distinctive slice of America. That makes it an exciting alternative to the homogenization of many other vacation spots. It is my hope that more American cities and towns will follow Georgetown's lead in preserving their own spirit of place.''

All I can add to that is, ``amen,'' and my own congratulations to the people of Georgetown for this honor, so well earned through their efforts to preserve one of the places that makes Colorado such a special place to live.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support a Medicare prescription drug bill, but I can't support the one we are considering today. It is inadequate, unreliable, will force seniors into HMOs, and will endanger drug benefits that many seniors get through their retirement plans. In fact, instead of drafting a Medicare drug benefit bill, the Republican Majority has used this opportunity to try to end Medicare as we know it.

I have long believed that Congress should act to help seniors with their prescription drug expenses. Nearly everyone agrees that Medicare should be updated with a drug benefit; it is the right and sensible thing to do. How we design that benefit is where the rub is. I had hoped that we would vote on a bill similar to the one in the Senate because I think it's a good start toward building a workable, financially sound prescription drug benefit. But the House bill is not the same as the Senate bill.

First, I think Congress should give seniors greater choice in coverage, however, it should provide an equal prescription drug benefit to all beneficiaries, regardless of whether they enroll in a private health plan or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. We shouldn't force seniors into managed care, which I believe this bill will do by opening the traditional Medicare program up to competitive bidding against private insurers in 2010.

Second, the House bill does not include an important ``fallback'' provision that requires that traditional Medicare would step in as a backup if private insurers show no interest in selling drug plans in a particular area. Currently, private plans don't exist in many parts of the country, including many smaller cities, rural and mountain areas in Colorado. I've heard from many seniors in my district who have been dropped from their Medicare HMO and are now having trouble finding a doctor. In addition, 88 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in traditional Medicare. So, without this ``fallback'' safety net provision, seniors would have no coverage in regions where insurers say it's unprofitable to provide it, especially rural areas.

Taken together, I think these provisions undermine the traditional Medicare program. By opening traditional Medicare to competitive bidding and with no fallback mechanism, I fear that our country will revert to the time before Medicare was established in 1965 when private insurers wouldn't provide affordable coverage to seniors. That's a step backward, not a step forward, in fixing Medicare.

I also have problems with the home health copayment provision in the bill, which I believe will discourage seniors from accessing home health care, which is more cost effective than accessing treatment an emergency room or a skilled nursing facility. And I am concerned that opening durable medical equipment to competitive bidding will give seniors less choice and put many small businesses out of business.

On top of everything, this 692-page bill was introduced at midnight last night. How can anyone know what's in it, except the people who wrote it? Our seniors deserve greater respect.

Mr. Speaker, it is misguided at best 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 this one. I regret I can't support it. I hope that a bill can be worked out in conference that I can support. We need to put ideological and partisan politics aside and get it done this year.

Mr. Chairman, I was inadvertently detained and did not arrive in the Chamber in time to vote on rollcall number 309, the Tancredo amendment to H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 660, the Association Health Plan bill we are considering today.

While I sympathize with the challenges that many small businesses face in providing health insurance to their employees, I do not think that exempting AHPs from State oversight is the right solution. I agree with the National Governor's Association, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Health Insurance Association of America, and many other groups that oppose Federally regulated AHPs. I am most concerned that AHPs would be regulated under Federal laws and would be exempted from State laws that govern premium increases, benefits, consumer protections, and financial standards. H.R. 660 would override Colorado's new AHP law even before we have time to see if it is working. Additionally, H.R. 660 does not provide any resources to the Department of Labor to carry out important oversight functions. I believe this leaves room for much of the same abuse and fraud that we experienced with Multiple Employer Welfare Associations in the 1980s.

Insurance is based on the principle of pooling healthy and sick groups together so that the cost is more evenly distributed. Under this bill, associations would be able to circumvent State pooling requirements and siphon off healthier groups. As a result, sicker people would be left in State regulated pools, and the cost of care for these individuals would be shifted to the rest of us through higher taxes and premiums. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 80 percent of small employers and their families would face rate increases under this legislation.

I continue to believe that refundable health care tax credits and investments in our public health system would go much further in making health care more affordable and reducing the number of uninsured in our Nation. That's why I am supporting the substitute offered by Rep. Ron Kind, which would establish the Small Employer Health Benefits plan and provide Federal subsidies to small employers who have fewer than 100 employees and offer health insurance to them.

Madam Speaker, Americans are concerned that if they get sick, they won't have health insurance coverage, or they are worried they will lose their health care in this sluggish economy. I too am concerned about the rising cost of health care and the uninsured, but removing oversight over insurance and scaling back consumer protections, benefits and coverage is not the way to go. I will continue to work on meaningful health care reform that makes insurance more affordable and provides coverage to the uninsured.

Mr. Speaker, I support reform of the estate tax--that is why I voted for the substitute. But I do not support repeal of the estate tax--and so I cannot vote for this bill as it stands. For me, this is not a partisan issue. Instead, it is an issue of reasonableness, fairness, and fiscal responsibility.

In 2001, I did not vote for the bill that included changes in the estate tax. However, there were parts of that bill that I think should be made permanent, including the elimination of the ``marriage penalty'' and the provisions related to the adoption credit and the exclusion from tax of restitution to Holocaust survivors. And, as I said, I support reform of the estate tax. I definitely think we should act to make it easier for people to pass their estates--including lands and businesses--on to future generations. This is important for the whole country, of course, but it is particularly important for Coloradans who want to help keep ranch lands in open, undeveloped condition by reducing the pressure to sell them to pay estate taxes.

Since I have been in Congress, I have been working toward that goal. I am convinced that it is something that can be achieved--but it should be done in a reasonable, fiscally responsible way in a way that deserves broad bipartisan support. That means it should be done in a better way than by enacting this bill, and the substitute would have done that. That alternative would have provided real, effective relief without the excesses of the Republican bill. It would have raised the estate tax's special exclusion to $3 million for each and every person's estate--meaning to $6 million for a couple--and would have done so immediately. So, under that alternative, a married couple-- including but not limited to the owners of a ranch or small business-- with an estate worth up to $6 million could pass it on intact with no estate tax whatsoever. And since, under the alternative that permanent change would take effect on January 1st of next year--not in 2011, like the bill before us--it clearly would be much more helpful to everyone who might be affected by the estate tax. At the same time, the alternative was much more fiscally responsible. It would not run the same risks of weakening our ability to do what is needed to maintain and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors, invest in our schools and communities, and pay down the public debt.

The 2001 tax cut bill included complete repeal of the estate tax for only one year, 2010, but contained language that sunsets all of the tax cuts, including changes in the estate tax after 2001. This bill would exempt repeal of the estate tax from the general sunset provisions. Between now and 2013 it would reduce the Federal revenue available to meet necessary expenses by $162 billion. I think this is simply irresponsible as we face the decade between 2013 and 2022--the time when the baby boomers will be retiring.

Also, we all know, the budget outlook has changed dramatically since 2001. Trillions of dollars of budget surpluses that were projected have disappeared--because of the combination of the recession, the costs of fighting terrorism and paying for homeland defense, and the enactment of tax legislation. And now the proposal is to make the budgetary outlook even more difficult, making it that much harder to meet our national commitments--all in order to provide a tax break for less than 0.4 percent of all estates. I do not think this is responsible, and I cannot support it.

And, as if that were not bad enough, this bill does nothing to correct one of the worst aspects of the estate-tax provisions in the 2001 bill--the hidden tax increase on estates whose value has increased by more than $1.3 million, beginning in 2010, due to the capital gains tax. Currently, once an asset, such as a farm or business, has gone through an estate, whether any estate tax is paid or not, the

value to the heirs is ``stepped up'' for future capital gains tax calculations. However, last year's bill--now enacted into law--provides for replacing this with a ``carryover basis'' system in which the original value is the basis when heirs dispose of inherited assets. That means they will have to comply with new recordkeeping requirements, and most small business will end up paying more in taxes. That cries out for reform, but this bill does not provide it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the evident determination of the Republican leadership to insist on bringing this bill forward. Just as they have done in the past, they have rejected any attempt to shape a bill that could be supported by all Members. Since I was first elected, I have sought to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue to achieve realistic and responsible reform of the estate tax. But this bill does not meet that test, and I cannot support it.