Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this defense supplemental without hesitation, but with regrets and concerns.

To begin with, I regret that we have to be voting on this bill now.

I thought the President's decision to begin military action in Iraq was premature. I thought it would have been better to allow more time for other measures, including coercive inspections, to accomplish the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein. However, Congress--by adopting the resolution authorizing the use of force--left it to the President to decide if and when military action would begin.

That is another source of regret. I opposed the resolution precisely because I thought it gave the President too much discretion about the timing of that action. But the resolution was enacted. And, now that military action has begun, it is necessary for Congress to consider the Administration's requests for funds to pay for it and for related purposes.

Our troops are in the field, actively engaged in operations that Congress has authorized. Under those circumstances, I cannot make them the victims of my regrets by failing to support this bill to provide them what they need to carry out those operations.

So much for my regrets. I also have strong concerns about some things that are in this bill and some things that were left out.

The bill does have many good features. For example, I am glad that the Appropriations Committee placed some important limits on the President's request before bringing the bill to the floor.

Among other things, the bill bars the Pentagon from controlling the over $2.5 billion it provides for humanitarian relief and reconstruction and instead designates the money for the State Department and other non-military agencies. The bill also reduces the President's request for no-strings-attached Pentagon funding from $63 billion to $25 billion by putting the rest of the funds into appropriate spending categories. Though the $25 billion still amounts to a signed check with the payee line left blank, it's an improvement over the request. Regardless of the Administration's preference, it remains the right and duty of Congress--not the White House--to decide how much money is allocated for what purpose.

On the other hand, I am concerned that the bill does not do enough in other areas. In particular, I voted against ordering the previous question on the rule, and against the rule itself, because it did not allow a straightforward vote on the Obey amendment to add more funding for homeland security.

The bill does include $4.25 billion for this purpose--slightly less than the President's request--but I think that is not nearly enough to meet the country's needs. Although many of our Republican colleagues would have you believe that states and localities are sitting on millions of dollars of unspent funds for first responders, my conversations with Colorado police chiefs, fire departments, and other first responders have convinced me that is not the case. Every time the Department of Homeland Security changes the official color-coded threat level, Colorado and the other States and localities are required to spend more money that they don't have. We are asking them to provide top-dollar security for our nation on a dime's worth of resources.

So, I am very concerned that the Republican leadership has denied us the opportunity to vote to correct the bill's deficiencies. The Obey amendment would have provided $2.5 billion in additional funds for our local first responders, for port security grants, for protection for our waterways and nuclear plants, for our National Guard and Reserves to provide assistance with chemical and biological weapons attacks, and for other homeland security needs.

I do not know how many of our colleagues would have joined me in supporting this amendment--and I will never know, because the Republican rule didn't permit a vote--but I know Colorado's first responders would have wanted it to be a majority. That's because homeland security is for Americans--it is not just for Democrats or Republicans. At a time when states and cities are suffering economically and crying out for federal assistance to meet their new and stepped-up homeland security obligations, I believe we must do more than we've done in this bill.

Nonetheless, as I said, I am voting for this bill without hesitation because its prompt passage is needed--not just to support our men and women in uniform as they fight, but also to lay the foundation for the harder mission of winning the peace after they have won the war.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to establish a process for orderly resolution of one of the most important problems associated with management of the Federal lands--claims for rights-of-way under a provision of the Mining Law of 1866.

That provision was later embodied in section 2477 of the Revised Statutes, and so is usually called R.S. 2477. It granted rights-of-way for the construction of highways across Federal lands not reserved for public uses. It was one of many 19th-century laws that assisted in the opening of the West for resource development and settlement.

More than a century after its enactment, R.S. 2477 was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, often called ``FLPMA,'' and was replaced with a modern and comprehensive process for establishing rights-of-way on Federal lands.

However, FLPMA did not revoke valid existing rights established under R.S. 2477--and, unfortunately, it also did not set a deadline for people claiming to have such rights to file their claims.

As a result, there is literally no way of knowing how many such claims might be filed or what Federal lands--or even lands that once were Federal but now belong to other owners--might be subject to such claims. But I have no doubt that potential claims under R.S. 2477 could involve thousands of square miles of Federal lands, not to mention lands that now are private property or belong to the states or other entities.

This is obviously a serious problem. It also is the way things used to be with regard to another kind of claim on Federal lands--mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872. However, that problem was resolved by section 314 of FLPMA, which gave people 3 years to record those claims and provided that any claim not recorded by the deadline would be deemed to have been abandoned.

The courts have upheld that approach. I think it should have been applied to R.S. 2477 claims as well. If it had been, R.S. 2477 would be a subject for historians, not a headache for our land managers or a nightmare for private property owners.

I think that now, finally--more than a quarter of a century since it was repealed--the time has come to let R.S. 2477 sleep in peace. And that is the purpose of the bill I am introducing today.

My bill is based on legislation proposed by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt in 1997, but is somewhat broader because it would apply not just to States or their political subdivisions with R.S. 2477 claims, but also to those individuals now able to assert such claims. It follows the sound example of FLPMA by providing that any R.S. 2477 claim not filed with the government within 4 years will be considered abandoned.

I think this is more than reasonable, because those interested in claiming rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 already have had ample time to decide whether they want to file a claim.

The bill also recognizes that as things stand now, R.S. 2477 claims are a potential threat to the National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, units of the National Trails and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, designated wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas as well as to lands that the United States has sold or otherwise transferred to other owners. It specifically addresses this threat by providing that any claim for such lands will be considered to have been abandoned when the lands were designated for conservation-purpose management or when they were transferred out of federal ownership unless a claimant can establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was a well-established right-of-way whose use for highway purposes was intended to be allowed to continue.

The bill also spells out what information must be included in a claim, how claims are to be considered administratively, and the rules for judicial review of administrative decisions about the validity of R.S. 2477 claims.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced bill. It gives claimants under R.S. 2477 ample opportunity to come forward and seek to have their claims upheld, with an opportunity to seek ultimate redress from the courts if necessary. At the same time, it gives the American people-- the owners of the Federal lands--and private property owners assurance that the time will come when they will know what they own, without having to worry about new R.S. 2477 claims being made against their lands.

In my opinion, such legislation is long overdue, and deserves the support of every Member of Congress.

For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a brief outline of the main provisions of the bill.

Outline of R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way Act of 2003

The bill is based on a legislative proposal sent to

Congress by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt in 1997.

Here is a section-by-section outline of its provisions:

Section 1 provides a short title, has findings about the

bill's background, and states its purpose of setting a

deadline for filing claims and specifying how claims will be

handled.

Section 2 defines key terms used in the bill.

Section 3 deals with the filing of claims for rights-of-way

based on R.S. 2477:

Subsection (a) sets a deadline of 4 years after enactment

for filing.

Subsection (b) specifies where claims must be filed: in the

state or regional office of a federal agency responsible for

management of claimed Federal lands; with the commanding

officer of a military installation subject to a claim; or

with the Bureau of Land Management if the claimed lands are

no longer in Federal ownership.

Subsection (c) provides that claims not filed by the

deadline shall be deemed abandoned--this parallels Section

314 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,

which required recordation of unpatented mining claims. A

claimant would have 3 years to file a lawsuit challenging

the effect of this provision on a claim.

Subsection (d) provides for coordination among federal

agencies.

Subsection (e) provides that R.S. 2477 claims by non-

Federal parties can only be validated in accordance with the

process established by the bill.

Section 4 provides procedures for handling R.S. 2477

claims:

Subsection (a) specifies that claimants have the burden of

proof and that claims for

lands in conservation, wilderness study, or inventoried

roadless areas or for lands not owned by the Federal

government are presumed to have been abandoned unless a

claimant can show that continued use of a right-of-way for

highway purposes was clearly intended to continue after

conservation designation or transfer of title by the United

States.

Subsection (b) specifies what information must be included

in a filing by a claimant.

Subsection (c) specifies procedures for review of claims by

federal officials.

Subsection (d) requires reviewing officials to consult

regarding pending claims.

Subsection (e) provides for issuance of a draft decision

about a claim's validity, followed by a period of public

comment

Subsection (f) provides for issuance of a final decision on

a claim within one year after release of the draft decision.

Subsection (g) requires a lawsuit challenging a final

agency decision on a claim to be filed within 3 years after

the decision and limits judicial review to review of the

administrative record. It also provides that the Federal

Government can decide to purchase a right-of-way that a court

determines belongs to another party.

Subsection (h) requires a successful claimant to file

information about the right-of-way with BLM and the relevant

State within 5 years, and specifies that a failure to do so

will constitute abandonment of the right-of-way.

Subsection (i) provides that the Federal government can

choose to purchase a right-of-way determined to belong to

another party.

Section 5 specifies that administrative decisions about

claims are to be based on federal law and state laws that are

consistent with federal law. It also provides that prior

adjudications of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are to be

recognized.

Section 6 provides that nothing in the bill will affect

provisions of FLPMA or the Alaska Lands Act related to

rights-of-way.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to make it easier for people who share ownership of an unincorporated business with a spouse to comply with the tax laws and also receive Social Security and Medicare benefits they have earned. The problems the bill addresses arise from the fact that under current law an unincorporated business owned by a married couple is classified as a partnership for purposes of the federal income tax. That means the business is subject to complex record-keeping requirements and the owners are supposed to file a partnership income-tax return.

However, the Internal Revenue Service estimates that it can take a partnership as much as 200 hours to complete and file that kind of tax return--enough work to keep a person who works a 40-hour week busy for more than a month. And this has to be done every year. When we think of everything else they have to do to keep their businesses running, it is not surprising that many of these couples take what looks like an attractive shortcut. They do that by filing as if their businesses were sole proprietorship--a kind of filing that the IRS estimates can take as little as 2 hours. But, attractive as that shortcut seems, it can lead to serious trouble.

First, of course, it is a technical violation of the tax laws, which means a couple taking that shortcut could be subject to penalties for failing to file as a partnership. But that's not the worst part. Because spouses who own and run a business are self-employed, they need to complete self-employment tax forms to report and pay their Social Security and Medicare taxes. But to file as if their business were a sole proprietorship, they must report all income from the business under the name of just one spouse--and, if they do that, only that named spouse can receive credit for paying into Social Security and Medicare. That means the other spouse--the one not named as the ``sole proprietor''--should become disabled, he or she would not qualify for Social Security disability benefits. It also means that if the ``unnamed'' spouse dies, the named spouse and his or her children would not qualify for Social Security survivor benefits. And it means that the ``unnamed'' spouse would not qualify for Medicare.

Further, in the event of a divorce, it can be very difficult for an ``unnamed'' spouse to prove that he or she owns a share of the business for purposes of dividing the assets.

My bill will help couples like these to avoid these problems by enacting several recommendations outlined by Nina E. Olsen, the National Taxpayers Advocate, in her most recent annual report to Congress.

Under the bill, if a married couple filing a joint tax return are the only owners of an unincorporated business, they could decide what part of the business's profits or losses each spouse would claim, and that share would be taken into account in determining their self-employment earnings. That way, each spouse could receive some credit for Social Security and Medicare. And, depending on state law, this also could facilitate more equitable divisions of property in the event of divorce.

The Taxpayer Advocate's report indicates that while this change in the law would mean a major reduction in the record-keeping requirements applicable to many people, it would have little or no effect on federal revenues.

I am not sure how many people in Colorado stand to benefit from this bill. However, according to the IRS, it appears that more than 2,000 Colorado couples who operate ranching or farming businesses would be covered by its provisions, and that it could also assist thousands of other Colorado couples who operate other kinds of unincorporated businesses.

So, considering that Colorado is far from the most-populous State, I am not surprised that the Taxpayer Advocate's report indicates there could be as many as 2 million couples across

the country who could benefit from enactment of this legislation.

In short, while my bill would make only a relatively simple change in the tax laws, it has the potential to help many people and cut a lot of red tape at the same time. I greatly appreciate the Taxpayer Advocate's bringing it to our attention, and I think it deserves the support of every Member of the House.

For the benefit of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am attaching an excerpt from the report of the Taxpayer Advocate that explains the recommendation upon which my bill is based.

Explanation of Recommendation

The National Taxpayer Advocate recommends that Internal

Revenue Code section 761(a) be amended to allow husband and

wife co-owned businesses to elect out of Subchapter K--

Partners and Partnerships. At this time, we recommend that

the election be made available only to married couples who

file joint income tax returns. By making the election, the

business would be exempt from the application of the complex

rules of subchapter K and the husband and wife would be

entitled to file a Schedule C instead of a Form 1065, (U.S.

Return of Partnership Income). Internal Revenue Code section

761(a) already allows certain categories of taxpayers to opt

out of subchapter K, so there is precedent for this approach.

Amending IRC Sec. 761(a) to allow a husband and wife co-

owned business to elect out of subchapter K would not require

an additional amendment to Internal Revenue Code section 6031

regarding filing partnership returns. Treasury Regulations

currently state that a taxpayer who has made an election to

be exempt from subchapter K is not required to file a

partnership return except in the year of the election. In the

election year, the taxpayers would only need to file a

partnership return with the election statement. All income

and deductions would then be reported on a Schedule C in the

election year and for all subsequent years.

If this proposal is enacted into law, we recommend that the

IRS design a form to supplement Schedule C for married co-

owners who make the election to opt out of subchapter K. It

could be called Schedule C-MC (for ``Married Couple''). The

business entity's income and expenses would be reported on

Schedule C. The net profit (or loss) would then be allocated

between the husband and wife on Schedule C-MC.

The supplemental form would serve three important purposes.

First, the amount of income allocated to each spouse--and

thus carried to separate Schedules SE--would be shown on the

form.

Second, the form could be used to record each spouse's

respective interest in the business. This could become

important if, for example, one spouse dies and the value of

his or her interest must be determined for purposes of

computing the estate tax.

Third, the form could be designed to allow the business to

make certain tax elections that are only available at the

entity level. This issue arises because even if a business

co-owned by a husband and wife is excluded from the

definition of a partnership for purposes of subchapter K, the

business generally remains a partnership for all other

purposes of the Code.\62\ The principal significance of

partnership classification outside the context of subchapter

K is that a partnership may make certain tax elections

available only to an entity and not to individuals. For

example, a partnership may make an election under IRC

Sec. 179 to expense depreciable business assets. We see no

reason to prohibit husband-and-wife-owned partnerships that

elect out of subchapter K from making tax elections of this

nature.

In sum, our legislative proposal would reduce the tax

compliance burden on many husband-and-wife-owned businesses,

would facilitate the coverage of both spouses under the

Social Security and Medicare systems and, depending on state

law, could facilitate more equitable divisions of property in

the event of divorce. The revenue impact of the proposal

should be negligible. Regardless of how the net earnings from

the business are reported--either as a flow-through item from

the partnership return or as net earnings from Schedule C--

the income tax liability of the husband and wife generally

will be the same. Social Security and Medicare receipts

generally will also be the same.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Passenger Van Safety Act of 2003, legislation to enhance the safety of large passenger vans, which are highly susceptible to rollovers and have been associated with more than 500 fatalities since 1990.

In the last Congress, I introduced the School Bus Safety Act which had been designed to prevent schools from taking advantage of a loophole that allowed them to purchase used 15-passenger vans even though it was illegal for them to purchase new 15-passenger vans because of safety issues. The bill I am introducing today goes farther and addresses the safety of these vehicles.

I became alarmingly aware of the safety problems of these vehicles when a church group from Westminster, Colorado rolled the 15-passeneger van they were driving 2\1/2\ times en route to a religious retreat. This tragedy resulted in four people dying. I found out later that these vans were notorious for getting out of the drivers control and were highly susceptible to rolling. These kinds of accidents seem to be symptomatic to these kinds of vehicles. Early last summer another one of these vans, full of firefighters, rolled over numerous times killing four of the passengers in western Colorado. Accidents will happen, but I believe if these people had been in different vehicles their deaths may have been avoided.

When these vans are fully loaded they become highly prone to rollovers. In 2001, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) conducted a study that demonstrated the dramatic increase in rollovers when these vehicles carry increasingly larger loads. A fully loaded van has a rollover risk that is six times higher than if there are only five people in the van.

The bill I am introducing today would require NHTSA to include 15- passenger vans in their Dynamic Rollover Testing Program required by the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, which currently does not include these vehicles. It does not make a lot of sense to me to exempt them from the same safety standards that NHTSA will apply to other passenger cars and sport utility vehicles. This information will give drivers information they need in order to safely operate certain vehicles under different conditions.

This legislation would also require 15-passenger vans to be included in NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP provides consumers information on how different vehicles withstand crashes, and was recently expanded to include the risk of rollover. Currently, NCAP does not do rollover testing for vehicles that carry more than 10 people.

In addition, the bill requires NHTSA to work with van manufacturers to evaluate and test the potential of new technologies to help drivers maintain control of their vans. Specifically, NHTSA would look at Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems that some SUVs are already equipped with and rear-view mirror-based rollover warning systems. These kinds of innovative technologies could significantly reduce rollovers and save lives.

``Fifteen-passenger'' vans were initially designed to carry cargo, not people. But now these vans are widely used by airports, hotels, and other commercial interests to transport customers from one location to another. People using these vans may not realize that the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCA) has not completed rulemaking on Federal motor carrier safety regulations for 15-passenger vans that are used for commercial purposes. This bill would require the FMCA to complete their rulemaking, which began in 1999, to ensure that commercial passengers get to their destinations safely.

This bill was built on the foundation of my School Bus Safety Act of 2001 and it still addresses the van loophole created in 1974 when organizations were banned from purchasing new 15-passenger vans to transport school age children but were allowed to purchase the vans used.

This legislation removes this nearly 30-year-old loophole in the Federal regulations and extends the ban to include leasing, renting, and buying of these vans, thereby making the buyers accountable, as well as the seller. These changes will insure that the intent of the 1974 law is finally realized. The bill would also strengthen the penalties on those who violate this important safety provision.

The legislation raises the prescribed penalty for breaking this law from ``not more than $1000'' to ``not more than $25,000,'' thereby giving the enforcement agencies something to make it worth their while to pursue. This provision is important because from 1974 until 1997, NHTSA, which had responsibility for administering the law, did not initiate a single enforcement proceeding in the entire country.

Safety transcends party lines. Senator Snowe and I have had tragic events take place in our states that have unfortunately made us very aware of the dangers of 15-passenger vans. Last year there was a tragic accident in the State of Maine that cost the lives of 14 forestry workers who were killed when their 15-passenger van rolled off of a bridge, killing all but one. This was the single worst motor vehicle accident in Maine's history. So we are introducing identical bills in the House and the Senate. With bipartisan support we hope to end these kinds of needlessly tragic accidents.

Mr. Speaker, one of the government's roles is to ensure the safety of its citizens. This legislation gives consumers the information they need to know about the safety of these vans and it eliminates a loophole that allows people to get around a child safety law. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2003. This bill updates the existing law that formally established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in 1990. This bill is also similar to the Global Change Research and Data Management Act that I introduced in the 107th Congress.

Over the past decade, the USGCRP has significantly advanced our scientific knowledge of Earth's atmosphere and climate and has provided us with a wealth of new data and information about the functioning of our planet.

However, the program has not produced sufficient information, in terms of both content and format, to be the basis for sound decisions. The program has focused nearly all of its resources and efforts on scientific inquiry. Only one broad assessment of the impact of global change on society has ever been attempted by the program, and that assessment was completed nearly seven years after its Congressionally mandated deadline. The local, state, regional, and national policymakers responsible for managing resources, fostering economic development, and responding to natural disasters need information to guide their decisions. In my view, it is critical that Congress reorient the USGCRP toward a user-driven research endeavor.

Most people agree that the climate is changing, but there is widespread disagreement about how much is the result of human activities. I think this bill deserves the support of people on both sides of that argument.

We need to move beyond debates about whether global change is occurring and allocating responsibility for the changes. I continue to believe fervently that we must do all we can to soften our impact on the environment and to slow the pace of global change. But we are going to have to deal with climate change with some mix of mitigation and adaptation. We must acknowledge the interdependence of our social, economic and environmental systems and learn to anticipate and adjust to changes that will inevitably occur.

In its recent review of the Administration's draft strategic plan for the USGCRP, the National Academy of Sciences acknowledged the need for research to evaluate strategies to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of global change, and the Academy recommended that the plan be revised to enhance efforts to support decision-making. The Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2003 reorients the program to accomplish these goals.

The NAS praised the Administration for including the development of decision support tools in the strategic plan, but criticized the

plan for its failure to ``recognize the full diversity of decision makers'' and for failing to ``describe mechanisms for two-way communication with stakeholders.''

The Global Change Research and Data Management Act would address these criticisms by requiring the Administration to identify and consult with members of the user community in developing the USGCRP research plan. The bill would also mandate the involvement of the National Governors Association in evaluating the program plan from the perspective of the user community. These steps would help to ensure that the information needs of the policy community will be met as generously as the funding needs of the academic community.

The 1990 law outlined a highly specific organizational structure for the USGCRP. My bill would eliminate this detailed organizational structure and provide the President with the flexibility to assemble an Interagency Committee and organizational structure that will best deliver the products Congress is requesting. My bill would, however, retain many of the key features of current law--the requirements for a ten-year strategic plan, for periodic assessments of the effects of global change on the natural, social, and economic systems upon which we depend, and for increased international cooperation in global change science.

My bill would establish a new interagency working group to coordinate federal policies on data management and archiving. Advances in computer, monitoring, and satellite technologies have vastly expanded our ability to collect and analyze data. We must do a much better job of managing and archiving these important data resources to support the work of current and future scientists and policymakers.

As was clear from the impasse on the climate provisions of the energy bill in the 107th Congress, we have yet to agree on how much more information, if any, is needed before we take actions to slow the effects of human activities on global change. These are tough policy questions that we will continue to wrestle with. This bill does not offer specific policy direction, but it does affirm the need for the continued strong federal support for global change research, and it does map out a new emphasis on production of information needed to inform these important policy debates. As the world's leader in science and technology, it is incumbent on us to develop solutions that will protect our planet's resources and permit continued economic and social progress for our nation and for the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the distinguished service of John Moles, Chief of the Red, White and Blue fire department in Breckenridge, CO. Chief Moles is retiring this month after 27 years of service to his community.

Chief Moles and his colleagues in fire departments throughout the country put their lives on the line daily to ensure our health and safety. Their service is especially critical in these times of war and threats to our homeland.

Chief Moles recognized the importance of this service and helped to make the Breckenridge fire department the proud community asset that it is today. We too often fail to acknowledge the hard, selfless work of people like Chief Moles. So, I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking John Moles for his service and many contributions to his colleagues, community, state and nation and in wishing him and his family all the best for the future.

For the information of our colleague, I am attaching a copy of a recent story about Chief Moles and his work for Breckenridge that appeared in the Summit Daily newspaper.

From the Summit Daily, March 23, 2003

Breck fire chief retires after 27 years

(By Jane Stebbins)

Breckenridge.--After 27 years in the fire service, Red,

White and Blue Fire Chief John Moles announced his retirement

Thursday afternoon. Assistant chief Gary Green will serve as

the interim chief until the fire district board selects a

successor.

Moles spent Friday packing up boxes of photos, awards and

other memorabilia he's collected in his years at the

Breckenridge fire station.

``I've been cleaning out my desk and finding pictures from

15 years ago, ID cards from when I started with the

Breckenridge Volunteers,'' Moles said. ``I wondered where

that went. ``

Moles doesn't plan to do anything for a couple of weeks,

then he'll take a vacation with his wife, Carol, daughters,

Kelly and Jennifer, and son, Tommy. Then he'll look for a

second career.

``I really don't know what, though,'' he said. ``After

doing this for 27 years, I want to do something different.''

Moles joined the department as a volunteer in May 1975--

when the department was still known as the Breckenridge

Volunteer Fire Department--and was promoted to maintenance

officer a year later.

Moles worked his way up the ranks, first as a training

division captain for five years, then as the assistant chief

of operations. In July 1993, he was promoted to chief.

During his tenure, Moles saw two station remodels and the

construction of a new station near Tiger Road and Highway 9.

Several old, outdated vehicles and equipment were replaced.

He worked on some of Breckenridge's biggest fires--at the

Cedars condominiums in Breckenridge and at Jack Pine in

Dillon--and numerous car accidents. Emergency response,

however, took a different tack on Sept. 11, 2001.

``All of a sudden, we entered a new age,'' Moles said. ``It

was a new age of anthrax and serious terrorism, biological

and nuclear threats.''

Over the years, the fire department has matured from

volunteers responding from their homes to a 24-hour staff of

career, volunteer and resident firefighters. When he started,

the Breckenridge Volunteers comprised 14 volunteers. Today,

Red, White and Blue comprises 15 volunteers, 30 residents and

career firefighters and five administrative staff members.

Over the years, Moles helped the 911 dispatch center and

spearheaded the program to get automatic external

defibrillators (AED) for cardiac emergencies. He also was the

first firefighter in the county to use an AED and save

someone's life.

``We had just gotten certified by a hospital in Denver, and

the paperwork was just coming in on a fax,'' he said. ``But

the only thing that came in was a cover sheet--no names, no

acknowledgement of certifications. And then we got a cardiac

arrest at the Breck Inn (now the Breckenridge Mountain

Lodge), and the defibrillator was sitting in my office. I had

to decide whether to use it without truly being certified. I

was a little nervous, but I opted to use it.''

That call was among his favorites, he said.

``It's the thrill of a victory,'' he said. ``You have this

training, and you get instant results.''

Under his leadership, fire crews have expanded safety

inspections, firefighter and medic training and public

education.

Despite all his accomplishments, Moles said he is happiest

to have watched his firefighters grow into a group of

dedicated professionals with expertise and training that

rivals bigger city departments.

``They're very progressive, a very young bunch of

enthusiastic firefighters who want to do the best for the

citizens, and they'll continue to get better every year,'' he

said. ``I'm proud of the whole system. I was proud of the

firefighters when I started and where they went year after

year. I feel that even back in '70s and '80s we were the

best, and we kept getting better. We never settled to be

`good enough.' ''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado, and to congratulate VOC for its two decades of working to enhance the beauty, accessibility and integrity of Colorado's parks, greenways and public lands.

The work of VOC and its countless volunteers has benefited the entire state. Through countless thousands of hours of strenuous yet rewarding work, trails have been repaired, wheelchair ramps installed, trees planted and facilities constructed. The results have enhanced the outdoor experiences of visitors to Colorado's public lands splendor.

Poll after poll shows that Americans believe that environmental protection and quality of life are high priorities. And just as many people believe themselves to be ``environmentalists.'' But too often, people lack a way to give practical expression to these views. VOC provides that opportunity.

Participating in VOC activities is fun, easy and user-friendly. You don't need to be an expert, you don't need to know how to drive a tractor or a backhoe. All you need is a passion for the beauty and health of our surroundings--urban, suburban, in the mountains or on the plains--to participate. That, and a healthy willingness to get your hands and feet dirty.

I am especially appreciative of VOC's legacy of active volunteerism because the values it engenders are needed now more than ever.

Since I was first elected to Congress, I have visited high schools throughout Colorado's Second Congressional District. What I've heard from the young people I've met on these visits has reinforced my conviction that we need to provide them with opportunities to develop self-respect and a sense of accomplishment--because those experiences can be antidotes to much of the anger and alienation that can erupt into violence.

Before entering public life, I headed the Colorado Outward Bound school. It provides challenging adventures, such as rappelling down a mountain, fording a rushing river and surviving alone in the wilderness. Outward Bound, not unlike Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado, aims at teaching people to take care of themselves and then to work together. This allows each individual to develop self-reliance and in turn enables each team to accomplish their collective goals.

I think these time-tested principles are very relevant to our search for ways to help our young people and our society. They aren't new--ask any good coach, teacher or VOC project leader--but they do work.

Along those lines, I think we should try to afford more young people the chance to confront challenges, tap into personal reservoirs of resourcefulness, and pull together as a group. And in the West as nowhere else we have a way to provide those experiences--outdoors, on the public lands.

That's why VOC and its projects benefit not only our young people, but people of all ages to get closer to the land and develop stronger ties to their communities, their families and themselves. That's also a major reason why I am a strong supporter of VOC and also why I have introduced legislation in the Congress to promote more volunteerism like the work of VOC--especially on our public lands.

In just a couple of weeks, we will be celebrating Earth Day. VOC, and the work it does every day, demonstrates the very principles that Earth Day was designed to celebrate and encourage. Earth Day gives us a chance to take stock of where we are and where we are going in our relationship with this planet. In this spirit and in recognizing the continuing work of VOC and all it participants, I'd like to read something that was written by my uncle, Stewart Udall.

As many of you know, Stewart was Secretary of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. His book, the Quiet Crisis, was considered by many to be a precursor to

the environmental beliefs that lead to the creation of the first Earth Day over 30 years ago. His book, like the work of VOC, opened the eyes of many as to what we are doing to the environment that sustains and enriches our lives. One passage that I think applies to the values of VOC reads:

Each generation has its own rendezvous with the land, for

despite our fee titles and claims of ownership, we are all

brief tenants on this planet. By choice, or by default, we

will carve out a land legacy for our heirs. We can misuse the

land and diminish the usefulness of resources, or we can

create a world in which physical affluence and affluence of

the spirit go hand in hand.

These words reflect the ethic that VOC invokes everyday--and I can think of no better way to mark its 20th anniversary. I wish VOC continued success for the next 20 years and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this bill.

When President Bush called for the voluntary vaccination against smallpox of 500,000 health care workers and other first responders last December, many criticized the plan for being incomplete. Not only did it not include a federal compensation fund to help those injured by the vaccine or their survivors, but the plan did not provide adequate education, prescreening, or surveillance. The relatively few numbers of health care workers and first responders who have received the vaccine--only about 21,700 to date--indicate that there are real concerns about the plan's shortcomings.

After all, the smallpox vaccine uses a live strain of the virus. The vaccine has the worst record of negative side effects of any vaccine in the world. So it is critical that those being vaccinated understand the risks involved and be prescreened for conditions that require them to avoid the vaccine. The recent deaths of a nurse, a nurses aide, and a National Guardsman after their vaccinations only underscore this point.

Like the President's plan, this bill has serious shortcomings. In particular, I'm concerned that the compensation program is not comprehensive enough and that it does not provide adequate education and safeguards. I believe that the House must consider improvements to this bill. But the Democrats are being denied the opportunity to offer amendments to do that.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Hugh and Marty Downey of Arvada, Colorado, who have dedicated their lives to over five hundred orphans in Matoso, Kenya.

Raising more than $300,000 a year through private donations and small businesses, the Downeys are able to run a home and medical center for the children that is known as ``the place of hope'' or Lalmba to the people of Kenya.

Stationed with the U.S. Army as a communications specialist in Africa over forty years ago, Hugh Downey knew little of Africa and the role he would play with Kenya's children. Today, he and Marty spend six months out of the year raising 500 children in African grass huts and the other six months with their own grown children back in Colorado.

Home to 2.2 million out of 3 million AIDS victims, Africa has found itself in an epidemic affecting both children and adults. In Kenya, 190,000 deaths a year are caused by HIV/AIDS, so it is not surprising that the majority of the Downey's orphans were born to parents who died from AIDS. The rate of Kenyans contracting the AIDS virus has doubled in the past decade, and will continue to rise and affect children.

As AIDS continues to greatly affect the African economy and society, Marty and Hugh Downey have been called upon to educate and house an increasing number of orphans. Many African adults, because they suffer from AIDS, are unable to support their families--in fact, their children are forced to drop out of school and work to support their dying parents. As the cost for AIDS medication and school fees increase, most children have no choice but to begin working at a young age. By offering education and preventive AIDS medication for the children, the Downey's are giving these Kenyan children the chance at a future.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Marty and Hugh Downey for their dedication and commitment to bettering the future for over 500 African children with their creation of Lalmba and to wish them continued success with their chosen mission of mercy and hope.

Mr. Speaker, I learned today that Colorado has suffered its first casualty in the war on Iraq. Lance Corporal Thomas Slocum was one of nine Marines killed near Al Nasiriyah on Sunday,

March 23, in an ambush. Another forty Marines were wounded in the fight. My heart goes out to Lance Corporal Slocum's family and friends.

Thomas Slocum was based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina but called Thornton, Colorado, his home. He was just 22 years old at the time of his death--so young, but old enough to have developed the courage and dedication it took for him to answer the call to service. He was a brave and dedicated Marine who proudly served when his nation called on him to fight in the war against Iraq to bring freedom and justice to that country.

The death of Lance Corporal Slocum brings this war closer to home for us all. All Coloradans, and indeed all Americans share in the pain of Lance Corporal Slocum's death, but we also share in honoring his unswerving dedication to our great nation. He will forever be remembered for his heroism and his sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, last week Colorado experienced a very heavy snowstorm--in fact, it was a blizzard in many areas. This was good news for our state, which has been suffering from a serious drought. However, it seriously interfered with travel. As a result, I was unable to be present for votes on several measures. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall No. 65, H. Con. Res. 26--Condemning the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 66, H.R. 868--Nicaragua Property Dispute Settlement Act of 2003--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 67, H. Res. 109--Urging passage of a resolution addressing human rights in North Korea at the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and calling on the Government of North Korea to respect and protect the human rights of its citizens--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 68, H.R. 314--Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act (Royce Financial Services)--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 69, H.R. 417--Cibola Wildlife Refuge Boundary Correction--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 70, H.R. 699--To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study of the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley Aquifer, located in Idaho and Washington--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 71, the Sherman amendment to H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 72, the Nadler amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 73, the Jackson-Lee motion to recommit H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 74, passage of H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 75, on approving the Journal, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 76, H.R. 1307--To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes-- I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 77, H. Res. 132--Expressing the sense of the House that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes--I would have voted ``present.''

I would have voted that way because I am not a lawyer and have not studied the relevant decisions of the Supreme court--and so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to say that the cited decision of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with those decisions.

Last year, I voted in favor of a related (but not identical) resolution. However, as I said at that time, I did so not because I necessarily agreed that the Circuit Court's decision is ``inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence'' as that resolution said, but because I agreed that ``the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should agree to rehear'' the matter, as that resolution also stated.

I am proud to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because I personally consider it as being neither a prayer nor a religious practice and so think its recitation is not a religious exercise but instead a verbal expression of support for our country. However, obviously not everyone shares my view. And, as I said last year, I am not prepared to conclude that the author of the Ninth Circuit decision--a long-serving judge originally appointed by President Nixon--was clearly wrong as a matter of law, even though as I understand it another appeals court, in a similar case, has ruled differently. So, I definitely think the issue needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

On rollcall No. 78, the Hill (Blue Dog) substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 79, the Toomey (Republican Study Committee) substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 80, the Cummings (Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 81, the Spratt (Democratic) substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 82, on passage on H. Con. Res. 95 (the budget resolution), I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 83, passage of H. Con. Res. 104--expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom--I would have voted ``yes.''

I would have done so because although I have disagreed with the way the President has handled the diplomatic events leading up to war, it is now time for us all to support our brave men and women in uniform who are charged with carrying out this mission and to pray for their success and safe return home. We all hope for a swift resolution with minimal casualties--among our troops and Iraqis as well. And we must do more to protect ourselves at home. I am confident that the United States and our allies will win the war. That will not be the end, but the beginning of the more difficult task of securing the peace. Congress must commit to providing aid to rebuild Iraq and the Administration must work to repair relationships with our allies. We will need them and the rest of the international community in our corner to rebuild Iraq, bring stability to the Middle East, and win the war on terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the State High-risk Pool Drug Assistance Program Act. The bill provides much needed relief on prescription drug costs for those individuals who get health insurance coverage through a qualified state high-risk pool insurance program.

While much of the debate on prescription drugs has focused on older Americans, there is another group of Americans who need affordable access to prescription drugs. These people are the 153,000 individuals who get health care coverage through a state high-risk pool insurance program.

Thirty states have established high-risk pools for individuals who cannot obtain or afford health insurance in the individual market. High-risk pools generally cover people who have been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition or who have received quotes from insurers that are higher than the premiums offered by the risk pools. Their premiums range from 124 percent to 200 percent of the standard market rates in their state.

For example, a female, non-smoker who lives in Adams County in Colorado may pay $850 a month in premiums to obtain coverage through Cover Colorado, my state's highrisk pool. If this woman takes medications to manage a chronic disease, she will have fewer dollars to spend on them. I have heard stories about people with chronic conditions cutting their pills in half, choosing between paying for drugs and paying for food, or forgoing the medications altogether. These folks shouldn't be forced to make these choices at all. I think it's time for Congress to do something to help state high-risk pools, consumers, employers and state legislatures control the cost of healthcare.

My bill would add qualified state high-risk pool programs to the list of entities that participate in the Public Health Service's 340B pricing program, which was created in 1992 to help safety net providers purchase outpatient drugs at discounted rates. The 340B program has expanded access to care to low-income and vulnerable populations without increasing the financial burden on taxpayers. The program has saved safety net providers and the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in outpatient drug costs. We should extend the program to include high-risk pools.

My bill uses the National Association of Insurance Commissioners definition of qualified state high-risk pool so that all risk pools would be able to participate in the program. It gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to promulgate regulations to carry out the program so that it is run similarly to the successful AIDS Drug Assistance Program; however it sets minimum regulations for the operation of the program. People who are enrolled in a risk pool and who take maintenance drugs for chronic conditions could save 40 percent on their prescriptions.

The bill uses the federal government's purchasing power to provide discounts to drugs for high-risk pools nationwide. If individuals in high-risk pools can't get the drugs they need to manage their condition, they could end up in the emergency room and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. If they weren't covered under the risk pool, they would most likely end up in Medicaid or uninsured, which would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. Ironically, many consumers in risk pools have conditions that would qualify them for one of the public programs currently covered under the 340B drug discount program. But their income level is too high for public health programs and too low to afford coverage in the individual market, and that's only if they aren't denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition.

Some may ask what the federal interest is in this issue. Congress has already determined that interest by guaranteeing that people have access to high-risk pools through the Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act of 1996 and the Trade Act of 2002, both of which are federal laws. Since the federal government is requiring high-risk pools to cover more people, it should make high-risk pools covered entities under the 340B program to save taxpayer dollars.

The legislation is good for the insurance market, consumers, employers and states. It is good for the insurance market and for consumers because high-risk pools stabilize health insurance coverage and reduce the number of uninsured.

It is good for the risk pools because the savings that they experience from the drug discount can be used to provide more affordable coverage and better health plans.

It is good for consumers because it will give people in high-risk pools access to affordable maintenance medications for chronic conditions and keep them out of the emergency room.

It is good for employers because if we control the costs of the high- risk programs, it will keep down the assessments that insurers and employers pay to fund the program.

And it is good for states because if we control the costs of the program, cash-strapped states won't have to find additional funds to stabilize the risk pool, and the state's contribution will go a lot further.

Mr. Speaker, a small but not insignificant number of people would benefit from my legislation, and it would save millions of dollars in health care costs and uncompensated care. This is a prevention bill, a cost savings bill, a pro-business bill and a taxpayer savings bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues and all interested parties to pass meaningful drug assistance legislation for our nation's state high-risk pools.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003. I am very pleased that my colleague Representative Chip Pickering of Mississippi is joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill.

I introduced this bill as H.R. 2426 in the 107th Congress, and the House--though not the Senate--passed it last year. I'm eager to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this Congress to see my legislation through to passage in both chambers.

I introduced this bill in the 107th Congress mainly to address a real problem we have in Colorado, the problem of excess growth and sprawl. My goal was to point to a way to utilize the resources of the federal government to help foster wise community planning and management at the local level. As a member of the House Science Committee and the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, it made sense to me to look for ways to help communities grow in a smarter way through the use of technology.

I have reintroduced the bill in this Congress because I still believe we need to do more to promote geospatial technology. Geospatial data from satellites can produce very accurate maps that show information about vegetation, wildlife habitat, flood plains, transportation corridors, soil types, and many other things.

By giving state and local governments and communities greater access to geospatial data from commercial sources and federal agencies such as NASA, I believe that the federal government can help bring valuable-- and powerful--informational planning resources to the table.

My bill would facilitate this transfer of information. The bill would establish in NASA a program of grants for competitively awarded pilot projects. The purpose would be to explore the integrated use of sources of remote sensing and other geospatial information to address state, local, regional, and tribal agency needs.

State and local governments and communities can use geospatial information in a variety of applications--in such areas as urban land- use planning, coastal zone management and erosion control, transportation corridors, environmental planning, and agricultural and forest management.

But another potential application that has garnered much recent attention is the use of geospatial technology to bolster our homeland security.

Emergency management has always been an important responsibility of state and local governments. But in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the scope of this responsibility has broadened. Geospatial technology can help states and localities identify the location, nature, and scope of potential vulnerabilities and the impact of potential hazards, as well as how to respond to events and recover from them.

Certainly it is important that we continue to add to our database of available geospatial information--more information is always better than less. But we also need to get maximum use of information we already have at hand. That is the need this bill would address.

State and local officials are becoming more familiar with the uses of geospatial technology for various planning purposes. However, there is a need for federal agencies such as NASA, which has been pioneering the uses of satellite remote sensing technologies, to work with state and local organizations to demonstrate how remote sensing and other geospatial data can offer a cost effective planning and assessment tool.

I'm pleased there was broad bipartisan cosponsorship of the bill in the last Congress and that it earned the endorsement of a number of important national organizations. These supporters of my bill understand the importance of targeting geospatial information at the places where it will have the greatest impact--the local and regional levels.

The Remote Sensing Applications Act can help begin to bridge the gap between established and emerging technology solutions and the problems and challenges that state and local communities face regarding growth management, homeland security, forest fire management, and other issues.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will be welcomed by states and localities nationwide. I look forward to working with Representative Pickering and other Members of the House, including my colleagues on the Science Committee, to move forward with this important initiative.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am again introducing legislation to help ensure our nation's family farms and ranches continue to produce the agricultural products that have made us the breadbasket for the world.

Small family farms and ranches helped build the foundation of America. Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter to George Washington, ``Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.'' Today many small farms and ranches have disappeared. This is in part because the smaller farms and ranches have not been able to change to more profitable means of production. To continue as a viable business in agriculture farmers and ranchers need to be able to use modern techniques that increase profitability, and do it in a manner that is environmentally sound.

The Family Farm and Ranch Innovation Act (FFRJA) would provide necessary tools for small agriculture businesses to modernize and become more competitive in today's market, access to credit and a plan to turn the credit into increased revenue.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Commission on Small Farms report titled A Time to Act found, ``The underlying trend toward small farm decline reflects fundamental technological and market changes. Simply put, conventional agriculture adds less and less value to food and fiber on the farm and more and more in the input and post- harvest sectors. We spend more on capital and inputs to enable fewer people to produce the Nation's food and look primarily to off farm processing to produce higher value products. Sustainable agriculture strives to change this trend by developing knowledge and strategies by which farmers can capture a large share of the agricultural dollar by using management skills to cut input costs--so a large share of the prices they receive for their products remain in their own pockets--and by producing products of higher value right from the farm.'' (In context of the report farms include ranches.)

The innovation plans in FFRIA, to be developed with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, would provide the blueprints to increase the value of farm and ranch outputs.

The report also found, ``Agricultural operations require high levels of committed capital to achieve success. The capital-intensive nature of agricultural production makes access to financial capital, usually, in the form of credit, a critical requirement. Small farms are no different from larger farms in this regard, but testimony and USDA reports received by this Commission indicate a general under- capitalization of small farms, and increased difficulty in accessing sources of credit.'' If small farms and ranches are going to use improved technologies laid out in innovation plans they will need capital. The Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program has a long history of helping small businesses and would be a great tool for small farmers and ranchers to implement their plans.

America's small farms and ranches need a hand up to remain viable in our rapidly changing marketplace. Often today's small agriculture businesses are family owned and have only a very small profit margin. The combination of low market prices for raw agricultural commodities and the rising cost of land means that many of these businesses cannot afford

to carry on. And that causes more urbanization of valuable farm and ranch land.

This legislation recognizing the importance of our small farming and ranching businesses. They provide diversity in the market place, local production of food, less pollution, and jobs, all of which strengthen our economy. And, farms and ranches that are part of our community remind us that food and other agricultural products don't just come from stores, and remind us of our connection to the land.

Mr. Speaker, small farms and ranches have provided the livelihood for many families since the beginning of our country. This bill will help ensure small farms and ranches do not become a thing of the past by providing the technical expertise and capital to allow them to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

Fact Sheet--Family Farm and Ranch Innovation Act

Summary: Bill would authorize the USDA to assist Small

farmers and ranchers who want to improve their operations by

developing Innovation Plans and would authorize the Small

Business Administration to provide loan guarantees to

implement these plans.

Loan Authority

Bill authorizes the Administrator of the Small Business

Administration to guarantee, under section 7(a) of the Small

Business Act, loans to small businesses engaged in farming

and ranching, for the purpose of implementing Agricultural

Innovation Plans.

Agricultural Innovation Plans

Plans are to be developed on request of a farmer or rancher

whose operation has been certified as a small business

concern under the definition of the Small Business

Administration.

Plans are designed to increase the on-farm or on-ranch

income of small farmers or ranchers and protect the

environmental quality of the farm or ranch where the farming

and ranching operation is located by minimizing the

production of pollutants and conserving the natural resource

of the farm or ranch.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, will develop the plans.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill with my cousin Rep. Tom Udall to establish a federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS).

The electric utilities throughout the country have done a good job providing this nation with reliable energy. They have done so well, in fact, that we take our energy for granted.

But as demand continues to grow, we need to make sure that we continue to have affordable and reliable supplies. And, most importantly, as we move to more competition in the delivery of electricity, we must make sure that the environment and consumers are protected. So it makes sense to put incentives in place to ensure that less polluting and environmentally friendly sources of energy can find their way into the marketplace.

But it's not enough to take protective steps. I believe it's critical that we also take affirmative steps to promote cleaner energy production. That's why I support requiring that a certain amount of our energy supplies come from renewable energy sources in the form of a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS.

The RPS is a market-friendly approach that will provide increased reliability, energy security, and environmental and health benefits. By reducing the cost of new clean technologies, it will also make more choices increasingly available in the competitive marketplace, and help restrain fossil fuel price increases by creating more competition for those fuels. The RPS creates intense competition among renewables, with the market picking winners and losers among renewable technologies, not the government.

An RPS will be good for consumers. According to the Department of Energy, an RPS will save consumers billions of dollars. An RPS will also spur economic development in the form of billions of dollars in new capital investment and in new property tax revenues for local communities, and millions of dollars in new lease payments to farmers and rural landowners. Importantly, an RPS will also keep our energy dollars at home and diversify our energy portfolio. Finally, the increased use of clean renewable energy through an RPS will take us toward a clean energy future by reducing air pollution from dirty fossil-fueled power plants that threaten public health and our climate.

We have worked hard to draft legislation that we believe will create public benefits for everyone. The renewable energy goals the bill sets are significant--requiring retail electricity suppliers to derive 20 percent of their power production from renewables by 2025. In addition, the bill is not overly burdensome for states as it gives them flexibility to achieve these goals. The bill sets up a credit trading system that allows states to buy and sell credits to meet their renewable energy goals, which will work to further reduce costs. A cap of 3 cents a kilowatt-hour protects consumers from excessive costs. The bill permits states to borrow credits against future renewables, bank renewable credits for future use, or sell them on the open market. The bill gives federal credits for existing renewables and for renewables required under a state RPS. The bill also returns money to the states from the sale of credits for state weatherization programs, low-income energy assistance programs, and for encouraging the installation of additional renewables.

Finally, our bill makes clear that while material removed from the national forests in connection with fuel reduction projects or for other reasons can qualify as biomass, we have been careful to make it clear that the bill does not set up a new program under which timber would be harvested specifically for that purpose.

Our RPS bill will save consumers money, benefit farmers and rural landowners, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security. My cousin and I believe this RPS bill is a win-win proposition and worthy of the support of our colleagues. We will work together and with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to push it forward in the House.