Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the International Environmental Defense Act of 2003.

The purpose of this bill is to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Defense to respond to environmental emergencies. It is cosponsored by my colleagues from Colorado, Representative Joel Hafley. I greatly appreciate his support.

In times of natural disaster or other emergencies, the United States for decades has come to the aid of those in need--whether the crisis is the result of an earthquake in Turkey, an erupting volcano in South America, or deadly floods in some other part of the world.

When the need arises, the U.S. Government provides humanitarian assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development, the State Department, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies. It also contracts with private voluntary agencies to provide such assistance and coordinates the U.S. response with that of other countries.

The American military has an outstanding record of participation in these activities. All Americans take pride in the humanitarian assistance provided by the men and women of our armed services.

I strongly support this policy. It is the right thing to do, and in the best interests of our country as well as of people everywhere. Humanitarian assistance is critical to help communities or regions or whole countries recover from devastating natural or man-made events.

But global emergencies come in other forms as well--including environmental emergencies such as oil or chemical spills or other similar occurrences. They may not have the immediate impact on people of homes destroyed in an earthquake or of crops lost to drought. But by polluting waterways, killing fish or other species, or contaminating the air, water, or land, environmental disasters can have devastating effects on the health and well-being of people, wildlife, and ecosystems.

So, wherever they occur, environmental emergencies have the potential to affect the national interest of the United States. And our government--including our military forces--should have the same ability to respond as in the case of other emergencies.

Current law authorizes the Department of Defense to use it funds for the transport of humanitarian relief, allowing U.S. military personnel to help provide foreign countries with emergency assistance such as helicopter transport, temporary water supplies, and road and bridge repair. For example, U.S. military personnel were part of the U.S. response to Hurricane Mitch in Central America and recent earthquakes in El Salvador and India.

But when it comes to environmental emergencies, under current law the military now has less ability to help. Those are the situations that are addressed by the bill I am introducing today.

The International Environmental Defense Act would fill a gap in current law so U.S. military transport could be used not only for humanitarian, but also for environmental emergencies. The bill does not require that this be done--but it would authorize the Defense Department to do so, just as current law authorizes but does not require the transport of humanitarian assistance to respond to other emergencies.

As an illustration of the limitations of the current law, consider a recent case about which I have first-hand knowledge.

In 2001, there was a very serious oil spill in the Pacific Ocean that threatened to contaminate the Galapagos Islands. The government of Ecuador and people everywhere were very concerned that this could imperil the world-famous wildlife of the islands and the rest of that unique ecosystem. They hastened to organize a response.

As part of that response, the Ecuadoran Government was in contact with a company in Colorado that makes a product to absorb oil from sea water. But complications arose, and the company contacted my office to see if we could help resolve them.

As we explored the situation, we learned that while the government of Ecuador was interested in acquiring the Colorado company's product, they also wanted to arrange for the United States to transport it to Ecuador by military aircraft, because that would be quicker and cheaper than other alternatives. But when we contacted the Defense Department to see if there was a possibility that could be arranged, we learned about the limitations of current law. In short, we learned that while military transport might be possible to provide humanitarian relief, that option was not available to respond to an environmental emergency.

The bill I am introducing today would change that--not by requiring the military to provide transport in such a case, but by providing that option in case the U.S. Government should decide it would be appropriate. Perhaps this would have been useful authority for the military to have when the Prestige broke up off the northwest coast of Spain in November 2002.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a far-reaching bill. But I think it would provide useful authority for our country to respond to environmental problems that, ultimately, can affect us and the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Laboratory Educational Partners Act of 2003, a bill that would permit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and other Department of Energy laboratories to use revenue from their inventions to support science education activities. The bill is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Representative Bob Beauprez. I greatly appreciate his support.

The Federal Laboratory Educational Partners Act would amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. Under the Stevenson-Wydler Act, federal labs can use licensing royalties, sometimes called Bayh-Dole revenues, for five purposes. These include rewarding laboratories' scientific employees; furthering scientific exchange among laboratories; educating and training laboratories' employees consistent with the labs' research and development missions; covering expenses incidental to the laboratories' administration and licensing of intellectual property; and conducting scientific research and development, again consistent with the labs' research and development missions.

My bill would amend the fifth purpose to add educational assistance as another permitted use of licensing royalties.

Federal laboratories, especially the Department of Energy's national laboratories, with their high concentrations of scientists and engineers, are uniquely positioned to aid surrounding communities in improving the learning experience of their students. Currently, NREL conducts some science education activities using funds provided by private sources, including funds from companies that operate the lab-- the midwest Research Institute, Battelle, and Bechtel. But enabling NREL to use licensing revenues would give the lab greater flexibility.

Even without the expansion of permitted uses of licensing revenues that this bill would enable, NREL has conducted a number of science education programs with private funds and some funds from the Department of Energy and other federal agencies.

For instance, NREL initiated the Coalition for Learning Opportunities and United Tutors (CLOUT) program in 1998. CLOUT began as a pilot program matching 200 volunteers with fourth graders in 17 Denver public schools who needed help with reading. The program has grown to be a great success.

Another example is NREL's Junior Solar Sprint, which celebrated its twelfth year in 2002. This annual event gives students the chance to design, build, and race vehicles whose only energy source is sunlight. Each team starts with a motor and a silicon solar cell, and teams are awarded design trophies based on technology, craftsmanship, and innovation.

A third example is NREL's Columbine Spirit Scholarship at the Colorado School of Mines. It was established in 1999 by the contractors that operate NREL, MRI, Battelle and Bechtel. The three companies gave an initial $25,000 to endow the fund, which is used to award scholarships to graduates of Columbine and other Jefferson County high schools through the Colorado School of Mines Foundation. The scholarship is offered first to Columbine graduates who are pursuing degrees in disciplines related to the laboratory's research and development mission.

These three examples help us understand the importance of science education activities associated with federal laboratories and what they can mean for their surrounding communities. But because of the narrowness of current provisions in law, NREL and other labs are not able to utilize licensing revenues to support any of the activities outlined above or any other science education programs. As a result, NREL and other labs must depend on private funds for the bulk of its science education activities, which unnecessarily restricts what these labs can do in this area. My bill would expand the law to allow greater flexibility.

Licensing revenues have grown markedly over the years as the technologies NREL has created have gained wide acceptance. It makes sense to me that we should give the labs a bit more freedom to spend these funds, especially on pursuits as worthwhile as science education which can expose young people to the excitement and relevance of careers in science and technology.

Research is an investment in the future. I believe the integration of research and science education to take advantage of the unique resources and facilities of the Department of Energy's national laboratories and research facilities should be a high priority.

Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing a bill to designate as wilderness most of the lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park, in Colorado.

This legislation will provide important protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country, adding nearly 250,000 acres in the park to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill is essentially identical to one previously introduced by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, and one I introduced in the 107th Congress. Those bills in turn were based on similar measures earlier proposed, including some by former Senator Bill Armstrong and others.

Over a number of years my predecessor and I have worked with the National Park Service and others to refine the boundaries of the areas proposed for wilderness designation and consulted closely with many interested parties in Colorado, including local officials and both the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the St. Vrain & Left Hand Ditch Water Conservancy District. These consultations provided the basis for many of the provisions of the bill I am introducing today, particularly regarding the status of existing water facilities.

Covering some 94 percent of the park, the new wilderness will include Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of Rocky Mountain National Park are included in the wilderness that would be designated by this bill.

The features of these lands and waters that make Rocky Mountain National Park a true gem in our national parks system also make it an outstanding wilderness candidate.

The wilderness boundaries are carefully located to assure continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, and areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park management and visitor services. In addition, specific provisions are included to assure that there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities.

This bill is based on National Park Service recommendations, prepared more than 25 years ago and presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. It seems to me that, in that time, there has been sufficient study, consideration, and refinement of those recommendations so that Congress can proceed

with this legislation. I believe that this bill constitutes a fair and complete proposal, sufficiently providing for the legitimate needs of the public at large and all interested groups, and deserves to be enacted in this form.

It took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a statewide national forest wilderness bill. Since then, action has been completed on bills designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge portion of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area, and the James Peak area of the Arapaho, Roosevelt National Forests.

We now need to continue making progress regarding wilderness designations for deserving lands, including other public lands in our state that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain National Park that are dealt with in the bill I am introducing today.

All Coloradans know that the question of possible impacts on water rights can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. So, it's very important to understand that the question of water rights for Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness is entirely different from many considered before, and is far simpler.

To begin with, it has long been recognized under the laws of the United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national park itself.

This is not, so far as I have been able to find out, a controversial decision, because there is a widespread consensus that there should be no new water projects developed within Rocky Mountain National Park. And, since the park sits astride the continental divide, there's no higher land around from which streams flow into the park, so there is no possibility of any upstream diversions. And it's important to emphasize that in any event water rights associated with wilderness would amount only to guarantees that water will continue to flow through and out of the park as it always has. This preserves the natural environment of the park, but it doesn't affect downstream water use.

The bottom line is that once water leaves the park, it will continue to be available for diversion and use under Colorado law regardless of whether or not lands within the park are designated as wilderness.

These legal and practical realities are reflected in my bill--as in my predecessor's--by inclusion of a finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill affects any such reservation.

Some may ask, why should we designate wilderness in a national park? Isn't park protection the same as wilderness, or at least as good? The answer is that the wilderness designation will give an important additional level of protection to most of the park.

Our national park system was created, in part, to recognize and preserve prime examples of outstanding landscape. At Rocky Mountain National Park in particular, good Park Service management over the past 83 years has kept most of the park in a natural condition. And all the lands that are covered by this bill are currently being managed, in essence, to protect their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, but will make it clear that within the designated areas there will never be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that interfere with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the mountains.

This kind of protection is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As nearby land development and alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's landscape.

Further, Rocky Mountain National Park's popularity demands definitive and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for development with the park. While only about one tenth the size of Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain sees nearly the same number of visitors each year as does our first national park.

At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue improvements to park roads and visitor facilities.

So, Mr. Speaker, this bill will protect some of our nation's finest wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any existing opportunity for new water development. And it will affirm our commitment in Colorado to preserving the very features that make our State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think the bill deserves prompt enactment.

I am attaching a fact sheet that outlines the main provisions of this bill:

rocky mountain national park wilderness act

Rocky Mountain National Park

Rocky Mountain National Park, one of the nation's most

visited parks, possesses some of the most pristine and

striking alpine ecosystems and natural landscapes in the

continental United States. This park straddles the

Continental Divide along Colorado's northern Front Range. It

contains high altitude lakes, herds of bighorn sheep and elk,

glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine

tundra, old-growth forests and thundering rivers. It also

contains Longs Peak, one of Colorado's 54 fourteen thousand-

foot peaks.

The Bill

The bill is based on one introduced by Rep. Udall in the

106th and 107th Congresses and similar legislation proposed

by former Congressman David Skaggs and others previously. It

would:

designate about 249,562 acres within Rocky Mountain

National Park, or about 94 percent of the Park, as

wilderness, including Longs Peak--the areas included is based

on the recommendations prepared over 25 years ago by

President Nixon with some revisions in boundaries to reflect

acquisitions and other changes since that recommendation was

submitted

designate about 1,000-acres as potential wilderness until

non-conforming structures are removed

provide that if non-federal inholdings within the

wilderness boundaries are acquired by the United States, they

will become part of the wilderness and managed accordingly

The bill would NOT:

create a new federal reserved water right; instead, it

includes a finding that the Park's existing federal reserved

water rights, as decided by the Colorado courts, are

sufficient

include certain lands in the Park as wilderness, including

Trail Ridge and other roads used for motorized travel, water

storage and conveyance structures, buildings, developed areas

of the Park, some private inholdings

Existing Water Facilities

Boundaries for the wilderness are drawn to exclude existing

storage and conveyance structures assuring continued use of

the Grand River Ditch and its right-of-way, the east and west

portals of the Adams Tunnel and gauging stations of the

Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Long Draw Reservoir, and lands

owned by the St. Vrain & Left Hand Water Conservancy

District--including Copeland Reservoir.

The bill includes provisions to make clear that its

enactment will not impose new restrictions on already allowed

activities for the operation, maintenance, repair, or

reconstruction of the Adams Tunnel, which diverts water under

Rocky Mountain National Park (including lands that would be

designated by the bill) or other Colorado-Big Thompson

Project facilities, and that additional activities for these

purposes will be allowed should they be necessary to respond

to emergencies and subject to reasonable restrictions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and in tribute to the Columbia seven. Today we mourn them all. We mourn Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Mission Specialists Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, and Laurel Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon.

All seven of the Columbia left behind husbands and wives and family and friends. They were role models to young people everywhere who dreamed of space. They symbolized possibility and achievement to Americans, Indians, Israelis, and citizens of the world. They gave their lives in exploration for America and the world. They hold a special place in all of our hearts.

I would like to say a few words about Dr. Chawla, who earned her doctorate in aerospace engineering at the University of Colorado. Dr. Chawla was the second former CU student to be lost on a NASA mission, joining Ellison Onizuka, who died in the Challenger accident in 1986.

Mr. Speaker, I've included an article from the Denver Post detailing how Dr. Chawla spent five hours on Columbia salvaging the broken space experiment of students at the Colorado School of Mines. Because of Dr. Chawla's help, the students were able to download almost all of the data they had hoped for through a satellite link.

Those who knew Dr. Chawla talk about her incredible determination and drive and her ability to achieve against so many odds. A friend of hers from India said that ``She never

had the feeling that because she was a girl, there were things she should not do.'' She left India, but she never forgot it. Beginning in 1998, at her urging, NASA invited high school students from India to take part in a summer space experience program in Houston. One of the students who visited Houston remembered something Dr. Chawla said to her there: ``Whatever you believe in, do--just follow your dreams.''

In his State of the Union address announcing his vision to put a man on the moon, President Kennedy said that ``it will not be one man going to the moon . . . it will be an entire nation.'' And it has been an entire nation supporting our men and women in space, dreaming their dreams along with them, following their adventures, as a way to satisfy our own curiosity, to stimulate our own sense of discovery and wonder.

I am committed to doing all I can to honor the memory of our brave astronauts. The House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, of which I am a member, will be conducting hearings to try to understand what happened to Columbia, to make sure such a tragedy never happens again, and to help NASA recover and begin anew its mission of discovery. I intend to take an active part in those hearings.

The exploration of space remains one of the great adventures of all time. I am committed to keeping the dream alive, and along with it, the spirits of the Columbia seven.

[From the Denver Post, Feb. 2, 2003]

(By Dave Curtin)

Astronaut Kalpana Chawla became a hero to students at

Colorado School of Mines when she went beyond NASA protocol

to spend five hours Monday salvaging their broken space

experiment.

But more than that, Chawla and her six crewmates made the

students feel like their best friends and equals in space

science as they worked closely together during the past week.

``They were real people. They didn't put themselves above

anyone else. They made us feel important,'' said Ned Riedel,

who helped design the Mines experiment, a system designed to

fight fire in space and on Earth. He worked directly with the

astronauts from Johnson Space Center in Houston until he

returned to Colorado on Friday.

Chawla worked tirelessly to fix a pesky leak on the Mines

firefighting experiment as five students and professors

watched, riveted, from payload control at the space center.

When she was finished with the fixes, the experiment worked

like a charm and data flowed to the students on the ground

for a week, saving the future of the project.

Students couldn't believe the time Chawla and the other

astronauts devoted to their experiment. It was only one of 80

aboard the 16-day flight, including one by international high

school students coordinated by the University of Colorado.

And they couldn't believe how unassuming the astronauts

were since meeting them 2\1/2\ years ago and training them on

the experiment.

``They were incredibly nice people. Easy-going and down-to-

earth people,'' said Riedel. ``Working the mission with them,

they were just fantastic. The timeline in space didn't allow

the time we needed to get it online, and they gave it to us

anyway,'' he said.

``We learned things we never expected. We celebrated all

the way to the end. We were ecstatic, which makes this even

more horrible,'' Riedel said. ``When I head, I cried. I

thought of their families. Now I'm just shocked. I can't get

over it.''

``They sacrificed time from their meals and other things to

give us time not scheduled for our experiment,'' said David

Petrick, a Mines graduate who also returned Friday from

Johnson Space Center, where he worked with the astronauts.

The school's new-generation firefighting system produces a

fine-water mist in spacecraft and has commercial applications

on Earth, including in office towers.

A 1996 international ban on ozone-depleting Halon 1301 as a

chemical fire suppressant has created an urgent need for

other environmentally friendly fire suppressants. The ban

went into effect in 2000.

Using water droplets one-tenth the size of a human hair,

the Mines mister creates a fog that sucks the heat out of

fire, preventing its spread and saving lives.

It's preferable to conventional water sprinklers because it

causes less damage to expensive equipment such as computers.

It's also an attractive alternative for planes and ships

traveling with weight limits, said Frank Schowengerdt,

director of Mines' Center for Commercial Application of

Combustion in Space, one of 17 NASA-funded commercial space-

research centers in the country.

The experiment on board Columbia was a tightly sealed 1\1/

2\-foot cannister with a tiny propane flame that ignited a

gas mixture so researchers could examine how the mist worked

in space.

Thanks to the astronauts' devotion, the students were able

to download 90 percent of the data they had hoped for through

a satellite link last week.

``This experiment that the shuttle crew worked so hard to

repair a few days ago will move forward in their honor, and

we will use the data they gleaned in space to build a

firefighting system they would be proud of,'' Schowengerdt

said. ``And we will think of a way to name it after them.

They made all the difference.''

The students were stunned at how humble the shuttle crew

was as they worked together over the months.

``What makes them extra special is you could walk up to

them and they would remember your name and have a beer with

you,'' Riedel said.

That happened to Riedel and Petrick in December during

final simulation exercises, when the students bumped into the

shuttle crew at Petey's, an astronaut after-hours hangout

near Johnson Space Center.

``I knew Ilan Ramon because he's an astronaut, but it

floored me that he remembered my name and started introducing

me around like I was his best friend,'' Riedel said. ``That's

just the kind of people they all were.''

The students were grieving on Saturday, feeling the loss of

their science partners--astronauts they had come to call

friends.

``We were walking on sunshine Friday,'' Petrick said. ``The

Mission Control folks were smiling at us because we were

dancing and singing, we were so happy. Then on Saturday we

woke to this happening.''

``I thought on Monday it was going to be a tragedy because

we wouldn't be able to get any data for our experiment,''

Riedel said.

``Now I know the definition of tragedy,'' he said, breaking

into tears.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this bill because it is urgently needed. Its enactment will prevent the cutoff of some unemployment benefits--a cutoff that otherwise would occur very soon.

In other words, by passing this bill we can save many people who are out of a job from the harm that otherwise would result from the refusal of the Republican leadership of the House to deal with this last year.

That is the right thing to do, even at this late date--and so I will support it.

But while this bill is necessary, it definitely is not sufficient. It does not cover everyone who should be covered. In fact, it will do nothing to help a million or more people who are out of work and who have used up all their federal benefits. The statistics I have seen indicate that at least 17,000 Coloradans fall into that category.

Those people are no less in need of assistance to enable them to pay their bills and feed their families while they look for work. It is not their fault that since the current downturn began more than 1.5 million jobs have been eliminated from the economy--and while the best response to their problems will be to revive the economy so that new jobs will be created, in the meantime we need to make it possible for them to make ends meet until that recovery really gets underway.

In the meantime, this bill does need to be passed. But it should be just the first step--and not the last one--to respond to the economic problems of Colorado and the rest of the country.