Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, this bill does not do all I want, but I will support it because of what it will do.

Earlier this year, I cosponsored H.R. 2015 because I think that in our country nobody should be denied a job on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and because I think we need a Federal law to supplement the laws that Colorado and some other States have enacted to reduce or prevent such unfair discrimination.

As a cosponsor, I hoped the House would take up H.R. 2015. So, I regret that instead we are considering a similar but not identical measure. Unlike the bill I have cosponsored, H.R. 3685 does not fully protect the full lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. And because of that, some supporters of

the bill I have cosponsored have suggested that it would be better for Congress to pass no legislation rather than to enact this bill in its current form.

I understand their frustration, because I recognize that transgender people face particularly pervasive and severe bias in the workplace and society as a whole and have little protection against employment discrimination under existing State laws, municipal ordinances, or private employment policies.

But although I share their disappointment about the bill's shortcomings, I will support it because I am convinced that H.R. 3685 will improve protections for many thousands of people who might otherwise continue to face unjust discrimination.

Madam Chairman, history shows that legal progress against injustice does not come easily or swiftly.

For example, when Congress and the ratifying States approved the Constitution's 15th Amendment to try to assure the right to vote would not be denied on the basis of race, women were not included--and, although in 1893 Colorado's male voters amended our constitution to include women, other States excluded them until a further amendment took effect. Similarly, since then until the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and subsequent amendments, it has required repeated legislative enactments to construct the structure of legal protections in place today.

Erecting that structure of protection took longer than it should have, but it would have taken longer still if Members of Congress had refused to vote for good measures because they were not good enough.

And while I would have wished it otherwise, I think that is the choice before the House today.

We can vote to further the spirit and intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act--which protects against discrimination against employees or job applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin--by expanding it to similarly bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. Or we can refuse to take that step because it is not the entire journey we want to complete.

I want to take that step, although I know it is not the only one needed. So I will vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3688, the ``United States-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.'' I believe the agreement contains a number of important benefits for the people of both the United States and Peru.

The agreement will provide each country immediate duty-free access for most industrial, agricultural and consumer goods. Remaining tariffs will be phased out gradually. This will bring an improved commercial relationship between our countries that will benefit a number of sectors in the U.S. economy, including high technology, machinery and agriculture.

The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement will improve market access for information technology goods and service providers. Exports of U.S. products like computers and communications equipment to Peru will receive duty-free treatment. This will benefit Colorado because it will expand markets for our companies, which in 2006 sold more than $4 billion in computers and electronic products worldwide, accounting for 51 percent of the state's total international exports.

Passage of this agreement will also help small businesses in Colorado. More than 85 percent of the companies that export goods from our state have fewer than 500 employees. Adoption of this agreement is critical for these small firms that rely on foreign markets and need additional international market access to grow.

While expanding markets for businesses and farmers is critical, it must to be done in a manner that is responsible in the treatment and protection of workers and the environment. This agreement includes important provisions to assure this will occur.

President of the AFL-CIO John Sweeney's comments on the agreement are instructive: ``The new provisions on workers' rights and the environment represent significant progress in crucial areas that we have fought together to achieve for many years.''

The inclusion of labor standards in the agreement's main text will ensure that Peru will adopt, maintain, and enforce its own laws regarding the freedom of association, the right to collectively bargain, as well as the elimination of forced or child labor.

I am pleased the agreement provides a fully enforceable commitment that the U.S. and Peru will adopt, implement, and enforce in their environmental laws and practices obligations under major multilateral environmental agreements, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances.

I commend Peruvian President Alan Garcia for the work the Peruvian government has done to modify domestic law to honor the commitments in this agreement. I urge the Administration and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to ensure these obligations are honored. It is important that the United States takes step to ensure our trading partners provide workers with basic labor rights. By including such requirements we dedicate ourselves to this goal.

I am encouraged that the USTR and the Bush Administration have worked to resolve concerns raised by members of Congress along with outside groups and organizations in the course of this agreement negotiation. It is my hope the same kind of consideration can be given to issues of concern in future trade agreements.

While this agreement is largely about enhancing the exchange of goods and services, it is also about enhancing our relationship with an ally and democratic partner in Peru. Expanding the commercial relationship between the U.S. and Peru can help expand support in combating illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking and countering regional terror groups.

I welcome the beginning of a new chapter in our commercial partnership with Peru and urge the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the House should take up today the question of whether we will exercise our Constitutional authority to impeach the Vice President and to ask the Senate to try him on charges that, if proved, would result in his removal from office.

That does not mean I support the policies advocated by Vice President Cheney or that I think his official conduct has been above reproach. On the contrary, I think that he has helped create many of the most serious problems our country now faces and that he is continuing to advocate policies that would make those problems worse and bring further difficulties upon us.

With President Bush, the vice president spearheaded the unfortunately successful effort to persuade Congress to authorize a rush to war in Iraq--which I opposed. He also was among those in the Bush Administration who refused to listen to the many well-informed people who argued that it was imperative that adequate measures be taken to prevent the disintegration of Iraq's social and governmental fabric that otherwise predictably would follow the equally predictable successful military action to remove the Saddam Hussein regime. And now he clearly is among those who seem to prefer again rushing to use military force--this time to respond to the potential danger of a nuclear-armed Iran--before other options have been exhausted. I strongly oppose that, and have introduced legislation--H.R. 3119--to prohibit funds from being obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above Iran's territory or within Iran's territorial waters except pursuant to a new, specific congressional authorization.

But the question now before the House is not whether we think the vice president's actions have been helpful to the national interest, as his supporters presumably would contend, or whether they have had or could have adverse consequences--as I myself think. Instead, we are being asked whether we should now, today, proceed to charge that the vice president has violated his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the duties of his office and to defend the Constitution and thus should be impeached.

The resolution sets forth what its author says are the specific statements and actions of the vice president that constitute violations of his oath. I agree that those statements and actions are deeply troubling and raise serious questions about the way the vice president has used his position, both in communicating with the American people and in participating in the shaping of Bush Administration policies. But at this moment I am not prepared to say that there are adequate grounds to conclude that those statements and actions in fact constitute grounds for impeachment--and I do not think that Members of the House should be called upon to reach that conclusion today.

I think that before the House is asked to reach that conclusion, the vice president should have an opportunity to respond to the resolution's charges and the statements and actions it cites in support of those charges. I also think that before we are asked to vote on the resolution, we should have the benefit of hearing from appropriate legal experts and other qualified witnesses and that the Judiciary Committee should prepare a report that will provide the basis for any debate here on the floor of the House.

Impeachment is not entirely a legal question. It is partly political, which is why the Constitution entrusts it to Congress and not the courts. But I think it is essential that any decision to impeach any federal official should come only through a careful, thorough process that provides adequate due process for the accused and that will lay the proper foundation for a sound decision. I think to do otherwise, as the author of this resolution seeks to do, would further weaken the civility toward our colleagues and respect for those with whom we disagree that should be the basis for our service in Congress and would only add to the polarization and rancor that are all too prevalent in the Nation's political debates.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose consideration of this resolution at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I supported this legislation when the House considered it originally, and supported it again in the revised form resulting from the conference with the Senate.

And I will support it again today because I think the president's veto was misguided.

Enactment of H.R. 1495, the ``Water Recourses Development Act,'' will ensure that important work to protect our lands and water will move forward while improving operations of the Corps of Engineers.

State and local governments in Colorado desperately need the funding authorized in this bill for environmental restoration, flood control, water supply studies and environmental infrastructure. Unless it is overridden, the president's veto will delay or prevent progress on important projects including environmental restoration on the South Platte River, development of water supply infrastructure in Boulder County and the watershed study of Fountain Creek, near Pueblo.

For the record, I am including a list of all the Colorado projects included in the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, Congress failed to pass a reauthorization of WRDA in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. Congress needs to pass this vital legislation so we can invest in the necessary long term resources to create jobs and address the critical water infrastructure and environmental challenges facing Colorado and the nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and overriding the veto of this bill.

Colorado Projects Threatened by President's Veto: Environmental restoration South Platte River in Denver, Colorado; Expedited completion of the Watershed study, Fountain Creek, north of Pueblo, Colorado; $10,000,000 for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, Colorado; $10,000,000 for water supply infrastructure, Boulder County, Colorado; $1,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure for the Ute Mountain project, Montezuma and La Plata Counties, Colorado; $35,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure in Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and Prowers Counties, Colorado; $34,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, Pueblo and Otero Counties, Colorado.

A requirement for the United States Geological Survey, in consultation with State water quality and resource and conservation agencies, to conduct regional and watershed-wide studies to address selenium concentrations in the State of Colorado, including studies-- (1) to measure selenium on specific sites; and (2) to determine whether specific selenium measures studied should be recommended for use in demonstration projects.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill.

The conference report includes funding for many important programs and I recognize that the conferees had a challenging task in shaping the report because of budget constraints. Overall, I think the report is a good one and I hope that the President will change his mind and sign it.

This conference report funds our military construction needs and keeps our commitment to veterans, with the largest single funding increase in the history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The report provides needed funding for veterans' medical care--both for VA hospitals and clinics as well as for research into conditions such as Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, both of which are common problems facing Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The report also includes funding to provide 1800 new claims processors to address the 400,000 benefit claims backlog.

I am pleased that key funding for Colorado installations and facilities has also been included in this report.

The report includes $7.3 million for a new F-16 facility for the 140th Air Wing of the Colorado Air National Guard at Buckley Air Force Base (AFB). I led the Colorado delegation this year in securing this funding, which will help the Guard replace an outdated facility that can no longer provide proper security and communications to support one of its key missions--to fly F-16s in support of homeland defense. The soldiers and airmen of the Colorado National Guard who are activated and deployed to support our homeland defense deserve this safe and modern facility.

The report also includes $61.3 million for the Fitzsimons Veterans Hospital, another key priority for the Colorado delegation. The funding will enable construction to begin on the facility's parking structure and energy plant. Denver's current Veterans Hospital is fifty years old, is at full capacity and does not meet the needs of our veterans. As Colorado's service members continue to be placed in harm's way, it is essential that we be prepared to meet their needs when they return home. This funding will put us on a path toward making the new campus at Fitzsimons a reality.

The conference report also includes an amendment, passed overwhelmingly in the House in June and later passed in the Senate, that prohibits the Pentagon from taking the first steps toward expanding the Army's Pinon Canyon training site.

After meeting with community members in La Junta and Trinidad in September, it is even more clear to me that the Pentagon has failed to convince Coloradans of a pressing military need for the Army to acquire an additional 418,000 acres at this particular location. I hope the Army hears the strong message Congress is delivering today that we will ensure that the livelihoods and property of Colorado citizens are respected and protected.

Another key provision for southern Colorado is the inclusion of $35.1 million for the construction of on-site chemical destruction facilities at the Pueblo Chemical Depot.

We need to continue to do all we can to safely and expeditiously remove the mustard agent remaining at the Pueblo depot. The sooner we clean up these weapons, the sooner the surrounding communities will be safe--and a clean-up by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty deadline of 2012 will come at a lower cost to taxpayers.

The conference report also includes nearly $170 million to support Fort Carson as it expands because of the stationing of two new brigades and the new headquarters of the Fourth Infantry Division. This includes $53 million for new barracks; $18 million for an addition to Evans Army Hospital and a dental clinic; $8.3 million for a Defense Access Road to allow personnel and equipment to deploy easily from Peterson Air Force Base; $4.9 million for a new indoor range; $72 million for new unit operation facilities; and $13.5 million for construction of new facility support operations for the 13th Air Support Operations Squadron.

The conference report also includes $24.5 million for an Air and Space Integration Facility at Schriever Air Force Base and $15 million to upgrade academic facilities at the Air Force Academy.

This conference report also provides funding for the Department of Health and Human Services, one of the most vital agencies in our government. This report will increase funding by $4.4 billion over the fiscal year 2007 budget--a 6.9 percent increase and one that I strongly support. This funding will be important both to Colorado and to our country.

This report provides funding for a broad range of important projects, from increasing funding for essential research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to increasing health care access in rural areas. I strongly support include the 3.8 percent increase in funding for the NIH. This increase will be pivotal in jump starting a reinvestment in important medical discoveries.

Included in the report is important funding for Children's Hospital of Denver. Funding obtained to build the North Campus Ambulatory Surgery Center will broaden access to pediatric care in the north Denver metro area. This new development will also add more convenient alternative to patients, families, pediatricians, and physicians while also decreasing the burden on other health centers in the Denver metro area.

Making our health care system safe and more efficient is a goal of this Congress and I am happy to announce that Avista Hospital will contribute to that goal. Avista has been a leader in the Electronic Medical Record field and will continue to implement a cutting edge system thanks to funding included in the report.

The report provides for increases in the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which will fund important public health programs such as children's immunizations, environmental health and cervical and breast cancer screenings.

Our nation's youth are our greatest resource, and we must do all that we can to prepare them to lead our country in future years. This report would provide very important funding for the Department of Education to further the education of our children.

I supported the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001 because we need to create higher academic standards and accountability in our education system and close the so-called achievement gap in this country. However, NCLB has been underfunded since it was first passed, meaning that local school districts do not have the resources available to try to meet these new standards. This report takes a step in the right direction by increasing funding for NCLB over both the fiscal year 2007 budget and the President's request. I am also pleased to see increases in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). IDEA provides resources to meet the unique challenges in educating children with disabilities.

In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, higher education is more important than it has ever been. Yet skyrocketing tuitions are making college education increasingly difficult for many students and families to afford. Just a few weeks ago, the College Board announced that the average tuition at four-year schools in my home state of Colorado had increased 16 percent from last year. Pell Grants are one important and effective way that the federal government helps students and families afford college. The conference report will increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $4,925.

I am encouraged that the report includes an increase in funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is a critical program that helps many Colorado families, who are struggling to get by, avoid having to make choices between paying their heating bill and putting food on the table. The conference report will increase funding for this program by $250 million over the fiscal year 2007 budget.

I am pleased the labor provisions of this report reflect a new direction and commitment to

expanding job training and enhancing the safety of workers, by increasing funding for a number of employment, education, and protection programs for the American workforce.

With that said, I am disappointed the conference report does not include my amendment to increase the funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The board plays a vital role in labor- management relations. While funding is not the only problem that faces the NLRB I am concerned that without the additional funding, there is a danger they will have to layoff some of their staff in order to pay for their required overhead, including salaries.

The funding for programs included in this report is a cause for celebration, not a veto. The President suggested underfunding for many of these programs and has threatened to veto the report in its current form. I request that the President reconsider his veto threat and sign this conference report.

In summary, Madam Speaker, this is a good report that provides funding for many important purposes. It is good for Colorado and good for the country, and it deserves approval.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important legislation.

As a proud cosponsor of the bill, I want to begin by congratulating Chairman Rahall, the lead sponsor of H.R. 2262 and our leader on the Natural Resources Committee, for all he has done to make it possible for the House to consider the bill today.

For many years, he has worked to replace the ancient mining law of 1872 with a statute more attuned to this era than to the days of the Grant administration--a worthy task that remains unfinished through no fault of his.

For him, it is personal. And it is personal for me as well.

My uncle, Stewart Udall, had the honor of serving as Secretary of the Interior during the administrations of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. During his tenure, he accomplished a great deal, but he wanted to do more. He has often said that reform of the mining law of 1872 was the biggest unfinished business on the Nation's natural resources agenda, and

has never let me forget that one of his final actions as Secretary was to send to Congress proposed legislation to accomplish that goal.

And, as Chairman Rahall has reminded us all, my father, Representative Morris K. Udall, recognized the need for legislation such as the bill before us today. As chairman of what was then the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, he also accomplished a great deal, but he did not live to see that need fulfilled through its enactment.

So, I consider myself very fortunate to have the opportunity to join in supporting this bill and, by so doing, helping to accomplish what both my father and uncle recognized as a long-overdue step to provide the American people--owners of the Federal lands--with a fair return for development of ``hardrock'' minerals and to establish a better balance between the development of those minerals and the other uses of those lands.

Those are the purposes of this bill, and I think it is well designed to accomplish them.

Its enactment will replace the mining law of 1872 with a new statutory framework for the development of hardrock minerals on Federal lands.

Perhaps most notably, it will impose a royalty on gross income from hardrock mining on Federal land. Under current law, those who mine gold, silver, platinum, or other hardrock minerals from those lands pay no royalties at all--unlike those who extract oil, natural gas, or other minerals covered by the Mineral Leasing Act.

The royalty rate would be 8 percent of ``net smelter return'' for new mines and mine expansions, and a 4 percent net smelter rerun for production from existing mines. Those royalties, to the extent they exceed the costs of administering the new law, would go into a special fund in the Treasury and, along with certain administrative fees, would be available, subject to appropriation, to support reclamation programs and to provide assistance to State, local, and tribal governments.

I consider the establishment of this ``abandoned hardrock mine reclamation fund'' one of the most important features of the bill.

It is very important for Colorado because while mining brought many benefits to our State, it has also left us with too many worked-out and abandoned mines. Some of them are mere open pits or shafts that endanger hunters, hikers, or other visitors. And too many are the source of pollution that contaminates the nearby land and nearby streams or other bodies of water, and so are threats to public health as well as to the ranchers and farmers who depend on water to make a living and the fish and wildlife for whom it is life itself.

In fact, I have seen credible estimates indicating that the Western States have as many as 500,000 abandoned hardrock mines, and that just in Colorado there are over 20,000 old mines, shafts, and exploration holes.

In short, Mr. Chairman, there is an urgent need to clean up and reclaim these abandoned mines. But there are two major obstacles to progress toward that goal.

One is a lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private person or entity can be held liable. The reclamation fund established by this bill will be a major step toward remedying that problem.

The other obstacle is the fact that while many people would like to undertake the work of cleaning up abandoned mines, these would-be ``good Samaritans'' are deterred because they fear that under the Clean Water Act or other current law someone undertaking to clean up an abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in the first place.

Because that obstacle is not addressed by this bill, I have introduced a separate measure--H.R. 4011--that does address it. That bill, similar to ones I introduced in the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses, reflects valuable input from representatives of the Western Governors' Association and other interested parties, including staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency. It represents years of effort to reach agreement on establishing a program to advance the cleanup of polluted water from abandoned mines. It is cosponsored by our colleague from New Mexico, Representative Pearce, whose help I greatly appreciate, and I will be seeking to have it considered as soon as practicable.

Another important aspect of the bill before us is the way it would modify the administrative and judicial procedures related to mining activities, including establishing a means for local governments to petition for withdrawal of Federal land from the staking of new mining claims.

That will enable local governments all over Colorado to have a much greater voice regarding activities that could have the potential to cause problems for their residents and for them to seek protection for such resources and values as watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildlife habitats, cultural or historic resources, scenic areas. In addition, Indian tribes will be able to seek protections for religious and cultural values.

I recognize that not everyone supports the bill as it stands. The Colorado Mining Association has informed me that while its members support reforming the 1872 mining law, they think the royalty rate that the bill would apply to new production is too high, and that they consider application of even a lower rate to existing production is unfair. I respect their views--although I don't think it is accurate to describe the royalty on existing production as ``retroactive,'' because it will not apply to any production occurring prior to the bill's enactment--and I am ready to consider supporting changes in the royalty rates as the legislative process continues.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, one that deserves our support. In the words of a recent editorial in the Daily Sentinel newspaper of Grand Junction, CO, it is ``long- overdue and much-needed legislation.'' I urge its passage, and for the benefit of all our colleagues I attach the complete text of the Daily Sentinel's editorial.

[From the (Grand Junction, CO) Daily Sentinel, Oct. 18, 2007]

Archaic Mining Law Needs 21st-Century Update

The mining industry that transformed huge swaths of western

Colorado's landscape in the latter part of the 19th century

was given a considerable boost by the 1872 Mining Law. And

that legal antique continues to transform public lands in the

state today.

However, long-overdue and much-needed legislation to

finally reform the 135-year-old law is to be marked up in the

House Natural Resources Committee today.

The mining legislation signed into law by President Ulysses

S. Grant was adopted when most Americans enthusiastically

supported both the development of the largely unpopulated

West by white settlers and full exploitation of its natural

resources. Along with laws such as the Homestead Act and the

Timber and Stone Act, the 1872 Mining Law helped drive that

effort.

Over time, however, public-lands laws passed in the late

19th century have been eliminated or superseded. Only the

1872 Mining Law remains in largely its original form,

allowing companies and individuals to stake mining claims on

federal lands and eventually purchase those lands for as

little as $5 an acre.

In Colorado since 1980, 17 companies and 40 individuals

have obtained mineral rights and deeds to more than 84,000

acres of once-public land under the 1872 law, according to a

study by the Environmental Working Group. Four more

applications are pending to acquire deeds to mining claims in

Colorado.

Moreover, unlike companies that lease the rights to recover

coal, oil and gas from public lands, those who obtain gold,

silver and other precious metals under the 1872 law

contribute nothing to the federal treasury through leasing or

royalty payments. And because there were no environmental

requirements in the law, U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill

to clean up thousands of old mine sites around the West.

The legislation before the committee would end the practice

of selling federal lands for hard-rock mining. People could

lease lands for mining--as they do with coal, oil and gas--

but they could not gain ownership of them, often for a tiny

fraction of their current value.

Additionally, the bill to reform the 1872 Mining Law would

establish an 8 percent royalty for new mines. It would

improve environmental rules, create reclamation bonding

requirements for mines and give federal land managers more

authority to balance hard-rock mining with other public-lands

activity. Not surprisingly, industry lobbyists are trying to

water it down.

Western Colorado's two House members, Mark Udall and John

Salazar, support the bill. Others should, too. It's long past

time this 19th century relic was revamped to reflect the new

realities of the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3877, the Mine Communications Technology Innovation Act, which was introduced by our colleague from Utah, Mr. Matheson.

Mining is an important part of our history and it will be critical to our future as well, but we have seen too many mining accidents that have ended in tragedy. Too often, these tragedies have been related to difficulties with communication. The unfortunate deaths of six miners and three rescuers at the Crandall Canyon Mine this year has highlighted the severe communication challenges that miners face when deep underground.

While mines generally use reliable communications systems, some mines--specifically, deep underground mines--present a number of unique challenges that make communications and tracking more difficult. For example, the open air pathway required for radio signals and WiFi often do not exist in underground mines and less than ten percent of the radio spectrum that is used above ground can be used underground. Additionally, in the event of a catastrophic event, existing communications systems are often compromised.

This bill would help improve tracking and communications systems for two-way communication between the miners and people above ground. Specifically, H.R. 3877 would accelerate the research and development of innovative mine tracking and communications technologies. Since the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) addresses oversight of immediately available technologies, this legislation is targeted R&D for new technologies to advance our ability to communicate underground. Under this legislation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would establish an initiative to promote the research, development, and demonstration of miner tracking and communications systems and to promote the establishment of standards and other measurement services regarding underground miners.

Not only will this legislation help miners, but it will draw upon the expertise of Colorado researchers. NIST's Boulder labs have already begun similar work for communications in collapsed buildings and are well positioned to support this new effort with its experience in developing technical standards, best practices and conformance testing.

This bill will ensure that our miners have the state-of-the-art equipment they need to communicate with people above ground, especially in times of emergency. I urge the House to support this important legislation that will help us save lives in the future.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in returning to Washington, DC, on Monday, October 29th and so was not present for 3 votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

(1) H.R. 3224--Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007--I would have voted ``yea'' on this excellent bill by our Colorado colleague, Representative John Salazar;

(2) H. Res. 573--Recognizing and commending the efforts of the United States public and advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening humanitarian crisis and genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and for other purposes--I would have voted ``yea''; and

(3) H. Res. 747--Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali--I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, today I am again introducing legislation designed to help promote the cleanup of abandoned and inactive hardrock mines that are a menace to the environment and public health throughout the country, but especially in the west.

In the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, I introduced similar bills aimed at that result. Following the bill's first introduction in the 107th Congress, revisions were made to incorporate a number of changes developed in consultation with interested parties, including representatives of the Western Governors' Association, the hardrock mining industry, and environmental groups.

The bill I am introducing today is also the product of further consultations, including with the Environmental Protection Agency. It represents years of effort to reach agreement on establishing a program to advance the cleanup of polluted water from abandoned mines.

The bill is cosponsored by our colleague from New Mexico, Representative Pearce. I greatly appreciate his support.

the background

For over one hundred years, miners and prospectors have searched for and developed valuable ``hardrock'' minerals--gold, silver, copper, molybdenum, and others. Hardrock mining has played a key role in the history of Colorado and other states, and the resulting mineral wealth has been an important aspect of our economy and the development of essential products. However, as all westerners know, this history has too often been marked by a series of ``boom'' times followed by a ``bust'' when mines were no longer profitable. When these busts came, too often the miners would abandon their workings and move on, seeking riches over the next mountain. The resulting legacy of unsafe open mine shafts and acid mine drainages can be seen throughout the country and especially on the western public lands where mineral development was encouraged to help settle our region.

the problems

The problems caused by abandoned and inactive mines are very real and very large--including acidic water draining from old tunnels,

heavy metals leaching into streams killing fish and tainting water supplies, open vertical mine shafts, dangerous highwalls, large open pits, waste rock piles that are unsightly and dangerous, and hazardous dilapidated structures.

And, unfortunately, many of our current environmental laws, designed to mitigate the impact from operating hardrock mines, are of limited effectiveness when applied to abandoned and inactive mines. As a result, many of these old mines go on polluting streams and rivers and potentially risking the health of people who live nearby or downstream.

obstacles to cleanups

Right now there are two serious obstacles to progress. One is a serious lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private person or entity can be held liable. The other obstacle is legal.

While the Clean Water Act is one of the most effective and important of our environmental laws, as applied it can mean that someone undertaking to clean up an abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in the first place. As a result, would-be ``good Samaritans'' understandably have been unwilling to volunteer their services to clean up abandoned and inactive mines.

Unless these fiscal and legal obstacles are overcome, often the only route to clean up abandoned mines will be to place them on the Nation's Superfund list. Colorado has experience with that approach, so Coloradans know that while it can be effective it also has shortcomings. For one thing, just being placed on the Superfund list does not guarantee prompt cleanup. The site will have to get in line behind other listed sites and await the availability of financial resources. In addition, as many communities within or near Superfund sites know, listing an area on the Superfund list can create concerns about stigmatizing an area and potentially harming nearby property values.

We need to develop an alternative approach that will mean we are not left only with the options of doing nothing or creating additional Superfund sites--because while in some cases the Superfund approach may make the most sense, in many others there could be a more direct and effective way to remedy the problem.

western governors want action

The Governors of our western States have recognized the need for action to address this serious problem. The Western Governors' Association has several times adopted resolutions on the subject, such as the one of June 2004 entitled ``Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines'' sponsored by Governor Bill Owens of Colorado along with Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Governor Kenny Guinn of Nevada.

legislative responses to the obstacles

To respond to the need for funding, I have joined as a cosponsor of H.R. 2262, the ``Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007,'' introduced by the distinguished Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. Representative Rahall of West Virginia, which has now been ordered reported from that Committee. That legislation will establish a Locatable Minerals Fund to receive royalties and fees related to hardrock mines on Federal lands that, among other things, can be used for the reclamation and restoration of lands and waters adversely affected by past mining on Federal lands.

And the bill I am introducing today responds to a legal obstacle, the potential liability under the Clean Water Act that now deters many would-be ``good Samaritans'' from undertaking efforts to clean up abandoned hardrock mines.

To help the efforts of ``good Samaritans,'' this bill would create a new program under the Clean Water Act under which qualifying individuals and entities could obtain permits to conduct cleanups of abandoned or inactive hardrock mines. These permits would give some liability protection to those volunteering to clean up these sites, while also requiring the permit holders to meet certain requirements.

The bill specifies who can secure these permits, what would be required by way of a cleanup plan, and the extent of liability exposure. Notably, unlike regular Clean Water Act point-source (``NPDES'') permits, these new permits would not require meeting specific standards for specific pollutants and would not impose liabilities for monitoring or long-term maintenance and operations. These permits would terminate upon completion of cleanup, if a regular Clean Water Act permit is issued for the same site, or if a permit holder encounters unforeseen conditions beyond the holder's control. I think this would encourage efforts to fix problems like those at the Pennsylvania Mine.

The new permit proposed in this bill would help address problems that have frustrated federal and state agencies throughout the country. As population growth continues near these old mines, more and more risks to public health and safety are likely to occur. We simply must begin to address this issue--not only to improve the environment, but also to ensure that our water supplies are safe and usable. This bill does not address all the concerns some would-be Good Samaritans may have about initiating cleanup projects--and I am committed to continue working to address those additional concerns, through additional legislation and in other ways. But this bill can make a real difference and I think it deserves approval without unnecessary delay.

For the benefit of our colleagues, here is a brief outline of the bill's provisions:

Eligibility for Good Samaritan Permits--Permits could be issued to a person or entity not involved in creation of residue or other conditions resulting from mining at a site within the bill's scope. Any other similar person or entity could be a cooperating party to help with a cleanup.

Sites Covered by the Bill--The bill covers sites of mines and associated facilities in the United States once used for production of a mineral (other than coal) but no longer actively mined, but does not cover sites on the national priority list under Superfund.

Administration--The permits would be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or by a state or tribal government with an approved Clean Water Act permitting program.

Remediation Plans--To obtain a permit, an applicant would have to submit a detailed plan for remediation of the site. After an opportunity for public comments, the EPA or other permitting authority could issue a permit if it determined that implementing the plan would not worsen water quality and could result in improving it toward meeting applicable water quality standards.

Effect of Permit--Compliance with a Good Samaritan permit would constitute compliance with the Clean Water Act, and neither a permit holder nor a cooperating party would be responsible for doing any remediation activities except those specified in the remediation plan. When the cleanup is done, the permit expires, ending the Good Samaritan's responsibility for the project.

Report and Sunset Clause--Nine years after enactment, EPA must report to Congress about the way the bill has been implemented, so Congress can consider whether to renew or modify the legislation, which under the bill will terminate after 10 years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the talented group of students who make up the 2007 University of Colorado Solar Decathlon team. These students participated in the Department of Energy's Solar Decathlon competition earlier this month.

The Solar Decathlon is a competition organized by the Department of Energy that gives college students an opportunity to demonstrate practical uses of solar power. This October, 20 university teams from around the country and the world competed in the third Solar Decathlon to build the most energy-efficient, solar-powered house. Each team was required to use solar energy to power the entire house, and was judged on how well its house was able to produce energy for heating, cooling, hot water, lighting, appliances, computers, and charging an electric car. The houses were also critiqued on their overall aesthetic design.

The University of Colorado team designed a fully livable 700 square foot house for the competition and will complete the house with an addition of 1400 square feet with 3 additional bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a breakfast nook, and additional living space. As I toured this remarkable house on the Mall this past week, I was impressed by its modem functionality and the sustainable sources from which it was constructed. I was also impressed with the intelligence and curiosity of the team members that gave me the tour--these students will be among the leaders of engineers and architects guiding our next generation in renewable energy use and production.

This team follows in a strong tradition of entrants from the University of Colorado, which took first overall in the previous two competitions. I want to recognize and congratulate Chad Corbin and Professor Michael J. Brandemuehl, the student and faculty leaders that spearheaded this project, in addition to the many other undergraduate and graduate architecture, engineering, and business students at CU who helped design and build this house. Xcel Energy has already purchased this astonishing house to use as a permanent facility for research, education, and outreach for sustainable living once the competition is over.

These enterprising students from the University of Colorado had a challenge--to take advanced architectural and engineering concepts, put them together in a design, and build a house that could be a model of our energy future. These students met that challenge--and I'm proud of these students and I'm proud that the University of Colorado produced such a talented team. Most of all, I am proud to represent these young people who are working so hard to make our way of life a sustainable one.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions that Dr. Marvin Caruthers has made to the advancement of science. I would like to thank him on behalf of all Coloradans for the gifts he has made in this field.

Dr. Caruthers' impressive career began when he received his bachelor's degree in chemistry from Iowa State University. He went on to earn a doctorate in biochemistry from Northwestern University and complete his post-doctoral studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After becoming a research scientist at the University of Wisconsin and MIT he decided to settle in Colorado.

In the 1980s, Dr. Caruthers' laboratory developed methods to speed up the chemical synthesis of DNA. This advancement led to the sequencing of the human genome, which allows us to study diseases, solve criminal cases more efficiently and will lead to better medical treatments.

Dr. Caruthers' contributions have extended far beyond his lab. He helped found the biotechnology company, Applied Molecular Genetics (AMG). AMG has since become the largest biotechnology company in the world. AMG introduced two of the first biologically derived human therapeutics, which helps better the lives of patients suffering from chronic kidney disease and cancer. The company has gone on to make advancements in treating anemia, rheumatoid arthritis and many other diseases. Dr. Caruthers also co-founded another impressive organization, Applied Biosystems, which has revolutionized research in the pharmaceutical industry.

I want to acknowledge Dr. Caruthers for his generous gift to support the Colorado Initiative in Molecular Biotechnology Program at the University of Colorado. Dr. Caruthers has taught chemistry and biochemistry at the University for the past 34 years. He wants to ensure that biomedical students will continue to do groundbreaking work. His recent financial contribution is the largest gift ever contributed by a University of Colorado faculty member and will undoubtedly lead to significant advancements.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Dr. Marvin Caruthers for his dedication to the advancement of biotechnology. I wish him success in all his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of National Hirschfeld Press, Inc. in Denver, Colorado. National Hirschfeld is the largest digital and commercial printing company in the western United States.

National Hirschfeld was opened in 1907 by A.B. Hirschfeld with only a $35 hand press, which still sits in their lobby today. Only 19 years old at the time, A.B. Hirschfeld used his experience from working at his brother's print shop in Cincinnati to make National Hirschfeld a success.

The company eventually became a family business, spanning three generations, all of which have contributed greatly to the economic and social fabric of Colorado. A.B. Hirschfeld's son, Edward, carried on the family tradition, and started working at the store when he was 15 years old. Now, A.B. Hirschfeld is run by the third generation of printers, represented by Barry Hirschfeld. In December 2005, this family-owned printing store expanded by merging with two other printing companies to become National Hirschfeld.

Through the years, National Hirschfeld has made significant contributions to Colorado. The company has published inaugural programs for the Denver Bears, the Denver Broncos and the Colorado Rockies.

The Hirschfeld family has also been involved in many philanthropic efforts in Denver. They are a genuine all-American success story.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging National Hirschfeld and their employees for their commitment to uniquely serving their community. I congratulate all of them and wish the company another 100 years of success.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' H.R. 3963 does not end health care inequality, but it would PROVIDE continued coverage for children not covered by Medicaid, whose parents cannot afford to buy insurance and whose employers do not provide it.

These children--currently 6 million of them--are now eligible for coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)--but that program is set to expire and the President should have accepted this compromise legislation. Because the President would not accept the bi- partisan compromise bill we passed earlier, these six million children will go without health insurance unless Congress acts.

This legislation would assure continued coverage for those now enrolled and would ALSO provide coverage for an additional four million children who currently qualify, but who are not yet enrolled under

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which I introduced earlier this year.

I want to express my thanks to Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Don Young, Subcommittee Chairwoman Napolitano, and Subcommittee Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for making it possible for the bill to come before the House of Representatives today.

The legislation will authorize the Interior Department to participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Species in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin.

I consider myself fortunate to have the honor of introducing it, and am gratified that it is cosponsored by my Colorado colleagues, Representatives DeGette, Salazar, and Perlmutter, as well as the entire House delegations of our neighboring States of Wyoming and Nebraska.

Its purpose is to continue a cooperative effort involving the Federal Government and the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming (and other entities and groups) aimed at recovery of endangered species in ways that will not involve the creation of Federal water rights or requiring the grant of water rights to Federal entities.

This legislation is the result of 14 years of negotiations that culminated last year when the Governors of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska joined Secretary Kempthorne in signing the agreement.

Since then, initial implementing steps have begun and the President's budget for fiscal 2008 has requested the initial funding for the program.

The program is modeled after a somewhat similar program for the recovery of several endangered species of fish in the upper basin of the Colorado River. I have strongly supported that program because it has enabled us in Colorado and other participating States to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act while allowing continued development and use of water for other purposes as well.

While such arrangements are not easy to work out, I think doing so is far better than alternative approaches that are more likely to be marked by conflicts or litigation. So, I think all concerned in the negotiation of this important agreement are to be congratulated.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill that deserves the support of the entire House, and I urge its approval. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching information about the background of the Recovery Program addressed by the bill:

Background

Since 1997, the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming

have worked with water users, conservation groups and the

Interior Department to develop ways to allow continued water

use and development along the Platte River to comply with the

Endangered Species Act (ESA).

In late 2006 the States and the Interior Department signed

the final agreement for a basin-wide Recovery Program to

benefit three endangered species (interior least tern,

whooping crane, and pallid sturgeon) and one threatened

species (piping plover) referred to as the ``target

species.''

The Federal government is to pay half the cost--and the

bill authorizes appropriation of those funds. Total

authorization would be $157.14 million plus any needed

inflation adjustments.

Recovery Program

The Program is designed to secure defined benefits for the

target species and their associated habitats while also

providing ESA compliance for existing and certain new water-

related activities in the Platte River basin. It is to be

incremental, with the First Increment coming over the next 13

years. It would be implemented by a Governance Committee with

membership including representatives of the three states, the

Interior Department, water users, and environmental groups.

While the Program is designed to provide ESA compliance for

existing and certain new water-related activities throughout

the Platte River basin upstream of the confluence of the

Platte and the Loup Rivers (in Nebraska), the land

acquisition and management for the target bird species will

occur in the central Platte River region (Lexington to

Chapman, Nebraska), and Program water activities would be

designed to provide benefits for the target bird species in

the central Platte River region and for the pallid sturgeon

in the lower Platte River region (below the confluence with

the Elkhorn River).

Elements of the Program

The Program has three main elements--(1) increasing stream

flows in the central Platte River during relevant periods

through retiming and water conservation/supply projects; (2)

enhancing, restoring and protecting habitat lands for the

target bird species; and (3) accommodating certain new water-

related activities.

The Program will achieve these results through an adaptive

management approach employing scientific monitoring and

research to evaluate the management actions and species

habitat needs. These elements will be implemented according

to underlying principles that require interests in land to be

acquired only from willing participants and avoid increasing

tax burdens to local citizens by paying taxes or their

equivalent on Program lands. Program lands will be held by a

land holding entity (rather than by the Federal or state

governments) and will be managed under a ``good neighbor''

policy.

Water

The Program's long-term objective for water is to provide

sufficient water to and through the central Platte River

habitat area to assist in improving and maintaining habitat

for the target species using incentive based water projects.

During the First Increment (13 years) the Program's objective

is to retime and improve flows in the central Platte River to

reduce shortages to target flows by an average of 130,000 to

150,000 acre-feet per year at Grand Island.

Land

During the First Increment, the Program's objective is to

protect, restore, and maintain 10,000 acres of habitat. The

Program's long-term objective for land is to acquire land

interests, restore where appropriate, and maintain and manage

approximately 29,000 acres of suitable habitat along the

central Platte River between Lexington and Chapman, Nebraska.

Land acquired during the Program's First Increment will be

credited to this long-term objective as will certain lands

that meet criteria established by the Governance Committee

but are managed by other entities such as environmental

organizations or utility and irrigation districts.

Future Water Development Projects and New Depletions

One Program purpose is to mitigate the adverse impacts of

certain new water-related activities through the

implementation of state and Federal depletions plans. This

will allow continued growth and water development to occur in

the Platte River basin along with improving conditions for

the target species.

Madam Speaker, I will vote to override the Presidents veto of this urgently needed legislation.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' H.R. 976 does not end health care inequality, but it would have provided continued coverage for children not covered by Medicare but whose parents cannot afford to buy insurance and whose employers do not provide it.

These children--currently 6 million of them--are now eligible for coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)--but that program is set to expire and the President should have accepted this compromise legislation. Because the President does not accept this bi- partisan compromise bill, these 6 million will no longer have access to quality, affordable health insurance.

This legislation would assure continued coverage for those now enrolled and would provide coverage for an additional 4 million children who currently qualify, but who are not yet enrolled under