Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I will be very proud to support the bill on final passage.

While clearly this reform legislation, and I want to underline this is reform legislation, is a positive step forward in ag policy, I believe my amendment improves the bill. It is a win-win for ranchers and the environment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is modest and very simple. It would make a small reduction in the direct payment rate for cotton, just two- thirds of a cent. That savings, which would be $127 million, would be used to fund additional enrollment in the Grassland Reserve Program. The Grassland Reserve Program is a jointly administered program by the National Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency. It uses long-term rental agreements and easements to help landowners and producers restore and protect grasslands while maintaining them in a condition suitable for grazing.

This investment of Federal dollars also helps to leverage State and local monies to expand these preservation areas. The reserves that I am speaking of provide habitat for diverse wildlife, including prairie chickens, grassland birds, game species, and prairie plants. Unfortunately, it was underfunded in the previous farm bill. There remains, therefore, a significant backlog for those wanting to access the program.

According to data from the United States Department of Agriculture, the 2006 backlog of unfunded applications totaled more than $1.1 billion, or 11 million acres, and interest continues to grow.

Now, the Agriculture Committee has made great strides to enhance this grasslands program, but their hard work will be for naught unless there is additional funding to ease the backlog of program applicants. We really cannot wait to make this investment because much of America's grassland continues to be converted to row crops, and other grasslands throughout the west are being developed and subdivided.

According to CRS, between 1982 and 2003, we have lost more than 10 percent of our pastureland, which is over 10 million acres.

The amendment would reduce total direct payments in the bill by less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Direct payments are not the only support for cotton producers in the bill. As the committee report notes, there are important changes in the loan program to make American cotton more competitive and move stocks out of storage. The bill also allows the Department of Agriculture to continue to pay for upland cotton storage until 2012.

So the amendment doesn't cause real great hardship for cotton producers, but it would help many of our ranchers. I urge the House to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

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

As I close my arguments for this important amendment, I would again like to thank the chairman and ranking member for a bill that truly is about reform. That is the theme I would like to strike here. This amendment would take us further down the path of reform.

This is less than one-tenth of 1 percent to expand the Grassland Reserve Program. I would note for the record that a number of organizations that are highly respected in the States of Texas and Minnesota and all over the country support the amendment. The American Farmland Trust, Environmental Working Group, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the National Wildlife Federation, the American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, the Trust for Public Land all think that this amendment makes real sense.

It is $127 million, less than one-tenth of 1 percent out of the direct payments program to preserve these important legacy areas, our grasslands, in the great American west. I urge an ``aye'' vote. This is an important amendment that would help strengthen the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Bartlett of Maryland be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2070. He was added by mistake.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests Land Exchange Act of 2007''.

This bill will facilitate a fair exchange of lands on the Arapaho- Roosevelt National Forest near Boulder, CO, between the Forest Service and the Sugar Loaf Fire District. The Fire District is seeking this exchange so that they can maintain and upgrade their fire stations serving the Sugar Loaf community and other nearby communities and properties--areas that are in the wildland/urban interface and thus at risk of wildfires. In fact, these fire stations serve the area that was burned in the Black Tiger Fire in 1989. That fire was the motivation for the Sugar Loaf community to invest more strongly in fire protection. The Fire District has grown a lot over the years, and will be celebrating its 40th anniversary this August.

The bill relates to two fire stations. Station 1 was acquired by the Fire District through an original mining claim under the 1872 mining laws. In 1967, a public meeting was held on this property to establish a fire district and modify the old school building on the site into a firehouse to hold a fire truck and other firefighting equipment. On May 14, 1969, the U.S. Forest Service approved a special use permit, which allowed the fire department to use both the firehouse and approximately 5 acres of the property under it. The special use permit was reissued on August 11, 1994, with a life of 10 years.

In 1970, the fire department applied for a special use permit to operate and maintain a second firehouse--station 2--on Sugar Loaf Road. The original permit was approved on in 1970, and had an expiration date of December 31, 1991. The permit boundary included 2 acres.

The special use permit issued in 1994 combined the two permits for stations 1 and 2 into one. The new permit for station 2 reduced the permit area to one acre, because the area of impact and existing improvements did not exceed one acre.

The Fire District entered into discussions with the Forest Service about a land swap. In August 1997, the Fire District filed an application to acquire the property under stations 1 and 2 pursuant to the Small Tracts Act (STA). The STA allows for transfers of small mineral fractions by the sale of property for market

value, or by the exchange of properties of nearly equal value. The application proposed trading a mining claim surrounded by National Forest, for approximately 3 acres under station 1 and 1.5 acres under station 2.

The Fire District worked in good faith to comply with the STA. In November 2002, officials from the Fire District met with officials from the Forest Service. Upon review of the STA application, the Forest Service's concluded that the parcel under station 2 did not qualify for a land exchange and that the Fire District would have to pursue a new special use permit for the property under station 2. As a result, the Fire District is interested in securing ownership of the land under these stations through this exchange legislation.

The Fire District has occupied and operated these fire stations on these properties for over 30 years, and, if they can secure ownership, the lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations. The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, good faith effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative means and has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Forest Service.

However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident that legislation is required to resolve the situation.

The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns for the property under the stations. However, the Fire District is firm in its position that it wants land under both stations, and that the amount of land must be adequate to satisfy both its current and anticipated needs.

Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land amounting to about 5.17 acres in an unincorporated part of Boulder County within National Forest boundaries between the communities of Boulder and Nederland. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District.

The lands transferred to the Federal government will become part of the Arapaho-National Forest and managed accordingly.

The bill provides that the Forest Service shall determine the values of all lands involved through appraisals in accordance with Federal standards. If the lands conveyed by the Fire District are not equal in value to the lands where the fire stations are located, the Fire District will make a cash payment to make up the difference. If the lands being conveyed to the Federal government are worth more than the lands where the fire stations are located, the Forest Service can equalize values by reducing the lands it receives or by paying to make up the difference or by a combination of both methods. The bill requires the Fire District to pay for the appraisals and any necessary land surveys.

The bill permits the Fire District to modify the fire stations without waiting for completion of the exchange if the Fire District holds the Federal government harmless for any liability arising from the construction work and indemnifies the Federal government against any costs related to the construction or other activities on the lands before they are conveyed to the Fire District.

Madam Speaker, this is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the Fire District and the people it serves. I think it deserves enactment without unnecessary delay.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Whistleblower Recovery Act of 2007.

This bill is in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a claim under the False Claims Act by Mr. James Stone, who had worked at Rocky Flats when that Colorado site was a nuclear weapons facility of the Department of Energy.

The decision not only denied his claim but also interpreted the law in a way that had the effect of narrowing the definition of potential ``whistleblowers.'' To correct this narrow interpretation, this bill would make it clear that potential ``whistleblowers'' can include those who divulge knowledge of an alleged wrongdoing--even though such a whistleblower may not have had knowledge of the direct way in which the wrongdoing progressed--as long as the ``whistleblower'' disclosed the allegation and that the wrongdoing would not have been discovered and fines assessed were it not for the disclosure of the whistleblower.

The False Claims Act, codified in title 31, United States Code, was established to encourage the disclosure of wrongdoing by Federal agencies or those contracting with or otherwise working on behalf of Federal agencies by allowing so-called ``whistleblowers'' to recover a portion of any awards recovered from judicial proceedings from such disclosures.

On March 27, 2007, the United States Supreme Court, in Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, ruled Mr. Stone, a former employee at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant of the United States Department of Energy, was not entitled to recovery under the False Claims Act regarding the failure of a component of the cleanup of this site.

The Court found that even though Mr. Stone was an ``independent source'' of allegations regarding the failure of the cleanup activity-- and of the public disclosure of those allegations--he could not recover because he did not have direct knowledge of the precise way that the failure occurred and was determined at trial. As a result, the Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to determine whether Mr. Stone was entitled to recovery.

The Court's ruling may have the undesired effect of discouraging ``whistleblowers'', as it could make it harder for them to gain access to the Court in order to prove that they may be entitled to recovery as an ``original source'' under the False Claims Act. By requiring that purported ``whistleblowers'' must know of the precise way in which an allegation or transaction of wrongdoing occurs, the Court set a high and potentially insurmountable hurdle for ``whistleblowers'' to meet.

In the best interest of public policy--and to encourage people to come forward and disclose allegations of wrongdoing--it's necessary to make it clear that ``whistleblowers'' need only have direct knowledge of the public disclosure of the allegations or transactions and not of the precise way in which the wrongdoing occurs.

In other words, if an action would not have been brought and an award granted under the

False Claims Act but for the public disclosures of the ``whistleblower,'' that ``whistleblower'' should be allowed an award under the False Claims Act.

Madam Speaker, this bill cannot help Mr. Stone. Not only did he lose his legal effort to recover as a ``whistleblower,'' regrettably, he died shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in his case. A short obituary from the Rocky Mountain News appears below.

But the bill's purpose is to properly respect and encourage the efforts of ``whistleblowers'' like Mr. Stone who call out possible fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer money. We should not find ways to keep them from the courthouse door, but rather should find ways to keep that door open--and even responsibly widen it--so that ``whistleblowers'' can have their day in court and seek the compensation they deserve. This bill will help in that regard, and it is a fitting way to remember and honor the courageous efforts of Mr. Stone and others like him.

[From the Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 12, 2007]

Rocky Flats Whistle-Blower Dies at 82

James Stone recently lost bid for $1 million

(By Laura Frank and Ann Imse)

James Stone was an engineer to the core. And that made it

impossible for him to leave a problem until it was solved.

His hardscrabble life in a Depression-era orphanage and his

hard-won engineering degree led to his career-defining

challenge: being the chief whistle-blower on environmental

crimes at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons site near Denver.

``He would work on a problem round the clock,'' son Bob

said. ``That's what got him in trouble at Rocky Flats. He

wanted to solve the problems, not ignore them.''

Stone, who suffered from Alzheimer's, died Wednesday at the

Julia Temple Center in Englewood. He was 82.

Stone, who worked at Rocky Flats from 1980 to 1986, was the

first Flats insider to go to the FBI with details of the

radioactive pollution released by the site contractor,

Rockwell International.

Rockwell pleaded guilty to 10 environmental crimes and paid

$18.5 million in fines.

Stone filed a whistle-blower fraud case against Rockwell

and won $4.2 million in damages for the federal government.

Just two weeks ago, after an 18-year fight, the U.S. Supreme

Court denied him a $1 million share in those damages.

``He died with nothing more than the clothes on his back

and the love of his family and friends,'' Bob Stone said. ``I

know if he had it to do all over again, even knowing how it

turned out, he would have done it just the same.''

Stone was born in 1924. His parents couldn't afford to keep

him during the Depression, his son said, so he went to a

Catholic orphanage in St. Louis. As a young teen, a family

with a coal business took him in.

Barred from World War II because of a hearing problem, he

worked on engineering jobs in Alaska, on the Air Force

Academy chapel and on the Brown Palace heating system. He

worked on missile silos in Idaho and Wyoming, and surveyed a

pipeline across Greenland. He also invented a sewage

treatment system for rural mountain homes and a municipal

trash incinerator.

Stone helped design Rocky Flats before it opened in 1952,

and he warned against the location ``because Denver was

downwind a few miles away,'' said his longtime attorney and

friend Hartley Alley.

Jon Lipsky, the FBI agent who led the 1989 raid on Rocky

Flats, said Stone ``was the first one who worked at the plant

to talk to me.''

Stone's job was to identify problems at the plant and

recommend solutions. So he was able to give the FBI a road

map, Alley said.

Alley said Stone was the source of a key allegation in the

FBI search warrant--that Rockwell was incinerating

radioactive waste in secret at night. That charge was dropped

when Rockwell settled the criminal case, and prosecutors said

it wasn't true. But Alley says he had two other clients who

witnessed it.

Stone's motivation for filing the whistle-blower lawsuit in

1989 was patriotic, Alley said. ``He felt the people who

operated Rocky Flats in the 1980s were guilty of treason'' by

building nuclear weapons that wouldn't explode, Alley said.

In the fraud suit, Stone alleged that Rockwell was

defrauding the government by taking money for building faulty

weapons while polluting the environment. Proving faulty

production was impossible because the evidence was

classified, Alley said.

Jim Stone ``wasn't afraid of jumping into anything,'' his

son said. ``The world is a better place with people like

him.''

Stone is survived by his wife Virginia, sons Bob, of

Lakewood, and Randy, of Wheat Ridge, five grandchildren and

13 great-grandchildren. He was preceded in death by his

eldest son, James Stone Jr.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to permit Americans and American companies to take part in exploring for and development of energy resources offshore of Cuba and other nearby countries.

The bill would make an exception to all laws, Executive Orders, and regulations that now prohibit exports to or imports from Cuba or transactions in property in which a Cuban national has an interest. This exception would apply to transactions necessary for the exploration for and development of hydrocarbon resources--such as petroleum or natural gas--from offshore areas under the control of Cuba or another foreign government that are contiguous to the exclusive economic zone of the United States. The bill would also permit Americans to travel to, from, and within Cuba in connection with such exploration and development activities.

Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress I have supported efforts to relax some of the unduly restrictive laws and policies that prevent American companies from doing business in Cuba. The legislation I am introducing today would continue those efforts.

It responds to a U.S. Geological Survey report published last year that estimates some 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could lie offshore from Cuba, in the North Cuba Basin.

Cuba's share of the Gulf of Mexico was established in 1977 through treaties with the United States and Mexico. So there is no dispute about the status of the area, and it is my understanding that Cuba has divided its offshore territory into 59 exploration blocs and opened them up to foreign companies in 1999. Already, several foreign companies have indicated interest in some of these blocs, including a Canadian firm as well as companies from China and Venezuela.

However, our trade embargo continues to prevent American companies from seeking similar opportunities. I think this makes no sense, and the bill I am introducing today would change that. Under the bill, the only restriction would be that any exploration or development by an American company offshore from Cuba would be subject to the same conditions for protection of fish, wildlife, and the environment as would be the case if the activities were carried out in the parts of the outer continental shelf under the control of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I am not in favor of unlimited development of oil and gas wherever those resources may be found. In our country, I think some areas should remain off-limits to such activities, and that in some other areas it should be subject to restrictions to protect other resources and values. And if Congress

were called to make similar decisions about resources in areas controlled by Cuba I well might support similar restrictions for the offshore areas the government of Cuba has decided to make available for exploration and development.

But I think that once the government of Cuba has made that decision, our Government should not insist on preventing American companies from seeking the opportunity to take part in those activities--especially since the American energy industry is unrivalled for its technical expertise and its ability to meet the technical challenges involved. My legislation would allow them to seek that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Mrs. Claudia ``Lady Bird'' Johnson. Her humble and steadfast devotion to public service combined with her passionate concern for environmental issues made her an icon within the environmental movement. Modest and kind, dedicated and courageous, her contribution to American politics will not soon be forgotten.

As an advocate of natural habitat and wildlife protection, I greatly admired Lady Bird's commitment to preserving and beautifying America's lands. My father, Stewart Udall, was Secretary of the Interior under President Johnson, and he credits Lady Bird's several trips to the American West and the Rocky Mountains with igniting her love of the environment. Her campaigns to beautify our cities and highways, clean our lakes and rivers, and preserve our natural resources catalyzed many of the environmental campaigns politicians now pursue. Lady Bird transformed Washington D.C. while her husband was in office by planting thousands of tulips and daffodils in parks across the city and creating a national roadside planting program. For Lady Bird, wildflower beautification was not simply cosmetic; by expanding and bolstering diverse habitats, her projects inspired reverence for nature and the inherent splendor of our earth. She reminded us that to enjoy life, we must sometimes stop to smell the roses.

At age 70, she founded the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. She said it was her way of paying back rent for the space she occupied in the world. This center now leads the nation in wildflower research, education, and project development.

Environmental work, however, was only part of Lady Bird's public service campaign. As the first First Lady to have a press secretary and a chief of staff, she cultivated her own agenda. A staunch supporter of civil rights, Lady Bird's strength, intelligence, and good judgment served as a guide and comfort for President Johnson. She also pushed for federal legislation restricting billboards on federal highways and fought for the Head Start program. The projects she undertook always reflected her compassion, graciousness, and determination to make a difference.

Lady Bird's compassion not only infused her political career but also permeated her personal life. Mother of two beautiful daughters, Luci Baines and Lynda Bird, Lady Bird cared for her family with same exquisite grace she exhibited as First Lady. Luci and Lynda have inherited their mother's dedication to public service. They have supported a variety of organizations, including Reading Is Fundamental, the American Heart Association, and the Center for Battered Women. Lady Bird's family and those close to her admired and emulated her loving patience, tender poise, and unending strength.

An environmental pioneer, a behind the scenes supporter and advisor for her husband, a loving mother, and a gentle soul, Lady Bird

will be sincerely missed. Lady Bird was a friend of my father's, and our family will always celebrate the life of the extraordinary woman who gave so much of herself. In her various efforts to spread beauty and tranquility across the country, Lady Bird has left this world a better place for us all.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to prevent the Bush Administration from launching war in Iran without prior congressional authorization. It is a companion bill to S. 759, authored by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.

This is not a unique proposal--several of our colleagues in the House have introduced resolutions expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.

This legislation would establish a binding legal limit on the ability of the President to expend funds to commence military action against Iran in the absence of explicit prior congressional authorization.

I think several factors require Congress to insist that the President meet that requirement before committing this country to another war.

Those factors include this administration's inability or unwillingness to engage with the Iranian regime, the stated interest on the part of many administration officials and political supporters in attacking Iran, and the U.S. deployment of additional aircraft carrier groups to the Persian Gulf.

These have led many--likely including the Iranian regime--to think the U.S. is intent on preparing a military strike against Iran. While that perception could be far from the mark, I think there is no doubt that there are increased risks of confrontation brought on by heightened tensions in the region.

If we've learned nothing else from the war in Iraq, we should have learned that saber rattling doesn't get us far--especially when the tough rhetoric comes from an administration with a history of mismanaging the war in Iraq, a war that is in its fifth year of straining our military and depleting our Nation's blood and treasure.

As I said in 2002--before voting against the resolution authorizing war in Iraq--I am reluctant to vest in the President all discretion about when and where America will go to war. I thought then and I think today that Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility to declare war, must play a more significant role in authorizing the use of our armed forces in what could become a full-scale war.

My purpose in introducing this legislation is to reassert Congress's constitutional responsibility and to remind the Bush Administration of the important role that Congress plays when it comes to matters of war and peace.

I recognize that the President, as commander-in-chief, must have some flexibility in deciding whether to allow U.S. forces to conduct intelligence gathering and to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks from Iran. That's why my legislation makes exceptions for these contingencies.

Madam Speaker, my introduction of this legislation should not be seen as evidence that I deny the reality of the potential danger Iran presents to our country, our allies, and others.

The prospect of an Iran with nuclear weapons is a matter of serious concern for America and the rest of the world. Since the revelation of its nuclear program, Iran has defied the international community by continuing to work to advance it, Iran's president has publicly stated his intention to ``wipe Israel off the map,'' and there is evidence that Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So it is no surprise that there are also reports--as recently as last month--that the internal debate on Iran among the White House, State Department, and Defense Department is heating up, and that the mood is shifting back toward military action against Iran. My bill responds to those reports by reasserting the basic principle that Congress must consent before the president can take such action.

Sending our troops into harm's way is a decision that affects all Americans, as we've

learned the hard way in Iraq. So before this president makes any more rash decisions about going to war, I believe he must come to Congress for authorization to commence military action.

The bill I am introducing today--like its companion in the Senate--is intended to do one thing: to restore the balance between the executive and legislative branches with regard to authorizing large-scale military activities. It is a balance that needs restoring after the mismanagement of the war in Iraq, and it is a balance we should be watching closely as some in the Administration continue to discuss presidential authority to wage war in contravention of the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of Boulder County Commissioner Tom Mayer of Louisville, CO, who passed away on June 22, 2007. He was one of our county's most compassionate advocates in civic affairs and will be greatly missed by his loved ones, friends and the community.

Commissioner Tom Mayer was born March 22, 1951. In 1973, overlooking the Hudson River and Catskill Mountains, Tom received his bachelor's degree in physics from Bard College. He later left his native New York and New Jersey to pursue a master's degree in atmospheric sciences from the University of Illinois in 1976. He then spent 26 years as a software engineer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO.

Though the white-bearded Boulder County commissioner savored the complexities of a good wine and a changing weather system, he held little tolerance for bad government and static bureaucracy. In 1992, Commissioner Mayer sought and won a seat on the Louisville City Council and went on to serve 11 years. During Tom's time on City Council he also served as a representative to the Boulder County Consortium of Cities, Boulder County Recycling and Compost Authority, and the U.S. 36 Major Investment Study.

It was Commissioner Mayer's unwavering commitment to health and human services, limiting growth and preservation of open space that drove him to change Boulder County government as a county commissioner. Tom passionately served as a commissioner from 2003 until his passing. His other commitments included: Boulder County Human Services Coordinating Council, Metro Area County Commissioners, Colorado Counties Inc., Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, State of Colorado Child Welfare Allocation Committee and the National Association of Counties Health and Human Service Committee.

We will miss Commissioner Mayer's style of leadership defined by his strong social conscience and overall sense of social justice. With a big heart and never-ending compassion he tirelessly fought for the underprivileged. Tom's intellect and generosity made him an admirable servant working for the public good with the right motivation. Tom helped make Boulder County a better place for all of us.

If the measure of a life well-lived is the impact that a person has on others, then Tom's impact is broad and deep. We all owe him a debt of gratitude and respect, and I am particularly indebted to him for his early support of my work in public service. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating and remembering his life while expressing our deepest sympathies to his family for their loss.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Colorado Forest Management Improvement Act of 2007, legislation intended to facilitate a coordinated response to beetle infestation in Colorado's forest lands. In shaping it, we have also attempted to develop a model that could be useful as a response to similar problems in other States.

This bill is cosponsored all my Colorado colleagues here in the House, and Senator Salazar is introducing an identical bill that is cosponsored by Senator Allard. So this is legislation supported by our entire delegation in Congress.

As we are daily reminded, in Colorado and other Rocky Mountain States the risk of severe wildfires is very real. Partly, this is because of drought. But there are other contributing factors.

One is that for many years, the Federal Government's policy emphasized fire suppression, even though fire is an inescapable part of the ecology of western forests like those in Colorado. Today, in many parts of the forests there is an accumulation of underbrush and thick stand of small diameter trees that is greater than would be the case if there had been more, smaller fires over the years. They provide the extra fuel that can turn a small fire into an intense inferno. The problem has been made worse by our growing population and increasing development in the places where communities meet the forests--the so- called ``wildland-urban interface.'' And when you add the effects of widespread infestations of insects, you have a recipe for even worse to come.

I have put a priority on reducing the wildfire risks to our communities since I was elected to Congress. In 2000, with our then colleague, Representative Hefley, I introduced legislation to facilitate reducing the buildup of fuel in the parts of Colorado that the Forest Service, working with State and local partners, identified at greatest risk of fire--the so-called ``red zones.'' Concepts from that legislation were included in the National Fire Plan developed by the Clinton administration and were also incorporated into the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. As a member of the Resources Committee, I had worked to develop the version of that legislation that the committee approved in 2002, and while I could not support the different version initially passed by the House in 2003, I voted for the revised version developed in conference with the Senate later that year--the version that President Bush signed into law.

Since then, in Colorado there has been very welcome progress in developing community wildfire protection plans and focusing fuel- reduction projects in the priority ``red zone'' areas, two important aspects of the new law. But at the same time nature has continued to add to the build up of fuel in the form of both new growth and dead and dying mature trees. And now there is an additional factor--increasingly widespread infestations of bark beetles.

Many species of bark beetles, such as the mountain pine beetle, are native to our forests. They place stress on trees by burrowing through the bark. If a tree is healthy, it can defend itself by producing sap to repel and expel the invaders. But if the defense fails, the insects lay their eggs in the woody material below the bark. Once the eggs hatch, they feed on the tree's fiber and disrupt the flow of water and nutrients from the tree's roots to its needles and branches. In addition, the invading insects bring in fungi and other invaders that further damage the tree. If enough insects are able to penetrate the tree and lay eggs, the tree dies. The offspring then mature and fly to another tree and the cycle begins anew.

These insects are a natural component of forest ecosystems. They help to balance tree densities and set the stage for fires and thereby the generation of new tree growth. And when forests are healthy and there are adequate supplies of water, the insects' effects are relatively low-scale and isolated. But under the right conditions--such as during drought conditions or when there are dense stands of even aged trees-- the insects can cause large-scale tree mortality, turning whole mountainsides and valleys rust red.

That is what has been happening in many mountainous areas in Colorado. And more and more our mountain communities find themselves in uncomfortable proximity to acres of dead trees, turned rust red by the insects and adding to their concerns about the danger of catastrophic wildfires.

Last year, I worked to develop a response, starting with a meeting in Winter Park that was attended by local elected officials, homeowners, timber industry representatives, Forest Service officials, ski area employees, and other Coloradans. They offered observations on the extent of this problem and proffered suggestions on ways to better respond to it. Based on information gathered at that meeting, consultations with experts, and other conversations, draft legislation was developed that Representative Salazar and I circulated widely so we could obtain further comments and suggestions. And in March 2006, we introduced the Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and Support Act, also called the Rocky Mountain FIRES Act.

After that, other Members of Colorado's delegation in Congress, in both chambers, also proposed legislation. Senator Salazar introduced a measure similar to the Rocky Mountain FIRES Act, and other legislation was proposed by other delegation members.

Then, recognizing that this is an issue affecting the entire State and best addressed by a unified approach, we all agreed to work together to attempt to develop a single bill that all of us could support.

After very lengthy discussions, that consensus has now been achieved and the result is the bill being introduced today.

Its goal is not to eradicate insects in our forests--nor should it be, because insects are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Instead, it is intended, first, to facilitate more rapid responses to the insect epidemic where that is needed to reduce the wildfire threats to our communities; and second, to promote research on ways to improve the health of our forest lands.

The bill includes a variety of provisions intended to further facilitate both the development and implementation of community wildfire protection plans and to enable the Forest Service and Interior Department, in cooperation with State and local authorities and other partners, to do more to reduce the threat of very severe wildfires. It also includes provisions to support research aimed at improving the long-term health of our forests as well as provisions to make it easier for Coloradans--including both small businesses and individual property owners--to assist the Federal, State, and local agencies in working toward the reduction of fire risks and improvement of forest health.

Madam Speaker, I want to express my personal appreciation for the cooperative and collaborative approach of my Colorado colleagues--in the Senate as well as here in the House of Representatives--as we have worked together to develop this legislation.

The result is not perfect. Not every provision is equally desirable to each of us, and the bill does not include all that it might if anyone of us had been the sole author. For example, I strongly supported requiring that in Colorado the federal agencies must continue to give at least the same priority to funding fuel-reduction projects in the wildland-urban interface as they are doing now. However, that was not acceptable to all, so I reluctantly agreed to its omission in order to reach a delegation consensus.

But this is a good, strong bill that I think deserves enactment, and I will do all I can to achieve that result.

Madam Speaker, for the information of our colleagues, here is a more detailed description of the bill:

Detailed Description

title i--amendments to the healthy forests restoration act

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act, enacted in 2003,

includes provisions to expedite fuel-reduction--that is,

removal of vegetation (including trees) that provide fuel for

severe wildfires--from Federal lands, Title I of the new

Colorado bill includes these changes to that law:

Sec 101. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Assistance--

This section, based on a provision of the Udall-Salazar

``Rocky Mountain FIRES'' bill of 2006, would authorize grants

to at-risk communities in Colorado for preparing, revising,

or implementing community wildfire protection plans. Grant

funding is provided through part of the Federal share of the

receipts from leases of federal minerals. Funding under this

section is set at $5,000,000 per year for fiscal year 2008

through fiscal year 2012.

Section 102. Central Collection Points--This section, based

on a provision of the Udall-Salazar Rocky Mountain FIRES bill

of 2006, would amend the establishment of collection points

for vegetative material from hazardous fuels treatment

projects. Material placed at one of these points can be sold,

donated, or otherwise made available to anyone who will

remove it. If any of the material is sold, the money will go

to help pay for thinning work to reduce fire risks.

Section 103. Biomass Commercial Utilization Grant Program--

This section, based on a provision of the Udall-Salazar Rocky

Mountain FIRES bill of 2006, would reauthorize and broaden a

program of grants for owners and operators of facilities that

use biomass for energy production, or other commercial

purposes. The authorization level is $5,000,000 per year for

fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

Section 104. Healthy Forest Partnerships--This section is

based on a recent Administration legislative proposal. It

would authorize

the Forest Service or the Department of the Interior to

designate Healthy Partnership Zones in Colorado at the

request of the State or local governments. These zones would

include both Federal land and adjacent non-federal land at

risk of uncharacteristically severe damage from wildfire or

an outbreak of insects or diseases that requires multiple

activities to reduce the threat. Designation of a partnership

would be done with public participation and would last for no

more than 5 years.

Within Partnership Zones the relevant Federal agency could

partner with the State, a local government, or an Indian

Tribe to prepare and implement eligible projects. Projects

covered include hazardous fuel reduction projects; treatment

of insect-infested trees; and the restoration of forest

lands, rangelands, or watersheds.

Contracts under this section could be implemented under

streamlined procedures. Priority would be given to projects

that have been developed with collaborative community input

and that are consistent with community wildfire protection

plan. A Federal agency could not act on private land without

the owner's consent.

title ii--colorado forest health measures

Section 201. Research and other Activities--This section is

based on provisions of Senator Allard's and Rep. Musgrave's

``Headwaters Protection and Restoration Act'' of 2006. It

provides for grants to support research regarding--(1)

marketing of forest products; (2) treatments for high

elevation forests, and (3) steps to increase utilization of

science and consideration of community needs in development

of treatment strategies. The section also provides incentives

for building infrastructure capacity such as; length of

stewardship contracts, identifying markets for non-

traditional forest products, grants and low-cost loans for

small business that utilize wood from forests in Colorado.

Directs the Secretary to examine the possible utilization of

biomass as a renewable fuel source and how this could affect

the Clean Air Act.

Section 202. Colorado Forest Health Fund--This section is

also based on the Allard-Musgrave 2006 ``Headwaters

Protection and Restoration Act.'' It would establish a

Colorado Forest Health Fund to which would be credited part

of federal receipts from federal timber sales in Colorado--$2

million or half of all such receipts, whichever is greater--

as well as any funds specifically appropriated for the fund.

The funds would be deposited in an interest bearing account

and up to $2 million per year would be available to pay for

measures to improve forest health and to reduce hazardous

fuels in Colorado. The section authorizes appropriation of up

to $2,000,000 per year.

Section 203. Grants for Colorado Fuels for Schools

Program--This is also based on the Allard-Musgrave bill. It

would authorize grants to the State of Colorado for

feasibility studies regarding the use of biomass boilers to

heat schools and other public buildings in Colorado and to

assist with the installation and operation of these boilers.

This section authorizes appropriations of up to $5 million

per year for fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

Section 204. Stewardship Contracts in Colorado--This is a

new section. It would authorize longer-term Stewardship

Contracts--up to 20 years in duration--for fuel-reduction

projects in Colorado. It also includes technical provisions

requested by the Forest Service regarding the implementation

of requirements related to potential cancellation liability.

Section 205. Good Neighbor Agreements in Colorado--This is

also based on the Allard-Musgrave bill. It would make

permanent existing authority for ``good neighbor'' agreements

between Federal agencies and private land owners in Colorado

and Utah.

Section 206. Preparation of Fire-Danger Maps--This is a new

section. It would direct the Forest Service to work with the

State Forest Service to map fire threatened areas in Colorado

using geospatial technologies.

Section 207. Truck Weights--This is a new section. It would

allow the State of Colorado to permit vehicles with a gross

weight in excess of 80,000 pounds (but not more than the

state's overall maximum gross weight limit) to haul dead or

diseased timber and other forest materials removed from

Colorado forests in order to reduce fire hazards.

Title III--Tax Provisions

Section 301. Extension of Tax Credit for Electricity

Produced From Biomass--This section is based on legislation

introduced by Rep. Beauprez and is also similar but not

identical to a provision of the 2006 Udall-Salazar ``Rocky

Mountain FIRES Act.'' It would extend an existing biomass

electricity production tax credit (now scheduled to expire on

January 1, 2009) until January 1, 2030.

Section 302. Partial Exclusion from Gross Income Payments

Received for Certain Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects--This

section is similar to a provision of the 2006 Udall-Salazar

``Rocky Mountain FIRES Act.'' It would allow a taxpayer to

exclude from taxable income money received from the Federal

Government as compensation for hazardous fuel reduction work.

The exclusion would be for up to $10,000 for a single return,

$20,000 for a joint return.

Section 303. Deduction of Certain Expenditures in

Connection with Implementation of Community Wildfire

Protection Plans--This is a new section. It would allow

individuals to deduct funds they expend for hazardous fuel

reductions that are done as part of a wildfire protection

plan from their income taxes. It allows for the exclusion of

up to $10,000 for a single return or $20,000 for a joint

return.

I thank the gentleman for his generous offer.

I rise in support of the amendment.

I'd like to thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Walsh and the Appropriations Committee for their leadership on this vital legislation that will help to provide quality healthcare, enhance education opportunities, and increase worker safety.

This is a good bill, but I think this amendment would make it better.

The amendment will increase the funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by $500,000, and is offset by a decrease to the Department of Labor Departmental Management Salaries and expenses.

As we all know the NLRB plays a vital role in labor-management relations.

It hears appeals of unfair labor practices and resolves questions about the composition of bargaining units.

We need to maintain its ability to do its job.

But without the additional funding this amendment will provide, there is a danger that they will have to lay off some of their staff in order to pay for their required overhead, including salaries.

The amendment would prevent that, and would also enable the NLRB's staff to handle cases efficiently and effectively, without sacrificing quality.

Funding is not the only problem that faces the National Labor Relations Board but congress should make it easier not harder for the National Labor Relations Board to administer decisions.

I urge the House to adopt the Shays-Udall amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and commemorate the 100th anniversary of the YMCA of the Rockies Association. The YMCA of the Rockies, a nonprofit organization, began in Colorado in 1907. It was organized as a national training center for the Young Men's Christian Association. Since its foundation, the YMCA of the Rockies has grown into the largest two YMCA conference and family centers in the world--at the Estes Park Center adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park, and at Snow Mountain Ranch between Winter Park and Granby, Colorado. It also runs a traditional summer residential youth camp at Camp Chief Ouray, located at Snow Mountain Ranch.

YMCA of the Rockies serves conferences, family reunions, retreats, recreational and educational groups, families, individuals, and youth by providing lodging, meeting space, dining, programming and recreation.

Estes Park Center has 860 acres and can accommodate 3,500 people in its 7 lodges and 206 family cabins. Snow Mountain Ranch has over 5,000 acres with a Nordic Center and can accommodate 2,500 people in its 4 lodges and 60 family cabins. Over 900 full-time and seasonal staff members work each year at both centers. They include senior retirees, college students and international students participating in a hospitalities services certification program.

As noted on their website, the Mission of the YMCA of the Rockies,

``[P]uts Christian Principles into Practice through

programs, staff and facilities in an environment that builds

healthy spirit, mind and body for all. We will accomplish

this by serving conferences of a religious, educational, or

recreational nature; providing unifying experiences for

families; offering traditional summer camping experiences for

boys and girls; and serving our staff with leadership

opportunities and productive work experiences. Our core

values are: Caring, Honesty, Respect, Responsibility and

Faith.''

As a result of putting the values expressed in this mission statement into practice, the YMCA of the Rockies annually brings more than 250,000 visitors to its two centers, serves more than 800 family reunions, educates more than 19,000 students in outdoor education programs, and continues to be major employer in Grand and Larimer counties of Colorado. The YMCA of the Rockies hires seasonal staff from more than 20 countries to help expose their guests to many cultures, has a membership base of 3,500, raises more than $350,000 in annual campaigns, and have over 100 staff members who donate money to the YMCA Staff For Kids program.

The YMCA of the Rockies does an outstanding job of exposing kids and adults to the splendor of nature and the values that come from collective outdoor experiences. But it is not just about learning and growing both intellectually and spiritually. It is also about fun. The YMCA of the Rockies' camps provide nearly every outdoor recreational opportunity that Colorado has to offer from skiing, camping, horseback riding, hiking, fishing, swimming, rock climbing, rafting, canoeing, archery, golf, ice skating, snowshoeing, sledding, and arts and crafts. It's an opportunity for kids, families and adults to experience these activities in a safe and nurturing environment.

In addition, the YMCA of the Rockies has been an important facility for the surrounding communities and others who share their Mission. Officials at the YMCA of the Rockies have opened up their facilities for use by other organizations such as Rocky Mountain National Park, the Colorado Mountain Club, the National Wildlife Association and the Sierra Club. At Snow Mountain Ranch, officials are pursuing the protection of many acres through conservation easements, ensuring that the outdoor splendor can be enjoyed by future generations. They have also worked to reduce the threat of wildfire and bark beetles by thinning dense stands of trees on their property, thus providing an example to their neighbors on creating defensible space and helping to reduce fire risks to surrounding communities and properties.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter declared July 19, 2007 as the official recognition of the YMCA of the Rockies Centennial. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this centennial and all of the great things that the YMCA of the Rockies does to enhance the quality of life for all Americans and visitors from throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because I strongly support a responsible redeployment of our troops from Iraq.

It should not have been necessary for us to consider this bill today. Back in March, I voted for, and Congress passed, legislation that would have begun a draw-down of combat troops in favor of a disengagement strategy in Iraq. Regrettably, however, the president vetoed that legislation and then moved in exactly the opposite direction by escalating the number of troops committed to Iraq.

So, while a war can't be effectively led by committee, by failing to exercise responsible leadership, the president continues to make it necessary for Congress to assert itself. And thus the House is acting again today--and whatever the outcome, we will act again and again until we find the necessary support to change course in Iraq.

The war in Iraq has cost this Nation the blood of its soldiers, the treasure of its citizens, and the good will of our allies around the world. The average number of attacks, Iraqi civilian deaths, and coalition deaths are all at their highest levels since the invasion. Over 3,600 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and we are spending over $10 billion every month to continue this failed policy.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I must point out that the time is rapidly approaching when we will not be able to sustain the numbers of troops now deployed in Iraq without calling back our National Guard and Reserve for second or third tours or extending the tours of current active duty troops beyond the already extended 15 months.

And our increasing military and financial commitment to Iraq limits our options for addressing other critical national security concerns even as a new intelligence report indicates that al Qaeda is operationally stronger than a year ago. The most disturbing news is that al Qaeda has regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001.

Proponents of the President's escalation--the so-called ``surge''-- say we haven't given it a chance to succeed. But it has been under way since January, with the Iraqi government fully aware of the steps toward reconciliation it needs to take to enable U.S. forces to stay-- and still, those steps aren't being taken. Today's interim report from the Pentagon tries to make a bad situation look better, listing ``satisfactory'' progress on a number of benchmarks required by the Congress several months ago. But in reality, as the report states, ``the security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging,'' the ``economic picture is uneven'' and political reconciliation is lagging.

I had hoped that by holding the president and the Iraqi government accountable for achieving these benchmarks, we would gain the leverage necessary to pressure the Iraqi government to forge the political solution we all know is required. But it appears that the Iraqi government is either unable or unwilling to bring its feuding factions together to achieve these goals.

The Pentagon's report blames those of us pushing for redeployment for the lack of progress toward political reconciliation, saying it has been hampered by ``increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq.''

But if the Iraqis won't make progress when we're there--and then threaten that they can't make progress if we leave--under what conditions will we see progress? The president has asked Congress to wait to act for the next progress report due in September. But what are we waiting for? He has dressed up his new approaches in many different ways since this war started over four years ago, and yet little has changed.

What we need--and what many Democrats and Republicans alike are calling for--is a responsible redeployment from Iraq. That is what the bipartisan Iraq Study Group ultimately called for, and that is the main reason I introduced legislation to implement its recommendations. I continue to hold out hope that we can forge a bipartisan consensus in favor of adopting the ISG as a foundation for a phased withdrawal strategy. I believe in this approach because responsible redeployment would allow Iraqis to take control of their own security by reducing U.S. combat forces while limiting the U.S. military to missions such as counter-terrorism, protecting U.S. Embassy personnel, and training Iraqi security forces. This bill will also allow necessary flexibility for our military forces to continue strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.

This legislation calls for the beginning of redeployment and a troop draw-down within the next four months. It takes a different approach from H.R. 2237, the bill introduced by Representative Jim McGovern (D- MA) that I opposed two months ago, in that it would not prohibit funding for our troops already in Iraq, and it requires the president to submit a comprehensive strategy providing specific plans for diplomatic initiatives and justifying the number of U.S. troops who would remain and explaining their missions.

I do question whether we can extricate all combat troops by April 2008, as it calls for--it could take as long as six months to move over one hundred thousand soldiers and their gear and to do this safely. This is one military exercise that we have to take seriously and spend time and resources to plan--because it could mean life or death for our men and women in uniform. But I believe we should set a target date now and begin this planning. This bill would force a change in strategy and mandate the start of a phased withdrawal and redeployment, and that is why I will vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, while I am pleased that the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill contains funding for many programs important to Colorado, I am concerned, about the provision in the bill to create a Commission of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation.

As has been stated by Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon and Ranking Member Ralph Hall during the floor debate, this commission replicates a bill that I introduced with my colleague, Mr. Inglis, earlier this year--H.R. 906, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007. The bill updates and reorients the current U.S. Global Change Research Program, USGCRP, which coordinates all Federal climate change research and was established by law in 1990.

My bill would strengthen and streamline Federal global change research and make it more user-friendly for State and local governments, planners and researchers. My bill affirms 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.

Members of the Science and Technology Committee have been working on improving this legislation since I introduced it earlier this year. The committee received comments from experts on climate change research throughout the country and held a hearing on this issue on May 3, 2007. The bill was marked up in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee on June 6. It is scheduled to be marked up before the full Science and Technology Committee tomorrow.

We all agree that a interagency climate change working group is needed and that the current U.S. Global Change Research Program needs to be updated. My bill, H.R. 906, is the best way to address this issue. I was pleased to hear assurances from Interior and the Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Dicks to Chairman Gordon that we will address this issue in conference and that the final appropriations bill language will reflect both current law and H.R. 906. I look forward to working with Chairmen Obey, Dicks and Gordon on the final legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management from issuing any final regulations for commercial-scale leasing of oil shale and from offering any commercial oil shale leases during fiscal year 2008.

Current law requires BLM to issue those regulations, and to move to a full-scale commercial leasing program, on a crash basis and under a tight deadline.

I think that is a mistake, so I want to make it clear I support Chairman Rahall's bill, H.R. 2337, that would change that and other parts of the 2005 Energy Act. The Natural Resources Committee has favorably reported the chairman's bill and it is headed toward this very floor.

The purpose of this amendment is to slow the administration down in the meantime, in order to give Congress time to complete action on that legislation.

Mr. Chairman, oil shale has great potential as an energy source, and therefore it is an important part of our energy policy. But it is also important to American taxpayers, because they own most of it. But it is particularly important for Colorado.

Our State has some of the most large-scale deposits of oil shale, and Coloradans, particularly those on our Western Slope, will be directly affected by its development.

Back in 2005, the RAND Corporation reported that the potential benefits of developing oil shale were significant. But they also made it clear that development will affect not only our land

but our air and the quality and quantity of our very limited supplies of water. It was noted that large oil shale development will bring significant population growth and is likely to put stress on the ability of local communities to provide the needed services.

In short, the report reminded us how much Colorado and our neighbors had at stake when Congress debated the oil shale provisions of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

As I said, that law now calls for a crash program. I have been concerned, as many people have in Colorado, that that would bring a rush to commercial development before the Interior Department knows enough to do it right and before Colorado's communities have had a chance to prepare for what it will bring.

My concerns grew this year, when a witness from RAND told our committee that the economic, technical and environmental feasibility of oil shale development is not adequate to support the formulation of a commercial leasing program on the time scale mandated and the fundamental approach the Department of the Interior is currently taking may be counterproductive if the goal is to keep open the option for a sustainable domestic oil shale industry. Chairman Rahall's bill would correct some of those problems.

I want to be clear, I strongly support oil shale provisions, because I think they will help assure that any commercial development is done in an orderly way that takes full advantage of the important research and development work underway.

The bill would also relax the unrealistic deadline for the BLM to finish the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement now underway, and then the bill would allow a year, not just 6 months more, for the BLM to prepare a draft, not a final, but a draft commercial leasing regulation, after which the people in Colorado and elsewhere would have 180 days to comment.

I also support the bill and its mandate for developing a strategy for sustainable and publicly acceptable large-scale development of oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and its continued requirement that we consult with the governors of those States.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan basis adopted my amendment to set aside part of the money that the Federal Government will get from oil shale leases to help affected counties pay for construction, operation and maintenance of public facilities and for the provision of public services. This addition reflects my concern about what large-scale oil shale development can mean for Colorado's Western Slope.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the full House will follow our committee's lead and approve these changes in the current law. I certainly will do all I can to help Chairman Rahall be successful in this effort. But there is a risk that these efforts could be frustrated unless Congress first acts to relieve the pressure current law puts on the BLM to move ahead on a crash basis.

Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of the amendment, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I thank the chairman for his support.

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

Mr. Chairman, the question here is not whether to develop oil shale, but how and when. The amendment would not stop it in its tracks, as my good friend from Colorado suggests, but it would direct those tracks on to a gentler and a more sustainable route.

We have always heard, Mr. Chairman, about oil shale being the fuel of the future. But as the Rand Report mentioned, I remind us, so are the potential problems. My amendment says, as we work to realize this promise, we are not closing our eyes to the problems in front of us.

I urge adoption of this amendment. It is a smart amendment. It is a wise amendment. It keeps faith with the people of western Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my great friend from the Midwest, I will not withdraw the amendment. I would make a point there, I don't believe a point of order is in order, because there is no revenue anticipated from the leases that are anticipated.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, and I thank you again for yielding, I am very certain that that is not the case, and I would just again remind all of my colleagues that the intent here is to do this right. Not to stop this from happening, but to do it right, given our history of oil shale development or the lack thereof in western Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, in a moment I am going to ask to withdraw the amendment, but I want to engage Chairman Dicks in a brief colloquy. But first let me provide a little bit of background here.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the amendment deals with claims under an 1866 law known as R.S. 2477 that granted rights-of-way to build highways over Federal lands. This act was repealed in 1976, but because Congress did not set a deadline for people claiming these rights-of-way to come forward, we still do not know what valid rights-of-way may exist.

There are pending claims that affect military lands and lands once owned by the Federal Government that are now private property. Other claims involve national parks, national forests and other conservation areas.

When the Clinton administration tried to resolve this problem administratively, Congress blocked that by passing a law barring issuance of final regulations on this subject until Congress authorized them. That law is still on the books. The Bush administration has not asked Congress to change the law. Instead, they want to do an end run around Congress and to deal with these claims through an administrative process.

My amendment would have blocked them from doing that because I think we should deal with that problem through new legislation. Toward that end, I have worked for a number of years with counties in my State and introduced a bill based on the results of that work.

My goal has been and still remains to establish a fair and neutral process that will result in setting a time certain for claims to be brought forward so valid claims can be recognized and any invalid ones will be resolved and so to bring an end to litigation and controversy. I do plan to continue to work on that approach in this Congress.

If I might, at this time, I would turn to the chairman and ask him, does the chairman agree with me that it would be better for the administration to work with Congress to resolve this issue, rather than trying to follow a course that will lead straight to more litigation?

Mr Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank Chairman Dicks for his thoughts.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to impose on the time of the House by calling for a vote on the amendment today, although the problem has not gone away and it will not go away unless Congress acts.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Tamra Tiong, a distinguished teacher who was voted the 2007 New Mexico Teacher of the Year, an honor bestowed by the Council of Chief State School Officers. She was also one of the four finalists chosen to receive the National Teacher of the Year award, presented at the White House. Tamra is the special education teacher for kindergarten through second grade at Dulce Elementary School on the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation in northwest New Mexico. She received her nomination and award for her outstanding teaching strategies, her contribution to professional development, and her community involvement.