Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, together with my Colorado colleague, Representative John Salazar, I am again introducing legislation to provide permanent funding for two programs that are very important to counties and other local units of government in Colorado and many other States.

Our bill is identical to one we introduced in the 109th Congress. Under the bill, the full amounts authorized under both the payments in lieu of taxes, PILT, program and the refuge revenue sharing program would be made available to the Secretary of the Interior annually, for distribution to eligible local governments in accordance with those programs.

This would eliminate the requirement for annual appropriations for PILT and refuge revenue sharing purposes and would shield them against the kind of political short-sightedness demonstrated in the presidential budget that has repeatedly failed to request full funding for PILT and has even proposed cuts from amounts Congress has previously provided.

While both programs are significant, PILT is particularly important for counties in Colorado and other States that include large expanses of Federal lands. In 2006, for example, counties in Colorado received more than $17.4 million out of a total of more than $232 million distributed nationwide.

Congress created the PILT program in response to a recommendation of the Public Land Law Review Commission, chaired by Representative Wayne N. Aspinall, who represented what was then Colorado's Fourth Congressional District. It reflected a recognition that a system of payments based on acreage was more equitable and reliable than one tied to management decisions such as timber harvests or other uses.

Counties use their PILT payments for a wide variety of purposes, including some--such as law enforcement, fire fighting, and search and rescue--that are directly related to the Federal lands within their boundaries and the people who use those lands.

For nearly two decades after the program was established, PILT funding remained level but the value of PILT payments was eroded by inflation. In 1995, Congress amended the law to raise the authorization level. However, since 1995, no budget request--from either President Clinton or President Bush--has requested more than two-thirds of the amount authorized by the PILT Act. As a result, the burden on county taxpayers has not been reduced to the extent that Congress intended when it passed the 1995 legislation. Our bill would ensure full implementation of that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that can be said against this continuing resolution, as the House has heard during today's debate. But after all those things have been said, I am convinced the only responsible choice is to vote for it--and I will do so.

In fact, it was the failure of responsibility on the part of last year's Republican leadership in Congress that brought us to where we find ourselves today. If they had done their job of developing and enacting the legislation to fund the essential functions of government, it would not be necessary for us to be acting now to make up for their failures.

In fairness, much of the blame rests with the Republican-led Senate. While the House last year did pass all but one of the regular appropriations bills, only two of those bills ever received a final vote in the other body--and only those two were enacted into law.

But even here in the House, the Republican leadership never even brought to the floor the bill to fund the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services--not before the election, evidently because they did not want to have to discuss it during their campaigns, but not even in the lame-duck session last year.

Given the situation the resulted from their predecessors' failure, Chairman Obey and his colleagues on the Appropriations Committee decided that the best way to proceed was to bring forward this long- term continuing resolution, intended to complete action on appropriations for the remainder of this fiscal year, and then to begin work on the appropriations bills for the fiscal year that lies ahead.

I support that decision, and I will support this continuing resolution.

There are parts of it that I think fall short of what should be done in a number of areas. But there are other parts that I strongly support, including the provision that withholds any increase in the pay of Members of Congress--something that I think is overdue.

More than a year ago--in October of 2005--I urged the House's conferees to agree to a Senate amendment to the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill that would have withheld a cost of living raise for Members of Congress. I regret that my plea was in vain, because I think we should be prepared to do our part when our country is at war, our homeland security must be improved, and the federal budget remains deep in deficit.

Withholding a congressional pay raise will make only a small change in the budget because the amount involved is minor compared with other expenditures. However, I think it is an appropriate first step for Members of Congress to forego this increase in our pay, and I am glad this legislation will have that effect.

I also am very pleased that the resolution includes $300 million in additional funding for the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, programs. My colleague Representative Perlmutter and I worked hard to get this funding included in the legislation, and I intend to work closely with

our colleagues in Congress and with the Department of Energy to ensure that the research programs carried out at National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, in Colorado benefit from a good deal of those funds.

Despite the importance of NREL's work, flat or decreased funding for NREL in recent years--coupled with earmarks and inflationary cost increases--has effectively reduced the funding for renewable energy research, which has led to a continuing struggle for needed resources and great instability at the lab. This in turn has severely affected the lab's ability to develop new technologies and continue the United States' leadership in renewable energy technologies. The boost for EERE funding in this bill could go a long way toward helping NREL regain its critical momentum.

The parts of the legislation dealing with defense and national security include increased funding for defense health programs, for basic allowance for housing, and for two important Department of Energy nonproliferation programs--the International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation program, which secures weapons-grade nuclear materials in the former Soviet States, and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which secures high-risk nuclear material around the world.

It also includes $2.5 billion for implementation of a round of military base closures authorized in 2005. While the $2.5 billion is an increase from the funding provided for fiscal year 2006, it will still leaves us $3.1 billion short of meeting our Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, commitments and nearly $1 billion short of the funds needed for military construction projects. Since the Army links its military construction and troop movement plans to BRAC implementation, this shortfall could have broad impacts on the rotation and return of troops and the building of new brigades.

It has been indicated that additional needs for BRAC and military housing will be addressed in the supplemental war spending bill we will soon consider in Congress. I hope that will be the case, and will work to achieve that result as well as to ensure that the Defense Department takes into account Colorado priorities as it makes the hard choices about which military construction projects to fund.

I also am pleased that Chairman Obey and his colleagues recognized the importance of science programs across different agencies, allowing for increases at the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST.

However, I am greatly concerned about the impact this resolution could have on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 49, legislation to name the postal facility in Vail, CO, after our Nation's 39th President, Gerald R. Ford, Jr.

I believe this bill is fitting as another means of honoring the legacy of President Ford, in large part because of his special connection to Colorado and the Vail Valley. I am pleased by the support it has received; all members of the Colorado delegation have co- sponsored the legislation.

In 1968 then-Congressman Ford and wife, Betty, first came to Colorado with their children to celebrate Christmas and to ski in the mountains at Vail. Like many other visitors, President Ford was inspired by the beauty of the area and found a connection to the land and to the surrounding community.

The Fords later owned a home and continued to vacation in Vail. When he became President, his vacations in Colorado helped introduce the world to the Town of Vail, and in fact, the family home was dubbed ``the Western White House.''

Vail residents knew President Ford and his family as neighbors and friends and are proud of their long association with them. President Ford served on the board of directors of the Vail Valley Foundation. Vail also serves as the home of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens and the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater. President Ford was beloved in Vail, where he was known to be a good neighbor, an avid golfer and a lover of the outdoors.

President Ford will rightly be remembered for his personal warmth, his decency, his interest in bridging the many divisions in America during the 1970s. My father, Mo Udall, served in the Congress with Gerald Ford, and while they were often on different sides in political matters--so much so that my father hoped to run against President Ford in the famous election of 1976--they were united by a common view that politics should unite people. They both were firm believers that in public life one could disagree without being disagreeable.

This is a credo I continue to believe in, and I commend the memory of both good men to this House, an institution they loved.

Coloradans, especially those in the Vail Valley, have come to think of him as the first President from Colorado because he was a great ambassador for the State, who established long ties to the people of Colorado.

As a dedicated public servant, President Ford served honorably in his years in Congress and in the White House. Most important, when America needed someone to reassure their trust in government after Watergate, he filled that leadership role with authenticity.

I believe President Ford's special relationship and legacy in Colorado should be appropriately recognized by naming the postal facilities in Vail, CO, in his honor.

I urge all members support the legislation today.

Madam Speaker, I disagree with President Bush on a number of things, but we agree that a constitutionally-sound version of a line-item veto could help increase fiscal responsibility and Congressional accountability.

In fact, I first introduced such legislation even before the president first proposed it, and last year I joined in helping win House passage of a line-item veto bill.

Unfortunately, the Senate did not complete action on that bill before the end of the 109th Congress.

So, I am today again introducing a similar measure--the ``Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditure, or ``SLICE'' Act of 2007, cosponsored by Representative Ryan of Wisconsin.

Over the last 6 years we've seen a dramatic change in the Federal budget--a change for the worse. We've gone from budget surpluses to big deficits, and from reducing the national debt to increasing the ``debt tax'' on our children.

There's no mystery about how this happened.

Partly, it was caused by a recession. Partly, it was caused by the increased spending needed for national defense, homeland security, and fighting terrorism. And in part it was caused by excessive and unbalanced tax cuts the president pushed for and the Republican-led Congress passed.

Some of those tax cuts--for example, eliminating the marriage penalty, fixing the 10 percent bracket and extending child care tax credits--were good. I supported them because they gave a reasonable boost for the economy and increased the fairness of the tax laws. But overall they were excessive.

Many of us warned against reducing the surplus so recklessly. We urged the administration and Congress to be more responsible, and we voted for Blue Dog budget resolutions that would have set a better course.

But our pleas for restraint were ignored, and since the attacks of 9/ 11--which led to increased spending on homeland security, a military response in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq--the budget has nosedived from surplus into deep deficit. And, even in the face of national emergency, neither the president nor the Republican-led Congress has called on Americans for any sacrifice, and instead of temporarily scaling back some of the tax cuts the president has insisted on making all of them permanent even as Federal spending has skyrocketed.

So we have gone on putting the costs of war and everything else the government does on the national credit card--but the debt is owed not just to ourselves (as in the past), but to China, Japan and other foreign countries.

Why have we allowed things to get so far out of hand?

Part of the answer is that budget and tax policy in Washington has been so captive to very partisan and extreme ideological voices that it has been hard to find common ground and moderate consensus.

Even in this time of war, extremists in the Republican Party view tax cuts as almost a religious calling, while some in my party tend to reject any spending cuts. And the Vice President has dismissed complaints by saying ``deficits don't matter.''

But this cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to give. And, if the result is a new sense of responsibility, sooner is better--because there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our budget policies, including both taxes and spending.

Last year, the House did belatedly take one step forward, by passing a bill similar to the ``SLICE'' bill I am introducing today.

And already this year, under our new leadership, the House has taken another good step by restoring the ``PAYGO'' rules that helped bring the budget into balance in the past--something the Republican leadership refused to even consider last year.

But I think we also should take the step of again passing a constitutionally-sound line-item veto--like SLICE--because it also can help to promote transparency and accountability about spending.

We have heard a lot of talk about spending ``earmarks''--meaning spending based on proposals by Members of Congress instead of the

Administration. And here, too, the new leadership of the House has made possible important changes in our rules that will increase their transparency and our accountability--changes I supported.

But while some people are opposed to all earmarks, I am not one of them.

I think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and I think Congress as a whole has the responsibility to decide how tax dollars are spent. And earmarks can help fund nonprofits and other private-sector groups to do jobs that federal agencies are not able to do as well. In short, not all earmarks are bad. In fact, I have sought earmarks for various items that have benefited Coloradans--and I intend to keep on doing that.

Still, we all know some bills have included spending earmarks that might not have been approved if they were considered separately.

That's why President Bush--like many of his predecessors--has asked for the kind of line-item veto that can be used by governors in Colorado and several other states.

And that's why about ten years ago Congress actually passed a law intended to give President Clinton that kind of authority.

However, in 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional--and I think the Court got it right.

I think by trying to allow the president to in effect repeal a part of a law he has already signed--and saying it takes a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress to restore that part--that Republican-led Congress of 1998 went too far. I think that kind of line-item veto would undermine the checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.

But the SLICE bill is different. It is a practical, effective--and, best of all, constitutional--version of a line-item veto.

It is not unprecedented. It follows the approach of legislation passed by the House of Representatives in 1993 under the leadership of our distinguished colleague, Representative Spratt and others, including our former colleagues Charlie Stenholm, Tom Carper, Tim Penny and John Kasich.

Under SLICE, the president could identify specific spending items he thinks should be cut--and Congress would have to vote, up or down, on whether to cut each of them.

Current law says the president can ask Congress to rescind--that is, cancel--spending items. But Congress can ignore those requests, and often has done so.

SLICE would change that.

It says if the president proposes a specific cut, Congress can't duck--it would have to vote on it, and if a majority approved the cut, that would be that.

So, it would give the president a bright spotlight of publicity he could focus on earmarks, and it would force Congress to debate those items on their merits.

That would give the president a powerful tool--but it also would retain the balance between the Executive and Legislative branches.

Madam Speaker, presidents are elected to lead, and only they represent the entire nation. My SLICE bill recognizes this by giving the president the leadership role of identifying specific spending items he thinks should be cut.

But, under the Constitution it is the Congress that is primarily accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars will be spent. The bill respects and emphasizes that Congressional role by requiring a vote on each spending cut proposed by the President.

Of course, without knowing what the president might propose to rescind, I don't know if I would support some, all, or any of his proposals.

But I do know that people in Colorado and across the country think there should be greater transparency about our decisions on taxing and spending. And I know that they are also demanding that we be ready to take responsibility for those decisions.

That is the purpose of this bill. It will promote both transparency and accountability, and I think it deserves the support of all our colleagues.

For the information of our colleague, I am attaching an outline of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, and I am compelled to respond to some of the criticisms of the Members of the other party about the intent of this legislation.

It is clear that the oil and gas industry is doing quite well. There are a number of tax breaks, tax credits, tax deductions, and encouragements that are already in place. This bill says the short-term benefits that were extended to the oil and gas community are overridden, and that the royalty problems that we have had are going to be revised and solved so that taxpayers get a fair return on their investments. After all, we own these assets as the people of this country.

This starts us finally on the right path by creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. It says we will set aside $14 billion to invest in clean energy technologies. And as the Chair of the bipartisan Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I can tell you that these are crucial technologies not only to protect our environment but to ensure job creation and, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, to ensure our national security.

So I want to stand in strong support of this legislation. We ought to pass it. The country is for it, and Democrats and Republicans are for it.

I want to echo the views of many of my colleagues who have talked about the importance of diversifying and balancing our energy portfolio and moving toward a clean energy regime. We all know that energy security and national security go hand in hand, and right now we don't enjoy either. That's why--as part of the 100 Hours agenda--we are passing this important legislation. We need a national effort to address our reliance on foreign energy sources.

I rise in support of H.R. 6. H.R. 6 starts us finally on the right path by creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. The CLEAN Energy Act would set aside roughly $14,000,000,000 to invest in clean renewable energy resources and alternative fuels, promote new energy technologies, and improve energy efficiency.

As co-chair of the bi-partisan Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Caucus, I can tell you that renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies can increase our energy security AND allow us to think anew about our energy future.

This isn't just about doing right by the environment--this is also about creating jobs. The U.S. currently leads the world technology in developing advanced energy technologies. But we won't hold onto the lead for long unless U.S. government policies begin to favor their development more than they do now. With the world market for new energy technologies projected to be in the trillions of dollars in twenty years, we would be foolish to forgo this opportunity.

And it is an opportunity--for new jobs, for rural development, for a cleaner environment, for national security. States and localities have realize this, and with federal action at a standstill, many of them-- like my state of Colorado--have already acted on renewable portfolio standards and other forward-looking policies. Now Congress is in a position to follow their lead.

We will use this strategic fund to extend the renewable energy production tax credit to give the market the assurance it needs to respond. We can extend energy efficiency tax incentives for buildings. equipment, and appliances, We can invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency research programs at the Department of Energy, and make sure that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has enough money and enough staff to do its important work. It is these programs that can drive down costs, make commercialization of new technologies possible, and help retain America's leadership role in these technologies.

The best thing about investing in clean energy is that Americans support it. This Administration supports it. Democrats and Republicans alike support it. It is the right thing to do.

The CLEAN Energy Act sets our priorities straight, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007. I support making changes to the Medicare Part D plan to make it more accessible, affordable and easier to understand.

H.R. 4 repeals the part of the current law that prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices for those enrolled in Medicare drug plans. The bill would instead require the Secretary to conduct cost-saving negotiations, and in conducting these negotiations, the Secretary may not restrict access to certain medicines in Medicare, for example by requiring a formulary to be used by Medicare Advantage plans. Finally, the bill would require the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on the negotiations conducted no later than June 1, 2007, and every six months thereafter.

I am voting for this legislation because I hear from seniors in my district about how they are struggling to pay for the medicines their doctors tell them they need to take. No senior should be faced with the decision of cutting their pills in half, or pay their drug bill or their electric bill.

However, I have some doubts that this negotiation will actually result in lower prices than what private plans are already achieving for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report on January 5, 2007, titled ``Federal Drug Price Negotiation: Implications for Medicare Part D,'' which says that the bill ``may not necessarily lead to lower costs for beneficiaries.'' The report also says the bill could affect the number and types of drugs that would be available to seniors and the amount of research and development and innovation by pharmaceutical companies. Nonetheless, H.R. 4 gives the Secretary of HHS great latitude in how negotiations will be conducted, and it is my hope that the Secretary will enter into these negotiations in a way that won't harm seniors' access to medicines or negatively impact new drug research and discoveries. Large employers, states and large pharmacy chains all use their bargaining clout to obtain lower prices for their consumers; Medicare should have the same opportunity to bargain for lower prices for America's seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to try dfferent approaches to make lifesaving medicines available to our nation's seniors so I'll vote for this bill. I will continue to work on a prescription drug program that meets the needs of our nation's seniors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Beverly Lyne of Boulder, Colorado for her selfless contribution to providing desperately needed medical attention to the people of Uganda. Ms. Lyne's background as a patient education consultant at Longmont United Hospital provided her with a strong foundation from which to offer her services to the developing world. Before volunteering her skills in Uganda, she had worked in the infectious-diseases field for almost twenty years as a registered nurse while also caring for AIDS patients in Boulder County.

Two years ago, an e-mail from one of her former physician associates sparked her interest in setting up a health clinic in Uganda. Lyne partnered with three Canadian nurses to help establish the Learning Empowers Uganda Medical Clinic that now serves more than 30,000 Ugandan men, women, and children. These people had escaped the violence of their homelands and settled in a semi-permanent camp in Soroti often with only the clothes on their back. Prior to Lyne's arrival, hospitals were little more than empty shells, with no supplies and minimal medicine or staff. Today, the same buildings have been transformed into functioning health and education centers, complete with labs and refrigerators for medicine.

Because of the compassion of Beverly Lyne and her colleagues, valuable care is being provided for those most in need. She has made incalculable contributions to advance the quality of life for the Ugandan people and in doing so has made her world a better place in which to live.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Beverly Lyne for her courage and compassion. Within her spirit lays the hope for a better tomorrow. I wish Beverly congratulations for her accomplishments and good health and happiness to both herself and the people she serves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 15, Mourning the passing of President Gerald R. Ford.

While we mourn President Ford, we also celebrate this great American's life and unique contributions to our country. I believe he will be remembered as a devoted and decent man of impeccable integrity who put service to his country before his own self interest. In public life, there can be no higher achievement.

In 1968 President Ford and his family first came to Colorado to ski. He was inspired by the beauty of the area and found a connection to the land and to the surrounding community and ended up buying home in Beaver Creek. When he became President, his vacations in Colorado helped introduce the world to the Town of Vail, and in fact, the family home was dubbed ``the Western White House.''

Coloradans, especially those in the Vail Valley, consider Jerry Ford to be the first President from Colorado because he was a great ambassador for the State who established long ties to the people of Colorado. He was known as the first skiing president, and because of this tireless promotion of Colorado's ski industry, he was inducted into the Colorado Ski Hall of Fame in 2001. He was a good neighbor, an avid golfer and a lover of the outdoors. So you can see why I like to claim the former president as a constituent.

Because of his work with charities in Colorado and his contributions to our great state, I've introduced a bill which would rename the Vail Post Office after President Ford, and I hope that the House will take up that bill soon and pass it in his honor.

President Ford will rightly be remembered for his personal warmth, his decency, his interest in bridging the many divisions in America during the 1970s. My father, Mo Udall, served in the Congress with him, and while they were often on different sides in political matters they were united by a common view that politics should unite people. I remember a story in 1974 President Ford invited Arizona's senators and representatives to ride on Air Force One for a meeting he was having with Mexico's president. At the time, Arizona had two Republican senators and three Republican congressmen. They all declined. The one Democratic congressman--my dad--accepted the invitation.

``All these other politicians don't want Ford to come into their district. Hell, I'm glad to see him in mine,'' my dad told a person in a crowd outside the place where Ford and the Mexican president were meeting. Mo then went into the crowd and put his arm around the president, telling him how proud Arizona was to have him. ``It's a great day for the state.''

They both were firm believers that in public life one could disagree without being disagreeable. This is a credo I try to live by and I draw inspiration from my father and from President Ford. They were both practitioners of civility long before the term came a popular term of political art.

As a dedicated public servant, President Ford served honorably in his years in Congress and in the White House. Most important, when America needed someone to reassure their trust in government after Watergate, he filled that leadership role with authenticity.

In short, Gerald Ford helped heal our nation during a time of crisis, provided steady leadership and restored people's faith in the presidency and in government. We need leaders like him today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to name the post office in Vail, Colorado, after our Nation's 39th President, Gerald R. Ford, Jr.

I believe this legislation is appropriate as another means of honoring the legacy of President Ford, in large part because of his special connection to Colorado and the Vail Valley.

In 1968 then-Congressman Ford and wife, Betty, first came to Colorado with their children to celebrate Christmas and to ski in the mountains at Vail. Like many other visitors, President Ford was inspired by the beauty of the area and found a connection to the land and to the surrounding community.

The Fords later owned a home and continued to vacation in Vail. When he became President, his vacations in Colorado helped introduce the world to the Town of Vail, and in fact, the family home was dubbed ``the Western White House.''

Vail residents knew President Ford and his family as neighbors and friends and are proud of their long association with them. Gerald Ford was beloved in Vail, where he was known to be a good neighbor, an avid golfer and a lover of the outdoors.

President Ford will rightly be remembered for his personal warmth, his decency, his interest in bridging the many divisions in America during the 1970s. My father, Mo Udall, served in Congress with Gerald Ford, and while they were often on different sides in political matters--so much so that my father hoped to run against President Ford in the famous election of 1976--they were united by a common view that politics should unite people. They both were firm believers that in public life one could disagree without being disagreeable.

This is a credo I continue to believe in, and I commend the memory of both good men to this House, an institution they loved.

Coloradans, especially those in the Vail Valley, have come to think of him as the first President from Colorado because he was a great ambassador for the State, who established long ties to the people of Colorado.

As a dedicated public servant, President Ford served honorably in his years in Congress and in the White House. Most important, when America needed someone to reassure their trust in government after Watergate, he filled that leadership role with authenticity.

I believe President Ford's special relationship and legacy in Colorado should be appropriately recognized by naming the postal facilities in Vail, Colorado, in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of Ms. Betty Dick, who died on November 14, 2006, in Arizona. She was 84. Earlier this year, this body passed a bill I helped author to allow Betty to remain on property within Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado for the rest of her life--property that she and her late husband had enjoyed and stewarded for 25 years.

Although she did not get the chance to long enjoy this property under the rights of occupation granted under this law--the Betty Dick Residence Protection Act--she did appreciate that Congress understood her situation and passed a law to allow her to stay.

All those who got to know Betty understood her grace, her tenacity, and her love of the outdoors, this property in the Park, and especially her family, friends and neighbors. Before coming to me for help, Betty had not had experience working with Congress. Nevertheless, she was a quick study fully grasping the nuances of passing a private bill and approaching this task with patience, respect for the institution and its members, and the need to make her case. She did all of that with poise and vigor.

My involvement in this issue began when Betty met with my staff in September of 2004, at which time we learned that Betty's occupancy was based on a July, 1980 Settlement Agreement that resolved a lawsuit brought by Betty's deceased husband, Mr. Fred Dick, challenging the transaction through which the property was conveyed to the federal government. The challenge was based on the federal government ignoring Mr. Dick's right of first refusal when the property was sold to the National Park Service. Invoking this right of first refusal, Mr. Dick asked the court to set aside the sale ofthe property to the United States and to allow him to repurchase it from his ex-wife.

Betty and her husband traveled to Washington to negotiate a settlement of this lawsuit and were told that the Interior Department was prepared to agree to a settlement that would allow them a ``lifetime occupancy'' of the property in return for their agreement to drop the lawsuit. She told me that they agreed to that, but that the formal documents to complete the settlement instead provided for continued occupancy for a term of 25 years.

According to Betty, her husband decided to accept and sign the documents because he was wornout by protracted negotiations with the National Park Service and because he felt that neither he nor his wife would live longer than 25 years. So, he did sign the Settlement Agreement--which, in addition to reducing the period of occupancy to 25 years also required him to make a lump sum payment of $7,500 to the National Park Service. As it happened, he was right to think that he would not outlive the 25-year period, but he was wrong about his widow, Betty Dick.

I also learned that both Fred and Betty Dick had been good stewards of this property, opened their home and property for community events and the public, and had been good neighbors with the National Park Service and its employees. Betty stated to me back in September--and has stated throughout--that she is simply asking for an opportunity to remain on the property for the rest of her life.

Given this history, I asked my staff to see what we could do to help. Following initial contact with Rocky Mountain National Park after my staff's first meeting with Betty in September, I sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior on October 12, 2004 respectfully requesting that the Park Service sit down with Betty and renegotiate the terms of the Settlement Agreement. I also suggested that in return for this renegotiation Betty offer something of value in exchange for her being able to remain on this property.

The response to that request was a letter back from the National Park Service's Intermountain Region Director indicating that the Park Service was unwilling to sit down with Betty and work out either an extension of the Settlement Agreement, or some other arrangement with her. Given this response, I determined that the National Park Service was either uninterested or unable to take administrative steps to resolve the matter fairly, and that as a result my only option was to introduce legislation that would extend the terms of the Settlement Agreement and allow Ms. Dick to stay on this property for the remainder of her life.

That bill was H.R. 432, which I introduced on January 26, 2005. The bill extended the terms of the Settlement Agreement allowing Betty to occupy the cabin on this property for as long as Betty was alive. Senator Ken Salazar introduced a companion version of this bill on March 3, 2005.

Following the introduction of this bill, I continued to urge the National Park Service to work out some administrative resolution. I wrote a letter to the Park Service explaining that I thought that this situation was unique and urged the National Park Service to sit down with her and work out a resolution. Still, the Park Service chose not to work this out equitably.

Betty testified for her bill before the House and Senate. I and other members of the Committee were impressed with her composure and the strength her plight. Consequently, the bill passed and was signed by the President on May 12th of this year.

I was also impressed with the outpouring of support from Betty's friends and neighbors in Grand County and the Town of Grand Lake, the communities along the western side of the Park. These people stood beside Betty as they valued her contributions to the community and the Park.

I was deeply saddened by Betty's passing. She died with her family around her.

In late August, I presented Betty with a framed copy of the signed law allowing her to stay. She was surrounded by friends and family who were gathered around the campfire just outside the cabin. All around us was the beauty and splendor of the Rocky Mountains and Betty got to enjoy her last days there secure in knowing that she had a right to enjoy and care for this property that meant so much to her and the community.

Betty opened her home to community events and was a valued member of Grand County. She was well regarded by everyone who knew her. Her cause became a labor of love and I was pleased to do what I could to help her. She will be missed by all those who were inspired by her love of life and her love of that special land along the Colorado River in the Park. I had hoped to visit her in future summers and enjoy her company and her neighbors around the campfire. She will always be there in spirit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for helping pass the Betty Dick Residence Protection Act. Our work for Betty shows that our government can be responsive to the needs of individuals as long as we take the time to listen, learn and care. I am proud of our work for Betty and for the principle of responsive government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Jack McCroskey for his exemplary public service to Colorado. Jack, with his foresight and strong leadership, has helped make the metropolitan Denver light-rail transit system a reality. His service in reviving public transportation is deserving of special recognition.

Mr. McCroskey, former Chairman of the Regional Transportation District, has long envisioned a regional transit system throughout the Denver metropolitan area. Today there are six lines in operation and more are expected to be built in the coming years. Initially Mr. McCroskey believed that the system could start small and move forward gradually as the public began to embrace it. In 2004 the public voted to expand the system with a region-wide sales tax increase.

I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. McCroskey for his great contributions to Colorado. We recognize his leadership and vision in bringing public transportation to the Denver metropolitan area. I am proud to offer a long awaited recognition to Mr. McCroskey for his great accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Ron G. Holliday. Mr. Holliday will be retiring as County Manager of Summit County, Colorado, on January 5, 2007, after having served 4\1/2\ years in this position. Prior to his position in Summit County, Mr. Holliday served 5 years as the County Administrator for Jefferson County, Colorado. Before his county government experience, Mr. Holliday served over three decades as Director of State Parks in Texas, Colorado and Montana.

Together, these years of exemplary service by Mr. Holliday amount to nearly four decades working for the citizens and environment of many Colorado and other western communities.

As Summit County Manager, Mr. Holliday worked on issues related to forest health, the present bark beetle epidemic, increasing growth and development in this county along the critical Interstate 70 corridor, ski area and tourist management, as well as roadless issues in our national forests. He brought a collaborative spirit to all of these endeavors, and the citizens of Summit County have a thriving economy and a roadmap to help address future issues and needs.

As County Administrator for Jefferson County, Colorado, Mr. Holliday oversaw more than 1,200 employees and was responsible for daily operations and a $344 million annual budget. He was serving this county at a time of significant growth, resulting in challenging transportation needs. To address this, he structured a multi-agency intergovernmental agreement for crucial transportation planning. He also helped guide the $150 million open space acquisition program and helped win passage of a voter approved $160 million open space bond issue.

Mr. Holliday also helped coordinate the county's administrative response to the tragic Columbine High School shooting. This incident garnered worldwide attention, and Mr. Holliday was part of the county's coordination team to manage the fallout from this unfortunate incident.

Prior to his work with Jefferson County, Mr. Holliday was Director of State Parks for the State of Texas for 5 years. At this position he oversaw 140 State parks with natural, recreational and historic significance encompassing 600,000 acres. He developed strategic plans for these attractions and tripled the revenue in 3 years. He also worked to create three new parks under his management.

Mr. Holliday secured similar achievements as Director of Colorado State Parks where he worked for 7 years. He increased the revenue of this office and developed strategic plans and longrange visions to our State's impressive park system. He got his start in this work for open space protection and visitor enjoyment working as State Park Director for Montana prior to working for State Parks in Colorado.

Throughout his work for open space, parks and county government, Mr. Holliday has brought a keen appreciation of the importance of preserving a quality environment and thriving economy for the benefit of the local communities he served as well as the entire States and Nation. His dedication to public service and his communities stands as a model for future managers and directors who act as stewards of our lands and communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Holliday for his dedicated, collaborative service. I wish him the very best in his future endeavors and continued contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6406, the Omnibus Trade Act. Overall I believe the bill provides many important benefits for consumers and businesses in the United States.

While Vietnam has not fully evolved into the kind of free society I would like to see, the improvement of relations between the United States and Vietnam is a welcome development. That is why I support the extension of presidential authority to grant permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam. Implementing normal trade relations is an important step toward ensuring that American business and agriculture will be able to benefit from a full and open market--a goal that is enhanced by Vietnam's inclusion into the World Trade Organization (WTO). It will also ensure that Congress and the Bush administration have the ability to enforce important commitments, including intellectual property protections and the elimination of trade distorting subsidies that ultimately do injury to American producers and consumers alike.

I have supported a number of efforts to expand access to foreign markets for exports as part of a long-term strategy to strengthen our domestic economy. While expanding markets for businesses and farmers is critical, it needs to be carefully monitored and responsibly implemented. As structured, I believe the agreement with Vietnam largely meets this test.

With respect to extending trade benefits to Andean countries, I have some concerns with the approach taken in this legislation. It puts important assistance programs at risk and is another example of the current Congressional leadership engaging in partisan political posturing instead of legislating in the very best interests of the American people and the governments and peoples affected by this bill. If the version of the bill is passed into law, I think it likely will be necessary to revisit this issue in the upcoming Congress.

While this bill is largely about the liberalized exchange of goods and services, it is also about building a stronger relationship with countries around the globe. Expanding our commercial relationships can help the United States gain support for initiatives in other areas, such as conflict resolution and reduction of poverty. I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of Mrs. Betty Orten, a great Coloradan who passed away on November 24, 2006, the day after a spirited Thanksgiving celebration with her family. She demonstrated great leadership and social conscience in civic affairs and will be missed by friends and loved ones.

Betty Orten grew up on military posts as her father's career as an Army officer took his family across the country, overseas, and finally to Colorado. Betty graduated from high school in Colorado Springs and then went on to receive a degree in history and sociology from the University of Colorado. While at the University of Colorado, she met her future husband, Russell Sage Orten. In 1951, they married and made their home in Westminster, Colorado.

After graduation, Betty began a career as a social worker and also became involved in the Democratic Party. She served as a precinct committeewoman, Democratic State vice chairperson, Adams County Democratic chairperson, and Democratic National Committee member. In 1974, after all of her hard-earned experience in social work and politics, she was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives.

Betty served as a representative for four terms, as well as one term as the House caucus chairwoman. Throughout her career, she concentrated on issues concerning the disadvantaged. She focused on dental care for the elderly, help for battered women and displaced homemakers, housing for single-parent families, and child care for single moms.

Those who knew Betty have fond memories and undoubtedly recognize her remarkable impact on them and fellow Coloradans along with Colorado politics. Betty was a role model and an example for women as she took leadership roles and worked tirelessly for the disadvantaged. Betty was always thoughtful, honest, and persuasive in work and politics.

In 1997, I had the privilege to be a representative in the Colorado House of Representatives where inspiring stories of Betty's labors and personality still resound. She was a true pioneer who broke new ground throughout her political career and in her numerous leadership positions.

If the measure of a life well-led is the impact that a person has on others, then Betty's impact is broad and deep. We all owe her a debt of gratitude and respect, and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating and remembering a life of service while expressing our deepest sympathies for her family's loss.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of Dr. Gilbert F. White, the ``Father of Floodplain Management,'' who died October 5, 2006 in his home in Boulder Colorado. He will be missed by friends and loved ones, yet the legacy of his social and environmental vision will long continue in communities throughout the world.

Gilbert F. White was born on November 26, 1911 in Hyde Park, Illinois and received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Chicago. As a graduate student in the late 1930s, he studied the Mississippi River Basin for the federal government when many planners followed a flood control policy based on the construction of dams. White questioned the impact of such projects and suggested alternatives that protected people, as well as floodplain ecosystems. He served as president of Haverford College in Pennsylvania from 1946 until 1955 and taught at the University of Chicago from 1956 to 1969. He was a visiting professor at the University of Oxford in 1962-63, and he chaired the American Friends Service Committee from 1963 to 1969.

In 1970, White joined the faculty of the University of Colorado at Boulder as a Professor of Geography and Director of the Institute of Behavioral Science, remaining active in academic work well into his 90s. He founded the University of Colorado's Natural Hazard Research and Applications Information Center in 1974 which has become the nation's leading repository of knowledge on human behavior in disasters. White's work in natural hazard mitigation changed the way people addressed their surroundings and made the world safer for its inhabitants in the process. In his doctoral dissertation of 1942, White wrote, ``Floods are acts of God, but flood losses are largely acts of man.'' So significant was this work that it has since been called the most influential book ever written by an American geographer.

In an era characterized by the construction of bigger and stronger flood control devices, Dr. White pioneered effective models of flood management that promoted public safety while preserving rivers and waterways. He was a true humanitarian, making extraordinary contributions toward educating governments on the most effective actions available in managing floodplains and alleviating flood losses. Dr. White's persistence convinced the nation to take a broader view in reducing flood risks, culminating with the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. This program encouraged responsible floodplain management at the local level and created stronger, safer communities for generations of Americans.

Among White's numerous honors are the National Geographic Society's highest honor, the Hubbard Medal; the United Nation's

Sasakawa International Environmental Prize; and the Association of American Geographer's Lifetime Achievement Award. He was also presented with an honorary doctorate from CU-Boulder in May of 2006.

Dr. White's legacy derives from the programs he helped implement. His contributions will continue to keep communities safer and protect the environment while making smart investments in mitigation activities at all levels of government. We all owe this great man a debt of gratitude and respect. I ask my colleagues to join with me in celebrating and remembering this life of service.