Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague Mr. Hall in introducing the National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006. This bill establishes a National Integrated Drought Information System--or NIDIS--within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that will provide early warnings, forecasts, and information about drought conditions to mitigate the impacts of drought.

The western part of our country, including my own state of Colorado, has experienced severe drought conditions in recent years, with adverse consequences that have included severe wildfires that have devastated many homes and businesses.

Droughts are a recurring part of climatic cycles, but that does not make them benign. And because unlike hurricanes or other weather events they develop slowly and their effects are felt over longer periods, there is a danger that efforts to mitigate or reduce the damage will not begin in time.

The direct impacts of drought include reduced crop yields and forest productivity, increased fire hazards, lower water levels, and damage to wildlife habitats. Droughts are costly to our economy as they reduce the incomes

of farmers and increase the prices of foods and agricultural materials such as timber. Drought adversely impacts our environment and wildlife habitats, taking away from our public lands and recreational opportunities, which have become an essential component of the way of life for many western communities.

But while the Department of Homeland Security, is working to prepare for natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes, the federal government is not doing enough to mitigate and reduce the effects of drought.

Currently, NOAA works with several agencies to produce drought forecasts and monitoring. However, a report by the Western Governors' Association found that much of the current drought forecasting information is overly technical and not in a standard format. Many users also are not aware of resources available to reduce the impacts of drought.

The bill that Mr. Hall and I are introducing today responds to those problems by expanding NOAA's efforts in drought monitoring and forecasting, improving the dissemination of data to ensure more informed and effective decisions are made about drought.

Specifically, the bill establishes an early warning system called NIDIS. NIDIS will integrate information from key indicators of drought to provide timely assessments. NIDIS will be used to disseminate a drought forecast on a regular basis to decision makers on the federal, state, local, and tribal levels, as well as to the private and public sectors.

Real-time data is often the most helpful in making decisions about drought; however, data is rarely available to decisions makers until after the fact. Thus, NIDIS will provide real-time data where possible for regional and local drought conditions.

Our bill also calls for the coordination and integration of federal research to support NIDIS, thus ensuring that we continue to understand droughts and their impacts. Lastly, our bill directs NOAA to consult and coordinate with other federal agencies in the development of NIDIS to ensure that all appropriate communities benefit from the system.

I believe that NIDIS will ensure that we are able to proactively reduce the effects of drought and allow decision makers to take advantage of all opportunities to reduce as many impacts as possible. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the creation of NIDIS and better monitoring and forecasting of drought.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Federal and Small Business Telework Promotion Act'' to assist our Nation's small businesses in establishing successful telework programs for their employees and to secure energy saving opportunities, like teleworking for our Nation's Federal employees.

Across America, numerous employers are responding to the needs of their employees and establishing telework programs. In 2000, there were an estimated 16.5 million teleworkers. By the end of 2004, there will be an estimated 30 million teleworkers, representing an increase of almost 100 percent.

Unfortunately, the majority of growth in new teleworkers comes from organizations employing over 1,500 people, while just a few years

ago, most teleworkers worked for small to medium-sized organizations.

By not taking advantage of modem technology and establishing successful telework programs, small businesses are losing out on a host of benefits that will save them money, and make them more competitive. By establishing successful telework programs, small business owners would be able to retain these valuable employees by allowing them to work from a remote location, such as their home or a telework center.

In addition to the cost savings realized by businesses that employ teleworkers, there are a number of related benefits to society and the employee. For example, telecommuters help reduce traffic and cut down on air pollution by staying off the roads during rush hour. Fully 80 percent of home-only teleworkers commute to work on days they are not teleworking. This also gives employees more time to spend with their families and reduces stress levels by eliminating the pressure of a long commute.

Mr. Speaker, our legislation seeks to conserve the energy consumption of the Federal workforce and to extend the benefits of a successful telework program to our Nation's small businesses.

Specifically, each agency shall take such actions as are necessary to reduce the level of fuel consumed by vehicles of employees of the agency. Due to the needs to reduce our dependence on imported oil, the bill directs all Federal agencies to find ways to reduce energy consumption by 10 percent in the year following the bill's passage. Agencies can achieve this reduction through telework, carpooling, bicycling and walking to work, fuel-efficient trip planning, public transportation use; and limiting travel.

Further the bill establishes a pilot program in the Small Business Administration (SBA) to raise awareness about telework among small business employers and to encourage those small businesses to establish telework programs for their employees.

Additionally, an important provision in our bill directs the SBA Administrator to undertake special efforts for businesses owned by, or employing, persons with disabilities and disabled American veterans. At the end of the day, telework can provide more than just environmental benefits and improved quality of life. It can open the door to people who have been precluded from working in a traditional office setting due to physical disabilities.

The legislation is also limited in cost and scope. It establishes the pilot program in a maximum of five SBA regions and caps the total cost to five million dollars over two years. It also restricts the SBA to activities specifically proscribed in the legislation: Developing educational materials; conducting outreach to small business; and acquiring equipment for demonstration purposes. Finally, it requires the SBA to prepare and submit a report to Congress evaluating the pilot program.

Several hurdles to establishing successful telework programs could be cleared by enacting our legislation. The bill will go a long way towards educating small business owners on how they can draft guidelines to make a telework program an affordable, manageable reality and demonstrating the willingness of the Federal Government to expand their own telework policies.

Here is a brief outline of the bill's provisions--

Section One--provides a short title, namely ``Federal and Small Business Telework Promotion Act.''

Section Two--sets forth findings regarding the potential benefits of increasing the extent to which employees have the option of teleworking.

Section Three--amends the National Energy Conservation Policy Act by adding a new subsection requiring Federal agencies to act so far as possible to reduce the amount of fuel used by its employees by at least 10 percent during the year after enactment. Military use of fuel would not be affected. An agency could seek to achieve this reduction through increased telework opportunities; more carpooling; more people bicycling or walking to work; fuel-efficient trip planning; greater use of public transportation; or by limiting use of vehicles for business travel.

Section Four--directs the Small Business Administration to carry out a pilot program to raise awareness of telework among small businesses and to encourage them to offer telework options to their employees. This program is to include special outreach to businesses owned by or employing people with disabilities, including disabled veterans. Priority for locating the pilot program will be given to regions where Federal agencies and small businesses have demonstrated a strong commitment to telework. The pilot program will terminate after 2 years. This section also authorizes appropriation of $5 million for implementation by SBA.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``More Water and More Energy Act of 2006.''

My bill deals with the issue of ``produced water,'' the saline water generated in the production of oil. For every barrel of oil produced, approximately 10 barrels of saline water is generated. This country generates over 5 billion gallons of produced water per day.

While sometimes this water can be and is used for agriculture or other purposes, most often it has been handled as a waste and reinjected. But as we expand our development of fossil energy resources to meet our increasing demand for energy, we are also increasing the volume of water produced in the development process. And given the increasing demand for fresh water supplies in many areas of the country--especially in the West--it makes sense to consider how this produced water could supplement our limited fresh water resources.

I'm glad that this issue is beginning to engage so many around the country as they realize the potential benefits of produced water. Just this week, the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute is hosting a ``Produced Water Workshop'' to discuss ``Energy & Water--How Can We Get Both for the Price of One?''

In my opinion, few topics could be more timely or important, not only for Colorado but for our country.

That's why I'm introducing the More Water and More Energy Act--to facilitate the use of produced water for irrigation and other purposes, including municipal and industrial uses. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior (through the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S.G.S.) to carry out a study to identify the technical, economic, environmental, legal, and other obstacles to increasing the extent to which produced water can be used for such purposes.

In addition, it would authorize federal grants to assist in the development of facilities to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of processes to increase the extent to which produce water can be recovered and made suitable for use for such purposes.

Developing beneficial uses for produced water could reduce the costs of oil and gas development, while also easing demand for water-- especially in the West--by alleviating drought conditions and providing water for agriculture, industry, and other uses. Energy and water are two of our most important resources--so it makes sense to pursue ways to produce more of both. I believe my bill is a step in this direction.

Here is a brief outline of the bill's provisions:

Section One--provides a short title (``More Water and

Energy Act of 2006''), sets forth findings, and states the

bill's purpose, ``to facilitate the use of produced water for

irrigation and other purposes and to demonstrate ways to

accomplish that result.''

Section Two--provides definitions of key terms used in the

legislation.

Section Three--authorizes and directs the Secretary of the

Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and the

U.S. Geological Survey, to conduct a study to identify the

technical, economic, environmental, legal, and other

obstacles to increasing the use of produced water for

irrigation and other purposes and the legislative,

administrative, and other actions that could reduce or

eliminate these obstacles. The study is to be done in

consultation with the Department of Energy, the Environmental

Protection Agency, and appropriate Governors and local

officials, and the Interior Department will be required to

seek the advice of experts and comments and suggestions from

the public. Results of the study are to be reported to

Congress within a year after enactment of the legislation.

Section Four--authorizes and directs (subject to the

availability of appropriated funds) the Interior Department

to award grants to assist in developing facilities to

demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of

processes to increase the use of produced water for

irrigation, municipal or industrial uses, or for other

purposes. No more than one such project is to be in a State

of the Upper Basin of the Colorado River (i.e. Colorado, New

Mexico, Utah, or Wyoming), no more than one is to be in

either Arizona or Nevada, and no more than one is to be in

California. Grants are to be for a maximum of $1 million, and

can pay for no more than half the cost of any project. Grants

cannot be used for operation or maintenance of a project.

Section Five--authorizes appropriations to implement the

legislation, including up to $5 million for grants authorized

by section 4.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Royalty-in-Kind for Energy Assistance Improvement Act. This bill is intended to make it possible for the Department of the Interior to implement a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that was intended to provide a new way to assist low-income people to heat or cool their homes.

For several years before 2005, the Department of the Interior had authority to develop ``royalty-in-kind'' arrangements under which companies developing federal oil could meet their required royalty payments by providing oil instead of cash. The Energy Policy Act expanded this provision to apply to natural-gas developers as well, and also added new authority for Interior to grant a preference to low- income consumers when disposing of natural gas it obtained under such an arrangement.

While this Energy Policy Act provision does not specifically reference the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), its implementation could benefit that program.

LIHEAP is intended to help low-income Americans pay for their heating and cooling costs. However, at current funding levels this critically important program serves less than 15 percent of those who qualify for it. Implementing the Energy Policy Act provision to grant a preference to low-income consumers would supplement LIHEAP funding and expand the amount of energy assistance available to the poor.

Last September, I joined my colleagues from Colorado in writing a letter to Interior Secretary Gail Norton asking her to consider beginning implementation of the new provision through a pilot program in Colorado. In the letter, we emphasized the importance of helping this country's most vulnerable citizens, who are increasingly hard hit by rising energy costs.

In a reply to my office, the Interior Department responded that the Interior Department's lawyers had reviewed the Energy Policy Act provision and had concluded that as it now stands it could not be implemented because the current law ``does not provide the Department with the authority or discretion to receive less than fair market value for the royalty gas or oil.''

My bill is intended to correct the legal deficiencies in the provision as enacted to make it possible for the Interior Department to implement the program. In developing the legislation, my staff has reviewed the Interior Department's legal opinion and has consulted with the Interior Department's lawyers and with other legal experts. Based on that review, I think enactment of my bill will resolve the legal problems cited by the Interior Department and will enable the program to go forward.

Spring may be upon us, but hot summer temperatures and another winter are just months away. I believe the Energy Policy Act provision to help low-income consumers is an innovative tool that must be allowed to work. The Royalty-in-Kind for Energy Assistance Improvement Act would make this possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to support energy assistance for this nation's most vulnerable residents.

Here is a brief outline of the bill:

Section One--provides a short title (``Royalty-in-Kind for

Energy Assistance Improvement Act of 2006'').

Section Two--sets forth findings regarding the importance

of LIHEAP and the intent of the relevant provisions of law

regarding payment of royalties-in-kind and the conclusion of

the Interior Department that the provision of the 2005 Energy

Policy Act intended to allow use of royalties-in-kind to

benefit low-income consumers cannot be implemented. This

section also states the bill's purpose, which is to amend

that part of the Energy Policy Act in order to make it

possible for it to be implemented in order to assist low-

income people to meet their energy needs.

Section Three--amends the relevant provision (Section

342(j)) of the Energy Policy Act by--

(1) adding explicit authority for the Interior Department

to sell royalty-in-kind oil or gas for as little as half its

fair market value in implementing that part of the Energy

Policy Act under an agreement that the purchaser will be

required to provide an appropriate amount of resources to a

Federal low-income energy assistance program;

(2) clarifying that such a sale at a discounted price will

be deemed to comply with the Anti-deficiency Act; and

(3) authorizing the Interior Department to issue rules and

enter into agreements that are considered appropriate in

order to implement that part of the Energy Policy Act.

These changes are specifically designed to correct the

legal deficiencies that the Interior Department has

determined currently make it impossible for it to implement

this part of the Energy Policy Act.

Mr. Speaker, because of official business in Colorado, I was not able to be present yesterday for three votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Roll call No. 82, H.J. Res. 81--Providing for the appointment of Phillip Frost as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution--I would have voted ``yes.''

Roll call No. 83, H. Res. 703--Recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and supporting continued efforts to control radiation and mitigate the adverse health consequences related to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant--I would have voted ``yes.''

Roll call No. 84, H. Res. 744--Expressing support for the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as the blueprint for lasting peace in Northern Ireland and support for continued police reform in Northern Ireland as a critical element in the peace process--I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2120, the Milk Regulatory Equity Act.

I think there well may be a need for Congress to consider legislation dealing with Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMOs). But the subject is too important to be handled the way this bill has been.

The suspension calendar is supposed to be reserved for bills that the relevant committees have reviewed and that are not controversial, which is why debate is limited and no amendments are allowed.

However, there has been no hearing on this bill and it has never been approved by any Committee--in either the House or Senate--so there has been no opportunity to consider the testimony of anyone who might be affected, including at least one Colorado company that has told me of their objections to the bill as it now stands.

Before we make a change in Federal dairy policy that has been in place for 70 years I think it is appropriate to hear all sides of the debate. Because that has not happened, I cannot support the bill.

I urge all Members to join me in voting no today, so that the bill can receive a more careful evaluation and so that possible revisions can be considered in the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the achievements of two young men for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. Mr. Kur Kur and Mr. Simon Garang, currently of Boulder, Colorado, will graduate with degrees from the University of Colorado at Boulder in May, 2006, closing one remarkable chapter in their lives and beginning another. For these two men, obtaining their degrees was more than a matter of attending classes and passing tests; it was a stunning journey from the impoverished and war-torn deserts of East Africa to the mountains of Colorado and the classrooms of CU- Boulder.

Mr. Kur and Mr. Garang were born in different parts of southern Sudan and were forced to flee to Ethiopia at the age of eight to evade Islamic militants that were driving men, women, and children from their homes. Separated from their families, the boys walked the long journey to Ethiopia seeking refuge.

They remained there until war broke out in 1991, and made another improbable and difficult journey to a refugee camp in Kenya, where they would complete their high school educations in spite of severe hunger and poverty. There Mr. Kur and Mr. Garang became aware of the possibility that they could come to the United States and work toward better lives via a special refugee program. They had lived the full experience of a group of young people that are now called ``The Lost Boys of Sudan,'' and would now open a new and hopeful chapter in their already difficult lives.

After arriving in Colorado, Mr. Kur and Mr. Garang would meet Professor Bruce Bassoff, who saw that they were extraordinarily bright and offered to help them enroll at the University of Colorado. In the fall of 2002 they did just that, studying and working hard to obtain their degrees while enjoying a rich college experience. Their upcoming graduation is the culmination not only of those efforts, but of years of a type of struggle unimaginable to most Americans.

I have every confidence that Mr. Kur and Mr. Garang will put their degrees and worldviews to great use, and I look forward to seeing what they--as well as the other five Sudanese students enrolled at CU-- accomplish in the years to come. Theirs is a story of inspiration as well as a reminder of our good fortune and the struggles of those in Sudan and other parts of the underdeveloped world. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Kur Kur and Mr. Simon Garang on their upcoming graduations and to wish them well in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to honor and congratulate an outstanding young woman in my district who has recently been recognized as one of the top youth volunteers in Colorado for 2006. Genevieve Aguilar of Boulder was recently honored as a Distinguished Finalist for the 11th Annual Prudential Spirit of Community Award, an honor bestowed on the most active and dedicated young volunteers in the state.

Genevieve was honored this year for her work as a tutor and mentor for young Hispanic students. At the age of seventeen, this young woman finds the time to teach other students organizational and study skills so that they can achieve success in high school and beyond. This selflessness is made all the more remarkable by the fact that Genevieve is making her way through Boulder High School herself and undoubtedly faces all of the same pressures that every other student faces. Despite these pressures, and through her steady devotion to her community and her fellow students, Genevieve is able to teach us all a lesson in humanity, service, and volunteerism.

The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards were designed to ``emphasize the importance our nation places on service to others, and to encourage young Americans of all backgrounds to contribute to their communities.'' I can think of no better way to honor the work that Genevieve has done to help her fellow students learn and grow, and I am sure that her example serves to inspire those students to give back to their communities in kind. I look forward to seeing what Genevieve Aguilar accomplishes in the future, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring her accomplishments.

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

Since introduction of my previous bill (H.R. 3193), I have heard from a number of local communities and other interests on the western side of the park regarding some issues and accommodations they would like to see reflected in the bill. The bill I am introducing today reflects that input.

This legislation will provide important protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country, adding well over 200,000 acres in the park to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill is similar to one previously introduced by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, and one I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. Those bills in turn were based on similar measures earlier proposed, including some by former Senator Bill Armstrong and others.

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

Unlike these previous bills, the new bill includes designation as wilderness of more than 700 acres in the Twin Sisters area south of Estes Park. These lands were acquired by the United States and made part of the park after submission to Congress of the original wilderness recommendation for the park in the 1970s, and so were not included in that recommendation. They are lands of a wilderness character and their designation will not conflict with any current uses.

Since I introduced the earlier bill in this Congress, the communities bordering the park have been considering this wilderness proposal. The communities and local governments along the eastern side of the Park have expressed support for this proposal, including the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County.

On the west side, the Town of Grand Lake and Grand County requested that about 650 acres inward from the Park boundary around the Town be omitted from the wilderness designation in order to allow the Park to respond to potential forest fire threats. The revised bill reflects this change.

In addition, the Town of Grand Lake, Grand County and the Headwaters Trails Alliance (a group composed of local communities in Grand County that seeks to establish opportunities for mountain biking) requested that an additional non-wilderness area remain along the western park boundary, running south along Lake Granby from the Town to the park's southern boundary. This request was made to allow the National Park Service to retain the option of authorizing construction of a possible future mountain bike route within this part of the park.

The revised bill introduced today responds to that request by omitting from wilderness an area, called the East Shore Trail Area, in this part of the park. However, it provides that the area will become wilderness 25 years after enactment unless a bicycle trail has been constructed before then.

During the discussions of the previous version of the bill, it was suggested that the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness Area (within the Arapaho National Forest) should be expanded.

The new bill adopts that suggestion by inclusion of a new section that would expand the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area by 1,000 acres in the area south of the park and north of Lake Granby. The lands involved are currently managed as part of the Arapaho National Recreation Area, which accordingly would be reduced by about 1,000 acres.

In addition, this section of the revised bill would amend the original Indian Peaks Wilderness Act to reflect this additional acreage as well as the 2,232-acre Ranch Creek Addition and the 963-acre Fourth of July Addition to the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area that were made in the James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area Act in 2001. These changes will be reflected by a new official map for both areas which will establish the precise location of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area boundary north of Lake Granby and the corresponding boundary change to the Arapaho National Recreation Area.

Finally, a new section has been added to authorize the park to lease a property called the Leiffer Property. This 11-acre property was donated to the National Park Service in 1977, under terms requiring it to be retained by the Park Service. It is an isolated tract outside the boundaries of the park and has two buildings, including a house that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Park Service would like to have the option of leasing the tract, but their leasing authority is limited to ``property administered . . . as part of the National Park System,'' and this property does not qualify because it is neither within nor contiguous to the park's boundaries. The new section would allow the Park Service to lease the property as if it were located inside or contiguous to the park.

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

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

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

This bill is based on National Park Service recommendations, prepared more than 25 years ago and presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. It seems to me that, in that time, there has been sufficient study, consideration, and refinement of those recommendations so that Congress can proceed with this legislation. I believe that this bill constitutes a fair and complete proposal, sufficiently providing for the legitimate needs of the public at large and all interested groups, and deserves to be enacted.

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

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

All Coloradans know that the question of possible impacts on water rights can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. So,

it's very important to understand that the question of water rights for Rocky Mountain National Park wilderness is entirely different from many considered before, and is far simpler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Asian Pacific American Times on its upcoming 10th Anniversary celebration and to honor the important contributions this paper has made over the last decade. On March 25, 2006, the APA Times will celebrate a record of substantial achievement and growth among its readership.

The Asian Pacific American Times began with a narrower mission and title than it has today as the ``Philippine American Times,'' focusing on issues relevant to Filipino-Americans living and working in Colorado. Over time the paper realized even greater potential to reach more Asian-American communities and it broadened its coverage and objectives accordingly. In March 2003, the Asian Pacific American Times became ``The Voice of Asian Pacific Americans in the Rockies.''

Reading the Asian Pacific American Times today, it is not uncommon to see datelines from locations as varied as Denver, Washington D.C., South Korea, Mongolia, China, and the Philippines. This breadth demonstrates the APA Times' dedication to reporting on a wide range of issues important to emerging Asian communities. In addition to substantive reporting and editing, it is important to recognize the APA Times' devotion to community involvement. Having won the Asian Chamber of Commerce Small Business of the Year Award in 2003 and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Business Social Responsibility Award in 2005, the APA Times shows a clear commitment beyond routine journalism to greater support of Asian-American communities and cultural awareness. From volunteering in programs to participating in commissions to organizing special events, the APA Times and its employees go above and beyond their laudable work as a press outlet to become public servants and community leaders.

For their accomplishments, service, and hard work, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the employees of the Asian Pacific American Times on their 10th Anniversary and their many journalistic achievements over the last decade. I look forward to reading their work and witnessing their accomplishments for another ten years and beyond.

Madam Speaker, while I will vote for this bill, I cannot be enthusiastic about it because it does very little to improve the laws it amends. And I cannot help regretting that the House is not being allowed to even consider improving the bill itself.

By refusing to allow any amendments to be considered, the Republican leadership not only is missing an opportunity to refine and clarify the language of this Senate bill, it is insisting on preventing any attempt to broaden the bill so it will do more to strike the right balance between fighting terrorism and respecting civil liberties. This is not the right way for us to do our work.

The bill in effect amends the conference report on H.R. 3199, the bill to revise and renew various provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT Act'' (more commonly called simply the ``PATRIOT Act'') that was passed by the House last year.

I voted against that conference report.

I support renewing the new tools the PATRIOT Act provided to fight terrorists. But I also thought then--and still think today--Congress should take care to protect Americans' civil liberties. And, after careful review, I concluded that the conference report did not do enough to reduce the potential that the authority it gives to the FBI and other agencies could be abused or misused in ways that intrude on Americans' privacy and civil liberties--a potential that has led more than 300 communities as well as Colorado and six other States-- governments that in all represent over 62 million people--to pass resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act.

I had hoped I could vote for the conference report, because earlier the Senate, to its credit, did a better job than the House in responding to the concerns that prompted such resolutions, while still providing ample tools that the government can use to work against the threat of more terrorist attacks, at home and abroad.

I could have supported enactment of the bill as passed by the Senate, and I hoped that the conference report would closely resemble that Senate-passed bill. Unhappily, those hopes were not fulfilled--but I took new hope when the Senate refused to cut off debate on the conference report and it became clear that there would be an effort to revise it to address concerns about its effects on civil liberties.

Specifically, I hoped that the conference report would be revised to include provisions like those in H.R. 1526, the ``Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2005,'' or SAFE Act. I am a cosponsor of that bill, which would amend the PATRIOT Act in several important ways.

It would modify the provisions regarding ``roving wiretaps'' to require that: (1) an order approving an electronic surveillance specify either the identity of the target or the place to be wiretapped; and (2) surveillance is to be conducted only when the suspect is present.

It would revise provisions governing so-called ``sneak and peek'' search warrants to: (1) limit them to cases where immediate notice of issuance would endanger someone's life or physical safety, result in flight from prosecution or intimidation of a potential witness, or lead to destruction of or tampering with evidence sought; and (2) require notice of the warrant within 7 days (instead of just a ``reasonable period'') after execution, with extensions for additional periods of up to 21 days if the court finds reasonable cause.

It would require the FBI to have a more specific reason to seek to obtain that person's business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.

It would provide that libraries shall not be treated as wire or electronic communication service providers under provisions granting counterintelligence access to provider subscriber information, toll billing records, or electronic communication transactional records.

It would redefine ``domestic terrorism'' to mean activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that constitute a Federal crime of terrorism. And it would add several provisions to the list subject to ``sunset,'' so that Congress would have more incentive to review their implementation and to consider possible changes.

I think the SAFE Act sets an appropriate standard for legislation to revise and reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.

Unfortunately, the conference report did not meet that standard, and even more unfortunately the negotiations that followed the Senate's refusal to end debate on the conference

report did not result in legislation that would bring the conference report into line with the ``SAFE'' Act.

Instead, those negotiations resulted in the bill now before the House, on which the only choice allowed by the Republican leadership is ``yes'' or ``no.''

The bill would make some revisions in the conference report. Specifically, it would--(1) allow recipients of a production order under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to ask a judge of the special court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to modify or quash the ``gag rule'' that bars disclosure of the order; (2) end the rule that recipients of a Section 215 order or national security letter (NSL) must name any attorney consulted about the order or NSL; and (3) clarify that libraries, the services of which include offering patrons access to the Internet, are not subject to NSLs, unless they are functioning as electronic communication service providers.

However, a challenge to the gag rule could not be brought until a year after an order or NSL is issued, and the bill would establish as conclusive a government certification that a waiver may endanger national security unless it was made in bad faith.

At best, these are very minor improvements in the conference report. And the language of the bill is not without ambiguity on several points--which is why the Republican leadership should have allowed consideration of clarifying amendments.

But, unfortunately, both the House and the Senate have approved the conference report and it is ready to go to the President to be signed into law. So, the choice now before the House is whether to pass this bill or whether we instead will allow the conference report to become law without even these minor improvements.

And on that question, I think our country is better served by enactment of this inadequate and incomplete bill than by its defeat-- and so I will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, with my Colorado colleague, Representative John Salazar, I today am introducing a bill to help protect Rocky Mountain communities from the increased risks of severe wildfire caused by large-scale infestations of bark beetles and other insects in our forests.

Entitled the Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and Support--or Rocky Mountain FIRES--Act, the bill will provide the Forest Service and Interior Department with more tools and resources to respond to this serious problem.

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 stands 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 ``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 my 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 2003 welcome progress has been made--in Colorado, at least--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 buildup of fuel in the form of both new growth and dead and dying mature trees.

This has resulted from a variety of reasons, including the fact that dense stands of even-aged trees (one result of decades of fire suppression and reduced logging) are stressed by the competition for nutrients. This stress, which has been intensified by the effects of the drought that has plagued the west for nearly a decade, makes these stands less able to resist insects.

Many species of bark beetles, such as the mountain pine beetle, are native to our forests. These insects fly to a tree--typically one that may be weakened by age, disease or lack of water and nutrients--where they burrow through the bark. If the tree is healthy, it can defend itself through the production of sap to repel and expel the invading insect. If the insect is successful, it lays its 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 braches. In addition, the 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 leave the tree flying to the next tree and the cycle begins anew.

These insects and the cycles they engender 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. When forests are healthy and there are adequate supplies of water, the effects of insects 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. For example, in the Fraser and upper Colorado River Valleys north of the Winter Park Ski area, the insect epidemic has decimated wide swaths of forests. Most alarmingly, areas around populated communities in these valleys from Winter Park all the way up to the west side of Rocky Mountain National Park are living with acres of dead trees, turned rust red by the insects and creating intense concern of a catastrophic wildfire that could race through these landscapes and communities.

To learn more, last year I convened a meeting in Winter Park, in Grand County, that was attended by more than 200 people, including 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 that meeting and other conversations, draft legislation was developed that Representative Salazar and I circulated widely so we could obtain further comments and suggestions. The bill we are introducing today reflects much of what we heard from Coloradans and others interested in this subject.

Our goal is not to eradicate insects in our forests--nor should it be, because insects are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Instead, our intention is to make it possible for there to be more rapid responses to the insect epidemic in those areas where such responses are needed in order to protect communities from increased wildfire dangers.

The bill would add a new section to the Healthy Forests Act to specifically address insect epidemics like those now visible in the Fraser and upper Colorado River Valleys. It would apply to the entire Rocky Mountain west. It would authorize the Forest Service to identify as ``insect emergency areas'' Federal lands that have already been slated for fuel-reduction work in community wildfire protection plans and that have so many insect-killed trees that there is an urgent need for work to reduce the fire-related risks to human life and property or municipal water supplies. The Forest Service could make such a determination on its own initiative or in response to a request from any State agency or any political subdivision (such as a county, city, or other local government) of a State. If the Forest Service receives such a request, it must make a decision in response within 90 days. A designation must be made by a Regional Forester or higher-ranking official of the Forest Service.

In these emergency areas, the Forest Service or Interior Department would be authorized to remove dead or dying trees on an expedited basis, including use of a ``categorical exclusion'' from normal review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Although categorical exclusions from NEPA are controversial, I believe they are appropriate for these emergency situations. And because recent lawsuits have led to some confusion about the relationship of Forest Service categorical exclusions and the Appeals Reform Act, the bill would exempt such categorically-excluded projects in insect emergency areas from the Appeals Reform Act. This would make it clear that the projects categorically excluded in an insect emergency situation would not need to go through additional steps in order to enhance the rapid use of such categorically excluded projects.

As the focus of the bill is on the potential fire threats to communities from insect-killed tress and the encouragement of treatment projects in the ``community wildfire protection plan'' areas, the bill also includes provisions to help communities establish such plans.

Toward that end, the bill includes language to make clear that development of protection plans qualifies for assistance under the Federal Fire Protection and Control Act. And, more importantly, the bill provides that annually for the next five years $5 million will be diverted from the federal government's share of royalties for onshore federal oil and gas resources and made available to help Rocky Mountain communities develop their protection plans.

At the meeting in Winter Park last fall, I also heard concerns from private landowners who are doing what they can to reduce fuel loads, cut down insect-killed trees, and otherwise mitigate the fire risks on their lands.

Because some of them would like to be able to do similar work on adjacent National Forest lands, the bill makes clear that the Forest Service can award them stewardship contract or enter into agreements authorizing them to do that carry out fuel-reduction work on those lands, subject to terms and conditions set by the Forest Service. Those arrangements could provide for reimbursement by the government for their work, and the bill specifies that if their work is not reimbursed, it will be treated as a donation to the government for income-tax purposes, meaning it is deductible from income tax by people who itemize their deductions.

The bill would also encourage the Forest Service to establish ``central collection points'' where trees and other vegetative material could be deposited and made available for further uses as fuel or products.

Also at the Winter Park meeting, I heard that there are some barriers to the private sector in doing the treatment work on Forest Service land. So, the bill would allow the Forest Service to extend the length of time for stewardship contracts for thinning work in insect-emergency areas by as much as an additional 5 years beyond the current 10 year limit.

This could help attract more entities willing to do the needed treatment work in these emergency areas, as could another part of the bill that would allow people carrying out fuel-reduction projects in insect-emergency areas to exclude up to $10,000 ($20,000 for joint returns) from the amount of their income subject to federal income tax.

Finally, as trees removed to reduce fuel loads or respond to an insect emergency may have some value as a fuel, the bill would authorize the Forest Service to make grants to owners or operators of facilities that convert the removed trees and other vegetative material into energy.

Although we cannot and should not eradicate insects from our forests, we can and we should strive to help reduce the increased wildfire risks to communities that result from their increased infestations. The purpose of this bill is to provide some additional tools and resources that will enable relevant federal agencies, local communities, and residents of the Rocky Mountain region to better respond to this problem. For the benefit of our colleague, I am attaching a short outline of the bill's provisions.

The bill has 8 sections, as follows:

Section One--provides a short title and table of contents. The short title is ``Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and Support (or Rocky Mountain FIRES) Act.''

Section Two--sets forth finding regarding the need for the legislation, and states the bill's purpose, which is to facilitate a swifter response by the Forest Service and Interior Department to reduce the increased risk of severe wildfires to communities in the Rocky Mountain regions caused by the effects of widespread infestations of bark beetles and other insects.

Section Three--amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to: Add definitions of terms; Require that in the Rocky Mountain region at least 70% of the funds allocated for hazardous fuel reduction projects be used for projects in the wildland-urban interface and lands near municipal water supplies or their tributaries that have been identified for treatment in a community wildfire protection plan; Provide for designation of insect-emergency areas by the Forest Service; Specify the effect of designation of insect-emergency areas; Specifically authorize the Forest Service to relocate or reassign personnel to respond to an insect emergency; Clarify the relationship of this part of the bill and the Appeals Reform Act; (The bill defines ``Rocky Mountain region'' as Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.)

Section Four--amends Healthy Forests Restoration Act to authorize help to communities preparing or revising wildfire protection plans, and provides for annual diversion (for five years) of $5 million from federal share of royalties from onshore federal oil and gas developments to fund this assistance.

Section Five--amends Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to clarify that development of community wildfire protection plans qualifies for assistance under that Act.

Section Six--amends biomass-grant provision of Healthy Forests Restoration Act to allow grants to facilities using biomass for wood- based products or other commercial purposes (in addition to uses now specified in the Act); to require that priority go to grants to people using biomass removed from insectemergency areas; to increase authorization to $10 million annually through 2010 (instead of $5 million annually through 2008); and to provide for establishment of central collection points for material removed from forest lands as part of hazardous-fuel reduction projects.

Section Seven--amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to specifically authorize Forest Service and Interior Department to award stewardship contracts to owners of lands contiguous to Federal lands (or enter into agreements with such landowners) so the landowners can do fuel-reduction work on the Federal lands and either be reimbursed for such work or authorized to treat value of such work as a donation to the United States for purposes of federal income taxes.

Section Eight--amends Internal Revenue Code to exclude from taxable income up to $10,000 ($20,000 for joint return) received from the Federal government as compensation for work done in the Rocky Mountain Region as part of an authorized hazardous-fuel reduction project or a silvicultural assessment done under section 404 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question and also will oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the Colorado Department of Agriculture. And if I could respond to my good friend from Georgia, in the letter from the Department of Agriculture, they make the point that although the States can seek waivers, in our State we believe, the Department of Agriculture believes that a State required to seek a waiver from the Federal Food and Drug Administration would incur significant legal and expert witness expenses which could be better used in conducting food and animal feed safety inspections.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It should be rejected. It would make it much harder for Colorado and other States to protect public health and respond to acts of bioterrorism.

The bill would preempt virtually every State and local law that does not mirror Federal law, and it would require Colorado and other States to navigate a bureaucratic and costly morass if they want to act to protect the public.

In Colorado specifically, the bill would erase laws dealing with the safety of restaurants, packaged food, wholesale foods and milk. Further, it would prohibit Colorado and other States from passing laws or regulations dealing with animal feeds, feed additives, and drugs used on animals.

Additionally, States could not respond quickly to extreme public health risks like avian flu, mad cow disease or chronic wasting disease without first seeking the guidance of the Federal Government. It is shocking, I think truly shocking, that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina we would further hamstring our State and local officials when they need to respond quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge opposition to the rule and the underlying bill that would undermine Colorado's ability to protect consumers and the public health.

Colorado Department

of Agriculture,

Lakewood, CO, January 30, 2006.

Hon. Mark Udall,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Bldg.,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Mark Udall: On behalf of the Colorado

Department of Agriculture, I am writing to express our

concerns regarding H.R. 4167, ``The National Uniformity for

Foods Act of 2005,'' which will appear before the House for

action in the next few weeks.

This bill would preempt state feed safety agriculture

defense programs from performing certain functions that

protect citizens. Under this bill, a state would no longer be

able to formulate laws and rules concerning the labeling of

foods, animal feeds, feed additives and new animal drugs.

Preempting state regulatory agencies from having autonomy to

address food and animal feed safety concerns compromises

public and animal health. Each state must have the latitude

to act quickly to enact laws and rules that address local or

statewide health concerns.

In addition, the waiver process required by H.R. 4167 would

impose substantial financial burden on the state and federal

governments. A state required to seek a waiver from the

Federal Food and Drug Administration would incur significant

legal and expert witness expenses, which could be better used

in conducting food and animal feed safety inspections.

Consumers benefit from strong food safety laws at the

federal and state levels. Elimination of the authority of

each state to set policy and take appropriate action would

reduce consumer protection. Therefore, I urge you to oppose

Mr. Speaker, on February 7th, America lost one of its conservation leaders with the passing of Theodore R. Swem--known to everyone as ``Ted''--whose long career was marked by the highest standards of dedication to the public interest.

Born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on December 6, 1917, he attended Coe College, in Iowa

and received his Bachelor of Science in Forestry from Iowa State University in Ames. After completing one year of graduate work at the Biology School at Harvard University, he went to work for the Colorado State Game and Fish Department, and eventually became the Coordinator for the Federal Aid to the Wildlife Restoration Program.

In 1946, he went to work at the Regional Office of the Bureau of Reclamation, where he was responsible for wildlife, recreation, and land use planning in reclamation projects in a four state region.

During the 1950s, Ted worked with other conservationists to encourage Colorado legislators to enact legislation to establish a state park system. Thanks to the efforts of Ted and this group, today all Coloradans--and our visitors as well--can enjoy State Parks throughout Colorado.

In 1957, Ted joined the National Park Service and steadily ascended to various planning positions, eventually becoming the Assistant Director for Cooperative Activities in 1964. In this capacity, he was responsible for studying potential areas, and master planning existing areas of the National Park System, Wilderness, Federal Agency and State Assistance, Park Practice and the International Affairs Programs of the Service.

The large number of additions to the National Park System during the middle and late 1960s reflect the magnitude of this activity.

In September 1969, Ted became Superintendent of the National Capital Region of the National Park Service. In March 1971, he became the Assistant Director to the Director.

From 1972 to 1976, Ted was responsible for the National Park Service program activity in Alaska as related to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and was key to development of National Park areas in Alaska.

During this period, he became Chairman of the Alaska Planning Group for the Department of Interior and coordinated the multi-agency effort that produced the 28 ``Four System'' legislative proposals and related Environmental Impact Statements as submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, Rogers C.B. Morton, in December 1973. In February 1976, Ted retired from the National Park Service.

Ted's work thus set the stage for enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which was signed into law by President Carter on December 2, 1980. This Act is often called the most significant land conservation measure in the history of our nation. The statute protected over 100 million acres of federal lands in Alaska, doubling the size of the country's national park and refuge system and tripling the amount of land designated as wilderness.

While with the National Park Service Ted was Chairman of the United States Section, Joint Japan-United States Panel on National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. He was also a member of the Canadian-United States Committee on National Parks; a Board Member of the Wilderness Society Governing Council; a member of the International Union Conservation of Nature; and Chairman of the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas.

After his retirement he was president of the Wilderness Society Governing Council from 1978 to 1980; a Board Member of American Rivers, Inc.; and Management Consultant to Silvertip Consulting and the Defenders of Wildlife.

He was the recipient of the Meritorious and Distinguished Service Award of the Department of Interior, was recognized in 1981 by the Japanese Government by receiving the 50th Anniversary Award for his distinctive work in their behalf, and received the Robert Marshall Award from the Wilderness Society on their 50th Anniversary--the Society's highest award presented to a private citizen.

Ted also received the Alaska National Parks Conservation Leadership Award and recognition for his initial work on the making of the Klondike Goldrush an International Park between the United States and Canada.

At the time of his death, he was living in Colorado, where he had served on the Bureau of Land Management Land Disposal Committee for Clear Creek County, and performed work on the Task Force for Evergreen Lake, as well as on some of the Open Space areas in Jefferson County.

Ted and his wife Helen were married 57 years. Their four children now live in Denver, Alaska, and Brazil. I hope the sadness of their loss is tempered by pride in their father's record of achievement and the many lasting gifts he has left to our country and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a young constituent of mine who recently demonstrated his creativity and technological prowess on a very large stage. Mike Potter of Broomfield, Colorado, now a junior at Ithaca College, recently won the Grand Prize in the ``Cellflix Festival,'' a prize that included $5,000 and a tremendous amount of respect for individual ingenuity and creativity.

The ``Cellflix Festival'' is a competition that asks participants to submit a short film shot entirely on a cellular telephone camera. Within these constraints, Mike Potter submitted a film called Cheat, a charming and short exhibition that celebrates his grandparent's loving relationship. In it, Mike's grandfather quizzes his grandmother on newspaper headlines, offering her a kiss as a prize for each time she correctly guesses whether a headline is true or false. Sometimes, Mike's grandfather confesses at the end, he cheats. Described by one contest judge as ``contagious,'' Mike Potter's creative short shows how much can be accomplished artistically with a limited medium, and one in which most of us are only vaguely aware.

I don't know about all my colleagues, but I have only barely mastered the use of a blackberry and my cell phone is still just a convenient technology for communicating. It never occurred to me until I saw the story about Mike Potter that the device I take for granted could be used as a means of artistic expression.

What's really intriguing about Mike's work is that it shows how young people, better versed in the ways of technology than any previous generation, may be blazing new trails of innovation and creative expression that will have implications for our economy and the entertainment industry.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mike Potter on his recent award and in wishing him well in his future endeavors. I certainly look forward to seeing what else he can produce, and I am proud to represent such a creative young person in Congress.