Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this motion to instruct because I think it is absolutely necessary, although I do not think it is sufficient. The motion will instruct the House's conferees to accept the provisions in the Senate version of the legislation that will establish four-year sunsets on three things.

These sunsets would apply to:

(1) Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue orders for any tangible thing--including business, library, and medical records--to anyone, as long as it is relevant to a terrorist investigation;

(2) Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement officials to track a particular suspect by tapping multiple communication devices, as opposed to a single mode of communication; and

(3) The so-called ``Lone Wolf'' Provision of the Intelligence reform legislation, which allows the government to conduct surveillance on ``lone wolf'' terrorist suspects, who are not connected with a foreign power or recognized organization.

One of the reasons I voted against the PATRIOT Act when it was first considered by the House was my concern that the ``sunset'' clauses were too generous, meaning that the provisions covered by those clauses would remain in effect too long without the need for Congressional reconsideration. That was also a major reason I voted against H.R. 3199 earlier this year.

So, I definitely agree that the conferees should accept the Senate bill's shorter sunset

periods for these three provisions. However, I think it would be even better for the conferees to go further.

In particular, I think the conference report should include provisions along the lines of the bipartisan reform measure, known as the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2005 (H.R. 1526), of which I am a cosponsor. That bill would amend the PATRIOT Act to modify provisions regarding roving wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) 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 be conducted only when the suspect is present at the place to be wiretapped.

It also would revise the PATRIOT Act's provisions governing search warrants to--

(1) Limit the authority to delay notice of the issuance of such a search warrant to circumstances where providing immediate notice of the warrant will endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, result in flight from prosecution or the intimidation of a potential witness, or result in the destruction of or tampering with the evidence sought under the warrant; and

(2) Require such delayed notification to be issued within seven days (instead of a ``reasonable period''), with extensions by the court for additional periods of up to 21 calendar days each time that the court finds reasonable cause to believe that notice of the execution of the warrant would have such consequences. It also would require the Attorney General, on a semiannual basis, to transmit to Congress and make public a report concerning all requests for delays of notice and for extensions of such delays.

The SAFE bill also would amend FISA to require, with respect to access by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations, that there be specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or agent.

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

And it would redefine ``domestic terrorism'' to mean only activities that involve acts dangerous to human life and that constitute a Federal crime of terrorism.

The broad support for such changes in the Patriot Act is shown by the fact that the SAFE bill is cosponsored by many Members from both sides of the aisle. It is also shown by the fact that over the last four years more than 300 communities and seven States, including Colorado-- governments representing over 62 million people--have passed resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act.

Much of that public concern--a concern I share--has focused on the possible effects on the privacy of patrons and customers from the application of section 215 of the ``PATRIOT Act'' to libraries and bookstores. I think the conference report should include restrictions on the application of section 215 similar to those that would have been imposed by the Sanders amendment to the Justice Department's fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill--an amendment that the House approved earlier this year by a vote of 238 to 187.

Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this bill earlier this year, I said that my reaction to it was similar to the one I had to the original ``PATRIOT Act'' legislation 4 years ago. As I did then, I strongly support combating terrorism, here at home as well as abroad. But I continue to think that it is essential that we remember and respect the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans as we wage war against those who would destroy both our Constitution and our country. In fact, I think that if we don't do that we will lose much of what we are seeking to defend.

I voted against the bill as it came to the House floor because I concluded that it did not strike the right balance, and should not become law in its present form. But I am hopeful that the bill will be further improved and the conferees will produce a revised version that deserves the support of all Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the House-passed version of the legislation, this conference report is not perfect. But it is not so bad as to require opposition, and does provide funding for many important purposes. Therefore, I will vote for it.

The conference report includes a number of items of particular importance to Colorado.

In particular, I am very pleased that it includes funding for the final stages of work connected with the cleanup of Rocky Flats.

Once home to a nuclear weapons factory, Rocky Flats is located just 15 miles from downtown Denver. At one time it was the location of large quantities of nuclear materials and other hazardous substances--and because of its proximity to our state's major metropolitan area, timely and effective cleanup and closure of the site has been a matter of top priority for all Coloradans.

Just last month, the overall contractor for the cleanup, Kaiser-Hill, announced that their work was done. The Department of Energy must still confirm that, and there still must be a formal decision by state and federal regulators. But those who knew Rocky Flats as it was can hardly recognize the site as it is today.

The cleanup of Rocky Flats is a major achievement for which we can all be proud. I want to especially note the efforts of the workers and their dedication not only the security of this country, but their dedication to performing a safe and extensive demolition and decommissioning.

This was very complicated and difficult work involving dangerous and toxic materials. The

fact that it was done decades ahead of predictions and at a cost vastly less than expected is a testament to all those involved, and I think we have an obligation to make sure that workers' benefits are carried forward and that they are properly compensated for work-related health problems.

Getting to this day has been long and difficult. But the Colorado congressional delegation worked hand-in-glove with the local communities, DOE, and the contractors to work through the obstacles and I think lessons learned at Rocky Flats can be applied to the cleanup challenges at other nuclear-weapons sites.

I look forward to the next major chapter--transfer of most of the Rocky Flats site to the Interior Department for management as a National Wildlife Refuge. But getting that chapter properly written will require some additional steps, notably including the acquisition of mineral rights at Rocky Flats that are now in non-Federal ownership.

To facilitate that acquisition, I have introduced legislation (H.R. 4181) to authorize DOE to expend funds to acquire some or all of the minerals, including $10 million from its appropriation for fiscal year 2006. The bill also provides that DOE's expenditure of $10 million for that purpose (or, under certain circumstances, an appropriate payment to specified Federal and State officials for acquisition of Rocky Flats minerals or for habitat restoration at Rocky Flats) will satisfy certain claims the State of Colorado might bring for natural resources damages resulting from past discharges of hazardous substances at or from Rocky Flats).

The bill also would give the Interior Department two additional methods (either instead of or in addition to purchase for cash) for completing such acquisitions--namely: by giving ``credits'' that could be used instead of cash to pay for oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf; and/or by allowing federal lands or minerals anywhere in the country to be exchanged for the Rocky Flats minerals (under current law, such exchanges can only occur within the same state--Colorado lands/minerals for other Colorado lands/minerals).

Other parts of the conference report are also important for Colorado, including the funding for several Bureau of Reclamation projects in our State, including the Colorado-Big Thompson and the Fryingpan-Arkansas projects as well as the ongoing construction of the Animas-La Plata project.

Similarly, the conference report provides needed funds for operation and maintenance of a number of reservoirs operated by the Army's Corps of Engineers as well as for other Corps activities in Colorado, including aquatic restoration work involving Goose Creek and Lower Boulder Creek.

I am very glad to note that the bill will provide funds for completing construction of the new science and technology facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

I find it highly ironic, however, that the new NREL facility comes at the expense of the very renewable energy research and development programs that would be conducted within it. It's conceivable that we'll have new buildings but nothing to fill them with--no scientists or other NREL personnel, since many of them will lose their jobs due to deep cuts in program funding.

As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I have worked for years to increase--or at a minimum, hold steady--funding for DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development programs.

Given the finite supply and high prices of fossil fuels and increasing global demand, investing in clean energy is more important than ever. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests, helping provide strategies and tools to address the environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades. These programs are also helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports, thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds of new domestic businesses, supporting thousands of American jobs, and opening new international markets for American goods and services.

But for our investment in these technologies to payoff, our efforts must be sustained over the long term. This conference report does not do that.

Though some of the renewable energy accounts are increased from FY05 levels, it is an illusion. The EERE accounts are earmarked so heavily that there is little left of the core programs.

While the biomass line is up slightly from FY05, fully 53 percent of the FY06 funds are earmarked. Wind is slightly reduced from FY05 levels, but this is after repeated cuts--11 percent in just three years. Factoring in earmarks makes the situation even worse. The bill earmarks fully a third of the funds appropriated for wind energy for Member projects. Solar energy funding is down from FY05 levels, and also earmarked--17 percent of the total goes to Member projects.

I am concerned that year by year, DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency programs seem to be losing--through gradual cuts, shifts of more EERE dollars to hydrogen and fuel cells and out of core renewables technologies, and earmarks.

These cuts will only increase U.S. vulnerability to energy supply disruptions, worsen fuel price volatility, and cause higher energy prices overall unnecessarily, and are especially ill-advised at a time when the need for a secure, domestic energy supply is so crucial.

So, Mr. Speaker, while I regret that they could not adequately address all our needs, in Colorado or elsewhere, I appreciate what the conferees have done and urge the House to pass this important conference report.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Health Care Parity for Participation for Legal Transportation and Recreational Activities Act. This bill would protect those individuals who participate in legal recreational activities from being discriminated against by their employers for health insurance purposes.

In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This legislation was enacted so that employees could continue health care coverage if they switched jobs and so that employees would not be denied health care coverage based on a pre-existing medical condition or participation in legal recreational activities.

On January 5, 2001, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a Final Rule for Nondiscrimination in Health Coverage in a Group Market, which was required under HIPAA. Under the rule, employers are prohibited from refusing coverage based simply on an employee's participation in a legal recreational activity, such as motorcycling, skiing, snowmobiling, horseback riding and all-terrain vehicle riding. However, CMS, in its interpretation of the word ``participation'' effectively legalized the denial of benefits for any injuries sustained while participating in these activities. Clearly, Congress did not include specific language in HIPAA to provide coverage for people who engage in these activities, only to be denied coverage in the event they sustain an injury. The rule is counter to the intent of Congress and should be corrected.

In 2001, I joined with several of my House colleagues in sending a letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson asking him to reverse the CMS ruling, but he said it would take an act of Congress. I cosponsored legislation that addressed this issue in the 108th Congress. There is legislation that has been introduced in the 109th Congress but that bill excludes individuals who participate in skiing and snowboarding. That excludes a large number of people in my district and throughout the country who are winter sports enthusiasts, and I think it's critical that they be covered for any injuries they sustain from participating in winter sports.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, which is identical to legislation introduced by Senator Susan Collins, is about fairness in health coverage for the millions of Americans who enjoy skiing, motorcycle riding, horseback riding, ORV riding, or any other legal recreational activity. It also further clarifies Congress' intent when it passed this landmark law, which has helped so many Americans keep or obtain health insurance. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this legislation.

The bill responds to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. New London et al., a case that involved the question of the scope of a local government's authority to use the power of eminent domain, and in particular whether local governments may condemn private houses in order to use the land for uses that are primarily commercial.

Earlier this year, I voted for a resolution expressing disapproval of that decision. I did so because it is my strong view that, as the resolution stated, ``State and local governments should only execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the public good . . . [and that for them to do otherwise] constitutes an abuse of government power and an usurpation of the individual property rights as defined in the fifth amendment.''

In voting for that resolution, I also noted my endorsement of its statement that ``Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by State and local government.''

That is the purpose of this legislation.

The bill prohibits Federal agencies from using the power of eminent domain for the kind of economic development project that was involved in the Kelo case. It also would deny Federal economic development assistance to any State or local entity that uses its eminent domain authority in that way.

Specifically, the bill would penalize any State or local government that takes private property and conveys or leases it to another private entity, either for a commercial purpose or to generate additional taxes, employment, or general economic health. A State or local government found to have violated this prohibition would be ineligible for certain Federal economic development funds for 2 years, but could become eligible by returning or replacing the property.

The bill also would give private property owners the right to bring legal actions seeking enforcement of these provisions and would waive States' immunity to such suits.

This is strong medicine, but I think the prescription is appropriate.

I found persuasive the views of Justice O'Conner who, dissenting in the Kelo case, warned that the decision could make more likely that eminent domain would be used in a reverse Robin Hood fashion--taking from the poor, giving to the rich--and that ``The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''

The bill is intended to make this less likely.

It does not do so by attempting to replace State and local authority with Federal law. I do not think the Constitution gives us that power, and it would not be right to do it even if we could.

Instead, it would require the States and local governments to decide whether they are prepared to sacrifice certain Federal assistance for 2 years as the price for exercising their authority in ways covered by the bill.

It is important to note that the bill would apply only to cases involving the taking of private property, without the consent of the owner, in order to conveyor or lease it to another private person or entity for commercial enterprise carried on for profit, or to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health.

Thus, the bill would not apply to the types of takings that have traditionally been considered appropriate public uses, and it also includes exceptions for the transfer of property to public ownership, to common carriers and public utilities, and for related things like pipelines. It includes exceptions for the taking of land that is being used in a way that constitutes an immediate threat to public health and safety and makes exceptions for incidental use of a public property by a private entity--such as a retail establishment on the ground floor in a public property; for the acquisition of abandoned property; and for clearing defective chains of title.

During the debate on the resolution about the Kelo decision, I noted that the States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their local governments and that I thought this would be the best way to address potential abuses.

That is still my view, and I think the view of many Coloradans. Already, members of our State's legislature are acting to curb potential abuses in the use of the eminent domain power--an effort I support--and some have suggested that as a result there is no need for this bill.

I think there is some merit to that argument, and I have given careful consideration to the points made by some of its most thoughtful and respected proponents, such as Sam Mamet of the Colorado Municipal League, who are concerned about the potential that Congress could put unnecessary constraints on the ability of local governments to address the needs of our communities.

However, after careful consideration, I have concluded that Congress should act to provide an effective deterrent to abuse of eminent domain, while still allowing its use in appropriate circumstances. And I think this bill, while certainly not perfect, does strike a fair balance and deserves to be supported.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Lou Dawson on being inducted into the Colorado Ski & Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Dawson's efforts have greatly impacted the lives of ski mountaineering enthusiasts for many years, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions he has made to his community.

Throughout his life, Dawson has demonstrated time and again that he is dedicated to being an inspiration and guiding light in backcountry skiing. While becoming the only person to ski all 54 of Colorado's Fourteeners, Dawson has also been an author of many books that help others enjoy Colorado's wilderness. His titles include Colorado High Routes, Colorado 10th Mountain Trails, Dawson's Guide to Colorado Backcountry Skiing, Dawson's Guide to Colorado's Fourteeners, Wild Snow, and Trooper Travers. He has contributed many articles to Couloir and Climbing magazines about his expertise and passion for the mountains, and his body of literature has enabled ski enthusiasts to more safely enjoy the backcountry. He has helped the world of ski enthusiasts by enhancing and developing safer and more effective mountaineering gear and equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our congratulations to Mr. Dawson for contributing to the safety of our ski community in far-reaching ways. I'm proud to honor his induction into the Colorado Ski Museum, Colorado Ski & Snowboard Hall of Fame in 2005 and wish him continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Ed Lucks on his induction into the Colorado Ski & Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Luck's accomplishments have greatly impacted the lives of Coloradans, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions he has made to his community.

Ed Lucks' passion for skiing is matched by his gift of sharing it with others. In 1966, Mr. Lucks began teaching skiing at Arapahoe Basin and discovered his life-long mission to share the sport with disabled people. Working with doctors from an Army hospital, Ed began teaching disabled Vietnam veterans and soon included kids from Children's Hospital in Denver. In 1969, he moved to Snowmass Village and started the adaptive ski program at Aspen where he taught for over 26 years. Mr. Lucks practiced skiing on one leg and skiing blindfolded to see what methods and techniques would work best with his students. If he found a way that a piece of adaptive ski equipment could be improved, he'd spend countless hours modifying it for his students. He has selflessly shared his knowledge and teaching with instructors and volunteers throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. Lucks for contributing to his community in far- reaching ways. We recognize his accomplishments in bringing freedom and confidence through skiing to thousands of people with disabilities through his pioneering techniques and effective experimentation with equipment. I'm proud to offer warm congratulations to Mr. Lucks on his well deserved honor in entering the Colorado Ski Museum's Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, the recent referendum approving a new constitution for Iraq has raised hopes for political stability and an improved security situation. But even with this incremental progress, very few informed observers believe there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The Bush administration's decision to wage war in Iraq was constitutionally flawed, poorly planned, ineptly managed and the result has been a strategic national security blunder that promises to haunt our country for decades to come.

The war has devolved into a quagmire that threatens to leave America isolated in a military struggle that is dangerously perceived as a conflict with Islam. It has drained our treasury, stretched our Army to the breaking point, taken over 2,000 American lives, and resulted in more than 40,000 American casualties. It has toppled an evil and sadistic dictator, but at a cost of more than 100,000 Iraqi lives.

The legacy of this war, and its unbelievably poor civilian direction, also threatens to mark George W. Bush as a failed president--a thought I take no great comfort from because a failed presidency hurts America. By taking our democracy into a war of choice, and not a war of necessity, President Bush will have to answer to history. Those in Congress who gave him their trust and vested him with the authority to wage this war will also have to answer for their part in what looks to be a major strategic mistake.

Those of us in Congress who voted against this war must also answer to history. I felt so strongly that I authored my own separate resolution that would have required international support for coercive inspections in Iraq--a plan that would have uncovered false claims about WMD before American blood was spilled in the deserts of Iraq. I stand by my vote as a vote of conscience and believe the wisdom of my cautions about the unintended, but foreseeable consequences of this war have been tragically borne out.

An increasing number of Americans have come to view the war in Iraq as a mistake. I believe strongly that it was a mistake to go to war in the way we did.

However, I am not prepared to say that it has been a mistake for the Iraqi people, because they now have a glimmer of hope that they can create a stable democracy, even though they would have an even greater chance of success had the Bush Administration taken the time to secure international support for their Iraq policy before plunging into war.

I will never believe or say that American soldiers have died and sacrificed in vain--they may rightly claim that their efforts have given hope to the Iraqi people. Sadly, their sacrifice and the excellence of our armed forces have not been matched by the civilian political leadership of our nation.

As it stands now, the Iraqi people are largely dependent on American soldiers for security, and it is this fact that has caused a number of us who opposed the war to reflect on what our future course must be.

For some, the answer is a simple call for ``immediate withdrawal'' and hopes that a bloodbath and civil war will not follow in the wake of our departure. This is a perfectly understandable response to quagmire, and the terrible price the Bush Administration has exacted for not being completely honest with the American people about the costs or long-term consequences of waging a largely unilateral war to transform the politics of the Middle East.

Let me be absolutely clear. America must withdraw from Iraq. We need a plan that is designed to bring our troops home and make clear to the Islamic world that we harbor no ambitions for permanent bases, Iraqi oil revenues or any military occupation. But how we withdraw is as important as when we withdraw. This means giving the Iraqis time to form a permanent government and establish the means for international support.

We must exercise care in the way our country withdraws, not just to keep faith with promises made to the Iraqi people, but even more importantly because leaving a failed state in Iraq will deeply endanger our country.

Many of the essential elements in a responsible withdrawal plan are clear: holding down the costs to the American taxpayer; transferring security responsibilities to Iraqi forces; preventing Iraq from becoming a bigger breeding ground for terrorism; restoring America's reputation internationally; and honoring the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. In the coming weeks, I will be laying out my specific proposals to chart a new course for a withdrawal strategy in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Dick Hauserman on being inducted into the Colorado Ski and Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Hauserman's accomplishments have greatly impacted Vail and Steamboat Springs, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions he has made to the promotion of Colorado's ski areas.

One of Vail's founding fathers, Mr. Hauserman helped make Vail prosper into a world class ski destination and also shaped the image of Steamboat's Ski Area. He served on Vail's first board of directors and was one of the primary developers of Vail, participating on the town architecture committee. He worked on the Lodge at Vail and the Hill Building, in addition to building the Plaza Building. In order for Vail to blossom into a world class ski resort, Hauserman realized the resort would need an image. He created Vail's logo, which is still in use today, and helped to design the signature ski school parkas. In 1969, he turned his talents to helping promote the Steamboat Ski Area, widening the trails, creating the Steamboat Springs logo, and making Billy Kidd the resort's spokesperson. In addition to his work at the resorts, Mr. Hauserman has also written two books: ``Inventors of Vail.'' and ``On the Road to Vail and Bevond.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring Mr. Hauserman for contributing to Colorado skiing in far-reaching ways. We recognize his accomplishments in helping make Vail and Steamboat Springs premier ski resorts. I'm proud to offer congratulations to Mr. Hauserman on his well deserved induction into the Colorado Ski Museum's Hall of Fame and wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. George Gillett on his induction into the Colorado Ski Museum's Ski and Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Gillett's accomplishments have greatly impacted the ski community, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions that he has made.

When George Gillett bought Vail & Beaver Creek Resorts in 1985, a new era for the Colorado ski industry began. With his pioneering focus on customer service, Gillett redefined the skiing experience. He launched a massive installation of high-speed detachable chairlifts at Vail, kick-starting the growth that would make Vail America's number one ski destination.

Mr. Gillett also supported major alpine ski events at a time when most ski areas in America preferred not to host international races. Through his perseverance, Vail hosted the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships, proving to the world that Colorado could successfully host major international ski championships. Due to his support, Vail later hosted the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. George Gillett is still active in the ski community, running Booth Creek Ski Holdings and managing resorts throughout North America. In 1999 Ski Magazine voted him one of the ``100 Most Influential Skiers of All Time.'' His innovative thinking and passion for redefining the ski industry have left a lasting mark on Colorado skiing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. Gillett for contributing to his community and industry in far-reaching ways. We recognize his accomplishments in making Vail & Beaver Creek world class ski resorts. I'm proud to offer warm congratulations to Mr. Gillett on his well deserved honor in entering the Colorado Ski Museum's Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Dick Eflin on his induction into the Colorado Ski & Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Eflin's accomplishments have greatly impacted the lives of Coloradans in Crested Butte for many years, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions he has made to this community.

After serving in Germany with the U.S. Air Force, Eflin visited Crested Butte, Colorado with the dream of creating a ski area that could rival the Alps both in beauty and skiing terrain. In 1960, he moved his family to Crested Butte and formed Crested Butte, Ltd. After applying for Forest Service permits and buying land, Eflin's dream of opening his own ski area became reality when Crested Butte Mountain opened on Thanksgiving Day 1961. Although the ski area started with a T-bar and a rope-tow, the next year it grew considerably with the installation of a 7,800-foot long gondola and a terminal building. Due to Mr. Eflin's unwavering determination and vision, Crested Butte was on the map as an up-and-coming ski area.

In addition to his work with Crested Butte, Mr. Eflin worked tirelessly in the local community where he served as President of the Mt. Crested Butte Water & Sanitation District, as well as participating in the Town Council. He started the first regional museum and also ran the Princess Movie Theater and the Eflin Steak House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. Eflin for contributing to his community in far- reaching ways. We recognize his accomplishments in making Crested Butte a great ski resort and a wonderful place to live. I'm proud to offer warm congratulations to Mr. Elfin on his well deserved honor in entering the Colorado Ski Museum's Hall of Fame and wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a new bill to facilitate the acquisition by the United States of certain mineral rights associated with the Rocky Flats site, in Colorado.

This bill combines the key features of a bill that I introduced earlier this year, cosponsored by Representative Beauprez, and legislation more recently proposed by Colorado's two Senators.

Thus, it combines elements that have bipartisan support and that, together, can lay the basis for answering one of the final questions about the future management of the lands at Rocky Flats.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Federal Housing Finance Reform Act.'' This legislation not only addresses key components to ensure the stability of mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but it does a great deal more to expand homeownership opportunities for millions of American families.

I am pleased this legislation creates a new and single regulator in the Federal Housing Finance Agency which has expanded strength, including full receivership powers in the event of a financial crisis and independent litigating authority. As these companies have a public mission they must comply with high standards and accountability on their activities.

As the price of housing continues to rise, especially in high cost communities, many families find the opportunity of homeownership elusive. I am pleased this legislation will allow Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to loan up to the median average of homes in areas of high cost. This provision will help middle class families in Colorado towns such as Minturn, Basalt and Frisco to receive needed resources so they can purchase a home.

I am also pleased the legislation includes an affordable housing fund. This fund would require these mortgage lenders to allocate a portion of their profits for purposes such as down payment assistance and closing costs for low income first time homebuyers.

While this bill has many strong elements it is important to note a significant shortcoming. I am outraged by provisions which subverts activities of nonprofit, charitable, faith based organizations and their affiliates. I find troubling that these groups would not be considered for funding from the affordable housing fund if they use their own funds to participate in political activities such as non partisan voter registration drives and get out the vote activities. This is especially troubling as the Federal Government continues to spend time and resources expanding voting opportunities with the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act.

I hope the Senate and conference committee will reject such language to ensure that groups and organizations are not penalized for participation in the political process.

In spite of deficiencies the bill is worth supporting because it is important to strengthen regulations and operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By doing so we continue to provide and further expand the American dream of homeownership to millions of Americans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference report for H.R. 2744, the ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Appropriations Act of 2006.''

While the amounts in the bill are not adequate to fully meet the needs of rural Colorado--and I'm disappointed that there isn't more-- the fact is that the Federal Government is being forced to do more with less in a time of record budget deficits.

The conference report does include some important improvements over the House passed bill. This is particularly true as regards funding for conservation programs and rural development.

The bill also provides support for research programs that are important to Colorado State University, including work on infectious disease and ultraviolet radiation monitoring.

However, I am particularly disappointed with the conference committee's decision to continue to delay for another two years implementation of a mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for products such as meat and produce. The shortsightedness of the conference committee denies Colorado ranchers and farmers a wonderful resource to market their products and provide consumers a clear choice in the products they purchase.

I also am disappointed by the lack of consultation, consensus and public discourse that marked the process of developing the legislative changes the conference report makes to the National Organics Program. Such legislative changes should be done in the most transparent manner possible and I am disappointed this was not the case.

As this issue will certainly be revisited, I am hopeful the consumers, producers, manufacturers and supporters of organic agriculture can work together to advance this important part of agriculture in Colorado and around the country.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to changing Federal court rules to try to make it less likely that small business owners or other Americans will be forced to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits. So, I could support many of the provisions of this bill. However, the bill has such serious flaws that I cannot support it in its current form.

Part of the bill would change Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in ways that would basically restore that rule as it was in 1992. As a result, lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits in Federal courts would face mandatory sanctions in the form of payments to those who were victimized by those lawsuits. I think that could be an effective deterrent, and can support it.

I also can support strong provisions to deter--and, if necessary punish--repeated violations of the rules against misuse of the courts through frivolous lawsuits. However, I am not enthusiastic about the idea of Congress's attempting to micro-manage the State courts or to take over the job of regulating the practice of law in State courts in the way that this bill would do.

And I am definitely opposed to changing the rules in ways that could make it impossible for people with valid claims to receive proper consideration of their cases.

For that reason, I must object to the provisions of the bill which, as the non-partisan Congressional Research Service explains, ``would preclude litigation in United States courts that would be authorized under current law. For instance, [under current law] . . . if a corporation has stores, factories, offices, or property anywhere in the United States . . . a Federal suit might be brought against it in one of the judicial districts where . . . [an objectionable] activity occurs or property [is located. But] . . . enactment of H.R. 420 apparently could result in a plaintiffs being left without a judicial forum in the United States for his or her tort claim.''

Leaving some Americans with no recourse to the courts even for valid claims would be bad enough. But I find it even more unacceptable that prime beneficiaries of these provisions could be American companies who have chosen to fly a foreign flag in order to escape paying their Federal taxes.

I voted for the Schiff-Kind amendment because I favor strong measures against frivolous lawsuits but oppose giving those fugitive corporations such an unfair advantage over truly American companies. Unfortunately, however, that amendment was not adopted--and as a result I must vote against this bill as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Maria Guajardo Lucero. As we recognize Hispanic Heritage Month, we acknowledge the immeasurable contributions that Hispanic-Americans have made to enrich our culture and inform our values. The wealth of literature, film, art, music, and cuisine is evident throughout America, but even more so in my part of the country, the West. Core Latino values--hard work, faith, family, and love of country--are values we all respect and admire.

The West is largely a story written in Spanish and Hispanic peoples. Whether as conquerors, founders or new immigrants, Hispanic people have shaped the country.

So it was for Maria Guajardo Lucero, whose parents came to this country with six young children hoping to make good on the ``American Dream.'' Her mother had a second grade education and her father never went to school. As she has said, ``Between both of my parents they have never read a book. `` Yet they were wise in setting very high expectations for their daughter. They expected academic excellence because they knew that an education was her best opportunity to have a better life. Maria understood this at a very young age. She says, ``I determined to make growing up easier for other children.''

Maria set high goals for herself and she reached them.

She graduated with honors from Harvard University and earned her Masters and PhD from the University of Denver. In addition, she is also a graduate of the Kennedy School of Government Programs for Senior Executives in State and Local Government. Dr. Guajardo Lucero is now the Executive Director of the Mayor's Office for Education and Children in Denver, where she oversees programs that include early childhood education (Head Start) to post-secondary education.

I had the opportunity to work with her recently on the ``Education to Elevate Colorado's Economy'' (E3) Summit. She is as articulate on the subject of student preparedness as anyone I have ever heard. She points out that children in classrooms today are not only competing with children from other schools in America, but also with children on a global scale. Children today need to be prepared to compete with students from China, Russia, India, and around the world. If the United States is to retain its strength in the world, we must be prepared to compete in the global marketplace, and that means in the marketplace of ideas--the marketplace of excellence.

Dr. Guajardo Lucero insists that we hold all students to the same high academic standards, regardless of their race or socio-economic status. I agree with her when she says that we should ensure that each student graduates high school and is prepared to enter college after graduation. Rationalizing that we should expect less from those who have less does an unconscionable disservice to our underserved populations. It also runs contrary to the instincts of any parent who naturally perceives boundless potential for their own child, so how can we hope for anything less for other children?

If anyone can illustrate this in real life it is Dr. Maria Guajardo Lucero.

I also want to note that Dr. Guajardo Lucero is a graduate of the Colorado Outward Bound School. She participated and graduated in this program when I was the head of this school, and at a time when I was trying to bring Outward Bound's leadership program to a more diverse population. While I signed her graduation certificate, I did not lead her course, but I am reliably informed by those who knew her at the time that she is a courageous rock climber.

Nothing speaks more to our collective ideals than our investment in public education. The foundation of American society is based on the principle that each of us ought to have the opportunity to achieve our full potential. Dr. Maria Guajardo Lucero serves as an example of this ideal in practice. Whether one is fortunate enough to share in her Latino heritage or not, it is an ideal every American can appreciate.