Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to revise the 1986 law dealing with use of National Forests for ski areas in order to reflect current ways those areas are used and to provide clear authority for the Forest Service to allow additional recreational uses of those areas. I have long thought it is in the national interest to encourage Americans to engage in outdoor recreational activities that can contribute to their health and well-being, and that National Forest lands, including ski areas, can play a role by providing opportunities for such activities. My interest in the subject was heightened last year when representatives of the National Ski Areas Association brought to my attention the fact that the National Forest Ski Areas Permit Act of 1986. This law speaks only to ``nordic and alpine skiing'' and does not reflect the full spectrum of snowsports for which ski areas are now used. They described this problem as the absence of clear authority for the Forest Service to permit use of ski areas for other summer, seasonal, or year-round outdoor recreational activities and facilities in support of those activities. To better understand the matter, I sent a letter asking the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment whether current law could be clearer on those points. Under Secretary Mark Rey replied that the 1986 legislation indeed did not address those matters and that, if requested, the USDA ``would be happy to work with you to amend'' the law to provide the Forest Service with clear authority regarding such activities and facilities. I did request and receive technical suggestions from the Forest Service, and have considered their input as well as suggestions from the National Ski Areas Association and other interested parties in developing the bill that I introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives last year. Today, I am introducing this bill in the Senate. The bill intentionally uses a number of terms and phrases based on the terminology of the Forest Service's regulations, manual, or other official documents because those terms and phrases are familiar not only to the Forest Service but also to permittees and others with an interest in the management of the National Forests. Thus, as used in the bill the term ``developed recreation'' means recreation that occurs at an area which has been improved or developed for that purpose--such as camping in constructed campgrounds or developed opportunities for off-highway-vehicle use as well as downhill skiing. Similarly, the term ``natural-resource-based recreation'' is intended to have the same meaning as when used in the Forest Service manual 2300, Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management. It also should be noted that the bill deals only with the 1986 National Forest Ski Areas Act, and would not in any way affect any other law applicable to management of the National Forests or any permits issued under any of those laws. Ski area permits under the 1986 law do give their holders a priority with respect to commercial use of the lands subject to the permits, but they do not preclude general use of those lands by the public for compatible, non-commercial uses, and the bill would not change that. In fact, the bill does not affect the status, the duration, or any other provision of any permit already issued under the 1986 law, nor does it provide for any new permits. Instead, it makes clear that the Forest Service is authorized--but not required--to allow a current or future holder of a permit under the 1986 law to provide opportunities for additional developed recreational activities, and to place associated facilities, on the lands covered by that permit if the specified requirements are met and if the Forest Service decides it would appropriate for that to occur. And it would not affect any existing or future permit related to use of lands that are not subject to ski area permits under the 1986 law or in any way reduce or otherwise modify the extent to which the Forest Service can allow any particular use on any of those lands outside ski areas. This is a narrowly-targeted bill that I think can be valuable regarding an important aspect of the management of the National Forests and in facilitating the provision of additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities on the parts of those lands that are subject to permits under the 1986 law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to revise the 1986 law dealing with use of National Forests for ski areas in order to reflect current ways those areas are used and to provide clear authority for the Forest Service to allow additional recreational uses of those areas. I have long thought it is in the national interest to encourage Americans to engage in outdoor recreational activities that can contribute to their health and well-being, and that National Forest lands, including ski areas, can play a role by providing opportunities for such activities. My interest in the subject was heightened last year when representatives of the National Ski Areas Association brought to my attention the fact that the National Forest Ski Areas Permit Act of 1986. This law speaks only to ``nordic and alpine skiing'' and does not reflect the full spectrum of snowsports for which ski areas are now used. They described this problem as the absence of clear authority for the Forest Service to permit use of ski areas for other summer, seasonal, or year-round outdoor recreational activities and facilities in support of those activities. To better understand the matter, I sent a letter asking the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment whether current law could be clearer on those points. Under Secretary Mark Rey replied that the 1986 legislation indeed did not address those matters and that, if requested, the USDA ``would be happy to work with you to amend'' the law to provide the Forest Service with clear authority regarding such activities and facilities. I did request and receive technical suggestions from the Forest Service, and have considered their input as well as suggestions from the National Ski Areas Association and other interested parties in developing the bill that I introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives last year. Today, I am introducing this bill in the Senate. The bill intentionally uses a number of terms and phrases based on the terminology of the Forest Service's regulations, manual, or other official documents because those terms and phrases are familiar not only to the Forest Service but also to permittees and others with an interest in the management of the National Forests. Thus, as used in the bill the term ``developed recreation'' means recreation that occurs at an area which has been improved or developed for that purpose--such as camping in constructed campgrounds or developed opportunities for off-highway-vehicle use as well as downhill skiing. Similarly, the term ``natural-resource-based recreation'' is intended to have the same meaning as when used in the Forest Service manual 2300, Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management. It also should be noted that the bill deals only with the 1986 National Forest Ski Areas Act, and would not in any way affect any other law applicable to management of the National Forests or any permits issued under any of those laws. Ski area permits under the 1986 law do give their holders a priority with respect to commercial use of the lands subject to the permits, but they do not preclude general use of those lands by the public for compatible, non-commercial uses, and the bill would not change that. In fact, the bill does not affect the status, the duration, or any other provision of any permit already issued under the 1986 law, nor does it provide for any new permits. Instead, it makes clear that the Forest Service is authorized--but not required--to allow a current or future holder of a permit under the 1986 law to provide opportunities for additional developed recreational activities, and to place associated facilities, on the lands covered by that permit if the specified requirements are met and if the Forest Service decides it would appropriate for that to occur. And it would not affect any existing or future permit related to use of lands that are not subject to ski area permits under the 1986 law or in any way reduce or otherwise modify the extent to which the Forest Service can allow any particular use on any of those lands outside ski areas. This is a narrowly-targeted bill that I think can be valuable regarding an important aspect of the management of the National Forests and in facilitating the provision of additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities on the parts of those lands that are subject to permits under the 1986 law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the bipartisan bill introduced earlier this week by my colleague Senator Bingaman, called the Federal Land Assistance Management Enhancement Act, or the FLAME Act, S. 561. Senator Bingaman was joined by my colleagues: Senators Murkowski, Boxer, Cantwell, Johnson, Murray, Tester, Tom Udall, and Wyden as cosponsors. I wish to add my support as a cosponsor as well. Like many States from coast to coast, my home State of Colorado features expansive areas of wildland that are increasingly at risk of wildfire. Periods of drought continue to raise the possibility of wildfires in America, while in Colorado and throughout the mountain West, the epidemic of bark beetle infestation has compounded our risk of wildfire. In 2008, more than 5.1 million acres of land nationwide burned, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. In 2006 and 2007, more than 9 million acres burned, and more than 8 million acres burned in 2004 and 2005. The costs associated with these fires are large and increasing. To a large degree, these costs occur because fires are encroaching ever closer to our communities. These fires require more aggressive suppression efforts because of the risks to lives and property. But unfortunately, the Federal lands agencies--especially the Forest Service--do not have the resources they need to fight these fires. They must resort to raiding funds from other important programs within these agencies, such as trails and road maintenance, recreation management and, especially important, preventive fuels treatment that could help reduce fires, or at least lessen their severity and costs when the wildfires occur. For example: last year, the Forest Service had $1.2 billion budgeted for fire suppression, but the agency had to transfer at least $400 million from other programs when that funding fell short. In August of last year, Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell sent out an interagency memo asking the staff to find ways to come up with extra money. The extra money being sent off to these accounts forced the closure of some recreation areas, caused some contract obligations to go unmet, and canceled construction, research, and natural resource work. Later, Congress approved $610 million for the Forest Service in emergency Federal firefighting funding, restoring some of those transfers. Nonetheless, that work had gone undone when it was necessary for it to be done. Making matters worse is the fact that the Forest Service budget has historically declined overall. The Department of Interior and Forest Service each maintain multibillion dollar deferred maintenance backlogs and are having to scale back some of their services. As is often pointed out, the Forest Service now dedicates upwards of half of its entire budget for emergency fire suppression activities. We can't keep funding firefighting efforts in this manner. We have to find a better approach, so we do not continue to borrow money intended for other important missions. Also, we must move forward with efforts that allow us to reduce wildfire threats at the front end. The FLAME Act would do just that. It would set up a separate fund that agencies can draw upon to augment firefighting costs. In so doing, we can help the agencies avoid drawing down funds in other programs and provide additional funds when we face an especially intense and expensive fire season. I strongly support the creation of a Federal fund designated solely for catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities, which is what this bill does. Equally important, in my view, is a provision in the FLAME Act calling for comprehensive wildland fire management strategies to best allocate fire management resources, assess risk levels for communities, and prioritize fuel reduction projects. For many of my constituents--as in the State of the Presiding officer, New York, as well--Federal and State wildlands are Colorado's greatest attribute, providing all manner of outdoor recreation and awe- inspiring scenes of nature. Yet those same forested lands hold the potential for tragedy, as the threat of lost life and property due to wildfire grows. We currently employ a largely reactive wait-and-see approach to catastrophic wildland fires. The FLAME Act will help us shift to a more effective and proactive approach. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan approach. Again, I thank Senator Bingaman for introducing this legislation. I look forward to working with him and our colleagues to bring this bill before the full Senate and press for its final passage. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCaskill-Udall resolution on earmark reform, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation so ably authored by my colleague, Senator McCaskill. I have appreciated the opportunity to work with her in developing this bill, which is designed to strengthen transparency and accountability in the way Congress authorizes and appropriates Federal dollars. If there was ever a time in our history when we needed to reassure the American people that Congress understands the need for reform and integrity in the process of authorizing and appropriating Federal funds, it is now. It is today. As our economy continues a deep slide into recession, we have found it necessary to stimulate recovery with historic levels of public spending. Now, the American people expect us to act with speed but not haste. They also expect Federal spending will reflect critical national priorities and broader public purpose. Most of all, they expect Congress to pass funding bills in ways that ensure wise use of taxpayer dollars. Those are the purposes of this legislation. It is not just about preventing the abuse of so-called congressional earmarks, it is, rather, about reassuring the American people that their dollars and the debt future generations will incur as a result of our spending will be debated in the sunshine of public scrutiny. In short, this bill is about restoring integrity to a legislative process that has, for a number of reasons, gone off track. It is about restoring public confidence in the legislative branch. Now, I say this without casting any aspersions on the motive of my colleagues in this institution or my former colleagues in the other body. Most of us have sought earmarks for our States and our districts because of a sincere desire to help our constituents and support worthy projects. Along the way, however, the public has lost confidence in the integrity of this process. Although there have been too many ``bridges to nowhere,'' the problem is as much about the process that yields these earmarks. They are tucked into spending bills without an opportunity to debate or consider their merits or even their true authors. This bill brings important reform to the earmark process. First, it requires that all earmarks be included in the text of bills rather than a separate ``statement of managers'' that is not technically part of the bill text. Previously legislation allows Senators to strip out earmarks from bill text only, not from the statement of managers. This reform will result in greater transparency because it will make it possible for any earmark to be stripped out of the bill. Second, the bill requires that all earmarks requested by a Senator be posted on a Senator's Web site within 48 hours after the request. It also requires committees to post on their Web sites all information that Senators are required to submit about an earmark request, including the name of the proposed recipient, the location, purpose, and financial certification from Senators certifying they have no financial interest in that project and all within 48 hours of receiving that request. This reform, in short, offers a check against the information that Senators post on their own Web sites and provides fuller transparency by requiring this information to be compiled in a central location. Citizens know how to use the Web, and it has increasingly become a watchdog tool for Government. Instead of shrinking from it, I believe we should embrace this technology to inform our constituents and, yes, invite their comment and even criticism. Third, this bill prohibits earmarks from private or nonprofit entities. By limiting earmark requests to the public sector, we avoid the risk of inadvertently helping a campaign donor or mixing a private gain with a public purpose. An earmark to help our communities ought to be community based and community supported. There ought to be a public benefit that is recognized in a way that is accountable to public decisionmakers. Fourth, this bill prevents earmarks from mysteriously surfacing in conference negotiations on authorization bills. Previous legislation already prohibits this air dropping of earmarks in conference negotiations on appropriations bills, but this reform would broaden that proposition to include authorization bills, which are often considered to be blueprints for the annual funding bills. Let me be clear. I admire the hard work of our committee chairs and their staffs, and my experience in both Chambers has led me to the conclusion that great effort is made to ensure integrity and accountability in spending bills. Important, and often very complex bills, can be undermined in the public eye when individual earmarks are not carefully scrutinized. We can all agree that it often takes only one bad apple to spoil even the best barrel, and this provision is designed to keep out the bad apples. Fifth, the bill requires that all appropriations and authorization conference reports be electronically searchable at least 48 hours before they can be considered by the full Senate. This reform will help the public and Congress identify earmarks that were added during the conference in appropriations bills that can be thousands of pages long. In conclusion, I believe we can begin the important work of restoring public confidence in the way Congress legislates if we continue on the path we began in 2007, with earmark and ethics reform. This bill closes loopholes in the law we passed in 2007, and strengthens accountability, transparency, and integrity. Now, there are some who would argue for abolishing all earmarks, including those supporting governmental entities. I have to tell you, I think that may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At a time of economic crisis, I believe it is important for Senators to have the tools that can direct Federal funding to job-creating projects in their home States. For those of us who are not fortunate enough to be appropriators, the opportunity to offer carefully considered earmarks is important. I have not come to the conclusion that all earmarks are bad; in fact, it is the process of their consideration and inclusion that needs reform. Along with a constitutional line item veto and other reform measures, I believe that, in fact I know, we can construct a path of reform that is both fiscally responsible and in keeping with the highest ethical standards.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am joined by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Bennet from Colorado. Next week, several thousand city and town leaders from across the country will visit us in Washington, DC, to discuss the major issues of the day. They will be gathered under the auspices of the National League of Cities, NLC, whose president is one of our distinguished mayors--Northglenn, CO, Mayor Kathleen Novak. Senator Bennet and I will have the honor of meeting with Mayor Novak and a group of other Colorado municipal leaders working through NLC and the Colorado Municipal League. I want to take this opportunity to recognize Mayor Kathleen Novak. Mayor Novak was elected to Northglenn's City Council on July 11, 1991, after years of serving the community. She was elected mayor in November 2001 and then reelected in November 2005, serving two 4-year terms. It was Mayor Novak's interest in planning for the city's future that led the city council to develop goals and adopt a strategic plan to help guide the city into the future. Each year, the Northglenn City Council identifies critical issues that can impact and shape Northglenn's future and develops an action agenda to prioritize and address these pressing issues. This has allowed the city to make tremendous progress on many fronts throughout the mayor's term in elected office. Over the years, Novak helped continue to provide the top-notch services that residents have grown to appreciate while balancing the community's transportation and infrastructure needs through upgrades to the city's infrastructure and facilities. While Mayor Novak was in office, Northglenn built a new wastewater treatment facility and a new maintenance and operations facility and self-funded the 112th Avenue Overpass to make traveling from east to west easier for the city's residents. Northglenn was the first city in Colorado to promote water conservation efforts such as instituting a lottery system whereby city residents could secure free high-efficiency water features for their homes. Through these efforts, the city expects to save 20-25 acre-feet of water annually and thereby save the city and its citizens money from the conserved water. Northglenn also applies biosolids from water treatment to fertilize farms in Weld County. Through such applications, the city grew, harvested, and sold 2,500 tons of crops. Since recycling conserves precious natural resources, over the past 9 years, the city has been heating two shop buildings with used motor oil that residents have placed at the curb for recycling. In 2008, Mayor Novak's interest in reconnecting government to all age groups led the city to be the first in the State to be named a Playful City USA by KABOOM, as unique offerings of play continued to take shape in Northglenn. Early in Novak's tenure, Northglenn received America's Crown Community Award by American City and County Magazine for the rehabilitation and redesign of Webster Lake and E.B. Rains Jr. Memorial Park. The park included an innovative concept of providing unique opportunities of play for all--Northglenn's Sensory Playground. The playground offers children with a range of disabilities the opportunity to experience play and exceeds the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement of 50 percent accessibility by providing nearly 100 percent accessibility for people who use wheelchairs. Most recently, the renovation of the Croke Reservoir Nature Area earned the city the 2009 Colorado American Public Works Association Award for Engineering and Construction Management for medium-sized communities. The project included stabilization of the eastern shoreline, removal of sediment to improve fishery and wildlife habitat, and improvements to stormwater detention in the area. Throughout her service, Mayor Kathleen Novak has worked hard to ensure that the city of Northglenn maintains its high quality of life. Last December, in recognition of her efforts, Mayor Novak was unanimously elected by her national peers to serve as the president of the National League of Cities, the voice of municipal government in this country. Senator Bennet and I thank Mayor Novak for her leadership and dedication to Northglenn, CO, and to the Nation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today we will pass an economic recovery bill designed to create and save jobs. There are many reasons our economy is in trouble. One can point to the housing bubble and bust, failure to properly regulate financial markets, two wars that we have not paid for, and a global credit crunch. But whatever the causes for our economic crisis, a common thread running through the fabric of our economy is energy. I believe that a decade of shortsighted energy policies and missed opportunities has contributed to the economic crisis we face today. I also believe a way out of this crisis can be found if we develop a smart energy policy. That is what I want to talk about today. Investments in energy technology, energy conservation, and sustainable energy will be an important part of the path to economic recovery. We need to get on that path soon. One way we can move forward is to pass legislation establishing a national renewable electricity standard, which is known as an RES. This week, I am joining Senator Tom Udall from New Mexico in introducing such a bill. Establishing a national renewable electricity standard is a goal I have been striving to achieve for many years. In 1997, as a Colorado State legislator, I introduced several bills designed to advance renewable energy, including a State renewable portfolio standard. While my bills were voted down in committee and never reached the full House floor, my work in the Colorado House laid a path for action. In 2004, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I traveled across Colorado with our then-State House Speaker, Republican Lola Spradley, campaigning for the Nation's first statewide RES ballot measure. Despite well-publicized objections from Colorado's electricity providers, Colorado voters approved amendment 37, which required 10 percent renewable energy production for our State by the year 2015. After we easily reached that goal within a few years, the Colorado legislature increased this RES to 20 percent by the year 2020, this time with the support of those very electricity providers who opposed the measure initially because they came to realize the bottom line benefits of utilizing renewable sources of energy. I have continued this work at the Federal level since being elected to the House of Representatives. In 2003, again along with my cousin Tom Udall, I introduced a bill to create a national RES. This bill became the basis for a measure we passed out of the House in 2007. This measure would have created an RES of 15 percent by the year 2020 for our entire Nation. Unfortunately, this amendment did not make it through the Senate. It failed by one vote and was not included in the 2007 Energy bill. But now thankfully, under the leadership of Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, and with the growing support of a number of new Senators, we will have opportunities in this Congress to again pursue a national RES. Early this week, Chairman Bingaman held a hearing on his draft language for an RES of 20 percent by the year 2020. I would like to thank Chairman Bingaman for holding this important hearing and for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him to get a strong bill through the committee, through both Houses of Congress, and to the President's desk. My desire to win this fight and to help the chairman is why I joined with Senator Tom Udall to introduce this Udall-Udall RES bill that would require 25 percent of our electricity produced from renewable energy sources by 2025. RES is important for many reasons. As demand for energy continues to grow in this country, we need to make sure we continue to have affordable and reliable electricity supplies. As demand for energy continues to grow in this country, we need to make sure that we continue to have affordable and reliable supplies. And, most importantly, as we move to more competition in the delivery of electricity, we must make sure consumers and the environment are protected. So it makes sense to put incentives in place to ensure that less polluting and environmentally responsible sources of energy can find their way into the marketplace. That is what a renewable electricity standard, or RES, would help to do. Not least, our bill would reduce air pollution from dirty fossil fuel powerplants that threaten public health and our climate. But this bill is also about addressing two of the greatest challenges facing our country--national security and economic growth. With almost all of the new electricity generation during the last decade fueled by natural gas, our domestic supply cannot sustain our needs. Just think, Iran, Russia, and Qatar together hold 58 percent of the world's natural gas reserves. As demand for power continues to grow, we should not be forced to rely on these unstable regions to sustain our economy, nor do we have to. The best way to decrease our vulnerability and dependence on foreign energy sources is to diversify our energy portfolio. Half of the States in our great Union have already figured this out and have made the commitment to producing a percentage of their electricity using renewable energy. But all of our States will benefit from a national standard, which will lower natural gas costs nationwide, create new economies of scale in manufacturing and installation, and offer greater predictability to long-term investors. By reducing the cost of new clean technologies and making them more available, as a national RES would do, it would help restrain natural gas price increases. This bill will spur economic development with billions of dollars in new capital investment and new tax revenues for local communities, as well as millions of dollars in new lease payments for farmers and rural landowners. For those not yet convinced of the benefits of an RES, I would ask them to look at what has happened in Colorado. Vestas, a major wind turbine supplier, identified our State RES as a determining factor in locating 2,500 jobs in Colorado for its wind turbine manufacturing headquarters. Additionally, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has estimated that just the solar component of the RES has brought 1,500 new solar jobs to Colorado. Now, Mr. President, some have argued that a national RES would burden some regions of the country at the expense of other regions. I would argue the opposite. A national RES would, in fact, create public benefits for all. The bill's definition of ``renewables'' is broad, including biomass such as cellulosic organic materials; plant or algal matter from agricultural crops, crop byproducts, or landscape waste; gasified animal waste and landfill gas, otherwise known as biogas; and all kinds of crop-based liquid fuels. The definition includes incremental hydropower; solar and solar water heating; wind; ocean, ocean thermal, and tidal; geothermal; and distributed generation. Every State has one or more of these resources. Further, the argument that the Southeast would be disadvantaged by a national RES--that the Southeast has no renewable resources--has been shown to be inaccurate. In fact, the Southeast is one of the regions of the country that would see the most benefit from this proposal. According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, the technology that does best under a national RES is biomass. Already, 2,500 megawatts of generation come from biomass in the Southeast, and much of the waste from pulp and paper mills has yet to be used for generating electricity. In summary, a national renewable electricity standard will reduce harmful air and water pollution, provide a sustainable, secure energy supply now, and create new investment, income and jobs in communities all over our country. That is why I look forward to working closely with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure the adoption of a national renewable electricity standard. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, as part of the debate on the the American Economic Recovery Act, I filed amendment No. 248, which addresses development and management concerns for the Republican River, a river that runs through Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska and is part of the South Platte River Basin. This bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by Senator Bennet. This amendment was filed to address an issue in Colorado under the purview of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, BOR, in the same way that the drafters of the bill permitted funding for Arizona and California. If funding under the bill to the BOR can be directed to address concerns in California and Arizona and not be considered an earmark, then similarly, this direction to benefit the South Platte River Basin should not be considered an earmark. As you know, the language of the bill suggests that $50 million of the funds provided in the bill may be transferred to the U.S. Department of the Interior for programs, projects and activities authorized by the Central Utah Project Completion Act--titles II-V of Public Law 102-575; $50 million of the funds provided under this heading may be used for programs, projects, and activities authorized by the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act, Public Law 108-361. In this case, I feel it is important as the senior Senator for Colorado to insist that additional funding for the Bureau of Reclamation for important job-creating projects in the West ought to be handled in an evenhanded way.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today with full and humble appreciation for the critical scrutiny a Senator's maiden speech usually attracts. I am also aware of the somewhat forgotten tradition here in which freshmen Senators took some considerable time before throwing caution to the wind, opening their mouths, and hoping to enlighten their wiser and more experienced colleagues. That tradition like many others has eroded over time, such that in recent years freshmen Senators have taken to the floor early and often. I hope my words today will not encourage a revival of the older tradition. I am also aware that many new Senators use the occasion of their first speech to introduce a specific bill or to speak at length about pending legislation. I hope to do something different today. I will not speak about specific legislation, but I will speak about this moment in our country's history, the perils we face, and my sincere hope that we will address the critical issues of our time in a new way, with less rancor and with a shared commitment to bridge the partisan divide that has characterized so much of our recent political experience. We have inaugurated a new President and a new administration, and a new Congress is taking shape. These developments represent a fresh start, a new start, one in which every American, regardless of party or political affiliation, can rejoice because if there were ever a time when our country hungered for a fresh start, it is here and it is now. The American people are impatient with politics, and with good reason. Our country is facing significant peril. More of our fellow citizens are losing their jobs and their homes. Credit is drying up. Businesses, large and small, are cutting back. Americans have seen the value of their college and retirement savings plans reduced dramatically. We may be facing the most significant and difficult economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This has put me in mind of a great and courageous predecessor, Senator Edward Costigan, who served here, from Colorado, from 1931 to 1937, the very depths of the Great Depression. I have reverence for Senator Costigan because he was born of the progressive tradition of the West--a tradition the Udall family has participated in over many generations. Senator Costigan is largely remembered for his effort to pass an antilynching law at a time when people of color were under a constant threat of mob violence. He was also a champion of economic reform. I found it interesting that Senator Costigan, in this Chamber in 1932, spoke on behalf of a stimulus bill--which was then called a relief bill--using words that are eerily relevant 76 years later. Arguing for the bill, Senator Costigan said: One almost despairs of the ability of America's industrial and political generals to save America in its present crisis. . . . Thankfully, we have not reached a point of economic collapse anything like that which occurred when Senator Costigan spoke. But Americans who have lost their jobs or their savings know this crisis is every bit as real and every bit as devastating. This current crisis is made worse by our continued addiction to oil and our dangerous dependence on foreign oil in particular. While the global market price of oil and gasoline dropped remarkably from record highs of last year, no one should be under any illusion that this price slide will continue. Continued instability in the Middle East, combined with ever-increasing demand in China, in India, and other global markets, will inevitably mean that the price of oil will rise. We have not seen the end of the energy crisis that crippled our economy last summer. We did survive the first wave of this energy tsunami, but we must prepare for the waves to come. This economic crisis is also made more perilous by the fact that our country is still engaged in two unfinished wars. Mr. President, 150,000 of our best and bravest are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Army has been stretched to the breaking point, and our national security depends on implementing a new strategy that includes rebuilding our defense capability. Elsewhere in the world, in North Korea, in Gaza, in the winding alleys of Pakistan, in the shadowy corridors of power in Iran, we face threats from new enemies, the risks of widening conflict, and the gravest danger of all in the new century--the potential for a nuclear weapon to fall into the hands of terrorists. David Sanger points out in his compelling book, ``The Inheritance,'' that America's response to 9/11 has not been without strategic error. America's position in the world, military and economic, has been weakened at the very moment we need to lead the world. This list of challenges is daunting, and it does not include other pressing problems bearing down on us, such as the escalating cost of health care, a Federal budget deficit that threatens to wash away the foundation for our children's economic future, illusive solvency for key programs such as Medicare and Social Security, a broken immigration system, and mounting evidence that global climate change is threatening our natural environment. In addition to losing influence on the world stage and struggling to restore a wrecked economy, in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, we may also have a third war on our hands--this one with Mother Nature. If Mother Nature fails, our list of challenges will seem small by comparison. The question, then, before us is, Will this be a moment of anxiety or optimism? In truth, I believe it is both. The challenges we face are among the most significant ever faced by a new President and Congress. Although I join the Senate as a proud western Democrat, buoyed by the success my party enjoyed in the last election, I think it would be a terrible mistake to see the challenge of this moment in purely partisan terms. The problems we face are not Democratic or Republican problems, they are American problems, and they will only be met by American solutions. Much lipservice is given to the idea of bipartisanship and the notion of working across the aisle. Frankly, I have to tell you, I think it is cynicism to breathe life and action into these words that hamstring us. Like many of you, I was serving in the Congress on 9/11. That tragedy awakened a deep spirit, a deep spirit of shared purpose. I call it the spirit of 9/11, in the best sense of that term. I want to invoke it here, not to use it as a patriotic bludgeon but to remind us how it felt to know our country had been attacked and that we were united in our response and in our resolve. If there were ever a time when we needed to recapture that spirit of 9/11, it is now. Surely we do not need another tragedy to unite us in that common response and resolve. We need only look ahead at the deep challenges we face. I am comforted by our history. A reading of our history shows that we have been through worse. We have endured a terrible Civil War, two world wars, and an economic catastrophe of far greater dimension. With each successive American generation, we have worked to cleanse the Nation from the stain of slavery, bigotry, and racial prejudice. With each successive generation, we have grown wiser, more enlightened, and more prosperous. We have seen the great middle class lifted and engaged in building the strongest and most creative economy the world has ever seen. So if history is our guide, I know we will meet the challenge of this moment. As a son of the West, I am also proud of our special history. Of course, every region of America has a story to tell and a contribution to make to the whole. Among many qualities in the West, we particularly treasure independence and we have little time for brooding pessimism. The great western writer Wallace Stegner put it best when he wrote about the people he called ``stickers,'' those who settled the West against all odds and obstacles. He called them stickers because they were not quitters and they did not leave the scene of a challenge. They stuck to the land because of their spirit, their courage, and their hopes for a better community in which to raise their children--and, to be honest, because they were too doggone ornery to give up. We are a country of stickers, and now it is up to the 111th Congress to be stickers too. The American people have vested their hopes and aspirations in us, to serve them well in the institutions of democracy we call the Congress. As I close, I want to return to my predecessor in this seat, Senator Edward Costigan, and his long fight against the evil of lynching. In a speech on this subject in 1935, he expressed the hope that partisan and sectional division would give way to a true common purpose. He said: Ours is truly at last a new South, a new North, a new East, and a new West, unitedly building a new America of common humanity, guarded by just and ever more equal laws. Senator Costigan was calling for a new way of looking at the political challenge in his day, one that looked toward a uniting purpose. We have a similar calling today. We may often divide as Republicans and Democrats on what we think is best for our country. Debate is good. We should encourage a vigorous exchange of ideas and not fear disagreement. But we ought always, always to strive for a common purpose. I wish to express my deep thanks to my fell Coloradans who have given me the opportunity and honor to represent them here at this challenging and important time in our history. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to strongly support my friend and colleague, Senator Ken Salazar, as President-elect Obama's choice to lead the Department of the Interior. For reasons I will explain shortly, I believe this man--a fifth generation son of the West whose ancestors settled Santa Fe before America gained independence--is uniquely qualified and experienced to lead the U.S. Department of the Interior. I am very proud to have served the State of Colorado with him. He is an outstanding public servant and he will make an outstanding Secretary of the Interior. Our colleagues in the Senate are well aware of Senator Salazar's excellent record of leadership here--he has worked across the aisle and with diverse stakeholders on many issues ranging from health care to national security. As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Ken has worked to extend critical renewable energy tax credits, protect our natural resources and encourage environmentally responsible development of domestic energy sources. I've been proud to work with him on a wide range of issues, including protection of our public lands and water resources in Colorado. I'm especially proud of our work together to pass legislation that allowed a lovely older woman, Betty Dick, to pass her final days in peace on land she treasured at the Rocky Mountain National Park. Ken, I think Betty would be proud of you today too. Even before his time in the Senate, Ken has been a recognized leader in the West. As a farmer and rancher, Ken has always had a close relationship with the land and with rural communities. He has spoken eloquently about what he calls ``the forgotten America'' and he has been a steadfast champion of the land, water and people of the West. As the executive director of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources, Ken used his unique background and experience to protect the environment and Colorado's communities, educate youth about our natural resources, and defend Colorado's water. He helped create Great Outdoors Colorado, GOCO, and led it to become one of the most successful land conservation programs in the country. While serving as Colorado's Attorney General, Ken worked to make our communities safer and address gang violence. He also led efforts to preserve open space during his two terms as Attorney General, where he was well-known as a champion of the natural environment. Ken will bring his rural values--hard work, honesty, and integrity-- to the Department of Interior and help address the many challenges facing this Department. From addressing Interior's ethical lapses to tackling our country's lack of transmission infrastructure, Ken will work hard to put the Department of the Interior back on the right track. I would be remiss if I did not mention Senator Salazar's family and, in particular, his mother, Emma. Like her sons, she is a remarkable Coloradan. I had the opportunity to visit her at the Salazar ranch, Los Rincones, last year. And if her son, Ken, demonstrates the same indomitable spirit, strength of character and wisdom of his mother--and I believe he will he should be an outstanding Secretary of the Interior. I urge my colleagues to swiftly confirm Senator Salazar as the Secretary of the Interior. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights today with my friend and colleague, Senator Charles Schumer. We are introducing this bill today as a way to add some commonsense rules to the laws governing the issuance of credit cards. Commonsense rules are important at a time when many Americans are hurting and taking on more debt, even as credit card companies are making record profits. I hear often from hard-working, honest Coloradans who are asking only to be treated fairly by the credit card industry, whose deceptive practices have plagued consumers for years. We need to act to bring greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards every day. I have heard from constituents across Colorado, asking me to help even the playing field on this issue. They benefit from the widespread availability of consumer credit, and their use of that credit has been important to our economy. In fact, for many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. It is something that many people need to use to pay for their everyday needs. For them, it is a necessity. Of course, another word for credit is debt, and credit card debt has increased considerably in recent years. Overall, during the last decade, total credit card debt rose by about 70 percent, and this clearly has an effect on consumers. Some polls have reported that about 70 percent of surveyed families said the quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of their debts, and young people are more worried about going deeply into debt than about a terrorist attack. Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness and an erosion of financial responsibility. That was one of the main arguments advanced in support of the recent changes in the bankruptcy laws. But while there was something to that argument, it was not the whole story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone. Instead of just focusing on borrowers, Congress should also do more to promote responsibility by those who provide the credit, and one place to start is with credit card companies. That is the reason I have been working to make some commonsense changes in the rules for credit card companies. I first introduced a bill to do that back in 2006, and reintroduced it again the following year. I am proud it won the support of an array of consumer groups as well as cosponsors from congressional districts across the country. Last year, the House passed H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, a bill I introduced with Representative Carolyn Maloney, that includes many provisions based on my legislation. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Schumer is almost identical to the House-passed bill. It includes protection against arbitrary interest rate increases. It will prevent cardholders who pay on time from being unfairly penalized. It will bar excessive fees and will require more fairness in the way payments are handled. And it will prohibit the use of ``universal default'' clauses--provisions that allow card issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit card account if there has been any change for the worse in the cardholder's credit score--even if the change is unrelated to the credit card account. The passage of this legislation is made more urgent by our Nation's worsening financial crisis. I will work with Members of both parties to make these commonsense reforms and even the playing field for credit card consumers in Colorado and throughout the country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights today with my friend and colleague, Senator Charles Schumer. We are introducing this bill today as a way to add some commonsense rules to the laws governing the issuance of credit cards. Commonsense rules are important at a time when many Americans are hurting and taking on more debt, even as credit card companies are making record profits. I hear often from hard-working, honest Coloradans who are asking only to be treated fairly by the credit card industry, whose deceptive practices have plagued consumers for years. We need to act to bring greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards every day. I have heard from constituents across Colorado, asking me to help even the playing field on this issue. They benefit from the widespread availability of consumer credit, and their use of that credit has been important to our economy. In fact, for many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. It is something that many people need to use to pay for their everyday needs. For them, it is a necessity. Of course, another word for credit is debt, and credit card debt has increased considerably in recent years. Overall, during the last decade, total credit card debt rose by about 70 percent, and this clearly has an effect on consumers. Some polls have reported that about 70 percent of surveyed families said the quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of their debts, and young people are more worried about going deeply into debt than about a terrorist attack. Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness and an erosion of financial responsibility. That was one of the main arguments advanced in support of the recent changes in the bankruptcy laws. But while there was something to that argument, it was not the whole story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone. Instead of just focusing on borrowers, Congress should also do more to promote responsibility by those who provide the credit, and one place to start is with credit card companies. That is the reason I have been working to make some commonsense changes in the rules for credit card companies. I first introduced a bill to do that back in 2006, and reintroduced it again the following year. I am proud it won the support of an array of consumer groups as well as cosponsors from congressional districts across the country. Last year, the House passed H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, a bill I introduced with Representative Carolyn Maloney, that includes many provisions based on my legislation. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Schumer is almost identical to the House-passed bill. It includes protection against arbitrary interest rate increases. It will prevent cardholders who pay on time from being unfairly penalized. It will bar excessive fees and will require more fairness in the way payments are handled. And it will prohibit the use of ``universal default'' clauses--provisions that allow card issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit card account if there has been any change for the worse in the cardholder's credit score--even if the change is unrelated to the credit card account. The passage of this legislation is made more urgent by our Nation's worsening financial crisis. I will work with Members of both parties to make these commonsense reforms and even the playing field for credit card consumers in Colorado and throughout the country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing four bills, S. 187, S. 188, S. 189, S. 190, that will preserve and protect majestic public landscapes in Colorado and help provide needed water supplies to communities and farmers on Colorado's productive Eastern Plains. These bills were introduced in the last session of Congress, where they each had hearings and one passed the U.S. House of Representatives. I hope that we can work together to move these bills in this Congress and see them signed into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of all four bills be included in the Record and be printed alongside these remarks. The first bill is the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act of 2009. This bill will help protect the water supply for the Arkansas River Valley's communities and its productive agricultural lands by advancing the construction of the long-planned Arkansas Valley Conduit. The bill will restructure the cost-share provisions of the project and is similar to legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar and introduced yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives by Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey. The Arkansas Valley Conduit, a proposed 130-mile water delivery system from the Pueblo Dam to communities throughout the Arkansas River Valley, was originally authorized in 1962 as part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas, Fry-Ark, project. Unfortunately, the authorization did not include a Federal-local cost-share provision necessary to cover the estimated $300 million in construction costs, and local communities-- especially those in southern Colorado--do not have the resources to shoulder all of the costs. The project has thus remained unfinished for over 4 years. The bill will provide for a 65-35 Federal-local cost-share for completion of the project, with revenues from so-called ``excess- capacity'' contracts for water storage in other Fry-Ark project facilities being used to fund the majority of the local contribution. This approach is the result of close collaboration between community stakeholders and the Colorado congressional delegation and will ensure communities in the Arkansas River Valley can finance their portion of the project without incurring unbearable financial burdens. Moreover, the bill will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to move forward with the construction of the Conduit. The depressed economic status of southeastern Colorado made it a difficult financial undertaking for the region, a challenge that continues today. This bill will help see this facility become a reality and thereby help the farming and ranching communities in the valley continue to produce needed food and fiber for the state and Nation. The second bill I am introducing today is the Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act. I introduced similar bills in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 107th, 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses. In previous Congresses, the bill passed the House and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee but did not receive final action. The bill is intended to help local communities identify ways to protect the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern Denver-metro area and the region just west of Rocky Flats. The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes much of the land in this backdrop area, but there are other lands involved as well. Rising dramatically from the Great Plains, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains provides a scenic mountain backdrop to many communities in the Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado. The portion of the range within and adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation. The open-space character of this mountain backdrop is an important aesthetic and economic asset for adjoining communities, making them attractive locations for homes and businesses. But rapid population growth in the northern Front Range area of Colorado is increasing recreational use of the Arapaho- Roosevelt National Forest and is also increasing pressure for development of other lands within and adjacent to that national forest. We can see the effects of rapid population growth throughout Colorado and especially along the Front Range. Homes and shopping centers are sprawling through valleys and along highways that feed into the Front Range. This development then spreads out along the ridges and mountaintops that make up the backdrop. We are in danger of losing to development many of the qualities that have helped attract new residents to Colorado. So, it is important to better understand what steps might be taken to avoid or lessen that risk--and this bill is designed to help us do just that. Already, local governments and other entities have provided important protection for portions of this mountain backdrop, especially in the northern Denver-metro area. However, some portions of the backdrop in this part of Colorado remain unprotected and are at risk of losing their open-space qualities. This bill acknowledges the good work of the local communities in preserving open space along the backdrop and aims to assist further efforts along the same lines. The bill directs the U.S. Forest Service to study the ownership patterns of the lands comprising the Front Range mountain backdrop, identify areas that are at risk, and recommend to Congress how these lands might be protected and how the Federal Government could help local communities and residents to achieve that goal. Importantly, I note that the bill does not interfere with the power of local authorities regarding land use planning or infringe on private property rights. Instead, it will bring the land protection experience of the Forest Service to the table to assist local efforts to protect areas that comprise the backdrop. The bill envisions that to the extent the Forest Service should be involved with Federal lands, it will work in collaboration with local communities, the state and private parties. I strongly believe it is in the national interest for the Federal Government to assist local communities to identify ways to protect the mounatin backdrop in this part of Colorado. The backdrop beckoned settlers westward and presented an imposing impediment to their forward progress that suggested similar challenges ahead. This first exposure to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West helped define a region. The pioneers' independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day. We need to work to preserve it by protecting the mountain backdrop as a cultural and natural heritage for ourselves and generations to come. The third bill I am introducing today--the National Trails System Willing Seller Act--will allow people who want to sell land for inclusion in certain units of the National Trails System to do so. Current law prohibits people who own land associated with several units of the trail system from selling those lands to the Federal Government for inclusion in those units. This bill will allow such sales to happen. This legislation is identical to bills introduced in previous Congresses by my former Republican colleagues from Colorado, Representatives Beauprez and McInnis. The Trail System units covered by the bill are the Oregon National Historic Trail, the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, the Iditarod National Historic Trail, the North County National Scenic Trail, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail. Our national trails are a national treasure, and we should allow people who own land along these trails to sell that land to the Federal Government to be part of our public lands legacy. But it is important to make clear that these land sales are from willing sellers, which is what this bill will do. This bill makes a small but important adjustment to current law, and I think it deserves the support of all Members of the Senate. The final bill I am introducing today is the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, which will designate nearly 250,000 acres of Rocky Mountain National Park as wilderness. I introduced this bill in the 110th Congress as a member of the House of Representatives. It was cosponsored in the Senate by my colleague Senator Ken Salazar, and eventually by the Colorado Congressional delegation. Over a period of months, we worked together to develop this bipartisan legislation that will provide important protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country. This is a public lands policy goal that goes back to the 1960s, and is long overdue. This bill is consistent with the Colorado Congressional delegation's efforts in the last Congress to strike a balance in protecting the park and the water users who rely on the Grand River Ditch. This carefully negotiated language met the needs of those users, but questions have been raised about the particular way that liability and water use issues were addressed in the delegation bill. Specifically, there have been questions about how these provisions work in the context of the Park Resources Protection Act. While I am confident that my bill addresses these liability concerns, I appreciate the recent efforts by Senator Salazar to offer a slightly different approach that provides a path to a widely-shared goal that has broad support in Colorado. The wilderness designation in this bill 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 will be designated by this bill. At the same time, the wilderness boundaries have been drawn so as to allow 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 ensure that there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities. The lands designated as wilderness will become part of the National Wilderness Preservation System that was established by the Wilderness Act and will be managed in accordance with that Act and the provisions of the bill. The bill's provisions amplify this by specifying that--no new reclamation projects will be allowed in the wilderness area; nothing in the bill will create a ``buffer zone'' around the wilderness and non-wilderness activities visible or audible from within the wilderness will not be prohibited; the National Park Service can act to control fire, insects, and diseases, including use of mechanical tools within the wilderness; and nothing in the bill will reduce or restrict the current authority of the National Park Service to manage the Park's lands and resources. The bill is similar to measures previously introduced by my predecessor in the House of Representatives, Representative David Skaggs, as well as other bills introduced before that, and legislation I introduced in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. However, it does include a number of adjustments and refinements that reflect discussion within the Colorado delegation in Congress and with interested parties in Colorado. Like H.R. 2334 of the 110th Congress, the new bill includes wilderness designation 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. 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. As was the case previously, this bill accommodates that request. Also like that previous measure, the bill responds to the request of 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, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association to omit from wilderness designation an area along the western park boundary, running south along Lake Granby from the town to the park's southern boundary. This will 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. Similarly, the bill expands 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 is accordingly reduced by about 1,000 acres. As did the previous bill, this bill includes a section that authorizes the National Park Service to lease an 11-acre property, the Leiffer tract, that was donated to the National Park Service in 1977. Located outside the park's boundaries, it 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 it, but current law allows leasing only for ``property administered . . . as part of the National Park System,'' and this property does not qualify. The bill allows the Park Service to lease the property as if it were located inside or contiguous to the park. Also like previous measures, the bill addresses the question of possible impacts on water rights--something that can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. It reflects the legal reality that 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. And it reflects the geographic reality that the park sits astride the continental divide, meaning there is no higher land around from which streams flow into the park, and thus there is no possibility of any diversion of water occurring upstream from the park. In recognition of these legal and practical realities, the bill includes a finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation or appropriation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation. As I mentioned, there are also provisions in this bill that deal with the Grand River Ditch, created before Rocky Mountain National Park was established and partly located within the park. The owners of the ditch are currently working to conclude an agreement with the National Park Service with respect to operation and maintenance of the portion of the ditch within the park, and the bill provides that after conclusion of this agreement the strict liability standard of the Park Resources Protection Act which now applies to any damage to park resources will not apply so long as the ditch is operated and maintained in accordance with the agreement. The owners of the ditch remain liable for damage to park resources caused by negligence or intentional acts, and the bill specifies that it will not limit or otherwise affect the liability of any individual or entity for damages to, loss of, or injury to any park resource resulting from any cause of event occurring before the bill's enactment. In addition, the bill specifies that its enactment will not restrict or otherwise affect any activity relating to the monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of the ditch that was authorized or approved by the National Park Service as of the date of the bill's enactment. The bill also provides that use of water transported by the ditch for a main purpose or main purposes other than irrigation will not terminate or adversely affect the ditch's right-of- way. The matters dealt with in this bill have a long history. The wilderness designations are based on National Park Service recommendations presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. That they have not been acted on before this reflects the difficult history of wilderness legislation. One Colorado statewide wilderness bill was enacted in 1980, but it took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a second 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 by providing wilderness designations for other deserving lands in Colorado, including lands 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 this bill. Lands covered by the bill are currently being managed 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 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, the 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 National Park sees nearly the same number of visitors each year. 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. In summary, the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act 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. It is bipartisan and will affirm the commitment of all Coloradans to preserving the features that make our State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think it deserves prompt enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, when the 110th Congress finally adjourns sine die, I will come to the end of my time as a Member of the House of Representatives. I look forward to service in the other body upon the convening of the 111th Congress, but today I want to express my appreciation for all that it has meant to me to have the privilege of membership in this extraordinary body with you and with all the other Members--past and present--with whom I have the honor of serving. We've all heard that it takes more than moving in to make a house a home. But I have to say that in my case, I have very much felt at home here in the House since the 106th Congress first convened in 1999, because so many people went out of their way to welcome me and to help me learn what I needed to know. Thanks to them, I was able to do a better job of trying to properly represent the people of Colorado's Second Congressional District and to contribute to the search for ways to advance their interests and those of our state and our country as a whole. So, Madam Speaker, today, I want to say ``thank you'' to all the Members and to the many talented and dedicated staff of the House and its Committees who have helped me do a much better job than I could have done without their advice and assistance. And, while I am hesitant to mention anyone in particular--for fear of accidental omissions--I cannot conclude without giving special thanks to some of those who have been my special mentors. On the Natural Resources Committee--which used to have a different name--the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, has been an example of courteous and effective leadership both as Ranking Member and more recently as Chairman. I greatly appreciate all his many courtesies to me and his assistance in connection with matters of importance to Colorado that I have brought before the Committee. I also appreciate having had the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, when he chaired the Committee and in his current role as Ranking Member. Don Young and I do not always see eye to eye, but there have been many instances in which we were on the same side, and I am glad to have had the chance to join forces with him in connection with those matters--as also was the case with respect to his predecessor as Chairman, our former colleague from Utah, Mr. Hansen. On the Committee on Science and Technology, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, has been unfailingly generous and has provided outstanding leadership. It has been my good fortune to have served with him and with the other members, from both sides of the aisle, as the Committee has dealt with many matters of great importance to Colorado and the country. I also appreciated having the chance to serve with his predecessor as Chairman, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert, who was always kind and accommodating to me during the time we served together. Similarly, I made many good friends during my service on the Committees on Small Business and Agriculture and benefitted from the opportunity to learn about the matters within their jurisdictions. Finally, I cannot fail to mention my deep appreciation for having had the opportunity to be a Member of the Committee on Armed Services. I was privileged to serve with an outstanding chairman, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton as well as with his predecessor, the gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter. My years on the Committee have been memorable ones, as we have wrestled with so many complex and difficult issues related to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the other challenges that face our Armed Forces and our country in connection with the threat of international terrorism and other threats. Bonds among Members of the committee are strong, and I feel honored to have been part of such a talented, dedicated and hardworking group of Members and highly- professional staff. Madam Speaker, I could cite many others to whom I owe a debt of thanks--but the list would be longer than the time available, because they are literally too many to mention. Therefore let me conclude by simply saying that although in the new year I will have a new job, some things will not change. I am and will remain a ``man of the House,'' and while I will be spending more time on the other side of the Capitol, I look forward to continuing to work with you, Madam Speaker, and with the rest of our colleagues here. So, tonight I choose not to say ``farewell''--because this is far from goodbye--or even ``so long,'' as the Western expression goes. Instead, let me close with a wish to everyone for happy holidays and a promise that I will ``see you later,'' in the New Year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I voted against this bailout package on Monday, because I took a hard look at it through the eyes of Coloradans, and I didn't see what they needed to see. What I saw was a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street banks that didn't do enough to reassure taxpayers that they'd get their money back, didn't have a sure process for holding CEOs accountable and limiting taxpayer-funded golden parachutes, and didn't address the mortgage crisis that is at the root of our economic problems and is forcing hard-working Coloradans out of their homes. Just as important, what I saw was a ``rescue'' for Wall Street that did nothing to begin fixing the broken financial system that led us to this crisis. As I look at the legislation we're being asked to vote on today, I'm deeply disappointed to say that none of that has changed. Instead, the Senate has sent us a bill that adds a single improvement to the package the House rejected, plus hundreds of pages of ``sweeteners'' intended to win over those of us who opposed it the first time. Many of those ``sweeteners'' are things I support--the people of Colorado know I have worked long and hard for middle-class tax breaks and have spent my entire career as a champion for investment in the new energy economy. But no amount of ``sweetener'' changes the fact that Americans deserve a better solution to our economic crisis than the one we've already rejected. I have no interest in making the perfect the enemy of the good. Anyone who knows my work in Congress knows that I am not a ``my-way-or- the-highway'' legislator. Because of the greed and lack of oversight on Wall Street, we face an unquestionably grave economic situation that requires Congress to act. But a better solution is still within our reach--one that takes immediate action to get our economy back on stable footing while providing the protection, oversight, and fundamental reforms American families deserve. I am still guided by the words of the legendary basketball coach John Wooden, who told his players, ``Boys, be quick. But don't hurry.'' My hope was that after the House rejected Monday's bailout package, we in Congress would be quick to work together, improve the legislation, and bring forward a revised version that would deserve and obtain broad support in Colorado and across the country. We had that opportunity until the Senate acted to re-package the old bailout bill in new clothing. We owe the taxpayers more than to hurry a deeply flawed package out the door at such tremendous cost to them. I believe we could have added provisions that (1) provided independent oversight of the Treasury's program, (2) strengthened the equity position of taxpayers in purchasing mortgage-backed assets, (3) required the government to help responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages, and (4) insured that taxpayers will not be on the hook for irresponsible compensation packages for CEOs. This bill claims to address these problems, but the exceptions in this bill swallow the rule. In short, the bill doesn't do what it claims to do. On Tuesday, stronger provisions were within our reach and we should have worked to secure them I hope--for the sake of all those people who have worked hard and played by the rules, only to see their retirement whittled away or their homes' values plummet--that this package does what its supporters promise us it will. But in the end, my responsibility is to Colorado families, and I continue to believe as I did on Monday, that I cannot ask them to foot the bill for a bailout that costs so much, with so little accountability, so little reform, and so little protection for them.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill reflecting my comprehensive energy plan, the ``American Energy, American Innovation'' Act of 2008. This bill reflects my effort to really put everything on the table to address rising energy prices, our dependence on foreign oil, and our need to respond to the climate change challenge. While in Colorado in August, I stood with Senator Salazar to embrace the bipartisan process and principles of the so-called Gang of 10--now Gang of 20--energy proposal. But I believe that this proposal doesn't go far enough and that's why I've spent the last 2 months working on this ``American Energy, American Innovation'' plan. Since then, while the Senate group has doubled in size, indicating the strong desire in Congress to achieve a compromise on energy legislation, the Senators have yet to introduce the legislation that they outlined in their principles. And last week, the House passed a comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6899) that includes an even stronger step towards a compromise, with provisions that will open up more of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling and establish a national renewable electricity standard to mandate that 15 percent of our electricity be produced from renewable energy by 2020. Along with these two provisions, that bill included several others from my energy plan and I voted for it. However, we have not yet achieved an agreement in Congress on a compromise that can move through both bodies and get to the President's desk. And, building upon the Gang of 20 proposal and H.R. 6899, I think my bill provides the next step in that process. That is why I am introducing this bill today, which I do not view as a final product, but more a step to further discussion on our energy policy and keep faith with the promise that I made to Coloradans in August. My bill involves developing energy of all kinds--oil, gas, wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear. It's a broad and pragmatic approach to solve our critical energy challenge. It reaches out to new partners and promotes new solutions. And my bill includes both short- and long-term efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower energy prices, and protect our environment. First, to deal with immediate problems with energy prices, my bill includes a provision bipartisan effort that will cut down on the manipulation of oil prices and increase transparency and oversight of the commodity markets. Estimates vary as to how much speculative trading on futures markets--as well as unscrupulous market manipulation--affects the cost of oil. Some estimates say as much as $30 to $60 per barrel of oil can be attributed to unfair speculative market practices. This provision will bring transparency to the commodities and futures market by implementing Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, recommendations to break out index fund and other data in energy and agricultural markets, and require detailed reporting from index traders and swap dealers. This is important because speculators have come up with elaborate and tricky derivatives that obscure the true value of commodities. It will curb excessive speculation by tightening regulation of foreign boards of trade that offer futures contracts in the U.S., and it will give the CFTC the authority and the means to crack down on manipulation in the energy market. It will help us address gas prices in the short term by including a provision to release additional oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR. This release would provide for a quick increase in the supply of petroleum in our consumer market and so could reduce the likelihood of further short-term increases in the price of gasoline and other refined products. And, it will do this in a way that is both cost-effective and protective of our national-security interests. Under the bill, the Energy Department, DOE, would sell at least 20 million barrels of light grade oil now stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and sales would continue for 6 months or until 70 million barrels have been sold, whichever comes first. But the draw- down would not be permanent because the bill would require the Energy Department to acquire, through purchase (using money from the sales) or exchange, heavy grade petroleum for storage in the strategic reserve, to replace the light grade petroleum that would be sold. Right now, slightly more than 700 million barrels of oil are stored in the strategic reserve--so the amount to be sold under the bill would be only about 10 percent of the amount on hand. Importantly, the bill specifies that the amount of oil stored in the strategic reserve could not drop below 90 percent of the amount stored when the bill is enacted. The most recent data I have seen indicate that the reserve is currently filled nearly to capacity, so the bill will not cause a significant reduction in the amount stored. But, Madam Speaker, this bill recognizes that short-term solutions and fixing past problems are not ``silver bullets'' for the factors that have led to the current high price of oil and products such as gasoline that are made from oil. We need long-term solutions as well. First, we need to do all we can to move towards ending dependence on foreign oil and my bill creates a National Commission on Energy Independence to study technical obstacles and policy barriers and make recommendations on how to achieve this goal. This bill also includes opening up new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, to oil and gas drilling. Specifically, the bill would end the current moratorium on OCS drilling and would permit leasing between 50 and 100 miles offshore if a State ``opts-in'' to allow it off of their coast, while providing protection for environmentally sensitive areas. I think this strikes a responsible balance between adding more drilling offshore and respecting State concerns--States should have a say about drilling activity affecting their beaches, lands and resources. A separate provision in the bill deals with Federal lands that have been leased for energy exploration and development under the Mineral Leasing Act but where such activities have not yet occurred. While it is important to understand the reality that oil and gas exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific enterprise involving efforts not easily fitting within strict regulatory timelines, I think that this is a reasonable response to current conditions. In essence, it would bar the current holders of federal mineral leases--whether for onshore or offshore areas--from obtaining additional leases unless they are able to show that they are ``diligently developing'' the leases they already hold. The Secretary of the Interior would be responsible for spelling out in regulations exactly what would be needed to show such ``due diligence.'' But we must reach beyond oil and gas. My bill includes provisions to advance clean coal technology, including carbon capture and sequestration technology. And I believe that nuclear energy will continue to be an important part of our energy portfolio, so we must move forward on building new nuclear energy facilities. My bill will help streamline the licensing process for these new plants and will give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission additional staff to ensure that these facilities are safe and secure. As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I understand the important role that both renewable energy and energy efficiency will play in meeting our energy needs. My bill also includes my proposal for a Renewable Electricity Standard--just like the one that has been so successful in Colorado. Under my plan, by the year 2020, utility companies will be producing at least 20 percent of our electricity from American-made renewable sources like wind and solar. My bill also includes extension of critical renewable energy tax credits. The Production Tax Credit, PTC, in particular has been instrumental in promoting the creation of a renewable energy industry. An extended PTC will provide more market certainty and we must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008. My bill extends the PTC for 4 years. The bill also authorizes new clean renewable energy bonds, CREBS, for public power providers and electric cooperatives. This is a critical tool, especially for Colorado's rural co-ops and municipal utilities. Of course, the cheapest kilowatt of energy is the one we don't use and energy efficiency also has a key role in addressing our energy needs. This bill will provide incentives for smart grid systems, as well as for energy efficient buildings. And it includes new energy efficiency standards for appliances. Transportation is another area where we can do more to improve our efficiency. And my bill will move us forward by requiring that all new vehicles achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2015 and 50 miles per gallon by 2030. It also includes additional incentives for Americans to purchase high efficiency vehicles and for manufacturers to produce many vehicles that use alternative fuels. Americans want fuel choice and my bill will require 50 percent of all new vehicles to be capable of burning various biofuels (in addition to gasoline) by 2012 and 80 percent by 2015. We need additional incentives for fuel efficiency vehicles. It also includes funding for research and development focused on the major technological barriers to alternative fuel vehicles, such as advanced batteries, to develop the next generation vehicles. And it provides incentives for Americans to purchase these new vehicles that use alternative fuels or are more efficient. And we must pay for this new energy policy. My bill does that by ending unneeded tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and closing tax loopholes. In conclusion, let me again emphasize that we must all work together and bring everything to the table to address our energy challenge. This bill is a good draft to start with and I will continue to work with my colleagues to enact a comprehensive energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gas prices, and protect our environment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, for eight years, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have allowed Wall Street to gamble with America's economy, and the results have been devastating for Main Street. The Administration consistently ignored the experts and failed to adequately oversee America's financial markets. Administration officials were warned that Wall Street's risky investments, combined with the mortgage industry's irresponsible practices, could produce a perfect storm that would threaten Americans' homes, jobs and life savings. Yet they did nothing. When Wall Street's dangerous behavior began to undermine America's economy, the Bush Administration proposed a bailout that would have given the Treasury unprecedented power to spend taxpayer money without adequate oversight or an actual plan for fixing the systemic problems that led America to this crisis. At the time, I spoke out against the Bush bailout and called for a better proposal, one that would protect taxpayers, help homeowners and benefit Main Street, not just Wall Street. More importantly, I demanded that any plan to shore up America's financial markets include reasonable rules to ensure that Wall Street does not continue to gamble with our future. We could have, and we should have, taken the time to do this right. Four hundred of the country's top economists, including three Nobel laureates, asked Congress to take more time to improve this proposal. With a proposal this far-reaching and complex, we had a responsibility to produce the best possible piece of legislation. The bill we are voting on today falls short. Instead of reforming Wall Street, we are using taxpayer dollars to insulate financial firms from the consequences of their own actions. The American taxpayer is on the hook for $700 billion to cover Wall Street's mistakes, and that is not right. Even worse, Wall Street is not being forced to change its behavior. This can only encourage more irresponsibility. At the same time, the provisions that limit executive compensation in this bill are weak, meaning that corporate executives who ran their companies into the ground could still walk away with millions in taxpayer-funded compensation in the forms of golden parachutes or other lavish benefits packages. Again, this sends exactly the wrong message to Wall Street. This legislation may still use taxpayer dollars to reward executives who have failed their companies and subsequently hurt the American economy. In addition, at a time when America's middle class is severely stretched to make ends meet, this $700 billion bailout not only seeks to rescue our taxpayer dollars to bail out foreign comapnies. We must protect American taxpayers before we seek to rescue foreign companies while their governments do nothing. Finally, this legislation does too little to help responsible homeowners. As a result, tens of thousands of families could lose their homes. More importantly, families who had nothing to do with failed mortgages could lose billions in assets as foreclosures continue to drive down property values. I believe strongly that Washington must act to protect Main Street from the crisis on Wall Street. I supported an economic stimulus plan that puts working families before corporate CEOs by creating jobs, protecting children's access to healthcare and ensuring that struggling families do not go hungry. I have consistently supported strong action to protect middle class New Mexicans. But I could not vote to give Wall Street $700 billion of taxpayer money without solving the underlying problems with our economy. I will continue working with my colleagues to reform America's financial markets, so Wall Street is not allowed to make the same mistakes over and over again. I will also continue fighting to support middle class New Mexico families that find themselves struggling in an economy devastated by the irresponsible acts of others. They are the true victims of the Bush administration's malign neglect of our economy. We must do what's right for them.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation that will extend critical tax credits for renewable energy and for American families while not adding to the federal deficit. As cochair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I am especially pleased to see the House take action on needed tax credits for renewable energy. The Production Tax Credit, PTC, in particular has been instrumental in promoting the creation of a renewable energy industry. An extended PTC will provide more market certainty and we must have an extension of this key tax credit before the current credit expires at the end of 2008. I must add that, while I am pleased that the bill provides a three year extension of the PTC for most renewable energy sources, I am concerned that it only provides a one-year extension for wind energy. Wind is a very promising renewable energy source and a one year extension will not be as helpful for the industry. I will continue to lead the fight to extend the wind energy PTC for more than one year. The bill also extends the Investment Tax Credit, ITC, for solar energy, qualified fuel cells, and microturbines for eight years. The ITC will help companies with initial investment costs in expanding these renewable energy sources across the country. Rising gas prices are forcing many Coloradans to dip into their savings just to make ends meet. This bill will help families reduce their fuel bills by providing $3,000 in tax credits toward the purchase of fuel-efficient, plug-in hybrid vehicles. It will also help address long-term fuel cost concerns by expanding production of homegrown fuels and incentives for the installation of E-85 pumps for consumers to fill up flex-fuel vehicles. This bill also will support advances in energy efficiency and conservation in commercial and residential buildings, as well as energy efficient appliances. And this bill will also help Colorado businesses stay competitive by extending the research and development tax credit for one year. While again I would like to see this key tax credit extended for more than one year, this is a step in the right direction. To help with the hard economic times that Coloradans are facing, this bill includes several other key tax credits, including expanding the child tax credit for some of our neediest families, allowing teachers to take a deduction for purchasing classroom supplies out of their own pocket, and providing additional support for families paying for college education. Although this bill includes several important provisions and I will vote for it, I am disappointed that it does not include provisions that passed in the Senate and in previous House bills--particularly those related to clean renewable energy bonds, CREBS, and the Secure Rural Schools program. CREBs provide a critical tool for public power providers and electric cooperatives to invest in renewable energy. This is a unique tool for Colorado's rural coops and municipal utilities and I hope to see us address this issue before the session ends. CREBS provisions were in the version of the bill originally passed by the House, but in the Senate they were revised. My understanding is that is the reason they have been omitted entirely from the bill now before us. My hope is that further discussions between the House and Senate will resolve this impasse. The ``Secure Rural Schools'' program, originally authorized in 2000, was designed to establish stability to certain annual payments made to States and counties containing National Forest System lands and certain public domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Since 1908, 25 percent of Forest Service revenues, such as those from timber sales, mineral resources and grazing fees, have been returned to the States in which national forest lands are located. Because receipts from timber sales have fluctuated over time, the 106th Congress in 2000 enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, Public Law 106-393, to address this instability by providing funding for a period of seven years, but requiring reauthorization after that time. While Colorado is not among the States receiving the largest payments, the program has helped some of our rural counties meet urgent needs. In fact, last year payments under the program to Colorado counties amounted to more than $6.4 million, helping to offset the costs of public schools, roads, and other needs of Colorado residents. That is why I cosponsored legislation, H.R. 3058, to renew the program's authorization, and why I voted for that legislation when the House considered it on June 5 of this year. Unfortunately, while 218 of us voted for the bill, the final total included 193 against and thus, because it was considered under a procedure requiring two-thirds approval, the bill did not pass. In its version of this legislation the Senate included funding for both the Secure Rural Schools program and for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, program, which makes payments to counties across the country where certain categories of Federal lands are located. PILT is also very important to Colorado, and I strongly support funding for it--and I would have preferred to have both its funding and that for the Secure Rural Schools program included in the bill now before us. Nonetheless, despite the lack of these provisions, this is a good bill. I hope we can move it forward and promote positive change that will benefit our families and rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security. I encourage my colleagues in the House to vote for this needed legislation, and also encourage quick action in the Senate so that we may move it to President's desk.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I rise in support of H.R. 7110, the Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act. While I have reservations about any bill that relies on deficit spending, I think the long-term benefits this bill will have for the American economy outweigh those reservations. I am, however, very disappointed with the minority's objection to an amendment that would have included funding for the Secure Rural Schools program in this bill. H.R. 7110 will help stimulate the American economy by creating jobs, and will update the Nation's rapidly deteriorating infrastructure. Nationwide, 84,000 Americans have lost their jobs within the last month, and more than 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs within the last month, and more than 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs throughout the year. In my home state of Colorado, more than 19,000 Coloradans have lost their jobs within the last year. This bill will put Coloradans to work, rebuilding our roads, expanding our public transportation, investing in our water infrastructure, and fixing our schools. The Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT, recently weighed down by a combination of deteriorating infrastructure and shrinking resources, will receive more than $200 million in direct funding that will be put to use quickly and efficiently, and which will immediately help local economies. Colorado will be eligible for further funding for its public transit agencies. This bill will also provide assistance for those who need help getting back on their feet after being wiped out by the current state of our economy. H.R. 7110 will extend unemployment benefits for up to 12,000 unemployed Coloradans, and fund job training programs to help them find work. And for those struggling to put food on the table, this bill will provide additional food stamps, and will help maintain the health of struggling Coloradans by increasing Medicaid assistance. As a national leader in the development of clean, renewable energy, Colorado stands to benefit greatly from the resources dedicated in this bill to advance such technologies. This bill will further help lead this nation into an era of energy independence by investing in the manufacture of advanced vehicle batteries and battery systems--a key component to developing a new fleet of fuel efficient cars. Simply put, this bill is an investment in America--her people, her ingenuity, and her future. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. India is the world's largest and most diverse democracy and a strong ally and friend of the United States. As a member of the India Caucus, I recognize the benefits of increased economic, security, and cultural cooperation between India and the United States, and am proud that in recent years the relationship between our two countries has made rapid advances in so many areas. Because of the growing importance of that relationship, it made sense for the Bush administration to consider expanding the U.S.-India strategic partnership to include civilian nuclear energy development. In the context of our friendship with India, I support the concept of civilian nuclear cooperation, and I will support this legislation today. U.S. law prohibits nuclear cooperation with countries that have not pledged under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--like India--to forgo nuclear weapons. The U.S.-India agreement carves out an exception for India to allow it to gain access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in exchange for opening 14 out of 22 of its nuclear facilities to inspections under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Importantly, India and the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, have negotiated a safeguards agreement and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group has approved an exemption for India, requirements that needed to be met before Congress could vote on the final cooperation agreement. Under existing law, Congress would have 60 days to consider the agreement, an important provision given that the agreement before us is complex and requires time for hearings and debate. But because there is little time left on the legislative calendar, we're forced to vote to waive the consultation period and consider the agreement today without the benefit of sufficient review. The bill is also being considered under suspension of the rules, which provides for only limited debate and no amendments. Mr. Speaker, I am uncomfortable with this process. I am also disappointed that the legislation does not resolve what appear to be conflicting interpretations between U.S. officials and Indian officials about key points of the agreement. But I do believe that ultimately this agreement will help bring India closer to the global nonproliferation regime--a better outcome than if we leave it on the outside. And fo that reason, I will support this legislation today. In exchange for getting access to sensitive nuclear technology and fuel supplies, India has committed to continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons testing; separate its civilian and military nuclear programs; place all current and future civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; implement a strong national export control system; work with the U.S. to conclude a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty; and not transfer nuclear technologies to states that do not already possess them. Although the agreement does not specifically require the U.S. to cut off nuclear cooperation if India tests another weapon or violates the IAEA safeguards, Secretary Rice has promised that the ``deal . . . would at that point be off.'' I have no doubt that an Obama or McCain administration would follow that same course. I have confidence that as a strong democracy and a responsible actor on the world stage, India will abide by its commitments--but I also take comfort in the agreement's stipulations that we can terminate the agreement and seek the return of any transferred materials and technology should circumstances require such a step. So in conclusion, I believe this agreement strikes the right balance between strengthening our relationship with India and also maintaining our robust and time-tested international nuclear nonproliferation regime. I will support the bill today, but I plan to carefully scrutinize the agreement's implementation to ensure that India is abiding by its commitments.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this bill, I rise to urge its approval by the House. The bill responds to as increasingly serious threat to freedom of speech--the phenomenon often called ``libel tourism.'' That term is used to describe lawsuits brought in other countries-- especially the United Kingdom--by people claiming to have been defamed by publications that would not be considered defamatory in the United States. As explained in a recent news article about the practice-- Britain is a legal refuge because of defamation standards rooted in common law. They essentially assume that any offending speech is false and the writer or author must prove that it is in fact true to prevail against the charge. In the United States, with its First Amendment protection for free speech, the situation tilts in the opposite direction: To succeed, libel plaintiffs must prove that the speech is false and published with a reckless disregard for the truth. A notable example involves the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld, an Israeli- born writer living in the United States and her legal battle with a billionaire Saudi entrepreneur, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz over her 2003 book on terrorist financing, ``Funding Evil,'' which asserted that Bin Mahfouz and his family provided financial support to Islamic terrorist groups. The book was not sold in the United Kingdom, but Mr. Bin Mahfouz's lawyers argued that more than 20 copies of her book had been purchased there online and that therefore the British courts had authority to hear his defamation complaint. Ms. Ehrenfeld did not respond and because she offered no defense, the judge ruled that she had to pay a judgment of $225,000, apologize for false allegations, and destroy existing copies of the book. Mr. Bin Mahfouz has not sought to collect on the judgment, but Ms. Ehrenfeld says it has affected her ability to publish further books. And last year Cambridge University Press agreed to destroy all copies of ``Arms for Jihad'' and to write to 100 libraries around the world seeking to add an explanatory sheet to archived books. Evidently Mr. Bin Mahfouz has filed more than 24 lawsuits against writers and authors, and his advisers have created a special Web site tracking the legal suits and apologies issued by writers and publishers. The bill now before the House responds to this threat to free speech. It would bar any U.S. court (State or Federal) from recognizing or enforcing a foreign defamation judgment unless it determined that the judgment ``is consistent with the First Amendment.'' Thus, someone who had won a defamation judgment abroad would have to prove the case under U.S. standards before it could be enforced here. This will provide important protection for Americans and others who exercise the First Amendment right of free speech in our country. I urge approval of the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this appropriations measure--partly because of what it includes, but primarily because I have concluded it would be irresponsible and a dereliction of duty to do otherwise. Nonetheless, I must express my unhappiness with the way in which the legislation was developed, especially the decision to accede to the Bush Administration's insistence that it not include anything that would impede their desire to rush toward full-scale commercial development of oil shale. By this insistence, the White House has shown it is quite ready to disregard our Western Slope communities and put Colorado's water supplies at risk. They were prepared to shut down the entire Federal Government--at a moment when our economy is in crisis--rather than accept a careful, responsible approach to full-scale oil shale development. Such `my way or the highway' tactics are deplorable, and while some may be tempted to respond in kind, I cannot in good conscience adopt the same approach by voting against this legislation. I am also very disappointed that far too many of the measure's provisions have never previously been considered by the House or even approved by the full Appropriations Committee, meaning that they never have been and never will be the subject of detailed debate or possible revision. I do not think this is the way the House of Representatives should exercise its serious constitutional responsibility for deciding how to spend the taxpayers' money. However, while both the process through which the measure was developed and the details of its provisions could have been better, it includes many provisions that deserve enactment. For example, it includes $910 million to defray firefighting costs and emergency fire-prevention efforts, and to help recover lands devastated by recent fires. This has been one of the worst wildfire seasons on record, and while Colorado has not been as hard hit we have not been immune. Nationally, nearly 5 million acres have burned, costing over $1.8 billion for Federal wildfire suppression activities, which is $700 million above the average suppression cost. So, it is appropriate that that measure includes a total of $610 million for wildfire suppression activities, including sufficient funds to fully repay all agency operating and construction funds which were previously borrowed to support emergency suppression activities earlier this summer. This repayment will allow the Forest Service and the Interior Department to use contractors and staff to revive important projects which were delayed by the budget shortfalls earlier this year. In addition, this legislation includes a total of $175 million for urgently needed hazardous fuels reduction projects all over the Nation, including extensive areas in Colorado and other parts of the mountain west which are suffering unprecedented tree die-off from infestations of bark beetles and some other insects. Of this total, some $125 million is for state and private activities and $50 million for projects on national forests. Another $100 million will be used for rehabilitation of burned areas, including $75 million for the Forest service and $25 million for the Interior Department, and another $25 million is provided for firefighter retention. Responding to the problems associated with insect infestations in Colorado's forests has been a high priority for me. I have worked with other members of our state's delegation on legislative proposals and have joined in efforts to secure increased funding for that purpose--so these parts of the bill are particularly welcome. Further, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am also particularly glad to note that the FY09 Defense Department Appropriations bill included in this package puts our troops first. It provides funds for necessary weapons and equipment and training, boosting funds particularly for the National Guard and Reserve; makes critical investments in the health of our troops, including $300 million for traumatic brain injury and mental health; provides more than the president's request to improve army barracks and military hospitals; and compensates troops for every month their terms of service are involuntarily extended, also known as ``stop loss.'' The bill also includes funding for important weapons systems and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance needs. This legislation also provides FY09 funding for Defense Department military construction, including $474 million for military construction projects at Fort Carson, as well as $65 million for construction at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, $4.9 million for land acquisition at Peterson AFB, $18 million for Colorado National Guard readiness centers in Denver and Grand Junction, $3 million for a satellite pharmacy and $4.2 million for Alert Crew Headquarters at Buckley Air Force Base, and $18 million to upgrade academic facilities at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Finally, this legislation includes FY09 funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs--providing $47.6 billion for veterans' medical care, claims processors, and facility improvements, including $20 million for the new Fitzsimons VA hospital. The bill makes substantial increases in mental health and substance abuse programs, provides veterans with advanced prosthetics, provides additional resources for veterans who live in places where the VA does not offer sufficient services, increase the gas mileage reimbursement rate to 41.5 cents per mile, and improves access to care for veterans in rural areas. In conclusion, I have decided the bill's merits--which include the fact that it will allow all federal agencies to continue their work until the next Congress can complete action on funding legislation for the remainder of this fiscal year--outweigh its defects, and I will vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this bill I urge its approval by the House. The bill will extend through fiscal year 2012 the highly successful grant program for armor vests for law enforcement officers. The program was originally established in 1998 through enactment of legislation sponsored by Colorado's Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Since then, over 11,900 jurisdictions have participated in the program, with $173 million in Federal funds committed to support the purchase of an estimated 450,000 vests. For example, in fiscal year 2007, 60 separate jurisdictions in Colorado received more than $352,000 to assist with the purchase of 1,883 vests. And while of course the most vests were purchased by the largest law enforcement agencies--570 by the city and county of Denver, 344 by the State of Colorado, 131 by Adams County and 45 by EI Paso County--the program also assisted many smaller agencies as well, including those in Hinsdale County, Moffat County, Federal Heights, Glenwood Springs, and Durango. Police officers from across our State have told me the program has been a great success, improving the safety and security of American law enforcement officers and better enabling them to do their job. And while President Bush's budgets have repeatedly neglected to request the full funding authorized for the program, Congress has stepped up and recognized its importance and appropriated the funds needed to keep it strong. Bulletproof vests are expensive but essential. No officer should be without one and they should be basic equipment made available to officers when we ask them to perform dangerous jobs. If we can afford to pay for training and equipment for Iraqi police--and we indeed are paying for that--I think we can afford to help pay for bulletproof vests for the officers who protect Americans here at home. So, Madam Speaker, I urge approval of this bill, to renew and extend the authorization for this very important program.