Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the retirement of Dr. Ronald Sega, Under Secretary of the Air Force, and to recognize him for his distinguished public service as Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, from August 2001 to July 2005; and as Under Secretary of the Air Force, from August 2005 to August 2007. As the Chief Technology Officer for the Department of Defense, Dr. Sega interacted with the Executive Branch, Congress, industry, academia, and other Federal agencies to develop strategies and support plans to align scientific research and engineering development with Department goals and objectives to ensure U.S. military technological superiority. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Nation, he established the Department of Defense Combating Terrorism Technology Task Force to spearhead the rapid development and fielding of defense capabilities critical to the successful execution of military operations in support of the global war on terrorism. Dr. Sega established Department of Defense technology focus areas on energy and power technology, surveillance and knowledge systems, and in the National Aerospace Initiative to guide investment and capitalize on emerging technological opportunities. Dr. Sega's tireless efforts and diplomacy significantly advanced Defense Department international engagement and cooperation. As the Under Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Sega oversaw, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, the recruiting, training, and equipping of approximately 690,000 airmen and a budget of approximately $110 billion committed to the effective integration of air, space, and cyberspace capabilities in support of the Nation's defense. As the designated Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space, Dr. Sega developed, coordinated, and integrated plans and programs across the national security space enterprise instituting a back-to-basics approach to space acquisition which redistributed risk from system procurement to early-stage science and technology activities. He also established the Operationally Responsive Space Office to launch, activate, and employ low-cost satellites to provide surge capability, to reconstitute or augment existing constellation, or to provide timely availability of tailored or new capabilities. As the Air Force Senior Executive for Energy, he led the development of the Air Force Energy Strategy to incorporate energy consideration in all Air Force operations. Dr. Sega instituted best business practices in defense space acquisition, championed advances in the science and technology workforce, and tirelessly supported the Nation's men and women in uniform. Dr. Sega is an extraordinary leader, patriot, and intellectual whose distinctive accomplishments reflect great credit upon himself and the Department of Defense. I am particularly pleased that he will return to Colorado to share his skills and experience as vice president at the Colorado State University Research Foundation and as a professor of systems engineering at Colorado State University. I hope my colleagues will join me not only in recognizing the past accomplishments of Dr. Sega but also in wishing him all the best in his future pursuits.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, while I have some concerns about this bill, I will vote for it because I think on balance it deserves to be approved as a necessary step toward needed improvements in the current law. I am far from expert in the intricacies of patent law, so I have listened carefully to those with more knowledge, including several companies employing substantial numbers of Coloradans that utilize patents in various fields. While they are not unanimous, most of them have urged support for the legislation. I have also noted that the passage of the legislation, as a step toward needed improvements in the current law, is supported by the Consumers Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other groups including the Financial Services Roundtable. At the same time, I have listened to the concerns expressed by others who have raised a number of objections to the bill and think that its defects are so serious as to merit rejection of the legislation in its current form. I take those objections seriously, but I have decided that nonetheless the better outcome today is for the House to pass the bill and for further discussion of the points they raise to occur in the context of debate in the Senate and then a conference between that body and the House of Representatives.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I strongly support this amendment. . . . I'd like to thank my cousin, Representative Tom Udall, as well as Representative Platts and the rest of our colleagues who have worked so hard to push forward a renewable electricity standard. Speaker Pelosi also deserves our deep gratitude for her support and for working side by side with us during these last few weeks. We all understand the importance of this critical amendment, and I'm proud to have been a longstanding part of this great effort as it culminates in a vote today. 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 that the environment and consumers are protected. So it makes sense to put incentives in place to ensure that less polluting and environmentally friendly sources of energy can find their way into the marketplace. And that's what a renewable electricity standard, or RES, would help to do. But it's not just about doing the right thing for the environment. With almost all new electricity generation the last decade fueled by natural gas, our domestic supply cannot sustain our needs. Iran, Russia, and Qatar together hold 58 percent of the world's natural gas reserves. As demand for power continues to grow, we shouldn't 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 under a national standard, which will bring natural gas costs down nationwide, create new economies of scale in manufacturing and installation, and offer greater predictability to long-term investors. The Udall-Platts amendment requires utilities nationwide to produce 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy sources by 2020. The amendment also allows up to 4 percent of that 15 percent requirement to be met with energy efficiency. The amendment's definition of renewables is broad, including biomass--cellulosic organic materials; plant or algal matter from agricultural crops, crop byproducts, or landscape waste; gasified animal waste and landfill gas, or biogas; and all types of crop-based liquid fuels. It includes incremental hydropower; solar and solar water heating; wind; ocean, ocean thermal and tidal; geothermal; and distributed generation. The amendment also allows energy efficiency to make up 27 percent of a utility's targeted requirement. Every State has one or more of these resources. The Udall-Platts amendment saves consumers billions of dollars. By reducing the cost of new clean technologies and making them more available, it will help restrain natural gas price increases by creating more competition for those fuels. The Udall-Platts amendment will spur economic development in the form of billions of dollars in new capital investment and in new property tax revenues for local communities, and millions of dollars in new lease payments to farmers and rural landowners. Not least, the Udall-Platts amendment will reduce air pollution from dirty fossil-fueled power plants that threaten public health and our climate. The amendment does not burden some regions of the country at the expense of others, as the utilities would have you believe. It creates public benefits for all. The argument that the Southeast is disadvantaged by the RES--that the Southeast has no renewable resources--ignores the plain truth. In fact, the Southeast is one of the regions of the country that will see the most benefit from this proposal. According to Department of Energy's Energy information Administration, the technology that does best under a 15 percent RES is biomass. Already, 2500 megawatts of generation come from biomass in the Southeast, and much of the waste from pulp and paper mills is not being used to generate electricity. The Udall-Platts amendment gives States flexibility in achieving the standard. Under the amendment, states can borrow credits against future renewables generation--for up to three years as long as they are repaid by 2020, which means the effective start date can be delayed and facilities ramped up more slowly. The amendment gives three renewable energy credits for each kilowatt hour of power generated at on-site eligible facilities used to offset part or all of the customer's requirements. This means solar, small wind, and other distributed energy generation sources used in residential and business locations can earn triple credits. The amendment also returns money to the States from alternative compliance payments for State weatherization programs, low-income energy assistance programs, and for encouraging the installation of additional renewables. The amendment also lowers the initial target date for 2010 to 2.75 percent and makes the escalation to 15 percent more gradual so that utilities have more time to ramp-up renewable energy sales. In summary, this renewable electricity standard will reduce harmful air and water pollution, provide a sustainable, secure energy supply now, and will create new investment, income and jobs in communities all over the country. It is good for the environment, good for the economy, and good for our country. I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3221 I rise in strong support of this very important legislation. It will begin the process of putting our country on a path toward energy independence, increased national security and economic growth, and addressing global warming. When combined with the legislation from the Ways and Means Committee, it will provide long-term incentives to boost production of electricity from renewable sources, including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, river currents, ocean tides, landfill gas, and trash combustion resources. Other incentives will help expand production of homegrown fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel and encourage more E-85 pumps to supply flex-fuel vehicles. The bill will encourage manufacturers to build more efficient appliances, help working families afford fuel- efficient plug-in hybrid vehicles, and help businesses create energy- efficient workplaces. It will encourage deployment of renewable energy by enabling electric cooperatives and public power providers to use new clean renewable energy bonds to help finance facilities to generate electricity from renewable resources. And it will help states leverage tax credit bonds to implement low-interest loan programs and grant programs to help working families purchase energy-efficient appliances, and make energy-efficient home improvements. Further, the bill will create an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to train Americans for good ``green'' jobs that will be created by new renewable-energy and energy-efficiency initiatives. I am glad the bill includes a requirement for a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), added by an amendment by my cousin Rep. Tom Udall, Rep. Todd Platts, and others, including myself. This is a great victory--the first time an RES has ever passed the House of Representatives--and it means that despite the strong opposition of those who prefer the status quo, the movement for positive change has grown stronger. Implementing a national RES will benefit rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security. There are many other good provisions--but I am particularly proud of parts originating in two Committees on which I serve, which include many provisions based on legislation I introduced. Science and Technology Committee Provisions The part of the bill developed by the Committee on Science and Technology includes provisions from two of my bills that will help us mitigate and adapt to climate change, although the bill does not directly address reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Global Change Research and Data Management Although we know that climate change is occurring, we still need economic and technical information as well as information about system responses and climate responses to design cost effective policies will achieve emissions reductions and avoid dangerous impacts of future climate change. Subtitle G, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007, will help provide this information. It will update and improve the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to provide more user-driven research and information. The USGCRP coordinates federal climate change research and has contributed much to our understanding of climate change since its creation in 1990--but we now need to expand this information and tailor it to the needs of decisionmakers confronted with management and mitigation challenges. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Inglis from South Carolina, who is an original cosponsor on the bill that this provision is based on, for his help in improving this language. Carbon Sequestration Research Carbon sequestration is one promising technology to help us address climate change. Coal and other fossil fuels have been and will continue to be an important energy source for our country, but coal burning power plants are also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. The carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program authorized in this bill will help us tackle this challenge. This provision will authorize the Department of Energy to conduct two separate projects, with up to five projects for carbon capture and up to seven projects to test for large-scale carbon dioxide injection and storage. Not only will this help us develop this technology and make it more economical, it will also help us understand the implications of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide underground. We must begin to address the climate change challenge, but we must not cause irreparable harm to our economy in the process. Both of these research provisions will help ensure that we have the technology and the information to address climate change. Natural Resources Committee Provisions The part of the bill developed in the Natural Resources Committee will ensure greater accountability from companies drilling for oil and gas on federal lands by, among other things, requiring more audits to ensure American taxpayers received all royalties owed and by ensuring companies that were erroneously given royalty-free leases for drilling will pay fair royalties. This part of the bill also authorizes a nationwide assessment of geological formations capable of sequestering carbon dioxide underground and a review of the potential for carbon sequestration in ecosystems. It calls for development of a national strategy to assist wildlife populations and their habitats and provides states with new funding to assist wildlife in adapting to global warming. It also has sections based on my bill, H.R. 1180, the ``Western Waters and Farm Lands Protection Act'' regarding protection of surface owners, reclamation, and protection of water supplies. Surface Owner Protection In many parts of the country, the owner of some land's surface does not necessarily own the underlying minerals. And in Colorado and other Western States, those mineral estates often belong to the federal government while the surface estates are owned by others, including farmers and ranchers. This split-estate situation can lead to conflicts. The surface-owner provisions are intended to address this issue by establishing a system for development of federal oil and gas in split-estate situations. It requires the Interior Department to give surface owners advance notice of lease sales that would affect their lands and to notify them of subsequent events related to proposed or ongoing developments related to such leases. In addition, it requires that anyone proposing to drill for federal minerals in a split-estate situation must first try to reach an agreement with the surface owner that spells out what will be done to minimize interference with the surface owner's use and enjoyment and to provide for reclamation of affected lands and compensation for any damages. It is important to note that a surface owner ultimately could not block development of oil or gas underlying his or her lands. While I support development of energy resources where appropriate, I also believe that this must be done responsibly and in a way that demonstrates respect for private property rights. That is what this part of the bill is designed to accomplish. Reclamation Requirements and Water Protection Another part of the bill addresses reclamation of affected lands. It would amend the Mineral Leasing Act by adding an explicit requirement that parties that produced oil or gas (including coal-bed methane) under a federal lease must restore the affected land so it will be able to support the uses it could support before the energy development. Toward that end, this part of the bill requires development of reclamation plans and posting of reclamation bonds. The bill also requires oil and gas operators to give the protection of water a priority by requiring them to submit a plan for water management when they file for a permit to drill. It also provides that oil or gas operators who damage a water resource--by contaminating it, reducing it, or interrupting it--must remedy the damage or provide replacement water to the water users. And it specifies that water produced under a mineral lease must be dealt with in ways that comply with all federal and state requirements and includes language making clear it will not affect state water laws. Water is a precious commodity in the arid, drought-ridden West--as important as our energy resources. We must not sacrifice our water in our zeal to develop oil and gas resources. This bill will help ensure it will be protected and reclaimed as we produce domestic energy supplies. Oil Shale The bill also includes provisions I helped develop regarding future commercial-scale development of oil shale. They are intended to make it more likely that any commercial development of oil shale occurs in an orderly way that takes full advantage of the important research and development work now underway. Under these provisions, the BLM would not be faced with an unrealistic deadline for finishing the programmatic environmental impact statement that is now being prepared, but they would still have to go ahead and finish it. Then, the BLM will have a year--not just 6 months, as under current law--to prepare commercial leasing regulations. And, instead of final regulations, these will be proposed regulations, with at least 120 days for people in Colorado--and everyone else--to review and comment on them. The new bill also calls for developing an overall strategy for sustainable and publicly acceptable large-scale development of oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and it retains the current law's requirement for consultations with the Governors of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming before any commercial leases are issued. I believe the environmental analysis being done by BLM will help everyone understand what will be involved in any commercial leasing program, even though it cannot and will not answer all the questions. But I believe that the timing of any oil shale development under the provisions of this bill will be a better way to proceed and more likely to yield a good result, as will the part of the bill that makes it clear that full environmental review will be required prior to issuing any specific commercial lease, which will remove doubts and lay the right foundation for future decisions. Oil Shale Fund In addition, the bill includes (in a separate part) the provision that I added in the Natural Resources Committee to establish a fund to help local governments pay for infrastructure and services made necessary by future commercial oil shale development. This provision reflects my concern about what large-scale commercial development of oil shale can mean for Colorado's Western Slope and the problems it could bring to that mostly rural part of our state. Coloradans remember the seriously disruptive economic impacts on our communities from previous oil shale development efforts. I think the federal government--if it is going to promote development of this resource again--should also learn from that experience and help mitigate any potential impacts from an oil shale program. That's what this provision is designed to accomplish. Roan Plateau Provisions Finally, I must mention the section dealing with the Roan Plateau planning area, in Colorado, which Representative John Salazar and I worked to have included. The Roan Plateau is not just another place. Nearly a century ago, it was set aside because President Wilson thought someday we would need its oil shale to fuel the Navy's ships. Of course, that didn't happen--and the area was mostly untouched until 1997, when Congress transferred it from the Energy Department to the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. Since then, the BLM has leased 12,000 acres for oil and gas drilling and has worked on developing a plan for the rest. The bill would not affect any of the lands that have already been leased. And it would not even affect all of the lands that are still untouched. Instead, it would affect only the Federal lands on the top of the plateau--the highest and most sensitive part of the area. It deals only with the lands on the top of the Roan Plateau itself. That's where you find the stands of aspen and spruce trees and the headwaters of streams that support five rare, pure populations of our native cutthroat trout, in stretches above and below two of Colorado's highest waterfalls. And those lands on top are the prime places for wildlife, including herds of deer and elk. That's why they are so important to hunters and anglers--not just from the Western Slope but many visitors as well--who every year generate millions of dollars for the local economy. And that's why protecting them is supported by sportsmen and sportswomen--for example, the Colorado Chapter of the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers--and such groups as Trout Unlimited as well as by many other people across Colorado--from Battlement Mesa and Basalt to Silt, Salida, and Saguache--who want to slow BLM's rush to lease every last inch of the Roan Plateau. Neither Rep. Salazar nor I am against energy development. But we are for balance. There is an energy boom in Colorado, with the administration pushing BLM to lease as much and as fast as possible, although thousands of acres already under lease remain undeveloped. As we develop the energy we need, we should remember that places like the Roan Plateau are important not just for their riches of oil and natural gas but also for riches in the form of streams, trees and other plants, and the fish and wildlife populations that depend on them for habitat. We need to assure that the energy ``boom'' does not mean a ``bust'' for those values--for from that bust there may be no recovery. That is the rationale for the Roan Plateau section of this bill. It does two things. First, it requires that each lease of federal land on the top of the Roan Plateau have a ``no surface occupancy'' stipulation. That means the oil, gas, or other minerals must be accessed from another location through directional drilling--for example, from non-federal lands or lands elsewhere in the Roan Plateau planning area. Second, this part of the bill requires the Treasury Department to report how much has been collected in royalties from already-leased lands in the Roan Plateau planning area, and requires the Interior Department to tell us how much work remains to be done to clean up contaminated areas so as to recoup the funds the federal government spent for infrastructure in the lands before they were transferred to the Interior Department. To understand the reason for requiring these reports, remember the terms under which the lands were transferred from the Department of Energy. To pay for needed cleanup work and to recover infrastructure costs, the transfer legislation says the normal sharing of mineral royalties with the relevant State will not start until it is certified to Congress that the federal government has received enough to cover (1) The cost of all needed environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities, (2) the costs incurred to install wells, gathering lines, and related equipment and (3) any other costs incurred by the United States on the lands. The required reports will provide Congress with an update of the amount of royalties that have been collected and how much work remains to be done. With that information, we will have a better idea of whether the time has come to revisit the transfer act with an eye to allowing the State of Colorado to start receiving part of the royalties from mineral leases in the area. Madam Speaker, I have been working for several years to achieve passage of the surface-owner, reclamation, and water-protection provisions of this bill. And Representative Salazar and I have worked to protect the most sensitive part of the Roan Plateau. These provisions help provide for balance in energy development in Colorado and across the West and were developed through listening to the concerns of landowners, water users and communities. I strongly urge their approval--along with the rest of this excellent legislation--by the House.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Weather Mitigation Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act. This bill will increase and enhance research and development in weather mitigation to better understand its effectiveness in addressing drought in our country. The western part of our country, including my own State of Colorado, has experienced drought conditions in recent years. Efforts have been made to address drought recovery, preparedness, and alleviation. Weather mitigation, which means the use of artificial methods to change or control the natural formation of cloud forms or precipitation forms, causing, for example, snowpack augmentation or rain enhancement, could also contribute to solving this problem. However, little fundamental research has been done to better understand weather mitigation and modification. The National Academies of Science report Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research, released in 2003, noted that there is no scientific proof that weather modification or mitigation is effective; however, the report attributes this to a lack of understanding of ``critical atmospheric processes'' that have caused unpredictable results with weather mitigation, not a lack of success with such efforts. The report called for a national program for a sustained research effort in weather modification and mitigation research to enhance the effectiveness and predictability of weather mitigation. There is currently no federal investment in weather mitigation, though there are private funds that are largely going toward unproven techniques. My bill, similar to a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, establishes a federal research and development effort to improve our understanding of the atmosphere and develop more effective weather modification technologies and techniques. In my own State, the Denver Water Department, which has been impacted by the prolonged drought conditions, implemented a cloud seeding program to help increase the snowpack in its watersheds along the mountains of the Front Range. This was not a major program, but it was an attempt to modify the drought conditions for the benefit of the over 2.5 million people in the Denver area that are served by Denver Water. This bill would help augment these types of efforts by promoting greater research into how best to employ such techniques in a safe and effective manner. Specifically, the bill creates a Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board in the Department of Commerce to promote the ``theoretical and practical knowledge of weather mitigation'' through the funding of research and development projects. The board will be made up of representatives from the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a higher education institution, and a state which is currently supporting operational weather modification projects. In Colorado, a large portion of our water source comes from the snowpack runoff each year. A better understanding of weather mitigations has the potential to enhance our snowpacks, and thus assist in addressing drought concerns. But the needs for this research extend beyond the western United States. The need for this research is becoming even more urgent with the reports that other countries are successfully exploring this area of research. China in particular has focused on the possibility that weather mitigation technology would allow the government to control the weather during the Beijing Olympics in 2008. The Chinese already spend more than $50 million annually on weather mitigation. As the weather conditions in China can have an impact on North American weather as well, we must understand how these changes will change our weather. This is quickly becoming an issue of national and economic security. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the expansion of the research and development of weather mitigation and urge a swift passage of this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot vote for this bill. The bill is intended to provide a temporary response to the request of Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, for legislation to address what he says is a critical collection gap in our electronic surveillance capabilities. I think Congress should take such action. That is why on August 3rd I voted for the House version of the legislation. That bill was supported by a majority of the House. However, it was considered under a procedure requiring a two-thirds vote, so our Republican colleagues, taking their lead from President Bush, were able to block it--and so now we are considering this different version, which has already passed the Senate. Like the version I voted for earlier, this bill would make clear that no warrant or court order is required for our intelligence agencies to monitor communications between people located outside the United States, even if those communications pass through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States. The point of this clarification is to resolve doubts about the status of communications between foreign persons located overseas that pass through routing stations here in the United States. I have no reservation in supporting this clarification to help resolve questions related to changes in communications technology since enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. And I think it is useful that the bill reiterates that individual warrants, based on probable cause, are required when surveillance is directed at individuals in the United States. However, this Senate bill would go much further than the House version. It would allow interception, without warrants, of communications between someone in the United States and a foreign party suspected of involvement in ``foreign intelligence'' matters, which is broader and less precise than the requirement that the party be suspected in connections to a terrorist group such as al-Qaida. I am not convinced such a sweeping grant of authority is justified, and cannot support it. The bill does require a warrant from the special FISA court for surveillance of a U.S. resident who is the chief target of the surveillance. And the bill requires involvement of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as the Attorney General, in approving surveillance, rather than just the Attorney General alone as the Administration wanted. In that regard, it is not as troublesome as it might have been. However, again, I am not convinced that its safeguards of Americans' privacy and civil liberties are adequate. I greatly regret that our Republican colleagues made it impossible for the House to pass a better version of this legislation. I recognize that the bill before us is not a permanent measure, but will expire in six months. Nonetheless, while I do think Congress should act on this subject, I cannot support this bill as it stands.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I have reservations about this bill, but I will vote for It today. It has just been introduced, and we have had only a short time to review it. And those of us who do not serve on the Intelligence Committee have had to depend on news reports and the debate on the floor for information regarding the events that have led to its being considered today. We have been informed that Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, has asserted that under current law there is a critical collection gap in our electronic surveillance capabilities, and that the administration wants that gap to be addressed through legislation. The bill before us evidently is intended to respond to that request. It would make clear that no warrant or court order is required for our intelligence agencies to monitor communications between people located outside the United States, even if those communications pass through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States. The point of this clarification is to resolve doubts about the status of communications between foreign persons located overseas that pass through routing stations here in the United States. I have no reservation in supporting this clarification to help resolve questions related to changes in communications technology since enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. And I think it is useful that the bill reiterates that individual warrants, based on probable cause, are required when surveillance is directed at individuals in the United States. The bill requires the Attorney General to submit procedures for international surveillance to the FISA Court for approval and authorizes the court to issue a ``basket warrant'' for individuals or foreign powers, including al Qaeda, outside the United States based on a review of those procedures without making separate determinations about individuals to be subject to the surveillance. Under the bill, there would be an initial 15-day period when international surveillance can begin while a ``basket warrant'' is submitted to the FISA Court. It allows for up to two 15-day extensions while the court rules and allows the court to compel cooperation by carriers during that period. And it requires the Justice Department's Inspector General to conduct and provide to the court and the Congress an audit every 60 days of communications involving any U.S. persons that are intercepted under a ``basket warrant.'' In general, I am wary of the concept of ``basket warrants,'' which are not normal under our laws. But I am prepared to support this part of the bill on the understanding that it is limited in scope and not applicable within the United States and with the expectation that the question will be revisited if the audits indicate a need for reconsideration of this part of the legislation. In this context, I am glad to note that this legislation will expire in 120 days. I think that is appropriate in light of the very short time we have had to consider the bill and the importance of the subject. This sunset clause means that we will be required to revisit the issue and will reduce the likelihood that any errors caused by today's expedited procedure will persist for an undue period. Madam Speaker, the administration is not fully supportive of this bill and evidently would prefer a broader grant of authority for surveillance. I am prepared to consider their arguments, but in the meantime I will vote for this bill in order to provide an immediate response to the problem they have identified and to advance the measure to the Senate for further consideration.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Greater Cooperation with Local Governments in Water Project Analysis Act.'' This bill would require the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, when acting as a lead federal agency for analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, of certain water projects, to grant ``cooperating agency'' status to affected subdivisions of state governments if they seek that status. The bill would apply to analysis of any project involving diversion of water from one river basin to another river basin and to any local government with jurisdiction over any portion of such a project. Its purpose is to ensure a ``seat at the table'' for these local governments, to make sure they have the fullest opportunity to provide input regarding the potential impacts of such a project. It's important to note that this bill would not give any state subdivision a ``veto'' of the water diversion project. It would only ensure the subdivision's more direct involvement of the analysis of such a project. While the term ``cooperating agency'' is not part of the statutory language of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ, has issued regulations providing for that status in order to implement the NEPA mandate that Federal agencies responsible for preparing NEPA analyses and documentation do so ``in cooperation with State and local governments'' and other agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise. As CEQ has noted, ``Studies regarding the efficiency, effectiveness, and value of NEPA analyses conclude that stakeholder involvement is important in ensuring decision-makers have the environmental information necessary to make informed and timely decisions efficiently. Cooperating agency status is a major component of agency stakeholder involvement that neither enlarges nor diminishes the decision-making authority of any agency involved in the NEP A process.'' (Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Agencies from James Connaughton, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, January 30, 2002). Having the status of a ``cooperating agency'' does involve some responsibilities as well as opportunities. But it is understandable that local governments often seek to be granted that status--and, at least with regard to the kind of projects covered by this bill, I think that if a local government seeks it, it should be granted. I was prompted to introduce this bill by the experience of Grand County, located on the west side of the Continental Divide, in connection with two water diversion projects involving some east slope communities and interests that possess rights to water that originates in and flows through Grand County. Both of these projects have important implications for communities and activities in the county, so I joined with the county in requesting ``cooperating agency'' status to the County for both of these projects. However, due to the discretionary nature of granting such status, in one case the County status was granted, in another it was denied. One of these projects is the Moffat Collection System Project. The Denver Water Department owns and collects water in various streams that flow west from the flanks of the Continental Divide. The Department then pipes this water through a water tunnel associated with the Moffat Tunnel, which is also a railroad tunnel. In 2004, the Denver Water Department began an effort to increase the volume of water it collects and sends through this Moffat Collection System. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead agency on this project and began the necessary NEP A work. And when Grand County requested ``cooperating agency'' status for this project, the Corps denied their request. The other project is called the Windy Gap Firming Project. This project also diverts water from Grand County to the eastern slope. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is the prime beneficiary of the water from this project, which is designed to increase the water collection and diversion from Grand County using features such as Lake Granby, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Grand Lake, and the Alva diversion tunnel. In this case, the lead Federal agency conducting the NEPA work on this project was the Bureau of Reclamation. Again, Grand County sought ``cooperating agency'' status--and in this case, the Bureau of Reclamation granted the County that status. This bill responds to this discrepancy by removing the discretion of either the Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation to deny a request for ``cooperating agency'' status by a county or other local government having jurisdiction over any portion of such a project. In other words, under the bill if a county or other similar subdivision of a state requests ``cooperating agency'' status regarding a transbasin-diversion water project located within its jurisdiction, the Corps or Bureau, if acting as the lead agency under NEPA, would be required to grant that request. I believe that it is important for counties and other subdivisions to be involved in the important issues affecting them, such as transbasin water diversion projects. I do not believe that allowing them more direct involvement in these issues should be up to the will of the lead Federal agency if they have made a decision to seek such status.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to strongly support the conference report for H.R. 2272, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science, COMPETES, Act of 2007. Science, technology, engineering, and math STEM, research and education are the key to much of our country's success for the last 200 years. America has long been a center for science and engineering discovery--in the last few decades alone, American ingenuity has transformed our Nation and the world with the personal computer and the internet. Going forward, new innovations will continue to be critical, both in maintaining a solid industrial and economic base and increasing our standard of living. Federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science, play a key role by funding cutting-edge research and training the next generation of scientists and engineers. And nothing will occur without federal investment in STEM research and education--we must continue this strong Federal support to reinforce our global competitiveness and our prosperity. As a cosponsor of H.R. 2272 and a House conferee, I am proud to say that this legislation will set us in the right direction. It will help strengthen and improve research and education efforts at NSF, NIST, DOE's Office of Science, and the Department of Education, as well as update the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 and recognize the important role that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, plays in STEM education and research. This bill will help to ensure that the United States continues to be a science and technology leader. H.R. 2272 includes a needed funding increase for overall laboratory research at NIST. As part of the American Competitiveness initiative, NIST will use these funds to expand upon its world-class research, ensuring that the United States will continue to be globally competitive in many industries. NIST is particularly important to me because one of its key laboratories is located in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. The Boulder labs employ more than 350 people and serve as a science and engineering center for significant research across the Nation. The increase in research funding will help the scientists here expand our knowledge about topics ranging from nanotechnology to material science. A critical component of this legislation is that it includes funding for construction at these laboratories. NIST's Boulder facilities have contributed to great scientific advances, but they are now over 50 years old and have not been well maintained. Many environmental factors such as the humidity and vibrations from traffic can affect the quality of research performed at NIST. In fiscal year 2007, NIST-Boulder will begin an extension of Building 1 to make room for a Precision Metrology lab. This new facility will allow for incredibly precise control of temperature, relative humidity, air filtration and vibration to advance research on critical technologies, such as atomic clocks telecommunications, and nanomaterials. To complete this extension, NIST will need further funding in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. H.R. 2272 authorizes this critical funding. I am also pleased to see that the legislation reauthorizes and gradually increases funding for key technology transfer programs like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program and the Technology Innovation Program, TIP, formerly known as the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. For NSF, H.R. 2272 will continue the effort to double its funding over a 10-year time period by authorizing almost $22 billion for fiscal years 2008-2010. The bill will also encourage the participation of more scientists who have not received NSF funding in the past through 1-year seed grants. By targeting these grants toward these new recipients, the legislation will help support early career researchers and encourage higher-risk research. As co-chair of the STEM Education Caucus, I am also pleased that H.R. 2272 contains support and funding for NSF's STEM education programs. These programs include the Math and Science Partnerships program and the Noyce Scholarships Program, as well as several STEM education grants that focus on teacher professional development. These programs will help increase the number of well-qualified science and math teachers across the country, both through creating more teachers from current college students and by providing better training for the teachers already in our schools. The bill will increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, providing nearly $17 million over fiscal years 2008-2010. The Office of Science funds much of our country's physical science and has helped advance our knowledge about energy, a critical issue of both national and economic security. This increase will keep the Office of Science on track to double its funding over 10 years. As chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am pleased that H.R. 2272 contains a number of provisions that highlight the important role that the NASA can and does play in promoting innovation and competitiveness. To that end, the conference report includes language to ensure that NASA will be a full participant in all interagency innovation and competitiveness initiatives as well as STEM initiatives. That's important, because the record shows that past NASA R&D activities have contributed to the vitality of today's economy through NASA's development of a host of innovative technologies. In addition, NASA still has a ``brand'' that can inspire young people to pursue careers in science and engineering, and we should capitalize on that fact by involving NASA in interagency STEM initiatives whenever appropriate. The conference report does just that, and it also encourages NASA to use its undergraduate student research program to more directly engage college and university students in NASA-related research. In addition to NASA's basic science and research programs, H.R. 2272 recognizes and endorses the significant role that NASA's aeronautics programs play in ensuring America's competitiveness. However, I think it is clear that investing in aeronautics is critical not only to our competitiveness, but also to our quality of life, the safety and efficiency of our Nation's air transportation system, and our military strength. We need to ensure that NASA continues to maintain its commitment to a meaningful and robust aeronautics R&D program. Finally, H.R. 2272 notes the role that the International Space Station, ISS, if properly utilized, can play in helping to promote interest in math and science. It thus directs NASA to make concrete plans to implement at least some of the innovative educational projects proposed by an interagency task force that looked at the contributions that the ISS could make to STEM education. In addition, the conference report also directs NASA to come up with a clear plan to identify and support ISS research that can contribute to innovation and competitiveness. As was made clear at a recent hearing held by my subcommittee, NASA needs to do much more than it has been doing to get a good return on the sizeable investment that the Nation has made in the ISS. As was further pointed out at the hearing, the ISS offers a unique capability for research in a number of disciplines that could benefit both NASA as well as our citizens back here on Earth--but NASA needs to step up to the challenge of making sure that research is adequately supported. I would like to thank House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens, and the other conferees, for their work on this critical bipartisan legislation. I think we all recognize that investing in basic research and STEM education is critical for a strong economy and national security, and H.R. 2272 will help us improve the critical support for STEM education and research. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Professor Marvin H. Caruthers on his recent selection as a recipient of the National Medal of Science. With this award Professor Caruthers officially joins the ranks of the finest minds to contribute to American science since Congress established the award in 1959. Having held a faculty post at the University of Colorado at Boulder for the past 34 years, Professor Caruthers conducts the sort of cutting-edge research that consistently keeps CU-Boulder on the map for technological advancement and academic progress. The University deserves credit for creating an atmosphere that allows minds like Professor Caruthers' to flourish, and I can say confidently that the 2nd District, the State of Colorado, and the country at large all benefit enormously from that investment. Professor Caruthers is the cofounder of both Amgen, the world's largest biotechnology company, and Applied Biosystems, a company that has commercialized Professor Caruthers' work on DNA synthesizing. While his research is extraordinary in its own right, making his findings commercially available is how this important work manifests as life- saving technology, advanced understanding of human biology, and high- tech jobs for American workers. Professor Caruthers' work gives us a textbook example of how advanced research becomes a guiding light for human advancement. I hope my colleagues will join me in not only recognizing the past accomplishments of Professor Marvin Caruthers that have warranted his acceptance of the National Medal of Science, but also in wishing him all the best in his future pursuits.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' The CHAMP Act addresses many problems that we currently have in our health care system. It does not end health care inequality, but it will increase coverage for low income children, and it will stave off payment cuts for hardworking physicians, while increasing choices for seniors and strengthening traditional Medicare. I believe that health care should be a right, not a privilege, and this act is a step in the right direction. The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is set to expire on September 30, 2007. This year, six million children have health care because of CHIP. If Congress does not act, these six million will no longer have access to quality, affordable health insurance. This legislation also provides coverage for an additional 5 million children who currently qualify but who are not yet enrolled under CHIP. These children are in working families with parents who either can't afford insurance or have jobs that lack health care benefits. Despite claims by some, this bill does nothing to ``expand'' the CHIP program. Instead, it maintains current eligibility requirements for CHIP. The majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage--but better outreach and adequate funding are needed to identify and enroll them. This bill gives states the tools and incentives necessary to reach millions of uninsured children who are eligible for, but not enrolled in, the program. It has been said that the CHAMP Act creates an entitlement for illegal immigrants. But in fact the CHAMP Act does not change existing law, which states that undocumented immigrants are not eligible for CHIP or regular Medicaid. And the CHAMP Act explicitly states that it provides no federal funding for Medicaid or CHIP for undocumented immigrants and requires audits of all State programs to ensure that federal funds are not being spent on undocumented children. The CHAMP Act will protect and improve Medicare by increasing fiscal responsibility and ensuring access to doctors for seniors and those with disabilities. Currently experts agree that Medicare Advantage (MA) plans receive, on average, 12 percent more than the cost of care in traditional Medicare. Overpayments to certain plans can exceed 50 percent. By phasing out these overpayments over the next four years the Congressional Budget Office estimates that billions of dollars will be saved each year. While, increasing the solvency of Medicare and simultaneously reversing the catastrophic 10% payment cuts to physicians who serve Medicare patients. By reducing overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, wasteful spending will be reduced while increasing patient access to physicians. Medicare Advantage plans originally sought to give beneficiaries more choices at a lower cost. However, overpayments to MA plans do not increase benefits but rather pay for the administrative costs, marketing costs and profits for private plans. The CHAMP Act levels the playing field by decreasing premiums for those enrolled in traditional Medicare. By curbing the overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, this legislation decreases the cost for preventative health services for seniors, eliminating co-payments and deductibles for these vital services while saving lives and money. Further, this bill includes $3 billion for the rural health care safety net. This ensures access to quality care for those in rural America. The health of our children is vital to the success of our society. The CHAMP act will raise the federal tobacco tax by 45 cents. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a 45-cent increase means that 1,381,000 fewer children will take up smoking. Adults, too, would be less likely to smoke, which means fewer smoking-related illnesses and lower health costs. Estimates are that this tobacco tax increase will result in long-term health savings of $32.4 billion and 669,000 fewer smoking related deaths. The CHAMP Act has the support of the American Medical Association, American Association of Retired Persons, Catholic Health Association, National Rural Health Association, American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals, American Nurses Association, Families USA, National Partnership for Women and Families, Children's Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare. I am proud to vote for this bill that seeks to protect those that are most vulnerable in our society by increasing health insurance coverage for low-income children and protecting and improving coverage for those enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe we must ensure access to quality and affordable health care; this has been a top priority for me as eastern Washington's Representative in this House. I wholeheartedly support renewing the SCHIP program, which was originally created under Republican control of Congress in a bipartisan fashion. Ensuring health care for low income children who need it the most should be our priority. I also wholeheartedly support access to health care for seniors--but unfortunately, because of partisan politics, a vote for this proposal is a vote to kick over 157,000 seniors off their Medicare advantage plans in Washington state. Further, if this rule and this bill pass the House today, two hospitals in my district, North Valley Hospital in Tonasket and Mid- Valley Hospital in Omak, would be forced to close their doors to our community. These hospitals were started by concerned physicians who banded together to provide health care in a remote region that is largely comprised of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. This bill forces these doctors to sell their ``share'' of the hospital--which is less than 1 percent a piece--because it incorrectly assumes they are unethically self-referring patients. That may be a problem in other parts of the country but not in Okanogan County. These two hospitals are the closest hospitals within 5,000 square miles and serve the county's 40,000 residents. There has to be a better way to prohibit unethical practices. Shutting down the only vehicle for health care delivery is not the answer, which is why I cosponsored an amendment to this rule that would have allowed these hospitals to continue to serve all residents--from kids to seniors--in Okanogan County. Unfortunately, this amendment was not allowed under the Democratic leadership. Not only does this bill devastate the already delicate rural health care infrastructure in parts of eastern Washington, but it cuts deep in the pocket of seniors in order to pay for a runaway expansion of this children's health program that covers a 25-year-old adult. Proponents of this bill might argue that it is necessary to kick seniors off of their Medicare plans in order to cover poor children. I would then ask them: do you consider a family of four making $82,000 dollars a year, a poor family? That is who we are covering here. In eastern Washington alone, over 10,000 seniors would lose their choice in Medicare coverage to pay for this reckless expansion. They will be forced to find and pay out of pocket for their own prescription drug plans, pay for rapidly increased premiums, lose direct senior services, and have a harder time finding a primary care doctor because most prefer the Medicare Advantage payment rate. Meanwhile, this rule and the underlying bill will make it easier for illegal immigrants to get health care--funded on the backs of middle class families and small businesses. Not only do this bill and the underlying rule slash $193 billion from seniors' health care, but its stealth tax increases will draw off money from every American with a health insurance plan. This rule endangers seniors in my community--Mr. Speaker, we can and must do better.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I close my arguments for this important amendment, I would again like to thank the chairman and ranking member for a bill that truly is about reform. That is the theme I would like to strike here. This amendment would take us further down the path of reform. This is less than one-tenth of 1 percent to expand the Grassland Reserve Program. I would note for the record that a number of organizations that are highly respected in the States of Texas and Minnesota and all over the country support the amendment. The American Farmland Trust, Environmental Working Group, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the National Wildlife Federation, the American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, the Trust for Public Land all think that this amendment makes real sense. It is $127 million, less than one-tenth of 1 percent out of the direct payments program to preserve these important legacy areas, our grasslands, in the great American west. I urge an ``aye'' vote. This is an important amendment that would help strengthen the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I will be very proud to support the bill on final passage. While clearly this reform legislation, and I want to underline this is reform legislation, is a positive step forward in ag policy, I believe my amendment improves the bill. It is a win-win for ranchers and the environment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is modest and very simple. It would make a small reduction in the direct payment rate for cotton, just two- thirds of a cent. That savings, which would be $127 million, would be used to fund additional enrollment in the Grassland Reserve Program. The Grassland Reserve Program is a jointly administered program by the National Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency. It uses long-term rental agreements and easements to help landowners and producers restore and protect grasslands while maintaining them in a condition suitable for grazing. This investment of Federal dollars also helps to leverage State and local monies to expand these preservation areas. The reserves that I am speaking of provide habitat for diverse wildlife, including prairie chickens, grassland birds, game species, and prairie plants. Unfortunately, it was underfunded in the previous farm bill. There remains, therefore, a significant backlog for those wanting to access the program. According to data from the United States Department of Agriculture, the 2006 backlog of unfunded applications totaled more than $1.1 billion, or 11 million acres, and interest continues to grow. Now, the Agriculture Committee has made great strides to enhance this grasslands program, but their hard work will be for naught unless there is additional funding to ease the backlog of program applicants. We really cannot wait to make this investment because much of America's grassland continues to be converted to row crops, and other grasslands throughout the west are being developed and subdivided. According to CRS, between 1982 and 2003, we have lost more than 10 percent of our pastureland, which is over 10 million acres. The amendment would reduce total direct payments in the bill by less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Direct payments are not the only support for cotton producers in the bill. As the committee report notes, there are important changes in the loan program to make American cotton more competitive and move stocks out of storage. The bill also allows the Department of Agriculture to continue to pay for upland cotton storage until 2012. So the amendment doesn't cause real great hardship for cotton producers, but it would help many of our ranchers. I urge the House to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill. The bill includes funding for many important programs, and while I think some do deserve more funding than the bill provides, I recognize that the appropriators had a challenging task in shaping the bill because of budget constraints. Overall, I think the bill is a good one and I congratulate Chairmen Obey and Mollohan for making these difficult decisions in a very constructive manner. As Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, I am pleased that the bill includes $17.6 billion for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) funding. NASA's work in human space exploration, space and earth science, and aeronautics plays an important role in advancing our knowledge, expanding our economy and inspiring Americans both young and old. I believe NASA performs important research which allows us to better understand our climate, our planet and the universe beyond. I am pleased that the Committee funds NASA's Science Mission Directorate at $5.7 billion, an increase of $180 million over the President's request. This increase will help reverse the recent decline in funding for science at NASA. NASA research helps us better understand the universe at large, but it also greatly contributes to our knowledge of our own planet. I am especially encouraged that the Committee recognized the recommendations of the National Research Council's recent Decadal Survey on Earth Science by targeting $60 million towards the highest priority missions recommended in that survey, as well as ensuring that work on critical climate instruments that were de-manifested from the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) can continue. The Committee specifically noted the importance of the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS), which is being built by the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics in my district, and instructs NASA to continue to support this program. TSIS will ensure that we continue to receive important information on the sun and how it interacts with our climate--a data stream that has been continuous since 1979 and has contributed to our understanding of climate change. I am also pleased that the Committee increases NASA's aeronautics budget by $146 million over the President's request. Progress in aeronautics is crucial to the health of the Nation's air transportation industry, which in turn is critical both to the continued strength of our domestic economy and to our international competitiveness. The additional funding will help NASA contribute meaningfully to the development of the Nation's Next Generation Air Transportation System, which will enhance the capability of our air transportation system to handle the enormous increases in air travel projected over the next 20 years. Moreover, this bill recognizes that aeronautics R&D at NASA can help develop more environmentally compatible commercial aircraft, with significantly lower noise, emissions, and energy consumption compared to aircraft in commercial service today, and the bill provides funding to support that R&D. This bill also provides significant funding for the President's exploration initiative at NASA by providing the President's full request of $3.9 billion. I support the President's Vision for Space Exploration and believe human space exploration is a worthwhile undertaking. The funding in this bill will keep the Crew Exploration Vehicle on track in FY 2008. However, I am concerned that the administration's current plan for the shuttle replacement system, the crew exploration vehicle (CEV), is not scheduled to be finished until 2015. This will leave a potential 4 to 5 year gap when the United States will be dependent on other countries to travel to and from the International Space Station. It is within the administration's power to send over budget requests in FY 2009 and FY 2010 to address this gap within the context of a balanced overall NASA program, and I hope that the administration will do so. I am pleased that the Committee increases NASA's education programs to $217 million, up $64 million over the President's request. This increase will provide additional funds for the Space Grant program, which helps undergraduate students participate in cutting-edge research, and in the process trains and inspires the next generation of scientists. The Committee also provides $2 million for the NASA Aeronautics Scholarships program, which encourages more students to pursue graduate degrees in aeronautics. I helped create this program in the 2005 NASA Reauthorization Act and am pleased that the Committee has recognized its importance. The Committee provides $6.7 billion for space operations, which is a $100 million cut relative to the President's request. I understand that the Committee had difficult decisions to make, but I am concerned about the impact that these cuts will have on the International Space Station's reserves posture, as well as on the upcoming Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) procurement. I hope that it will be possible to address these problems when the House and Senate move to conference on this legislation. Funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which has one of its two laboratories based in my district in Colorado, is also an improvement on past years. I am pleased that the Committee met the President's request of $500 million for research, which will help fund components of the Innovation Agenda, such as nanotechnology and materials science. I also support the bill's inclusion of $109 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and $93 million for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). MEP serves small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies nationally to enhance their ability to compete globally. Every federal dollar appropriated for MEP leverages $2 in state and private-sector funding, which means that a small federal investment of $109 million translates into more millions of dollars in benefits for the economy in terms of jobs created and retained, investment, and sales. ATP helps businesses develop high-risk, high- reward research into commercial applications that often have wider social benefits. And, because of its importance for my own Congressional District, I am glad to note that the NIST budget includes $129 million for construction and specifically $28 million for the extension of building 1 at the Boulder facilities. NIST's Boulder laboratories were built in the 1950s and are in critical need of modernization to ensure the continuation of world-class research. After several years of disappointing funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), I am pleased that this bill will set NOAA back on the right track. The Committee funds NOAA at $3.950 billion, an increase over both the President's budget and the fiscal year 2007 spend plan. There is certainly still room for improvement, but I hope that this is the first step forward for increasing NOAA funding. The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which funds the important work being conducted in the NOAA labs in my district, is funded at $410 million in the bill--an increase of $52 million over the President's request and $46 million over the FY 2007 spend plan. This funding will help NOAA continue to perform vital research in climate change and other areas. In particular, I am encouraged that the Space Environment Center is being funded at the President's request of $6.2 million. While this funding is still below the $7.2 million that the SEC received in FY 2002, it is an increase over what Congress appropriated in FY 2006 and indicates that the Committee realizes the important work that the SEC does on space weather monitoring and prediction. The bill also includes important funding for law enforcement, at both the federal and state level. It rejects the President's proposal to slash the COPS program by 94 percent and instead provides $725 million, $183 million above 2007. This includes funding for such items as: $100 million for the COPS hiring program; $175 million for expanding DNA analysis and forensic crime lab capacity; and $85 million for beefing up enforcement in ``meth hot spots,'' places where meth is a serious problem. Similarly, the bill includes $600 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants to assist local law enforcement agencies and which the President's budget proposed to terminate. It also includes continued funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance program (SCAAP), which assists state and local governments with the costs of jailing undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes not related to their immigration status--another vital program the President's budget proposed for elimination. The bill also rejects proposed cuts in the Violence Against Women programs and includes vital support for competitive youth mentoring grants, delinquency prevention grants, and Justice Accountability Block Grants. In summary, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that provides funding for many important purposes. It is good for Colorado and good for the country, and it deserves approval.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests Land Exchange Act of 2007''. This bill will facilitate a fair exchange of lands on the Arapaho- Roosevelt National Forest near Boulder, CO, between the Forest Service and the Sugar Loaf Fire District. The Fire District is seeking this exchange so that they can maintain and upgrade their fire stations serving the Sugar Loaf community and other nearby communities and properties--areas that are in the wildland/urban interface and thus at risk of wildfires. In fact, these fire stations serve the area that was burned in the Black Tiger Fire in 1989. That fire was the motivation for the Sugar Loaf community to invest more strongly in fire protection. The Fire District has grown a lot over the years, and will be celebrating its 40th anniversary this August. The bill relates to two fire stations. Station 1 was acquired by the Fire District through an original mining claim under the 1872 mining laws. In 1967, a public meeting was held on this property to establish a fire district and modify the old school building on the site into a firehouse to hold a fire truck and other firefighting equipment. On May 14, 1969, the U.S. Forest Service approved a special use permit, which allowed the fire department to use both the firehouse and approximately 5 acres of the property under it. The special use permit was reissued on August 11, 1994, with a life of 10 years. In 1970, the fire department applied for a special use permit to operate and maintain a second firehouse--station 2--on Sugar Loaf Road. The original permit was approved on in 1970, and had an expiration date of December 31, 1991. The permit boundary included 2 acres. The special use permit issued in 1994 combined the two permits for stations 1 and 2 into one. The new permit for station 2 reduced the permit area to one acre, because the area of impact and existing improvements did not exceed one acre. The Fire District entered into discussions with the Forest Service about a land swap. In August 1997, the Fire District filed an application to acquire the property under stations 1 and 2 pursuant to the Small Tracts Act (STA). The STA allows for transfers of small mineral fractions by the sale of property for market value, or by the exchange of properties of nearly equal value. The application proposed trading a mining claim surrounded by National Forest, for approximately 3 acres under station 1 and 1.5 acres under station 2. The Fire District worked in good faith to comply with the STA. In November 2002, officials from the Fire District met with officials from the Forest Service. Upon review of the STA application, the Forest Service's concluded that the parcel under station 2 did not qualify for a land exchange and that the Fire District would have to pursue a new special use permit for the property under station 2. As a result, the Fire District is interested in securing ownership of the land under these stations through this exchange legislation. The Fire District has occupied and operated these fire stations on these properties for over 30 years, and, if they can secure ownership, the lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations. The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, good faith effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative means and has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Forest Service. However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident that legislation is required to resolve the situation. The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns for the property under the stations. However, the Fire District is firm in its position that it wants land under both stations, and that the amount of land must be adequate to satisfy both its current and anticipated needs. Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land amounting to about 5.17 acres in an unincorporated part of Boulder County within National Forest boundaries between the communities of Boulder and Nederland. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District. The lands transferred to the Federal government will become part of the Arapaho-National Forest and managed accordingly. The bill provides that the Forest Service shall determine the values of all lands involved through appraisals in accordance with Federal standards. If the lands conveyed by the Fire District are not equal in value to the lands where the fire stations are located, the Fire District will make a cash payment to make up the difference. If the lands being conveyed to the Federal government are worth more than the lands where the fire stations are located, the Forest Service can equalize values by reducing the lands it receives or by paying to make up the difference or by a combination of both methods. The bill requires the Fire District to pay for the appraisals and any necessary land surveys. The bill permits the Fire District to modify the fire stations without waiting for completion of the exchange if the Fire District holds the Federal government harmless for any liability arising from the construction work and indemnifies the Federal government against any costs related to the construction or other activities on the lands before they are conveyed to the Fire District. Madam Speaker, this is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the Fire District and the people it serves. I think it deserves enactment without unnecessary delay.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Whistleblower Recovery Act of 2007. This bill is in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a claim under the False Claims Act by Mr. James Stone, who had worked at Rocky Flats when that Colorado site was a nuclear weapons facility of the Department of Energy. The decision not only denied his claim but also interpreted the law in a way that had the effect of narrowing the definition of potential ``whistleblowers.'' To correct this narrow interpretation, this bill would make it clear that potential ``whistleblowers'' can include those who divulge knowledge of an alleged wrongdoing--even though such a whistleblower may not have had knowledge of the direct way in which the wrongdoing progressed--as long as the ``whistleblower'' disclosed the allegation and that the wrongdoing would not have been discovered and fines assessed were it not for the disclosure of the whistleblower. The False Claims Act, codified in title 31, United States Code, was established to encourage the disclosure of wrongdoing by Federal agencies or those contracting with or otherwise working on behalf of Federal agencies by allowing so-called ``whistleblowers'' to recover a portion of any awards recovered from judicial proceedings from such disclosures. On March 27, 2007, the United States Supreme Court, in Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, ruled Mr. Stone, a former employee at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant of the United States Department of Energy, was not entitled to recovery under the False Claims Act regarding the failure of a component of the cleanup of this site. The Court found that even though Mr. Stone was an ``independent source'' of allegations regarding the failure of the cleanup activity-- and of the public disclosure of those allegations--he could not recover because he did not have direct knowledge of the precise way that the failure occurred and was determined at trial. As a result, the Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to determine whether Mr. Stone was entitled to recovery. The Court's ruling may have the undesired effect of discouraging ``whistleblowers'', as it could make it harder for them to gain access to the Court in order to prove that they may be entitled to recovery as an ``original source'' under the False Claims Act. By requiring that purported ``whistleblowers'' must know of the precise way in which an allegation or transaction of wrongdoing occurs, the Court set a high and potentially insurmountable hurdle for ``whistleblowers'' to meet. In the best interest of public policy--and to encourage people to come forward and disclose allegations of wrongdoing--it's necessary to make it clear that ``whistleblowers'' need only have direct knowledge of the public disclosure of the allegations or transactions and not of the precise way in which the wrongdoing occurs. In other words, if an action would not have been brought and an award granted under the False Claims Act but for the public disclosures of the ``whistleblower,'' that ``whistleblower'' should be allowed an award under the False Claims Act. Madam Speaker, this bill cannot help Mr. Stone. Not only did he lose his legal effort to recover as a ``whistleblower,'' regrettably, he died shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in his case. A short obituary from the Rocky Mountain News appears below. But the bill's purpose is to properly respect and encourage the efforts of ``whistleblowers'' like Mr. Stone who call out possible fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer money. We should not find ways to keep them from the courthouse door, but rather should find ways to keep that door open--and even responsibly widen it--so that ``whistleblowers'' can have their day in court and seek the compensation they deserve. This bill will help in that regard, and it is a fitting way to remember and honor the courageous efforts of Mr. Stone and others like him. [From the Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 12, 2007] Rocky Flats Whistle-Blower Dies at 82 James Stone recently lost bid for $1 million (By Laura Frank and Ann Imse) James Stone was an engineer to the core. And that made it impossible for him to leave a problem until it was solved. His hardscrabble life in a Depression-era orphanage and his hard-won engineering degree led to his career-defining challenge: being the chief whistle-blower on environmental crimes at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons site near Denver. ``He would work on a problem round the clock,'' son Bob said. ``That's what got him in trouble at Rocky Flats. He wanted to solve the problems, not ignore them.'' Stone, who suffered from Alzheimer's, died Wednesday at the Julia Temple Center in Englewood. He was 82. Stone, who worked at Rocky Flats from 1980 to 1986, was the first Flats insider to go to the FBI with details of the radioactive pollution released by the site contractor, Rockwell International. Rockwell pleaded guilty to 10 environmental crimes and paid $18.5 million in fines. Stone filed a whistle-blower fraud case against Rockwell and won $4.2 million in damages for the federal government. Just two weeks ago, after an 18-year fight, the U.S. Supreme Court denied him a $1 million share in those damages. ``He died with nothing more than the clothes on his back and the love of his family and friends,'' Bob Stone said. ``I know if he had it to do all over again, even knowing how it turned out, he would have done it just the same.'' Stone was born in 1924. His parents couldn't afford to keep him during the Depression, his son said, so he went to a Catholic orphanage in St. Louis. As a young teen, a family with a coal business took him in. Barred from World War II because of a hearing problem, he worked on engineering jobs in Alaska, on the Air Force Academy chapel and on the Brown Palace heating system. He worked on missile silos in Idaho and Wyoming, and surveyed a pipeline across Greenland. He also invented a sewage treatment system for rural mountain homes and a municipal trash incinerator. Stone helped design Rocky Flats before it opened in 1952, and he warned against the location ``because Denver was downwind a few miles away,'' said his longtime attorney and friend Hartley Alley. Jon Lipsky, the FBI agent who led the 1989 raid on Rocky Flats, said Stone ``was the first one who worked at the plant to talk to me.'' Stone's job was to identify problems at the plant and recommend solutions. So he was able to give the FBI a road map, Alley said. Alley said Stone was the source of a key allegation in the FBI search warrant--that Rockwell was incinerating radioactive waste in secret at night. That charge was dropped when Rockwell settled the criminal case, and prosecutors said it wasn't true. But Alley says he had two other clients who witnessed it. Stone's motivation for filing the whistle-blower lawsuit in 1989 was patriotic, Alley said. ``He felt the people who operated Rocky Flats in the 1980s were guilty of treason'' by building nuclear weapons that wouldn't explode, Alley said. In the fraud suit, Stone alleged that Rockwell was defrauding the government by taking money for building faulty weapons while polluting the environment. Proving faulty production was impossible because the evidence was classified, Alley said. Jim Stone ``wasn't afraid of jumping into anything,'' his son said. ``The world is a better place with people like him.'' Stone is survived by his wife Virginia, sons Bob, of Lakewood, and Randy, of Wheat Ridge, five grandchildren and 13 great-grandchildren. He was preceded in death by his eldest son, James Stone Jr.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to permit Americans and American companies to take part in exploring for and development of energy resources offshore of Cuba and other nearby countries. The bill would make an exception to all laws, Executive Orders, and regulations that now prohibit exports to or imports from Cuba or transactions in property in which a Cuban national has an interest. This exception would apply to transactions necessary for the exploration for and development of hydrocarbon resources--such as petroleum or natural gas--from offshore areas under the control of Cuba or another foreign government that are contiguous to the exclusive economic zone of the United States. The bill would also permit Americans to travel to, from, and within Cuba in connection with such exploration and development activities. Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress I have supported efforts to relax some of the unduly restrictive laws and policies that prevent American companies from doing business in Cuba. The legislation I am introducing today would continue those efforts. It responds to a U.S. Geological Survey report published last year that estimates some 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could lie offshore from Cuba, in the North Cuba Basin. Cuba's share of the Gulf of Mexico was established in 1977 through treaties with the United States and Mexico. So there is no dispute about the status of the area, and it is my understanding that Cuba has divided its offshore territory into 59 exploration blocs and opened them up to foreign companies in 1999. Already, several foreign companies have indicated interest in some of these blocs, including a Canadian firm as well as companies from China and Venezuela. However, our trade embargo continues to prevent American companies from seeking similar opportunities. I think this makes no sense, and the bill I am introducing today would change that. Under the bill, the only restriction would be that any exploration or development by an American company offshore from Cuba would be subject to the same conditions for protection of fish, wildlife, and the environment as would be the case if the activities were carried out in the parts of the outer continental shelf under the control of the United States. Madam Speaker, I am not in favor of unlimited development of oil and gas wherever those resources may be found. In our country, I think some areas should remain off-limits to such activities, and that in some other areas it should be subject to restrictions to protect other resources and values. And if Congress were called to make similar decisions about resources in areas controlled by Cuba I well might support similar restrictions for the offshore areas the government of Cuba has decided to make available for exploration and development. But I think that once the government of Cuba has made that decision, our Government should not insist on preventing American companies from seeking the opportunity to take part in those activities--especially since the American energy industry is unrivalled for its technical expertise and its ability to meet the technical challenges involved. My legislation would allow them to seek that opportunity.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Mrs. Claudia ``Lady Bird'' Johnson. Her humble and steadfast devotion to public service combined with her passionate concern for environmental issues made her an icon within the environmental movement. Modest and kind, dedicated and courageous, her contribution to American politics will not soon be forgotten. As an advocate of natural habitat and wildlife protection, I greatly admired Lady Bird's commitment to preserving and beautifying America's lands. My father, Stewart Udall, was Secretary of the Interior under President Johnson, and he credits Lady Bird's several trips to the American West and the Rocky Mountains with igniting her love of the environment. Her campaigns to beautify our cities and highways, clean our lakes and rivers, and preserve our natural resources catalyzed many of the environmental campaigns politicians now pursue. Lady Bird transformed Washington D.C. while her husband was in office by planting thousands of tulips and daffodils in parks across the city and creating a national roadside planting program. For Lady Bird, wildflower beautification was not simply cosmetic; by expanding and bolstering diverse habitats, her projects inspired reverence for nature and the inherent splendor of our earth. She reminded us that to enjoy life, we must sometimes stop to smell the roses. At age 70, she founded the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. She said it was her way of paying back rent for the space she occupied in the world. This center now leads the nation in wildflower research, education, and project development. Environmental work, however, was only part of Lady Bird's public service campaign. As the first First Lady to have a press secretary and a chief of staff, she cultivated her own agenda. A staunch supporter of civil rights, Lady Bird's strength, intelligence, and good judgment served as a guide and comfort for President Johnson. She also pushed for federal legislation restricting billboards on federal highways and fought for the Head Start program. The projects she undertook always reflected her compassion, graciousness, and determination to make a difference. Lady Bird's compassion not only infused her political career but also permeated her personal life. Mother of two beautiful daughters, Luci Baines and Lynda Bird, Lady Bird cared for her family with same exquisite grace she exhibited as First Lady. Luci and Lynda have inherited their mother's dedication to public service. They have supported a variety of organizations, including Reading Is Fundamental, the American Heart Association, and the Center for Battered Women. Lady Bird's family and those close to her admired and emulated her loving patience, tender poise, and unending strength. An environmental pioneer, a behind the scenes supporter and advisor for her husband, a loving mother, and a gentle soul, Lady Bird will be sincerely missed. Lady Bird was a friend of my father's, and our family will always celebrate the life of the extraordinary woman who gave so much of herself. In her various efforts to spread beauty and tranquility across the country, Lady Bird has left this world a better place for us all.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to prevent the Bush Administration from launching war in Iran without prior congressional authorization. It is a companion bill to S. 759, authored by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. This is not a unique proposal--several of our colleagues in the House have introduced resolutions expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress. This legislation would establish a binding legal limit on the ability of the President to expend funds to commence military action against Iran in the absence of explicit prior congressional authorization. I think several factors require Congress to insist that the President meet that requirement before committing this country to another war. Those factors include this administration's inability or unwillingness to engage with the Iranian regime, the stated interest on the part of many administration officials and political supporters in attacking Iran, and the U.S. deployment of additional aircraft carrier groups to the Persian Gulf. These have led many--likely including the Iranian regime--to think the U.S. is intent on preparing a military strike against Iran. While that perception could be far from the mark, I think there is no doubt that there are increased risks of confrontation brought on by heightened tensions in the region. If we've learned nothing else from the war in Iraq, we should have learned that saber rattling doesn't get us far--especially when the tough rhetoric comes from an administration with a history of mismanaging the war in Iraq, a war that is in its fifth year of straining our military and depleting our Nation's blood and treasure. As I said in 2002--before voting against the resolution authorizing war in Iraq--I am reluctant to vest in the President all discretion about when and where America will go to war. I thought then and I think today that Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility to declare war, must play a more significant role in authorizing the use of our armed forces in what could become a full-scale war. My purpose in introducing this legislation is to reassert Congress's constitutional responsibility and to remind the Bush Administration of the important role that Congress plays when it comes to matters of war and peace. I recognize that the President, as commander-in-chief, must have some flexibility in deciding whether to allow U.S. forces to conduct intelligence gathering and to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks from Iran. That's why my legislation makes exceptions for these contingencies. Madam Speaker, my introduction of this legislation should not be seen as evidence that I deny the reality of the potential danger Iran presents to our country, our allies, and others. The prospect of an Iran with nuclear weapons is a matter of serious concern for America and the rest of the world. Since the revelation of its nuclear program, Iran has defied the international community by continuing to work to advance it, Iran's president has publicly stated his intention to ``wipe Israel off the map,'' and there is evidence that Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it is no surprise that there are also reports--as recently as last month--that the internal debate on Iran among the White House, State Department, and Defense Department is heating up, and that the mood is shifting back toward military action against Iran. My bill responds to those reports by reasserting the basic principle that Congress must consent before the president can take such action. Sending our troops into harm's way is a decision that affects all Americans, as we've learned the hard way in Iraq. So before this president makes any more rash decisions about going to war, I believe he must come to Congress for authorization to commence military action. The bill I am introducing today--like its companion in the Senate--is intended to do one thing: to restore the balance between the executive and legislative branches with regard to authorizing large-scale military activities. It is a balance that needs restoring after the mismanagement of the war in Iraq, and it is a balance we should be watching closely as some in the Administration continue to discuss presidential authority to wage war in contravention of the Constitution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of Boulder County Commissioner Tom Mayer of Louisville, CO, who passed away on June 22, 2007. He was one of our county's most compassionate advocates in civic affairs and will be greatly missed by his loved ones, friends and the community. Commissioner Tom Mayer was born March 22, 1951. In 1973, overlooking the Hudson River and Catskill Mountains, Tom received his bachelor's degree in physics from Bard College. He later left his native New York and New Jersey to pursue a master's degree in atmospheric sciences from the University of Illinois in 1976. He then spent 26 years as a software engineer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO. Though the white-bearded Boulder County commissioner savored the complexities of a good wine and a changing weather system, he held little tolerance for bad government and static bureaucracy. In 1992, Commissioner Mayer sought and won a seat on the Louisville City Council and went on to serve 11 years. During Tom's time on City Council he also served as a representative to the Boulder County Consortium of Cities, Boulder County Recycling and Compost Authority, and the U.S. 36 Major Investment Study. It was Commissioner Mayer's unwavering commitment to health and human services, limiting growth and preservation of open space that drove him to change Boulder County government as a county commissioner. Tom passionately served as a commissioner from 2003 until his passing. His other commitments included: Boulder County Human Services Coordinating Council, Metro Area County Commissioners, Colorado Counties Inc., Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, State of Colorado Child Welfare Allocation Committee and the National Association of Counties Health and Human Service Committee. We will miss Commissioner Mayer's style of leadership defined by his strong social conscience and overall sense of social justice. With a big heart and never-ending compassion he tirelessly fought for the underprivileged. Tom's intellect and generosity made him an admirable servant working for the public good with the right motivation. Tom helped make Boulder County a better place for all of us. If the measure of a life well-lived is the impact that a person has on others, then Tom's impact is broad and deep. We all owe him a debt of gratitude and respect, and I am particularly indebted to him for his early support of my work in public service. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating and remembering his life while expressing our deepest sympathies to his family for their loss.