Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, with my Colorado colleague, Representative John Salazar, I today am introducing a bill to help protect Rocky Mountain communities from the increased risks of severe wildfire caused by large-scale infestations of bark beetles and other insects in our forests. Entitled the Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and Support--or Rocky Mountain FIRES--Act, the bill will provide the Forest Service and Interior Department with more tools and resources to respond to this serious problem. In Colorado and other Rocky Mountain states, the risk of severe wildfires is very real. Partly, this is because of drought. But there are other contributing factors. One is that for many years, the federal government's policy emphasized fire suppression, even though fire is an inescapable part of the ecology of western forests like those in Colorado. Today, in many parts of the forests there is an accumulation of underbrush and thick stands of small diameter trees that is greater than would be the case if there had been more, smaller fires over the years. They provide the extra fuel that can turn a small fire into an intense inferno. The problem has been made worse by our growing population and increasing development in the places where communities meet the forests--the so-called ``urban interface.'' And when you add the effects of widespread infestations of insects, you have a recipe for even worse to come. I have put a priority on reducing the wildfire risks to our communities since I was elected to Congress. In 2000, with my colleague, Representative Hefley, I introduced legislation to facilitate reducing the buildup of fuel in the parts of Colorado that the Forest Service, working with state and local partners, identified at greatest risk of fire--the so-called ``red zones.'' Concepts from that legislation were included in the National Fire Plan developed by the Clinton Administration and were also incorporated into the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. As a Member of the Resources Committee, I had worked to develop the version of that legislation that the committee approved in 2002, and while I could not support the different version initially passed by the House in 2003, I voted for the revised version developed in conference with the Senate later that year--the version that President Bush signed into law. Since 2003 welcome progress has been made--in Colorado, at least--in developing community wildfire protection plans and focusing fuel- reduction projects in the priority ``red zone'' areas, two important aspects of the new law. But at the same time nature has continued to add to the buildup of fuel in the form of both new growth and dead and dying mature trees. This has resulted from a variety of reasons, including the fact that dense stands of even-aged trees (one result of decades of fire suppression and reduced logging) are stressed by the competition for nutrients. This stress, which has been intensified by the effects of the drought that has plagued the west for nearly a decade, makes these stands less able to resist insects. Many species of bark beetles, such as the mountain pine beetle, are native to our forests. These insects fly to a tree--typically one that may be weakened by age, disease or lack of water and nutrients--where they burrow through the bark. If the tree is healthy, it can defend itself through the production of sap to repel and expel the invading insect. If the insect is successful, it lays its eggs in the woody material below the bark. Once the eggs hatch, they feed on the tree's fiber and disrupt the flow of water and nutrients from the tree's roots to its needles and braches. In addition, the insects bring in fungi and other invaders that further damage the tree. If enough insects are able to penetrate the tree and lay eggs, the tree dies. The offspring then mature and leave the tree flying to the next tree and the cycle begins anew. These insects and the cycles they engender are a natural component of forest ecosystems. They help to balance tree densities and set the stage for fires and thereby the generation of new tree growth. When forests are healthy and there are adequate supplies of water, the effects of insects are relatively low-scale and isolated. But under the right conditions-such as during drought conditions or when there are dense stands of even aged trees--the insects can cause large-scale tree mortality, turning whole mountainsides and valleys rust red. That is what has been happening in many mountainous areas in Colorado. For example, in the Fraser and upper Colorado River Valleys north of the Winter Park Ski area, the insect epidemic has decimated wide swaths of forests. Most alarmingly, areas around populated communities in these valleys from Winter Park all the way up to the west side of Rocky Mountain National Park are living with acres of dead trees, turned rust red by the insects and creating intense concern of a catastrophic wildfire that could race through these landscapes and communities. To learn more, last year I convened a meeting in Winter Park, in Grand County, that was attended by more than 200 people, including local elected officials, homeowners, timber industry representatives, Forest Service officials, ski area employees, and other Coloradans. They offered observations on the extent of this problem and proffered suggestions on ways to better respond to it. Based on that meeting and other conversations, draft legislation was developed that Representative Salazar and I circulated widely so we could obtain further comments and suggestions. The bill we are introducing today reflects much of what we heard from Coloradans and others interested in this subject. Our goal is not to eradicate insects in our forests--nor should it be, because insects are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Instead, our intention is to make it possible for there to be more rapid responses to the insect epidemic in those areas where such responses are needed in order to protect communities from increased wildfire dangers. The bill would add a new section to the Healthy Forests Act to specifically address insect epidemics like those now visible in the Fraser and upper Colorado River Valleys. It would apply to the entire Rocky Mountain west. It would authorize the Forest Service to identify as ``insect emergency areas'' Federal lands that have already been slated for fuel-reduction work in community wildfire protection plans and that have so many insect-killed trees that there is an urgent need for work to reduce the fire-related risks to human life and property or municipal water supplies. The Forest Service could make such a determination on its own initiative or in response to a request from any State agency or any political subdivision (such as a county, city, or other local government) of a State. If the Forest Service receives such a request, it must make a decision in response within 90 days. A designation must be made by a Regional Forester or higher-ranking official of the Forest Service. In these emergency areas, the Forest Service or Interior Department would be authorized to remove dead or dying trees on an expedited basis, including use of a ``categorical exclusion'' from normal review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Although categorical exclusions from NEPA are controversial, I believe they are appropriate for these emergency situations. And because recent lawsuits have led to some confusion about the relationship of Forest Service categorical exclusions and the Appeals Reform Act, the bill would exempt such categorically-excluded projects in insect emergency areas from the Appeals Reform Act. This would make it clear that the projects categorically excluded in an insect emergency situation would not need to go through additional steps in order to enhance the rapid use of such categorically excluded projects. As the focus of the bill is on the potential fire threats to communities from insect-killed tress and the encouragement of treatment projects in the ``community wildfire protection plan'' areas, the bill also includes provisions to help communities establish such plans. Toward that end, the bill includes language to make clear that development of protection plans qualifies for assistance under the Federal Fire Protection and Control Act. And, more importantly, the bill provides that annually for the next five years $5 million will be diverted from the federal government's share of royalties for onshore federal oil and gas resources and made available to help Rocky Mountain communities develop their protection plans. At the meeting in Winter Park last fall, I also heard concerns from private landowners who are doing what they can to reduce fuel loads, cut down insect-killed trees, and otherwise mitigate the fire risks on their lands. Because some of them would like to be able to do similar work on adjacent National Forest lands, the bill makes clear that the Forest Service can award them stewardship contract or enter into agreements authorizing them to do that carry out fuel-reduction work on those lands, subject to terms and conditions set by the Forest Service. Those arrangements could provide for reimbursement by the government for their work, and the bill specifies that if their work is not reimbursed, it will be treated as a donation to the government for income-tax purposes, meaning it is deductible from income tax by people who itemize their deductions. The bill would also encourage the Forest Service to establish ``central collection points'' where trees and other vegetative material could be deposited and made available for further uses as fuel or products. Also at the Winter Park meeting, I heard that there are some barriers to the private sector in doing the treatment work on Forest Service land. So, the bill would allow the Forest Service to extend the length of time for stewardship contracts for thinning work in insect-emergency areas by as much as an additional 5 years beyond the current 10 year limit. This could help attract more entities willing to do the needed treatment work in these emergency areas, as could another part of the bill that would allow people carrying out fuel-reduction projects in insect-emergency areas to exclude up to $10,000 ($20,000 for joint returns) from the amount of their income subject to federal income tax. Finally, as trees removed to reduce fuel loads or respond to an insect emergency may have some value as a fuel, the bill would authorize the Forest Service to make grants to owners or operators of facilities that convert the removed trees and other vegetative material into energy. Although we cannot and should not eradicate insects from our forests, we can and we should strive to help reduce the increased wildfire risks to communities that result from their increased infestations. The purpose of this bill is to provide some additional tools and resources that will enable relevant federal agencies, local communities, and residents of the Rocky Mountain region to better respond to this problem. For the benefit of our colleague, I am attaching a short outline of the bill's provisions. The bill has 8 sections, as follows: Section One--provides a short title and table of contents. The short title is ``Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and Support (or Rocky Mountain FIRES) Act.'' Section Two--sets forth finding regarding the need for the legislation, and states the bill's purpose, which is to facilitate a swifter response by the Forest Service and Interior Department to reduce the increased risk of severe wildfires to communities in the Rocky Mountain regions caused by the effects of widespread infestations of bark beetles and other insects. Section Three--amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to: Add definitions of terms; Require that in the Rocky Mountain region at least 70% of the funds allocated for hazardous fuel reduction projects be used for projects in the wildland-urban interface and lands near municipal water supplies or their tributaries that have been identified for treatment in a community wildfire protection plan; Provide for designation of insect-emergency areas by the Forest Service; Specify the effect of designation of insect-emergency areas; Specifically authorize the Forest Service to relocate or reassign personnel to respond to an insect emergency; Clarify the relationship of this part of the bill and the Appeals Reform Act; (The bill defines ``Rocky Mountain region'' as Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.) Section Four--amends Healthy Forests Restoration Act to authorize help to communities preparing or revising wildfire protection plans, and provides for annual diversion (for five years) of $5 million from federal share of royalties from onshore federal oil and gas developments to fund this assistance. Section Five--amends Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to clarify that development of community wildfire protection plans qualifies for assistance under that Act. Section Six--amends biomass-grant provision of Healthy Forests Restoration Act to allow grants to facilities using biomass for wood- based products or other commercial purposes (in addition to uses now specified in the Act); to require that priority go to grants to people using biomass removed from insectemergency areas; to increase authorization to $10 million annually through 2010 (instead of $5 million annually through 2008); and to provide for establishment of central collection points for material removed from forest lands as part of hazardous-fuel reduction projects. Section Seven--amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to specifically authorize Forest Service and Interior Department to award stewardship contracts to owners of lands contiguous to Federal lands (or enter into agreements with such landowners) so the landowners can do fuel-reduction work on the Federal lands and either be reimbursed for such work or authorized to treat value of such work as a donation to the United States for purposes of federal income taxes. Section Eight--amends Internal Revenue Code to exclude from taxable income up to $10,000 ($20,000 for joint return) received from the Federal government as compensation for work done in the Rocky Mountain Region as part of an authorized hazardous-fuel reduction project or a silvicultural assessment done under section 404 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question and also will oppose the bill. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the Colorado Department of Agriculture. And if I could respond to my good friend from Georgia, in the letter from the Department of Agriculture, they make the point that although the States can seek waivers, in our State we believe, the Department of Agriculture believes that a State required to seek a waiver from the Federal Food and Drug Administration would incur significant legal and expert witness expenses which could be better used in conducting food and animal feed safety inspections. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It should be rejected. It would make it much harder for Colorado and other States to protect public health and respond to acts of bioterrorism. The bill would preempt virtually every State and local law that does not mirror Federal law, and it would require Colorado and other States to navigate a bureaucratic and costly morass if they want to act to protect the public. In Colorado specifically, the bill would erase laws dealing with the safety of restaurants, packaged food, wholesale foods and milk. Further, it would prohibit Colorado and other States from passing laws or regulations dealing with animal feeds, feed additives, and drugs used on animals. Additionally, States could not respond quickly to extreme public health risks like avian flu, mad cow disease or chronic wasting disease without first seeking the guidance of the Federal Government. It is shocking, I think truly shocking, that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina we would further hamstring our State and local officials when they need to respond quickly. Mr. Speaker, I would urge opposition to the rule and the underlying bill that would undermine Colorado's ability to protect consumers and the public health. Colorado Department of Agriculture, Lakewood, CO, January 30, 2006. Hon. Mark Udall, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Mark Udall: On behalf of the Colorado Department of Agriculture, I am writing to express our concerns regarding H.R. 4167, ``The National Uniformity for Foods Act of 2005,'' which will appear before the House for action in the next few weeks. This bill would preempt state feed safety agriculture defense programs from performing certain functions that protect citizens. Under this bill, a state would no longer be able to formulate laws and rules concerning the labeling of foods, animal feeds, feed additives and new animal drugs. Preempting state regulatory agencies from having autonomy to address food and animal feed safety concerns compromises public and animal health. Each state must have the latitude to act quickly to enact laws and rules that address local or statewide health concerns. In addition, the waiver process required by H.R. 4167 would impose substantial financial burden on the state and federal governments. A state required to seek a waiver from the Federal Food and Drug Administration would incur significant legal and expert witness expenses, which could be better used in conducting food and animal feed safety inspections. Consumers benefit from strong food safety laws at the federal and state levels. Elimination of the authority of each state to set policy and take appropriate action would reduce consumer protection. Therefore, I urge you to oppose

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on February 7th, America lost one of its conservation leaders with the passing of Theodore R. Swem--known to everyone as ``Ted''--whose long career was marked by the highest standards of dedication to the public interest. Born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on December 6, 1917, he attended Coe College, in Iowa and received his Bachelor of Science in Forestry from Iowa State University in Ames. After completing one year of graduate work at the Biology School at Harvard University, he went to work for the Colorado State Game and Fish Department, and eventually became the Coordinator for the Federal Aid to the Wildlife Restoration Program. In 1946, he went to work at the Regional Office of the Bureau of Reclamation, where he was responsible for wildlife, recreation, and land use planning in reclamation projects in a four state region. During the 1950s, Ted worked with other conservationists to encourage Colorado legislators to enact legislation to establish a state park system. Thanks to the efforts of Ted and this group, today all Coloradans--and our visitors as well--can enjoy State Parks throughout Colorado. In 1957, Ted joined the National Park Service and steadily ascended to various planning positions, eventually becoming the Assistant Director for Cooperative Activities in 1964. In this capacity, he was responsible for studying potential areas, and master planning existing areas of the National Park System, Wilderness, Federal Agency and State Assistance, Park Practice and the International Affairs Programs of the Service. The large number of additions to the National Park System during the middle and late 1960s reflect the magnitude of this activity. In September 1969, Ted became Superintendent of the National Capital Region of the National Park Service. In March 1971, he became the Assistant Director to the Director. From 1972 to 1976, Ted was responsible for the National Park Service program activity in Alaska as related to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and was key to development of National Park areas in Alaska. During this period, he became Chairman of the Alaska Planning Group for the Department of Interior and coordinated the multi-agency effort that produced the 28 ``Four System'' legislative proposals and related Environmental Impact Statements as submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, Rogers C.B. Morton, in December 1973. In February 1976, Ted retired from the National Park Service. Ted's work thus set the stage for enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which was signed into law by President Carter on December 2, 1980. This Act is often called the most significant land conservation measure in the history of our nation. The statute protected over 100 million acres of federal lands in Alaska, doubling the size of the country's national park and refuge system and tripling the amount of land designated as wilderness. While with the National Park Service Ted was Chairman of the United States Section, Joint Japan-United States Panel on National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. He was also a member of the Canadian-United States Committee on National Parks; a Board Member of the Wilderness Society Governing Council; a member of the International Union Conservation of Nature; and Chairman of the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. After his retirement he was president of the Wilderness Society Governing Council from 1978 to 1980; a Board Member of American Rivers, Inc.; and Management Consultant to Silvertip Consulting and the Defenders of Wildlife. He was the recipient of the Meritorious and Distinguished Service Award of the Department of Interior, was recognized in 1981 by the Japanese Government by receiving the 50th Anniversary Award for his distinctive work in their behalf, and received the Robert Marshall Award from the Wilderness Society on their 50th Anniversary--the Society's highest award presented to a private citizen. Ted also received the Alaska National Parks Conservation Leadership Award and recognition for his initial work on the making of the Klondike Goldrush an International Park between the United States and Canada. At the time of his death, he was living in Colorado, where he had served on the Bureau of Land Management Land Disposal Committee for Clear Creek County, and performed work on the Task Force for Evergreen Lake, as well as on some of the Open Space areas in Jefferson County. Ted and his wife Helen were married 57 years. Their four children now live in Denver, Alaska, and Brazil. I hope the sadness of their loss is tempered by pride in their father's record of achievement and the many lasting gifts he has left to our country and the world.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a young constituent of mine who recently demonstrated his creativity and technological prowess on a very large stage. Mike Potter of Broomfield, Colorado, now a junior at Ithaca College, recently won the Grand Prize in the ``Cellflix Festival,'' a prize that included $5,000 and a tremendous amount of respect for individual ingenuity and creativity. The ``Cellflix Festival'' is a competition that asks participants to submit a short film shot entirely on a cellular telephone camera. Within these constraints, Mike Potter submitted a film called Cheat, a charming and short exhibition that celebrates his grandparent's loving relationship. In it, Mike's grandfather quizzes his grandmother on newspaper headlines, offering her a kiss as a prize for each time she correctly guesses whether a headline is true or false. Sometimes, Mike's grandfather confesses at the end, he cheats. Described by one contest judge as ``contagious,'' Mike Potter's creative short shows how much can be accomplished artistically with a limited medium, and one in which most of us are only vaguely aware. I don't know about all my colleagues, but I have only barely mastered the use of a blackberry and my cell phone is still just a convenient technology for communicating. It never occurred to me until I saw the story about Mike Potter that the device I take for granted could be used as a means of artistic expression. What's really intriguing about Mike's work is that it shows how young people, better versed in the ways of technology than any previous generation, may be blazing new trails of innovation and creative expression that will have implications for our economy and the entertainment industry. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mike Potter on his recent award and in wishing him well in his future endeavors. I certainly look forward to seeing what else he can produce, and I am proud to represent such a creative young person in Congress.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as obesity and the associated health risks continue to increase in America's youth, it is important to encourage children to participate in physical activity. To help spread this message, today I am introducing with Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee, a resolution urging the declaration of a National Physical Education and Sports Week and National Physical Fitness and Sports Month. This resolution notes the increase in childhood obesity along with the negative consequences of extremely overweight and obese people including a decrease in the average life span and rising health care costs stemming from obesity related illness. It also includes findings from the United States Surgeon documenting that regular physical activity is associated with improved health-related quality of life. It resolves the sense of the House of Representatives regarding ``National Physical Education and Sports Week'' and ``National Physical Fitness and Sports Month.'' Research shows that sound physical education programs can help students learn healthy habits for life. Through regular exercise and information on proper nutrition, children can develop habits for maintaining a healthy weight into adulthood. We must encourage our children to adopt healthier lifestyles because America's children are experiencing obesity in growing numbers, and data continues to highlight the link between obesity and diabetes, heart disease and other life-threatening medical conditions. ``National Physical Education and Sports Week'' and ``National Physical Fitness and Sports Month'' would remind citizens of the importance of maintaining a consistent exercise program and healthy lifestyle. I urge the support of this resolution and look forward to its consideration.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Ms. Robin Bohannan, the outgoing executive director of the Boulder County AIDS Project. Ms. Bohannan's career at BCAP is a remarkable example of compassion, public service, and personal dedication. Ms. Bohannan began her career at the Boulder County AIDS Project in an important and appreciated voluntary role. Still a small organization at this time, BCAP built its foundation on the strength of volunteers just like her. As she spent more time volunteering, Ms. Bohannan became an indispensable part of BCAP and was able to take a full-time paid position as a case manager in 1991. In the early 1980s and even into the 1990s HIV/AIDS was not only a burgeoning health crisis, it was a defining issue of social conscience. Workplace and housing discrimination, severe social stigma, and public ignorance merged with a terrible and often baffling array of medical challenges to create terrible obstacles for those living with the illness. Robin Bohannan was an early warrior in the battle against HIV/AIDS and all these years later, her efforts serve as a model for how one person can make a lasting contribution to the greater community. For her years of service, her devotion to others, her role in building a community of support, and her ability to harbor equal parts courage and compassion, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Robin Bohannan upon her resignation as executive director of the Boulder County AIDS Project. I am sure that her future endeavors will continue her legacy of service to Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of Mr. Cal Frazier, a great Coloradan who passed away on January 30, 2006, at his home in Lakewood, CO. He will be missed by friends and loved ones, and his leadership in civic affairs and education will be missed as well. Orphaned as a teenager, Cal Frazier studied at Palmer High School in Colorado Springs and earned a scholarship to the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, WA. There he met his future wife, Jean H. Frazier, and upon graduation became an elementary school teacher. This was the beginning of a long and illustrious career in the education system. While still in Washington, Cal taught high school, became a principal, a special education director, and earned his masters and doctoral degrees in education. After his stint in Washington, Colorado was fortunate to have him back. Cal began to teach in yet another capacity at the University of Colorado-Boulder, giving him experience in virtually all levels of our education system. In 1973, with all of his hard-earned expertise and credibility, he was appointed to serve as the commissioner of the Colorado Department of Education, beginning a 15-year term of service. Even after his official retirement, Cal continued to serve on boards and commissions devoting his life toward improving the education system. Those who knew Cal Frazier have fond memories of his remarkable impact on the education system. He was a role model and a leader on many levels. Beyond his many accomplishments in life, Cal Frazier taught Coloradans through his deeds as well as his words. He will be remembered as someone who did not need to be in the front of a classroom to be a teacher. I had the opportunity to work with Cal briefly on the ``Education to Elevate Colorado's Economy (E3) Summit'' last fall. I was struck immediately by his thoughtfulness, wisdom and humor. Given the critical importance of addressing the needs of our Colorado education community, I was heartened to know that people like Cal were at the helm. If the measure of a life well-led is the impact that a person has on others, then Cal's impact is broad and deep. We all owe him a debt of gratitude and respect, and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating and remembering a life of service while expressing our deepest sympathies for his family's loss.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a Coloradan who has made a substantial impact on our State while serving as a role model for achievement in the African-American community. I am proud to acknowledge the accomplishments of Mr. Odell Barry and to congratulate him on his recent election to the Ford-Warren Library's ``Blacks in Colorado'' Hall of Fame. It is a well-bestowed honor, and befitting the life and works of a wonderful man. Originally from Ohio, Odell Barry began his Colorado experience in a way that ensures the admiration and affection of many of our residents--as a Denver Bronco. Playing in 1964 and 1965, he still holds a place in the Broncos' record books with the second-most kickoff return yards in a season. Mr. Barry's athletic accomplishments are the envy of many, and I am sure he will not mind my saying that I am old enough to recall them. After his retirement from professional football, Odell involved himself heavily in the civic affairs of Northglenn, CO, a community in my district. He built a successful business with his wife, Glenda, and raised his family. These years were a preamble to his historic 1980 election as the first African-American mayor of Northglenn and the second African-American mayor of a major metropolitan city--after Mayor Penfield Tate of Boulder--in Colorado. As mayor of Northglenn, Odell Barry helped to steer the city through major commercial and economic growth at a difficult time in the history of Colorado's economy. His open and warm-hearted style won many admirers and he was particularly committed to improving recreational opportunities for young people. He was instrumental in advocating transportation improvements, including construction of the new Denver International Airport. Odell was the first African-American citizen to become a charter member of Rotary International, the first African-American citizen to become president of the Colorado Civil Defense Association, the chair of the Colorado Economic Development Commission, and a crucial advocate for building, and bringing a professional baseball team, the Colorado Rockies, to Colorado. I have no doubt that Odell and Glenda will continue to accomplish great things, serving as role models for Americans of all ages and colors. In recognition of his latest achievement and for his already secure place in Colorado history, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Odell Barry and congratulating him on becoming the newest addition to the Ford-Warren Library's esteemed ``Blacks in Colorado'' Hall of Fame.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a great city in the Second District of Colorado, the City of Thornton-- and to congratulate its citizens on the 50th Anniversary of the city's official incorporation. I am proud to represent this community in the United States Congress and to share a little of the history of this remarkable Front Range city. What began as a small development project by a local entrepreneur, Sam Hoffman, in the early 1950s--and supported famously by no less a figure (no pun intended) than Hollywood's Jane Russell, it has become one of the most attractive communities in Colorado. In the early 1950s, a small development project north of Denver was named after Colorado Governor Dan Thornton and targeted toward soldiers returning from World War II. Sam Hoffman created a small community offering these soldiers and their families the opportunity to purchase a three-bedroom brick house for under $10,000. From that modest starting point, Thornton has grown into a community of more than 100,000 people, all of whom can be very proud of the great advancements their city has made since its incorporation on May 26, 1956. The City of Thornton is still growing and attracting new residents. Located just 10 miles north of Denver, Thornton offers the ideal location for people hoping to experience the vibrancy of city life while still having easy access to skiing, camping, and all of Colorado's other natural wonders. With over 1000 acres dedicated to public parks and a focus on recreation programs, residents can maintain an active lifestyle and still be within driving distance to cultural events in Denver, Boulder, and the larger cities in the area. Thornton is a perfect example of a small city that has managed tremendous growth in a short period of time. Former Thornton Mayor Margaret Carpenter shepherded the city through its most explosive growth era (the 1980s and 1990s), and today the city boasts premier recreation facilities, a strong business and commercial sector, and a diverse population. I admire the way that the residents of Thornton have built a strong community with pride and inclusion, and ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the City of Thornton on its 50th anniversary, and I look forward to seeing the city grow for another 50 years.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in expressing my sorrow at the news of the death of Coretta Scott King and my support for the resolution (H. Res. 655) now before us. By passing that resolution, the House of Representatives honors her life and accomplishments and her contributions as a leader in the struggle for civil rights, and expresses condolences to the King family on her passing. I wholeheartedly join in that expression of views shared not only by the House but by millions of Americans in Colorado and across the nation. Mrs. King was no stranger to our state. As noted in today's Denver Post, she paid her first visit to Denver in 1958 and returned to Colorado many times thereafter to further the cause of equality for which her husband and she labored for so long. Now, in the words of the Rocky Mountain News, our nation mourns her as a champion of freedom, and Coloradans join in that mourning. For the information of our colleagues, I attach an editorial and a news story from today's Denver daily newspapers. [From the Rocky Mountain News, Feb. 1, 2006] Nation Mourns Champion of Freedom Coretta Scott King, 78, died peacefully at a medical clinic in Mexico early Tuesday. While she may always be remembered as ``the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,'' Mrs. King created an inspiring legacy of her own. Her tireless efforts convinced lawmakers to recognize her late husband's place in history with the national holiday that celebrates his birth. She stood with and spoke for the downtrodden, in America and around the world. Mrs. King surely would have lauded the news that the Smithsonian Institution on Monday approved a site on the National Mall near the Washington Monument for the National Museum of African American History and Culture. We've long supported a moratorium on further construction on the Mall, which has grown cluttered with newly built memorials and security barriers over the past three decades. And so we would prefer that the museum occupy land near but not on the Mall. But leading museum proponents considered such an alternative a slap in the face, and the Smithsonian board foreclosed that option. So be it. Whatever the museum's location, the construction of such a memorial is long overdue. The task is to ensure that it becomes a national treasure, a source of inspiration for Americans of every heritage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. John Tweedy on the success of his documentary film-making company, Landlocked Films. His work is deserving of recognition for its superb quality, emotional realism, and the depth and diversity of its subject matter. John Tweedy's Boulder-based independent documentary video company is co-owned and run in collaboration with his wife, Ms. Beret Strong. Tweedy's films have won both national and local awards and have been screened at film festivals both in the U.S. and abroad, as well as being broadcast on over 100 Public Broadcasting System affiliates in the U.S. and Canada. Before moving to Boulder, Tweedy received his law degree from Stanford University Law School and an M.A. in Sociology from Brown University. In addition to practicing law and making films, he has worked for the court system of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands on Saipan. His films are as broad-ranging as his background and are inspiring and evocative. ``Lieweila: A Micronesion Story,'' is an apt example of Tweedy's ability to render a compelling history through his art. Using historical footage, old photographs, and the voice of a Refalawasch narrator, Tweedy helps an indigenous people give their history and describe their struggles with colonialism and modernization, creating an educational and inspirational film experience. His films on the education of children include ``Song of Our Children,'' ``The Dance of Conversation: Strategies for Encouraging Children's Language Development,'' and ``Training 3, from C to B: Age Transitions for Kids with Special Needs.'' John actively participates in local education, serving on the boards of Sojourner Charter School, Horizons Alternative School, and Kids Connections. In another film, ``Streams of Gold,'' Tweedy makes himself a subject of his own filmmaking. Traveling to southern Ecuador, Tweedy uncovers a piece of his own history by documenting the story of an Andean gold mining town in which his grandparents lived and worked for nearly 30 years. The result is a personal and informational film that has much to say about economics and the modern world. Landlocked Films also produces videos profiling non-profit organizations, schools, and companies in a way that projects more heart than glitz. Each of the promotional videos is designed and produced as a mini-documentary, allowing the viewer to experience the organization from the inside out. Among recent promotional efforts are ``Mothers Acting Up,'' showing this organization's actions to redefine the priorities of our national government, and ``Teaching from the Heart: Celebrating Ten Years of Horizons Alternative,'' a film that guides the viewer from the school's founding with archival footage through the present with student interviews. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude to John Tweedy for making films that speak to our community socially, culturally, and artistically. We thank him for his film achievements and look forward to appreciating his films for many years to come. I wish him, his wife Beret, and his children, Paige and Marcus, good health and happiness in their future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a dear friend and a good citizen, Ms. Tina Arapkiles. Tina recently ``retired'' from the Rocky Mountain Regional office of Sierra Club to spend more time with her family and other pursuits. I have known Tina for many years and have the highest regard for her work on behalf of conservation and the environment. Tina's reputation for gentle, but persuasive, advocacy is well known in Colorado and I think it is fair to say that she has admirers from across the broad spectrum of public opinion, and not just from within the environmental community. Certainly, her reputation with members of the Colorado Congressional Delegation (past and present) from both parties has been above reproach. Advocacy in the public arena is all too often characterized by angry debate and an unhealthy appetite for making villains out of those with whom one disagrees. This has never been Tina's way, and it is much to her credit that she leaves her service at the Sierra Club with a well- deserved reputation for thoughtfulness and respect for others. Her example of quiet, but determined and passionate advocacy, is one I greatly admire. For the last 20 years, she has been a consistent advocate for protecting the West's land, air, water, and wildlife. She began her work on these matters with a lobbying trip to Washington to help pass the Superfund law in 1985. In 1989 and 1990, she worked with Congress to revise the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. She has worked to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge since the inception of the campaign and has been a staunch supporter of Utah wilderness. She also helped pass the California Desert Protection Act and the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993. In fact, Tina, some say, single- handedly gained protections for the Wheeler Peak area. She also worked to designate Colorado's first Wild and Scenic River--the Cache la Poudre along Colorado's northern Front Range just north and east of Rocky Mountain National Park. Because of her work on environmental issues and her reputation for thoughtful advocacy, Tina was invited to be a member of the Denver Post's Community Roundtable in 1995 to discuss international trade issues. She was also appointed in 1992 to the Board of Editorial Contributors for the Rocky Mountain News to offer regular perspectives on environmental policy. In January of 2000, Tina directed the Southern Rockies Wolf Restoration Project, a coalition of groups and individuals that played a strong role in the Colorado Wolf Working Group, which pushed the State to allow wolves to roam freely throughout the State. Her essay on wolves and camping with her family appears in the recently published collection Comeback Wolves. She highlights working with Sierra Club volunteers as one of the best memories of her job, as well as attending the signing of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 in Colorado by President Clinton. In addition to her work in the public arena, Tina has perhaps the more important distinction of successfully raising two children. For anyone who knows Tina, it is clear that her passion for the natural world is directly related to her interest in humanity. She cares deeply about Mother Earth, not because trees are more important than people, but because people need trees and all the other wonders of the natural world in order to be fully human. Although she is leaving a distinguished career of service on behalf of the environment, and will be missed at the Colorado State capitol and in the halls of Congress, I know she will continue to be active in all the causes that she believes in, and I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing her the very best in her future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and praise the extraordinary efforts of so many Department of Energy, DOE, employees in the successful cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Facility in Colorado. Last year, the DOE began the process of certifying the completion of Kaiser-Hill Corporation's cleanup of the Rocky Flats facility. This certification marks the end of an era in our Nation's history. The story of Rocky Flats includes two different chapters that describe human achievement and technological prowess--not only the buildup of our nuclear arsenal during the tense days of the Cold War but also the completion of a remarkably complicated environmental restoration program that is a model for the world. I believe that the men and women who worked to write both of these chapters in the Rocky Flats story deserve our admiration and appreciation. All involved deserve recognition as heroes of the Cold War era and also heroes in the new era of environmental protection. That includes Federal officials and employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and DOE, as well as officials and employees of Colorado's Department of Health and Environmental Protection and the private-sector employees of DOE's contractors. In December 2005, Kaiser-Hill rightly sponsored a community event that celebrated these achievements. Invitations went to employees of DOE as well as others, but the DOE Office of General Counsel insisted that DOE employees be charged more than other Federal employees to attend this celebration. I objected to this decision because it did not apply to high-ranking DOE officials who had speaking roles at the event, and struck me as an unduly restrictive interpretation of Federal ethical guidelines that sounded a sour note in an otherwise happy occasion. I felt so strongly about it that I decided against attending the event as a message of solidarity with DOE employees. In part to reinforce my admiration and respect for the hard work of so many DOE employees at Rocky Flats, and to ensure that this body fully acknowledges their contributions to our national security and our environment, I will place in the Record the names of DOE employees who deserve our thanks and an acknowledgement of the service they gave in turning Rocky Flats into a success story: Jeff Allison, Charlie Anderson, Mariane Anderson, Tod Anderson, Robert Birk, Robert Bistline, Ron Bostic, Gerald Boyd, Ken Brakken, Lisa Bressler, Patti Bubar, Roger Butler, George Cannode, Kathleen Carlson, William Casey, Norma Castaneda, Jack Craig, Hank Dalton, Charlie Dan, Gina Dan, Ann Davis, Paul Detwiler, Glenn Doyle, Patrick Etchart, Jim Fiore, Cliff Franklin, Mark Frei, David Garman, Christine Gelles, Dave George, Fred Gerdeman, Mark Gilbertson, Paul Golan, Robert Goldsmith, Dave Grosek, Kent Grover, Tom Grumbley, James Hartman, Art Haugh, Larry Helmerick, Dave Hicks, Richard Hopf, Rod Hoffman, Gary Huffman, Carolyn Huntoon, Brent Johansen, Elizabeth Jordan, Jeremy Karpatkin, Keith Klein, Joe Legare, Gary Lietz, Ellen Livingston, Frazer Lockhart, Paul Longsworth, Tom Lukow, Karen Lutz, Mary Lynch, Larry Maghrak, Barbara Male, Barbara Mazurowski, Matt McCormick, Steve McCracken, Deanna McCranie, Anna Martinez-Barnish, Greg Moore, Gary Morgan, John Mullarkey, Theresa Nash, Robert Nelson, Ricky Newton, Dennis Oba, Shirley Olinger, Mike Owen, Jim Owendoff, Jeff Parkin, Ray Plieness, Lloyd Piper, Jane Powell, Barbara Powers-Hargreaves, Michael Hargreaves, Richard B. Provencher, William Prymak, Don Rack, John Rampe, William C. Rask, Brad Ring, Jessie Roberson, Mell Roy, Norm Sandlin, Dero Sargent, Rich Schassburger, Roy Schepens, Lance Schlag, Gene Schmitt, John Schneider, Gary Schuetz, Clay Sell, Beth Sellers, Warren Seyfert, Frank Sheppard, Mark Silverman, Dave Simonson, Steve Sohinki, Joe Springer, Jim Steward, John Stover, Scott Surovchak, Maryanne Tinney, Ines Triay, Reginald Tyler, Phil VanLoan, David Vaughn, Patty Wagner, Bruce Wallin, Bob Warther, Kerry Watson, Mike Weis, Ed Westbrook, Dotti Whitt, Elizabeth Wilson and Lam Xuan.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Ken Strom, who is this recipient of the National Audubon Society's Golden Egret Award. Ken is the Director of Conservation and Public Policy for Audubon Colorado, a graduate of Cornell University, and a Viet Nam veteran. Ken started his Audubon experience at Francis Beidler Forest in South Carolina. For 11 years Ken managed Audubon's Rowe Wildlife Sanctuary, a critical habitat for Whooping Cranes and Sandhill Cranes on the Platte River in Nebraska. Ken's efforts protected hundreds of thousands of these birds so that they could use the same feeding grounds as their predecessors. Ken coordinated a series of international partnerships for over ten years in which he advised scientists and policy-makers in a number of countries including Russia and Pakistan, countries without a history of wildlife conservation. These unique partnerships allowed Ken to establish conservation strategies for water resources and wetland habitats. Due to his work with Mumtaz Malik in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan, two protected areas for cranes today exist on branches of the Indus River. In Russia, he was part of team with Serge Smirenski, George Archibald and Noritaki Ishida that established the first private park on the Indus River. In Colorado, Ken has helped to establish and monitor 53 Important Bird Areas (IBA). Given the state of wetlands in Colorado, this accomplishment stands out. Ken also directed Audubon's highly visible nationwide population and habitat program that engaged hundreds of leaders and 20,000 activists working on education and public advocacy. A result of this significant project, millions of Americans learned about the effects between human population growth and the environment. Ken served as an instructor and director of Audubon's Ecology Camp in the Rockies, educating teachers, instructors and citizens. He inspired hundreds of people each year to become voices on behalf of conservation. Ken is also an accomplished writer with a keen sense for describing nature. He is the co-editor with his wife, Pat Waak, of the book, ``Sharing the Earth: Cross Cultural Perspectives on Population, Wildlife and the Environment.'' He is also the author of ``Population and Habit in the New Millennium.'' Ken Strom is effectively working to fight the good fight to protect and win important victories for wilderness, wetlands and other critical habitat areas. As Audubon honors Ken Strom with its highest award, I believe it is fitting for my colleagues to join me in acknowledging a lifetime of achievement in conservation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Ronald Neely. Ron passed away in January. He was a passionate and effective leader of historic preservation and community betterment in Georgetown, Colorado, an historic mining town nestled in the Clear Creek Valley along Interstate 70 just east of the Continental Divide. Ron established a distinguished career in Georgetown on a number of projects, and was known throughout the state as a champion of preserving local history. His accomplishments were recently acknowledged through his selection as the recipient of three simultaneous awards in Colorado: the Stephen H. Hart Award from the Colorado Historical Society, the Dana Crawford Award for Excellence from Colorado Preservation, Inc., and the President's Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. No one has ever received all three awards before, which underscores his influence for enhancing community quality of life and historic appreciation, not only in Georgetown, but throughout Colorado and the nation. Much can be said of Ron and how he affected the lives of many people. Perhaps the best synopsis comes from The Denver Post columnist Joanne Ditmer. In a column appearing in The Denver Post in late November, she wrote: Counting our Thanksgiving blessings usually is a litany of material things, as well as family and friends who enrich our lives. But this year I'm giving thanks for the people who have vision, commitment and practical know-how to make our communities the best possible places to live. A sterling example is Ron Neely of Georgetown, who for 35 years has had one goal: to keep that splendid old Victorian mining town as a wonderful place to live and visit. He's a historic preservationist, not just for saving beautiful old buildings, but for preserving and nurturing the unique man- built qualities that make his town one of the most attractive and healthy in the state. I can think of no other individual who has made such an impact on the looks and spirit of this historic community. He is a visionary, hard-headed and practical, with financial savvy. All over Colorado, those with similar interests see Georgetown as the example of how to get it right, despite some really tough battles along the way. I agree with these reflections on Ron and his work. In 1966, Georgetown was named a National Historic Landmark District, among the first designated by Congress. Shortly thereafter, Ron founded and became executive director of Historic Georgetown Inc. (HGI) in 1970. The next year, HGI bought the 1867 Hammil House and converted it into a museum, which showcases how wealthy mine owners and others lived in the harsh environment of the west at the turn of the century. From there, Ron and others went on to purchase and protect a number of historic structures throughout the town. In addition, Ron helped lead an effort to stop the building of a condominium complex on a mountain above the town. Following that success in 1982, Ron and HGI helped to buy the land on which the development would have occurred in order to keep it as open space. Presently, HGI has secured 2,000 acres of open space on the mountainsides towering above the town. This will not only preserve the historic feel of the area, but it also will protect some of the old mining artifacts and workings on these open spaces. In 1995, Ron worked with HGI to purchase an old filling station right of the interstate. His vision was to turn this into a Gateway Visitors Center to create an inviting first impression for visitors to Georgetown. Together with HGI and the Colorado Department of Transportation, Ron's vision became a reality when this facility was opened in 2003. Now, the Center sees 300,000 visitors annually. I had the pleasure of knowing and working with Ron. He continued to work steadfastly on projects and efforts to preserve, protect and enhance the Georgetown community. The town will reap the benefits of his work for years to come. I also had the chance to thank him personally at the ceremony early this year where he received the three awards. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life and achievement of Ron Neely. His legacy will live on in Georgetown and in others who work to preserve our past and make our communities vibrant places to live, work, raise a family, and appreciate. I have also included a story from the Rocky Mountain News regarding his death and life's work. [From Rocky Mountain News, Jan. 14, 2006] Neely Helped Create Historic Georgetown (By Mary Voelz Chandler) Ronald J. Neely's passion for preservation led to the founding of Historic Georgetown, new life for numerous buildings and stature as a wellspring of information for others who battle to save historic sites. Even a diagnosis in June of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, the progressive neuromuscular disease also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, didn't temper his love of talking about preservation battles past or present--or future. But complications from the disease ended his life Friday morning at Lutheran Medical Center. He died at age 66 of respiratory failure. ``Ron is the epitome of a leader who takes on a community with pride and passion and takes it light-years ahead,'' said Dana Crawford, a preservationist and developer, as well as president of Urban Neighborhoods. ``He did so much for that community and for others.'' Mr. Neely moved out of Denver to work at Loveland Ski Area in the late 1960s, tired of the city and eyeing a life on skis. Soon after, he settled in Georgetown and, with friends, in 1970 founded the preservation group that is credited with being the oldest in Colorado. ``A town like this kind of grabs you in a hurry,'' Mr. Neely said last year in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News. A few weeks before, he had been honored by three preservation groups with the Colorado Historical Society's Stephen H. Hart Award, Colorado Preservation Inc.'s Dana Crawford Award for Excellence in Historic Preservation, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation's President's Award. During the emotional program at the Oxford Hotel, Crawford looked out at the crowd and said, ``I feel we all went to college together--at Ron Neely University.'' The line brought laughter then; on Friday it brought agreement. ``He was one of the early preservation pioneers in the state and set the standard for the rest of us to follow in how you do it, in what grass-roots preservation is all about,'' said Barbara Pahl, head of the Mountains/Plains Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. ``He was one of the best and one of our state's treasures.'' Mr. Neely and Historic Georgetown worked to preserve several buildings in that city and were in discussions about buying and restoring the town's 1874 school building. His wife, Cynthia Neely, said Friday that effort will continue. When she told the school's owner of Mr. Neely's death, ``He said, `This will be a different place without him.' And he's right. This will be a different place without him.'' Passion and determination are words that come up often in conversations about Mr. Neely. ``The loss of Ron is a tremendous loss on so many levels,'' said Mark Wolfe, director of the State Historical Fund. ``He symbolized the determination preservation needs to be successful with sensitivity and generosity. I think that is a unique combination. He sincerely cared, not just about preservation, but the way it affected people.'' Survivors include his mother, Fran Phipps, of Arvada; wife, Cynthia, of Georgetown; son, Ronald J. (Burr) Neely Jr., of Fairbanks, Alaska; sister, Cherie DeAngelis, of Arvada; stepson, Ted Wadsworth, of Boston; close friend, Christine Bradley, of Georgetown; and several nieces and nephews. A tribute will be next week at the Hamill House in Georgetown, though the date has not been set, said Dana K. Abrahamson, executive director of Historic Georgetown Inc.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I occasionally use this forum to acknowledge the contributions my fellow Coloradans make on behalf of Colorado and our country. Today, I rise to commend the service of just such a person, my former colleague, State Senator Norma Anderson. Last month, Senator Anderson announced her retirement from the Colorado State Senate after nearly 20 years of uninterrupted service as a legislator. Both Democrats and Republicans lauded her record, and I wanted to lend my name to her long list of unabashed admirers. While we have served in different political parties and held separate offices in the public arena, I have always admired Norma Anderson's direct and honest approach to public service. She is the kind of person who speaks her mind, knows the rules, respects the needs of her constituents and above all, she is the kind of leader who is not afraid to let the chips fall after making a decision. Norma has never suffered fools and she is not one to be intimidated. In my brief service in the Colorado General Assembly I came to deeply respect her judgment; I appreciated her way of dealing with colleagues, and I still consider her a friend. A respected Denver Post columnist, Diane Carman, has called her ``an old-fashioned Republican with a sharp tongue, impeccable taste and a stubborn independent streak.'' I don't believe I can improve on this description of Norma except to add that she has always struck me as a formidable and principled woman, and her record of accomplishment and service to Colorado has few equals. [From the Denver Post, Jan. 4, 1906] Senator Wielded Grace, Independence (By Diane Carman) She's an old-fashioned Republican with a sharp tongue, impeccable taste and a stubborn independent streak. In a lot of ways, that explains it all. Norma Anderson retired Tuesday after 19 years in the Colorado legislature, saying only, ``It's the right thing for me at this time.'' She's not sick, the vibrant 73-year-old said. She's not angry or frustrated or bored. She's simply finished. The fact that a successor to her Senate seat will be appointed under a Republican governor and will have the edge of incumbency in the next election surely must have crossed her mind, though, as well as the inescapable reality that with the Republicans in the minority again this session, she wouldn't be wielding any gavels in the last months of her term-limited legislative career. Still, she exited gracefully with a subtle nod to partisan interests, a private party for her supporters and a firm commitment to personal priorities. No news conferences with TV cameras trained on her face. No razzmatazz. It was pure Norma, her ego in check. Many times over the years, she has been on the short lists to run for the U.S. Congress, for governor or for other statewide offices. She never caught the fever. ``At one time I was thinking about secretary of state. I sat down with Donetta Davidson: We talked a little bit, and I just said, `You do it, Donetta.' '' Being a state legislator was enough, she said, ``I never had any desire to do anything else.'' Not that it's been all bill-signing galas and warm accolades. Anderson is known for her ability to irritate her fellow lawmakers, maybe especially those in her own party. In the 1990s, when Colorado Republicans started leaning decidedly far to the right, Anderson remained a moderate--and a sometimes exasperating one at that. In one memorable stand against the party juggernaut, she voted against a bill to outlaw same-sex marriage. In another, she opposed a bill to require students to say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. She wasn't being obstinate, she said, she just didn't believe the government should be messing around in people's personal lives or requiring people to repeat pledges. She'd done her homework, she said, and it didn't seem right. She accepts credit for marshaling support for dozens of bills over the years, for establishing the state departments of transportation and human services, and for breaking untold barriers that kept women out of legislative leadership positions for decades. There are a few episodes she doesn't recall fondly, however, and one of them was the infamous midnight gerrymander. Anderson played a crucial role in slamming through the Republican redistricting scheme in the last three days of the 2003 legislative session, though she was clearly ambivalent about it. Sure, her expertise with Senate rules and circumventing them was critical to passage of the last minute bills, and she presided over most of the chaotic sessions. But she was not happy about it. In the midst of the nasty political uproar, she even declined to return a call from Bush adviser Karl Rove, who was either the mastermind of the ham-handed strategy or simply an interested observer, depending on whose spin you believe. That may have been her proudest moment in the whole mess. ``It was pretty common knowledge that I had concerns,'' Anderson told me back then, ``but I was elected to lead my caucus, and that's what I did.'' Months later, when the state Supreme Court threw out the redistricting plan and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Republicans' appeal, she didn't join the party bigs in fulminating about judicial overreach and legislating from the bench. She kept quiet. She respected the process. She believed in the democratic system. And if some folks think that's being stubbornly independent, she's OK with that. In a lot of ways, that explains it all.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on December 13th, I was serving on a jury in Colorado and so was not able to be present for several votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 623, H. Res. 487--Supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day-- ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 624, S. 1047--Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005-- ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 625, H.R. 3422--Small Public Housing Authority Act--``yes.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this conference report has flaws, and I dislike the way it was developed. But I think it deserves to be approved, and want to highlight a few reasons why. First, the conference report includes the original McCain amendment related to treatment of detainees, with additional language agreed to by the conferees and the Administration that provides our military and intelligence personnel with criminal and civil defenses modeled on those already provided to military personnel under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice in specific circumstances. I strongly supported the McCain amendment because, while it's said actions speak louder than words, reputations depend on both--and, fairly or not, for people around the world the actions of a few Americans at Abu Ghraib have left a stain on America's reputation and have made it harder for our troops to win the war against Islamic terrorists. Erasing that stain and protecting our soldiers from abuse will take both respectable actions and credible words--and enactment of this part of the conference report will give credibility to our words. I also am glad to note that the conference report includes the language adopted by the Senate saying that says 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and requiring quarterly reports until all combat brigades have been redeployed from Iraq. With my colleagues Representatives Osborn, Tauscher, and Schwarz, I urged that this be retained in the conference report as a step toward the greater unity among Members of Congress and the Administration that I think will be needed for a successful outcome in Iraq. So, its inclusion is another reason I support the conference report. There are also many broad provisions in the bill that benefit our troops. An important one increases the end strength for the Army and Marine Corps by 30,000 and 4,000 respectively, thereby helping to ease the strain on our troops. I'm also glad that the bill includes provisions to increase recruiting and retention incentives, increase the death gratuity to $100,000, and provide a 3.1% pay raise for members of the armed forces. The bill also provides better force protection for our troops, including nearly doubled funding for up- armored Humvees. Also critical is the report's provision authorizing reservists who agree to continue service to buy into a government-subsidized TRICARE healthcare program for themselves and their families. Along with many of my colleagues in the House, I have fought for some time to expand TRICARE for the Guard and Reserve, so I take great pleasure in knowing that the report includes this provision that will improve healthcare access for our men and women in the Selected Reserve. As long as our Nation continues to use our reserve components in the same capacities as active duty troops, they deserve similar benefits for similar service. The needs of our Reservists will continue to grow as we continue to call them to service in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also important--especially at this time of budget tightening--is the report's focus on reining in costs of major procurement programs, particularly the Future Combat Systems and other programs that have relied on immature technology. Similarly, provisions included to reform the acquisition system will strengthen current law governing cost overruns. I am also pleased that the report fully authorizes Cooperative Threat Reduction funding as well as additional funding for a Department of Energy nonproliferation program to implement agreements between the U.S. and Russia. One of the biggest dangers we face is the threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, yet the CTR program is currently funded at a lower level than it was before September 11th. So I am glad that report conferees recognized the importance of increasing CTR funding. On a less positive note, I am concerned that the report authorizes nearly $50 billion in a ``bridge fund''--over and above the $440 billion in the regular bill--for FY06 supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror. While inclusion in the report does mean that the authorizing process has been followed to an extent, still, the additional money in this bridge fund should be included in the regular budget request, since there is nothing unexpected about the need for these funds. The ``emergency'' label that these funds bear hides the fact that they do increase the size of the budget deficit. I don't believe this is a responsible way for us to pay for our military operations. And I have concerns about the provision related to the ability of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to seek judicial review of their situations. My understanding is that this could have the effect of allowing use of evidence obtained by coercive interrogations. At least one lawyer who represents detainees at Guantanamo has described the combination of the McCain amendment and this provision as one step forward and two steps back. I think we must carefully monitor implementation of this provision and be prepared to consider revisions in the near future. Further, Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hunter and for working with me on a number of provisions in the report that are important to me and my state of Colorado. In particular, I am pleased that the report includes favorable language on the Pueblo Chemical Depot, a former chemical weapons site located in southeastern Colorado. Coloradans were alarmed last year when the demilitarization project was put on hold, so they want to see that the Defense Department is committed to using the neutralization technology to destroy the 2,600 tons of mustard agent stored at Pueblo--not transporting the weapons to a different site for destruction. The Colorado delegation has worked hard to put the project back on the right track, so I am grateful for language in the bill directing the Secretary of the Army to continue to implement fully the neutralization technology at Pueblo. And, finally, the conference report includes provisions dealing with a matter of particular interest to Coloradans--the future of Rocky Flats. Located at the edge of the Denver metropolitan area, Rocky Flats formerly was part of the complex of sites where nuclear weapons were made. After that use ended, the Department of Energy and its contractors worked to have the site cleaned up and closed. That monumental task is now complete, and when the regulatory certification of cleanup and closure is issued, and most of the site will be transferred to the Interior Department for management as a national wildlife refuge pursuant to the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge Act. That Act, which I sponsored with Senator Wayne Allard, includes some provisions related to the non-Federal minerals--primarily sand and gravel--at Rocky Flats. The purpose of those provisions is to make clear that while these mineral rights are to be respected as private property, their future development could have adverse effects on the land, wildlife habitat, and other values of the future wildlife refuge. I think the best way to avoid that is for the Federal Government to acquire the minerals. This conference report will facilitate acquisition of part of those mineral rights, and while I think its terms leave room for improvement its enactment will enable valuable progress to be made. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the conference report deserves enactment and I urge its approval.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I, too, join my colleagues in acknowledging the bipartisan nature of this very important conference report. I want to thank Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Calvert on that side of that aisle for their leadership and for their good work and, as well, my ranking member on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). There are four key areas that I would just like to highlight in my remarks that are a part of this very important piece of legislation. Number one, we beef up the aeronautics effort of NASA, and we make sure that crucial research and development work continue, and the effect it has on our domestic economy, which is very, very crucial. Second, the Hubble telescope, we will do all we can under this legislation to service the Hubble telescope, and it has truly become the people's telescope. It is known not only in the scientific community but to lay people on the street. It is a tremendous asset for us today, and it will be in the future. Third, the legislation includes a piece of legislation I authored 4 years ago that deals with remote sensing data. That is the data that we are generating from the fleet of satellites that look down on the earth, and this data can be of great use to our cities, our towns, our counties and the private sector. The bill puts in place a grant program as well as increased access to that data so that it can be used by the American public. Finally, there is a provision that further strengthens the space grant program that brings into the career paths of science and technology mathematics and engineering, those young people who will not only teach the students of the future but who will also come up with the great inventions and the new technologies and new understanding from our great efforts in space and in aeronautics. So, Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill. I want to commend it to our colleagues, and I rise in support of this important piece of legislation and would ask every Member to support it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for this conference report. This report reflects the results of productive, bipartisan negotiations that began between House Republicans and Democrats and continued on with the Senate. This is a good conference report, and I would like to thank all the Conferees and their staff who worked on this report. In particular, I would like to thank our Conference Committee Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and Subcommittee Chairman Calvert. I have been pleased to see how this group has come together to put together an authorization bill that enables NASA to take positive steps in each of its mission directorates. I believe that it provides an essential balance between NASA's core missions as well as a timely long-term policy direction for NASA as it embarks on the Moon/Mars initiative. One of the strengths of this bill is that it highlights NASA's non- exploration related research and ensures that innovative work continues to be done in the Science and Aeronautics programs. To ensure the continued health of each of NASA's core missions, it sets up a budgetary structure that separates NASA's human space flight and exploration accounts from its science, aeronautics, and education accounts--in effect, it erects a flexible ``firewall'' between the accounts. Turning to some of the program-specific features of the conference report, I am pleased that it encourages NASA to take up three groundbreaking initiatives in subsonic, supersonic and rotor craft R&D under its Aeronautics program. Progress in aeronautics is crucial to the health of the Nation's air transportation industry, which in turn is crucial both to the continued strength of our domestic economy and our international competitiveness. That R&D also benefits our quality of life and enhances our national security. We need to encourage it, and this bill does just that. In addition, while the new Exploration initiative at NASA has gotten the most public attention recently, NASA's science programs have continued to be some of NASA's ``crown jewels''--generating discoveries that have been captivating the American public for decades. For example, images from Hubble have helped us better understand our universe, but they also allow amateur astronomers of all ages to study the wonders of space. In short, Hubble has truly become the peoples' telescope, and I am gratified that this bill calls for a mission to service Hubble to be scheduled and authorizes funding accordingly. This bill also seeks to make sure that the scientific research on the International Space Station achieves its full potential by ensuring that both exploration and non-exploration related research is performed. Microgravity and life science research can help us better understand the affects of space on the human body, moving forward our efforts in human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. It also has many applications here on Earth, and this bill ensures that the ISS will support diverse research goals by requiring that at least 15 percent of all research funds for the International Space Station are to be used for nonexploration related research such as ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS life and microgravity science research. I believe it is important that we continue to encourage commercial involvement in our space missions, including through research initiatives. There are several partnerships existing between the science community and industry that perform research on the International Space Station. This bill speaks to the need to preserve fundamental, applied, and commercial life sciences and other micro gravity research that allows commercial participation in the research performed on Station. I would also like to highlight another title of this bill that will allow cities and municipalities better access to remote sensing data. Many cities in our country--including in my home state of Colorado--are faced with a real problem of excess growth and sprawl. We now have technology--using geospatial data from satellites--that can produce very accurate maps that show information about vegetation, wildlife habitat, flood plains, transportation corridors, soil types, and many other things. This bill includes provisions--based on legislation I had authored several years ago--that would establish in NASA a program of grants for competitively awarded pilot projects. The purpose of the pilot projects would be to explore the integrated use of governmental and commercial remote sensing data and other geospatial information to address state, local, regional, and tribal agency planning and decision-making needs. State and local governments and communities can use geospatial information in a variety of applications--in such areas as urban land- use planning, coastal zone management and erosion control, transportation corridors, environmental planning, and agricultural and forest management. As I indicated, the provisions in this conference report will allow cities and municipalities access to such data from many available commercial sources, as well as from governmental sources. Lastly, I would like to point out the NASA education programs authorized in this bill that engage young students in space and earth science and encourage them to pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and careers. It is no secret that the United States is falling behind in producing graduates in STEM disciplines. Through programs such as Space Grant, NASA is reaching out to students to provide a hands-on experience studying space-related fields. As a nation we must do more to ensure our students are getting the science education they need to compete globally, and I believe these NASA programs are taking steps in the right direction to do this. Mr. Speaker, there are many other provisions I could highlight, but in closing, I simply would like to say that I strongly believe that this is a good conference report. It is the product of open dialog and negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate alike, and I am pleased that we were able to bring it to the floor today. I would again like to thank my colleagues on the Conference Committee for their hard work to make this report a reality. This is the right policy for NASA and I urge members to support its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, while there is much in this bill that concerns me, I will vote for it because its primary purpose is to make necessary improvements in securing our borders, which I think is needed as part--but only part--of immigration-reform legislation. To be frank, however, if this bill represented our last word on immigration reform, I would vote against it. By focusing exclusively on the question of border security and immigration enforcement, the House Republican leadership is ignoring the most difficult and challenging aspect of immigration reform, namely the question of how to deal humanely and effectively with the estimated 8-11 million illegal immigrants currently living and working in this country. Moreover, I am not in favor of making every man, woman and child who overstays a visa or resides in this country illegally a criminal. By making any violation of immigration rules a criminal rather than a civil offense we may only end up discouraging law enforcement from discovering real threats of terrorism or violent criminal conduct. Driving illegal immigrants deeper underground, even more than current law, which keeps them in the shadows, is a terrible tactic if our overarching goal is national security. So, Mr. Chairman, there are some strong reasons for voting against this legislation. It offers no full solution to the problem of illegal immigration; it is unnecessarily punitive toward otherwise law-abiding individuals, and it unwisely commits this country to the construction of a costly border fence that many security experts believe will divert resources away from more important homeland security needs. My readiness to support this bill was also reduced by the rhetoric of some who are most vocally in support of it. There is perhaps no more divisive issue in our country than immigration, and sadly, the tone and content of much of the debate in the House has only fueled the division. I discussed the tone and substance of this debate with a good friend and colleague from the Republican side of the aisle and found that we agreed that the House was missing an opportunity to unite the country and pass a sorely-needed comprehensive immigration reform bill. Despite these concerns, I will vote in favor of this bill because we have to make necessary investments in border security and enforcement. The 9/11 Commission has recommended increased immigration enforcement personnel, stronger surveillance, tougher entry-and-exit procedures and the use of better technologies to enhance our border security. This bill addresses these concerns and I favor all of these provisions. Finally, I am convinced that reassuring the American people that we have taken strong action to strengthen enforcement and secure our borders is a necessary predicate for the harder and more complicated task of addressing the problem of existing illegal and undocumented workers. With stronger border security and enforcement established we can work with the Administration and our colleagues in the Senate to build a consensus for the harder task of clarifying the status of existing illegal immigrants, most of whom are hard-working and otherwise law- abiding people, in a humane and thoughtful way that will protect children, include guest-worker needs and establish a fairer process for legalized entry. If that effort succeeds--as I think it can and am convinced it must--the result not only will be better than the bill before us, it will be a measure that deserves to be sent to the President for signing into law.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the procedures under which this resolution is being debated. I voted against those procedures because the House should have been able to have a full and free debate and to consider possible changes in the resolution. For example, Representative Lantos proposed that we congratulate the Iraqi people on three national elections conducted in Iraq this year, encourage all Americans to express support for the people of Iraq, and express thanks to the members of the U.S. armed forces whose heroism permitted the Iraqi people to vote safely in yesterday's elections. That would have been something all Members of the House could support, if the Republican leadership had permitted that to be considered. Still, I will vote for the resolution that is now before us, for several reasons. First, the resolution calls yesterday's parliamentary elections a ``crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy.'' I couldn't agree more. Reports are still coming in and we won't know the results for some time, but it's clear that the day was a success in terms of high turnout and low levels of violence. To the extent that increased Sunni participation means a greater political role for Sunnis in the new parliament, we could see weakened support for the insurgency. And the Iraqi people should be commended for their courage in coming out to vote--not once, but three times this year. The resolution then goes on to call for a commitment to victory in Iraq, although it doesn't define ``victory.'' I strongly suspect this language was added, not so much to send a positive message to our soldiers or the Iraqi people so much as it was designed to bolster President Bush's recent speeches in Iraq where the word ``victory'' looms large. Unlike American success in World War II, ``victory'' in Iraq cannot be measured by military success alone. This was achieved when our troops toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. What we can hope for in Iraq is that a responsible withdrawal of American forces can be linked to measurable benchmarks of political stability. This means that Iraqi security forces must be capable of providing for the safety of Iraqis. It means that Iraq's cities and infrastructure are rebuilt and its citizens have access to electricity and clean water. A successful withdrawal strategy means that America will no longer bear the brunt of the burden--that the U.N., other international organizations, our allies, and countries in the region will step up to assist with the nation-building mission in Iraq. A successful outcome in Iraq is essential because failure in this part of the world could lead to wider war, greater terrorism and a disaster for our national security. To be frank, it is not so much ``victory'' that ought to concern us so much as a need to avoid ``failure.'' Unfortunately, whether we can avoid a failure in Iraq is a question that is not completely in our hands because only the Iraqis themselves can find the will necessary to live alongside each other and to make the compromises necessary to build a functioning government based on an inclusive constitution. For the record, I opposed the Iraq war resolution, but I have resisted supporting an artificial deadline for withdrawing troops. I believe we need a plan that is designed to bring our troops home and make clear to the Islamic world that we harbor no ambitions for permanent bases, Iraqi oil revenues or any military occupation. But how we withdraw is as important as when we withdraw. This means giving the Iraqis time to form a permanent government and establish the means for international support. We must exercise deep care in the way our country withdraws because leaving a failed state in Iraq will deeply endanger our country. We were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more divided. That's why I led a letter last month to Defense Authorization conferees with my colleagues Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE), Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), and Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-MI) urging conferees to include language passed overwhelmingly in the Senate urging President Bush to outline his strategy for withdrawal from Iraq and to provide Members of Congress with quarterly reports on the progress of American operations in Iraq. We wrote this letter because we believe that a successful withdrawal from Iraq can only be helped if Congress and the Bush Administration work to bring unity at home. It is in our national interest to show the greatest amount of unity possible to the American people, to the international community, and to the Iraqi people, who so bravely made their way to polling stations all over Iraq yesterday. Sending a message of encouragement to the Iraqi people to build stable institutions based on democratic principles is important at this critical time. it is for this fundamental reason that I vote today in support of this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, because it was added in error, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 73.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why I sought and obtained unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 73, a resolution introduced by my friend and colleague Rep. Jack Murtha calling for the rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. In short, my name was added in error. But I'd like to take this opportunity to explain why I cannot support Mr. Murtha's resolution at this time. Rep. Murtha's call for the rapid redeployment of U.S. forces carries significant weight in Congress because he is not only a decorated veteran, but also one of the most respected voices in our country on military and national security policy. Like Rep. Murtha, I believe the Bush administration has largely failed in Iraq because the civilian direction of the war has not matched the skill and sacrifice of our soldiers. Going to war the way we did was a strategic mistake, and the aftermath has been a failure because of the president's refusal to plan and refusal to listen. Unlike Mr. Murtha, I voted against the resolution authorizing the president to rush to war in the first place. I did so because I had concerns about the president's refusal to consider more aggressive inspections of WMD before going to war, his inability to secure greater international support, his obvious failure to develop a plan for securing peace after ousting Saddam, and his reckless disregard of experienced military advice. Although I was an outspoken opponent of going to war in Iraq, I have supported our brave soldiers because it has seemed to me that our national security is now linked, like it or not, to a credible plan for stabilizing Iraq and preventing a catastrophic civil war in the region. I remain concerned about setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal because how we leave is as important as when we leave. Nevertheless, Mr. Murtha's call, coupled with the evaporation of public confidence in the president's management of the war, should be a wake-up call to the president to develop a strategy that can garner bipartisan support and set an unmistakable path toward exiting Iraq expeditiously and with our interests and security intact. This country cannot have 535 commanders-in-chief. There can only be one commander-in-chief, and we need him to better explain his strategy and to be honest with the American people about the costs and timetable for executing that strategy. We were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more divided. A successful outcome in Iraq can only be helped if Congress and the Bush Administration work to bring unity at home. In a hopeful sign, that kind of unity was on display when the Senate recently passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a resolution requiring accountability by the president in Iraq. The House should, at a minimum, do the same.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, four years ago I voted against the bill that became the ``USA PATRIOT Act,'' more commonly called simply the ``PATRIOT Act.'' I agreed that our law-enforcement agencies needed increased power and more tools to fight terrorists. But I also thought then--and still think today--it was imperative for Congress to proceed carefully in order to protect Americans' civil liberties. However, I took some comfort from the fact that a number of the most troublesome provisions of the new law were temporary and would expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts to renew them. The imminent expiration of those provisions is why the House considered this legislation in July, and provides the impetus for the conference report before us today. I think the value of such ``sunset'' provisions is shown by the debate on that bill and today's debate on the conference report. It is evidence that requiring Congressional action to renew agencies' authorities can and does result in ongoing Congressional oversight and periodic reconsideration. In July, I voted against the bill because it would have made permanent no fewer than 14 of the 16 provisions of the original ``Patriot Act'' that were covered by the law's ``sunset'' clause--as well as other new authorities provided by last year's bill to reform the intelligence community--and under the bill the other two would not have faced a ``sunset'' for a full 10 years. However, at the same time I noted that there was considerable support in the other body--by Senators on both sides of the aisle--for provisions that would improve on this legislation. And I hoped and expected that once the Senate had acted and the conference was completed, the result would be a measure that deserves the support of all Members of Congress. Unfortunately, after careful review I have concluded that this conference report, while an improvement over the bill the House passed in July, is still so seriously flawed that I cannot support it. The conference report does not do enough to reduce the potential that the authority it gives to the FBI and other agencies could be abused or misused in ways that intrude on Americans' privacy and civil liberties--a potential that has led more than 300 communities and seven States, including Colorado--governments representing over 62 million people--to pass resolutions opposing parts of the Patriot Act. The Senate, to its credit, did a better job than the House in responding to the concerns that prompted such resolutions, while still providing ample tools that the government can use to work against the threat of more terrorist attacks, at home and abroad. I could have supported enactment of the bill as passed by the Senate. That is why I voted for the motion to recommit. But I cannot support this conference report as it stands.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly oppose this legislation. I support changing the current rules related to pensions, and had hoped that this bill would be considered under procedures that would allow it to be improved. However, the Republican leadership has made it impossible for even a single amendment to be considered--and the bill's flaws so outweigh its good features that it should not be passed in its current form. Among the most troubling aspects of the bill is its potential effect on defined-benefit pension plans. Some 34 million Americans are now covered by defined-benefit plans, but their retirement security is threatened by the failure of some companies to adequately fund the plans, by corporate bankruptcies such as that of United Airlines, and consideration by even profitable companies of freezing benefits and ending their plans. And many of the people who manage large pension plans tell us the result of enacting this bill's provisions that would make significant changes to the rules for these plans and increase the premiums companies pay the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, could be benefit cuts or, worse, termination of even well-funded plans. At the same time, the bill's requirements for increased payments to PBGC threatens the financial health of many manufacturing companies and fail even to adequately improve PBGC's financial condition--its own analysis found that the bill would increase the agency's financial shortfall by $2.5 billion. And both the Congressional Budget Office and PBGC have concluded that the bill would increase claims on the Federal Government by billions of dollars, which would increase the likelihood of a massive taxpayer bailout as well as the loss of billions of dollars in employee and retiree benefits. I am not prepared to support legislation that would increase the chances of such outcomes, especially when its tax provisions would substantially increase future budget deficits and would primarily benefit taxpayers in the highest income groups. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the revenue effects of the tax provisions primarily benefiting higher-income households would grow from $3.6 billion in 2012, the first full year affected, to $5.6 billion a year by 2015. But the effect of extending the saver's credit, which is most important to lower-income honseholds, would fall from $1.4 billion in 2008, the first full year affected by that provision, to $943 million by 2015. That means that while in 2012, the saver's credit would account for one-fourth of the total benefits of all of these provisions, by 2015 it would account for only 14 percent of the total benefits. And after that the saver's credit would dwindle further, eventually fading away, while the upper-income pension tax changes would become still more robust. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says, ``To allow the severe erosion over time of the principal tax incentive for modest- income families to save for retirement does not make sense as retirement policy. To do so while protecting very generous retirement tax-cut benefits that go overwhelmingly to higher-income taxpayers who generally are able to save adequately for retirement anyway, without these tax subsidies, is even less defensible. And incorporating regressive tax policy of this nature into a bill that swells budget deficits, and opens the door to still more deficit-increasing tax cuts in the future, stands sound policy on its head.'' I think they are right. And, in addition to badly framed provisions, the bill's flaws also include some serious omissions. I am particularly disappointed there is nothing in the bill like the bipartisan Senate-passed provisions to protect the pensions of employees and retirees of airline companies. As Coloradans know all too well, the employees and retirees of United Airlines already have lost $3 billion in earned pension benefits. We should be working to help them, and we also should be working to make it less likely that their experience will be repeated. In summary, Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that there are good aspects to this bill, and while I think Congress does need to act on this subject, I think that on balance the bill as it stands should be rejected so that a better-balanced measure can be brought forward.