Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the town of Granby, Colorado. Granby is a small town with a population of 1,525 located on the Fraser River with breathtaking views of the Continental Divide and Rocky Mountain National Park. Despite its size, Granby holds an important place within Colorado's history. It was first settled in 1904 and incorporated the next year. The town was established along the railroad line being built by Denver, Northwestern & Pacific and was a connection with the state route to Grand Lake. The Granby site was chosen because of the dry ground and good view of the surrounding mountains. The town was named in appreciation of the services of Denver attorney, Granby Hillyer, who worked to layout the town site. By the 1920's the town was a thriving commercial and service center for local farmers and ranchers. It was during this time that Granby became known for its lettuce which became a major crop for Granby. In fact, at the peak of the market, the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City proudly advertised Granby Head Lettuce on its menus. Today Granby boasts some of the finest recreational opportunities that Colorado is so well-known for, including hiking, rafting, hunting, gold medal river water for fishing, horseback riding, and dog sledding. to name a few. Granby is also known for its local charm and hospitality, as well as its preservation of its western rural roots--I have developed an affinity with this town and appreciate the friendliness and communal spirit of its residents. This community has welcomed me to their town in a manner that greatly reflects the essence of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in commemorating the historic 100th anniversary of Granby, Colorado. I believe that by honoring Granby and all the other historic small towns of this vast nation, we keep the great tradition of the American spirit alive for future generations. We must not forget about the many places that molded our country into what it is today. Centennial celebrations are few and far between, and Granby is deserving of our recognition.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and congratulate my Colorado colleague, Mr. Tancredo, for his leadership in introducing it. I joined as a cosponsor of this bill because I also want to improve the ability of the land-managing agencies to adequately enforce the rules that apply to uses of the federal lands. That is why in the 108th Congress I introduced a related bill--the Responsible Off-road Vehicle Enforcement and Response Act, or ``ROVER.'' That bill was narrow, dealing only with enforcement of the regulations for use of vehicles on National Forest lands and public lands managed by BLM. This bill goes much further. In addition to the forests and BLM lands, it also applies to lands managed by the National Park Service and the refuges managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. And it addresses the enforcement of all regulations, not just those related to use of vehicles. Last year, Mr. Tancredo and I worked with Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, and other Members of the Resources Committee, to develop the broader measure. That bill passed the House, but the Senate did not complete action on it. So, Representative Tancredo and I joined in reintroducing it as H.R. 975, the bill now before the House. I urge its approval, because legislation for better and more consistent enforcement of regulations is needed. However, we need to recognize that it is only one part of a bigger picture. Even more than new legislation, it seems to me, the land-managing agencies need more resources--more money and more people--if we want them to do a better job. That was why I introduced a related bill--H.R. 599--which the Resources Committee has also reported. It would allow the agencies to use money from fines to help pay for some of the restoration work caused by violations of regulations, as well as for offsetting the administrative costs involved in enforcement of those regulations. This is something that I think should be addressed in the future, and I will seek to work with other Members to do that. Today, however, we can take an important step forward by passing this bill, and I urge the House to approve it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and commend my Colorado colleague, Mrs. Musgrave, for its introduction. The bill would direct the Interior Department to convey to the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District wants the title to some of the water-distribution facilities that are part of the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson project. That project, authorized by Congress in 1937 to provide water for agricultural and other uses, consists of dams, dikes, reservoirs, powerplants, pumping plants, pipelines, tunnels, and substations spread over approximately 250 miles. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the project's local government sponsor, operates and maintains all of the water conveyance facilities. H.R. 3443 directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer 58 miles of the Project's water conveyance facilities (the St. Vrain Supply Canal, Boulder Creek Supply Canal, and South Platte Supply Canal) to the District. The transfer will allow the District to more cost- effectively manage the facilities, reduce paperwork requirements, provide for local ownership and reduce the federal government's liability. The District, which has operated and maintained these water conveyance facilities since 1957, has repaid the appropriate capital costs associated with the facilities. Despite this repayment, the title of the facilities remains in the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill directs the transfer of this title with no conditions. It is modeled on the successful transfer (Public Law 106-376) of other single purpose water conveyance facilities associated with the Colorado Big-Thompson Project. None of the affected facilities are used to generate electricity. However, payments by electricity customers have been contributing to the repayment for the overall project, and the electricity customers still owe something under that repayment contract. To reflect that, the bill provides for transfer of funds from electricity-sale collections to complete repayment of the amount the electricity customers owe toward repayment of the facilities to be transferred. The bill includes language to make clear that it will not lessen the existing responsibilities of the district or affect the rights of two ditch companies whose ditches have been part of the distribution system for water from the Colorado-Big Thompson project. And, to stimulate prompt implementation, the bill says that if the transfer isn't completed within a year Interior must send a written report to Congress explaining why it hadn't done so and to keep reporting annually until the transfer is complete. I joined as a cosponsor of this legislation because I think it will be beneficial both for the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District and for the federal government. I urge its approval.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this bill, we must remember it is only part of a brew based on the Republican leadership's budget recipe. Just before Thanksgiving, they twisted enough arms to put the first ingredients into the mixing bowl by passing a bill to cut more than $50 billion over five years from Medicaid, student loans, and many other programs of great importance to millions of Americans. Today, they want to continue by adding some good things--including extensions of well-targeted tax cuts like the research and development tax credit and small business expensing tainted by some unwholesome provisions, especially the premature extension of preferential rates for dividends and capital gains. The result, just in time for holiday parties, will be a full-bodied one-two punch. And while some may find it intoxicating, it will have a nasty aftertaste for many, will leave everyone with a bad budgetary headache--because it will actually increase the deficit--and will stick future generations with paying the tab. So, Mr. Speaker, count me out. I thought the original recipe was wrong. I did not vote for the first part of the mixture. And I will not vote for this bill. That doesn't mean I am opposed to tax cuts. As I said, there are good things in this bill, and I support them. That's why I voted for the substitute. The substitute would have exempted every family making less than $200,000 from the alternative minimum tax--something that should be a priority but that is not included in the bill before us. Adoption of the motion to recommit would have had the same effect. The substitute also included $42 billion in tax cuts over five years targeted to spur economic growth by extending the most pressing tax provisions that are now scheduled to expire this year. However, unlike this bill, the substitute did not include extension of things that will not expire this year--including the preferential rates for dividends and capital gains--or the changes to international tax rules. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership was not willing to follow that more reasonable approach, and is insisting on sticking with their own recipe. But the Senate has passed a quite different tax measure, and differences between that bill and this one will have to be resolved in conference. So, while I cannot support this bill I am hopeful that the conferees will insist on a new and better mixture that will deserve support.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and congratulate the U.S. Small Business Administration's Colorado District Office, under the leadership of District Director Patricia Barela Rivera, for directing a record $520 million into Colorado's economy through its lending programs during 2005. The SBA approved 2,255 loan guarantees, a 20 percent increase over 2004, which is the highest number of loans ever approved in Colorado. This critical investment will help strengthen Colorado's economy and create jobs. Many women and minority-owned businesses are the beneficiaries of these SBA loans. Of the total number of loans, 1,010 worth $214.6 million went to women and minority firms, and 188 loans worth $38.7 million went to small businesses owned and operated by veterans. Access to capital is critical in starting and maintaining a business and these loans will ensure that women, minorities and veterans will be part of a robust economy and they will be able to live the American dream. In addition, I am also pleased at the level of outreach that the Colorado District Office has done in rural Colorado. A large portion of the loans distributed in 2005 went to small businesses in rural areas, which oftentimes are left out during good times and hurt even more when the economy takes a downturn. Every area of the state should be able to share in the success of our economy, and through the tireless efforts of the Colorado District Office staff many rural areas in the State are not being forgotten. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the steadfast leadership of SBA District Director Patricia Barela Rivera. Patricia understands that small businesses are the backbone of America's economy. She is one of the most talented public servants in Colorado who is always striving for excellence, always coming to the aid of those individuals in need, and always working to make our State a better place to live, work, and play. The SBA is lucky to have Patricia as its ambassador in Colorado. I salute her for her unswerving dedication and I know she and her staff will continue to make all of us proud.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Boulder-Dushanbe Sister Cities organization and its ongoing work to develop friendship and understanding between the citizens of Boulder, Colorado, and the citizens of Dushanbe, Tajikistan. In 1987, two cities on opposite sides of the world, in countries on opposite sides of the political spectrum, collaborated to bring their respective traditions, culture, and history to one another in a peaceful manner. During a time of great conflict and tension, the cities of Boulder, Colorado, and Dushanbe, Tajikistan, united as the Sister Cities. Over the next 3 years, dozens of Tajikistani painters, woodcarvers, and ceramicists worked on completing Dushanbe's gift to Boulder, the Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse. The result was a magnificent structure and a wonderful restaurant that offers exquisite cuisine and atmosphere. Now it is our turn to give back to the people of Dushanbe. Planning is well underway for Boulder's reciprocal gift of a cybercafe, which will be part restaurant, learning center, and Internet connection point. Most of all it will be our way of connecting to Tajikistan--by sharing our culture, helping Tajiks communicate with the outside world, providing educational resources, and investing in their community. At a time when international understanding between countries and their citizens is more valuable than ever, this project deserves strong support. Mr. Chairman, I've attached a June 2005 newspaper article from The Daily Camera highlighting progress on the cybercafe project. I think it's important to call attention to this project and the volunteer efforts of the Boulder-Dushanbe Sister Cities organization. On its website, the group writes about the cybercafe that it ``hopes that that gathering place, offering computer and Internet access rare in that part of the world, will bring to life the goal of helping people connect through what they have in common rather than what keeps them separate.'' I share that hope and commend the Boulder-Dushanbe Sister Cities organization for helping this project come to life. [From the Daily Camera, June 20, 2005] Residents Work To Repay Debt: Dushanbe Cybercafe Project Is Expected To Start in Fall (By Ryan Morgan) Boulder owes the city of Dushanbe a cybercafe to reciprocate for a teahouse from the Tajikistani capital that opened in Boulder in 1998. Now, after years of work, the Boulder residents organizing the cybercafe effort have received good news from Dushanbe officials: They expect to break ground on the project this fall. Don Mock, a former Boulder city councilman and co-president of Boulder-Dushanbe Sister Cities, said his group learned late last week that city planners in Dushanbe had approved a new site for the cafe. ``It looks like some of the final hurdles have been cleared,'' he said. Much of the delay came after Mock and other committee members realized that the site originally proposed for the cybercafe--one that would have placed it in downtown Dushanbe, next to a large concert hall and the national library--wouldn't work. It turned out that city planners there wanted every building in that district to be at least five stories tall, far beyond the expected scale and cost of the planned cybercafe. So organizers had to find a new site and alter the building's design. If all goes well, the cybercafe will sit in Dushanbe's Park of International Friendship, Mock said. Mock said he thinks the cybercafe will give something of real value to residents of Dushanbe. It will offer books in Tajik and Russian and a ``cultural center,'' he said. ``It's going to be more than a place to check e-mail.'' With a final plan in place, the sister cities committee will now start redoubling its fundraising efforts. ``We want to be able to tell these big donors exactly what they'll be getting for their donation,'' Mock said. The committee has raised about $400,000 and will need to raise an additional $300,000, he said. Vern Seieroe, an architect helping to design the building, said he is relieved the process of navigating an often confusing bureaucracy located 7,000 miles away will finally yield dividends. ``You can only imagine the obscurity of what the process is, seeing it and attempting to understand it from this distance,'' Seieroe said. ``We're learning a lot. Our learning curve is almost vertical.'' Boulder's colorful Dushanbe Teahouse was also the culmination of several years' work and delays. Tajik craftsmen carved the intricate structure, disassembled it into 14 sections and shipped them to Boulder in 1990. The sections sat in storage for years. In 1998, they were re- assembled and the teahouse finally opened its doors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4340, the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Overall I believe the agreement contains numerous important benefits for the people of both the United States and Bahrain. The agreement would allow 100 percent of American-made industrial and consumer goods and virtually all agricultural products to enter Bahrain duty free. The agreement would also expand access for the United States to many of the financial and service sectors in Bahrain along with strengthening intellectual property protections. This improved commercial relationship between our countries will benefit many sectors of the American economy, including agriculture, banking and securities, and high technology. I have supported a number of trade agreements to expand access to foreign markets for exports as part of a long-term strategy to strengthen the American economy. While expanding markets for American businesses and farmers is critical, I believe it needs to be done responsibly, accounting for the treatment and protection of workers and the environment. This agreement makes efforts to do so. Regarding the agreement's labor provisions, I am concerned that Bahrain is not in complete compliance with International Labor Organization, (ILO), core labor standards. But it is my understanding that Bahrain has committed in an exchange of letters--which will be included with the trade agreement--to modify domestic laws to comply with key labor standards. I commend the Kingdom of Bahrain for its commitment to modify its domestic laws, and I urge the Administration and the United States Trade Representative, (USTR), to monitor progress in this regard. In the future, I think the administration and the USTR would be well served by including labor provisions, such as those included in the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, in the body of future trade agreements and by making them subject to sanctions via dispute resolution procedures. The dispute resolution procedures fall short in the case of the Bahrain FTA. It is important that the United States takes step to ensure our trading partners provide workers with basic labor rights. By including such requirements we dedicate ourselves to this goal. While this agreement is largely about the liberalized exchange of goods and services, it is also about building a stronger relationship with a strategic country in the Middle East. Opening up commerce between the U.S. and Bahrain can help us gain Bahrain's support for initiatives in other areas, such as resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and restoring security to Iraq. In that connection, it is important to note that Bahrain is not observing the Arab League boycott of Israel. I welcome the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement and urge its support.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in support of this bill which I introduced, and which is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Salazar). I want to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Tom Udall for making it possible for this bill to be on the floor today. The bill provides for completion of the land exchange that involves Pitkin County, Colorado, on the one hand and two Federal agencies, the Forest Service and the BLM, on the other. Under the exchange, the County will transfer two parcels to the Forest Service, a 5-acre tract known as the Ryan property, near the ghost town of Ashcroft; and in addition, about 18.2 acres on Smuggler Mountain near Aspen, Colorado. These acquisitions will complete the Ashcroft Preservation Project, which was initiated by the Forest Service in 1980 to consolidate its National Forest land ownership in and around the historic ghost town of Ashcroft. They will also help the Forest Service better manage its lands on Smuggler Mountain, a heavily used recreational area directly above the City of Aspen. In return, the Federal Government will transfer to the County; first, a 5.5 acre tract south of Aspen known as the Wildwood parcel, which the county in turn will transfer to private ownership after reserving a permanent public easement for a trail. Second, nearly 6 acres, spread over 12 scattered locations on Smuggler Mountain that abut or are near lands owned by the county. And, finally, a 40-acre tract of BLM land along the Crystal River, which will be subject to a permanent conservation easement limiting future use to recreational, fish and wildlife, and open-space purposes. The bill, Mr. Speaker, requires standard appraisals of all properties involved. It provides that if the lands going to the county are worth less than what the county is giving to the Federal Government, the county will waive additional payment. On the other hand, if the lands provided by the county are worth less than those the county is to receive, the county will either pay cash to equalize or convey an additional tract of about 160 acres in the Sellers' Meadow area near Hagerman Pass to make up the difference. A similar measure, Senate bill 100, has been introduced by Colorado's Senators. I think the bill is fair and balanced, and I am not aware of any controversy connected with it. I urge its passage. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the leadership and energy of my colleague from the west slope of Colorado (Mr. Salazar), who represents this beautiful part of our State, are a key part of why this bill is in front us today, and I want to commend him for his involvement and ask the other body to take this up with dispatch.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I have no doubt that the majority of the House will oppose it, so it will be voted down. And by voting down this resolution, we are responding to the Republican leadership's desire to have us say what we're against. But that's the easy part. The hard part--the part that should be under discussion--is to say exactly what we are for, what policy we think our country should follow regarding our military involvement in Iraq. The Republicans don't want to have that discussion. They would rather put forward a politicized, petty, irresponsible resolution that is intended to score political points. Like the Bush Administration, they are adopting the tactics of a political campaign, and like the Administration, their greatest success will only be to further divide Americans. How does this honor our men and women in uniform who are even now risking their lives in Iraq? It's clear that the Republican leadership is concerned that Representative Jack Murtha's call for the rapid redeployment of American forces and reducing our military presence in Iraq is already carrying significant weight in Congress. Why else would the Republicans seek to trivialize and play politics with this proposal from a man who is not only a decorated veteran, but one of the most respected voices in our country on military and national security policy? Like Mr. 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. 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 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 do not think supporting our troops is a partisan matter. In fact, I know everyone on both sides of the aisle does support them. So, it is disappointing--but, unfortunately, not surprising--that some have alleged otherwise. And, some have suggested the resolution we are voting on today is a Democratic resolution, even though it was introduced by the gentleman from California, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who of course is a Republican. The resolution we are voting on today isn't Jack Murtha's resolution--it is a cheap ripoff of a well-intended effort on the part of a respected veteran and long-serving Member. Jack Murtha's resolution calls for the immediate termination of the deployment of our forces, but it also says that the redeployment of forces should happen at the earliest practicable date, not right away. Jack Murtha's resolution includes important safeguards such as a quick-reaction U.S. force and a presence of U.S. Marines outside of Iraq who could respond as necessary if events in Iraq were spiral out of control. I remain concerned about setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal because how we leave is as important as when we leave. That's why I cannot support Mr. Murtha's resolution and why I certainly cannot vote for this resolution proposed by Mr. Hunter. Nevertheless, the fact of today's debate, 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 withdrawal 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 address the country, explain his withdrawal strategy, and to be honest with the American people about the costs and timetable for withdrawal. We were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more divided. A successful withdrawal from 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 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a resolution requiring accountability by the president in Iraq, and the House should, at a minimum, do the same.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, through four Congresses now, we have worked with outside groups and the agencies to address the flaws in this legislation as it was originally introduced. As in the previous Congress, we do not intend to impose this legislation. However, the majority is amending H.R. 585 to remove authorize station for funding to assist these local gateway communities. It is unfortunate that as we are making available new information and technical assistance, we are not providing these communities the funding they will need to take advantage of these new opportunities. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose H.R. 585. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to work with local interests to study possible projects to stabilize groundwater levels in San Joaquin County, California. I appreciate the efforts made by Chairman Pombo, the author of this bill, to accommodate the concerns of neighboring water users. Specifically, language in Section 2 of H.R. 3812 was carried forward from the 108th Congress to allow the participation of the East Bay Municipal Utility District and other stakeholders as this project moves forward. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to passage of this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4195 will allow any landowner within the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District or the Medford Irrigation District to repay at any time the construction costs of the Federal Bureau of Reclamation project, from which the landholder receives irrigation water. By prepaying their share of the remaining repayment obligation, landowners will be exempted from the acreage limitation and reporting requirements of reclamation law. We on this side of the aisle have no objection to enactment of H.R. 4195. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from California has already explained the purpose of Senate bill 212, which is a Senate-passed measure dealing with a conservation unit located in the district of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), my colleague and cousin. The Valles Caldera National Preserve, formerly known as the Baca Ranch, was authorized by Congress in 2000 to preserve certain natural, cultural, and recreational resources through a unique management arrangement. Since its establishment, the preserve has undergone some growing pains, which the provisions of S. 212 are intended to help address. I want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for his work and active support in helping to see that the Valles Caldera National Preserve achieves the purposes for which it was established. Mr. Speaker, we support Senate bill 212 and urge adoption of the legislation by the House today. Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from the great State of New Mexico (Mr. Udall), my cousin.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and to pay particular tribute to our colleague from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). Mr. Udall introduced a companion bill as H.R. 600, and he has been a true champion for passage of this important legislation. He has worked tirelessly to impress upon us the urgency and the timeliness of these provisions. Once enacted, as my good friend from California pointed out, this language will clarify the boundaries of criminal jurisdiction among the State, county, and tribal governments for lands on and near the New Mexico Pueblos. As a result of some recent court decisions in New Mexico, certain Indian lands have gone without any government protection from criminal acts. As the former Attorney General of New Mexico, Mr. Udall understands fully that this put Native Americans in his district in a very perilous position. I congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico for his tenacity in getting this issue to the forefront and commend him on the humility he showed in insisting the Senate bill be moved, rather than his own, in order to more quickly enact the legislation. Knowing him as I do, I am not surprised that he put doing the right thing for the Pueblos of New Mexico far ahead of scoring political points. I strongly support this bill and urge all of our colleagues to support passage of Senate bill 279. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from California, has already explained the purpose of Senate bill 136, which passed the Senate on July 26, 2005, and includes two measures that were sponsored in the House by my Democratic colleagues from California, Congressman Tom Lantos and Congressman Mike Thompson. The boundary adjustment at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area has involved considerable time and effort. I want to commend my colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership and persistence in making this important boundary addition a reality, and also note the help and support Leader Pelosi and the other members of the Bay Area delegation. Likewise, I would commend my colleague from California (Mr. Thompson) for his efforts on behalf of that portion of the legislation involving Redwood National Park. Mr. Speaker, we support Senate bill 136 and urge adoption of the legislation by the House today. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).