Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, normally, a proposal to turn over parkland free of charge would raise serious concerns, particularly when the proposal would also allow the new owner to sell off some of the land. However, in this instance, we are convinced that Beaver County must have a revenue stream if they are to continue operating this local park. This is compromise legislation that will allow the county to sell some acreage in order to maintain the remainder as public open space. Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose Senate bill 52.

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. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 3010, which provides Federal funding for health, education and worker programs. On healthcare, the bill takes a huge step backward in efforts to maintain basic health care services for the people in this country who are uninsured or underinsured. It eliminates the Healthy Communities Access Program, which helps health centers and public hospitals provide care for the uninsured. The bill cuts rural health care program funding almost in half, and it wipes out almost all of the Title VII health profession training programs that institutions like the CU Health Sciences Center need in order to provide critical training and education for medical students and residents who aim to practice in rural, low-income, and under-served areas. And while the bill eliminates or cuts funding for several programs, it also fails to adequately fund others. The bill virtually provides no new funding for community health centers to cover rising health care costs at existing centers or to expand care for the uninsured even though the president called for a doubling of these centers. The National Institutes of Health, which works to find cures for many diseases, gets a paltry .5 percent increase in funding, the smallest percentage increase in 36 years which is not even enough to keep up with inflation in research costs. State and local health departments will be hobbled in protecting the public against infectious and other diseases because the bill cuts the Preventive Health Block Grant by 24 percent. Further, grants that help health departments improve their preparedness against bioterrorism and other public health emergencies are cut, and the Ryan White AIDS programs funding is frozen, even though the number of people living with HIV/AIDS has been rising by more than 6 percent each year. Many of the education provisions are equally as troubling. The Republican majority has imposed a decline in funding for the Department of Education while requiring local school districts to implement federal mandates under the No Child Left Behind Act. Though I am pleased to see some of the programs such as vocational programs that were cut in the President's budget were restored in this bill, I am concerned by the low levels of funding for several education programs. Our Nation has seen a decreased number of students in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, disciplines, and in turn fewer Americans are seeking careers in STEM fields. The Math and Science Partnership provides grants to recruit STEM majors into teaching, and links current teachers with state agencies or universities to improve teaching skills. This program, coupled with its counterpart at the National Science Foundation, works to improve the quality of teaching in math and sciences that will excite students to study these disciplines. I am disappointed to see only $184 million for this program. Unless we make a serious investment in these programs we will continue to see the decline in the number of STEM majors and those seeking these careers. I am also concerned by the funding levels provided for Part B state grants under IDEA. Last Congress we passed an authorization for IDEA that sought to reach full funding of the program by 2011. This Conference Report provides the smallest increase in funding for IDEA in a decade and actually decreases the federal contribution from 18.6%, already far below the 40 percent full funding would provide, to $18 percent. It is clear through these numbers that we are not doing enough to help states provide adequate education for disabled students. This bill is another example of the Republican majority's misplaced priorities. In fact, Republicans will spend more on tax cuts this week, $70 billion, than they will on all education and labor programs over the entire coming year, $68 billion. The conference report is only the most recent evidence that Republicans are out of touch with the priorities of the American people. It cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deserve to pass and I certainly will not vote for it. That's not because I think all is well with the budget--far from it. Even before the hurricane winds and waves arrived and the levees broke, the Federal budget was already on a dangerous course marked by tidal waves of red ink and towering piles of debt. Since 2001, the budget surplus that President Clinton and a Republican Congress bequeathed President Bush had been erased and our country was now in debt to the tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every American man, woman and child. And then, as they brought death and destruction, Katrina and Rita delivered another blow to the Federal budget--and sounded a wake-up call about the fiscal and economic risks we have been running. I had hoped that the result might be recognition by both the Bush Administration and Congress that now we need to face hard reality and not continue with budget policies based on defying the laws of fiscal gravity. It's about time. But this bill--which would implement part of an overall Republican budget--goes in exactly the wrong direction. As it comes to the floor, the bill would cut more than $50 billion over 5 years from a wide variety of programs--not because they are no longer needed and not because they are wasteful, but because the Republican leadership has decided the Americans served by these programs must sacrifice in order to help offset the cost of over $106 billion in tax cuts. And, after imposing these penalties on millions of America, the overall plan--service cuts for many Americans, tax cuts for relatively few--will not result in a balanced budget, but even bigger deficits and more delay in correcting our fiscal course. In short, the Republican prescription for our budget problems is a toxic compound of misguided priorities and fiscal irresponsibility--in other words, more of the same mistakes as before, except worse. And it's not like there aren't better ways to approach our budgetary problems. For example, there is H.R. 3966, the Stimulating Leadership In Cutting Expenditures (or ``SLICE'') Act, a bill I introduced last month that is cosponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle and endorsed by the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Freedom Works, the Small Business Enterprise Council, and the National Taxpayers Union. Its purpose is to promote Presidential leadership and Congressional accountability on proposals to reduce other spending in order to offset the costs of responding to the recent natural disasters. Toward that end, it would authorize the President to identify specific items of Federal spending that he thinks should be cut and would require Congress to vote on each of those items. It would apply not only to regular appropriations, but also to the transportation bill that was passed and signed into law earlier this year. In each case, if the president proposes a cut, Congress would have to vote on it--we could not ignore the proposal, as can be done under current law--and if a majority approved the cut, it would take effect. As our budget situation has grown worse, there has been a lot of talk about ``earmarks,'' meaning funding allocations initially proposed by Members of Congress rather than by the Administration. Some people are opposed to all earmarks--but I am not one of them. I think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and that Congress as a whole can and should exercise its judgment on how tax dollars are to be spent. So, I have sought earmarks for various items that have benefited Colorado and I will continue to do so. But I know--everyone knows--that some earmarks might not be approved if they were considered separately, because they would be seen as unnecessary, inappropriate, or excessive. Dealing with that problem requires leadership and accountability. The SLICE bill would promote both, and by requiring us to focus on individual spending items it would make it possible to weigh the relative costs and benefits of each. But the Republican leadership has rejected that approach. Instead, they are insisting on bringing up this omnibus bill without allowing the House to even consider any amendments--except ones they decide they must make in order to pass it with only votes by Republican Members. That is the wrong approach, and the bill is the wrong result--for the whole country, and particularly for Colorado and the West. The bill is especially bad for Colorado because of some parts of it-- developed by the Resources Committee--will directly affect our State. For example, there is the part that deals with oil shale. Oil shale has great potential as an energy source, so it's an important part of our energy policy. And it's important to the taxpayers, who own most of it. They have an interest in what return they will get for this resource. But it's particularly important for Colorado, because our State has some of the most important deposits of oil shale, and Coloradans--particularly those on the Western Slope-- will be directly affected by its development. A new report from the Rand Corporation spells out the great benefits that can come from developing oil shale. But it also makes clear it's important for the development to happen in the right way. The report says oil shale development will have significant effects, not just on the land but also on air quality and on both the quality and quantity of our very limited water supplies. And it says what Coloradans know already--large-scale oil shale development will bring significant population growth and is likely to put stress on the ability of local communities to provide needed services. In short, the report reminds us how much Colorado and our neighbors had at stake when Congress debated the oil shale provisions of the new Energy Policy Act that's been on the books for just over 2 months now. And while there are lots of things in that law I don't like, I think the parts dealing with oil shale are appropriate and deserve a chance to work before we rush to change them. But this legislation would tear up that part of the new law and replace it with provisions that not only would be bad public policy but would be a direct threat to Colorado. That's why in the Resources Committee I offered an amendment that would have revised the oil shale sections in several important ways. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the committee opposed any changes to those sections, and my amendment was defeated. What is the significance of that? Well, to begin with, current law says the Interior department has to consult with the Governor of Colorado and other relevant States, as well as with local governments and other interested parties, before going ahead with large-scale oil shale leasing The bill repeals that requirement for consultation. My amendment would have retained it. Similarly, current law permits an orderly, measured program for oil shale development. But this bill would mandate a massive development program on a crash basis. It says Interior must lease a minimum of 35% of the oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming within just a one-year period. It's not clear if this means 35% of the three-state total or 35% of the oil-shale lands in each state. Either way, it's a requirement for a fast and massive commercial leasing program: The Interior Department says there are about 16,000 square miles of oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming combined. That's more than 10 million acres, and about 72% of that is federal land. So, even if the intent is to require leasing 35% of the three- state total, not 35% in each state, that's more than 2.5 million acres--all in one year! Mandating leases for that much land, that fast, risks putting a big part of Northwestern Colorado on the fast track to becoming a national sacrifice zone. It's like a trip in a time machine--back to the mistaken crash-development policy of the Carter Administration. That was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now. That's why my amendment would have deleted that requirement, allowing current law to stand. Also, current law requires the Interior Department to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) on oil shale, with a tight deadline for completion. That's the right thing to do. Work has started on that EIS, and Coloradans look forward to reading it. But reading something before evaluating it must be too old-fashioned for the Republican leadership, because the bill says that the EIS is ``deemed'' to be good enough--meaning that it cannot be questioned or challenged--and no further environmental analysis will be done for a full 10 years--no matter what problems the State of Colorado or anyone else may have with the EIS. That's like giving an ``A'' grade before a student even turns in the homework--it may be good for the student's ``self-esteem,'' but it doesn't ensure careful work. And careful work on oil shale is essential because the stakes are so high for Colorado's land, water, and communities. That's why my amendment would have deleted that and allowed current law to stand. Finally, current law tells the Interior Department to set oil-shale royalty rates that will do two things--encourage development of oil shale and also ensure a fair return to the taxpayers. But the bill would repeal this, replacing it with specific rates to be charged for the first 10 years of commercial oil shale production, and requiring that after that the rates must be adjusted according to a formula tied to certain oil prices. This is a blatant example of micro-management, with nothing to show it is fair to the taxpayers. My amendment would have deleted that that attempt at long-term political price-fixing, and replaced it with the language of the current law. The Congressional Budget Office's report on these oil shale provisions estimates that they will not do much to raise revenue or otherwise help balance the budget. So, there is no budgetary reason to include them in this bill, while from the standpoint of what is best for Colorado and its communities there is every reason to change them in the way that my amendment would have done--and I cannot support them unless such changes are made. And that is also the case with the parts of the bill dealing with the Mining Law of 1872. As Westerners know all too well, that law--dating from the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant--still governs the mining of gold, silver, and other ``hardrock'' minerals on federal lands. It still allows private companies to get a patent--an ownership deed--to public lands containing valuable minerals for a mere $2.50 to $5.00 per acre, the same prices that were set in 1872, without paying the taxpayers a fee like that paid for the Federal oil, gas, or other minerals developed under more modern law. Since 1872, more than $245 billion worth of minerals have been extracted from public lands at these bargain-basement prices, and nearly as much land as in the entire state of Connecticut has been sold to the mining industry for less than $5 an acre. Because the mining industry doesn't need patents--they can and do mine on unpatented claims and because there are so many problems associated with patenting, annually since 1994 Congress has renewed a moratorium on the patenting of mining claims. But this bill would repeal that moratorium. And while the bill would raise the price of patents, it would not require payments that reflect the value of the minerals involved. So, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this provision would raise only about $158 million over the next five years. This is not real reform--it is a continued subsidy for the ``hardrock'' mining industry. But other provisions in this part of the bill are worse. For example, the bill would allow claim holders to patent land without proving there is a valuable mineral deposit as long if they already have a permit to mine or have reported to the SEC that there is a ``probable'' mineral reserve there. This means that claim holders can purchase public land without having to prove that they can or will construct a viable mine. And it allows the sale of ``mineral development lands''--meaning any land with a valuable mineral deposit as well as lands that were once mineralized and were previously mined-- for the purpose of ``sustainable economic development.'' According to John Leshy, who served as Solicitor of the Interior and who is an expert on the mining law, the result will be to ``put in the hands of corporations the keys to privatize millions of acres of federal land''--setting the stage for a massive fire sale of Federal lands for bargain-basement prices. And in Colorado, a state with a long and rich mining history, the results could be dramatic. As the Denver Post has noted, ``Coloradans could unexpectedly see suburban sprawl on mountainsides they thought were protected open spaces . . . It's an invitation to condo developers, mini-mansion home builders and other speculators to snatch up federal lands that otherwise would never leave public ownership. . . . Just in Colorado, old mining patents encompass 123,000 acres. Most existing claims are next to or surrounded by national forests, parks or other public lands. Many also are near former mining towns that have become pricey resorts such as Aspen, Telluride, Breckenridge and Crested Butte. Twenty-three of Colorado's 24 ski areas are on national forests and so are vulnerable under the proposal.'' In short, as the Denver Post's editors rightly observe, these provisions ``really aren't about mining; they're about real estate speculation,'' which is why they have called on us to ``erase them from the budget reconciliation bill.'' But of course, since no amendments are permitted, we can't erase that part, or any other part of the legislation. The only choice before us is to vote yes or no on the entire bill. And, as I said, the bill is just one part of a larger budget plan-- one that insists on pushing ahead on the same course that has led to the serious fiscal problems that now confront us--setting the stage for more top-heavy tax cuts while we are putting the costs of war and everything else the government does on the national credit card. This cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to give. So, Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our budget policies, including both taxes and spending. But this bill reflects a refusal to do that rethinking. And for me the only viable choice is to vote no--no on the oil shale provisions, no on the mining provisions, and no on all the rest of this very unnecessary, very unbalanced, very short-sighted, and very unwise legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it is said that actions speak louder than words, but our reputation depends on both. Fair 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 us to win the war against global jihadists. Erasing that stain and protecting our soldiers will take both respectable actions and credible words. I applaud the Senate for twice voting, once by a 90-9 tally and again by voice vote, to set clear guidelines for interrogating prisoners and to prohibit techniques that do not meet Army regulations in the Geneva Conventions. Making that the law will give credibility to our words about our conduct. If anyone knows about torture, it is the senior Senator from Arizona. What does he say? Senator McCain says the idea America could use torture is killing us. He says torture does not work. It yields answers, but not necessarily the truth. That is wrong, because as Senator McCain says, our men and women in uniform are always, always Americans and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us. Mr. Speaker, our troops need clear guidelines, and the Senate amendment provides just that. The House should take a stand and pass this important amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of those individuals that developed and built on an exemplarily piece of American ingenuity and technological achievement, the Titan rocket. For nearly fifty years the Titan rocket system has been serving this country, first as a multi-stage intercontinental ballistic missile system, and second as a launch vehicle for satellites, and space probes bound for the far reaches of our solar system. In 1955 Martin Marietta, now Lockheed Martin, was awarded a contract by the Air Force to build an intercontinental ballistic missile that became known as Titan I. Since then, the people of Lockheed Martin have produced successive generations of Titan rockets to serve national needs. On Wednesday, October 19, 2005, the last Titan rocket was successfully launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. From its early beginnings as an intercontinental ballistic missile, to its recent role as a launch vehicle for the satellites of the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, the Titan rocket has played a vital role in the security of our Nation. The Titan family of rockets also played a pivotal role in the Nation's space program, allowing the early Gemini astronauts to break free of the earth's gravitational hold and launching many deep space probes that have furthered understanding of our solar system. Mr. Speaker, the longevity of the Titan's service is a testament to the quality of the employees at Lockheed Martin. Thousands of workers have had a hand in producing the rockets, including many second generation family members located in my district. To honor their dedication and superb accomplishments I rise to recognize the fifty years of service the Titan rockets and the employees that built them have given our Nation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3351, the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2005. Section 108 of H.R. 3351 contains language from H.R. 600, a bill that I introduced with my colleagues from New Mexico, Representatives Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce, to clarify issues of criminal jurisdiction within the exterior boundaries of Pueblo lands. Recent court decisions in New Mexico have created uncertainty and the potential for a void in criminal jurisdiction on pueblo lands. Because of the risk to public safety and law enforcement arising out of this uncertainty, it is important to clarify the scope of criminal jurisdiction on pueblo lands. I share the concerns of tribal leaders who have urged Congress to step in and resolve this legal quandary. I will work with other members of the delegation to see that we can make this law as soon as possible. The language in my bill and now in H.R. 3351 addresses confusion over criminal jurisdiction on pueblo lands in New Mexico arising out of the holding in United States v. Gutierrez, an unreported decision of a federal district court judge in the District of New Mexico that overturned prior precedent regarding the status of the lands within the exterior boundaries of pueblo grants. The language in the technical corrections bill will amend the Pueblo Lands Act to make clear that the pueblos have jurisdiction, as an act of the pueblos' inherent power as an Indian tribe, over any offense by a member of the pueblo or of another federally recognized Indian tribe, or by any other Indian-owned entity committed anywhere within the exterior boundaries of any grant to a pueblo from a prior sovereign, as confirmed by Congress or the Court of Private Land Claims. The legislation also makes clear that the United States has jurisdiction over any offense within these grants described in chapter 53 of title 18, United States Code, committed by or against a member of any federally recognized Indian tribe or any Indian-owned entity, or that involves any Indian property or interest. Finally, the legislation makes clear that the State of New Mexico shall have jurisdiction over any offense within these grants committed by a person who is not a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe, which offense is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This legislation will not affect the scope of pueblo civil jurisdiction within the exterior boundaries of pueblo grants, and it does not in any way diminish the exterior boundaries of these grants. I would like to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for bringing forth the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2005. I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as obesity and the associated health risks continue to increase it is important to encourage American's of all ages to participate in physical activity all year long. To help spread this message, today I am introducing with my colleague from New York Representative John Sweeney, a resolution urging the President to declare a Winter Sports Month. This resolution notes the increase in adult and 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 the role winter sport activities can play in addressing obesity and the positive effects of participating in physical activity. It resolves that the House of Representatives urge the President to declare January 2006 Winter Sports Month. Alpine skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing and cross country skiing, not only offer excellent aerobic and anaerobic exercise but they also are activities that allow an entire family to play together in a natural environment. Colder temperatures and snow should not deter outdoor activities. ``Winter Outdoors Month'' would remind citizens of the importance to maintain a consistent exercise program and healthy lifestyle all year 12 months out of the year. Winter sports offer unique opportunities to allow all Americans a chance to be together outside, enjoy the season.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as obesity and the associated health risks continue to increase it is important to encourage American's of all ages to participate in physical activity all year long. To help spread this message, today I am introducing with my colleague from New York, Rep. John Sweeney, a resolution urging the President to declare January 2006 Winter Sports Month. This resolution notes the increase in adult and 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 the role winter sport activities can play in addressing obesity and the positive effects of participating in physical activity. It resolves that the House of Representatives urge the President to declare January 2006 Winter Sports Month. Alpine skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing and cross country skiing, not only offer excellent aerobic and anaerobic exercise but they also are activities that allow an entire family to play together in a natural environment. Colder temperatures and snow should not deter outdoor activities. ``Winter Outdoors Month'' would remind citizens of the importance to maintain a consistent exercise program and healthy lifestyle all year twelve months out of the year. Winter sports offer unique opportunities to allow all Americans a chance to be together outside, enjoy the season.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the House-passed version of the legislation, this conference report is not perfect. But it is not so bad as to require opposition, and does provide funding for many important purposes. Therefore, I will vote for it. The conference report includes a number of items of particular importance to Colorado. In particular, I am very pleased that it includes funding for the final stages of work connected with the cleanup of Rocky Flats. Once home to a nuclear weapons factory, Rocky Flats is located just 15 miles from downtown Denver. At one time it was the location of large quantities of nuclear materials and other hazardous substances--and because of its proximity to our state's major metropolitan area, timely and effective cleanup and closure of the site has been a matter of top priority for all Coloradans. Just last month, the overall contractor for the cleanup, Kaiser-Hill, announced that their work was done. The Department of Energy must still confirm that, and there still must be a formal decision by state and federal regulators. But those who knew Rocky Flats as it was can hardly recognize the site as it is today. The cleanup of Rocky Flats is a major achievement for which we can all be proud. I want to especially note the efforts of the workers and their dedication not only the security of this country, but their dedication to performing a safe and extensive demolition and decommissioning. This was very complicated and difficult work involving dangerous and toxic materials. The fact that it was done decades ahead of predictions and at a cost vastly less than expected is a testament to all those involved, and I think we have an obligation to make sure that workers' benefits are carried forward and that they are properly compensated for work-related health problems. Getting to this day has been long and difficult. But the Colorado congressional delegation worked hand-in-glove with the local communities, DOE, and the contractors to work through the obstacles and I think lessons learned at Rocky Flats can be applied to the cleanup challenges at other nuclear-weapons sites. I look forward to the next major chapter--transfer of most of the Rocky Flats site to the Interior Department for management as a National Wildlife Refuge. But getting that chapter properly written will require some additional steps, notably including the acquisition of mineral rights at Rocky Flats that are now in non-Federal ownership. To facilitate that acquisition, I have introduced legislation (H.R. 4181) to authorize DOE to expend funds to acquire some or all of the minerals, including $10 million from its appropriation for fiscal year 2006. The bill also provides that DOE's expenditure of $10 million for that purpose (or, under certain circumstances, an appropriate payment to specified Federal and State officials for acquisition of Rocky Flats minerals or for habitat restoration at Rocky Flats) will satisfy certain claims the State of Colorado might bring for natural resources damages resulting from past discharges of hazardous substances at or from Rocky Flats). The bill also would give the Interior Department two additional methods (either instead of or in addition to purchase for cash) for completing such acquisitions--namely: by giving ``credits'' that could be used instead of cash to pay for oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf; and/or by allowing federal lands or minerals anywhere in the country to be exchanged for the Rocky Flats minerals (under current law, such exchanges can only occur within the same state--Colorado lands/minerals for other Colorado lands/minerals). Other parts of the conference report are also important for Colorado, including the funding for several Bureau of Reclamation projects in our State, including the Colorado-Big Thompson and the Fryingpan-Arkansas projects as well as the ongoing construction of the Animas-La Plata project. Similarly, the conference report provides needed funds for operation and maintenance of a number of reservoirs operated by the Army's Corps of Engineers as well as for other Corps activities in Colorado, including aquatic restoration work involving Goose Creek and Lower Boulder Creek. I am very glad to note that the bill will provide funds for completing construction of the new science and technology facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I find it highly ironic, however, that the new NREL facility comes at the expense of the very renewable energy research and development programs that would be conducted within it. It's conceivable that we'll have new buildings but nothing to fill them with--no scientists or other NREL personnel, since many of them will lose their jobs due to deep cuts in program funding. As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I have worked for years to increase--or at a minimum, hold steady--funding for DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development programs. Given the finite supply and high prices of fossil fuels and increasing global demand, investing in clean energy is more important than ever. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests, helping provide strategies and tools to address the environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades. These programs are also helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports, thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds of new domestic businesses, supporting thousands of American jobs, and opening new international markets for American goods and services. But for our investment in these technologies to payoff, our efforts must be sustained over the long term. This conference report does not do that. Though some of the renewable energy accounts are increased from FY05 levels, it is an illusion. The EERE accounts are earmarked so heavily that there is little left of the core programs. While the biomass line is up slightly from FY05, fully 53 percent of the FY06 funds are earmarked. Wind is slightly reduced from FY05 levels, but this is after repeated cuts--11 percent in just three years. Factoring in earmarks makes the situation even worse. The bill earmarks fully a third of the funds appropriated for wind energy for Member projects. Solar energy funding is down from FY05 levels, and also earmarked--17 percent of the total goes to Member projects. I am concerned that year by year, DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency programs seem to be losing--through gradual cuts, shifts of more EERE dollars to hydrogen and fuel cells and out of core renewables technologies, and earmarks. These cuts will only increase U.S. vulnerability to energy supply disruptions, worsen fuel price volatility, and cause higher energy prices overall unnecessarily, and are especially ill-advised at a time when the need for a secure, domestic energy supply is so crucial. So, Mr. Speaker, while I regret that they could not adequately address all our needs, in Colorado or elsewhere, I appreciate what the conferees have done and urge the House to pass this important conference report.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a leader in Colorado's Hispanic community, Ms. Margaret Atencio. Margaret's tireless efforts in the competitive arena of Colorado politics has spanned many years. She is a beloved person in the Colorado Democratic Party, and well respected by all, including many Republican friends, for her dedication to Hispanic youth and increasing the participation and clout of the Latino vote. Her contributions are an inspiration to anyone interested in public service. Margaret Atencio has had a distinguished career which began with her work at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. Governor Roy Romer appointed her to the Second Judicial Performance Committee Commission. She serves as the chair of the Downtown Democratic Forum, the Democratic Outreach Commission, and was a founder of the Democratic Latino Initiative. Margaret has shown boundless energy and commitment to political causes in Colorado. She is currently the vice chair of the 1st Congressional District, the captain and precinct committeeperson of House District IB, the 2nd Vice Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, and the president of the Denver Jane Jeffersons. She has been a delegate to many National Democratic Party Conventions and State Party Conventions. As influential as she has been in politics, it is not her partisan affiliation that strikes me as most worthy of recognition, but rather her commitment to projects that strengthen her community. She is a member of a grassroots group in Denver, ``Finding Common Ground'' and she serves on the Board of Brothers Redevelopment, Incorporated, which is a non-profit group that sponsors programs to help low-income, elderly and disabled persons find affordable housing and support services. Margaret does not hold public office, nor has she been a candidate for office, but she is, nevertheless, the kind of person who makes a difference. She is one of those persons who has helped others get elected, and to make sure that her candidates keep their promises. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Margaret Atencio for her continuing commitment to honest politics in Colorado. In a time when voter turnout is sometimes disappointingly low and faith in government has fallen, it is heartening to know that there are people like Margaret who find time to volunteer, engage others and who are devoted to bettering the political process, increasing political participation and strengthening our communities in the process. I'm proud to know Margaret Atencio, to count her as a friend and advocate of people whose voices are not always heard, but need to be heard.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this motion to instruct because I think it is absolutely necessary, although I do not think it is sufficient. The motion will instruct the House's conferees to accept the provisions in the Senate version of the legislation that will establish four-year sunsets on three things. These sunsets would apply to: (1) Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue orders for any tangible thing--including business, library, and medical records--to anyone, as long as it is relevant to a terrorist investigation; (2) Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement officials to track a particular suspect by tapping multiple communication devices, as opposed to a single mode of communication; and (3) The so-called ``Lone Wolf'' Provision of the Intelligence reform legislation, which allows the government to conduct surveillance on ``lone wolf'' terrorist suspects, who are not connected with a foreign power or recognized organization. One of the reasons I voted against the PATRIOT Act when it was first considered by the House was my concern that the ``sunset'' clauses were too generous, meaning that the provisions covered by those clauses would remain in effect too long without the need for Congressional reconsideration. That was also a major reason I voted against H.R. 3199 earlier this year. So, I definitely agree that the conferees should accept the Senate bill's shorter sunset periods for these three provisions. However, I think it would be even better for the conferees to go further. In particular, I think the conference report should include provisions along the lines of the bipartisan reform measure, known as the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2005 (H.R. 1526), of which I am a cosponsor. That bill would amend the PATRIOT Act to modify provisions regarding roving wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to require that: (1) an order approving an electronic surveillance specify either the identity of the target, or the place to be wiretapped; and (2) surveillance be conducted only when the suspect is present at the place to be wiretapped. It also would revise the PATRIOT Act's provisions governing search warrants to-- (1) Limit the authority to delay notice of the issuance of such a search warrant to circumstances where providing immediate notice of the warrant will endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, result in flight from prosecution or the intimidation of a potential witness, or result in the destruction of or tampering with the evidence sought under the warrant; and (2) Require such delayed notification to be issued within seven days (instead of a ``reasonable period''), with extensions by the court for additional periods of up to 21 calendar days each time that the court finds reasonable cause to believe that notice of the execution of the warrant would have such consequences. It also would require the Attorney General, on a semiannual basis, to transmit to Congress and make public a report concerning all requests for delays of notice and for extensions of such delays. The SAFE bill also would amend FISA to require, with respect to access by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations, that there be specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or agent. It would specify that libraries will not be treated as wire or electronic communication service providers under provisions granting counterintelligence access to provider subscriber information, toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records. And it would redefine ``domestic terrorism'' to mean only activities that involve acts dangerous to human life and that constitute a Federal crime of terrorism. The broad support for such changes in the Patriot Act is shown by the fact that the SAFE bill is cosponsored by many Members from both sides of the aisle. It is also shown by the fact that over the last four years more than 300 communities and seven States, including Colorado-- governments representing over 62 million people--have passed resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act. Much of that public concern--a concern I share--has focused on the possible effects on the privacy of patrons and customers from the application of section 215 of the ``PATRIOT Act'' to libraries and bookstores. I think the conference report should include restrictions on the application of section 215 similar to those that would have been imposed by the Sanders amendment to the Justice Department's fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill--an amendment that the House approved earlier this year by a vote of 238 to 187. Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this bill earlier this year, I said that my reaction to it was similar to the one I had to the original ``PATRIOT Act'' legislation 4 years ago. As I did then, I strongly support combating terrorism, here at home as well as abroad. But I continue to think that it is essential that we remember and respect the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans as we wage war against those who would destroy both our Constitution and our country. In fact, I think that if we don't do that we will lose much of what we are seeking to defend. I voted against the bill as it came to the House floor because I concluded that it did not strike the right balance, and should not become law in its present form. But I am hopeful that the bill will be further improved and the conferees will produce a revised version that deserves the support of all Members of Congress.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Health Care Parity for Participation for Legal Transportation and Recreational Activities Act. This bill would protect those individuals who participate in legal recreational activities from being discriminated against by their employers for health insurance purposes. In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This legislation was enacted so that employees could continue health care coverage if they switched jobs and so that employees would not be denied health care coverage based on a pre-existing medical condition or participation in legal recreational activities. On January 5, 2001, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a Final Rule for Nondiscrimination in Health Coverage in a Group Market, which was required under HIPAA. Under the rule, employers are prohibited from refusing coverage based simply on an employee's participation in a legal recreational activity, such as motorcycling, skiing, snowmobiling, horseback riding and all-terrain vehicle riding. However, CMS, in its interpretation of the word ``participation'' effectively legalized the denial of benefits for any injuries sustained while participating in these activities. Clearly, Congress did not include specific language in HIPAA to provide coverage for people who engage in these activities, only to be denied coverage in the event they sustain an injury. The rule is counter to the intent of Congress and should be corrected. In 2001, I joined with several of my House colleagues in sending a letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson asking him to reverse the CMS ruling, but he said it would take an act of Congress. I cosponsored legislation that addressed this issue in the 108th Congress. There is legislation that has been introduced in the 109th Congress but that bill excludes individuals who participate in skiing and snowboarding. That excludes a large number of people in my district and throughout the country who are winter sports enthusiasts, and I think it's critical that they be covered for any injuries they sustain from participating in winter sports. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which is identical to legislation introduced by Senator Susan Collins, is about fairness in health coverage for the millions of Americans who enjoy skiing, motorcycle riding, horseback riding, ORV riding, or any other legal recreational activity. It also further clarifies Congress' intent when it passed this landmark law, which has helped so many Americans keep or obtain health insurance. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this important legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this legislation. The bill responds to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. New London et al., a case that involved the question of the scope of a local government's authority to use the power of eminent domain, and in particular whether local governments may condemn private houses in order to use the land for uses that are primarily commercial. Earlier this year, I voted for a resolution expressing disapproval of that decision. I did so because it is my strong view that, as the resolution stated, ``State and local governments should only execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the public good . . . [and that for them to do otherwise] constitutes an abuse of government power and an usurpation of the individual property rights as defined in the fifth amendment.'' In voting for that resolution, I also noted my endorsement of its statement that ``Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by State and local government.'' That is the purpose of this legislation. The bill prohibits Federal agencies from using the power of eminent domain for the kind of economic development project that was involved in the Kelo case. It also would deny Federal economic development assistance to any State or local entity that uses its eminent domain authority in that way. Specifically, the bill would penalize any State or local government that takes private property and conveys or leases it to another private entity, either for a commercial purpose or to generate additional taxes, employment, or general economic health. A State or local government found to have violated this prohibition would be ineligible for certain Federal economic development funds for 2 years, but could become eligible by returning or replacing the property. The bill also would give private property owners the right to bring legal actions seeking enforcement of these provisions and would waive States' immunity to such suits. This is strong medicine, but I think the prescription is appropriate. I found persuasive the views of Justice O'Conner who, dissenting in the Kelo case, warned that the decision could make more likely that eminent domain would be used in a reverse Robin Hood fashion--taking from the poor, giving to the rich--and that ``The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.'' The bill is intended to make this less likely. It does not do so by attempting to replace State and local authority with Federal law. I do not think the Constitution gives us that power, and it would not be right to do it even if we could. Instead, it would require the States and local governments to decide whether they are prepared to sacrifice certain Federal assistance for 2 years as the price for exercising their authority in ways covered by the bill. It is important to note that the bill would apply only to cases involving the taking of private property, without the consent of the owner, in order to conveyor or lease it to another private person or entity for commercial enterprise carried on for profit, or to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health. Thus, the bill would not apply to the types of takings that have traditionally been considered appropriate public uses, and it also includes exceptions for the transfer of property to public ownership, to common carriers and public utilities, and for related things like pipelines. It includes exceptions for the taking of land that is being used in a way that constitutes an immediate threat to public health and safety and makes exceptions for incidental use of a public property by a private entity--such as a retail establishment on the ground floor in a public property; for the acquisition of abandoned property; and for clearing defective chains of title. During the debate on the resolution about the Kelo decision, I noted that the States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their local governments and that I thought this would be the best way to address potential abuses. That is still my view, and I think the view of many Coloradans. Already, members of our State's legislature are acting to curb potential abuses in the use of the eminent domain power--an effort I support--and some have suggested that as a result there is no need for this bill. I think there is some merit to that argument, and I have given careful consideration to the points made by some of its most thoughtful and respected proponents, such as Sam Mamet of the Colorado Municipal League, who are concerned about the potential that Congress could put unnecessary constraints on the ability of local governments to address the needs of our communities. However, after careful consideration, I have concluded that Congress should act to provide an effective deterrent to abuse of eminent domain, while still allowing its use in appropriate circumstances. And I think this bill, while certainly not perfect, does strike a fair balance and deserves to be supported.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. George Gillett on his induction into the Colorado Ski Museum's Ski and Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Gillett's accomplishments have greatly impacted the ski community, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions that he has made. When George Gillett bought Vail & Beaver Creek Resorts in 1985, a new era for the Colorado ski industry began. With his pioneering focus on customer service, Gillett redefined the skiing experience. He launched a massive installation of high-speed detachable chairlifts at Vail, kick-starting the growth that would make Vail America's number one ski destination. Mr. Gillett also supported major alpine ski events at a time when most ski areas in America preferred not to host international races. Through his perseverance, Vail hosted the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships, proving to the world that Colorado could successfully host major international ski championships. Due to his support, Vail later hosted the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. George Gillett is still active in the ski community, running Booth Creek Ski Holdings and managing resorts throughout North America. In 1999 Ski Magazine voted him one of the ``100 Most Influential Skiers of All Time.'' His innovative thinking and passion for redefining the ski industry have left a lasting mark on Colorado skiing. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. Gillett for contributing to his community and industry in far-reaching ways. We recognize his accomplishments in making Vail & Beaver Creek world class ski resorts. I'm proud to offer warm congratulations to Mr. Gillett on his well deserved honor in entering the Colorado Ski Museum's Hall of Fame.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Lou Dawson on being inducted into the Colorado Ski & Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Dawson's efforts have greatly impacted the lives of ski mountaineering enthusiasts for many years, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions he has made to his community. Throughout his life, Dawson has demonstrated time and again that he is dedicated to being an inspiration and guiding light in backcountry skiing. While becoming the only person to ski all 54 of Colorado's Fourteeners, Dawson has also been an author of many books that help others enjoy Colorado's wilderness. His titles include Colorado High Routes, Colorado 10th Mountain Trails, Dawson's Guide to Colorado Backcountry Skiing, Dawson's Guide to Colorado's Fourteeners, Wild Snow, and Trooper Travers. He has contributed many articles to Couloir and Climbing magazines about his expertise and passion for the mountains, and his body of literature has enabled ski enthusiasts to more safely enjoy the backcountry. He has helped the world of ski enthusiasts by enhancing and developing safer and more effective mountaineering gear and equipment. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our congratulations to Mr. Dawson for contributing to the safety of our ski community in far-reaching ways. I'm proud to honor his induction into the Colorado Ski Museum, Colorado Ski & Snowboard Hall of Fame in 2005 and wish him continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Ed Lucks on his induction into the Colorado Ski & Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Luck's accomplishments have greatly impacted the lives of Coloradans, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions he has made to his community. Ed Lucks' passion for skiing is matched by his gift of sharing it with others. In 1966, Mr. Lucks began teaching skiing at Arapahoe Basin and discovered his life-long mission to share the sport with disabled people. Working with doctors from an Army hospital, Ed began teaching disabled Vietnam veterans and soon included kids from Children's Hospital in Denver. In 1969, he moved to Snowmass Village and started the adaptive ski program at Aspen where he taught for over 26 years. Mr. Lucks practiced skiing on one leg and skiing blindfolded to see what methods and techniques would work best with his students. If he found a way that a piece of adaptive ski equipment could be improved, he'd spend countless hours modifying it for his students. He has selflessly shared his knowledge and teaching with instructors and volunteers throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. Lucks for contributing to his community in far- reaching ways. We recognize his accomplishments in bringing freedom and confidence through skiing to thousands of people with disabilities through his pioneering techniques and effective experimentation with equipment. I'm proud to offer warm congratulations to Mr. Lucks on his well deserved honor in entering the Colorado Ski Museum's Hall of Fame.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a new bill to facilitate the acquisition by the United States of certain mineral rights associated with the Rocky Flats site, in Colorado. This bill combines the key features of a bill that I introduced earlier this year, cosponsored by Representative Beauprez, and legislation more recently proposed by Colorado's two Senators. Thus, it combines elements that have bipartisan support and that, together, can lay the basis for answering one of the final questions about the future management of the lands at Rocky Flats.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Dick Eflin on his induction into the Colorado Ski & Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Eflin's accomplishments have greatly impacted the lives of Coloradans in Crested Butte for many years, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions he has made to this community. After serving in Germany with the U.S. Air Force, Eflin visited Crested Butte, Colorado with the dream of creating a ski area that could rival the Alps both in beauty and skiing terrain. In 1960, he moved his family to Crested Butte and formed Crested Butte, Ltd. After applying for Forest Service permits and buying land, Eflin's dream of opening his own ski area became reality when Crested Butte Mountain opened on Thanksgiving Day 1961. Although the ski area started with a T-bar and a rope-tow, the next year it grew considerably with the installation of a 7,800-foot long gondola and a terminal building. Due to Mr. Eflin's unwavering determination and vision, Crested Butte was on the map as an up-and-coming ski area. In addition to his work with Crested Butte, Mr. Eflin worked tirelessly in the local community where he served as President of the Mt. Crested Butte Water & Sanitation District, as well as participating in the Town Council. He started the first regional museum and also ran the Princess Movie Theater and the Eflin Steak House. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. Eflin for contributing to his community in far- reaching ways. We recognize his accomplishments in making Crested Butte a great ski resort and a wonderful place to live. I'm proud to offer warm congratulations to Mr. Elfin on his well deserved honor in entering the Colorado Ski Museum's Hall of Fame and wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Dick Hauserman on being inducted into the Colorado Ski and Snowboard Hall of Fame for 2005. Mr. Hauserman's accomplishments have greatly impacted Vail and Steamboat Springs, and he deserves recognition for the many contributions he has made to the promotion of Colorado's ski areas. One of Vail's founding fathers, Mr. Hauserman helped make Vail prosper into a world class ski destination and also shaped the image of Steamboat's Ski Area. He served on Vail's first board of directors and was one of the primary developers of Vail, participating on the town architecture committee. He worked on the Lodge at Vail and the Hill Building, in addition to building the Plaza Building. In order for Vail to blossom into a world class ski resort, Hauserman realized the resort would need an image. He created Vail's logo, which is still in use today, and helped to design the signature ski school parkas. In 1969, he turned his talents to helping promote the Steamboat Ski Area, widening the trails, creating the Steamboat Springs logo, and making Billy Kidd the resort's spokesperson. In addition to his work at the resorts, Mr. Hauserman has also written two books: ``Inventors of Vail.'' and ``On the Road to Vail and Bevond.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring Mr. Hauserman for contributing to Colorado skiing in far-reaching ways. We recognize his accomplishments in helping make Vail and Steamboat Springs premier ski resorts. I'm proud to offer congratulations to Mr. Hauserman on his well deserved induction into the Colorado Ski Museum's Hall of Fame and wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Federal Housing Finance Reform Act.'' This legislation not only addresses key components to ensure the stability of mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but it does a great deal more to expand homeownership opportunities for millions of American families. I am pleased this legislation creates a new and single regulator in the Federal Housing Finance Agency which has expanded strength, including full receivership powers in the event of a financial crisis and independent litigating authority. As these companies have a public mission they must comply with high standards and accountability on their activities. As the price of housing continues to rise, especially in high cost communities, many families find the opportunity of homeownership elusive. I am pleased this legislation will allow Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to loan up to the median average of homes in areas of high cost. This provision will help middle class families in Colorado towns such as Minturn, Basalt and Frisco to receive needed resources so they can purchase a home. I am also pleased the legislation includes an affordable housing fund. This fund would require these mortgage lenders to allocate a portion of their profits for purposes such as down payment assistance and closing costs for low income first time homebuyers. While this bill has many strong elements it is important to note a significant shortcoming. I am outraged by provisions which subverts activities of nonprofit, charitable, faith based organizations and their affiliates. I find troubling that these groups would not be considered for funding from the affordable housing fund if they use their own funds to participate in political activities such as non partisan voter registration drives and get out the vote activities. This is especially troubling as the Federal Government continues to spend time and resources expanding voting opportunities with the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act. I hope the Senate and conference committee will reject such language to ensure that groups and organizations are not penalized for participation in the political process. In spite of deficiencies the bill is worth supporting because it is important to strengthen regulations and operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By doing so we continue to provide and further expand the American dream of homeownership to millions of Americans and their families.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference report for H.R. 2744, the ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Appropriations Act of 2006.'' While the amounts in the bill are not adequate to fully meet the needs of rural Colorado--and I'm disappointed that there isn't more-- the fact is that the Federal Government is being forced to do more with less in a time of record budget deficits. The conference report does include some important improvements over the House passed bill. This is particularly true as regards funding for conservation programs and rural development. The bill also provides support for research programs that are important to Colorado State University, including work on infectious disease and ultraviolet radiation monitoring. However, I am particularly disappointed with the conference committee's decision to continue to delay for another two years implementation of a mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for products such as meat and produce. The shortsightedness of the conference committee denies Colorado ranchers and farmers a wonderful resource to market their products and provide consumers a clear choice in the products they purchase. I also am disappointed by the lack of consultation, consensus and public discourse that marked the process of developing the legislative changes the conference report makes to the National Organics Program. Such legislative changes should be done in the most transparent manner possible and I am disappointed this was not the case. As this issue will certainly be revisited, I am hopeful the consumers, producers, manufacturers and supporters of organic agriculture can work together to advance this important part of agriculture in Colorado and around the country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the recent referendum approving a new constitution for Iraq has raised hopes for political stability and an improved security situation. But even with this incremental progress, very few informed observers believe there is light at the end of the tunnel. The Bush administration's decision to wage war in Iraq was constitutionally flawed, poorly planned, ineptly managed and the result has been a strategic national security blunder that promises to haunt our country for decades to come. The war has devolved into a quagmire that threatens to leave America isolated in a military struggle that is dangerously perceived as a conflict with Islam. It has drained our treasury, stretched our Army to the breaking point, taken over 2,000 American lives, and resulted in more than 40,000 American casualties. It has toppled an evil and sadistic dictator, but at a cost of more than 100,000 Iraqi lives. The legacy of this war, and its unbelievably poor civilian direction, also threatens to mark George W. Bush as a failed president--a thought I take no great comfort from because a failed presidency hurts America. By taking our democracy into a war of choice, and not a war of necessity, President Bush will have to answer to history. Those in Congress who gave him their trust and vested him with the authority to wage this war will also have to answer for their part in what looks to be a major strategic mistake. Those of us in Congress who voted against this war must also answer to history. I felt so strongly that I authored my own separate resolution that would have required international support for coercive inspections in Iraq--a plan that would have uncovered false claims about WMD before American blood was spilled in the deserts of Iraq. I stand by my vote as a vote of conscience and believe the wisdom of my cautions about the unintended, but foreseeable consequences of this war have been tragically borne out. An increasing number of Americans have come to view the war in Iraq as a mistake. I believe strongly that it was a mistake to go to war in the way we did. However, I am not prepared to say that it has been a mistake for the Iraqi people, because they now have a glimmer of hope that they can create a stable democracy, even though they would have an even greater chance of success had the Bush Administration taken the time to secure international support for their Iraq policy before plunging into war. I will never believe or say that American soldiers have died and sacrificed in vain--they may rightly claim that their efforts have given hope to the Iraqi people. Sadly, their sacrifice and the excellence of our armed forces have not been matched by the civilian political leadership of our nation. As it stands now, the Iraqi people are largely dependent on American soldiers for security, and it is this fact that has caused a number of us who opposed the war to reflect on what our future course must be. For some, the answer is a simple call for ``immediate withdrawal'' and hopes that a bloodbath and civil war will not follow in the wake of our departure. This is a perfectly understandable response to quagmire, and the terrible price the Bush Administration has exacted for not being completely honest with the American people about the costs or long-term consequences of waging a largely unilateral war to transform the politics of the Middle East. Let me be absolutely clear. America must withdraw from Iraq. We need a plan that is designed to bring our troops home and make clear to the Islamic world that we harbor no ambitions for permanent bases, Iraqi oil revenues or any military occupation. But how we withdraw is as important as when we withdraw. This means giving the Iraqis time to form a permanent government and establish the means for international support. We must exercise care in the way our country withdraws, not just to keep faith with promises made to the Iraqi people, but even more importantly because leaving a failed state in Iraq will deeply endanger our country. Many of the essential elements in a responsible withdrawal plan are clear: holding down the costs to the American taxpayer; transferring security responsibilities to Iraqi forces; preventing Iraq from becoming a bigger breeding ground for terrorism; restoring America's reputation internationally; and honoring the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. In the coming weeks, I will be laying out my specific proposals to chart a new course for a withdrawal strategy in Iraq.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to changing Federal court rules to try to make it less likely that small business owners or other Americans will be forced to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits. So, I could support many of the provisions of this bill. However, the bill has such serious flaws that I cannot support it in its current form. Part of the bill would change Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in ways that would basically restore that rule as it was in 1992. As a result, lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits in Federal courts would face mandatory sanctions in the form of payments to those who were victimized by those lawsuits. I think that could be an effective deterrent, and can support it. I also can support strong provisions to deter--and, if necessary punish--repeated violations of the rules against misuse of the courts through frivolous lawsuits. However, I am not enthusiastic about the idea of Congress's attempting to micro-manage the State courts or to take over the job of regulating the practice of law in State courts in the way that this bill would do. And I am definitely opposed to changing the rules in ways that could make it impossible for people with valid claims to receive proper consideration of their cases. For that reason, I must object to the provisions of the bill which, as the non-partisan Congressional Research Service explains, ``would preclude litigation in United States courts that would be authorized under current law. For instance, [under current law] . . . if a corporation has stores, factories, offices, or property anywhere in the United States . . . a Federal suit might be brought against it in one of the judicial districts where . . . [an objectionable] activity occurs or property [is located. But] . . . enactment of H.R. 420 apparently could result in a plaintiffs being left without a judicial forum in the United States for his or her tort claim.'' Leaving some Americans with no recourse to the courts even for valid claims would be bad enough. But I find it even more unacceptable that prime beneficiaries of these provisions could be American companies who have chosen to fly a foreign flag in order to escape paying their Federal taxes. I voted for the Schiff-Kind amendment because I favor strong measures against frivolous lawsuits but oppose giving those fugitive corporations such an unfair advantage over truly American companies. Unfortunately, however, that amendment was not adopted--and as a result I must vote against this bill as it stands.