Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Maria Guajardo Lucero. As we recognize Hispanic Heritage Month, we acknowledge the immeasurable contributions that Hispanic-Americans have made to enrich our culture and inform our values. The wealth of literature, film, art, music, and cuisine is evident throughout America, but even more so in my part of the country, the West. Core Latino values--hard work, faith, family, and love of country--are values we all respect and admire. The West is largely a story written in Spanish and Hispanic peoples. Whether as conquerors, founders or new immigrants, Hispanic people have shaped the country. So it was for Maria Guajardo Lucero, whose parents came to this country with six young children hoping to make good on the ``American Dream.'' Her mother had a second grade education and her father never went to school. As she has said, ``Between both of my parents they have never read a book. `` Yet they were wise in setting very high expectations for their daughter. They expected academic excellence because they knew that an education was her best opportunity to have a better life. Maria understood this at a very young age. She says, ``I determined to make growing up easier for other children.'' Maria set high goals for herself and she reached them. She graduated with honors from Harvard University and earned her Masters and PhD from the University of Denver. In addition, she is also a graduate of the Kennedy School of Government Programs for Senior Executives in State and Local Government. Dr. Guajardo Lucero is now the Executive Director of the Mayor's Office for Education and Children in Denver, where she oversees programs that include early childhood education (Head Start) to post-secondary education. I had the opportunity to work with her recently on the ``Education to Elevate Colorado's Economy'' (E3) Summit. She is as articulate on the subject of student preparedness as anyone I have ever heard. She points out that children in classrooms today are not only competing with children from other schools in America, but also with children on a global scale. Children today need to be prepared to compete with students from China, Russia, India, and around the world. If the United States is to retain its strength in the world, we must be prepared to compete in the global marketplace, and that means in the marketplace of ideas--the marketplace of excellence. Dr. Guajardo Lucero insists that we hold all students to the same high academic standards, regardless of their race or socio-economic status. I agree with her when she says that we should ensure that each student graduates high school and is prepared to enter college after graduation. Rationalizing that we should expect less from those who have less does an unconscionable disservice to our underserved populations. It also runs contrary to the instincts of any parent who naturally perceives boundless potential for their own child, so how can we hope for anything less for other children? If anyone can illustrate this in real life it is Dr. Maria Guajardo Lucero. I also want to note that Dr. Guajardo Lucero is a graduate of the Colorado Outward Bound School. She participated and graduated in this program when I was the head of this school, and at a time when I was trying to bring Outward Bound's leadership program to a more diverse population. While I signed her graduation certificate, I did not lead her course, but I am reliably informed by those who knew her at the time that she is a courageous rock climber. Nothing speaks more to our collective ideals than our investment in public education. The foundation of American society is based on the principle that each of us ought to have the opportunity to achieve our full potential. Dr. Maria Guajardo Lucero serves as an example of this ideal in practice. Whether one is fortunate enough to share in her Latino heritage or not, it is an ideal every American can appreciate.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 758, the Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force. The situation facing the aerospace sector is a serious one. For example, the average age of an aerospace engineer is fifty-four, and twenty-seven percent of the aerospace engineers will retire by 2008. These are startling statistics. Moreover, many recent reports have specifically pointed to the decline in the number of science, technology, engineering and math degrees being produced in the U.S. Each report presents a worrisome outlook for our economic health, national security, and quality of life. With a growing chorus of experts drawing our attention to this problem, we can't ignore the reality that the U.S. is losing its cutting edge. We need a national effort throughout our educational system to attract students at a young age and provide support through the graduate level. The aerospace industry has an impact on both the public and private sectors. Aerospace generates nearly 15 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, and plays a large role in reducing our trade deficit. It is vital to our national defense. It has improved the quality of life for our citizens, and it has opened up new opportunities. Yet, as countless studies have pointed out, we cannot assume that the aerospace sector will remain healthy without a coordinated governmental approach. I support H.R. 758 because developing a strong education base is vital to our aerospace industry. However, it is not a panacea. We must also look to reinvigorate our investment in aerospace research and development. If we continue to cut funding in these areas we will continue to lose expertise and experience in our current workforce, as well as our ability to compete globally. It is for this reason that I introduced the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act (H.R. 2358). This bill passed the House of Representatives as part of the NASA Authorization bill, H.R. 3070. The bill establishes an aeronautics research and development policy at NASA that will expand capacity, ensure safety, and increase the efficiency of the nation's air transportation system. Education is a key component of strengthening the aerospace industry, but unless we also invest in R&D the number of aerospace jobs available will inevitably decline. I am hopeful that this taskforce will recognize the true value of these investments and will suggest a strategy that provides both short term and long term support for aerospace in this country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of a talented group of students from the University of Colorado who designed and built the winning entry at the Department of Energy's Second Solar Decathlon. CU's win is all the more notable because it is their second, after also winning the first Solar Decathlon competition in 2002. I am submitting for the Record a recent article from the Daily Camera describing the team's achievement. The Solar Decathlon is a competition organized by the Department of Energy that gives college students an opportunity to demonstrate practical uses of solar power. This October, 18 university teams from around the country and the world competed in the second Solar Decathlon to build the most energy-efficient, solar-powered house. Each team was required to use solar energy to power the entire house, and was judged on how well its house was able to produce energy for heating, cooling, hot water, lighting, appliances, computers, and charging an electric car. The houses were also critiqued on their overall aesthetic design. As a ``zero energy home,'' CU's house combines advanced solar energy systems and energy efficient appliances and thus produces more energy than it consumes over the course of a year. In addition, as CU's official Decathlon handout stated, ``The CU home is one that you can truly ``sink your teeth into. Materials used in the home's construction and furnishings read like a health food menu,'' including such natural ``ingredients'' as soy, corn, sunflower, canola, coconut, wheat, citrus oil, and even chocolate. Using these natural materials was one of the team's five design goals, along with modularity, accessibility, innovation, and energy efficiency. Colorado's core team consists of about 20 engineering and architecture students, among them Jeff Lyng, Frank Burkholder, Kristin Field, Mark Cruz, Drew Bailey, Jacob Uhl, Jon Previtali, Bryce Colwell, Jimmy Chambers, James Dixon, Ryan Drumm, Kathy Clegg, Geoffrey Berlin, Koki Hashimoto, Isaac Oaks, Greg Shoukas, Adam Courtney, Seth Kassels, Abby Watrous, Tim Guiterman, and Scott Horowitz. Many more students contributed in other ways. The students were assisted by faculty advisers Julee Herdt, Mike Brandemuehl, and Rick Sommerfeld. CU's team had a challenge--to take advanced architectural and engineering concepts, put them together in a design, and build a house that could be a model of our energy future. These students met that challenge--and met it better than any of the other teams. I'm proud of these students and I'm proud that the University of Colorado produced such a talented team. Most of all, I am proud to represent these young people who are working so hard to make our way of life a sustainable one. [From the Daily Camera, Oct. 15, 2005. CU Team Clinches Second Solar Win (By Todd Neff) The University of Colorado repeated as international Solar Decathlon champ on Friday, thanks to a combination of stubborn cloud cover in Washington, DC, and a bold decision when the outlook was particularly gray. The CU team's 800-square-foot, solar-powered BioS(h)IP mobile home won over entries by teams from 17 universities in the United States and Puerto Rico, Canada and Spain. ``I'm shocked,'' winning project manager Jeff Lyng, a master's student in CU's civil engineering school, said by cell phone. ``The weather held, and it was really just dumb luck that our strategy worked.'' The team made its own luck. The second-ever Solar Decathlon--CU won the first title in 2002--was dogged by clouds. The CU team's energy-saving house, capable of socking away 36 kilowatt hours a day in the Colorado sunshine, could manage only about 5 kilowatt hours a day on the shadowed National Mall. That was less than CU's and other teams needed to boil water, launder towels, refrigerate food and fuel the electric car, among other things. The competition, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, was fierce. ``There are some spectacular houses here,'' said Michael Brandemuehl, who with architecture professor Julee Herdt served as CU faculty advisers in both competitions. ``No disrespect to the 2002 competitors, but the architectural quality is head and shoulders above what we had in 2002.'' As of Tuesday morning, CU stood in eighth place. The team decided on a risky strategy: participate in a variety of competitions--where small numbers of points can be won for doing such things as boiling water and cooking meals--and run down the house's batteries. Battery level mattered because the last of the Solar Decathlon's 10 competitions offered 100 points--of a total of 1,100 possible points--to those who generated as much energy as they used. Had the sun begun to shine, more conservative teams could have refueled and leapt past CU in the standings. CU team ended up with 853 points, followed by Cornell University's 826 and California State Polytechnic University's 809 points. CU won three categories: documentation, communication and ``getting around,'' which involved team members Scott Horowitz and Isaac Oaks driving the team's electric car up to eight hours a day. They racked up 319 miles in five days at a speed of about 15 miles per hour. ``It was totally grueling,'' said project manager Lyng. CU's documentation effort was bolstered by three- dimensional computer renderings showing the operation of the CU house's removable roof, done by undergraduate architecture student Mark Cruz. The home is bio-friendly to its core, built with a raft of natural materials including everything from corn to coconut. Its defining innovation were Bio-SIPs, for which CU has applied for a patent. These structurally insulated panels are made of soybean-oil-based polyurethane, sandwiched between hard sheets of recycled paper. Frank Burkholder, one of 20 core team members and among the dozen who made the trip to the nation's capital, said the Bio-SIPs held heat so well that the house lost just four degrees overnight. ``It saved us a lot of energy,'' he said. Team faculty adviser Herdt said the home's strong ``branding'' as a bastion of bio-based materials probably helped in the eyes of judges. But it was a strong student squad that made the difference, she said. ``I always ask them if they are athletes,'' she said. ``You have to be a long-distance runner. You have to be consistent in your work and conserve energy. That's what helped this time--strategizing and staying strong all the way through.'' The team's efforts got attention in high places. Lyng said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman quipped, ``I could see myself living here,'' when walking through the CU home. The Department of Energy is increasing support to individual teams from $5,000 this year to $100,000 for the 2007 competition. The CU solar home will host tours through Sunday on the National Mall. Its doors also will be open for tours on the CU campus following a 2,500 mile, biodiesel-fueled trek back to the Front Range. Its final destination is Prospect New Town in Longmont.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, some of my constituents have let me know they disagreed with my past vote against similar legislation. They asked me to take a closer look and consider voting for this bill today, and I promised to do so. However, after careful review of the bill and consideration of points raised by its supporters and opponents, I have concluded that I cannot in good conscience vote for it. I voted against similar legislation in the past because I was not convinced there was a need for Congress to take such action to restrict certain lawsuits against the manufacturers and sellers of firearms. And I still am not convinced that the potential adverse consequences of those lawsuits are so great that Congress should close the courthouse door to people who think they have valid claims. And, as in the past, I am particularly reluctant to support legislation that would go further than barring future lawsuits by requiring the immediate dismissal of cases under active consideration by the courts. It seems to me that this is a dangerous precedent for the legislative branch to undertake, and the courts are in a much better position than Congress to decide whether the people who have brought those pending cases have valid claims or whether their complaints are frivolous or malicious. It happens that this bill deals with lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. But this concern about changing the legal rules to prohibit further consideration of active cases (as opposed to pending ones) would be the same for similar lawsuits against the makers or sellers of other consumer products that are inherently dangerous, if not lethal, when misused--for example, automobiles and electronic devices. And, while the bill before us--which has already passed the Senate-- differs in some respects from versions we have considered before, it too would apply to pending cases. At the very least the House should have been able to debate and decide on possible changes to the bill. But that did not happen, because the Republican leadership insisted on bringing the bill to the floor under restrictive procedures that essentially barred any amendments from being offered. I strongly object to this way of considering such legislation. Most of the debate about this bill has been about its significance for firearms manufacturers--and, if the bill dealt only with manufacturers, I might have come to a different conclusion about the need for liability protection. But the provisions related to sellers or other distributors--provisions that are equally or more important--are another matter. I also think we should at least debate and consider whether reducing the deterrent effect of potential liability might increase the chance that firearms could knowingly or negligently be transferred to criminals or terrorists. I think the seriousness of this is illustrated by the report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicating that last year alone there were at last 56 times when people the federal government considered known or suspected terrorists attempted to purchase firearms. It's true that under current law, even actual--let alone suspected-- membership in a terrorist organization, by itself, is enough to bar someone from purchasing a firearm. But instead of considering a possible change to this part of current law, today we are debating whether the law should be changed to reduce, not strengthen, the legal deterrents to such purchases. Mr. Speaker, I know that litigation can be costly, and I am not in favor of frivolous lawsuits. Nor am I in favor of banning gun ownership or abolishing the domestic gun manufacturing industry. Earlier this year, for example, I voted against an amendment that would have banned the export of certain American firearms overseas. And since the House last considered similar legislation I have also undertaken a deeper review of Second Amendment concerns and my staff and I have met with thoughtful and enthusiastic Coloradans (like my good friend Rick Reeser) who feel differently about the implications and desirability of this legislation. I have also had many informative conversations with many Colorado sportsmen and women, including some of my staff who make a compelling case that gun ownership is not just a question of legal rights but also about respecting and preserving a critical component of individual liberty. I embrace this view and respect their concerns and acknowledge the need for a less divisive debate about the preserving Second Amendment rights. But, after a careful reading of the provisions of this legislation and the most objective review that I can make of the arguments for and against its enactment, I still think we in the Congress should leave it to the courts to decide which of the lawsuits covered by this bill are frivolous and which are not. For all these reasons, and especially because we were not even permitted to consider any changes, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Westminster City Councilman Butch Hicks. Butch's efforts have greatly helped Adams County Coloradans and he deserves recognition for the many contributions he has made to public service. Butch and Julia Hicks have been activist citizens. They exemplify what it means for people to participate in democracy, and although they are active Democrats, it is not Butch's partisan work that causes me to acknowledge him, but rather, his boundless enthusiasm for community service. I am proud to know Butch and have counted him as a friend and advisor on many issues. His official duties as a member of the Westminster City Council have included many projects that we care about, including improving watersheds, parks and recreational opportunities in Colorado's Second Congressional District. Butch was appointed to the Westminster City Council in 1999 and was elected to serve a 2-year term. He was then re-elected in November 2001 to serve a 4-year term. In addition to the City Council, Butch also serves in the Adams County Democrats as treasurer and on the Permanent Organization Committee, the Colorado State Democrats and the State Outreach Committee. Civil rights is a very important issue to Butch and drives him to monitor civil rights problems in Colorado and Westminster. He is a member of the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Butch's career in home improvement retail allowed him to travel across the United States and finally settle in Colorado. Once in Westminster, Butch became the department manager for Home Depot and now works for the Regional Transportation District. In his spare time Butch promotes youth awareness and volunteers for battered women shelters. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join in acknowledging Mr. Butch Hicks for touching the community in far-reaching ways. In a time when public faith in our political system is faltering, we should recognize that there are people like Butch who have an innate devotion to furthering the progress of their communities. I'm proud to offer warm congratulations to Butch, to honor his achievements, and wish him continued success in all his future endeavors. He stands out as a symbol of hope, optimism and generosity in public service.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the service of out-going Westminster City Councilman Dave Davia. Although Dave has been on the Council only since 2004, his involvement in the Westminster community began long before then. He has served on the Westminster Human Services Board since December 2002 and became the chair in 2004. Dave also takes part in the Westminster Rotary, Adams County Inter-faith Hospitality Network, Adams County District 50 Community Education Foundation, and the CedarBridge Homeowners Association, Currently, Dave is employed as a business systems consultant at Wells Fargo. In addition to this he has also served on the Wells Fargo Education Committee and the Wells Fargo Bank Cup Committee. As a Westminster City Councilman, Dave's focus has been on diversifying the city's tax base, redeveloping blighted areas, monitoring water supply and responding to growth through participation in transportation projects for the city. He has been vigilant in his quest for these projects and has gained a well-deserved reputation for expertise and thoughtfulness. Mr. Speaker, in addition to recognizing the ethic of public service among other Westminster City Council members, I ask my colleagues to join with me in acknowledging Mr. Dave Davia. We often debate and pass legislation at the Federal level that has far-reaching, significant, and sometimes unintended consequences, for local governments. That is one reason I believe it is so important to recognize and honor the men and women who work hard by holding office at the county and municipal level. Many of these individuals are among the best and brightest public policy advocates in our country, but they are not always recognized for the long hours, minimal pay, and difficult work they undertake. Dave Davia is one of these people. He has worked hard on behalf of the people in his community and I wish him every success in the future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my thanks and appreciation to Ms. Samantha ``Sam'' Dixion for her exemplary public service as Westminster City Councilwoman for the past sixteen years. Her tireless efforts have made a positive difference in the lives of many people in Westminster and the surrounding communities. Although she is stepping down from the Westminster City Council, I know that she will continue to stay involved in important community matters. Ms. Dixion began serving on the Westminster City Council in 1989 and has served as mayor pro tem twice, from 1995 to 1997 and again from 2000 to 2002. In addition to serving on the City Council, she has been involved in a variety of community boards and councils. Among these include the Economic Development and Private Industry Councils of both Adams and Jefferson Counties, Arvada High School's Cooperative Occupational Education Program, Westminster Community Artist Series, Colorado Municipal League's Policy Committee, and the Westminster Human Services Board. She is also a founding member of Front Range Foundation for Educational Excellence and Westminster DARE Foundation. She served as a council liaison to the city Human Services Board and the City's representative to the Adams County Economic Development Board, which she chaired in 1997. Ms. Dixion's passion for her community extends to important issues affecting the entire region, especially the cleanup and closure--and future use--of the former U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Rocky Flats nuclear weapons production facility west of Westminster. She has been an early and active voice on addressing the environmental issues at this site, and has been working with her colleagues in the surrounding communities to make sure the cleanup and closure of this site is thorough, safe and effective. The expertise she developed on this issue resulted in her being selected as the City's primary liaison on Rocky Flats issues. In that capacity, she has been a member of the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments (Coalition) since its creation and also served on many predecessor community oversight groups and committees. Her work at Rocky Flats lead to her selection as Chair of the Energy Communities Alliance (Alliance) in 1999 after having served as vice- Chair from 1998 to 1999. The Alliance is composed of local governmental officials and others from across the country to advise DOE on the environmental aspects and other issues associated with nuclear weapons production facilities. Her work on the Alliance is a testament to her dedication to making sure that the public's health and safety is protected around these facilities. Ms. Dixion also finds time to be a teacher-tutor with the Cooperative Occupational Education Program at Arvada High School. Her commitment to quality education can be observed through her participation in the Arvada Senior High School's Drop-Out Program and the Jefferson County District 1 Judicial Review Committee where she is a past chair. Ms. Dixion is a well-recognized leader in the Westminster community. Her honors and awards include Jefferson County Mother of the Year, Metro North Chamber Volunteer of the Year and several marketing achievement awards. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing my gratitude to Ms. Dixion for her tireless work. Although her work and the issues she has championed are serious and important, she brought a refreshing, positive outlook that was infectious. Through all of this work--at times difficult and controversial--she maintained a sense of humor and humility in her interactions with others, without compromising professionalism or respect of others and their views. In a time when faith in our political system is faltering, we should recognize and acknowledge people like Ms. Dixion who have an innate devotion to enhancing the quality of life in our communities. I am proud to offer my appreciation for her work and wish her continued success in all her future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, we need to change our budget policies. We should use the better, the fairer, and the more bipartisan approach to spending cuts that would come from passing H.R. 3966. That is a bill I introduced with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave). It is called the Stimulating Leadership and Cutting Expenditures Act, or SLICE for short. SLICE would require an up-or-down vote on each specific cut the President proposes in the recently passed transportation bill and current appropriations bills. It is a workable and constitutional alternative to the line item veto designed to enable Presidential leadership and require congressional accountability. Mr. Speaker, before we cut critical health care, education and other programs that help working Americans, let us work in a bipartisan way to consider other cuts. Let us pass H.R. 3966 and slice the budget the right way.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which is the companion to a House bill, H.R. 774, introduced by our colleague, Mrs. Musgrave, that I have cosponsored with my Colorado colleagues Mr. Beauprez and Mr. Tancredo. It directs the Secretary of Interior to enter into a land exchange to benefit Rocky Mountain National Park, and adjusts the boundary of the park in order to facilitate that exchange. Rocky Mountain National Park is one of Colorado's outstanding natural treasures. Established by Congress in 1915, it includes about 266,000 acres whose spectacular high alpine scenery and abundant wildlife attract over 3 million visitors annually. Not all the land within the park's boundaries is owned by the United States. One private inholding is the historic McGregor Ranch. Part of that ranch is a private access road that hikers and rock climbers have been using to reach the Twin Owls Trailhead just inside the park boundary and from there to visit various parts of the park. Over the last 20 years the popularity of the Twin Owls trailhead has grown steadily and in recent years overflow parking from the trailhead has had adverse effects on the ranch while the increase in traffic on the one-lane access road has diminished the historic character of the area. For several years the National Park Service, NPS, and the McGregor Ranch have been working to find a solution to the traffic and parking problems. In 2003, after a process that involved public participation and an environmental assessment, the NPS decided to relocate the Twin Owls parking lot to the east end of the McGregor Ranch, a location well away from the historic homestead. Construction of a new access road and a larger parking lot for the trailhead is planned at the new location. In order to enforce NPS regulations on the new access road and at the new trailhead, the land must be located within the park boundary. This legislation is necessary to authorize the land exchange and to adjust the park boundary to include the newly acquired lands. Under the bill, the McGregor Trust--owner of the ranch--will convey 5.9 acres of land to the NPS to facilitate the construction and management of the new facilities. In exchange, the McGregor Trust will acquire up to 70 acres to be used for the purpose of growing hay and cattle. The difference in the acreages reflects a difference in market value. The land now held by the ranch, which will be transferred to the United States, is suitable for residential use and therefore of higher per acre value than the grazing land that will be transferred to the ranch. To maintain the character of the land being transferred to the ranch, the National Park Service will retain a conservation easement that will allow grazing but prohibit construction of buildings. Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for the McGregor Ranch, for Rocky Mountain National Park, and for the public. I urge its approval.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a leader in Colorado's Latino community, Albert Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales is the president of Gonzales Consulting Services which he founded in 1990. After 15 years in business, Gonzales Consulting Services has 250 employees who provide financial management, support services, information technology, and emergency security communications to clients in nine States. Having realized extraordinary success in his own business endeavors, Albert finds time now to mentor small businesses with their growth and development. By any measure, Albert Gonzales is a true American success story. He is not only a leading entrepreneur in Colorado, he is raising his family and contributing to the larger community. In fact, he has focused much of his life to giving back to his community--particularly to the Latino community. In 1992, Albert Gonzales founded the Colorado Democratic Latino Initiative, the first initiative of its kind in Colorado. The Latino Initiative has given many Hispanic Coloradans a means for more effective participation in politics within the Democratic Party. The initiative has provided training and information on issues that affect the community and has been a model for political involvement across our region, including similar efforts by the Republican Party. As a result, there has been a tangible increase in the participation in the political process by Colorado Latinos. That participation shows itself in more than just Latinos exercising their right to vote. Many have been given the tools and encouragement necessary to run for public office. Although Albert is a committed Democrat, his partisan affiliation is not why I rise to acknowledge his leadership. Albert's real contribution to Colorado is in his work as a businessman, as a mentor, and as a person of conscience and good will. As a decision maker and political leader, Albert Gonzales has shown how important it is for Latinos to occupy positions of power in policy making--particularly as this community continues to grow and influence the culture, politics and economy of the West. Although Albert will retire from the Colorado Democratic Initiative Board this year, I have no doubt that he will continue to work in other ways and with the same passion, intelligence and commitment for this community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Albert Gonzales for his commitment toward elevating the Latino community's influence in the public arena--a worthy objective that cuts across partisan lines and serves to strengthen our democratic process.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations conference report. This bill does not fully address our homeland security needs. Still, it provides vital funds to make our country safer, and so I will support it today. Total funding in the bill is increased from this year's levels. Specifically, the bill increases funding over the requested levels for immigration and for customs and border protection. The agreement also provides $1.5 billion, 35 percent more than current funding, for science and technology programs. I am pleased that the conferees adopted an important amendment offered by Rep. David Obey that requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide details on how money appropriated for responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is spent. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3737, a bill that would create a Special Inspector General for Hurricane Katrina Recovery who would have oversight over all federal Hurricane Katrina emergency funding. While the Obey amendment doesn't go as far as this legislation, it is a significant step forward. I am also pleased that the conference report includes funding to help states comply with the REAL ID Act. Estimates are that complying with the Act will cost the states between $100 million and $500 million over the next 4 years. Since the majority saw fit to push the REAL ID provisions through Congress, it is important that Congress also provides funding to do the job. Still, I'm concerned about shortfalls in the bill. It cuts fire grants by $60 million (8 percent) below FY 2005, even as a recent survey found that fire departments all over the country aren't prepared to respond to a haz-mat incident and lack equipment. The bill also cuts State and local domestic preparedness grants by $585 million (19 percent) and Urban Area Security Initiative grants by $270 million (26 percent) below FY 2005 levels. Funding for communications equipment for first responders is cut from the levels in the bill the House passed in May, before Katrina struck--from $27 million to $15 million. The bill does provide additional funding for border patrol, but the number of agents still falls 1,000 short of the 2,000 called for in the Intelligence Reform bill. Since September 11th, just 965 additional border patrol agents have been hired--less than a 10 percent increase in 4 years. The conference report fails to provide much more than basic funding for the security of rail and public transportation systems because DHS has not yet spent funds it was allocated last year. Despite the fact that passenger rail in the U.S. carries about five times as many passengers each day as do airlines, this bill only includes $36 million for ground transportation security and $150 million for State grants to protect mass transit systems, as compared to $4.6 billion for aviation security. I'm very concerned that crucial security upgrades to our rail and public transportation systems--especially in light of the bombings in Madrid and London-- can't move forward more quickly. The bill also underfunds port security and does not include $50 million for chemical plant security that was included in the House-passed bill. I'm also concerned that this bill includes DHS Secretary Chertoff's proposal to create a new Preparedness Directory and take that responsibility away from FEMA, making FEMA a standalone office focused on response and recovery only. Secretary Chertoff's proposal was made in July--before Hurricane Katrina hit--and this bill would move it forward. This Administration crippled FEMA by making it just one of many organizational boxes under the Homeland Security Department. Splitting preparedness and response and recovery tasks now would weaken FEMA even further, at a time when we should be focusing on how to learn from the lessons of Katrina. Instead of making these changes in FEMA, we should remove it from DHS and make it an independent agency under qualified leadership, as would happen under the bill (H.R. 3816) I introduced last month. Mr. Speaker, much remains to be done to improve our defenses against terrorism. I do not believe this bill sets the right priorities or provides sufficient resources, but it does fund programs that are critical to our homeland security. The conference report is an important step, and I will vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill today. This so-called GAS Act has nothing to do with bringing the prices of gasoline down--its ostensible purpose--and everything to do with the Republican leadership overreaching, exploiting the catastrophes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to their own advantage. As I said earlier this year when the House passed the Energy Policy Act, there is nothing I'd rather vote for than a balanced energy bill that sets us on a forward-looking course--one that acknowledges that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy. But like its predecessor, this bill is far from balanced. Although there is bipartisan recognition that this bill should--at a minimum--address price-gouging that occurred in the wake of Katrina, this bill's price-gouging provisions are weak. They give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to pursue price gouging by sellers of gasoline or diesel fuel only in those areas where a natural disaster has occurred. And the provisions are directed at small gas station owners rather than at refiners, when recent studies show that refineries' prices have increased 255 percent--as compared to an increase of retailers' margin of about 5 percent. The bill also includes subsidies for oil companies if a refinery is delayed because of litigation, even if the litigation results from the oil company violating the law. We shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to help profitable oil companies evade local, state, and federal laws and regulations. More problematic, the bill claims to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The Republicans would have us believe that environmental permit requirements are to blame for the fact that no new refineries have been built since 1976. In fact, the only refinery that industry has attempted to build since 1976--a facility in Arizona--received its permit in just nine months. The truth is that over the last ten years, 30 existing refineries have been closed, but our refining capacity has been increasing. Refining capacity has become tight in recent years--so now companies can use their substantial profits to increase that capacity. But there is no reason to think that market forces cannot solve the current problem, and no reason to believe that ``burdensome'' environmental rules had anything to do with industry decisions not to add to refining capacity in recent years. The Republicans tell us we need a smaller federal government and greater local government control. Yet this bill is yet another example of where their message doesn't mesh with reality. The reality is that this bill preempts state and local government responsibilities and relaxes environmental laws. The National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, and U.S. Conference of Mayors oppose this bill--and for good reason.'' H.R. 3893 gives federal bureaucrats at the Department of Energy sole authority over the location of new refineries, taking away the primary permitting and oversight authority from all other state and local agencies. The bill also gives the D.C. Appeals Court exclusive jurisdiction over states' actions related to refineries or pipelines, as opposed to allowing state and local agencies review refinery and pipeline construction. And even though the energy bill passed earlier this year limited the number of gasoline and diesel fuel blends, H.R. 3893 would limit them even further, undermining the ability of states and localities that already cannot meet national air quality goals to clean up the air their constituents breathe. The bill instructs the president to designate sites on Federal lands, including closed military installations, for the purposes of siting a refinery. The bill excludes national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas, but wildlife refuges and wilderness-quality lands such as Wilderness Study Areas and National Forest roadless areas are fair game. I share the concerns of Thomas Markham, the Executive Director of the Lowry Redevelopment Authority in Colorado who also serves as the president of the Association of Defense Communities, about how this provision might affect former military bases. As he writes in a letter on behalf of the ADC, ``Shifting the responsibility to the federal government for planning how closed military installation will be reused would interfere with the time-tested approach developed over the past two decades. The conversion of military property to civilian uses is the responsibility of the community. Communities must be in charge when planning for life after closure.'' I realize that the rule as adopted today improved the bill language slightly to give communities more voice in the proposed process. But the essence of the bill language is the same. Again, this provision is a solution in search of a problem. There is nothing in the BRAC statute or in new DoD regulations that prevents a local community, through its redevelopment authority, from building or permitting an oil refinery on a military base. And then there are the things the bill would not do. It fails on the ``demand side'' by not increasing vehicle fuel economy standards, which have been frozen since 1996. Raising CAFE standards is the single biggest step we can take to reduce oil consumption, since about half of the oil used in the U.S. goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles. I support legislation that would actually help lower gas prices. I support the substitute introduced by Representative Bart Stupak that gives explicit authority to the FTC to define, for the first time, price gouging--not just for gasoline and diesel, but for natural gas, home heating oil, and propane. And the provisions are directed at the entire chain of gasoline production and distribution, including refineries. The substitute also authorizes new civil penalties of up to three times the amount of unjust profits gained by companies who engage in price gouging. The substitute would also increase our nation's refinery capacity by establishing a federal Strategic Refinery Reserve, patterned after the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with capacity equal to 5 percent of the total U.S. demand for gasoline, home heating oil and other refined petroleum products. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did highlight a serious problem this country faces--our excessive reliance on fossil fuels. But the solution isn't to give still more incentives to oil and gas companies to drill. Instead, we should act to wean our nation from its dependence on fossil fuels, especially foreign oil. The Republican leadership claims this bill will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil by stimulating domestic development and production. Yet with only 3% of the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home. Our excessive dependence on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security. We have an energy security crisis. We need to think anew to devise an energy security strategy that will give future generations of Americans an economy less dependent on oil and fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this bill does not even begin to address this problem. For that reason, I cannot vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the tremendous accomplishment of one of my constituents. The Royal Swedish Academy of Science awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics to Dr. John Hall of Boulder, Colorado. Dr. Hall and Dr. Theodor Haensch of Munich, Germany won the Nobel Prize for the development of a laser-based precision spectroscopy. Dr. Hall is a JILA fellow at the University of Colorado and a senior scientist with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Quantum Physics Division. Dr. Hall has received a series of awards in his distinguished career, including the Department of Commerce Gold Medal on three separate occasions in 1969, 1974, and 2002. He also became a member of the National Academy of Sciences in 1984. In 1999, Dr. Haensch made a discovery that lasers with short pulses could be used to measure optical frequencies in cesium clocks. Through this the optical frequency comb technique that is based on the evenly distributed frequencies that appear like the teeth of a comb was developed. While the distance between frequencies can be defined through this technique, it did not determine the absolute value of the frequency. In 2000, Dr. Hall developed a simple formula to determine frequency displacement, thus stabilizing the frequency. Haensch and Hall worked together to develop an instrument that currently has wide commercial use. This instrument can measure frequencies with an accuracy of fifteen digits. Their work has wide ranging application that can improve communication and animation technology, and potentially benefit navigation for spacecraft. Their work also can enable the study of stability of constants of nature over time, improve Global Positioning System, and develop more accurate clocks. It is clear that their discoveries have opened doors into many sectors of research and industries. The potential for new knowledge is vast and wide ranging. NIST, JILA, and the University of Colorado can now boast three Nobel Laureates, which is testament to the groundbreaking and vital research being performed at these institutions. I am honored that these facilities are located within the Second Congressional District, and particularly honored that Dr. Hall has chosen to perform this research in Colorado. He is an asset to our scientific community, and is an inspiration for many young people who may want to pursue their interests in science. I, again, congratulate Dr. Hall on his remarkable achievement and the honor that has been bestowed upon him.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations conference report. This bill does not fully address our homeland security needs. Still, it provides vital funds to make our country safer, and so I will support it today. Total funding in the bill is increased from this year's levels. Specifically, the bill increases funding over the requested levels for immigration and for customs and border protection. The agreement also provides $1.5 billion, 35 percent more than current funding, for science and technology programs. I am pleased that the conferees adopted an important amendment offered by Representative David Obey that requires the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to provide details on how money appropriated for responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is spent. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3737, a bill that would create a Special Inspector General for Hurricane Katrina Recovery who would have oversight over all Federal Hurricane Katrina emergency funding. While the Obey amendment doesn't go as far this legislation, it is a significant step forward. I am also pleased that the conference report includes funding to help States comply with the REAL ID Act. Estimates are that complying with the Act will cost the States between $100 million and $500 million over the next 4 years. Since the majority saw fit to push the REAL ID provisions through Congress, it is important that Congress also provides funding to do the job. Still, I'm concerned about shortfalls in the bill. It cuts fire grants by $60 million (8 percent) below FY 2005, even as a recent survey found that fire departments all over the country aren't prepared to respond to a haz-mat incident and lack equipment. The bill also cuts State and local domestic preparedness grants by $585 million, 19 percent, and Urban Area Security Initiative grants by $270 million, 26 percent, below FY 2005 levels. Funding for communications equipment for first responders is cut from the levels in the bill the House passed in May, before Katrina struck--from $27 million to $15 million. The bill does provide additional funding for border patrol, but the number of agents still falls 1,000 short of the 2,000 called for in the Intelligence Reform bill. Since September 11th, just 965 additional border patrol agents have been hired--less than a 10 percent increase in 4 years. The conference report fails to provide much more than basic funding for the security of rail and public transportation systems because DHS has not yet spent funds it was allocated last year. Despite the fact that passenger rail in the U.S. carries about five times as many passengers each day as do airlines, this bill only includes $36 million for ground transportation security and $150 million for State grants to protect mass transit systems, as compared to $4.6 billion for aviation security. I'm very concerned that crucial security upgrades to our rail and public transportation systems--especially in light of the bombings in Madrid and London--can't move forward more quickly. The bill also underfunds port security and does not include $50 million for chemical plant security that was included in the House-passed bill. I'm also concerned that this bill includes DHS Secretary Chertoff's proposal to create a new Preparedness Directory and take that responsibility away from FEMA, making FEMA a stand-alone office focused on response and recovery only. Secretary Chertoff's proposal was made in July--before Hurricane Katrina hit--and this bill would move it forward. This administration crippled FEMA by making it just one of many organizational boxes under the Homeland Security Department. Splitting preparedness and response and recovery tasks now would weaken FEMA even further, at a time when we should be focusing on how to learn from the lessons of Katrina. Instead of making these changes in FEMA, we should remove it from DHS and make it an independent agency under qualified leadership, as would happen under the bill (H.R. 3816) I introduced last month. Mr. Speaker, much remains to be done to improve our defenses against terrorism. I do not believe this bill sets the right priorities or provides sufficient resources, but it does fund programs that are critical to our homeland security. The conference report is an important step, and I will vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 248, honoring the life and achievements of Mr. Simon Wiesenthal, the world's most successful Nazi-hunter and advocate for religious tolerance. In the history of mankind, few events are as deplorable, unconscionable, and unrepeatable as the Holocaust. During this period, Nazi Germany imprisoned, enslaved, tortured, and eventually murdered 11 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents, and others. Mr. Simon Wiesenthal, a Polish Jew, was one of those individuals imprisoned by the Nazis. After being taken from his home and his wife Cyla, Wiesenthal successfully escaped one concentration camp, only to be recaptured. Suspecting his wife was dead, and thousands of people dying beside him, Wiesenthal courageously survived. After the United States and our allies defeated the Axis Powers in World War II, many thousands of Nazis fled Germany, knowing full well that they would face justice for their unthinkable crimes if they remained. Many Nazis established new identities and lived their lives with a secret so hideous they told no one. Upon liberation by the Allies, Wiesenthal reunited with Cyla and regained his health, and immediately dedicated his efforts to bringing Nazi war-criminals to justice. He was instrumental in aiding the U.S. Army's prosecution of many prominent Nazi criminals at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany. To prosecute the countless Nazis who had evaded the law, Wiesenthal, along with several other Holocaust survivors, founded the Jewish Documentation Center in Austria to collect and prepare evidence for future trials. Over the years, Wiesenthal honed his expertise in researching, tracking, and ultimately capturing Nazi criminals scattered throughout the world so they could face trial. Though the world community had collaborated to protect against future genocides, Wiesenthal personally strived to meet this goal. As one of the foremost speakers on the subject, he educated people around the world about the Holocaust and the prevention of genocide and intolerance. In 1977, the Simon Wiesenthal Center was established to further pursue the prosecution of hiding Nazi criminals, monitor anti- Semitism, and promote religious and racial tolerance. On September 20, 2005, Simon Wiesenthal passed away of natural causes. He had led an extraordinary life as a Holocaust survivor, educator, political activist, and humanitarian. By the time he retired in 2003, he and his colleagues had brought over one thousand hiding Nazi war criminals to justice. For decades, these Nazis thought they were above the law and would avoid trial. Wiesenthal and others proved that no crime so horrific goes unpunished, and there is no escaping their responsibility. Wiesenthal also succeeded in keeping the memories of the Holocaust alive and teaching others to embrace diversity, so future genocides may be prevented. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Simon Wiesenthal embodies the ideals that are so important to the United States: a commitment to justice, a common good based on tolerance, and ensuring a secure future by educating our youth. For his achievements, the United States has already awarded Wiesenthal the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor, and many other honors. This resolution reinforces the United States' utmost respect and admiration for Simon Wiesenthal, who bravely endured through history's darkest hour to give justice to those who perished in the Holocaust. Though Simon Wiesenthal has passed on, the United States must continue to pursue the noble endeavors he championed, and give hope to victims of injustice of the past, present, and future. I would like to thank Representative Henry Waxman for introducing this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 248 and always remember and honor Simon Wiesenthal.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan substitute. I am a supporter of the Endangered Species Act, but I have never rejected the idea of changing it. On the contrary, I have repeatedly said that I thought it would be possible to improve the way it was implemented. So, I regret that I was unable to support H.R. 3824 as ordered reported by the Resources Committee. I support much of the thrust of the original bill. I support putting more emphasis on recovery plans and on steps to provide incentives for landowners and other private parties to help with recovering species. And the Resources Committee did make improvements in the original bill. For example, the committee approved my amendment to retain protections for species listed as ``threatened'' and an amendment I offered with the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, to authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to an endangered predator that has been reintroduced into the wild. Unfortunately, though, other needed amendments were not approved--and as a result I concluded that the bill's defects were still so numerous and so serious that it should not be approved without further changes. Now, with this substitute, we can keep the best parts of the bill as reported--including the authorization for reimbursement for livestock losses--and make the further improvements that will make it into one that deserves approval by the full House of Representatives. Like the bill as reported, the substitute, with identical language, will eliminate the critical-habitat provisions of current law that have done relatively little to protect species and so much to foster lawsuits ,and red tape. And the substitute includes the same language as the bill as reported to codify and expand on regulations ensuring that land owners who enter into conservation agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service won't be required to do more if circumstances beyond their control change. But the substitute goes further than the bill as reported by requiring the government first to do as much as possible on public lands to conserve species before it acts to put that burden on private land owners. This is a very important provision that will directly benefit landowners, especially in Colorado and other States where there are extensive Federal lands. Also, like the bill as reported the substitute includes provisions to create a new, voluntary program of incentives to landowners who implement conservation practices on their lands. Ranchers and farmers in Colorado and across the west understand the importance of protecting threatened and endangered species, and want to do what they can to help, and I strongly support providing these incentives. But here again the substitute is better--because while both the bill as reported and the substitute include provisions for giving landowners technical assistance, only the bipartisan Substitute allows the Interior Department to give priority to smaller land owners who cannot afford expensive consultants. Just as important, the substitute not only improves on good features of the bill as reported, it also corrects its worst flaws. The bill as reported would weaken the protection of threatened and endangered species by making recovery plans unenforceable, by limiting the role of science, and in other ways as well. The substitute is better on these points. In addition the substitute does not include the reported bill's language to change the current law regulating the use of pesticides. That law may need some revisions, but if so they should be made after thorough consideration and careful deliberation, rather than through a last-minute amendment in the Resources Committee, which is how this was added to the bill. Proponents of the reported bill say the Endangered Species Act has led to too many lawsuits. But according to the Bush Administration's analysis of the bill as reported, ``the new definition of jeopardy in the bill, as well as various statutory deadlines, may generate new litigation and further divert agency resources from conservation purposes.'' The substitute does not have the same problems. And, finally, the substitute does not include the reported bill's vague provisions that would set up a new entitlement program--a program without clear boundaries that would increase Federal spending to an extent that cannot be easily calculated. Those provisions worry the Bush Administration, which has told us that they ``provide little discretion to Federal agencies and could result in a significant budgetary impact.'' And after reviewing the bill as reported, the nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense concluded that ``This legislation is rife with loopholes and vague wording that have the potential to cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and must be revised.'' I completely agree and I support the bipartisan substitute because it makes the revisions necessary to close those loopholes. For the benefit of our colleagues, I attach the full text of the letter from Taxpayers for Common Sense. I urge the adoption of the substitute. Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, Washington, DC, September 28, 2005. Dear Representative: Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), a non-partisan budget watchdog, has grave concerns regarding H.R. 3842, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. As reported by the House, this bill would establish a new entitlement program that will not only burden taxpayers but require the creation of an unnecessary and complex Federal spending program. TCS believes that, as written, the true fiscal impacts of this bill are impossible to calculate, but are likely to be large. H.R. 3824 establishes a policy whereby landowners could file takings claims against the government for relatively unspecific future development plans. The bill's vague language is also likely to encourage serial filers, as there is nothing to prevent landowners from collecting multiple times on the same piece of land property. Additionally, H.R. 3824 would require Federal taxpayers to pay even if the law affects only a small portion of a landowner's property and has little or no impact on the overall value of the remainder of that property. In fact, this legislation, as written, would almost always result in mandated payouts of taxpayer dollars, even if the value of the property had risen. In addition, the threshold for filing a claim and proving a taking under these new regulations would be extremely low, resulting in not only a near guaranteed payout from taxpayers to landowners, but also a likely flood of applications to take advantage of the windfall. As we have seen countless times in the past, a loophole will always be exploited, and an enormous loophole will be exploited enormously. This legislation is rife with loopholes and vague wording that have the potential to cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and must be revised. Sincerely, Steve Ellis, Vice President for Programs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a closed rule, although I do understand the need for prompt action on the continuing resolution. As my good friend from Florida has pointed out, the Senate's slowness in acting on appropriations bills means that the continuing resolution that we are discussing here today is necessary. However, as we prepare to provide the funds to keep the government running, I think we need to consider the larger budgetary picture. It is essential for us to respond to the devastation brought by hurricanes Katrina and Rita but, as we do, we should consider and respond to the fiscal and economic risks we have been running. I think there is an urgent need for both the administration and the Congress to face hard reality and not continue with budget policies based on laws that defy the laws of fiscal gravity. For too long, there has been a dearth of both presidential leadership and accountability in this area. That is why later today, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and perhaps the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), I will introduce a bill that I think could promote both. The bill is called the Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures Act, or the SLICE Act for short. It would do two things: First, it would authorize the President to identify specific items in Federal spending that he thinks should be cut; and second, require Congress to vote on each of those items. The bill would apply both to appropriations and to spending items in the recently signed transportation bill. It would set deadlines for the President to propose cuts and for Congress to act on them. Under the bill, Congress would have to vote on each proposed cut. We could not ignore those proposals, as can be done under current law, and if a majority approved the cut, it would take effect. The President has said we should pay for responding to Katrina and Rita through spending cuts alone, but the President's own party and the majority in this House are divided on what to cut. We may disagree on budget and tax priorities, Mr. Speaker, but one thing is certain. It is past time for a serious debate about specific proposals for ways to dig ourselves out of the deficit hole. This bill is intended to jump-start that debate. I hope all of our colleagues will join us in this crucial effort to restore fiscal sanity to our Nation's Capital. Mr. Speaker, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita not only brought death and destruction across a wide swath of the Gulf coast. They also delivered a blow to the Federal budget and sounded a wakeup call about the fiscal and economic risks we have been running. A full response to these natural disasters must include more than emergency repairs, humanitarian relief, and community rebuilding. We also need to consider serious questions about the limits of government, the wisdom of wartime tax cuts, and our national capacity to look beyond short-term political priorities. If anything good can come from these terrible storms, maybe it will 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. Even if Katrina and Rita had taken less destructive paths and the New Orleans levees had held, the problems would have been serious because 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 has been erased and our country is now in debt to the tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every American man, woman and child. This was the result of several factors, of course, but the size and scope of the Bush tax cuts must bear a large part of the blame. Several parts of those tax cuts--for example, eliminating the marriage penalty, fixing the 10 percent bracket and extending child care tax credits--were good. They gave a reasonable boost for the economy and increased the fairness of the tax laws. But having campaigned on giving back most of the budget surplus in tax cuts, President Bush insisted on much more, and Congress went along. Many of us warned against reducing the surplus so recklessly, and urged the administration and Congress to remember the need to be ready for future emergencies. Our pleas for restraint were ignored. And then came the attacks of 9/11 and with them the need for increased spending on homeland security, a military response in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq. The budget nosedived from surplus into deep deficit. Even in the face of national emergency, neither the President nor Congress has seen fit to call on Americans for any sacrifice, and instead of temporarily scaling back tax cuts, the President has insisted on making them permanent even as Federal spending has skyrocketed. So now we are putting the costs of war and everything else the government does on the national credit card--but the debt is owed not just to ourselves (as in the past), but to China, Japan and India. Why have we allowed things to get so far out of hand? Part of the answer is that budget and tax policy in Washington has been so captive to very partisan and extreme ideological voices that it has been hard to find common ground and moderate consensus. Even in this time of war, extremists in the Republican Party view tax cuts as almost a religious calling, while some in my party reject any spending cuts except in defense. And the Vice President dismisses complaints by saying ``deficits don't matter.'' So, it not surprising that the appropriations process has not been marked by fiscal discipline. Unless the President or Congressional leaders proclaim a need for restraint, let alone sacrifice, why would Members of Congress not work to meet the transportation and infrastructure needs of their districts and seek funding for other valued purposes? But all this cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to give. And, if the result is a new sense of responsibility, sooner is better--because there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our budget policies, including both taxes and spending. It could be that, just as they revealed the problem, Katrina and Rita can provide a catalyst to beginning that overdue job. The President has said the Federal Government will undertake to help rebuild the communities left devastated by the storms--and has said that spending for other purposes should be reduced to offset the costs. I have serious doubts about the adequacy of that approach, about the desirability of whatever spending cuts the President may propose, and about the readiness of Congress to seriously consider any cuts at all. But I am hopeful that maybe at last the time has come for a serious debate about specific proposals for ways to dig ourselves out of the deficit hole. To help begin such a serious debate, earlier this year I introduced legislation that would give the President authority to require Congress to vote, up or down, on specific appropriations items the President deemed unworthy of funding--a workable and Constitutional alternative to the line item-veto legislation that the Supreme Court struck down in 1998. Now, I am introducing an updated version of this bill that focuses directly on the President's suggestion that disaster response costs be offset with spending cuts. The bill is called the Stimulating Leadership In Cutting Expenditures or, ``SLICE'' Act. That name fits because the bill would 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. The bill would apply not only to regular appropriations, but also to the transportation bill that was passed and signed into law earlier this year. The bill would establish a two-phase process: the President would have until November 1st to tell Congress which, if any, of the spending in the transportation bill should be cancelled. And he would have until the end of this year to identify any items in fiscal year 2006 appropriations bills we wants to eliminate. 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. Mr. Speaker, 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. 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. At the same time, I know--everyone knows--that sometimes a large bill includes some earmarked items that 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. My bill would promote both. Presidents are elected to lead, and only they represent the entire Nation. The bill recognizes this by giving the President the leadership role of identifying just which other spending he thinks should be cut in order to offset some of the amounts the Federal Government will be spending in response to recent natural disasters. And, under the Constitution, it is the Congress that is primarily accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars will be spent. The bill respects and emphasizes that Congressional role by requiring a vote on each spending cut proposed by the President. I do not know exactly which spending the President might propose to cut, so I do not know whether I would support some, all, or any of those proposals. But I do know that we should stop wasting time in theoretical debates about whether we should make spending cuts and start debating specific proposals. My bill is intended to get that debate started now. For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill: Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (SLICE) Act The purpose of the bill is to facilitate Presidential leadership and Congressional accountability regarding reduction of other spending to offset the costs of responding to recent natural disasters. The bill would amend the Budget Act to provide as follows: The President could propose rescission of any budget authority provided in the recently passed transportation bill or an appropriations Act through special messages including draft bills to make those rescissions. The President would have until November 1, 2005 to propose canceling spending items in the new Transportation Act and until January 1, 2006 to propose rescissions from FY 06 appropriations bills. The House's majority leader or minority leader would be required to introduce a bill proposed by the President within two legislative days. If neither did so, any Member could then introduce the bill. The relevant Committee would be required to report the bill within seven days after introduction. The report could be made with or without recommendation regarding its passage. If the Committee did not meet that deadline, it would be discharged and the bill would go to the House floor. The House would debate and vote on each proposed rescission within 10 legislative days after the bill's introduction. Debate would be limited to no more than four hours and no amendment, motion to recommit, or motion to reconsider would be allowed. If passed by the House, the bill would go promptly to the Senate, which would have no more than 10 more days to consider and vote on it. Debate in the Senate would be limited to 10 hours and no amendment or motion to recommit would be allowed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for this bill as it stands. I support much of the thrust of the original bill. I support putting more emphasis on recovery plans and on steps to provide incentives for landowners and other private parties to help with recovering species. And the Resources Committee did make improvements in the original bill. Unfortunately, though, other needed amendments were not approved--and as a result I concluded that the bill's defects were still so numerous and so serious that it should not be approved without further changes. That was why I supported the bipartisan substitute. Had it been adopted, we would have kept the best parts of the bill as reported-- including the authorization for reimbursement for livestock losses that I supported in the Resources Committee--and made the further improvements that were needed for it to deserve approval by the full House of Representatives. Unfortunately, that did not occur, so we are left with a bill that does not include those improvements. Proponents of the reported bill say the Endangered Species Act has led to too many lawsuits. But according to the Bush Administration's analysis of the bill as reported, ``the new definition of jeopardy in the bill, as well as various statutory deadlines, may generate new litigation and further divert agency resources from conservation purposes.'' The substitute did not have the same problems. Similarly, the substitute did not include the reported bill's vague provisions that would set up a new entitlement program--a program without clear boundaries that would increase federal spending to an extent that cannot be easily calculated. Those provisions worry the Bush Administration, which has told us that they ``provide little discretion to Federal agencies and could result in a significant budgetary impact.'' And after reviewing the bill as reported, the nonpartisan budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, concluded that ``This legislation is rife with loopholes and vague wording that have the potential to cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and must be revised.'' I supported the bipartisan substitute because it would have made the revisions necessary to close those loopholes. Nonetheless, while I cannot support the bill today, I am hopeful that it will be further improved as the legislative process continues and that the result will be legislation to revise the Endangered Species Act that I can support and that will deserve the support of every Member of Congress.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 50th Anniversary of McGuckin's Hardware Store in Boulder, Colorado. McGuckin's is a landmark in Boulder and has long had a very special reputation for stocking hard-to-find items. McGuckin's was opened in 1955 by Bill McGuckin, a rugged outdoorsman and avid fisherman. The store originally consisted of only four employees and four departments with a business ethic based on Bill McGuckin's belief in personalized service, selection, and first-hand experience. In 1960, Dave Hight joined his father-in-law, Bill, as a partner, and together they committed themselves to fostering McGuckin's well-deserved reputation as ``the Greatest Hardware Store in the World.'' After Mr. McGuckin's passing in 1966, Mr. Hight continued the excellent service and selection offered to customers. His company continued to grow over the next 50 years, and today, this independently-owned business has prospered to employ 315 individuals in all its operations. In addition to its 60,000+ square foot sales floor with over 200,000 items for sale, there is a Design Center and a Distribution Center nearby to meet every customer's need. You name it, they have it. When there's a problem with something they sell, they fix it. In the unlikely event they don't have that particular something for which you were looking, their knowledgeable, experienced staff knows where to order it and does so with a friendly manner and without a fuss. Not surprisingly, McGuckin's has developed a loyal and devoted clientele. Boulder's Daily Camera readers have voted it ``Best Hardware Store,'' ``Best Locally-Owned Store'' and ``Best Customer Service.'' ``Best Customer Service'' is an understatement; McGuckin's employees are beyond comparison. They wear green and are found in almost every aisle. You can still find Dave Hight in the middle aisle. They give plain, old-fashioned, perfect service with no hovering or hard-sell. No matter which department they work in, they all know where everything in the store is located. McGuckin's quality service doesn't stop with humans either; this store welcomes pets on-leash too. As dog-lovers on my staff will tell you, most of Boulder's best-behaved dogs and puppies began refining their social skills by shopping in McGuckin's pet supply department. Employees dressed in green will greet customers and their pets and will often ask permission to give the dog a treat. While I have never tried one, I am reliably informed by pet owners that if you give permission, the most ``delectable tidbits'' come out of those green smock pockets. McGuckin's is, therefore, not only a big hit with people working on their week-end home improvement projects, it is also popular with Boulder's canine population. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging David Hight and his employees for their commitment to uniquely serving their customers. If you're ever visiting Boulder, I hope you'll have the chance to go to McGuckin's. You won't be sorry and you won't find any store like it in this day and age. I congratulate David Hight and all the employees and their families on this 50th Anniversary and wish them good health and happiness in McGuckin's future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, though I have concerns about one specific provision that would go too far to allow discrimination. The basic tenet of Head Start is as true today as it was a generation ago--quality early education programs can be instrumental in helping children overcome barriers to learning. This program not only plays an important role in providing opportunities for the next generation but also has an important impact on our economy. For every dollar spent on Head Start, we receive seven dollars back. There are few federal programs that can boost that kind of success. As a nation we must ensure that our children are prepared, academically, emotionally and nutritionally to enter school. Removing the outside forces that result in under-prepared students opens up children's minds to learn and gain an education. Head Start is one of the most important programs in our government and I am pleased to see this bill come to the floor with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, I have concerns about an amendment passed by this body that allows faith-based Head Start grantees to discriminate in hiring based on religion. Federally supported programs should never support discrimination in its programs on any level. Since Head Starts inception in 1972 it has never discriminated in hiring for faith based and other organizations. There is no need to start now. I was pleased the House did not adopt an amendment offered by Ms. Musgrave that would allow for-profit Head Start providers to collect federal funds as profit. While for-profit Head Start grantees play an important role in school readiness, I do not support allowing them to collect a profit from federal grants provided to serve low-income students. Any savings from funds designated for administrative costs should go towards serving the needs of these low-income students. This amendment provides the wrong type of incentive for Head Start grantees. While this bill is not perfect, there are many provisions that will provide needed and worthwhile reforms to Head Start. Head Start has proven to be a successful program and this bill will largely make it even more successful and efficient. So Mr. Chairman, I am voting in favor of this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this rule, though there are some positive aspects to highlight. I am pleased that the Rules Committee made several amendments in order, specifically my own amendment increasing funding to the Advance Technological Education program and Mr. Gordon's amendment requesting a three-year programmatic and operational plan for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. However, I feel this rule would have been improved by making in order Mr. Honda's amendment authorizing the Advanced Technology Program. This legislation has been described as a means to create jobs and support manufacturing. ATP does just this. This program has proven results and is an effective investment for our manufacturing and technological industries. The Committee's decisions seem short-sighted, especially since the manufacturing sector is still suffering. Mr. Honda's amendment deserves debate on the floor and I feel the Rules Committee has missed an opportunity to improve this bill. In the end I did not feel that the good outweighed the bad in this rule. So I will be voting against the rule and I urge members to do the same.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, we have heard repeatedly today about the importance of supporting our Nation's manufacturing industry. One of the most critical elements of our manufacturing competitiveness is a technically trained workforce. My amendment addresses this by increasing authorization levels of the Advanced Technological Education program. This important amendment has the support of the American Association of Community Colleges. The ATE program works with community colleges to develop curricula designed to prepare students for the local job market. This program has been highly successful with only modest funding. This amendment would boost the authorization for ATE from the $55 million currently in H.R. 250 to $70 million. The ATE program is different from other technical and vocational programs in that it works directly with industry to identify the skill sets students will need to compete and enter the workforce. Arguments have been made that this is too high of a budgetary increase and that this would make the ATE program the highest funded education program in the National Science Foundation. However, if you look at this, actually the level of authorization in my amendment is well within the NSF doubling authorization levels that passed this House overwhelmingly in 2002. At the same time, there are several programs that receive greater funding in the education directorate at NSF. In fact, authorizing the ATE at $70 million ranks the program sixth. This is a small investment that will provide long-term dividends for our manufacturing industry. I urge Members of this body to support the technological training of our workforce and to vote in favor of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) as well as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis). The point of the authorized levels that we are proposing in this amendment is to meet the demand. This is not just a number that we pulled out of the air. It is a number that reflects the demand that the National Science Foundation is seeing for this particular area of ATE. If we were to meet the demand that NSF typically will meet, it would be at 25 percent of the proposal that would be funded. That means 75 percent of the proposals are not funded. That number is about $68 million. So all we are trying to do is give the appropriators the flexibility to meet this important demand. Why is this demand important? Well, if you think about the jobs that are created because of this investment, and the debate we have had today about the importance of manufacturing in our future, this makes real sense. The students that are being funded based on the American Association of Community Colleges numbers, 47 percent are African American, 56 percent are Hispanic. These colleges play a crucial role in serving our minority communities, populations which my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), knows are underrepresented in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields. There is no better way to make a real impact for a small investment on the long-term future of our economy. Please support this amendment.

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