Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, four years ago I voted against the bill that became the ``USA PATRIOT Act,'' more commonly called simply the ``PATRIOT Act.'' I agreed that our law-enforcement agencies needed increased power and more tools to fight terrorists. But I also thought then--and still think today--it was imperative for Congress to proceed carefully in order to protect Americans' civil liberties. I take very seriously my duty to preserve and protect our Constitution. For me, this is a matter of conscience--and four years ago I concluded that I could not fulfill my duty and also vote for the legislation. However, I took some comfort from the fact that a number of the most troublesome provisions of the new law were temporary and would expire unless Congress acted to renew them. And the imminent expiration of those provisions is the reason this bill is before us today. I think the value of such ``sunset'' provisions is shown by the debate we are having today. It is evidence that requiring Congressional action to renew agencies' authorities can and does result in ongoing Congressional oversight and periodic reconsideration. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not fully follow the good example of our procedure 4 years ago. Instead, the bill would make permanent no fewer than 14 of the 16 provisions of the original ``PATRIOT Act'' that were covered by the law's ``sunset'' clause--as well as other new authorities provided by last year's bill to reform the intelligence community--and under the bill the other two will not ``sunset'' for a full 10 years. That is one of the main reasons I will vote against this bill. But it is not the only reason. Neither the expiring provisions nor the other sections of the ``PATRIOT Act'' are limited to cases involving terrorism. This makes even more troubling their potential for abuse or misuse in ways that intrude on Americans' privacy and civil liberties. Because of that potential, 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. Section 215 expanded the FBI's ability to obtain ``any tangible thing'' under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Previously, the government could obtain records only from hotels/motels, storage facilities and car rental companies, and only if the records pertained to agents of a foreign power.' Now, it can seek ``any tangible thing'' from anyone at all as long as the information is relevant to an investigation. Many of us think this is so broad that the government could investigate consumers' reading and Internet habits and private records (such as credit card information, medical records, and employment histories), without the requirement of relevance to any criminal activity that applies in grand jury investigations. I would like to think that this authority will not be abused. But we cannot be sure that will never occur, and I think there are reasons to worry. I understand, for example, that the American Library Association has confirmed that Federal agents went into a library and asked for a list of everyone who checked out a book on Osama bin Laden--which likely would include people who wanted to learn about his connection to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington--and that overall, since those attacks libraries have received more than 200 formal and informal requests for materials, including 49 requests from federal officers. It is not clear what authority (if any) was cited by the federal officers for obtaining this information--and, because recipients of orders issued under section 215 not only have no effective way of challenging them but in fact are prohibited from disclosing to anyone but their attorneys that they received such an order, there is no way of knowing how often this authority has been used. So, I remain concerned about the possibility that the ``PATRIOT Act'' would be used to obtain very private information--whether library records, medical information, or gun purchase records--without an adequate showing of a connection to terrorism. It is true that this bill would make some worthwhile changes to current law, including allowing the recipient of a Section 215 order to challenge it before a three-judge panel of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, in Washington, DC, and assert that the law was wrongly applied. But I think we ought to have at least had the opportunity to debate more substantial reform to this part of the law. To begin with, we should have been able to at least consider a limited exemption for bookstores and libraries, along the lines of the bipartisan amendment that the House voted to add to the Justice Department appropriations bill for fiscal 2006. However, the Republican leadership blocked that amendment from even being offered. Further, I think consideration should be given to changing the standard for issuing a section 215 order, to require some individual suspicion that the records the government wants are related to a spy, terrorist or other foreign agent--which could include the records of other parties if they were clearly relevant to the activities of the subject under investigation. Again, no amendment along those lines was allowed consideration. It is true that the House did have the opportunity to consider a number of worthwhile amendments. I was glad to have the chance to vote for them, and am glad that so many were adopted. However, we should have had the chance to consider many more. For example, the House ought to have had the chance to at least debate changes such as some proposed in the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. I have in mind the amendment to ``sunset'' the so-called ``lone wolf' provision, approved by the Intelligence Committee and an amendment offered in the Judiciary Committee to restore a requirement for reporting on the disclosure of electronic communications that was included in the bill approved by the Judiciary Committee in 2001 but later stripped by the Rules Committee without explanation. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow any of these amendments to even be debated on the House floor, although it did allow time for a new amendment--not considered in committee, as far as I can tell--that would, among other things, change the rules for jury trials in many federal criminal trials, evidently including some not related to terrorism. And so, Mr. Chairman, my reaction to the bill now before the House is similar to the one I had to the original ``Patriot Act'' legislation four 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. And, now as then, I have concluded that for the reasons I have mentioned this bill as it stands--especially after rejection of the proposal to shorten the extension of expiring provisions--does not strike the right balance, and should not become law in its present form. But, now as four years ago, I am hopeful that the bill will be further improved as the legislative process continues. Four years ago, that did not happen. However, I think there is good reason to think that this time history will not repeat itself. There evidently is considerable support in the other body--by Senators on both sides of the aisle--for provisions that would improve on this legislation. I hope and expect that the Senate will make such improvements and that in the end the result will be a measure that deserves the support of all Members of Congress.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the City of Louisville and to congratulate the citizens of this great community for the recent honor bestowed upon them. MONEY magazine and CNN spent months looking for towns across America worthy of being called ``Great American Towns.'' A criterion for the search included a safe, enjoyable environment in which anyone would want to raise their children. Out of more than 1,300 cities eligible for CNN/MONEY's ``Best Places to Live 2005,'' Louisville, Colorado placed fifth. Louisville is located six miles from Boulder, a dynamic college town home to the University of Colorado, and just twenty-five miles from Denver, Colorado's metropolitan capital. Louisville started as a coal mining town in the 1880s, and has since grown to be home to some 19,000 residents and 1,700 acres of open space. While the city has undergone significant development from its humble beginnings, it has not forgotten its roots. The city gets much of its charm through the preservation of its history. Main Street is filled with historic buildings giving it an old-time feel, and the Louisville Historical Museum keeps the past alive for generations to come. Despite its nostalgic past, Louisville is forward thinking with a thriving high- tech industry. The combination of small-town history and charm juxtaposed with modern advantages are at the heart of Louisville's success. Louisville enjoys a low crime rate, strong environmental values, affordable housing prices, and close proximity to the Rocky Mountains-- which provide boundless opportunities for outdoor activity including skiing, hiking, and camping. Parades color Louisville's downtown streets on holidays. Schoolchildren discuss ways to improve the city in Youth Advisory Board meetings. Families watch classic movies in Louisville's picturesque parks. A lively, involved community keeps the city's traditions and a myriad of available activities alive. I take great pride in representing Louisville, and commend Mayor Chuck Sisk and the city council for their work to ensure a safe and enjoyable community for its citizens. Cities like Louisville instill pride in the officials who govern them and the citizens who inhabit them, and serve to enrich the lives of all who live in them, work in them, or visit them.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this bill. It is an important bill. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act authorizes funding for 2 fiscal years for State Department programs, international broadcasting activities, international assistance programs, and related agencies. The bill authorizes a 12 percent increase in funding over fiscal year 2005, including funding increases for peacekeeping missions, embassy security and relief for Africa. H.R. 2601 also includes a number of amendments that were passed during the bill's consideration on the floor. I voted against an amendment offered by Representative Hyde regarding reform of the United Nations. The amendment was based on the U.N. Reform Act, which I opposed--along with many of my colleagues--when it was considered as a stand-alone bill a month ago. The U.N. is a critically important body that has taken on many of the world's problems and solved them--problems such as poverty, disease, and international disputes. And the U.S. has benefited from U.N. actions. Just recently, the U.N. helped with elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and helped negotiate the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. But I share the view that the United Nations needs to be improved so it can better carry out its indispensable role. It has serious problems, as exemplified by the oil-for-food scandal and offenses committed by U.N. peacekeeping forces. So, I support U.N. reform--but I could not support the approach the amendment takes toward achieving that objective. It would require the Secretary of State to push for reforms at the U.N. in the areas of budgeting, oversight and accountability, peacekeeping, and human rights. That is something that needs to be done. But if the Secretary of State cannot certify that the reforms have been achieved, starting in 2007, the Secretary would be required to withhold 50 percent of the U.S. assessed contributions to the U.N.'s regular budget. The assessed U.S. contributions are estimated at $362 million for 2005, and $439 million for 2006. I think such a punitive and unilateral approach to reform will not work. I think its primary result would be to further isolate the United States while at the same time actually undermining ongoing efforts at reform and potentially jeopardizing the U.N.'s ability to focus on global threats and work toward greater global stability. I also voted in reluctant support of an amendment offered by Representative Rohrabacher regarding detainees at Guantanamo. I supported it because I believe it is important to support an amendment that highlights the continuing threat of terrorism and the continuing necessity of disrupting terrorist activities and protecting the security of the United States. But my support was reluctant because the amendment inaccurately and incompletely characterizes the debate on the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and what goes on there. It calls the capture, detention, and interrogation of international terrorists essential to the successful prosecution of the war on terrorism and the defense of the United States. Certainly no one can disagree with this. The amendment also states that the detention and lawful, humane interrogation by the U.S. of detainees at Guantanamo is essential to the defense of the United States and to the prosecution of the war on terrorism. It is similarly hard to disagree with this statement. But the point is that detentions at Guantanamo haven't been consistently lawful or humane. The amendment finally states that Guantanamo is so essential to the defense of the United States that it should not be closed while the U.S. is waging the war on terrorism. That is an overstatement, in my opinion. ``Gitmo'' is now infamous around the world as a place where detainees have been mistreated and the Koran mishandled. There are over 500 detainees remaining at Guantanamo--some who have been there for 3 years without being charged with a crime. We still don't know the extent of the abuses since there hasn't been any independent commission appointed to look into all the allegations. But whether prisoner abuse is limited or widespread, there is a perception that bad things have happened at Guantanamo, and this perception only makes it easier for terrorists to find willing recruits. An independent commission could offer recommendations about what to do with the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo as well as about the situation at detention facilities all over the world. Closing Guantanamo may well be the best option, but it is an option we cannot consider without also considering accompanying changes to the whole detention system. The Rohrabacher amendment didn't allow consideration of these finer points, and my support for it should not be seen as endorsement of its language. I also reluctantly voted for an amendment offered by Representative Ros-Lehtinen regarding our military activities in Iraq. The amendment states that U.S. policy is to transfer responsibility for Iraqi security to Iraqi forces and that the U.S. should only withdraw ``when it is clear that United States national security and foreign policy goals relating to a free and stable Iraq have been or are about to be achieved.'' I agree. In fact, most people agree on a policy of transferring responsibility for security to Iraqi forces. But saying we will only withdraw when our goals are met is problematic. That's because the administration's goals in Iraq are far from clear--the Defense Department shifts its focus on a daily basis, and it has resisted requests to establish metrics or measurements to help us determine when these goals have been or ``are about to be achieved.'' So given that we aren't sure of our goals, this part of the amendment is largely without meaning. It would have been better to include the language proposed in the motion to recommit, which I supported. Recent calls for withdrawal have come about because there is rising opposition in this country to the administration's policy in Iraq. But I believe that just as rushing into Iraq was a mistake, rushing to get out would also be a mistake. We do need to send a signal to the Muslim world that America has no desire to stay in Iraq, but we must also make clear the importance we place on transferring responsibility for security to the Iraqis and on supporting efforts to assist the new Iraqi Government draft a constitution. This must not be our last word on Iraq. Though not unexpected, it is disappointing that the Republicans continue to politicize our policy in Iraq through cleverly drafted amendments and resolutions intended solely to pigeonhole Members into black and white positions. In conclusion, except for the parts related to the United Nations, the bill is basically sound and deserves approval so that the legislative process can go forward.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, because my airline flight was delayed, on July 18th I was unable to be present for the vote on H. Res. 328, Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the workers' strikes in Poland in 1980 that led to the establishment of the Solidarity Trade Union. (rollcall number 380). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a bill with my colleague in the House, Representative Ellen Tauscher, to increase the end-strength of the Army. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Lieberman, Clinton, Reed, Nelson, and Salazar. I am grateful to Sen. Lieberman and Rep. Tauscher for their leadership on this issue, and to the Third Way organization for its recent report on this issue and its help on this bill. We are introducing this legislation at a critical time for our military. The war in Iraq has put a tremendous strain on our Army, the Reserves and on National Guard units that were never intended for such long deployments, and ought to be used more effectively for homeland security. There is deepening concern that our current force requirements cannot be sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan without depleting our reserves and diminishing our capacity to meet other global threats. I am one who believes we have more work to do to thoroughly understand these other global threats and the strategies and tactics necessary to prepare for the kind of conflict we are facing in Iraq. The upcoming Pentagon defense review needs to look at increased troops levels in the context of our long-term security needs as well as the immediate challenges. But in the meantime, the Bush Administration's lack of foresight in Iraq has left us with an immediate problem that cannot be ignored. Our troops are overstretched--not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but in 117 other countries around the world. Last year, nine of the Army's ten divisions were deployed to, preparing to deploy to, or returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And we continue to rely too heavily on our Guard and Reserve. Without this bill, we risk asking too much of our men and women in uniform who have performed so courageously and sacrificed so much in their service to this country. They, future recruits, and the country all need to know that we are committed to providing the resources necessary to keep our Army strong. Let me emphasize that this is not about increasing troops so that President Bush can plan for more Iraqs; this is about rebuilding the strength of the incredible institution that is the U.S. Army. Leadership begins with recognizing reality. Although we may wish we had a different starting place, this is the place that we find ourselves after much miscalculation and wishful-thinking by the Bush Administration. So we ask the Administration today to heed our call and to heed the call of so many in the military community who understand the importance of increasing the Army's end strength. The defense of the United States is and must continue to be the first priority of our government.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and acknowledge the outstanding work of Carolyn Dulchinos, a Senior Policy Advisor for the Boulder County Board of Commissioners. This month, she will be leaving this position that she has served with distinction for over 10 years. Ms. Dulchinos is a shining example of the dedication and commitment to public service and community values held by those who work in the public sector. Early on in her career--a career that is still young and filled with future promise--she was drawn to the calling of public service and has followed this path ever since. In the mid-1980s, she worked as a staff assistant in the office of Congressman Pete Stark from California. She remained in Washington and worked for the American Association of Retired Persons and the National Association of Trial Lawyers. She also worked for a prestigious lobbying firm in Washington where she helped clients work through issues before Federal agencies. At this position, she also helped draft and enact legislation for the minting of commemorative coins to honor the 50th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy. This is but a small yet significant example of her focus on the general public good that has defined her career up to now. Since she began work for Boulder County in the spring of 1995, Ms. Dulchinos applied her skills and spirit of service to the citizens of this diverse and vibrant community. During her time with Boulder County she worked tirelessly with Boulder County's State legislative representatives to promote wise public policy at the Colorado State legislature. Through this work, she was instrumental in helping the Colorado legislature develop and fund innovative human service programs, such as a program called Impact. This program provides coordinated human services to help children at risk of institutionalization remain in their own communities where they become productive citizens. She has also worked on issues of importance to Boulder County with Colorado's congressional delegation, such as the cleanup and closure of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons production facility, open space protection on Federal public lands in the county, and critical transportation funding needs. Ms. Dulchinos also worked on and succeeded in accomplishing environmentally and economically sustainable administrative actions at Boulder County and legislation on multimodal transportation, land use, and open space, among many others. She has been a tremendous asset to the Board of County Commissioners and a workhorse for the office. She has the ability to simplify complex issues, get to the crux of an issue and communicate this effectively to decisionmakers and the public. She is known for her sense of humor and for her efforts to boost the morale and collegiality of the office through her memorable events commemorating employees' birthdays, going away parties, and retirements. Although Ms. Dulchinos is leaving the county, I know that she will continue to be a contributing member of the community. She has a bright future ahead and I wish her the very best in her future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am not voting for this resolution, because I think it does not make a constructive contribution to the problems facing our country and the national economy. The resolution says that trade restrictions and inequality are barriers to keeping and creating jobs in the United States--but it does nothing about them, just as it does nothing to make it easier for Americans looking for work to find good jobs. The resolution says that bureaucratic red tape is a barrier to economic progress, but it does nothing to reduce that barrier or to require the Bush Administration to exercise leadership in reducing red tape. The resolution says there is need for more innovation and investment, but it offers nothing substantive to promote innovation or to encourage more productive investment. The resolution correctly says there is a need to overcome barriers to health care security, but it does nothing to help the millions of Americans who lack health insurance or to make good health care more affordable. The resolution says we need to promote lifelong learning, but is silent as to how to go about achieving that desirable result. The resolution mentions taxes and the complexity of the tax laws, but provides no useful suggestions as to how to reduce that complexity or to promote tax fairness. The resolution complains about ``lawsuit abuse'' and seems to support ``litigation management,'' but says nothing about the extent to which the courts can protect individual rights and the essential role of law in our society. And while the resolution correctly says there is a need for greater energy self-sufficiency and security, it does nothing about it. While that actually is an improvement over the energy-policy bill the House passed earlier this year, with its many wrong-headed provisions, it falls far short of what is needed. In short, this resolution is not serious. It deserves neither the time consumed in debating it nor approval by the House. I will not vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing a bill to designate as wilderness most of the lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park, in Colorado. This legislation will provide important protection and maagement direction for some truly remarkable country, adding well over 200,000 acres in the park to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill is essentially identical to one previously introduced by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, and one I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. Those bills in turn were based on similar measures earlier proposed, including some by former Senator Bill Armstrong and others. Over a number of years my predecessor and I have worked with the National Park Service and others to refine the boundaries of the areas proposed for wilderness designation and consulted closely with many interested parties in Colorado, including local officials and both the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the St. Vrain & Left Hand Ditch Water Conservancy District. These consultations provided the basis for many of the provisions of the bill I am introducing today, particularly regarding the status of existing water facilities. Since I introduced the bill in the 108th Congress, the communities which surround this park have been considering this wilderness proposal. The Town of Grand Lake, located west of the park, held a public meeting this month to gauge public opinion. Most of those speaking expressed support for the wilderness designation. Immediately following this public testimony, the Grand Lake Town Council voted unanimously to support wilderness designation, something that they have communicated to me and the other members of Colorado's Congressional delegation in a letter dated June 29, 2005. This week the Town of Estes Park, located east of the Park, held a similar town meeting to gauge public support for the proposal. Again, the community members who spoke at this hearing strongly supported wilderness protection for the Park. My understanding is that because of that public support the Estes Park Town Council also expressed general support and has directed their staff to prepare a resolution of support for the wilderness proposal as reflected in the bill I am introducing today. The only differences between this bill and previous versions are that the new bill has a different map reference and does not include an exact acreage number. Omission of an acreage number reflects the fact that in their letter of support the Grand Lake Town Council requested that the wilderness boundary be adjusted to facilitate work to remove some materials in order to reduce and manage forest fire risks and to accommodate some other concerns. My intention is to work with the Council, the National Park Service, and other interested parties in order to develop a response to those requests--an outcome that likely would require a change in the exact acreage figure. Less important than the exact acreage is the fact that the new wilderness will cover some 94 percent of the park, including Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of Rocky Mountain National Park are included in the wilderness that would be designated by this bill. The features of these lands and waters that make Rocky Mountain National Park a true gem in our national parks system also make it an outstanding wilderness candidate. The wilderness boundaries will assure continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, and areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park management and visitor services. In addition, specific provisions are included to assure that there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities. This bill is based on National Park Service recommendations, prepared more than 25 years ago and presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. It seems to me that, in that time, there has been sufficient study, consideration, and refinement of those recommendations so that Congress can proceed with this legislation. I believe that this bill constitutes a fair and complete proposal, sufficiently providing for the legitimate needs of the public at large and all interested groups, and deserves to be enacted. It took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a statewide national forest wilderness bill. Since then, action has been completed on bills designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge portion of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area, and the James Peak area of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests. We now need to continue making progress regarding wilderness designations for deserving lands, including other public lands in our state that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain National Park that are dealt with in the bill I am introducing today. All Coloradans know that the question of possible impacts on water rights can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. So, it's very important to understand that the question of water rights for Rocky Mountain National Park wilderness is entirely different from many considered before, and is far simpler. To begin with, it has long been recognized under the laws of the United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national park itself. This is not, so far as I have been able to find out, a controversial decision, because there is a widespread consensus that there should be no new water projects developed within Rocky Mountain National Park. And, since the park sits astride the continental divide, there's no higher land around from which streams flow into the park, so there is no possibility of any upstream diversions. And it's important to emphasize that in any event water rights associated with wilderness would amount only to guarantees that water will continue to flow through and out of the park as it always has. This preserves the natural environment of the park, but it doesn't affect downstream water use. The bottom line is that once water leaves the park, it will continue to be available for diversion and use under Colorado law regardless of whether or not lands within the park are designated as wilderness. These legal and practical realities are reflected in my bill--as in my predecessor's--by inclusion of a finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation. Some may ask, why should we designate wilderness in a national park? Isn't park protection the same as wilderness, or at least as good? The answer is that the wilderness designation will give an important additional level of protection to most of the park. Our national park system was created, in part, to recognize and preserve prime examples of outstanding landscape. At Rocky Mountain National Park in particular, good Park Service management over the past 83 years has kept most of the park in a natural condition. And all the lands that are covered by this bill are currently being managed, in essence, to protect their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, but will make it clear that within the designated areas there will never be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that interfere with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the mountains. This kind of protection is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As nearby land development and alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's landscape. Further, Rocky Mountain National Park's popularity demands definitive and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for development within the park. While only about one tenth the size of Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain sees nearly the same number of visitors each year as does our first national park. At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue improvements to park roads and visitor facilities. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill will protect some of our nation's finest wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any existing opportunity for new water development. And it will affirm our commitment in Colorado to preserving the very features that make our State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think the bill deserves prompt enactment. For the information of our colleagues, I attach a fact sheet on this bill. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act 1. Rocky Mountain National Park Rocky Mountain National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks, possesses some of the most pristine and striking alpine ecosystems and natural landscapes in the continental United States. This park straddles the Continental Divide along Colorado's northern Front Range. It contains high altitude lakes, herds of bighorn sheep and elk, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra, old-growth forests and thundering rivers. It also contains Longs Peak, one of Colorado's 54 fourteen thousand- foot peaks. 2. Congressman Udall's Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Bill The Udall bill would: Designate about 94 percent of the lands within Rocky Mountain National Park as wilderness, including Longs Peak-- the areas included are based on the recommendations prepared over 24 years ago by President Nixon with some revisions in boundaries to reflect acquisitions and other changes since that recommendation was submitted. Designate about 1,000-acres as wilderness when non- conforming structures are removed. Add non-federal inholdings within the wilderness boundaries to the wilderness if they are acquired by the United States. The Udall bill would not: Create a new federal reserved water right; instead, it includes a finding that the Park's existing federal reserved water rights, as decided by the Colorado courts, are sufficient. Include certain lands in the Park as wilderness, including Trail Ridge and other roads used for motorized travel, water storage and conveyance structures, buildings, developed areas of the Park, and private inholdings. 3. Existing Water Facilities Boundaries for the wilderness areas are drawn to exclude: existing storage and conveyance structures, thereby assuring continued use of the Grand River Ditch and its right-of-way; the east and west portals of the Adams Tunnel and gauging stations of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project; Long Draw Reservoir; and lands owned by the St. Vrain & Left Hand Water Conservancy District, including Copeland Reservoir. The bill includes provisions to make clear that its enactment will not impose new restrictions on already allowed activities for the operation, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction of the Adams Tunnel, which diverts water under Rocky Mountain National Park (including lands that would be designated by the bill), or other Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities. Additional activities for these purposes will be allowed, subject to reasonable restrictions, should they be necessary to respond to emergencies.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution expressing disapproval of the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al v. New London et al. That case 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. The question before the court was whether such use of eminent domain is consistent with the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment--made applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment--which says ``nor shall private property be taken for `public use without just compensation.'' Answering that question required the court to decide what qualifies as a ``public use.'' The case involved actions aimed at redevelopment of a particular neighborhood in New London, Connecticut to encourage new economic activities. Toward that end, a development corporation--technically a private entity although evidently under the city's control--prepared a development plan. The city approved the plan and authorized the corporation to acquire land in the neighborhood. However, nine people who owned property there did not wish to sell to the corporation. The city of New London chose to exercise its right of eminent domain and ordered the development corporation, acting as the city's legally appointed agent, to condemn the holdout owners' lots. These owners were the petitioners in this case, with the lead plaintiff being Susette Kelo, who owned a small home in the development area. The owners sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its eminent domain power, but lost. They then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in favor of the city, arguing that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, simply because the other might put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue. The Supreme Court agreed with the City of New London in a 5-4 decision. The majority decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said that local governments should be afforded wide latitude in seizing property for land-use decisions of a local nature. The primary dissent, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion--take from the poor, give to the rich--would become the norm, not the exception: ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.'' A separate dissent was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, while Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a separate concurrence with the majority's ruling. The court's decision in this case has attracted considerable comment and criticism. For example, the Rocky Mountain News said ``The 5-to-4 decision expands the already expansive definition of `public use' to mean anything that might conceivably benefit the public through economic development. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her stinging dissent, the effect is to `wash out any distinction between private and public use of property.' Other editorials and opinion columns were even harsher. I am not a lawyer, and certainly no expert on this aspect of Constitutional law. But I find Justice O'Connor's analysis of the likely fallout of the decision persuasive and I share the concerns of many of those who have been critical of the decision, especially those related to the possible abuse of the power of eminent domain in situations such as the one involved in this case. That is why I am voting for this resolution. I do not fully agree with every word of it--especially the statement that the majority's decision in the ``Kelo'' case ``renders the public use provision in . . . the fifth amendment without meaning.'' But I definitely agree that, as the resolution states, ``State and local governments should only execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the public good . . . must justly compensate those individuals whose property is assumed through eminent domain . . . [and] any execution of eminent domain by State and local government that does not comply [with the conditions stated] constitutes an abuse of government power and an usurpation of the individual property rights as defined in the fifth amendment.'' I also am in sympathy with the parts of the resolution that state that ``eminent domain should never be used to advantage one private party over another,'' and that state and local governments should not ``construe the holdings'' in the Kelo case ``as a justification to abuse the power of eminent domain.'' And I certainly agree that ``Congress maintains the prerogative and reserve the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by State and local government.'' However, of course Congress can only take such action in ways that are themselves consistent with the Constitution, and in any event I think we should be reluctant to take actions to curb what some--perhaps even a temporary majority--in Congress might consider improper actions by a State or local government. The States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their agencies or governments. I think this would be the best way to address potential abuses, and I think we in Congress should consider taking action to impose our ideas of proper limits only as a last resort.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall of the Resources Committee as well as the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for making it possible for the House to act on it today. The bill would permit Ms. Betty Dick to continue her use and occupancy of a house located on lands within Rocky Mountain National Park. The bill is not complicated. It would allow Ms. Dick to continue to use the property and live in this house in Grand County, Colorado, for the rest of her life. This is not about ownership. The property belongs to the Federal Government and is part of the National Park. There is no dispute about that. This is strictly about whether Ms. Dick should be permitted to continue to use the property. There is no dispute that she has had that right for the past 25 years, under a legal agreement between her late husband and the National Park Service--not a lease, but an agreement that settled a lawsuit. There is also no dispute about the fact that the agreement ends on July 16th of this year. Without this bill or a new agreement with the National Park Service, at that time Ms. Dick, who has been a good neighbor with the National Park and who has opened her home for community events, will have to leave. I do not think that is either necessary or desirable. As I said, Ms. Dick has been a good neighbor. She has taken good care of the property and has not created management or administrative problems for the National Park Service in the years she has lived there. In my opinion, she should be allowed to continue to live on this property and continue to contribute to the National Park and the surrounding community. I had hoped that Ms. Dick and the Interior Department could work out a resolution to this issue so that she could remain. Ms. Dick needs to have a resolution to this issue as soon as possible--she needs to know by this spring whether she has to start packing her things and move out, or arrange to do some maintenance on the property if she is allowed to stay. Last year I wrote to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, asking her to help make that happen. However, the response--from the Director of the National Park Service's Intermountain Region--was that the Interior Department is ``legally bound to honor the provisions of the [1980] settlement agreement'' and that the furthest the Department would go would be to offer Ms. Dick ``the opportunity to remain on the property for the entire summer of 2005,'' an offer that evidently she has declined. I am not convinced that the Interior Department lacks the authority to resolve this matter by entering into a new agreement with Ms. Dick. But in any event, the bill would settle that question. Since I first raised this matter with the Interior Department, I have been impressed with the outpouring of support from the nearby communities of Grand Lake and Granby, Colorado. The people in these communities have expressed a strong desire to have Ms. Dick remain on this property and be a part of their community. The bill would enable that to happen. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that this bill deals only with this particular property and the arrangement that has permitted Ms. Dick to use it over the years. I recognize that somewhat similar arrangements may exist in various other parts of the National Park System, and that other Members may propose legislation addressing some of them. I think that the right way to proceed is to evaluate each such proposal on its own and in the light of the particular facts involved. That is what I have done in drafting this bill, and I hope that is the approach the Resources Committee and the House will take in considering similar measures in the future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is far from perfect, but I think it deserves to be passed. The bill provides important resources to help our allies in the struggle against international terrorism and against the narcotics trade. For example, it includes economic assistance for Afghanistan at the requested level of $430 million, $205 million above last year's level, but includes a new provision that withholds $225 million of the total until the Secretary of State certifies that the national and local governments in Afghanistan are fully cooperating with the U.S.- funded narcotics eradication and interdiction efforts. The bill also includes $220 million for military assistance for Pakistan to support their efforts in hunting terrorists along the Afghan border, as well as $347 million--$111 million above last year--for International Narcotics Control. Some of the other high-priority items in the bill include much-needed assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria--$131 million more than the President's request and $502 million more than in fiscal year 2005. The Peace Corps is funded at $325 million, $8 million above fiscal 2005, and the bill includes provisions to provide for a greater role in oversight of U.S. taxpayer contributions to international organizations. Of course, the bill is far from perfect, and I do not agree with all its priorities. I voted for a number of amendments that would have improved it and regret that not all of them were adopted. I also voted against some amendments, including two that dealt with the sensitive subject of extradition from other countries of people accused of crimes in the United States. One of those amendments, by my Colorado colleague, Representative Beauprez, calls for cutting off any assistance to a country that refuses to comply with a request to extradite a person charged with killing a police officer in the United States. Killing a policeman is a very serious matter, and I am a cosponsor of a bill (H.R. 2363) to authorize much more severe penalties for such fugitive killers of a peace officer--including any Federal, State, or local police officer. However, I voted against the Beauprez amendment after receiving a communication from the District Attorney in Denver. He is currently working to complete the extradition from Mexico of a fugitive wanted in connection with the murder of a Denver police officer and has indicated that Congressional threats to reduce assistance as a way to bring pressure on the Mexican authorities run the risk of being counterproductive. I am not opposed to using leverage, including our foreign assistance programs, to insist that other countries extradite wanted fugitives, but the District Attorney's comments persuaded me that adoption of the amendment at this time could make it harder for the District Attorney's efforts with Mexico to succeed. On balance, while the bill is not all that I would wish in all respects, I think it deserves approval and I will vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Boulder County AIDS Project, BCAP, and to honor their commitment to those in my community who are affected by HIV/AIDS. They are a model for advocacy and an invaluable asset to our community. BCAP began in 1985 when two people volunteered two afternoons a week to answer a single borrowed telephone line. As the acronyms HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and AIDS, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, became household terms, and as the stigma about what was termed a ``gay cancer'' relaxed, the name of the organization was formally changed to the Boulder County AIDS Project. BCAP has grown to include twelve staff members and over 300 volunteers. These volunteers work together with staff to serve those in the community who are infected with or affected by HIV and to educate the public about HIV and AIDS. In 2004, 368 HIV-infected individuals received services from the caseworkers and volunteers at BCAP; 17,000 youth and adults heard presentations by the BCAP Speakers Bureau, over 500 received HIV antibodies testing and counseling, and thousands of people attended BCAP's AIDS awareness events. The dedication demonstrated by BCAP staff and volunteers is a praiseworthy example of how to make a difference. As with all great causes and organizations in today's society, their merit stands before the blind eye of a restrictive budget. Despite the success of BCAP, many difficult obstacles affect the center. Changes in the federal response to HIV/AIDS impact their ability to provide evidence-based, scientifically-researched HIV prevention programming. Colorado state budget cuts affect BCAP's ability to meet the increased need for services in an economic climate of decreasing resources. In response to these challenges, BCAP recently adjusted their prevention programs to focus on access to HIV-antibody testing and early access to HIV care. BCAP and the Boulder County Public Health Department estimate that 30 percent of the population in BCAP's service area are HIV positive and are unaware of it. To address this issue, BCAP will purchase a van to be equipped as a mobile HIV testing facility. This will allow BCAP to meet one of its strategic goals of enhancing its HIV-antibody testing program while reducing a significant barrier to access and care--the access to easy testing. Even in the midst of struggle and looming challenges, the Boulder County AIDS Project goes above and beyond the call of duty to provide for those infected with HIV or affected by AIDS. Their dedication to this honorable cause has given dignity and comfort to individuals living with HIV and AIDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in thanking the Boulder County AIDS Project for their efforts in this commendable cause.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the way this bill has been considered. Our colleague from Utah, Mr. Matheson, wanted to offer an amendment that would have canceled the next scheduled cost-of-living increase in our salaries. I would have voted for that amendment--but under the restrictive procedure under which the bill was considered, it could not even be offered. In my opinion, it is a serious error for the Republican leadership to prevent the House from even debating and voting on that proposal-- especially now, in wartime and a time of serious budget deficits caused by the recent recession, the costs of responding to terrorism and increasing homeland security, and the excessive and unbalanced tax cuts the Bush Administration has pushed through Congress. That is why I voted to allow the amendment to be considered. Unfortunately, I was in the minority on that vote. However, despite that, I think the bill itself, while far from perfect, is worth supporting. The bill provides important resources to help support our Nation's infrastructure, community development, and courts. Examples of this include the $37.0 billion for federal highway programs and $8.5 billion for federal transit programs, which is an increase above the Fiscal Year 2005 allocation and the request made by the Bush Administration. Further, thanks to adoption of several important amendments, the bill provides much more of the needed funding for Amtrak than the appropriations committee had originally allocated. This is important for Colorado, including many communities in my district as well as other parts of the state. Additionally, I am pleased the legislation rejects the Bush Administration's ``Strengthening America's Communities Initiative'' that would consolidate a number of quality programs in Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) which provide decent housing and expands economic opportunities to cities and towns throughout Colorado. Of course, I do not agree with all its priorities included in the legislation. I supported a number of amendments to improve the legislation, and am glad that at least some were adopted, including an increase in the Section 8 Tenant-Based assistance. I also voted against some amendments, for various reasons. I voted against an amendment to block enforcement of part of a local law adopted by the District of Columbia City Council dealing with firearms. I did so because I think its enactment would be an abuse of our authority as Members of Congress and would reduce the right of self- government for one group of Americans--those who reside in Washington, D.C. It's true the Constitution gives Congress the power ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia--even though the residents of the district are not fully represented in either the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. But Congress, through the Home Rule Act, has authorized the district's residents to elect a city council and mayor with immediate responsibility for governing the city. I am convinced this was the right thing to do. I support home rule for Washington, D.C. because I think Americans who live in the district deserve to be able to govern themselves as much as possible consistent with the necessary functioning of the federal government. And this amendment flew in the face of that principle. There is plenty of room to debate whether this D.C. law is good public policy, but I think that debate should not take place in Congress. The law the amendment would override was duly adopted by the elected government of the district and has not interfered with the orderly functioning of the federal government. So, in my opinion, decisions about retaining, amending, or repealing it should be made by the City Council, which is elected by and accountable to the people who are subject to it. The effect of the amendment would be to substitute the judgment of Congress for that of the local elected government--in effect denying their constituents the right to govern themselves on this subject. We cannot--and we should not--do that to the residents of Colorado or any other state. I do not think we should do it to the people who live here in Washington, D.C. We may not think this local law is well-designed. But I think we should allow those covered by the law to decide that for themselves. I also voted against an amendment to block funding to enforce a recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the scope of a local government's authority to condemn private property. I have serious concerns about that decision, but I voted against the amendment because I thought the amendment's approach was not an appropriate way to express those concerns. If Members of Congress disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of a law or of the Constitution, that disagreement can be expressed in a resolution such as the one (H. Res. 340) dealing specifically with the eminent-domain decision. And if a Member thinks stronger action is required, he or she can seek to change the law or amend the Constitution. But in the absence of such a change in the law or the Constitution, a court's decision--unless and until reversed--is settled law that must be respected, and Congress should not attempt to undermine it or attempt to use the power of the purse to influence the outcome of future cases. Both those amendments were adopted, to my regret. I think the bill would have been better if they had been rejected. However, on balance, while the bill is not all that I had hoped for I think it deserves approval and I will vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I congratulate my Colorado colleague, Mrs. Musgrave, for introducing it and thank the leadership of the Resources Committee for making it possible for the House to consider it today. Enactment of the bill is a vital step toward formal establishment of the Sand Creek National Historic Site, as authorized in 2000 by Public Law 106-465. The purpose of the Historic Site will be to recognize the national significance of what we now recognize as a permanent stain on the history of our State of Colorado--the San Creek massacre--and its ongoing significance to the Cheyenne and Arapaho people and descendants of the massacre victims. The Act authorizes establishment of the national historic site once the National Park Service has acquired sufficient land to preserve, commemorate, and interpret the massacre site. The National Park Service has acquired approximately 920 acres, but the majority of land within the authorized boundary is privately owned and is not open to the public. The National Park Service has been working in partnership with the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes and the State of Colorado towards establishment of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. This bill will authorize the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma to convey approximately 1,465 acres to the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust for the tribes. Once these lands are conveyed, the National Park Service will be able to formally establish the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. Sand Creek was the site of an attack with terrible and long-lasting effects. Its history speaks to what can happen when military force is misused for political purposes. The leader of the attack was John M. Chivington, who earlier had been hailed as the hero of the battle at La Glorieta Pass--sometimes called the ``Gettysburg of the West--which ended the efforts of the Confederacy to seize New Mexico and other western territories. As history records, Chivington seemed destined for even greater prominence. He was a leading advocate of quick statehood for Colorado, and spoken of as a likely candidate for Congress. At the same time, tensions between Colorado's growing white population and the Cheyenne Indians reached a feverish pitch. The Denver newspaper printed a frontpage editorial advocating the ``extermination of the red devils'' and urging its readers to ``take a few months off and dedicate that time to wiping out the Indians.'' Chivington took advantage of this public mood, attacking the territorial governor and others who counseled a policy of conciliation and treaty-making with the Cheyenne. Finally, during the early morning hours of November 29, 1864, he led a regiment of Colorado Volunteers to where the band led by Black Kettle, a well-known ``peace'' chief, was encamped. Federal army officers had promised Black Kettle safety if he would return to this location, and he was in fact flying the American flag and a white flag of truce over his lodge, but Chivington ordered an attack on the unsuspecting village nonetheless. After hours of fighting, the Colorado volunteers had lost only 9 men in the process of murdering between 200 and 400 Cheyenne, most of them women and children. After the slaughter, they scalped and sexually mutilated many of the bodies, later exhibiting their trophies to cheering crowds in Denver. Chivington was at first widely praised for the ``battle'' at Sand Creek, and honored with a widely-attended parade through the streets of Denver. Attitudes began to change as tales circulated of drunken soldiers butchering unarmed women and children. At first, these rumors seemed confirmed when Chivington arrested six of his men and charged them with cowardice in battle. But the six, who included Captain Silas Soule, were in fact militia members who had refused to participate in the massacre and now spoke openly of the carnage they had witnessed. Shortly after their arrest, the U.S. Secretary of War ordered the six men released and Congress began preparing for a formal investigation. Soule himself could not be a witness at any of the investigations, because less than a week after his release he was shot from behind and killed on the streets of Denver. Although Chivington was eventually brought up on court-martial charges for his involvement in the massacre, he was no longer in the U.S. Army and could therefore not be punished. No criminal charges were ever filed against him. An Army judge, however, publicly stated that Sand Creek was ``a cowardly and cold-blooded slaughter, sufficient to cover its perpetrators with indelible infamy, and the face of every American with shame and indignation.'' The massacre remains a matter of great historical, cultural and spiritual importance to the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, and is a pivotal event in the history of relations between the Plains Indians and Euro-American settlers. The effort to establish the Sand Creek National Historic Site was led by former Senator Ben Campbell of Colorado. It has gone through several stages: The Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Study Act (Public Law 105-243) directed the National Park Service, in consultation with the State of Colorado, the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and the Northern Arapaho Tribe, to complete two tasks. First, the Act directed the Park Service to ``identify the location and extent of the massacre area.'' Second, the Act directed the Park Service to prepare a report that assessed the national significance of the Sand Creek Massacre site, the suitability and feasibility of designating it as a unit of the National Park System, and a range of alternatives for the management, administration, and protection of the area. Following completion of these studies, Senator Campbell introduced legislation to authorize the establishment of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site as a unit of the National Park System. Enactment of this bill is an important step toward completing that effort. I urge its approval by the House.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3010, which provides federal funding for health, education and worker programs. This bill contains $1.6 billion less than the current year and fails miserably to make important basic investments in education, healthcare, job training and job protection 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 is $200 million short for community health centers to cover rising health care costs at existing centers or to expand care for the uninsured. 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 by $75 million. 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 six percent each year. On the education front, the Republican Majority has imposed the first freeze on education funding in a decade 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 that were cut in the President's budget were restored in this bill such as vocational programs, I am concerned by the low levels of funding for several education programs. Our nation has seen a decreased number of students studying 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. This bill cuts this program by $11 million from the current budget and $79 million below the President's request. Unless we invest 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 budget is $3.9 billion below the FY2006 level authorized in the IDEA Improvement Act. Though I am pleased to see this program received an increase of $140 million over the FY05 level, I do not think we are doing enough to help states provide adequate education for disabled students. I am pleased that the House approved the Obey amendment to restore $100 million for public broadcasting. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides an important service to Americans that could not be possible without federal funding. In an effort to maintain independence the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives funding two years in advance. I believe it is important to maintain the independence of public broadcasting and we should not be taking from already appropriated funds. I am proud that the House acted to protect this excellent programming and reject the cuts originally included in this bill. Overall, this bill makes drastic cuts to critically important health care, education and job training programs, and it fails to adequately fund other programs and that is why I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this resolution. I am not in support of burning the flag. But I am even more opposed to weakening the First Amendment, one of the most important things for which the flag itself stands. I think that point was well put by Bill Holen of Littleton, Colorado, who wrote to express agreement with a recent Denver Post editorial against this proposed constitutional amendment. As he put it, ``As a Vietnam veteran and one who fought honorably for this nation . . . Like Colin Powell, while I personally abhor the thought of anyone burning the American flag, the symbol under which I fought for this nation, I believe the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are far more important.'' I do not think there is a real need for this amendment. On that point, I agree with the Rocky Mountain News that ``Flag-burning is not really a problem, as actual incidents of It are rare. It is disproportionately denounced rather than actually done. And defining desecration is tricky, especially given the widespread commercial and decorative use of the flag.'' And, in particular, I share that newspaper's view that ``More importantly, tampering with the First Amendment opens the way to those laws of the kind that less democratic governments impose to shield themselves from criticism.'' Mr. Speaker, every day, at home and abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are on guard to defend our country and our constitution from those who have no respect for either. In my opinion, anyone who thinks that burning the flag under which they serve would be an effective way to influence public opinion is grotesquely mistaken. And I think to say we need to amend the constitution in order to respond to people suffering from that delusion is to give them more importance than they deserve. For the benefit of our colleagues, I attach the text of the newspaper editorial to which I referred earlier. [From the Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 17, 2004] Flag-Burning Issue a Waste of Time Today is the 217th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution. To celebrate that happy event, the White House has announced that scholar and historian Lynne Cheney, the wife of the vice president, will speak at Gunston Hall Plantation in northern Virginia. Gunston Hall was the home of George Mason, whom the White House properly described as ``Father of America's Bill of Rights.'' Mason wrote the prototype of the Bill of Rights for Virginia's constitution in 1776, and it was his intransigence that led to the adoption of those rights as the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The anniversary comes as the Republican Senate leadership is considering, with breathtaking political cynicism, bringing back for a vote a constitutional amendment outlawing flag-burning. The Supreme Court has ruled simply and correctly that flag- burning is political speech and as such has the absolute protection of the First Amendment. Thank you, Mr. Mason. Flag-burning is not really a problem, as actual incidents of it are rare. It is disproportionately denounced rather than actually done. And defining desecration is tricky, especially given the widespread commercial and decorative use of the flag. More importantly, tampering with the First Amendment opens the way to those laws of the kind that less democratic governments impose to shield themselves from criticism. Given her credentials, Lynne Cheney is the ideal person, Gunston Hall the ideal venue and Constitution Day the ideal occasion to denounce this latest attempt to undo George Mason's handiwork.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. The Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 funds our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many other things. It is very similar to the Defense Authorization bill that I supported in the Armed Services Committee and on the House floor. In general, the bill fully funds military pay, benefits, the pay raise for the base force, and all military readiness programs, including all requested increases for Special Operations Forces. The bill also includes $45.3 billion of unrequested emergency supplemental funding (the ``bridge fund'') to cover contingency operations and personnel costs during the first six months of the fiscal year that begins on October 1st. This comes on the heels of the $75.9 billion FY05 supplemental funding bill that the Congress passed only a month ago. I think this is realistic and necessary, because we must support our men and women in uniform, but I also believe the administration must begin to take responsibility for the full cost of the war in Iraq and consider these costs through the regular appropriations process. There is no ``emergency'' here--we know that since this bridge fund would take us only halfway through FY06, we should be expecting another request of about $40 billion before the year is over. The American people deserve greater candor from the administration about both the predictable costs as well as the anticipated benefits of our undertakings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once this bill is signed into law, defense spending in FY06 will total about 55 percent of the entire Federal discretionary budget. Overall defense spending, in real terms, will be more than 20 percent higher than the average Cold War budget. The administration needs to clearly recognize these realities and be open with the American people about its spending priorities. I want to briefly discuss a few other specific parts of the bill. I am pleased that the bill does not include funding for earth- penetrating nuclear weapons, which a recent National Academy of Sciences report found would destroy military targets underground but also cause massive casualties above ground. The bill strikes a compromise, providing $4 million for the Air Force for work on a conventional (non-nuclear) version of the bunker buster. Importantly, it also includes cost-containment measures on a number of weapons systems that have yet to be fully funded. This is critical at a time when costs of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are also increasing exponentially. In the area of operation and maintenance, the bill provides important funding for added fuel costs and body armor, and $147 million for Army National Guard recruiting. The measure contains $2.9 billion for various procurement accounts, including $170 million for up-armored Humvees, $20 million for bolt-on armor kits for trucks, and $35 million for roadside bomb jammers. The bill also provides $8 billion in extra funding for military personnel accounts, including funds for incremental wartime costs of pays and allowances for active-duty and reserve personnel, for recruiting and retention, and for an expanded death gratuity. I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee accepted and the House approved an amendment on the floor to lift the $500 million cap in the bill on training the Iraqi National Army. Since the timing of the draw- down of U.S. forces is linked to the ability of Iraqi troops to defend themselves and their country, we shouldn't impose an arbitrary limit on this funding. I am also pleased that the bill provides the president's request of $416 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, known as CTR or Nunn-Lugar, to assist in the denuclearization and demilitarization of the states of the former Soviet Union. The total is $6 million more than the current level. Finally, I would like to comment on amendments offered by Representatives Duncan Hunter and David Obey. As it came to the floor, the bill included language approved by the full Appropriations committee expressing the sense of Congress that the expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the U.S. military, ``but coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the U.S. Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the academy. . . . as has been reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the academy.'' The bill directed the Air Force to develop a plan to ensure that the academy maintains a climate free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing. As a Coloradan and a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I have been following this matter closely and have noted that Lt. Gen. John Rosa, the Academy's superintendent, has said that the problem is ``something that keeps me awake at night,'' and estimated it will take 6 years to fix. The good news is that several reviews of the situation at the Academy are underway, and a task force report is due this week. I am also appreciative that the Academy has already begun taking steps to address the issue by holding classes on religious tolerance. But it is important to remember that an unwillingness to tolerate other cultures and faiths is not only inconsistent with our constitutional principles, but detrimental to the mission of the Air Force and of the military in general. Our men and women in uniform need to work together to be successful, and can only inspire others to serve and serve well if they are able to demonstrate tolerance toward all. Representative Hunter's amendment removed the language calling for corrective action. His amendment appeared to downplay the seriousness of a problem that Air Force Academy officials themselves have acknowledged. In response, Representative Obey offered an amendment that slightly revised the language adopted by the Appropriations Committee but retained its essential elements. I voted for that Obey amendment, and regret that it was not approved and that the Hunter amendment prevailed. I hope that the Air Force does not make the mistake of concluding that adoption of the Hunter amendment means that they should lessen their efforts to respond to the problem they have identified.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act. This bill will increase and enhance research and development in weather modification to better understand its effectiveness in addressing drought in our country. The western part of our country, including my own state of Colorado, has experienced drought conditions in recent years. Efforts have been made to address drought recovery, preparedness and mitigation. However, little fundamental research has been done to better understand weather modification, which some believe can increase the snowpacks that provide water resources for several western states. The National Academies of Science report Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research, released in 2003, noted that there is no scientific proof that weather modification is effective, however attributes this to a lack of understanding of ``critical atmospheric processes'' that has caused unpredictable results with weather modification, not a lack of success with such efforts. The report called for a national program for a sustained research effort in weather modification research to enhance the effectiveness and predictability of weather modification. There is currently no federal investment in weather modification, though there are private funds that are largely going toward unproven techniques. My bill, similar to a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, establishes a federal research and development effort to improve our understanding of the atmosphere and develop more effective weather modification technologies and techniques. Specifically, the bill creates a Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board in the Department of Commerce to promote the ``theoretical and practical knowledge of weather modification'' through the funding of research and development projects. The board will be made up of representatives from the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a higher education institution and a state which is currently supporting operational weather modification projects. In Colorado, a large portion of our water source comes from the snowpack run off each year. A better understanding of weather modifications has the potential to enhance our snowpacks, and thus assist in addressing drought concerns. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the expansion of the research and development of weather modification and urge a swift passage of this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot vote for this bill. I am not opposed to the ostensible purpose of the bill--in fact, I share the view that the United Nations needs to be improved so it can better carry out its indispensable role. The U.N. is a critically important body that has taken on many of the world's problems and solved them--problems such as poverty, disease, and international disputes. And the U.S. has benefited from U.N. actions. Just recently, the U.N. helped with elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and helped negotiate the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. But it has serious problems, as exemplified by the oil-for-food scandal and offenses committed by U.N. peacekeeping forces. So, I support U.N. reform--but I cannot support the approach the bill takes toward achieving that objective. The bill would require the Secretary of State to push for reforms at the U.N. in the areas of budgeting, oversight and accountability, peacekeeping, and human rights. That is something that needs to be done. But if the Secretary of State cannot certify that the reforms have been achieved, starting in 2007, the Secretary would be required to withhold 50 percent of the U.S. assessed contributions to the U.N.'s regular budget. The assessed U.S. contributions are estimated at $362 million for 2005, and $439 million for 2006. I think such a punitive and unilateral approach to reform will not work. I think its primary result would be to further isolate the United States while at the same time actually undermining ongoing efforts at reform and potentially jeopardizing the U.N.'s ability to focus on global threats and work toward greater global stability. The substitute proposed by Representatives Lantos and Shays would have been a better approach, and I regret that it was not adopted. As it stands, the bill is problematic on a number of fronts. First, it would mandate withholding of dues from programs that do not get moved from the U.N.'s assessed budget to a system of voluntary contribution, a goal unlikely to be achieved. Also, it would require the United States to veto Security Council resolutions establishing any new U.N. peacekeeping missions--including involvement in a crisis like the one taking place in Darfur--until the peacekeeping reforms called for by the bill have been completed. This is like forbidding firemen to respond to a blaze because we are unhappy about the way the department is organized and financed. I cannot support that. The bill would cut U.S. contributions to U.N. conferences and public information programs by 20 percent unless the overall budgets for these programs are cut by 20 percent, and if the 20 percent target is not met by 2008, the bill would mandate the withholding of 50 percent of U.S. contributions. It also would require that 50 percent of annual dues be withheld even if just one of 14 mandatory benchmarks were not met. These go beyond stern--they are petulant. Their predictable result is not reform, but failure. In short, the bill as it stands would simultaneously demand reform and make it impossible to achieve. The substitute offered by Representatives Lantos and Shays would have used carrots as well as sticks and would have given much greater flexibility to the Secretary of State. The substitute included benchmarks very much like those in the base bill, but it gave flexibility to the Secretary of State to mandate the 50 percent cuts to our U.N. dues. Similarly, the substitute did not link the change from ``assessed'' to ``voluntary'' contributions to withholding a portion of our dues, and it would have allowed the Secretary of State to waive the peacekeeping reform requirements if it is determined that a new mission is in the U.S. national interest. The substitute also included incentives by supporting an effort to pay our dues on time, an increased U.N. budget for the large number of new offices that will be needed to implement the reforms, a well structured buyout of unneeded U.N. personnel, and a contribution to the U.N. Democracy Fund. The difference between the bill now before us and the Lantos-Shays substitute is that while the substitute was realistic in the way it set out a path toward reform, the majority's bill if fully implemented would effectively destroy the chances of achieving an effective and improved U.N. Instead of adopting such an approach, the United States should engage the U.N. member countries in the process of reform and provide the U.N. with the resources necessary to accomplish reforms, rather than alienate the global community by threatening to withhold dues. The Bush Administration itself is opposed to this legislation as it stands. I do not often agree with them, but I do in this instance and I therefore must vote against the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant support of this bill. It needs to be passed, and I will vote for it, but in my opinion it falls short of what is needed to adequately fund a number of important purposes. As Ranking Member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, I am pleased that the bill includes $16.5 billion for NASA funding. NASA's working in human space exploration, space and earth science, and aeronautics plays an important role in advancing our knowledge, expanding our economy and inspiring Americans both young and old. I believe NASA performs important research which allows us to better understand our climate, the creation of our planet and the universe beyond. I am encouraged that the Committee did not cut NASA's aeronautics budget by $54 million as the President had requested. Progress in aeronautics is crucial to the health of the Nation's air transportation industry, which in turn is crucial both to the continued strength of our domestic economy and to our international competitiveness. Aeronautics research and development can enable advances in the capability of our Nation's air transportation system to handle the enormous increases in air travel projected over the next 20 years. Aeronautics R&D can enable more environmentally compatible commercial aircraft, with significantly lower noise, emissions, and energy consumption compared to aircraft in commercial service today. I am also pleased that the Committee includes $40 million more than the President's request for earth science programs. These programs have taken a significant cut in recent years even though they have delivered important scientific data. I am a strong supporter of the servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope and am happy to see that this bill expresses support for a fourth servicing mission to Hubble. However, I had hoped the bill would provide more detailed guidance regarding the amount of funds to be used for the Hubble servicing mission. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that a Hubble servicing mission takes place and that it is provided with necessary funding. This bill also provides significant funding for the President's exploration initiative. I support the President's Vision for Space Exploration and believe human space exploration is a worthwhile undertaking. However, NASA's exploration plans are currently in flux. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has expressed a desire to accelerate the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, and Project Prometheus is being restructured. These are just a few examples of the possible changes to the Exploration program at NASA. So in light of the relatively immature state of the Exploration program, I believe we need to proceed cautiously and thoughtfully while ensuring that the demands of the exploration mission do not take away from other core missions. We are currently faced with a tight budget, and I realize we need to make very difficult decisions about the Federal budget. However, I am concerned that we are not investing enough in science and research and development, which has the effect of strengthening and expanding our economy. I am also pleased that the bill includes $106 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). MEP serves small and medium sized manufacturing companies nationally to enhance their ability to compete globally. Every Federal dollar appropriated for MEP leverages $2 in state and private-sector funding, which means that a small federal investment of $106 million translates into billions of dollars in benefits for the economy in terms of jobs created and retained, investment, and sales. The appropriators' acknowledgment of MEP's importance is welcome--especially as manufacturers continue to experience tough economic times. And, because of its importance for my own Congressional District, I am glad to note that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) budget includes $45 million for construction and specifically $9.4 million for the completion of the Boulder Central Utility Plant. NIST's Boulder laboratories were built in the 1950s and are in critical need of modernization to ensure the continuation of world-class research. However, my support for the bill is reluctant for the reasons I have expressed year after year--namely, that it provides inadequate funding for the Department of Commerce laboratories in my district in Colorado--NIST and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The NOAA budget took a cut of 13 percent over the FY05 level and has been the target to draw from for other programs in the bill during debate on the floor. The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which funds the important work being conducted in the labs in my district, is funded at $326 million in the bill--down from $337 million in FY05. NOAA performs vital research in climate change, cooperates with NASA on Earth observations, monitors our oceans and provides Americans with important weather forecasting that affects one-third of all industries in our country. A 13-percent cut to this agency means not only cuts to important research but also to Americans jobs. If we do not support and protect this research and these jobs, we cannot continue to be a leader in oceanic and atmospheric research. NIST also fared poorly in this bill--receiving a cut of $150 million from the FY05 budget. I am specifically concerned that the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) received no funding. While I believe this is an important and worthy program, if this body intends to eliminate its funding, at a minimum we need to provide close-out costs associated with its termination. The Views and Estimates of the FY06 budget signed by Democratic and Republican members of the House Science Committee identified at least $33 million in close-out costs which will have to be absorbed by NIST labs, resulting in cuts to research programs. The Small Business Administration also has not fared well. I am disappointed by the anemic investment made by the Bush Administration and Congress in our Nation's small businesses. Although small businesses are the top job creator in this country, the Small Business Administration (SBA) budget is one of the hardest hit in the bill. While the bill improves upon the budget request by reinstating the microloan program and 7a loan program, more needs to be done. We must not turn our back on America's economic future. My reactions are also mixed regarding the Justice Department portion of the bill. For example, I was glad to see that under the bill as it came to the floor the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) would have received an increase of $54 million over the FY05 budget. I was supportive of this increase because I think it is important that we provide states with this reimbursement. However, I could not support the Dreier amendment that took funds out of the already dramatically cut NOAA budget to further fund SCAAP. Year after year, NOAA programs have faced budgetary cuts, which translate into degraded ability to perform its world-class research, and a loss of American jobs. I voted for some amendments intended to improve the bill. Some were adopted, including the Baird amendment to increase funding for the COPS program, but others were not. In particular, I am very glad that the House approved the amendment to limit the use of Section 215 of the ``Patriot Act'' to obtain information from libraries and bookstores. I hope that the approval of this amendment demonstrates that the Congress will take a similarly thoughtful approach when we consider whether to extend or revise that Act. However, I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendment to bar prosecution on Federal drug charges of people using marijuana for medical purposes in ways permitted by the laws of Colorado or any other state that permits such use. I am not a doctor or a lawyer. My support for the amendment was not based on a judgment about the medical value of marijuana or a disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision upholding the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act as applied to its use pursuant to a state medical-marijuana law. Instead, it was based on my respect and support for the people of Colorado who voted to allow medical use of marijuana in our state. I think that the Federal government ought to share that respect and not seek to overrule that decision. That would have been the effect of the amendment, which is why I voted for it. Finally, I am not encouraged by funding levels in the bill for State Department activities. The State Department as a whole is funded 10 percent less than in FY 2005. Funding for peacekeeping missions is decreased from this year's levels when we take supplemental funds into account, making it harder for the international community to support activities that are ongoing in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Liberia, West Africa, East Timor, Cambodia, Western Sahara, Kosovo and Bosnia. Funding for education and cultural exchange programs is higher than last year but less than the request, which is disappointing at a time when our investment in the non-military sources of foreign policy is more important than ever. Even more disappointing at a time when the President is speaking out about the importance of U.S. democratization efforts is the 15 percent cut to National Endowment for Democracy programs. In summary, this bill is not all that it should be--but it is not so bad that it should be rejected. I will vote for it and hope that it will improve as the legislative process continues.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Colorado Golf Hall of Fame and its newly acquired home at the Riverdale golf courses in Brighton. As an avid golfer I could not help but notice this news, and at the risk of allowing my love of the game to get the better of me, I think it is appropriate to acknowledge the positive contributions that golf has made to communities. The Colorado Golf Hall of Fame has been in operation for 33 three years and has honored 107 members. Yet, due to a space constraint, the golf memorabilia had been stored in boxes at the Colorado Golf Association headquarters, unavailable for public viewing. Thanks to the combined efforts of the Riverdale Golf courses, Adams County Board of Commissioners, the Colorado Golf Association and the Hall of Fame President, John Edwards, the Colorado Golf Hall of Fame is now featured in a prominent display within the Riverdale golf courses clubhouse. The Hall of Fame honors the 107 deserving members who have made important contributions to Colorado's sports history. Pictures of each hall of fame member are now front and center under glass in the clubhouse of the Riverdale golf courses. In addition, the Hall of Fame showcases multiple displays honoring golf greats, highlights in golf history and a golf history timeline. The current displays honor female golfer Mildred ``Babe'' Zacharias and the history of Cherry Hills Country Club. Hall of Famer and winner of three Colorado Opens, Bill Bisdorf remarked, ``If you don't have something lke this, it's forgotten, just like everything else. It's out of sight, out of mind.'' Thanks to the hard work of many, Colorado's rich golf history will no longer be ``out of sight, out of mind.'' It is very exciting for golf- enthusiasts like myself to have access to that history. What is more, it provides just another excuse to play at the Riverdale courses, the Dunes and the Knolls--two of the finest public courses in Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in thanking Riverdale Golf Courses and the Colorado Golf Hall of Fame for creating a fitting location to preserve and display Colorado's golf history and artifacts.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations in honor of the 100 Anniversary of Roche, one of the leading healthcare innovators in the world. Roche is a specialty care company that employs over 10,000 people in America and 60,000 globally. I am pleased that Boulder is home to Roche Colorado, which employs over 300 people, all of whom are dedicated to improving the quality of health care for millions of people. For a century now, Roche has invested in advanced research and manufacturing techniques that have yielded breakthroughs in healthcare. Founded in Switzerland in 1896, Roche's roots in America are deep and strong, dating back to the opening of its New York office in 1905. From its start in Manhattan in 1905, Roche has extended its reach to nine sites across the United States, in Colorado, New Jersey, Indiana, South Carolina, and California. As an industry leader, Roche Colorado researches and manufactures products such as the first in an entirely new class of drugs to combat HIV, a potent oral antiviral that is our most promising weapon against the threat of pandemic influenza, and a treatment that preserves the sight of people with AIDS infected with a virus that usually leads to blindness. These inventions are just a few examples of how Roche helps provide Americans with the highest quality medical treatment in the world. Roche's ties to Boulder date back to 1946 as Arapahoe Chemicals and subsequently Syntex, which joined Roche in 1994. I applaud Roche Colorado for being an active corporate citizen, supporting the Boulder County AIDS Project, the Women's Health Project, and the Grillo Information Center which provides educational help to individuals suffering from cancer, all efforts that truly enhance our quality of life in Boulder and build our sense or community. I commend the people of Roche Colorado in Boulder and Roche employees worldwide for their impressive achievements, and wish them the very best on this special 100th Anniversary.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, because participating in events connected to the ongoing meeting of Western Governors in Colorado, I was unable to be present for two votes on Monday, June 13, 2005. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: On S. 643, to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to reauthorize State mediation programs, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H.R. 2326, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, North Carolina, as the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office,'' I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with me, and I thank the ranking member for his help as well; and I look forward to holding that meeting with the gentleman.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.