Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the hard work of David Lee Bucknam, a dedicated public servant in Colorado who recently passed away. Mr. Bucknam, who was 60 when he died November 22, 2004, spent 24 years directing the inactive-mine reclamation program of the Colorado Division of Mineral and Geology (Division), sealing abandoned mines and restoring the soil and water they contaminated. Earlier today, I introduced two bills designed to address the barriers hampering the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines in Colorado and throughout the west. The introduction of these bills reminded me of Mr. Bucknam and others like him who worked hard to protect the public and promote wise environmental stewardship. Mr. Bucknam worked with me and my staff on this legislation I am introducing today and I would like to take this opportunity to express my posthumous appreciation for his assistance and for all the work he did for Colorado. Mr. Bucknam was born in Brockport, New York in 1944 and arrived in Lakewood, Colorado when he was 10. He became an avid and skilled mountaineer and skier, getting an early start in the Denver Junior Group of the Colorado Mountain Club in his teens. In the ``Juniors'' he headed climbing trips and outings, taught mountaineering skills to other teens and adults, and shared his love of the outdoors. He continued to climb throughout the western United States, in the Himalayas, in Canada and in Mexico. Mr. Bucknam taught junior high history and geography for several years, worked for the Colorado Land Use Commission and then for over 24 years with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. He retired as Director of the Office of Active and Inactive Mines, and when asked what he did, he always smiled and said he ``closed up old mines''. Under his leadership, Colorado's Inactive Mine Reclamation Program and the Colorado Mine Safety and Training program were nationally recognized. He was a mentor and role-model for many of the employees in the Department. His competence and dedication--coupled with his compassion for his co-workers and his leadership on national issues-- made a lasting impact not only on the Division, but the state and the nation as well. In 1990 he served as president of the National Association of Abandoned Mined Land Programs and continued to provide leadership to the Association by serving on several national committees. During his tenure at the Division, he helped secure access to about 400 abandoned mines a year out of an estimated 20,000 in the state in order to address the problems they created and reclaim the surrounding land and water. He also helped work on the endless problem of underground coal fires, of which at least 29 subterranean fires still smolder in coal seams throughout Colorado. Mr. Bucknam's love of the outdoors, his service to his state and community, and his work on addressing the legacy of mining activity are all worthy of recognition. My staff and I wish to express our thoughts and wishes to his family and coworkers.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, terrorism must be fought, but we must resist the temptation to answer the extremism of terrorists with denials of the very principles the terrorists are attacking. That is why many of us have been so concerned about the way the Administration has dealt with two American citizens they identified as ``enemy combatants.'' Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that one, Yaser Hamdi, must be tried or released. But it found a technical reason to avoid a similar decision regarding the other, saying that the case had been brought in the wrong district court. Now the case has been renewed in the correct district court, and has brought a ruling that an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News says ``dealt, one hopes, a fatal blow to the assertion of an unchecked presidential power to jail a citizen indefinitely and with no access to due process.'' I share that hope. For the information of our colleagues, here is the complete text of the editorial: [From the Rocky Mountain News, Mar. 2, 2005] Justice, Finally, for Jose Padilla The most egregious assertion of power in the Bush administration's war on terror was the president's right to jail any American indefinitely without trial. The president merely had to designate that person an ``enemy combatant.'' That unwelcome unilateral expansion of presidential prerogatives was used only twice--on Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S.-born Saudi; and Jose Padilla, an American petty criminal. Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in 2001, sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then shipped to a Navy brig when the feds learned he could claim U.S. citizenship. Last June, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration had to either try him or release him, and even though Hamdi, now 24, was presumably so dangerous that he had to spend over two years in solitary, the administration tamely sent him back to his parents in Saudi Arabia on the grounds that he no longer had any information to give. Padilla, now 34, wasn't so lucky. Even though an appeals court had ruled that Padilla, too, should be tried or released, the Supreme Court said his case should have been filed in South Carolina instead of New York. Now a federal judge in South Carolina, Henry Floyd, has ruled and dealt, one hopes, a fatal blow to the assertion of an unchecked presidential power to jail a citizen indefinitely and with no access to due process--a judge, lawyer, habeas corpus, charges, a trial, all the basic constitutional safeguards. ``The court finds that the president has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold petitioner as an enemy combatant,'' Floyd wrote. Well said.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a House resolution recognizing the goals and ideas of the National Time Out Day, which the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) and over 50 other health care organizations are celebrating on June 22, 2005 to promote the adoption of a new protocol for preventing medical errors in the operating room. The number of individuals who are affected by medical errors is astounding. In 2000, the Institute of Medicine released a report entitled ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The report revealed that between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized people in the U.S. die each year due to medical errors, and thousands of others suffer injury or illness as a result of preventable errors. To address this problem, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has developed a universal protocol which calls for surgical teams to call a ``time out'' before surgeries begin in order to verify the patient's identity, the procedure to be performed, and the site of the procedure. The Joint Commission has required nurses, surgeons and hospitals throughout the country to adopt this protocol effective July 1, 2004, in order to curb the alarming number of deaths and injuries due to medical errors. AORN has created an Internet website and distributed 55,000 tool kits to healthcare professionals to help them implement the universal protocol, and they are celebrating National Time Out Day on June 23 to promote the protocol and its adoption. National Time Out Day has been endorsed by a distinguished group of healthcare organizations, including the American College of Surgeons, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American Hospital Association, and the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management. Mr. Speaker, ultimately, this issue is about health care access and patient safety. I think it is important for Congress to recognize and congratulate perioperative nurses and representatives of surgical teams for working together to reduce medical errors and to ensure the improved health and safety of surgical patients. Fewer medical errors will result in better outcomes for patients, fewer medical malpractice suits, which in turn will help keep malpractice insurance rates and health care premiums down. I urge the House to adopt the resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to provide for completion of a land exchange that involves Pitkin County, Colorado, on one hand and two federal agencies--the Forest Service and BLM--on the other. The bill would direct a land exchange under which the county would transfer two items to the Forest Service: A 35-acre tract (known as the ``Ryan property'') near the ghost town of Ashcroft; and 18.2 acres (patented mining claims) on Smuggler Mountain near Aspen, Colorado. In return, the Federal government would transfer to the county 3 items: A 5.5 acre tract south of Aspen known as the ``Wildwood'' parcel, which the county will reconvey to private ownership after reserving a permanent public easement for a trail; 5.92 acres in 12 scattered locations on Smuggler Mountain that abut or are near lands now owned by the county; a 40-acre tract of BLM land along the Crystal River, which will be subject to a permanent conservation easement limiting future use to recreational, fish and wildlife, and open space purposes. The bill requires standard appraisals of all properties involved. If the lands going to the county are worth less than what the county is giving to the federal government, the county will waive additional payment. On the other hand, if the lands provided by the county are worth less than those the county is to receive, the county will either pay cash to equalize or will convey an additional tract (160 acres in the Sellers' Meadow area near Hagerman Pass) to make up the difference. The bill is fair, balanced, and not controversial. A similar measure (S. 100) has been introduced by Colorado's senior Senator, Wayne Allard, with the cosponsorship of Senator Ken Salazar. For the information of our colleagues, here is a summary of the legislation and a list of groups that have expressed their support for its enactment. Summary of Proposed Pitkin County (Ryan Property) Land Exchange United States gets 35 acre Ryan Property in the White River National Forest near Ashcroft and Aspen, Colorado. Forest Service acquisition of property will complete the Ashcroft Preservation Project, which was initiated by the Forest Service in 1980 to consolidate National Forest land ownership in and around the historic Ashcroft Townsite. The Ryan Property and surrounding lands are: (1) an extremely popular sightseeing and recreation destination; (2) heavily used for nordic skiing on public and private trails associated with the Ashcroft touring center; (3) abut the popular Cathedral Lake Trail and Trailhead; and (4) contain historic structures associated with the World War II 10th Mountain Division. 18.2 acre Grand Turk and Pontiac patented mining claims on Smuggler Mountain directly above Aspen. Smuggler Mountain is a heavily used recreational area where the Forest Service is trying to consolidate its ownership, where feasible. Pitkin County gets 5.5 acre ``Wildwood'' parcel south of Aspen, which will re- conveyed by the County into private ownership. Conveyance will be subject to a permanent public easement for the East of Aspen Trail. 5.92 acres in 12 scattered mining claim remnants on Smuggler Mountain. The 12 parcels (ranging from 1.5 to 0.02 acres in size) abut or are near existing County owned lands. 40 acre BLM parcel (Parcel 79) along the Crystal River near Carbondale, Colorado. Pitkin County must grant BLM a permanent conservation easement on the parcel for continued public access, and limiting future use to recreational, fish and wildlife and open space purposes only. Easement requirement will not reduce parcel's exchange value. Additional exchange provisions Exchange values will be deemed equal if Forest Service appraiser determines approximate equal value. If the appraiser determines value is owed by Pitkin County, the County will additionally convey to the Forest Service the 160 acre Sellar Park property, a Forest inholding currently owned and managed by Pitkin County as open space. Endorsements: As of September 7, 2004 proposed the exchange has been endorsed by: Aspen Valley Land Trust; Aspen Historical Society; Ashcroft Ski Touring; The Conservation Fund; Crystal River Caucus; Friends of Ashcroft; Wilderness Workshop; Aspen Center for Environmental Studies; Aspen Skiing Company; Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County; City of Aspen; Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Assn.; Roaring Fork Conservancy; Crystal-Maroon Caucus.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to give the President and Congress new and effective--and, more importantly, constitutional--powers to weed out wasteful Government spending. Over the last four years, there has been a dramatic change in the federal budget--and it has been a change for the worse. It has gone from annual surpluses to annual deficits, meaning we have gone from debt reduction to increasing the ``debt tax'' that our children will have to pay. In part, this was the result of recession. In part, it was caused by the need to increase spending for national defense, homeland security, and fighting terrorism. And in large part it was the result of the excessive and unbalanced tax cuts that Congress passed in those same years. This bill does not directly address those major causes of our budgetary problems. Responding to them will require long-term work on several fronts, including tax policy. But I think this bill can provide one useful tool that will help in the larger effort. It deals with the increasing number of individual, earmarked items included in appropriations bills. Some people are opposed to all earmarks. I am not one of them. I think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and that Congress as a whole can and should exercise its judgment on how tax dollars are to be spent. So, I have sought earmarks for various items that have benefited Colorado and I will continue to do so. At the same time, I know--everyone knows--that sometimes a large appropriations bill includes some earmarked items that might not be approved if they were considered separately, because they would be seen as unnecessary, inappropriate, or excessive. That's why presidents have long sought the kind of ``line-item veto'' that is available to the governors of several states--and why Congress passed a law attempting to give that authority to President Clinton. The supporters of that legislation argued that making it possible to cut unnecessary individual items out of a spending bill could help make the government more prudent in the way we spend taxpayer money. But while the diagnosis was right, the proposed remedy of a line-item veto went too far--further than the Constitution permits. That's why it was struck down in court. My bill is a better prescription--one that will work and that will pass constitutional muster. Under this legislation, whenever the President wants to cut a particular spending item in an appropriations bill he would be able to require Congress to reconsider and vote separately on rescinding that item, under tight deadlines and without amendment. That would be an important change, because while current law authorizes the president to propose rescissions--that is, deletions-- from appropriations that Congress has approved, there is no requirement that Congress take any action on those proposals. My bill would change that by requiring Congress to consider and vote on whether the president's proposed rescissions should be approved. So, like the line-item veto act, this bill would let the President throw a bright spotlight onto spending items and have Congress vote on them separately, up or down, without changes and in full public view. The bill is entitled the ``Expedited Rescissions Act of 2005.'' It is based on one introduced by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs which in turn was patterned after, but stronger than, legislation passed by the House in 1993. Unlike the bill that the House passed in 1993, my bill would not let the Appropriations Committee come up with its alternative way to rescind the same amount of money that would be cut by the President's proposed rescission. Instead, it would require that the actual rescission proposed by the President--that one, without any amendment, and with no alternative to it--be voted on by the Congress. Unlike the line-item veto, this bill is constitutionally sound. It does not attempt to give to the President the basic law-making authority that the Constitution vests solely in the Congress. Constitutionally, the line-item veto act could not be effective--it wasn't real. This bill would give the President authority that could be used effectively--it is real. The President and the Congress alike need to have an effective, constitutionally valid alternative to the line-item veto that can be used to revoke parts of a spending bill that could not withstand a separate up-or-down vote. This bill will meet that need. For the information of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill's provisions: Outline of Expedited Rescissions Act of 2005 The bill would amend the Budget Act by adding a new section providing for expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions. The new section would authorize the president to propose rescission of any budget authority provided in an appropriations Act through a special message that includes a draft bill to make that rescission. The new section would require the House's majority leader or minority leader to introduce that bill within two legislative days. If neither did so, any Member could then introduce the bill. The House Appropriations Committee would be required to report a bill introduced pursuant to the new section of the Budget Act within seven days after introduction. The report could be made with or without recommendation regarding its passage. If the committee did not meet that deadline, it would be discharged and the bill would go to the House floor. The House would debate and vote on the bill within 10 legislative days after the bill's introduction. Debate would be limited to no more than four hours and no amendment, motion to recommit, or motion to reconsider would be allowed. If passed by the House, the bill would go promptly to the Senate, which would have no more than 10 more days to consider and vote on it. Debate in the Senate would be limited to 10 hours and no amendment or motion to recommit would be allowed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in cautious support of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. While I believe the public should be able to trust that the content of programming during peak viewing times is age-appropriate for children, I am concerned that strict regulations, if improperly applied, can result in infringements on our right to free speech. Parents ought to be able to watch or listen to public broadcasting without fear that obscene material is foisted on their children. The Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) role in encouraging and enforcing decency regulations provides parents with a level of security that their family can watch television together or listen to the radio on the way to school without concern about the appropriateness of the information for their children. As our society's values have changed with different trends, the FCC has provided a standard to guide broadcasters and encourage them to take into account the diversity of their audience when making programming decisions. This bill will retain these standards and dramatically increase the amount a broadcaster can be fined for each violation. While I support keeping broadcasters accountable to the public, I believe excessive fines could be a slippery slope toward violations of first amendment rights and public access to a diverse discussion of ideas. I am, therefore, supporting this legislation but with a deep concern that Congress may well have to re-examine the nature of these fines in future legislation, particularly if they have the effect of prior restraint on first amendment freedoms. In light of recent scrutiny of indecent material, many broadcasters, artists, and performers are looking toward unregulated airwaves, such as cable and satellite radio. If these programs and performers move to these arenas, the quality of public airwaves leaves with them. The free flow of ideas is the cornerstone of our society, and opens the minds of Americans to different ideas, cultures and lifestyles. Public television and radio provides a medium for these ideas to reach all Americans, not just those who can afford it. So it is with some deep hesitation that I vote for this bill, as I hope it will not set a dangerous precedent of excessive fines and regulation on television and radio content and possibly infringe on our first amendment rights, but instead ensure that broadcasters are aware and accountable for the content which they air. I am including an editorial printed in the Rocky Mountain News in March 2004, which I think raises important concerns to consider regarding the increase in fines that this bill will administer. [From the Rocky Mountain News, March 15, 2004] Congress Should Retreat in `Indecency' War Members of the U.S. House of Representatives stampeded Thursday to pass a bill to appease voters offended by the Superbowl display of Janet Jackson's breast. Unfortunately, all of Colorado's House delegation (with the exception of Mark Udall, who did not vote) displayed a herd mentality. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, H.R. 3717, raises the maximum fine for a decency violation to $500,000, an amount that applies both to on-air personalities and to broadcast outlets. But because broadcasters often own many outlets, and programs often air in multiple markets, the total fine for even a single slip of the tongue (or the wardrobe) can be astronomical. The legislation was introduced in January, before the Super Bowl, so it is probably just coincidence that the new fine amounts to just about one dollar for each of the more than 500,000 complaints about the halftime show that flooded into the offices of the Federal Communications Commission. But the rapid passage is certainly no coincidence. Public outrage spooked Congress into acting. The vote was 391-22, with Ron Paul, R-Texas, the lone Republican to stand up against congressional censorship. A Senate measure, S. 2056, has similar provisions for raising fines, but also suspends for a year FCC rules about how many media outlets a company can own while the General Accounting Office investigates whether consolidation in the broadcast media is connected with indecency on the airwaves. It's awaiting action by the full Senate. We're glad there is still lots of full-throated public reaction against sleaze in the media (even if the public is often fickle about what it considers inappropriate). The FCC is supposed to uphold some standards, which is why it monitors complaints and spells out the rules for what constitutes ``exhibitionism,'' ``obscenity'' and ``blasphemy.'' But the best pressure, we believe, is the voice of thousands of individual consumers making their views known to the companies that market the stuff. We understand that few politicians, especially with an election nearing, are willing to risk being accused of ``defending indecency.'' But Congress should tread lightly in such matters. A law broad enough to ensure that no one's ear or eye is offended will end up silencing speech--indignation at government policies, for example, expressed in strong language--that ought to enjoy full constitutional protection. ``It's a shame we have to address this issue,'' declared House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, ``but when members of the broadcast industry violate the boundaries of reasonable tolerance, that's exactly what we're forced to do.'' Forced? Panicked is more like it, and the spectacle is embarrassing.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the House has considered similar legislation in 1999, 2002, and 2003. On each of those occasions, I voted ``no''--not because I was unalterably opposed to Congress acting on this subject, but because in my judgment the defects of those bills outweighed their potential benefits. When it was announced that this bill would be considered, I hoped that the pattern would be broken and that this time I would be able to support the legislation. And if the Conyers substitute had been adopted, that would have been the case. Adoption of the substitute would have greatly improved the legislation. It would have reaffirmed the authority and ability of each State's Attorney General to carry out his or her duties under State law. It would have made sure that the bill would not prejudice people with complaints about violations of their civil rights. It would have properly focused the legislation on class actions unrelated to personal injuries. It would have added important protections for the public's right to know about the proceedings in our courts. And it would have made other changes that would have improved the bill. Unfortunately, the substitute was not adopted--and I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I must vote against the bill. That conclusion is reluctant because in several ways this bill is better--or, more accurately, less bad--than its predecessors. Unlike earlier versions, S. 5 would not have a retroactive effect, so it would not affect pending cases. It also does not include a provision for immediate interlocutory appeals of denials of class action certification, or for a stay of all discovery while the appeal was pending. And in several other ways, it differs for the better from previous versions. However, while the bill is less bad, in my opinion it still is not good enough. I remain unconvinced that the problem the bill purports to address is so great as to require such a sweeping remedy, and I am still concerned that in too many cases the side-effects of this treatment will be more severe than the disease. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important rights we have as Americans is the ability to seek redress from the courts when we believe our rights have been abridged or we have been improperly treated. And, when a complaint arises under a State law, it is both appropriate and desirable that it be heard in State court because those are the most convenient and with the best understanding of State laws and local conditions. Of course, it is appropriate to provide for removing some State cases to Federal courts. But I think that should be more the exception than the rule, and I think this bill tends to reverse that. I think it excessively tilts the balance between the States and the Federal government so as to throw too many cases into already-overburdened Federal courts--with the predictable result that too many will be dismissed without adequate consideration of their merits. So, while I respect those who have urged the House to pass this bill, I cannot vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today my fellow colleague from Colorado, Representative Beauprez, and I are again introducing a resolution to honor this Nation's children and express the desire to mark the first Wednesday in March as National Children's Day. The resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives urging the President to proclaim that the first Wednesday of March each year should be named National Children's Day in honor of the future generations of our country. The Great Sioux Nation can be used as a role model to lawmakers in America as we debate any bill here on the floor of the House of Representatives. They place a high value on the children of the tribe, as they represent the future of the tribe. When important decisions are being made, the Sioux always discussed what the impact of the decision would be, not on the current generation, or the next generation, but the seventh generation out. The Sioux Nation placed a priority on the future of the tribe, through its children. I believe that it is important that we, as lawmakers, keep the importance of our future in mind as we make decisions everyday here in Congress. In that spirit, I believe this legislation is fitting as it honors the importance of our Nation's children and the role that we as adults have in the upbringing of a child. Through special attention from the adults in a child's life, that child is more likely to experience success throughout their life. This resolution urges adults to set aside time throughout the day to support a child in their life or community. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and spend some time with a child in their lives.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot in good conscience vote for the REAL ID Act, H.R. 418 because, despite the intention of the bill's sponsors to strengthen our borders, it has the opposite effect, by making homeland security and an effective war against terrorism more difficult with unnecessary provisions aimed at legitimate asylum seekers. Moreover, I am guided in my judgment about this bill by the opposition of the National Governors Association and the National Council of State Legislatures. This bill tightens asylum laws in a way that inhibits, rather than enhances our national security. Currently individuals who participate in terrorist activity are not allowed to gain asylum status in this country. Terrorists have not been able to use the current asylum system to gain entry into the country, thus the tightening of these laws only make gaining asylum status more difficult for those legitimately seeking asylum. Provisions such as requiring applicants to prove the ``central reason'' for their persecution or allowing judges to require applicants to produce corroborating evidence are unnecessary. While national security must be our top priority, immigration policy should not create unnecessary requirements for legitimate asylum seekers who are arguably our best allies in the fight against international terrorism. The asylum provisions of this bill will not enhance our security or our standing in the world. I also have concerns that the bill allows and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws which he or she deems necessary to complete the construction of barriers along any and all U.S. borders. Some have argued that this provision is needed to ensure the construction of a fence along three and half miles of the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego. However, the language of the bill is not limited to the construction of a fence in this location. Instead, it instructs the Secretary to waive all laws for all U.S. borders; this includes the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border, and maybe even the border between Alaska and Russia. The bill also removes any judicial review of the waiving of these laws. This would give far too much unchecked authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security and does not provide the protection of judicial review of this authority. There are two amendments, one offered by my colleagues Mr. Nadler and Mr. Meeks, and the other offered by Mr. Farr, which would strike portions of the bill that do not address our national security regard the asylum system and our borders. However, in light of their failure, I am left no option but to vote against this bill. I find the driver's license standards established in this bill to be unnecessary as well as they already exist in current law. Last fall's Intelligence bill, which I supported, included a provision which already implements the 9/11 Commission Report's recommendations to create national minimum standards for driver's licenses. This provision allowed for states to participate with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security in a rulemaking process. H.R. 418 repeals these provisions and replaces them with standards established without state input. The issuance of driver's licenses has always been within state jurisdiction. Even with the measures passed in the Intelligence bill, states will largely be organizing and conducting the implementation of these standards. Their participation in establishing and implementing driver's license standards is essential for these provisions to be successful. This bill simply ignores state involvement all together in these standards. Though the bill does provide grants for the costs of implementing these standards, with the current fiscal climate, many states fear they will be left with the burden of paying a portion of these costs. Most states are faced with the same fiscal crisis that the federal government is currently experiencing. Creating an unfunded mandate for states is unfair, especially when they are excluded from the rulemaking process. There are portions in this bill which I believe are beneficial to our national security. For instance, I am pleased the amendment offered by Mr. Sessions passed by a voice vote, as it will strengthen our ability to ensure the deportation of individuals who are illegally present in the United States. Unfortunately, the egregious measures in the bill far out weigh the beneficial provisions. Thus, I must vote against this bill and hope that the Senate will remove the portions of this bill which are unnecessary and attack the balance of power in our country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, together with my Colorado colleague, Representative John Salazar, I am introducing legislation to provide permanent funding for two programs that are very important to counties and other local units of government in Colorado and many other States. Our bill is identical to one introduced in the 108th Congress by Scott McInnis when he represented Colorado's 3rd Congressional District. He was a leader on this issue, and we are joining to work to complete this job that he began. Under the bill, the full amounts authorized under both the payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) program and the refuge revenue sharing program would be made available to the Secretary of the Interior annually, for distribution to eligible local governments in accordance with those programs. This would eliminate the requirement for annual appropriations for PILT and refuge revenue sharing purposes and would shield them against the kind of political shortsightedness demonstrated in the budget recently submitted by President Bush, which proposes to inflict a severe cut in the funding available for PILT. While both programs are significant, PILT is particularly important for counties in Colorado and other states that include large expanses of federal lands. In 2004, for example, counties in Colorado received more than $17.6 million out of a total of $244.3 million distributed nationwide. Congress created the PILT program in response to a recommendation of the Public Land Law Review Commission, chaired by Representative Wayne N. Aspinall, who represented what was then Colorado's Fourth Congressional District. It reflected a recognition that a system of payments based on acreage was more equitable and reliable than one tied to management decisions such as timber harvests or other uses. Counties use their PILT payments for a wide variety of purposes, including some--such as law enforcement, fire fighting, and search and rescue--that are directly related to the federal lands within their boundaries and the people who use those lands. For nearly two decades after the program was established, PILT funding remained level but the value of PILT payments was eroded by inflation. In 1995, Congress amended the law to raise the authorization level. However, since 1995, no budget request--from either President Clinton or President Bush--has requested more than two-thirds of the amount authorized by the PILT Act. As a result, the burden on county taxpayers has not been reduced to the extent that Congress intended when it passed the 1995 legislation. Our bill would ensure full implementation of that legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Open Studios on celebrating their 10th Anniversary of providing exemplary educational and cultural programming for artists and art lovers in the Boulder community. Open Studios is one of Colorado's outstanding arts organizations, offering opportunities to gain a broader understanding and appreciation of the visual arts. Founded by Gary Zeff in 1994, Open Studios' first event was held in Boulder, Colorado during October of 1995. Every fall since then, Open Studios has invited the public to create self-guided tours of approximately 135 studios featuring painters, sculptors, woodworkers, furniture makers, weavers, photographers, papermakers, jewelers, potters and other fine visual artists. These tours allow the public to meet the artists one-on-one in their studios and watch them work. Participating artists include an educational component in their studio setting. Many frequently engage the visitors by demonstrating their artistic skills and technique. Visitors are encouraged to ask questions about particular aspects of their work and their artistic process. At some studios, materials are available for adults and children to try their hand at creating art. Open Studios enhances the public tours with a unique Guidebook containing all the participating artists, an easy-to-read tour map, and an Art Resource Directory. Prior to the public tours, a preview exhibit is held locally along with an artists' reception. The general public is joined at this free event by arts designers, art consultants, dealers, gallery owners, private collectors, and other artists. Open Studios has established an excellent reputation in the community. In the 10-year history, attendance has increased from about 20,000 studio visits to over 70,000. Its programs are implemented by an exceptional, dedicated staff with the sound stewardship of an innovative Board of Directors. Open Studios has a mission of education. That mission has been expanded over the years to include not just educational opportunities in the studios during the two week event, but also community activities especially for children. Six years ago, Open Studios coordinated with the Director of Special Education of the Boulder Valley School District to provide art supplies and instruction to Halcyon School. With the success of the program at Halcyon, the educational program has been expanded to include six more Boulder Valley schools. There is no charge to the schools, and Open Studios pays artists for their time with a grant from the Boulder Arts Commission. Throughout the decade, Open Studios has worked to bring art to the community in a myriad of different ways. Open Studios has assisted my office with the annual United States Congressional High School Art Competition for the past four years. In 2000, Open Studios brought William Ivey, the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, to speak to Colorado communities and artists about the direction of the national art movement. In 2001, Open Studios arranged an opportunity for citizens to create cards to thank the members of the New York City Police and Fire Departments for their work and their sacrifices on 9/ 11. And this past year, Open Studios engaged the Boulder community in painting America's largest paint-by-number, a 1000-square foot painting displayed on a building in downtown Boulder. The arts enhance the quality of every aspect of our lives. Open Studios has become a vital part of the community and has added to the quality of life of the citizens of Colorado. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Open Studios for its accomplishments and its commitment to providing an unsurpassed cultural program to Coloradans. I wish its staff and Board continued creativity and success in the future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot in good conscience vote for the REAL ID Act, H.R. 418 because, despite the intention of the bill's sponsors to strengthen our borders, it has the opposite effect, by making homeland security and an effective war against terrorism more difficult with unnecessary provisions aimed at legitimate asylum seekers. Moreover, I am guided in my judgment about this bill by the opposition of the National Governors Association and the National Council of State Legislatures. This bill tightens asylum laws in a way that inhibits, rather than enhances our national security. Currently individuals who participate in terrorist activity are not allowed to gain asylum status in this country. Terrorists have not been able to use the current asylum system to gain entry into the country, thus the tightening of these laws only makes gaining asylum status more difficult for those legitimately seeking asylum. Provisions such as requiring applicants to prove the ``central reason'' for their persecution or allowing judges to require applicants to produce corroborating evidence are unnecessary. While national security must be our top priority, immigration policy should not create unnecessary requirements for legitimate asylum seekers who are arguably our best allies in the fight against international terrorism. The asylum provisions of this bill will not enhance our security or our standing in the world. I also have concerns that the bill allows and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws which he or she deems necessary to complete the construction of barriers along any and all U.S. borders. Some have argued that this provision is needed to ensure the construction of a fence along three and a half miles of the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego. However, the language of the bill is not limited to the construction of a fence in this location. Instead, it instructs the Secretary to waive all laws for all U.S. borders; this includes the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border, and maybe even the border between Alaska and Russia. The bill also removes any judicial review of the waiving of these laws. This would give far too much unchecked authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security and does not provide the protection of judicial review of this authority. There are two amendments, one offered by my colleagues Mr. Nadler and Mr. Meeks, and the other offered by Mr. Farr, which would strike portions of the bill that do not address our national security regarding the asylum system and our borders. However, in light of their failure, I am left no option but to vote against this bill. I find the driver's license standards established in this bill to be unnecessary as well, as they already exist in current law. Last fall's Intelligence bill, which I supported, included a provision which already implements the 9/11 Commission Report's recommendations to create national minimum standards for driver's licenses. This provision allowed for States to participate with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security in a rulemaking process. H.R. 418 repeals these provisions and replaces them with standards established without State input. The issuance of driver's licenses has always been within State jurisdiction. Even with the measures passed in the Intelligence bill, States will largely be organizing and conducting the implementation of these standards. Their participation in establishing and implementing driver's license standards is essential for these provisions to be successful. This bill simply ignores State involvement altogether in these standards. Though the bill does provide grants for the costs of implementing these standards, with the current fiscal climate, many States fear they will be left with the burden of paying a portion of these costs. Most States are faced with the same fiscal crisis that the Federal Government is currently experiencing. Creating an unfunded mandate for States is unfair, especially when they are excluded from the rulemaking process. There are portions in this bill which I believe are beneficial to our national security. For instance, I am pleased the amendment offered by Mr. Sessions passed by a voice vote, as it will strengthen our ability to ensure the deportation of individuals who are illegally present in the United States. Unfortunately, the egregious measures in the bill far outweigh the beneficial provisions. Thus, I must vote against this bill and hope that the Senate will remove the portions of this bill which are unnecessary and attack the balance of power in our country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor Mr. Ted Strickland, outgoing Commissioner for Adams County, Colorado. In the last 5 years I have appreciated working with the Board of Adams County Commissioners, and I have found Commissioner Strickland to be a good source of wisdom and experience. I certainly wish him well on his retirement. Commissioner Strickland was born and raised in Austin, Texas. After serving in the military he came to Colorado. Ted began a successful career in the oil and gas industry, becoming Vice President of Petroleum Information. Feeling drawn toward public service, Ted ran for election to the Colorado House of Representatives. He served 2 years in the House before being elected to the Colorado State Senate, where he served as Senate President and later as a candidate for Governor in 1986. Ted's obvious passion for public service led him to run for Adams County Commissioner in 1996. Once on the Commission he continued his hard work for those he represented. He served on the E-470 Public Highway Authority Board, the Front Range Airport Authority Board, the Adams County Economic Development Board, the Adams County Water Quality Association, and on the Denver Regional Council of Governments. With such a wide scope of reach, Commissioner Strickland has left an important legacy in Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Ted Strickland and in wishing him well on his retirement from local government.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor a good friend and a hard-working public servant, Ms. Elaine Valente. Elaine is retiring as a Commissioner for Adams County, Colorado after 16 years of dedicated service. Commissioner Valente was born and raised in Adams County Colorado. She and her husband Larry own the successful Valente's Deli, are proud parents of two accomplished children, and are passionate community activists. Elaine's interest in her community began long before assuming her role as County Commissioner. She severed on the Adams County Planning Commission, the city of Westminster Urban Renewal Authority, the Westminster Planning Commission, the Citizen's Evaluation for Retention of Judges, and the School District 50 Superintendent's Parent Advisory Committee. Her deep passion to give something back to her community and to help improve Colorado is what motivated her to run for County Commissioner in 1988. Elaine was victorious in that election and quickly became an outspoken advocate for Adams County's communities. As Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners she took and interest in many issues affecting her constituency, helping pave the way for future economic development, transportation improvements, air traffic investments and reform of county services. When I was elected to Congress in 1998 I knew that one of my first objectives was to learn as much as I could from Elaine, not only about one of Colorado's fastest growing communities, but also about effective public service. Elaine is the kind of person who speaks her mind with a blend of honest bluntness and old-school graciousness. As a daughter of Italian- Americans she also established a reputation for leadership on behalf of ethnic minorities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Elaine Valente and in wishing her success in all her future endeavors. It has been a true privilege to work with such a remarkable woman.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to reaffirm the authority of each state to regulate hunting and fishing within its boundaries, and especially a state's authority to enforce laws or regulations that differ in the way they treat that state's residents and people residing elsewhere. A similar Senate bill has been introduced by Senator Reid of Nevada, who introduced a related measure in the 108th Congress. He has been the leader on this matter, and I am proud to join in the effort. There is nothing new about a state's having different rules for resident and nonresident hunters or anglers. Colorado draws that distinction in several ways, and many other states do so as well. And while there have been challenges to the validity of such rules, until recently the federal courts have upheld the right of the states to make such distinctions. For example, in 1987 the federal district court for Colorado, in the case of Terk v. Ruch (reported at 655 F. Supp. 205), rejected a challenge to Colorado's regulations that allocated to Coloradans 90% of the available permits for hunting bighorn sheep and mountain goats. But a recent Court of Appeals decision marked a change--something that definitely is new. In that case (Conservation Force v. Manning, 301 F.3rd 985; 9th Cir. 2002), the federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit held that Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident hunting of bull elk throughout the state and of antlered deer north of the Colorado River had enough of an effect on interstate commerce that it could run afoul of what lawyers and judges call the ``dormant commerce clause'' of the Constitution. Having reached that conclusion, the appeals court determined that the Arizona regulation discriminated against interstate commerce--meaning the ``dormant commerce clause'' did apply and that the regulation was subject to strict scrutiny, and could be upheld only if it served legitimate state purposes and the state could show that those interests could not be adequately served by reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives. The appeals court went on to find that the regulations did further Arizona's legitimate interests in conserving its population of game and maintaining recreational opportunities for its citizens, but it remanded the case so a lower court could determine whether the state could meet the burden of showing that reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives would not be adequate. Because of the decision's potential implications for their own laws and regulations, it was a source of concern to many states in addition to Arizona. In fact, 22 other States joined in supporting Arizona's request for the decision to be reviewed by he U.S. Supreme Court. Colorado was one of those States, and our then-Attorney General, Ken Salazar, joined in signing a brief in support of Arizona's petition for Supreme Court review. Regrettably, the Supreme Court denied that petition. So, for now, the 9th Circuit's decision stands. Its immediate effect is on states whose federal courts are within that circuit--namely those in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington as well those of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marinas. But it could have an effect on the thinking of federal courts across the country. The bill's purpose is to forestall that outcome, and so far as possible to return to the state of affairs prevailing before the 9th circuit's decision. The bill would do two things: First, in Section 2(a), it would declare that the policy of Congress is that it is in the public interest for each state to continue to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and non-residents. And, in Section 2(b), it would provide that silence on the part of Congress is not to be construed by the courts as imposing any barrier under the commerce clause of the constitution to a state's regulation of hunting, fishing, or trapping. These provisions are intended to speak directly to the ``dormant commerce clause'' basis for the 9th Circuit's decision in Conservation Force v. Manning. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that lawyers and judges use that term to refer to the judicially-established doctrine that the commerce clause is not only a ``positive'' grant of power to Congress, but also a ``negative'' constraint upon the States in the absence of any Congressional action--in other words, that it restricts the powers of the states to affect interstate commerce in a situation where Congress has been silent. Section 2(a) of the bill would end the perceived silence of Congress by affirmatively stating that state regulation of fishing and hunting-- including State regulation that treats residents and non-residents differently--is in the public interest. This is intended to preclude future application of the ``dormant commerce clause'' doctrine with regard to such regulations. Section 2(b) would make it clear that even when Congress might have been silent about the subject, that silence is not to be construed as imposing a commerce-clause barrier to a state's regulation of hunting or fishing within its borders. This bill is neither a federal mandate for state action nor a Congressional delegation of authority to any state. Instead, it is intended to reaffirm state authority and make clear that the ``dormant commerce clause''--that is, Congressional inaction--is not to be construed as an obstacle to to state's regulating hunting or fishing, even in ways that some might claim adversely affect interstate commerce by treating residents differently from nonresidents. It's also important to note that the bill is not intended to affect any federal law already on the books or to limit any authority of any Indian Tribe. Section 3 of the bill is intended to prevent any misunderstanding on these points. Section 3(1) specifies that the bill will not ``limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce.'' Thus, to take just a few examples for purposes of illustration, the bill will not affect implementation of the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Lacey Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, or the provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act dealing with subsistence. Section 3(2) similarly provides that the bill is not to be read as limiting the authority of the federal government to temporarily or permanently prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the federal lands--as has been done with various National Park System units and in some other parts of the federal lands for various reasons, including public safety as well as the protection of fish or wildlife. And Section 3(3) explicitly provides that the bill will not alter any of the rights of any Indian Tribe. Mr. Speaker, this bill is narrow in scope but of national importance because it addresses a matter of great concern to hunters, anglers, and wildlife managers in many states. I think it deserves broad support. For the information of our colleagues, here is a brief outline of the bill and a letter of support from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Outline of Bill Section One provides a short title--``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005.'' Section Two has two subsections: Subsection 2(a) states that it is the policy of Cogress that it is in the public interest for each state to continue to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife for any purpose within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and non- residents with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for particular species, the kind and numbers of fish or wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of hunting or fishing licenses or permits. Subsection 2(b) states that silence on the part of Congress is not to be construed to impose any barrier under the commerce clause of the Constitution to a state's regulation of hunting or fishing. Section Three specifies that the bill is not to be construed as--limiting the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce; limiting the authority of the federal goverment to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the federal lands; or altering in any way any right of any Indian Tribe. Section Four defines the term ``state'' as including the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC, February 9, 2005. Hon. Mark Udall, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Udall: The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, whose government members include the fifty state fish and wildlife agencies, strongly supports your bill to reaffirm state regulation of resident and non- resident hunting and fishing. This bipartisan bill is necessary to address the recent decision of the Ninth Circuit in Conservation Force v. Manning, 301 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1112 (2003). That unprecedented decision concluded that hunting of big game in Arizona substantially affects interstate commerce such that differential treatment of residents and nonresidents must be strictly scrutinized by federal courts. By subjecting to strict scrutiny analysis under the dormant Commerce Clause state preferences for residents in highly prized species, the Ninth Circuit decision strikes at the ability of states to maintain the level of local sacrifice and contribution necessary to produce big game. We appreciate your interest in rectifying the problems caused by the Ninth Circuit ruling and appreciate also the effort of your staff to assure the bill is sharply drawn so that it neutralizes the effect of the court ruling, but beyond that neither enlarges nor diminishes state authority. The limitations provisions of section 3 are written to insure that no existing federal or tribal authority relating to fish and wildlife would be affected. Both resident and nonresident hunters and anglers contribute to conservation, yet it is essential to conservation efforts in the several States that the level of hunting and fishing opportunity for residents not be eroded. The passion and unity that derives from direct involvement by residents in fish and wildlife programs is a critical asset in resource protection and management. The bill you have introduced reaffirms that the states are the appropriate stewards of fish and wildlife resources within their borders, the hallmark of the highly successful model of fish and wildlife protection and management in the United States. Permit numbers, license fees, hunt areas and season dates are best handled through the legislative and rulemaking processes at the state level. Thank you again for your initiative in taking this bill forward. We look forward to working with you and your staff to achieve enactment of the bill. Terry Crawforth, President.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a good friend and a hard-working public servant, Ms. Elaine Valente. Elaine is retiring as a Commissioner for Adams County, Colorado after 16 years of dedicated service. Commissioner Valente was born and raised in Adams County Colorado. She and her husband Larry own the successful Valente's Deli, are proud parents of two accomplished children, and are passionate community activists. Elaine's interest in her community began long before assuming her role as County Commissioner. She served on the Adams County Planning Commission, the City of Westminster Urban Renewal Authority, the Westminster Planning Commission, the Citizen's Evaluation for Retention of Judges, and the School District 50 Superintendent's Parent Advisory Committee. Her deep passion to give something back to her community and to help improve Colorado is what motivated her to run for County Commissioner in 1988. Elaine was victorious in that election and quickly became an outspoken advocate for Adams County's communities. As Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners she took an interest in many issues affecting her constituency, helping pave the way for future economic development, transportation improvements, air traffic investments and reform of county services. When I was elected to Congress in 1998 I knew that one of my first objectives was to learn as much as I could from Elaine, not only about one of Colorado's fastest growing communities, but also about effective public service. Elaine is the kind of person who speaks her mind with a blend of honest bluntness and old-school graciousness. As a daughter of Italian- Americans she also established a reputation for leadership on behalf of ethnic minorities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Elaine Valente and in wishing her success in all her future endeavors. It has been a true privilege to work with such a remarkable woman.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Paul Danish for his decades of exemplary public service to Colorado. Paul is one of Boulder's outstanding political and journalistic figures, and I want to thank him on behalf of all Boulder's citizens for his fine service as County Commissioner for the past twelve years. He has shared his skills, experience, humor, and passions with us, and he is much treasured in turn by his community. Born in Chicago, Paul moved with his family to Colorado in the 1940s and attended the University of Colorado in 1960. He received a bachelor's degree in history from CU and did graduate work in political science. To put his student period in perspective, he was instrumental during his years at CU in the transformation of the University Memorial Center cafeteria from the Indian Grill to the interim Roaring Fork to the lasting Alfred Packer Grill. Paul Danish's journalism career began with the student newspaper, Silver and Gold, which later changed its name to the Colorado Daily. He has been a reporter for the United Press International, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Boulder's Town and Country Review. He was technical editor for the Joint Institute of Astrophysics in Boulder and the Negev Institute for Arid Zone Research in Beer Sheva, Israel. His work experience includes being a special assistant to the late University of Colorado President Roland Rautenstraus and editor for Talmey-Drake Research in Boulder. He served as a Boulder City Council member from 1976 to 1982. In the early 1970s, Boulder residents were seriously concerned about the adverse impact of unplanned growth on the area's environment. Paul authored Boulder's original growth management plan which was passed by the voters in 1976. The Danish Plan limited population growth by restricting the number of building permits that could be issued each year for residential subdivisions. After the expiration of the Danish Plan in 1982, Boulder has continued to successfully manage growth based on his original strategies. Paul has never hesitated before political rough and tumbles, and in 1995, he won a well-fought four-way campaign to fill the vacancy for Boulder County Commissioner. Who among the 300-some vacancy committee members will ever forget the speech-of-a-lifetime he gave the day of that vote? He has never been `short' on the free give and take of ideas, or on his irresistible tendency to be honest and forthright, or on time for coffee with a friend. As a county commissioner, Paul has been very involved in the cleanup and future use of the Rocky Flats site. He has been an effective advocate for an aggressive cleanup, protecting worker safety, and ensuring that former workers are compensated for any adverse health effects they may have encountered while working there. He has also worked tirelessly for sound land-use and sensible growth throughout the county. Citizens of Boulder will miss his tenacious commitment to policies that serve the environment and the education and health of people. For many years, Paul wrote columns for the Colorado Daily after it became privately owned, and he was a contributing editor to the Soldier of Fortune magazine. His writings are always alive and kicking with subjects ranging from prairie dogs and Greek agoras to national politics and international issues. In person, he combines a distinguished intellect with a genial sense of fun. A volunteer on the way to work for his early campaigns could always find his headquarters by the peals of laughter emanating from his gardens and front door. And he continues to throw great celebration parties in Boulder's finest tradition. Paul Danish has made important contributions to the protection and preservation of the quality of life in Boulder County, as well as to the diversity of views in our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Paul Danish for the courageous stands he has taken for the people of Boulder and his unswerving dedication to principles of free expression. I wish him congratulations on his accomplishments and good health and happiness to him and his family in the future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ron Stewart for his many years of public service and the many contributions he has made to the people of Colorado. I want to thank him on behalf of all Boulder's citizens for the depth and diversity of contributions he has made to ensure that Boulder County remains a very special place to live. A lifelong resident of Longmont, Ron has been active in Colorado politics for over 30 years. During college he organized the Young Democrats in Longmont for several years and was elected Chair of the Boulder Democratic Party at the age of 21. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Colorado and did graduate work at the University of Colorado in Denver in Public Administration. He served as Executive Director of the Colorado State Party from 1972 through 1975 and was elected to the Colorado Senate in 1976 where he served two terms, retiring as Senate Minority Leader. Before being elected as Boulder County Commissioner in 1984, Ron was a member of the Mile High United Way Board of Directors and Chairman for the Political Action for Conservation. From 1977-1982 he served on the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee, and he was a member of the Colorado Environment Lobby Board of Directors from 1985-1986. He has earned several honors, including ``Outstanding Senator'' in 1984 from the Colorado Social Legislation Committee and ``Friend of Education Award'' from the Colorado Education Association in 1986, and has received awards from PLAN Boulder County, Boulder County Audubon, and the Colorado Chapter of Trout Unlimited. He also has been recognized nationally for his work on intergovernmental cooperation. This year, the American Planning Association bestowed upon him the very prestigious Distinguished Elected Official Award. As a county commissioner, Ron has served with distinction from 1985- 2005. He has been a visionary in the development of Boulder County's Open Space Program, leading the effort to protect the county's natural beauty and preserve its agricultural heritage. Commissioner Stewart has gained nationwide respect and admiration for his commitment to orderly land use planning that is built on cooperation and consensus, particularly through the Super-IGA. In presiding over an era of de- centralization of services, Commissioner Stewart has been a vigorous advocate for improving county government accessibility. In developing new ways to involve stakeholders in the county's policy making process, he has done much to make government more understandable to its constituents. In trying to find ways to lessen the impacts of policy changes on those constituents least able to adjust to them, he has shown his compassion for the less fortunate. I am particularly appreciative of the work Commissioner Stewart has done to invigorate the Boulder County social services delivery system, by fostering collaboration in program development and management, leading the way to innovative problem-solving, the most notable examples being the Genesis and IMPACT programs. Commissioner Stewart's advocacy for enhanced funding of social programs has made all the difference in a number of ballot questions, notably the Worthy Cause Tax, and as a result, Boulder County's nonprofit human service agencies get the support they need. Commissioner Stewart has been a careful custodian of the taxpayers' dollars, managing the county's budget with restraint and according to the highest ethical standards. He has consistently represented the Office of County Commissioner with grace and dignity. On a personal level, I know Ron to be a remarkable leader, a dependable colleague, and a kind person with an infectious laugh. It is my sincere hope that his retirement from the office of County Commissioner will open the door to a future of rewarding experiences. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in thanking Ron Stewart for all of the good and important work he has done for Boulder County and Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a significant leader in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. Mr. Ted Strickland, outgoing Commissioner for Adams County, will be leaving his post after eight years of diligent service. Commissioner Strickland was born and raised in Austin, Texas. After serving in the military he came to Colorado and began a successful career in the oil and gas industry, becoming Vice President with the Petroleum Information company. Drawn towards public service, Ted ran for election to the Colorado House of Representatives. He served two years in the House before being elected to the Colorado State Senate. His 24 years in the Senate, 12 of which he served as President of the Senate, were a notable accomplishment. During that time, he and his wife, Luann, settled in Strasburg, Colorado, on the southern edge of Adams County. Ted's continued desire for public service then led him to seek and win election as an Adams County Commissioner in 1996. As a county commissioner, he continued his hard work for those he represented. He served on the E-470 Public Highway Authority Board, the Front Range Airport Authority Board, the Adams County Economic Development Board, the Adams County Water Quality Association, and on the Denver Regional Council of Governments. With such a wide scope of reach, Commissioner Strickland has left a mark as a valuable public servant. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Ted Strickland and in wishing him success in all his future endeavors. Wherever his motivations should take him, I am sure success will follow.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Ft. Lewis College's Winter Graduating Class of 2004. 1 was unable to attend the ceremony and would like to enter some remarks into the record on behalf of the graduates. I was asked to serve as the commencement speaker for the December 18th graduation ceremony in Durango, Colorado where Ft. Lewis College is located. Ft. Lewis College is a fine institution of higher learning in the West, and Durango happens to be one of my favorite places in Colorado. For my colleagues who have not had the opportunity to visit Durango, I can tell you that it embodies much of the majesty of the Rocky Mountains and the West. From the high country lakes to the red- rocked canyon lands to the breathtakingly rugged San Juan Mountains, Durango is truly awe-inspiring nature at its finest. I was very much looking forward to talking to these graduates in this beautiful part of our State. Drawing on my experience as a climber and outdoorsman, I was going to talk to the graduates about the lessons they could learn from the natural world around them as they embarked upon their next journey. I hoped to remind them that they are surrounded by beauty and should take time to take note of the quality of air and light around them. Much like being atop our San Juan Mountains, they too were on the roof of the,world. Not only can they look down with a sense of pride from the peak they have just climbed in earning their degree. From this new found height they can see the myriad peaks on the horizon for the first time because they have worked hard to better themselves through education. They can now see the boundless opportunities available to them. Among these opportunities are those involving public service. A friend and man I admire, Senator John McCain, has said that military service gave him an opportunity to serve a cause bigger than personal self-interest. I could not say it any better, and I hope all graduates take this underlying message to heart whether they enter military service or not. Senator McCain's wisdom speaks to all of us. I want to take this opportunity to recognize their hard work and the support of their families and congratulate them on their graduation. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Ft. Lewis College Winter Graduating Class of 2004. I know I join their friends and family in taking great pride in this laudable achievement.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor University of Colorado Regent Susan Kirk. Regent Kirk was elected to represent the First Congressional District in 1992 and was re-elected in 1998 by an overwhelming margin. She was elected chair of the board in 1997 where she provided leadership on the creation of a Women's Studies degree and the application for transfer and conveyance of the Fitzsimmons property. Susan had served the maximum 12 years allowed when her term ended in 2004. Regent Kirk has been a tireless champion of women's and children's rights, equal opportunity and treatment, and expanding access to higher education. Her altruistic efforts in the community are legendary. She and her husband Dick established the Susan Kirk Scholarship for female students in the Graduate School of Public Affairs. She has also been a contributor to and advocate for the Center for Women's Health Research. Susan Kirk is a key player in many, if not most, charitable endeavors in our community. Susan held leadership roles at the University of Colorado during both triumphs and challenging times. She has always been more interested in staying true to friendships and looking for solutions than in stirring controversy and grabbing headlines. The strength and grace of her leadership has meant a great deal to our community and is something I personally admire. I ask my colleagues to join me recognizing my friend, Susan Kirk for her immeasurable contribution to the University of Colorado. I wish her and her husband Dick much health and happiness in their future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend, Joan Fitz-Gerald. Senator Fitz-Gerald is the first woman to lead the Colorado State Senate and is the only female Senate President in the entire country. When you meet Joan, who stands at about 5'1", the first image that comes to mind is not necessarily that of a woman capable of breaking ceilings, glass or otherwise. Yet she has done just that since she first ran for Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder in 1990. At the time, many people thought that she had been recruited to run for County Clerk and Recorder as little more than a Democratic place holder on the ballot. No Democrat had won in a county-wide election in the previous 15 years and no woman had ever held the position of County Clerk and Recorder in the history of Jefferson County. But Joan has always been more interested in breaking glass ceilings than in being a place holder. She campaigned hard on a solid platform and won that election. She served in the Clerk and Recorder's office until 1998. In 2000, she ran for the Colorado Senate. Again she waged an uphill battle in a district that was traditionally difficult for a Democrat and was once again successful against popular convention of the time. Her victory gave Democrats the one seat majority they needed to take back control of the Senate. When the Democrats lost their majority the following election cycle, Senator Fitz-Gerald again made history by become the first female Minority Leader of the Senate. In this past election cycle, Joan was one of the key leaders to orchestrate a plan to take back the Senate for the Democrats. She did this while caring for her ailing mother and caring for her brother who was diagnosed with leukemia. She lost both within 11 days of one another after the election. It is a sign of the sincerity and strength of one's character when friends and foes alike agree about another person's character. Anyone who knows her, friend or foe, will say that she is a fighter. More than that she is also a person interested in advancing the goals of community service. She may be on the verge of becoming Colorado's Harry Truman. But then again, maybe Harry Truman was Missouri's Joan Fitz- Gerald. Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald is a strong, smart, savvy woman. I am proud that she is the Colorado State Senate President and even more proud that she is my friend. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in honoring Joan Fitz-Gerald for her achievement.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to provide additional resources for use by the Federal land-managing agencies to restore lands damaged as a result of improper activities and to promote public education about the use of the Federal lands. My Colorado colleague, Representative Tancredo, is cosponsoring the legislation. I greatly appreciate his support. The bill is based on one part of a bill introduced by Representative Tancredo that I cosponsored in the 108th Congress. The purpose of that bill was to improve the ability of the land-managing agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Interior Department as well as the Forest Service in the Agriculture Department--to adequately enforce the rules that apply to uses of the lands they manage. In the Resources Committee, Mr. Tancredo and I worked with Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, and other Members, to develop a substitute that included a number of improvements in the bill. The Resources Committee approved that substitute, which included provisions similar to those in the bill I am introducing today. However, after the Resources Committee completed its work, the measure was reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, which made further changes before the bill went to the House floor. The most significant change was deletion of the provisions of the bill that allowed the agencies to retain fines paid for violations of land-use regulations and to use those funds for repairing damages to the lands and for public education. I regretted that change because in addition to more adequate authority to enforce regulations, the land- managing agencies need more resources--more money and more people--if we want them to do a better job. The House passed the bill as revised by the Judiciary Committee, but the 108th Congress adjourned before the Senate could complete action on it. Accordingly, Mr. Tancredo is reintroducing the House-passed bill and I am cosponsoring that measure. My bill is in effect a companion to his legislation. As approved by the Resources Committee, the Tancredo-Udall bill of the 108th Congress would have helped with that by allowing the agencies to use money from fines to help pay for some of the restoration work caused by violations of regulations and for public education. The bill I am introducing today is similar. It would allow agencies to use money collected as fines to be used for repairing damage caused by the actions that lead to the fines or by similar actions. It would also allow them to use the money to increase public awareness of regulations and other requirements regarding use of Federal lands. And it provides that any of the money not needed for those purposes would be credited to the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, this is a modest bill but an important one. I think it deserves the support of our colleagues and I will do all I can to achieve its enactment into law.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an important leader in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. Ms. Elaine Valente, outgoing Commissioner for Adams County, will be leaving her post after 16 years of dedicated service. Commissioner Valente was born and raised in Adams County. She and her husband Larry own the successful Valente's Deli, are proud parents of two accomplished children, and are passionate community activists. Elaine's interest in her community began long before assuming her role as County Commissioner. She severed on the Adams County Planning Commission, the City of Westminster Urban Renewal Authority, the Westminster Planning Commission, the Citizen's Evaluation for Retention of Judges, and the School District 50 Superintendent's Parent Advisory Committee. That deep passion to give something back and to help improve the community in which she lives motivated her to run and win election as a County Commissioner in 1988. After her election, Elaine began a noteworthy carrier as a public official. Serving as Chairman of the commissioners, she took an interest in many issues affecting her constituency, helping pave the way for future county development and responsible economic achievement. Elaine's heartfelt desire for progress in the county she knew from birth allowed us all to bask in the results of her accomplished career. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Elaine Valente and in wishing her success in all her future endeavors. It has been a true privilege to work with such a remarkable public servant.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing a bill to make it more likely that red tape and missing documents will not frustrate Congress's attempt to provide compensation and care for some nuclear-weapons workers made sick by on-job exposure to radiation. The bill is similar to one I introduced in the 108th Congress. Like that bill, this one is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez. I greatly appreciate his support. The bill would revise the part of the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (``the Act'') that specifies which covered workers are part of what the law designates as the ``Special Exposure Cohort.'' The revision would extend this ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contractor employees, or atomic weapons employees--all terms defined by the current law--who have worked at the Rocky Flats site, in Colorado, for at least 250 days or will have worked there that long by January 1, 2006. The result would be to help provide the Act's benefits to any of those workers who contracted a radiation-linked cancer specified in the Act after beginning employment at Rocky Flats. As the law now stands, before a Rocky Flats worker suffering from a covered cancer can receive benefits, it must be established that the cancer is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job exposure to radiation. That sounds like a reasonable requirement--and it would be appropriate for Rocky Flats if we had adequate documentation of radiation exposures for the years when it was producing nuclear-weapons components as well as for the more recent time when DOE and its contractors have been working to clean it up and prepare it for closure. However, in fact there were serious shortcomings in the monitoring of Rocky Flats workers' radiation exposures and in the necessary recordkeeping--to say nothing of the slowness of the current administrative process for making the required determinations concerning links between exposure and employment. This means there is a real risk that a significant number of Rocky Flats workers who should be able to benefit from the Act will not obtain its benefits in a timely manner or will be denied them entirely. The bill would prevent this miscarriage of justice, by recognizing that Rocky Flats workers have been plagued by the same kinds of administrative problems that entangled workers at some other locations--administrative problems that were addressed through inclusion in the Act of the provisions related to the ``Special Exposure Cohort.'' My understanding of the need for this bill came from meeting with Rocky Flats workers and their representatives and from consulting experts. I have particularly benefited from the great experience and expertise of Dr. Robert Bistline. Dr. Bistline has served as Program Manager of the Energy Department's Oversight of Radiation Protection Program at the Rocky Flats field office and has few if any peers in terms of his understanding of the problems addressed by the bill. In particular, the bill reflects these aspects of Rocky Flats history-- Many worker exposures were unmonitored over the lifetime of the plant. Even within the past month a former worker from the 1950's was monitored under the Former Radiation Worker Program and found to have a significant internal deposition that had been undetected and unrecorded for more than 50 years. No lung counter for detecting and measuring plutonium and americium in the lungs existed at Rocky Flats until the late 1960's. Without this equipment the very insoluble oxide forms of plutonium cannot be detected and a large number of workers had inhalation exposures that went undetected and unmeasured. Exposure to neutron radiation was not monitored until the late 1950's and most of those measurements through 1970 have been found to be in error. In some areas of the plant the neutron doses were as much as 2 to 10 times as great as the gamma doses received by workers but only gamma doses were recorded. The old neutron films are being re-read but those doses have not yet been added to the workers records or been used in NIOSH's dose reconstructions for Rocky Flats workers. Radiation exposures for many workers were not measured or were missing, therefore, the records are incomplete or estimated doses were assigned. There are many inaccuracies in the exposure records that NIOSH is using to determine whether Rocky Flats workers qualify for compensation under the Act. The model that has been used for dose reconstruction by NIOSH in determining whether Rocky Flats workers qualify for compensation under the Act is in error. The default values used for particle size and solubility of the internally deposited plutonium in workers are in error. Use of these erroneous values reduces the actual internal doses for claimants by as much as 3 to 10 times less than the Rocky Flats records and autopsy data indicate. Some Rocky Flats workers, despite having worked with tons of plutonium and having known exposures leading to serious health effects, have been denied compensation under the Act as a result of potentially flawed calculations based on records that are incomplete or in error as well as the use of incorrect models. Mr. Speaker, since early in my tenure in Congress I have worked to make good on promises of a fairer deal for the nuclear-weapons workers who helped America win the Cold War. That was why enactment and improvement of the compensation Act has been one of my top priorities. I saw this as a very important matter for our country--and especially for many Coloradans because our state is home to the Rocky Flats site, which for decades was a key part of the nuclear-weapons complex. Now the site's military mission has ended, and the Rocky Flats workers are pressing to complete the job of cleaning it up and preparing it for closure. But while they are taking care of the site, we in Congress need to take care of them and the others who worked there in the past. That was the purpose of the compensation act. I am very proud that I was able to help achieve its enactment, but I am also aware that it is not perfect. Last year Congress made important changes that will remedy some of its shortcomings. This bill will make it better yet. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching an outline of the bill's provisions: section 1: short title, findings, and purpose Subsection (a) provides a short title, ``Rocky Flats Special Cohort Act.'' Subsection (b) sets forth several findings regarding the need for the legislation. Subsection ( c) states the bill's purpose: ``to revise the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act so as to include certain past and present Rocky Flats workers as members of the special exposure cohort.'' section 2: definition of member of special exposure cohort Subsection (a) amends section 3621(14) of the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (EEOICPA). The effect of the amendment is to provide that a person employed by the Department of Energy or any of its contractors for an aggregate of at least 250 work days at Rocky Flats before January 1, 2006 would be a ``member of the Special Exposure Cohort.'' Under EEOICPA, a member of the special exposure cohort suffering from one of the cancers specified in the Act is covered by the Act if the cancer was contracted after the person began employment at a covered facility. Subsection (b) provides that someone employed by the Energy Department or any of its contractors for an aggregate of at least 250 work days at Rocky Flats before January 1, 2006 may apply for compensation or benefits under EEOICPA even if the person had previously been denied compensation or benefits under the Act. This is to make clear that the subsection (a)'s change in the law will apply to people who had applied previously.