Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which would expedite an exchange of lands between the city of Golden, Colorado and the Federal Government. The bill was introduced by Colorado's senior Senator, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. The House passed a similar measure last year. I joined my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez, in introducing the House version. Under the bill, the city of Golden will receive about 9.84 acres that now are part of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. The City needs the land to construct a short pipeline--about 125 feet long--to bring water into a storage facility where it will be held for use by the city and its residents. In return, the City will transfer to the United States several parcels of land that are now inholdings within National Forest boundaries. These inholdings include lands near Argentine Pass, which straddles the divide between Clear Creek County and Summit County and are crossed by the Continental Divide Trail. Adding those lands to the National Forest will reduce possible conflicts and increase public access to areas of high recreational value. So, this exchange is not only in the interests of the city of Golden and its residents, but in the public interest as well. The bill also includes a provision under which the City would be authorized to start work on the pipeline while the exchange proceeds, and further provides that if for some reason the exchange cannot be completed, the city will buy the lands that are needed for the pipeline. I want to thank the leadership of the Resources Committee, especially Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for making it possible for the bill to be on the House floor today. It is a modest bill but one that is very important for the city of Golden and its residents. It is bipartisan and non-controversial, and I urge the House to agree to its passage so it can go to the president to be signed into law without further delay.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill, which would repeal a number of local laws adopted by the District of Columbia City Council and would prohibit the passage of similar local laws in the future. The laws in question deal with regulation of firearms. But that is not the reason for my opposition. Instead, I oppose the bill because I think its enactment would be an abuse of our authority as Members of Congress. Its effect would be to reduce the right of self-government for one group of Americans--those who reside in Washington, DC. I know 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 who will be immediately responsible for governing the city. I am convinced this was the right thing to do. I support home rule for Washington, DC, 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 bill flies in the face of that principle. It's true that the bill includes a ``finding'' that its enactment ``is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the rights of its citizens under the second amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.'' But I don't think that settles the matter. I take seriously my oath to uphold the Constitution. But I am not convinced that fidelity to that oath requires a vote to repeal these local laws--especially since as far as I know there has been no successful challenge to their constitutionality in all the years they have been on the books. And I certainly don't think fidelity to my oath requires me to support a reduction in the authority of the D.C. City Council to pass similar laws in the future, as this bill would do. Further, while there is plenty of room to debate whether repealing these particular laws would or would not enhance public safety--just as there is room to debate whether the laws themselves are desirable or effective--I think that debate should not take place here in Congress. The laws this bill would repeal were duly adopted by the elected government of the district and they have not interfered with the orderly functioning of the Federal Government. So, in my opinion, decisions about retaining, amending, or repealing these local laws should be made by the city council--a body that is elected by and accountable to the people who are subject to them. Instead, by passing this bill Congress would substitute its judgment 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, DC. We may not think these local laws are well- designed. But I think we should allow those covered by the laws to decide that for themselves.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Paul Tudor Jones II for his passionate dedication to conservation techniques and land stewardship practices of his Blue Valley Ranch located in Grand County, CO. Mr. Jones was the 2004 recipient of the Middle Park Land Trust Land Steward of the Year Award. This annual award is given to the Grand County, CO landowner who most exemplifies the mission of the Middle Park Land Trust in land management and conservation practices who help preserve Grand County's scenery, agriculture, water, wildlife and biodiversity for today and future generations. Mr. Jones first purchased a portion of the Blue Valley Ranch in 1994, he re-acquired the water rights and began a holistic approach to ranch management which includes wildlife conservation, agricultural production, stream enhancement, recreational activities and in essence, the preservation of our local heritage. The Blue Valley Ranch now encompasses 25,000 acres and is thriving. The primary focus of the Blue Valley Ranch is wildlife conservation. The ranch has worked in partnership with the Colorado Division of Wildlife on many projects including the reintroduction of antelope south of the Colorado River, sage grouse monitoring and habitat restoration, and wild turkey transplants on both public and private land. Habitat improvements for both wildlife and livestock have been prescribed burns, forest treatments, crops, and a rotational grazing system. Many miles of the Blue River and adjoining tributaries that were vulnerable to low flows, high temperatures, and predators have been restored to a more natural condition. It is a credit to Mr. Jones that agricultural production continues on the Blue Valley Ranch. Each year, the Ranch puts up hay and runs cattle as well as buffalo. On behalf of the residents of Grand County CO, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Paul Tudor Jones II for his dedication and commitment to land management and conservation practices and for being selected as the 2004 Middle Park Land Trust Land Steward of the Year Award.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the distinguished service of Ms. Barbara Volpe, President of the Public Education & Business Coalition (PEBC) in Denver, Colorado. Ms. Volpe has been working with the PEBC for 15 years. Under her leadership the organization has tripled its size and developed an outstanding national reputation. With Ms. Volpe's steady guidance the PEBC has successfully completed a merger between two non-profits, assembled a high-caliber, professional staff, and created extraordinary initiatives such as the Boettcher Teachers Program. Sadly, Ms. Volpe has decided that the time has come for her to leave the PEBC. Her dedication and commitment to her community serve as an inspiration to others in the field. I ask my colleagues today to join me in thanking Ms. Barbara Volpe for her outstanding leadership and service. She certainly deserves our utmost appreciation. Her presence at PEBC will surely be missed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill seeks to prevent any federal court--including the Supreme Court--from considering ``any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance . . . or its recitation.'' As we all know, introduction of the bill was prompted by the 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in what is known as the ``Newdon'' case. That decision held that the 1954 legislation adding ``under God'' to the pledge and a California school district's policy of daily recitation of the pledge with those words were both unconstitutional. (That court later modified the decision to apply only to the school district's recitation policy.) The school district and the United States both appealed to the Supreme Court--and on June 14th the Supreme Court reversed the decision, on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have legal standing to challenge the school district's policy. But the Republican leadership of the House evidently is afraid that somebody else might bring a similar lawsuit--and that prospect that is so alarming to them that they have brought forward this bill, which would prevent any federal court from hearing a lawsuit like that. I cannot support such legislation. It may or may not be constitutional--on that I defer to those with more legal expertise than I can claim. But I think it clearly is not just unnecessary but misguided and destructive. I have no objection to the current wording of the Pledge of Allegiance. After the court of appeals announced its decision in the Newdon case I voted for a resolution--approved by the House by a vote of 416 to 3--affirming that ``the Pledge of Allegiance and similar expressions are not unconstitutional expressions of religious belief'' and calling for the case to be reheard. But this bill is a different matter. The bill may be called the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' but that is not accurate. In reality, it not only fails to protect the pledge but also would undercut the very thing to which those who recite the pledge are expressing allegiance. The bill fails to protect the pledge because even if it becomes law people who don't like the way the pledge is worded would still be able to bring lawsuits in state courts--and the Supreme Court could not review how state's courts ruled on those suits. So, while Colorado's courts might uphold the current wording, the courts of other states might reach a different conclusion--meaning there would no longer be a single Pledge of Allegiance, but different pledges for different states, and the First Amendment's meaning would vary based on state lines. And that would be directly contrary to the very idea of the United States as ``one nation'' that should remain ``indivisible'' and whose defining characteristics are devotion to ``liberty and justice for all''--that is, to the very Republic (symbolized by the American flag) to which we pledge allegiance when we recite the pledge this bill pretends to ``protect.'' How ironic--and how pathetic. As national legislators, as Untied States Representatives, we can and should do better. We should reject this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Dede Barry of Boulder, Colorado. Dede represented our country in the Summer Olympic Games in Greece last month. While there she won the silver medal in the Women's Cycling Time Trials, a 14.9 mile road race, with a finishing time of 31 minutes and 35.62 seconds. Dede at a young age showed talent as an athlete not only in cycling but speed skating, which was her first sport. At the age of 13 she qualified for the Junior National Team in speed skating. As part of her cross training she began cycling in the summer and eventually competing during the summer when she was not skating. In 1989, she won the Junior World Cycling Championships. Eventually she chose to focus strictly on cycling. Since that time she has won two gold medals at the Pan American Games, two world championship medals and six national championship titles. By winning the silver medal in Women's Cycling Time Trials she became only the fourth road cycling medal won by an American woman cyclist. The sport of cycling has recently received increase exposure to the American public. However, most of that exposure has been in Men's cycling. Dede's silver medal win has opened doors to increase exposure to women's cycling and encouraging young girls to take up the sport. Again, I would like to congratulate Dede on her silver medal and thank her for so proudly representing our Nation and the State of Colorado in the Olympic Games.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a constituent of my district, Tyler Hamilton, who won the gold medal in the Men's Cycling Time Trials in Athens last month. Tyler finished the time trials with a time of 57 minutes and 37.74 seconds. Many of you in this chamber may remember Tyler in last year's Tour de France, when he finished fourth after he broke his collarbone in the first stage of the race. However, Tyler's athletic career did not begin with cycling. He began skiing competitively with the University of Colorado ski team in the early 1990s. However, after a mountain biking injury ended his ability to continue to ski competitively he turned to cycling. Within a year Tyler became the NCAA cycling champion. He has continued to compete in a series of stage and one-day races, including becoming the first American to win the Liege-Bastogne-Liege, an annual 165 mile race held in Belgium. Tyler is also actively involved with the Tyler Hamilton Foundation which works with the National Multiples Sclerosis Society and Junior Cycling. His foundation helps to provide care management for people affected by MS as well as promotes ways for people with MS to relieve social isolation and provides tools to live a fulfilling life while living with the disease. Tyler is also working to promote the sport of cycling in the United States so that young aspiring cyclists can make it over the many hurdles to reach success in the sport. His foundation is working to broaden exposure to the sport of cyclists and expand organized cycling for the youth of America. Tyler has made more than just a name for himself in the cycling world; he has made a name for the sport of cycling in the United States. I am sure I join many people in our Nation as I express pride and appreciation for all Tyler has done for the sport of cycling and particularly his admirable representation of our nation in the 2004 Summer Olympics Games.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in support of this resolution. The resolution notes that the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20 U.S.C. 808 et seq.) established within the Smithsonian Institution the National Museum of the American Indian and authorized the construction of a facility to house the National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall in the District of Columbia. It points out this will be the only national museum devoted exclusively to the history and art of cultures indigenous to the Americas, and will give all Americans the opportunity to learn of the cultural legacy, historic grandeur, and contemporary culture of Native Americans. And it officially recognizes that the new museum officially opens today. By its passage, Congress-- (1) recognizes the important and unique contribution of Native Americans to the cultural legacy of the United States, both in the past and currently; (2) honors the cultural achievements of all Native Americans; (3) celebrates the official opening of the National Museum of the American Indian; and (4) requests the President to issue a proclamation encouraging all Americans to take advantage of the resources of the National Museum of the American Indian to learn about the history and culture of Native Americans. Mr. Speaker, this day has been a long time coming--and passage of this resolution will make clear that it is all the more welcomed by all Americans. The resolution comes to us from the Senate, where it was introduced by Colorado's senior Senator, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Senator Campbell deserves our thanks, not only for this resolution but even more for his leadership in making this day a reality. He has earned the praise extended in two editorials that I am attaching for the information of our colleagues; [From the Rocky Mountain News Sept. 21, 2004] Campbell's Legacy Kudos to Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell for helping create the Smithsonian's spectacular new National Museum of the American Indian, which celebrates its grand opening today on the Washington Mall. While serving in the U.S. House 15 years ago, Campbell was asked to be a prime sponsor of the bill that authorized the museum. He was more than willing, but on one condition: the Smithsonian must first agree to return the remains of about 18,500 Native Americans to their tribes for burial, and other museums nationwide must do the same. The museums resisted, but Campbell prevailed. He also helped procure the $214 million needed to build the museum and fill it with artifacts. He deserves the place of honor he will enjoy at today's ceremonies.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is well- intentioned but I must reluctantly oppose it because I think it goes further than it should and because the House will have no opportunity to consider amendments that would narrow its scope. As it stands, the bill would not only prevent lawsuits related to personal injuries, but also evidently would apply to complains that rules adopted by these organizations unfairly discriminate against women or otherwise violate civil rights protected by the constitution or by federal laws. That this is a real possibility is made clear by the Judiciary Committee's report, which notes that ``To further clarify that this legislation only applies to a limited category of claims that arise out of activities on the field in sanctioned athletic competitions, an amendment may be added to this legislation before House floor action to further clarify that the liability relief is not intended to apply to civil rights and discrimination cases that challenge eligibility rules set by such organizations.'' Unfortunately, no such clarifying change was included--and now the bill is being considered under a procedure that prevents the House from considering any amendment. I also am concerned that the bill as it stands might also inadvertently protect individuals who could potentially harm children. During the Judiciary Committee markup, Representative Lofgren remarked that if a poor hiring rule was in place that did not screen out pedophiles, parents would be barred from suing the athletic association regarding that rule. Here again I think it would have been better for the House to be able to at least consider an amendment to address this point. Because of these problems, and because the only choice before us is to approve or disapprove the bill as it stands, I will vote against this measure in the hope that it can be reconsidered under a procedure that permits more extensive debate and consideration of amendments.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, a week from today, the Boulder laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology will celebrate their 50th anniversary. I rise today to honor NIST and its employees on this important occasion. It wasn't long ago that we celebrated the centennial of NIST's founding, which Congress marked with the passage of a resolution that Representative Morella and I sponsored. The National Institute of Standards and Technology was chartered by Congress on March 3, 1901 as the federal government's first physical science research laboratory. Scientists, engineers, and industrialists first advocated the establishment of a standards laboratory, pointing to the new challenges facing the U.S. as a rapidly industrializing world power. Today, I'd like to draw attention to the work of NIST's laboratories in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. In 1950, to address the lack of laboratory space, NIST established a cryogenic engineering laboratory and radio facilities on land donated by citizens of Boulder. NIST's Boulder facilities were expanded in the mid 1960s, when NIST and the University of Colorado (CU) joined forces to create the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA), a cooperative effort that has gained widespread recognition in atomic physics and other fields. The partnership between NIST and CU has led to some amazing discoveries. Beginning in the 1970s, the discipline of cooling and trapping atoms was established in part by experiments with electrically charged atoms by researchers at NIST's Boulder campus. This work inspired Dr. William Phillips and his team to demonstrate both the trapping and the cooling of atoms well below the temperature limits generally believed possible. Dr. Phillips was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for this work. In 1995, using these same techniques of laser cooling and trapping of atoms, scientists at JILA--NIST's Eric Cornell and CU's Carl Wieman-- cooled rubidium atoms to less than 1 millionth of a degree above absolute zero. This was 300 times lower in temperature than ever achieved before and created a new state of matter predicted decades ago by Albert Einstein and Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose. The Bose- Einstein condensate is widely hailed as one of the century's major achievements in physics, and has been honored with several internationally prestigious awards. All of this research has enabled the design and construction of one of the world's most accurate clocks, NIST F-1, which is used by NIST (in cooperation with the Naval Observatory) to maintain the nation's time standard. The NIST-F1 is so accurate that it will neither gain nor lose a second in 20 million years! It is approximately three times more accurate than NIST-7, the previous time piece for the nation. This precise time information is needed by such users as electric power companies, radio and television stations, telephone companies, air traffic control systems, the Global Positioning System, participants in space exploration, the Internet, and navigators of ships and planes-- all of whom need to compare their own timing equipment to a reliable, internationally recognized standard, which NIST provides. I'd also like to mention an interesting tale of ``technology transfer'' that has resulted from the time and frequency research in NIST's Boulder laboratories. In the early 1970s, NIST developed a time distribution system that placed a hidden time code on an unused part of the TV signal. While the system was not implemented, this technology provided the basis for closed captioning. In the following years, several networks, working with NIST, took up the project and developed convenient encoding equipment and improvements to the captioning format. Then in 1980, NIST, the American Broadcasting Company, and the Public Broadcasting System received Emmys from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for this development. Today the Emmy is proudly displayed at NIST's Boulder laboratories and is a wonderful example of federal research that led to significant commercial spin-offs. These are just some of the contributions NIST's Boulder laboratories have made to the nation in the half-century of their existence. NIST is poised to contribute to even greater advances in the 21st century. I will continue to call attention to the Boulder labs' contributions and the necessity of upgrading the facilities so that the Boulder scientists can continue to produce top-flight research. As the attached article from the Daily Camera notes, Washington scientists who were reassigned to the new Boulder labs in 1954 weren't happy about moving to what they thought was a ``scientific Siberia.'' It's remarkable what a difference fifty years can make. It turns out that NIST's arrival triggered a ``scientific renaissance'' that made Boulder the scientific hub it is today. I am proud to represent the scientific hub of Boulder and all the talented and dedicated scientists and employees who work at NIST, which has rightly been called a ``crown jewel of the U.S. government.'' I would like to express my congratulations again to NIST's Boulder labs for reaching this important half-century mark. [From the Daily Camera, Aug. 29, 2004] NIST at 50 federal labs helped turn boulder into tech center (By Todd Neff) Half a century ago this Sept. 14, President Dwight D. Eisenhower stepped before a new $4 million structure south of Boulder and dedicated the U.S. Department of Commerce's Boulder Laboratories. It was a landmark day for the city, then with a population of 20,000, and not just because it was the first visit to Boulder by a sitting president. The 10,000 people who braved the beating sun that Monday could not have known the Boulder labs would, over the course of the next 50 years, bring billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to the area. Nor could those present have imagined the role the labs would play in turning Boulder into a technology center. The lab's arrival in Boulder was a combination of good fortune and determined effort. Some of the good fortune was President Harry Truman's 1949 secret order to stop clustering major buildings in Washington, D.C., because of the threat of nuclear attack. Yet the National Bureau of Standards' Central Radio Propagation Laboratory needed room to grow. That laboratory, like other NBS labs, had a basic mission that hasn't changed: Establish the standards that form the basis of technological development. Without standards, radio stations would broadcast on one another's turf, manufacturers would have no means of assessing the quality of materials such as steel, and time synchronization critical to communications, navigation and information technology wouldn't be possible. As a Daily Camera editorial on Sept. 10, 1954, put it ``Of all the agencies of the government, the NBS is perhaps the greatest money-saving organization we have. Its huge cost of maintenance is offset many times by what it saves the government, business and the people in money, time and safety.'' With the Washington, D.C., area out of the question, NBS sought a small-town location with little radio noise, a university and a nearby transportation hub. Boulder, Charlottesville, Va., and Palo Alto, Calif., were the main contenders. Some of the key effort came from the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, led by Francis W. Reich. The chamber led a 1950 cash drive that raised $90,000--about $700,000 in today's dollars--in two weeks. They used $63,000 to buy 217 acres of pasture to donate to the federal government. Most of the rest bought the land east of Boulder that's now home to Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. The local money tipped the scales. Crews broke ground at the Boulder Labs in July 1952, finishing work in the spring of 1954. It turned out to be a good investment. A 2002 University of Colorado study projected that the labs would bring $2 billion in economic benefit to the state between 2001 and 2005--and $340 million to the city of Boulder alone. About 450 scientists and support staff--some from Washington, other from local NBS field offices--had moved in by the time Eisenhower rode up the Boulder Turnpike from his summer White House at Denver's Lowry Air Force Base. Yet those scientists weren't the first at the site. The Atomic Energy Commission, in a rush to build hydrogen bombs after the Soviet Union's successful nuclear tests, wanted a remote location to produce liquid hydrogen for its Los Alamos labs. It tapped NBS's Washington, D.C.-based Heat and Power Division to build a plant to produce liquid hydrogen. The plant began churning out the super-cold liquid in 1952 that would go into the world's first hydrogen bomb. When a nuclear scientists decided atomic bombs didn't need mass volumes of liquid hydrogen, the operation became the NBS's Cryogenic Engineering Laboratory in Boulder. By the Boulder NBS' 10-year anniversary in 1964, it employed 1,400 people in two major laboratories. One was the original Central Radio Propagation Laboratory, which tested radio-wave behavior and developed standards associated with all sorts of radio transmission and propagation, including weather radar. The second was the Cryogenics Engineering Laboratory. The names have all changed, often in mind-bending ways. For example, NBS' Central Radio Propagation Laboratory moved to the U.S. Weather Bureau in 1965, then became the Environmental Science Services Administration and, in 1970, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, as it's known today. The same 1965 move created the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, which did radio-spectrum work. Today, the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences labs make up the whole of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's presence in Boulder. The Cyrogenics Engineering Laboratory and a host of additions remained with the NBS until 1988, when NBS became the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST. Then there were the two NIST joint laboratories with the University of Colorado at Boulder. The Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, or JILA was created in 1962. Its researchers work in everything from astrophysics to atomic physics. It was two JILA scientists, Eric Cornell of NIST and Carl Wieman of CU, who won the 2001 Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of Bose-Einstein condensate, a new form of matter. The CU-NIST Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, or CIRES, was created in 1967 and focuses on atmospheric physics. NIST, NOAA and the smaller NTIA make up today's Boulder labs. Combined, they employ about 1,800 including full-time government researchers, visiting researchers and students. About 750 are associated with NIST, 1,000 with NOAA and 75 with NTIA. Research has evolved even faster than names. Bob Kamper, 71 a physicist who started at the labs in 1963 and rose to serve as NIST's director in Boulder from 1982 until his retirement in 1994, described how work evolved in the Cryogenics Division, where he started. First it was about liquid hydrogen for the U.S. nuclear- weapons program. But by the 1960s, superconductivity--in which certain materials have zero electrical resistance at extremely low temperatures--was a major research interest. Expertise in super-cold temperatures also led to work in metallurgy (metals become brittle when temperatures plummet), work that eventually became part of today's NIST Materials Reliability Division. Among its efforts, that division is investigating the causes of the World Trade Center collapse after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Efforts to establish the behavior of fluids at ultra-low temperatures became part of the NIST Physical and Chemical Properties Division. Kamper said that division played an important role in figuring out characteristics for new refrigerants in the wake of chlorofluorocarbon bans, for example. Superconductivity-bred expertise in magnetics led to more advanced superconductor work as well as broad research in computer-storage devices. NIST's $93 million 2004 budget includes $29 million from outside sources, such as other government agencies and technology companies. ``You very much worked on what people would pay for, which is why I would say there is very little dead wood,'' Kamper said. He said he doesn't think the research ethos has changed. ``We were pretty enthusiastic way back when, and talking to the youngsters now, I think they still are,'' Kamper said. ``They're very much absorbed in their work.'' John Richardson, 82, arrived in Boulder in 1952 to work in microwave physics. He moved into the new labs when they opened in 1954. Richardson said NBS's arrival in Boulder triggered a ``scientific renaissance,'' strengthening the University of Colorado, luring the National Center for Atmospheric Research to the city and fueling technology companies such as IBM and Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. Many Washington scientists reassigned to Boulder in the early 1950s were ``very anxious about it, because they viewed Boulder as a scientific Siberia,'' Richardson said. Half the staff left rather than come to Boulder, said Alan Shapley, 85. Shapley came to Boulder on an NBS scouting mission in the late 1940s and worked at what became NOAA until his retirement in 1983. ``There were very few who had ever heard of Boulder,'' Shapley said. But that changed quickly. Richardson said he and other Boulder labs researchers taught as adjunct professors at CU. The NBS presence attracted major scientific conferences to Boulder, as well, he said. ``Visitors came, saw the climate, saw the quality of life, and I have no doubt that many were persuaded to locate here, either individually or in business,'' he said. He calls NIST a ``crown jewel of the U.S. government.'' ``All our measurements and all our scientific progress ultimately can be traced back to NIST,'' Richardson said. ``If there were no NIST, it would have to be invented.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it is a cliche to say that there is no perfect legislation. But, to use another cliche, this bill seems to be an exception that proves that rule--because it is not only perfectly unnecessary but also a perfectly bad idea. The bill seeks to prevent any Federal court--including the U.S. Supreme Court--from deciding ``any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution'' of the part of the ``Defense of Marriage Act'' (DOMA) that says no State is required to give legal recognition to a same-sex relationship that is treated as a marriage under the laws of any other State. It also is intended to prevent any Federal court review of the constitutionality of this bill itself. That would mean that the State courts alone would have the power and responsibility for interpreting two Federal laws. I cannot support that. My opposition does not mean I think State court judges are not qualified to decide such questions. I have very high regard for their ability and for the vital role that the States and their courts play in our Federal system. But I have an even higher regard for the fact that each State is a part of a greater whole--of the United States--which make up one nation, based on the principles of ``liberty and justice for all,'' in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance. And this bill directly attacks that national unity, seeking to replace it with a system in which each of the 50 State supreme courts would be the final authority on important questions involving relations between the States and between the Legislative and Judicial branches of the Federal Government. This is not only unnecessary--no court, State or Federal, has ruled on DOMA--but both possibly unconstitutional and definitely dangerous. I say possibly unconstitutional because the Judiciary Committee's report and today's debate show there are strong disagreements about the constitutionality of the bill, even among Members with much greater legal expertise than I can claim. But while its constitutionality seems doubtful at best, I have no doubt about the bill's dangers and I am convinced that whether or not it is constitutional, it should be rejected. In reaching that conclusion, I find myself in agreement with our former colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Bob Barr. In a letter of July 19th, Mr. Barr notes the potential for the ``chaotic result'' of ``50 different interpretations reached by State supreme courts, with no possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing any incorrect interpretation'' of the Federal laws involved. But he then goes on to say that the ``principal problem'' with the bill is even worse: ``H.R. 3313 will needlessly set a dangerous precedent for future Congresses that might want to protect unconstitutional legislation from judicial review. . . . The fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if others follow the path set by H.R. 3313.'' I completely agree with than analysis. And Mr. Barr and I are not alone in that view. In more or less the same terms, it is echoed by many others, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Legal Momentum, and the Human Rights Campaign. Of course, this bill does have its supporters, and in fact may attract a majority when we vote today. But if today there is a majority for putting DOMA beyond Federal judicial review, tomorrow there may be a different majority with a different idea of what legislation should be given such status. Will tomorrow's majority want to protect future gun-control laws from the judges who struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act? Or will they want to prohibit the Federal courts from ruling on such matters as State immunity from certain lawsuits? Or might they seek to reverse Roe v. Wade or some other Supreme Court decision by passing a new law and prohibiting the courts from reviewing it? None of us can know the answers to those questions, because nobody knows what the future holds. But I am convinced that what we do today could shape the future in ways that could undermine the checks of the balances of the constitution and thus weaken the restraints on legislative power that protect the liberties of all Americans. And because I think it would be profoundly unwise to risk so much on such a radical experiment, I will vote against this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of one of this nation's great cinematic artists, composer Jerry Goldsmith. Mr. Goldsmith died on July 21, 2004 at the age of 75. He leaves behind a distinguished repertoire of outstanding and memorable film scores and television themes that are as recognizable as they are innovative. Scoring movies and television programs is a vastly underappreciated art form. Too often this music is considered as just another part of things that are popular but are only entertainment, not art. However, his scores, like the work of his colleague film and television composers, are essentially classical music pieces. As such, they should not be dismissed simply because they happen to be associated with films and television shows, which in fact are valid art forms. As anyone in the entertainment industry can attest, music is an essential and integral part of the final artistic product. It sets appropriate moods and tones and can help make action scenes more thrilling and tense as well as stir the emotions in more quiet interludes. Mr. Goldsmith was a master at the full range of his craft often creating path-breaking and innovative scores. The sound of his echoing trumpets for the soundtrack of the movie ``Patton'' has so permeated the culture that this music is now synonymous with military leaders. His spooky and menacing chants for the film ``The Omen,'' for which he won the Academy Award, is now standard for horror films. And his experimental use of electronics, woodwinds and percussion helped create the sense of ``other worldliness'' in the film ``Planet of the Apes.'' The fact that these musical themes and many others of his are so widely recognized and copied not only acknowledges his versatility and genius, but also underscores the legitimacy of the scoring craft. Jerry Goldsmith was born Jerrald Goldsmith on February 10th 1929 in Los Angeles, California. At the beginning of the 1940s, he took piano lessons from Jakob Gimpel and Mario Castelnuevo-Tedesco. While attending the University of California, he took classes with Mikols Rozsa, the famed composer of such films as ``Ben-Hur,'' ``Ivanhoe,'' ``El Cid'' and ``Spellbound.'' Mr. Goldsmith started his career at CBS television in the early 1950s as a clerk typist and eventually got assignments composing music for radio plays, and later for television broadcasts. He eventually wrote music for such famous television shows such as ``The Twilight Zone,'' ``Dr. Kildare,'' ``The Man From U.N.C.L.E.,'' ``The Waltons,'' ``Barnaby Jones,'' ``Star Trek: Voyager'' and ``Star Trek: The Next Generation.'' Mr. Goldsmith's first motion picture score was in 1957 for a long forgotten B-western named ``Black Patch.'' However, his first major recognition as a film composer did not occur until 1962 for his score of the Kirk Douglas film ``Lonely Are the Brave.'' That same year, he got his first Academy Award nomination for the film ``Freud.'' Throughout his career, he became associated with distinguished directors such as the late Franklin J. Schaffner who, with Mr. Goldsmith scoring, made ``Planet Of The Apes,'' ``Patton,'' ``Papillon,'' ``The Boys From Brazil,'' and ``Lionheart.'' He also worked on a number of Paul Verhoeven films including ``Total Recall,'' `Basic Instinct,'' and ``Hollow Man.'' He wrote the scores for director Fred Schepisi films ``The Russia House,' ``Mr. Baseball,'' ``Six Degrees Of Separation,'' and ``I.Q.'' And director Joe Dante gave Mr. Goldsmith the opportunity to show his talents for films like ``Twilight Zone: The Movie,'' ``Gremlins I and II,'' ``Innerspace,'' ``Explorers,'' ``The 'burbs,'' ``Matinee,'' and ``Small Soldiers.'' Mr. Goldsmith received 17 Academy Award nominations for his work starting in 1962 for ``Freud,'' and including his work on films such as ``Chinatown,'' ``Hoosiers,'' ``Basic Instinct,'' ``LA Confidential,'' and finally for his score of the animated ``Mulan'' in 1998. He won four Emmy Awards for his television work and was nominated for five Grammy Awards. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the life and work of Jerry Goldsmith. He was a national treasure. Although we will no longer get the opportunity to hear new scores from him, his musical legacy will live on in his recordings for generations.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today my fellow colleague from Colorado, Representative Beauprez, and I are 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 American 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 rise in reluctant support of this bill. I support what the bill attempts to preserve. Stock options have been an important way for companies to attract and retain talented workers. Many small, start-up companies--competing for employees with larger firms that can pay more--have been able to offset the advantage of these larger firms by offering stock options to their employees. I am not opposed to companies electing to expense stock options voluntarily--in fact, I voted for Representative Oxley's amendment today that clarifies the right of those companies to continue to do so. But with so many millions of our workers still depending on these options at a time when we need entrepreneurship and innovation more than ever, I believe that if we are going to require the expensing of options, we have to make sure it is done right. I am not an accountant, so I don't claim to know what is the ``right'' way to value options. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)--not Congress--is the appropriate institution to be addressing that question. I do know, however, that I have heard from constituents, business leaders, and small and large companies alike representing many industry sectors that they are concerned about how FASB's current proposal would value options. One business leader wrote to me that ``the FASB rule in its current form is unworkable, complex, extremely hard for investors to understand--let alone management to certify--and costly to implement.'' I also know that I have heard many concerns expressed about FASB's process in formulating the stock options expensing rule, and many calls for Congress to intervene to prevent FASB's current proposal from taking effect. Many expressing those concerns think that FASB strayed from its own mission to be objective in its decisionmaking. Mr. Chairman, this has left me and some of my colleagues in a quandary. While requiring the expensing of stock options might be the right course, it is the wrong course if it is done the wrong way. And with FASB moving ahead on its rule, I believe it is important to support this bill to send the message that FASB needs to slow down and work to come up with a standard that has broader support. So let me be clear that my support for this bill is based less on the bill's provisions than it is on what I believe are the inadequacies of the FASB proposal. A better bill would provide investors with the information they need, but without penalizing the entrepreneurial spirit and employee ownership that stock options make possible. The bill we are considering today does not include these improvements. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support making financial statements more accurate and transparent. But I also strongly believe that companies in Colorado and throughout this country have been able to innovate and contribute to the growth of our economy in part because of the stock option plans they have been able to offer to their employees. We must find the right way to value these options so as not to put this country's workers, their employees, and the economy in jeopardy.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I join my colleagues in congratulating the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for bringing this important resolution to the floor. As we have heard, 35 years ago today, the Apollo 11 mission landed on the Moon, and in that short 8-day mission we accomplished miraculous goals, and that mission has stood to inspire us for many years since. I am also reminded that on the same date in the 1970s, the Viking Mars Lander, the first time we reached Mars, also in penetrating our solar system, July 20, holds a special significance for us. As many of my colleagues have mentioned here, we have an opportunity now to rekindle that spirit, and that is certainly the intent, I think, of this resolution, as I look at my good friends from Texas. And I know that Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins and Neil Armstrong together would say it is on our shoulders to reinvigorate and lead NASA into this new century. And I look forward, as I stand here today, to working with a bipartisan group in the House with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), ranking member, with the NASA leadership, with the private sector, and with the public that has shown great interest to ratify a new vision for this century and to put the energy and the resources in place to implement that new vision. That new vision can, like President Kennedy's challenge in 1961, begin a new age of space exploration, inspire our Nation's youth to pursue math, science and engineering and stimulate our U.S. aerospace industry and underline the fact that we are a great Nation that has shown leadership in many, many sectors, including this important area. So again I want to join my colleagues in endorsing this very important resolution to honor the men and women who so gallantly have gone into outer space

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and I would like to elaborate upon the important issues that are involved in securing Israel and peace in the Middle East. As a strong supporter of Israel, I believe that Israel has every right to defend itself and that a security fence is an understandable response to three years of terrible suicide bombings and other attacks that Israeli citizens have suffered through. I also believe it was unfortunate that the issue of the fence was brought to the International Court of Justice at all. But the issue was brought to the ICJ, and the ICJ has now made its non-binding ruling. I am disappointed and puzzled that the opinion of the court does not seem to recognize very real Israeli security concerns. Nor does it tell us how Israel or any other state is supposed to defend itself from non- state threats. But I'm not certain that passing this resolution today will help to advance the cause of peace. And advancing the cause of peace would go a long way toward restoring our credibility in that part of the world where we need it most. To advance the cause of peace, the resolution might have mentioned the thousands of Palestinians who have also died in the violence of the last three years. To advance the cause of peace, the resolution might have mentioned that both parties have obligations under the Road Map. Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting merely that balance is valuable, and that it makes sense to seek points of commonality instead of to focus on those that drive us apart. I hope that the Administration can look beyond the ICJ ruling to pursue more vigorously the peace process that has stalled for too long.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade agreement. I support the trade agreement because it will open up markets for American goods and services. Our two countries already have a strong trade relationship--Australia is the ninth largest goods export market for the United States, with total trade close to $28 billion last year. The agreement will only strengthen this relationship further. Colorado, in particular, stands to gain from the agreement. Australia imported $113 million of goods and services from Colorado last year and is the 12th largest foreign market for Colorado. This agreement will only increase opportunities for Colorado businesses to find new markets for their goods and services. I support the bill because under the trade agreement, nearly all U.S. exports of manufactured goods will immediately become duty-free. Since manufactured goods currently account for 93% of total U.S. goods exports to Australia, this is significant. In fact, estimates are that the elimination of these tariffs could result in $2 billion per year in increased exports for our U.S. manufacturers. I am disappointed in provisions in the agreement on beef, but am encouraged that duties are gradually phased out. I am also disappointed in the agreement's provisions on wheat. I know that wheat growers are concerned about potential trade distortions and had urged negotiators to seek reform of the state trading enterprise, the Australian Wheat Board (AWB). Though the agreement doesn't reform the AWB, Australia did agree to work with the U.S. in the WTO to eliminate restrictions on the right of private entities to export agricultural products. This is a step in the right direction. I am concerned about potential precedents that this trade agreement could create. For instance, the trade agreement requires both countries to enforce their domestic laws on labor and environment. This is acceptable in this treaty, since Australia boasts strong labor and environment laws and good enforcement mechanisms. But this approach isn't acceptable in all agreements. I am disappointed that the Administration didn't apply the U.S.-Jordan agreement model to this agreement by including labor and environment standards within the text of the treaty itself. I am concerned about the potential precedent of the Administration meddling excessively in the internal affairs of a trading partner. With regard to this treaty, the USTR initially sought substantial changes in Australia's drug-pricing program. Though USTR was not completely successful, the agreement does give U.S. drug companies more say in what drugs are included under Australia's universal drug coverage program. While market access for U.S. goods is important, we shouldn't be in the business of bullying the world and potentially undermining a country's ability to provide prescription drugs to its citizens. Precedent is also a concern with regard to the agreement's incorporation of the U.S. law that protects the right of drug companies to prevent importation of products on which they own patents. Although this is of no practical concern in this agreement given Australia's own laws prohibiting the export of its subsidized drugs, I hope the Administration doesn't plan to use this trade agreement to reinforce its opposition to imported drugs. I don't understand why the Administration included the patent law provision, and I hope we won't see this in future agreements. I don't believe that the concerns I have listed outweigh the potential good of the bill, so I will vote in support of it today. It is not perfect, but I believe it represents an agreement that is essentially free and fair. Expanded trade is important to this country and the world, but it will only be beneficial to a broad range of people in our nation and in other nations if it is carefully shaped to include basic standards and protect workers' rights and the environment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Lundy Foundation (Colorado) for its work, in partnership with Africa Bridge (Oregon), Godfrey's Children (Tanzania) and the Executive Council of Idweli (Tanzania), in building and operating a Children's Center in Idweli, Tanzania. Idweli is similar to many rural villages in East Africa in that a significant portion of the population consists of children affected by HIV/AIDS. In fact, more than one-third of Idweli's children have been orphaned by HIV/AIDS. As their top priority, the children of Idweli identified building a children's center where orphaned and vulnerable children can feel loved and cared for. The Children's Center has now become a reality. The Center will provide temporary shelter for children infected or affected by HIV/AIDS, as well as provide adequate food, healthcare and primary education for orphans and other vulnerable children. The Idweli Children's Center complex will consist of a small hall with a kitchen, dining room and a space for community gatherings, two dormitories that will provide housing for 48 children and four adults, two lavatories and space for recreation, health care, and education. There is also land available for cultivating vegetables and other crops. Skilled laborers in the village are building the Center by hand. All land used for this complex was donated to the Children's Center by the village of Idweli. While $70,000 in private funds has been raised for construction and operation of the complex, $81,000 is still needed to complete the project. A matching grant of $35,000 has been pledged, if $50,000 can be raised from other sources. Additionally, grants have been submitted to the Tanzanian government and USAID for matching grants to cover ongoing costs of operating the Center. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is particularly serious in Africa as millions of children and adults are living with the disease without adequate support or resources. I would like to commend British Airways and First Data Western Union Foundation for their support of the project and expression of social responsibility. It is vital that public and private funding from the United States continues in order to slow the spread of this epidemic in Africa, while ensuring those infected with the disease receive proper care. I would like to praise the Lundy Foundation for its tremendous efforts in East Africa. It has not only financial resources to the project, but also project management and organizational development expertise. Through its work, the Lundy Foundation has been able to support the partnership in managing change, resolving conflict, and encouraging effective communication, as bridges are built between two different cultures. The Lundy Foundation has achieved a great deal not only in East Africa, but throughout the African continent. I know that the Lundy Foundation will be successful as it continues in its quest to make the world a better place.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I have got to tell you I am disappointed with this bill, but I do have to also tell you I support it, because it does more for our manufacturing sector than the administration is doing now. As my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), mentioned, the essence of the bill is a version of legislation I introduced last year, the America Manufacturing Works Act; but unlike my bill, this bill does little more than provide an authorization for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. We could have and should have done so much more, such as authorizing the widely supported ATP program, strengthening the MEP program, which we are discussing now, authorizing an independent study on outsourcing and bolstering our manufacturing workforce education, among many other things. Still, though, reauthorizing MEP is critical. It is one of the most successful Federal-State partnerships in government; and at a time when our manufacturing base is threatened, it makes no sense to eliminate a program that helps small and mid-sized American manufacturers modernize in order to compete in the demanding global marketplace they face. Whether for reasons of substance or politics, this administration has finally recognized that eliminating MEP is a bad idea. Now, of course we will not know how sincere they are until we see the proposed funding levels for fiscal year 2006. But today this House has an opportunity to save this important program. The Chairman, my good friend from New York, mentioned the reauthorization of the funding for NIST core laboratory programs; and this is important because as he knows and we all know, NIST worked to set standards and put measurement activities together to directly support the U.S.'s manufacturing base. I am troubled, and I know the chairman knows I am, that we have refused to include specific amounts for the construction funding at NIST's Boulder campus, and in the past he has indicated his support for construction funds; and I hope that as we move forward he and I can work together so that such language translates into something meaningful. In conclusion, as I did say, I support this bill. I believe it is a modest and narrow effort to support this country's manufacturing base. We have much more work to do, but this is a first step; and I urge its passage today. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished leader of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this rule. It makes in order only three of the 10 Democratic amendments offered. The essence of the bill, as well as many of the amendments offered at the Committee on Rules, were derived from legislation I introduced last year, the American Manufacturing Works Act, a bill that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) cosponsored before introducing his own bill 4 months later. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I must say that I am flattered that so much of the bill we are considering today originated from my bill and from Democratic efforts. But the imitation and flattery stopped during the committee markup, during which it was made clear that amendments not acceptable to the administration would not be viewed favorably. This is despite the fact that the amendments being offered made good policy sense and were endorsed, in many cases, by manufacturing groups, such as the Modernization Forum, which presumably have some knowledge about what the manufacturing sector needs to regain its health. So along with many others, I offered an amendment that was voted down in the committee. My amendment recognized that one of the most critical elements of our manufacturing competitiveness is to have a technically trained workforce. This amendment would have expanded the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technology Education Program to include the preparation of students for manufacturing jobs. Now, apparently, the Committee on Rules determined, as the Committee on Science majority already did, that providing training for our workforce is not important. The Committee on Rules also determined that we do not need a study assessing trends related to outsourcing and that we do not need to authorize the Advanced Technology Program, a program that the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), support and that they recommended in testimony before the Appropriations Subcommittee be funded at $169 million. The committee's decision, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, seems shortsighted, especially since the manufacturing sector is still suffering. In fact, 11,000 manufacturing jobs were lost last month, for a total of 2.7 million jobs lost over the last 3 years. Mr. Speaker, as I conclude, it is obvious this rule does not give Members an opportunity to improve the bill. It seems like the majority is more interested in getting the bill's provisions right in order to meet the administration's requirements than they are interested in getting the bill right. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this bill. Parts of the bill advance good policy. The most welcome provision in the bill is the $106 million included for the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP), a program the Administration has tried to eliminate for several years. Last year, MEP served more than 18,000 small manufacturers across the country. In 2002, MEP assistance resulted in $2.79 billion in increased/retained sales, $681 million in cost savings, $940 million investment in modernization, and 32,000 jobs created and retained. 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. While it is overdue, the appropriators' acknowledgement of MEP's importance is welcome--especially as manufacturers continue to experience tough economic times. The bill also provides essential funding for the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, as well as for Office of Justice programs such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance program. The bill improves on the President's request in some cases. It includes funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and state and local law enforcement assistance--less than the current funding level for these programs, but at much higher levels than the request. I do hope that conferees will see fit to increase funding to current levels for these programs in the final version of the bill. On the international side, I'm pleased that the bill increases funding for education and cultural exchange programs, which are the most effective public diplomacy programs we can fund, and that it directs the State Department to establish a new permanent office to plan for reconstruction and post-conflict stability, making clear the preeminent role of the State Department--not the Pentagon--in such planning. The bill also includes important language prohibiting any funds from being used in any way to support or justify the use of torture by any U.S. government official or contract employee. It also directs the Justice Department's Inspector General to submit a report to Congress detailing all internal and interagency documents regarding the obligation to the U.S. under the Geneva Conventions and related international agreements. I'm glad that the House supports this critical provision on a bipartisan basis, as the Administration to date has refused to provide these documents. But I only reluctantly support this bill for the reasons I have expressed year after year--namely, that it attacks the Department of Commerce laboratories in my district in Colorado, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The trend of cutting these agencies to the bone continues. It continues not because there is fat to cut at these facilities, but because the Subcommittee allocation simply doesn't provide enough money to go around. Under the bill as it stands, the NIST and NOAA laboratories will see more jobs lost and more cuts in funding. The bill cuts NIST fully 15 percent from last year's levels. Funding for NIST's Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS)--at $376 million--is at least 9 percent below the request. Never mind that the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, which the House will pass this week, includes $425 million in FY2005 for STRS. The bill includes funding for important construction projects, but at levels 18 percent below the request. The bill reduces NOAA funding by $543 million--a 15 percent cut from FY2004 levels. The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which funds the important work being conducted in the labs in my district, is funded at $319 million in the bill--12 percent below the request level, and 16 percent below FY2004 levels. The bill zeros out funding for Abrupt Climate Research and Paleoclimate research, and the overall NOAA budget for climate and global change research has been reduced by an additional $6 million. These NOAA research programs are vital to improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change-- something the president has said is a priority for his administration. In addition to concerns about reduced funding for NOAA, I am also concerned about language included in the bill's report. The report notes: ``The Committee continues to believe that resource limitations require NOAA to act expeditiously on laboratory consolidation. The Research Review Team report provides a necessary first step toward rationalization of the enterprise-wide research effort.'' As far as I am aware, the Committee has never provided a definition for ``laboratory consolidation.'' If done because of ``resource limitations,'' it seems to me that ``consolidation'' is just a code word for program elimination. I will continue to fight to ensure that before NOAA takes any steps in this direction, it must provide Congress with further explanation as to the reasons for and outcomes expected from such action. Mr. Chairman, clearly I have deep concerns about the parts of this bill that affect my district and that affect science and technology funding at the Department of Commerce. But the bill includes funding for many other deserving programs. So I will vote for this bill, and will work to see that it is improved in conference.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of the Thorne Ecological Institute (TEI), its record of providing ecological education and environmental awareness to countless numbers of young people, and its development of forward-looking environmental policies. I believe that many of the problems which face our Nation can be solved through better understanding and awareness of our natural surroundings. For 50 years, the Thorne Ecological Institute has been dedicated to fulfilling this goal by giving hands-on experience to children and adults in Colorado. In 1954, Dr. Oakleigh Thorne, II, established the Thorne Ecological Institute in hopes of bringing environmental education to the community of Boulder, Colorado. He taught a variety of courses at the University of Colorado at Boulder, working to increase his students' understanding of the environment and its complex interrelationships. His goal was to ``connect people to nature,'' and the last 50 years have seen this goal met with great success. To this day, the Thorne Ecological Institute maintains its commitment to environmental education, now with a focus on children and young people in the Colorado's Front Range. Innovative programs like Project BEAR--Building Environmental Awareness and Respect--reach inner-city children and establish a connection with the wonders of nature, an invaluable accomplishment and contribution to our society. In addition to their outstanding efforts with children, the Institute was a catalyst in establishing environmental organizations in Colorado, including the first chapters of the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and the Denver Audubon Society. These organizations have been essential to the protection and promotion of Colorado's environment, and their impact is a direct result of Dr. Thorne's pioneering work. I would also like to recognize the Thorne Ecological Institute for its innovation within environmental policy. The City of Boulder has been honored nationally for its policy of buying open-space to ensure a high quality of life for its residents. We must remember, though, that the Institute played a critical role in developing this landmark policy. Moreover, long before the Environmental Protection Agency required environmental impact studies, the TEI was conducting them in Colorado to increase understanding of the consequences of commercial development and to lay the foundation for their mitigation. Mr. Speaker, environmental understanding and protection of environmental quality are things close to my heart--and the Thorne Ecological Institute has been at the forefront of the environmental movement in the Rockies for 50 years. Under the leadership of Dr. Oakleigh Thorne, II, the TEI has fulfilled the dream of connecting people to nature. I congratulate the Thorne Ecological Institute for its accomplishments and ask my colleagues to join me in appreciation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize Mr. Penfield Tate III of Denver, CO, for his outstanding career of public service and his inspiring role as father and husband. I would like to thank him on behalf of all Coloradans for the depth and diversity of contributions he has made to ensure our public life. Before my election to Congress, I served in the Colorado House of Representatives with a number of remarkable individuals who made a difference through their legislative excellence. I also served with some legislators noted for their warm, energetic personalities. However, in my experience there are very few people as gifted-- personally and professionally--as Pen Tate. Every day I worked with him reaffirmed the ideal qualities of a public official: idealistic, caring, optimistic, intelligent and principled. Spirited in debate, Pen was, nevertheless, always a gentleman, being open-minded and respectful to everyone with whom he worked. As a state representative, state senator, and mayoral candidate he was a tireless seeker for solutions to some of Colorado's most pressing problems, and a peerless advocate for children, seniors, workers, and civil rights, causes he championed both in and out of the State Capitol. Since ending his tenure in the Colorado Legislature, Pen has returned to his law practice in Denver. He has also been given more time to spend with his wife Faye and daughter Elleana. Although he has returned to life as a private citizen, Pen remains as dedicated to his causes today as he was during his time in the legislature. He is active in many charitable organizations and gives generously to his community. Not surprisingly, Pen's contagious combination of effective legislator and humanitarian has inspired members of his community to award him numerous civic distinctions. His unyielding pursuit of justice and equality was recognized with the 2003 Civil Rights Award given by the Anti-Defamation League. Most recently, Pen was awarded the 2004 Father of the Year by the National Father's Day Council and the American Diabetes Association. This impressive award is only a token of appreciation to a man who dedicates so much of his time to his family. I am attaching a newspaper report of this honor. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting such an honorable person and his distinguished career in public service. My family and I wish him, his wife, Faye, and their daughter, Elleana, good health and happiness in their future together. [From the Denver Post, June 19, 2004] A Tip of the Hat to Tate the Dad Mayoral adviser is one of six men honored as regional Fathers of the Year (By Erin Cox) For Elleana Tate, daughter of Denver lawyer and former state senator Penfield Tate III, it only takes a little task for Daddy to make her happy. ``Tuck me in,'' said 14-year-old Elleana, flashing her smile at her father. Tate, nestled next to his disabled daughter on a couch in his 27th-floor downtown Denver office, looked at her with soft eyes. ``Tuck you in still?'' Tate said, beaming. Tate, partner in a Denver law firm, adviser to Mayor John Hickenlooper, winner of a 2003 Civil Rights Award and former state senator, is first and foremost a father. The National Father's Day Council and the American Diabetes Association honored him as a 2004 Father of the Year, along with five other Denver men. ``It sometimes feels strange to get honored for the things you ought to do,'' Tate said in his acceptance speech Tuesday night. The diabetes association also named Jeffrey Campos, Thomas Dyk, Steve Kelley, Jay Leeuwenburg and Sam Pegues as regional Fathers of the Year. The National Father's Day Council was established in 1931 to promote the then little- known Father's Day holiday and has been honoring exceptional fathers across the nation since 1942. Tate was selected for the award because of his ability to balance his personal life with a successful career, organizers said. Tate's list of qualifications for what makes a Father of the Year is a little different. ``You have to be loving. You have to be patient, generous, consistent and persistent,'' he said. ``It's a continual reinforcing of things.'' Elleana, who has mild cerebral palsy and limited eyesight, spends a lot of time with Tate getting that reinforcement and fatherly support. Born premature, Elleana has made frequent trips to hospitals and surgery rooms during her life. Tate is always there. ``I'm bouncing off the walls, and he's very reasoned, measured, thoughtful,'' said Elleana's mother, Faye Tate. The struggles with Elleana's health and its potential limits have brought Elleana and her father close. She has been by Tate's side on the campaign trail and at his law firm. Little exceeds Tate's affection for his daughter, whose artwork hangs on the door of his office. ``He spends a lot of time instructing Elleana,'' Faye Tate said. ``He lets her do everything. He lets her try everything.'' Elleana was barely out of the toddler stage when she rode her first horse, with the urging of her father and despite her mother's fears. Tate believes there is no other way to parent. ``I don't know what she can or can't do until she tries. I don't know what she likes until she tries it,'' he said. Tate's grandfathers and father shaped his approach to fatherhood. As a child, Tate spent summers with his three sisters and cousins at his grandfather Tate's farm, where his grandfather ``was everybody's babysitter. He spent a lot of time talking to you. They really made sure you were connected to family,'' Tate said. Tate's maternal grandfather, an immigrant from Jamaica, taught him to keep contact with extended family, and Tate's own father, Penfield Tate II, taught him about friendship. ``My dad was my best friend. He was my law partner and best man at my wedding,'' Tate said. Tate and Elleana are best friends, too. ``We keep secrets from Mom sometimes,'' Tate said. ``We talk about boyfriends now, and boys.'' Elleana wiggled on the couch and gave an enthusiastic nod at the subject. She and her dad share a special language. ``They talk in code,'' said Tate's sister, Paula Tate. ``We'll hide under the pillows and just talk about stuff,'' he said. A father must be ``firm and fair. And playful,'' Tate said. Tate brushes off the feat of balancing an impressive public career and the role of loving father. ``It's all a matter of scheduling,'' he said. ``When you work, you work. When you're home, you're home,'' he said. Even though fatherhood is a job in itself. ``You really have to enjoy being a dad,'' Tate said. ``It's too much work not to enjoy it.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time. I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), the manager of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the bill does not provide for any new investigations or other projects by the Corps of Engineers. However, as the chairman knows, last year's energy and water bill included $40,000 for the Corps to proceed with a preliminary restoration plan for South Boulder Creek. After enactment of the appropriations bill, at the request and recommendation of the Corps, the project was moved from section 206 to programming as a General Investigation Study. The President's budget then proposed an additional $100,000 for this General Investigation Study. I regret that money for that purpose is not included in the bill because recent technical analysis shows that some 2,500 homes in the study area are subject to possible flood damage. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about how interruption of funding could affect this project and the people who live in the area. So, I would like to ask whether the chairman would be willing to work with me as the bill goes to conference to try to enable the Corps to do its work.

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