Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. I would like to ask the same question of the distinguished ranking member.

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

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 issues that are involved in securing Israel and peace in the Middle East. I support the statements in the resolution declaring that the United States is strongly committed to the security of Israel and its well- being as a Jewish state and that there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until Israel and the Palestinians, and all countries in the region and throughout the world, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. I think it is vitally important that the resolution reemphasizes the U.S. commitment to the security of Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders, and to preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any threat. However, I am concerned about the perception that the President's letter prejudges the final outcome of negotiations on issues like borders and refugees. It's important to recognize that Prime Minister Sharon's plan cannot be seen as a substitute for negotiations, that it is a first step, not the last. The plan can provide a window of opportunity, a short-term opening that might enable the two parties to return to the negotiating table. Only there, through mutual agreement, can Israel and the Palestinians resolve some of the most sensitive issues--and only then can there be real peace and security for Israel, which is so vital for Israel, the region and for the United States.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution which recognizes the importance of suicide prevention and raising awareness of suicide within the nation. Suicide occurs in our nation at a rate of 30,000 suicides annually and kills youth six nine times more often than homicide. It is also the second fastest growing cause of death among college-age students. However, studies have shown that 95 percent of suicides are preventable. It is a silent epidemic that is preventable and awareness is the key to that prevention. There are several programs throughout the country which put in hundred of hours, most from volunteers, to provide support services to prevent suicide as well as support to the families and friends who have lost loved ones to suicide. I would like to highlight one of these organizations which is based in my district in Colorado, but works throughout the country and internationally. The Yellow Ribbon International Suicide Prevention Program' provides resources to teachers, parents, and those at the most risk of suicide. They go into schools to raise the level of discussion about suicide and ways to seek help. The more suicide is talked about, the more likely those thinking about suicide will take action and ask for assistance. Many who are considering suicide do not know where to turn for help, or even how to ask for help. Under the Yellow Ribbon International Suicide Prevention Program, Yellow Ribbon Ask 4 Help cards are made available to schools, teachers, counselors, and parents. These cards provide a simple way for individuals to ask for help, especially for those who cannot utter the words ``I need help.'' It is also important to remember that suicide does not only affect our youth, but people throughout the phases of life. In fact, the largest number of suicide deaths occurs among men between the ages of 35-44. The National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, within the Department of Health and Human Services recommends and encourages organizations to expand there service to focus on elementary ages as well as the elderly. My concurrent resolution recognizes the importance of suicide prevention and awareness, as well as reaffirms the commitment to the priorities expressed in H. Res. 212 and S. Res. 84 which were both passed in the 105th Congress. Lastly this bill states that the week of September 19, 2004 should be recognized as Yellow Ribbon Suicide Awareness and Prevention Week. I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation to help prevent suicide and to wear a yellow ribbon the week of September 19, 2004 to raise awareness of this global epidemic.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a House resolution supporting 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 23, 2004 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 is requiring nurses, surgeons and hospitals throughout the country to adopt this protocol beginning 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. 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 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--and that is the purpose of this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I considered offering an amendment dealing with RS 2477 claims that was printed in the Record. I will not offer that amendment today, but I do want to briefly explain the problem that it was intended to address. Last year, the House adopted a similar--not identical, but similar-- amendment. Unfortunately, it was dropped in conference. So, the original need for an amendment remains. The need is to protect not just Federal lands but also private property and the public interest. All three are threatened by the plans of the Interior Department to go ahead with back-room land deals that fly in the face of Congressional intent. The Interior Department would do this by issuing ``disclaimers of interest''--documents like deeds that cede land--under new rules that allow the disclaimers to be issued to applicants who wouldn't have been eligible before. And the Interior Department has announced it is ready to give those ``disclaimers'' to parties seeking them in order to clear the way for building roads under an 1866 law. That law--one of the 19th-century laws to promote settlement in the West--granted rights-of- way ``for the construction of highways'' on Federal lands. It later became section 2477 of the Revised Statues--or RS 2477. It was repealed in 1976, but the repeal did not affect existing rights, and did not set a deadline for claiming those rights. So, there is no way of telling how many claims might be made or what lands could be affected. RS 2477 claims can involve not just Federal lands but also lands that once were Federal but that now belong to other owners. That includes millions of Acres that now are ranches or farms, or residential subdivisions, or single-family homes, or private cabins in the mountains like ones owned by some of my constituents. Also at risk are millions of acres in the National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as wilderness areas and areas that deserve protection and as wilderness areas. This problem is not new, but it is very serious. It needs to be resolved--but not the way the Interior Department wants to resolve it. What the Interior Department wants is to negotiate in secret and then issue the ``disclaimers'' I described. They started that process with the State of Utah. And other parties--including the current Administration in Colorado--are starting to ask for deals of their own. That is the wrong way to resolve this. What is needed is for Congress to settle it with new legislation-- which is what Congress told the Clinton administration when they tried to handle it administratively. To make sure they got the message, Congress passed a law that says any new RS 2477 rules must be authorized by Congress. That law is still on the books--and repeating that message would be the purpose of the amendment. The Administration says that message is irrelevant. They say they can go forward, in the face of that law passed by Congress. Others disagree. For starters, a recent GAO opinion says that the Interior Department's agreement with Utah violates that law. The Interior Department says they think GAO is wrong about that. But whether GAO is right or wrong, one thing is for sure--if the Interior Department goes ahead on its present course, it is headed for nothing but more litigation. The best way to resolve this issue is by enacting new legislation, after public hearings and open debate. That's why I have introduced a bill--H.R. 1639--to do just that. My bill would set a deadline--four more years--for filing RS 2477 claims. It would establish a fair, open administrative process for handling those claims. And it would set another deadline for any lawsuit challenging the result of that administrative process. Maybe my bill could be improved, and some of our colleagues may want to propose their own ideas--that is the legislative process. And that is how this issue should be resolved, not by backroom deals or clever maneuvers to try to side-step Congress. Instead of trying to side-step Congress, the Administration should work with the Resources Committee and the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to impose on the time of the House by calling for a vote on this amendment today. Still, the problem has not gone away. Congress should address it--and sooner, or later, we will have to address it. For the moment, however, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to seek to have the Resources Committee address the issue. I yield back any time I have remaining.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is important for everyone, because all Americans have a stake in the work of the agencies that if funds. But it is especially important for Coloradans and the residents of the other Western States that have large Native American populations and that are so immediately and directly affected by the management of the Federal lands. So, I would like to be able to support the bill--but, regretfully, the bill falls too far short of what is needed for me to be able to do so. My opposition to the bill does not reflect any lack of respect of Chairman Taylor or for our colleague from Washington, Mr. Dicks, the distinguished and able ranking member of the subcommittee. I think that in general they have done the best they could with the very limited allocation of funds that was made available to them. In particular, I think they should be commended for their efforts to provide funds for reducing the hazardous fuels that have built up in our forests and for responding to wildfires that threaten so many western communities. However, in many other areas the bill falls far short of what I think should be acceptable. It does not provide enough for the essential operations of the National Park System or the other parts of the Federal lands that provide recreational opportunities for so many people, as well as supplying the fresh water and sound habitats that are essential for fish and wildlife. And it conspicuously fails to make the necessary investments, including land acquisitions and other steps, needed to respond to the increased stress on open spaces and natural resources from the rapid and ongoing population growth in Colorado and other States. This failure breaks the promises of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and flies in the face of the more recent agreement between the appropriations committee and the large majority that voted for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act sponsored by our colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young. And, even worse, it also breaks faith with the future and with the future generations that would be the beneficiaries of those investments. For example, we should be providing funds to complete the acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook watershed that the city of Golden, Colorado, has agreed to sell for inclusion in the National Forest System. We also should provide funds to complete the acquisition of the lands that are to become part of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve and to constitute the new Baca National Wildlife Refuge, as well as to complete other needed acquisitions in other parts of Colorado. But, instead, the bill includes no funds at all for these or any other acquisition projects--not only in Colorado but anywhere else. This is not acceptable. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that today is not the end of the story. The Senate still has to act on this appropriations bill, and I expect that a revised version of the legislation will come before the House at a later date. My hope is that the result of that progress will be a bill that is sufficiently improved that it will deserve the support of the entire body. For the time being, however, I cannot support this bill and will vote against it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, Congress definitely needs to respond to the retaliatory tariffs imposed on American exports because of the World Trade Organization's rulings addressed by this bill. But, we do not need to pass the bill as it stands--in fact, we shouldn't. The bill is unbalanced and excessive. It includes provisions that could provide new incentives for American companies to move overseas. I am concerned that it could allow companies to simultaneously outsource much of the work needed to make a product and at the same time benefit from a tax break for ``domestic production.'' The bill is unduly tilted toward large companies rather than the small businesses that are the source of most jobs in our country. It also includes billions of dollars worth of new narrow special-interest tax breaks, as well as other provisions that supposedly will raise revenue to offset the corporate tax incentives. Those offsets include provisions for outsourcing IRS debt collection, which I think is a bad idea, and creating additional paperwork for charitable contributions. Of course, the bill also includes desirable provisions. If they stood alone, or were part of a bill that otherwise was acceptable, I would be happy to vote for the legislation. And I did support the motion to recommit, which would have greatly improved the bill. If the motion to recommit had been adopted, the result would have been to provide an incentive to manufacturers to keep jobs in the United States by reducing corporate tax rates for domestic production by 3.5 percent. The motion to recommit also would have removed the provisions that provide incentives to move jobs overseas and the targeted special interest provisions. It would have provided better treatment for small businesses, farming cooperatives, and domestic manufacturers. At the same time, the motion to recommit would have retained such desirable provisions as those extending small business expensing, the research and development tax credit, and renewable energy credits as well as the same temporary foreign income repatriation provisions as those in the Senate-passed version of this legislation. Unfortunately, the motion to recommit was not successful, and so I cannot support this bill in its present form. I expect that a conference committee will be appointed to resolve differences between this bill and corresponding legislation passed by the Senate. I hope that this will result in a revised and improved version that deserves enactment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from New Mexico because I share his concern on the extent to which the proposed regulations would revise the system of forest planning put in place during the Reagan administration. There are many reasons to support this amendment, but I want to focus for a couple of minutes on the reduction of public involvement that I believe would result from this amendment not being passed. The National Forest Management Act was landmark legislation that greatly increased the extent to which the public could hold the Forest Service accountable. It included a mandate for the agency to base its management decisions on sound science on one hand and, on the other hand, to ensure extensive public participation in the forest planning process. If we truly look at these new regulations, they would downgrade forest plans and effectively exempt them from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and would thus limit opportunities for public involvement. This amendment, if we really look at it, would just simply impose a moratorium on the proposed new regulations. And I think that makes good sense because whatever the problems with the current planning regulations, I do not think they should be just swept away without more intensive oversight by this body and by the other body; and that has occurred so far. This is particularly important because these new regulations were developed without any input from a committee of scientists; and this is a stark departure, a stark departure, from the process that has been used in connection to the development of any other changes in the National Forest Management Act regulations. In fact, during the public comment process, many of the scientists on whom we depend asked for the withdrawal of these proposed new regulations. So, in short, this amendment just simply maintains the public involvement that I think we all value and we all acknowledge has been important, because, as my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee) pointed out, it gives the taxpayers, who, by the way, own this land, a chance to be involved, and if we pass this amendment, we maintain that public involvement while we in the Congress take time to look further at these proposed changes. There has been a lot of talk here about forests and forest management as we move into a new fire season. This amendment would not change the work that is under way in managing our forests more effectively, given the 100 years that we have faced of suppressing wildfire, not understanding the ecological processes in our forests. This does not prevent that planning from proceeding, it does not prevent us from responding. My colleague from Washington also talked about the need for more resources so we can do the requisite thinning and fight the fires when they start. So, in sum, this amendment ought to be supported. We ought to maintain public involvement in this important process. The past has proven that this process works. I urge adoption of the Udall amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to underline the point that independent scientific review has led us to make many of the right decisions so our forests are protected and our lands are managed in a way for the long-term interests of future generations. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Udall amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4545, the so-called ``Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004.'' My opposition is based both on grounds of the bill's content and the process by which it has been considered. I don't believe this bill is good policy, nor do I think it should have been brought up in a way that severely limited debate and completely eliminated the opportunity for the House to even consider any amendments. The bill's title--gasoline price reduction--is more of a slogan than an accurate description of the measure. And like any good advertising slogan, it has a certain appeal. But it is not an example of truth in advertising. I do believe that the bill's authors had the right goals in mind when drafting this bill. But reducing the ``proliferation'' of boutique fuels won't affect today's high gas prices. According to EPA, clean air protections add, at most, a nickel to the price of a gallon of gasoline. There are many other factors that can affect supply and price, such as merger activity, refinery shutdowns, and pipeline capacity. Besides, gas prices have risen across the nation, not just in states with cleaner fuel requirements. The bill we are considering today would amend the Clean Air Act by allowing the EPA and the Department of Energy to grant waivers to states, if there is a fuel shortage, to use fuel or fuel additives, which might contribute to air pollution. The bill would give the EPA Administrator authority to waive cleaner-burning gasoline or diesel requirements indefinitely if there is a ``significant fuel supply disruption,'' a term that the bill does not define. I am concerned that this bill would give EPA limitless authority to streamline current regulations. In addition, since the bill calls for the EPA Administrator merely to deem a waiver ``necessary,'' I am concerned that EPA's decision might not be subject to judicial review, or that any review would be very limited. Finally, this bill appears to put considerations of price before those of health. It contains no obligation to mitigate or make up for the excess air pollution that may occur over the waiver period. I understand that the more than 100 different fuel blends across the country have periodically resulted in regional price spikes, which is something we should try to address. A leading voice on energy in the other body has pressed for action from the Administration using legal authorities that the President already has. He has called first for an in-depth study to analyze the impact that federal, state, and local boutique fuels programs have on our nation's gasoline marketplace and to come up with specific recommendations for action. I think the House should be considering mandating such a study--not passing legislation that won't address gas prices and that gives EPA unlimited authority that could be used to weaken important clean air protections. But because no amendments are permitted, that proposal cannot even be considered in connection with this bill. So, I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and express my opposition to the other energy bills we are considering today and tomorrow as part of what the Republican leadership is calling Energy Week. I would like to start with this bill, the Renewable Energy Project Siting Act. As the Members know, I am co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, so some may wonder how I can be opposed to the bill. And the answer is that the bill is not what it claims to be, and I oppose it for what it really is. Voting against the bill does not mean opposing the development of clean renewable energy technologies. Instead, it means being opposed to rushing the development of energy projects without first subjecting them to the full environmental and public health review required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. In my experience and my understanding of the history, environmental analysis has not held up siting of a sound renewable energy project; so there is no need for the bill. If we look at the simple purpose of NEPA, it is to require that the Federal Government looks before it leaps to make sure that the benefits of a project do not come at the expense of the environment. That is a sound rule, and it should be maintained. So for that reason I cannot support this bill. At this point let me, if I might, briefly discuss the other energy bills on this week's agenda. There is no doubt that we in the Congress need to pass a comprehensive energy bill. But the bills we will be considering this week will not address the real problems we face today, high energy prices and finite supplies of fossil fuels. Instead, at most it merely postpones the inevitable transition from hydrocarbons that we need to make by subsidizing oil and gas production at the expense of cleaner and more efficient technologies. Drilling in the wildlife refuge in Alaska will not help us get out of this bind, which is again one of the reasons I will oppose that bill when it is considered tomorrow. And the other bill we will consider tomorrow, to make it easier for refineries to restart and be developed in areas of high unemployment by relaxing environmental regulations, will not do anything to affect oil prices and could create environmental hazards for the residents of these areas. Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Republican leadership is forcing this debate on these bills we have already considered not only indicates a lack of imagination but also an admission that they have no plan to address rising gas prices and the energy needs of this country. This appears to be an exercise in politics, not policy. If we get serious in this House about addressing our energy concerns and developing a real energy policy, I know we can find common ground. But this week's showboating is not serious. I urge my colleagues to oppose these bills.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, Vice Admiral Richard Truly, director of DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), announced that he plans to retire in early November after more than seven years as NREL's director. Although I am not greatly surprised by this announcement, I am saddened by it. I know that a national search will soon be launched to select the Admiral's successor, and I expect that his successor will represent NREL well in future years. But Admiral Truly has so vividly marked the last five years I've spent working on renewable energy policy in the House of Representatives. It is hard to imagine NREL without him. In a letter to staff, Admiral Truly wrote, ``I honestly believe that it is at the intersection of our energy use, our environment, our economic well being and our national security that society finds the greatest engineering and scientific challenges on Earth today. Each of you at NREL are at the heart of this challenge and opportunity. What you do really, really matters to our nation and our world. I feel a deep privilege to have been a small part of your successes over these years.'' This last statement exemplifies the Admiral's approach to leadership. He was always quick to credit NREL staff for their achievements and believed in the importance of teamwork. He was admired by his colleagues at NREL and, I think, inspired them to work harder and aim higher. For the Admiral, no challenge was too great. He wasn't content to rise to the rank of vice admiral in the Navy. He was also a naval aviator, test pilot and astronaut, logging more than 7,500 hours of flight. His astronaut career included work in the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory program, and NASA's Apollo, Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz and Space Shuttle programs. He piloted the 747/Enterprise approach and landing tests in 1977. He lifted off in November 1981 as pilot aboard Columbia, the first shuttle to be reflown into space, establishing a world circular orbit altitude record. He commanded Challenger in August-September 1983, the first night launch/landing mission of the Space Shuttle program. For all these achievements, President Reagan awarded the Presidential Citizen's Medal to Admiral Truly in 1989. Admiral Truly capped off his space career by serving as NASA's eighth Administrator under President George H.W. Bush from 1989-1992. During his seven years at NREL, Admiral Truly has raised the visibility of the laboratory to new heights. NREL is considered the premier laboratory for renewable energy research and development and a leading laboratory for energy efficiency R&D. As a world leader in the development of these technologies, NREL is involved in fifty different areas of scientific research, from solar photovoltaics and wind energy to hydrogen fuel cells and distributed energy generation. As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I have worked hard to increase funding for NREL's important research and generally to raise the profile of renewable energy and energy efficiency in Congress. It has been an uphill climb, as these programs have had to compete for funding with others. What has inspired me to keep fighting the fight has been knowing that Admiral Truly and his team are back in Colorado, pushing technological limits, dreaming up new ways for us to transition to a clean energy future. Admiral Truly may not be with NREL in the years to come, but I know he will always be there in spirit, urging us all to continue to aim for the stars.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have agreed to become a co- sponsor of H.R. 3619, the Employee Free Choice Act, but not before considerable thought and deliberation. Among other things, this legislation gives workers the right to unionize and be recognized by the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB) when a majority of the workers sign a card circulated by union organizers. I continue to remain skeptical of any election system in which voters are not free to make their decisions in private. A simple card check system could arguably provide opportunities for group pressure and even coercion and I am convinced that the secret ballot process works best in most cases. However, I am disturbed by reports citing example after example of employers using heavy handed techniques to discourage workers from organizing a union shop in the first place and intimidating and even illegally firing workers who decide to join a union. I am particularly troubled by a recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that gives employers carte blanche to intimidate union organizers. In a 2-1 party line vote, the NLRB has decided that an employer may explicitly inform workers who are about to vote on whether to form a union that workers in two other facilities lost their jobs after they formed a union. It is my understanding that the regional NLRB director ruled against the employer, saying that the memo circulated by the employer ``clearly implied'' the union was responsible for the firings at the other two hotels and insinuated similar firings could happen if the workers voted for the union. However, the two NLRB Bush appointees overruled the regional director's decision and claimed the memo ``did not exceed the bounds of permissible campaign statements.'' The Democratic appointee was the lone dissenter. This decision sends a clear message to employers that just about anything goes when it comes to union busting. And the message is equally clear to unions: if you try to organize, you could be fired. This is an untenable situation and the Employee Free Choice Act is, therefore, an opportunity to try to equalize the playing field between union organizers, union busters, and now the NLRB. In short, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that the NLRB under the Bush Administration is more interested in busting unions than in protecting workers' rights to form and join unions. In this atmosphere, a shot across the bow is needed and this legislation does that. On balance, I would prefer a policy that energizes and funds the NLRB. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we may have to wait for a new Administration to provide this balanced leadership. Co- sponsorship of this legislation, even with its flaws, sends an important and necessary message to the Administration to clean up its act.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department recently released information about the alleged offenses of Jose Padilla, described by the Deputy Attorney General as ``a trained, funded, and equipped terrorist.'' If the allegations are accurate--and I have no reason to doubt them-- that description seems very apt. But that cannot be the end of the story. That's because, as the Rocky Mountain News notes, Jose Padilla is something else as well--``an American citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil two years ago and who thus enjoys, or should enjoy, certain rights--including the right to either be charged with a crime or freed from detention.'' But, as the same editorial correctly points out, ``Instead, he still faces no charges, and the legality of his imprisonment awaits a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.'' When this case was considered by the Supreme Court, the Administration argued that by passage of Public Law 107-40, a resolution ``to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States,'' Congress authorized such detentions. But as one who voted for that resolution, I disagree with that interpretation of its terms. Here, too, I share the view of the Rocky Mountain News that ``surely Congress did not mean to grant the executive branch unchecked discretion over the imprisonment of Americans for as long as the war against Islamic jihadists continues. That would amount to the suspension of a fundamental right for years--perhaps for generations, for all we know.'' And I share the hope that the Supreme Court will ``reaffirm the right of citizens--every citizen--to full and timely access to legal counsel and the judicial system. And that includes even those who may have been in league with international terrorists and who planned to blow up high-rise apartment buildings on their behalf.'' For the benefit of our colleagues, I attach the full text of the editorial cited above: [From the Rocky Mountain News, June 3, 2004] Padilla's Plots Don't Negate his Rights We are perfectly willing to entertain the likelihood that the Justice Department's latest portrayal of alleged terrorist Jose Padilla is accurate, including the monstrous plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings. Padilla met with top al-Qaida leaders, according to Deputy Attorney General James Comey, discussed detonating a ``dirty bomb'' in the United States and finally agreed to a scheme involving apartment buildings. He would rent rooms in several complexes, seal them and fill them with natural gas, and detonate them all at once. Padilla is ``a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist'' who accepted ``an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children,'' Comey told reporters this week, and the description sounds about right. But Padilla is something else, too: an American citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil two years ago and who thus enjoys, or should enjoy, certain rights--including the right to either be charged with a crime or freed from detention. Instead, he still faces no charges, and the legality of his imprisonment awaits a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. With its latest revelations, the Justice Department obviously is seeking to influence public opinion and perhaps even the court itself, although we don't begrudge it the attempt. But the new information fails to alter the basic problem with designating U.S. citizens arrested in this country as ``enemy combatants'' for purposes of removing them from normal criminal justice procedures and then interrogating them over lengthy periods of time without benefit of counsel. If the president's say-so is enough to have kept Padilla in custody for two years without a criminal charge, then nothing in principle prevents any one of us from the same fate. Federal agents have been known to arrest the wrong people, after all, and then to resist admitting their mistakes. Fortunately, Padilla's case is apparently unique in the war on terror, despite routine claims that the Bush administration tramples indiscriminately on constitutional rights. Another U.S. citizen who also has been held in a Navy brig without normal access to counsel, Yaser Esam Hamdi, was captured in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance. He too deserves full constitutional protections, in our view, but there is at least some sense in which being arrested at O'Hare Airport and then held incommunicado for months on end, as Padilla was, is more worrisome for civil liberties than being treated in the same fashion after capture in a foreign combat zone. We realize courts in this nation's past have said Congress has the authority to suspend certain civil liberties during wartime emergencies. Moreover, a congressional joint resolution passed after 9/11 authorized the president ``to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.'' But surely Congress did not mean to grant the executive branch unchecked discretion over the imprisonment of Americans for as long as the war against Islamic jihadists continues. That would amount to the suspension of a fundamental right for years--perhaps for generations, for all we know. No, the Supreme Court must reaffirm the right of citizens-- every citizen--to full and timely access to legal counsel and the judicial system. And that includes even those who may have been in league with international terrorists and who planned to blow up high-rise apartment buildings on their behalf.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ronald A. Hellbusch, Director of Public Works and Utilities for the City of Westminster, Colorado. Ron is retiring after 32 years with the City. Combined with the 16 years as the City Manager of Brighton, Colorado, Ron has provided 48 years of dedicated service to these northern Denver communities. Ron began his career at the City of Westminster as a seasonal laborer in the street, water, sewer and park divisions while finishing high school and college. In 1960, he was appointed as the assistant city manager for the City of Westminster and was instrumental in developing the city's surface water supply system from its previous groundwater system when he was appointed water development coordinator by the City Council in 1963. Hellbusch left the City of Westminster in 1966 to serve as city manager for the City of Brighton, Colorado, where he served for 16 years. He resumed his career with the City of Westminster in 1984 as the Director of Public Works and Utilities, directing the water distribution and wastewater collection systems, water and wastewater treatment, water supply acquisition, long range water supply planning and development, street operations and maintenance, street replacement and rehabilitation, and concrete replacement. The Department of Public Works and Utilities has 128 authorized employees, has an annual operating budget of more than $24 million, and a capital improvement project budget of approximately $7 million annually. In 1996, Ron was selected as one of the American Public Works Association's 1996 Top Ten Public Works Leaders for his outstanding contributions to the public works profession. Ron also received the William E. Korbitz Award presented by the Colorado Chapter of the American Public Works Association at the 14th Annual Awards Luncheon in January 2000. He represented the city on various city and community groups including the Woman Creek Reservoir Authority Board, American Public Works Association Colorado Chapter and National Committees including the Leadership and Management Technical Committee, State Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) Roundtable Board Member, and the Colorado Water Congress serving as its president in 2003. In the community, Ron has served the Westminster Presbyterian Church as a ruling elder and as the chairman of the Church's corporate affairs committee. Also, Ron chaired the stewardship committee over a four-year period and was a Sunday school teacher. In addition to the Westminster church activities, Ron was active during his years in Brighton, Colorado, both in the Presbyterian Church and community. Ron's accomplishments with his Public Works and Utilities team include acquiring and developing a long-term, build-out water supply; the reclaimed water program; the completion of the Standley Lake dam renovation in collaboration with the cities of Northglenn and Thornton; employee driven quality service/competitive service program; the long- term street improvement strategy plan; utility planning and funding; developing a highly motivated and skilled employee team; encouraging innovation in membrane water treatment; use of technology in utility planning; a department-wide maintenance management program; numerous intergovernmental and regional cooperative agreements on water and public works programs; outsourcing programs such as street sweeping an annual trash pickup; and employee success in numerous national awards for programs and facilities, including recognition by the American Public Works Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation and the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Ron has also been involved in the cleanup and closure of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility just west of Westminster. For the past couple of years he has represented the City on a number of issues associated with the cleanup of this site, protecting surrounding drinking water supplies, ensuring worker safety, and with the site's future use. He was an early and strong supporter of preserving the acres of open space and ,vildlife habitat that exist on this site. He was instrumental in helping win the support of the neighboring communities for the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act so that this site could become an asset not only to the citizens of Westminster, but all of the surrounding communities. Ron is an example of the important role that our local officials play in maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for our Nation's citizens. His dedication to his community and collaboration with neighboring communities stands as a shining example of the rewards that come from such service--not only to the community leader, but the lives touched by that service. As Westminster City Manager Brent McFall stated, ``Ron Hellbusch has had a distinguished career with the City of Westminster and in the field of public works and utilities. He is nationally recognized as a leader in public works and as a water and wastewater provider. His shoes will be very hard to fill. We appreciate Ron's efforts over all these years on behalf of Westminster. He will be missed.'' I join Manager McFall in those comments. In Ron's retirement letter to City Manager Brent McFall, he indicates that ``there are streams and lakes not fished, outdoors to explore, stories to write, vistas to photograph, music to enjoy, books not read and tennis games to play. . . it is time to retire.'' That may be true and I am envious of the opportunity he now has to enjoy those activities. But we cannot forget that Ron helped enhance the lives of people who live, work and raise a family right there in Westminster and Brighton. I wish Ron well in his retirement and know that he will stay engaged in community affairs no matter where his retirement may take him.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have strong reservations about this bill, but I will support it. We are three years into our war on terrorism and still engaged in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no doubt that we must continue to focus on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our military personnel, and we must give our military the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world. In particular, we must respond to the needs of our men and women in uniform in Iraq as they struggle against a persistent and dangerous insurgency with too few troops and inadequate supplies. That's why I'm in favor of increasing protection for our troops in Iraq through funding provided in the bill for expedited production of armored Humvees, body armor, and armored trucks. And I'm also in favor of provisions in the bill authorizing the largest increase in military end-strength in decades--increasing active duty Army by 30,000 personnel and the Marine Corps by 9,000. Our army is overstretched, and we can't and shouldn't continue to rely on National Guard, reservists, and private contractors to fill in the gaps. I'm pleased also that the bill includes provisions--such as the continuing extension of TRICARE coverage--to ease the particular hardships that our campaign in Iraq has The bill includes provisions authorizing $25 billion in response to the president's most recent supplemental budget request for the war in Iraq. The costs of our Iraq mission continue to skyrocket, adding to our ballooning federal deficit and shortchanging domestic programs. But these costs must be paid. So I am encouraged that this bill doesn't give the president a blank check. Instead, it breaks down the $25 billion and specifies that certain amounts be spent on operations and maintenance, personnel, and weapons procurement. I support the BRAC provisions in the bill. BRAC is an important process that has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. But no process should go forward blindly, without taking into account changing facts on the ground. In my view, given the uncertainty of the current wartime environment, it makes sense to give Congress time to consider what resources our military might need in the future. We are still making decisions regarding the number of troops needed in Europe and Asia and where they should be located. Many of them may return to the U.S. This bill itself increases troop strength by 39,000--and it isn't clear how this increased end-strength will figure in to the next BRAC round. The Department of Defense is still completing its global posture review, yet as reported by CongressDaily recently, DoD officials have no plans to share the review with Congress. Yet that review no doubt informs the BRAC process in ways that Congress needs to understand. So I think it's important for Congress to have a year to review reports from DoD on its global basing strategy and its infrastructure needs. I'm also in favor of provisions in the bill establishing new rules for the interrogation of prisoners and commending the actions of Joseph Darby, the brave soldier who first notified authorities of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. The bill also provides for our men and women in uniform an across- the-board pay increase of 3.5 percent, boosts military special pay and extends bonuses, and funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations. These are all necessary and important provisions that I support. I do have a number of serious reservations about the bill. I don't believe it addresses 21st century threats as well as it could. With the exception of the Crusader artillery system and the Comanche helicopter, the Administration and Congress have continued every major weapons system inherited from previous administrations. So although the bill brings overall defense spending to levels 18 percent higher than the average Cold War levels, it doesn't present a coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities. I am strongly opposed to the authorization of $10 billion to deploy a missile defense system that doesn't work and that wouldn't protect against the terrorist threats that we face today. And I'm strongly opposed to the funding provided in the bill to study the feasibility of developing nuclear earth-penetrating weapons and to authorize previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons. Low-yield nuclear weapons have an explosive yield of five kilotons or less--``only'' a third of the explosive yield of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) require the United States to work towards nuclear disarmament, rather than further increase the size and diversity of our arsenal. By continuing the development of new U.S. nuclear weapons at the same time that we are trying to convince other nations to forego obtaining such weapons, we undermine our credibility in the fight to stop nuclear proliferation. I also was disappointed in the way the bill was handled here on the floor of the House. Not only was inadequate time allowed for debating this important and far-reaching measure, the House was prevented from even considering amendments on some aspects of the bill--such as the missile defense system--or was able only to consider amendments that were too narrow in scope. An example of the latter is the amendment by my friend from Tennessee, Mr. Wamp. The Wamp amendment is well-intentioned, and by itself it would do no harm. So, it is not surprising that it was adopted by a voice vote. However, I am concerned that adoption of the amendment may send the wrong signal to the Administration and to the Cold War warriors it is supposed to help. The amendment would change one small part of the compensation program established by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). Originally enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act, that compensation program is split into two parts. One is administered by the Department of Labor for workers exposed to radiation, beryllium and silica. It has worked fairly well--something that can't be said about the second part. The second part, commonly referred to as Subtitle D, is administered by the Department of Energy and covers workers exposed to radiation, and other toxic hazards. Under Subtitle D, DOE is required to use physicians panels to evaluate whether an illness is work related, and relies upon state workers' compensation programs to assure payments for wage loss and medical benefits. The Wamp amendment would fine-tune the way the physicians' panels work and smooth the linkage to state workers' compensation programs. But these are marginal changes at best--and they would do nothing to fix the most serious problem with Subpart D. That problem is that, by DOE's own admission, for too many people Subpart D simply will not work. In fact, as many as 50 percent of claimants may find that even if a physicians panel finds their illness is covered, there is no ``willing payer'' that will follow through by providing compensation. Colorado is one of the states where this can happen, along with Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, Kentucky, Missouri, and other states. The GAO recognizes this ``willing payer'' issue is one that cannot be ignored. The federal government should not make compensation under the program depend on geography. EEOICPA needs to be amended to make sure that doesn't happen. Furthermore, so far DOE has processed fewer than 2 percent of its caseload under Subpart D. In fact, I am told that as of March of this year, there were approximately 22,000 claims pending--and only ONE had been paid, even though DOE had spent approximately $50 million to administer this part of the law. On the other hand, the Department of Labor has processed 97 percent of its 52,000 claims it has received and issued over $825 million in payments and medical benefits. The Wamp amendment well might improve DOE's claims processing--which certainly need improving. But it will not guarantee payments for meritorious claims in Colorado and other states across the nation. Too many of our cold war veterans are headed down a dead end street. Speeding the trip isn't the answer--we need to change the route. The Wamp amendment won't do that. That was why I hoped the House would have been able to consider the amendment filed by my friend from Ohio, Mr. Strickland. The Strickland amendment would have required the President to submit to Congress a proposal for legislation to establish a Federal payer for Subpart D claims, if legislation to solve the problem is not enacted during this Session of Congress. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow the House to even consider that amendment, just as they refused to permit consideration of the amendment I filed with my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez. The purpose of our amendment was to help some people who worked at DOE's Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant. Some of them are suffering from cancer or other conditions because they were exposed to radiation or other hazards while they were working there. So they are covered by the EEOICPA program. For those who worked at most sites, coverage requires a finding that their condition is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job exposure. That's a reasonable requirement--provided there is adequate documentation of exposures. But, unfortunately, over the years there were serious problems with the way DOE kept records at Rocky Flats. So, as things stand now, there is a real risk that many Rocky Flats workers who should be covered will not get coverage in time to benefit from it, because their claims are tied up in red tape. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, despite my concerns and disappointments, I do think enactment of this bill will help support our men and women in uniform and help them win the peace in Iraq and to defeat terrorism in Afghanistan. And, while in my view Congress was wrong to allow the president to rush us into war in Iraq, I think it now is imperative to provide our men and women in uniform with what they need. So I will support this bill today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Technology Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology Act of 2004. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a lynchpin to commercial activities of the private sector and the health and safety of all Americans--from its small-scale measurement activities that support the development of nanotechnology energy to its investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center. Lynchpins are noted for their reliability and criticality, and as such they are frequently overlooked until they break. That is the situation NIST finds itself in today. FY04 budget cuts are causing drastic cutbacks in NIST programs and causing NIST to lay off its employees. These reductions in NIST's budget and in its workforce threaten future U.S. competitiveness and the health and safety of Americans. The bill I'm introducing today is an attempt to reverse this downward spiral. This bill would put NIST back on a positive growth track. It authorizes funding for NIST's standards support activities based on the FY05 budget request, and also includes funding for NIST's role in the implementation of the Help America Vote Act. The bill then provides a 5% increase for these support activities in FY06, FY07 and FY08. The bill also provides full funding for NIST to renovate its existing laboratory infrastructure. Many of NIST's labs are over fifty years old and are not suitable to house NIST's high-quality research equipment. This is especially true at NIST's Boulder, Colorado facility. This bill also provides full funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. The Science Committee has repeatedly heard from industry about the importance of funding for NIST's laboratory activities and for the ATP and the MEP programs. My bill is based on these recommendations. Less than three weeks ago, the Science Committee held a hearing on NIST. Panelists included representatives from a chemical industry company, an information technology association, a biometric company, a nanotechnology company, and a fire safety association. They were all unanimous in their support for NIST and the need to increase its funding. As one witness succinctly stated when asked about what other countries were doing in the standards area and what it meant to U.S. competitiveness: ``So the question becomes where do we want to place ourselves as a nation. Do we want to be the lead dog on the sled or do we want to be somewhere else in the line? And my perspective is that our nation's interest is served better and our future is served better and our people are served better if we are the lead dog on the sled.'' I urge my colleagues on the Science Committee and my colleagues in the House to support this legislation to help the U.S. remain the lead dog on the sled.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 3722, the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments of 2004. First and foremost, I oppose the way this bill was brought to the floor. There have been no committee hearings or markups. Instead, the bill was rushed to the floor under suspension so that no amendments could be offered to. the bill. There has not been any proper debate on this piece of legislation. Studies have estimated that there are between 8-12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Hospitals throughout the country, but particularly in border states, are overcrowded and often cannot afford to provide vital services to their patients. The Medicare bill which recently became law provided for a total of $1 billion over four years to reimburse hospital expenses incurred by providing medical services to illegal immigrants. While the Medicare bill does not mandate the use of the reimbursement program, many hospitals depend on these funds simply to remain open. The Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments will require further paperwork to be done by doctors and nurses in hospitals who are already overworked and overburdened. These doctors and nurses are not trained to enforce immigration law and should not be expected to do so. We should not use hospitals to fight the influx of illegal immigration but rather should provide more resources to law enforcement so that they can better enforce immigration laws. This bill also has the potential to discourage illegal immigrants from seeking treatment for life-threatening conditions. Immigrant women who become victims of domestic violence may not seek help for fear of being deported. Pregnant women may not seek prenatal care or even go to the hospital for the birth of their children out of fear of being separated from their families and deported. It is likely that this bill will actually increase the cost of emergency services because illegal immigrants are more likely to wait until their conditions have worsened and require more expensive treatments. Doctors and nurses create important trust-based relationships with immigrant communities which may be broken if this legislation is enacted. Discouraging immigrants from seeking medical assistance will have ill effects on our public health as well. Without proper treatment, communicable diseases such as tuberculosis are likely to spread and cause a much larger public health hazard. I also have many concerns about requiring doctors and nurses to ask so many questions of their patients. It is not always possible or practical to ask such questions of every patient who enters the hospital; as a result, doctors and nurses might have to pick and choose those they ask, opening themselves up for accusations of profiling and possible legal recourse. This also may slow the delivery of medical treatment, as patients will have to provide documentation of their citizenship or immigrant status. These are just some of the concerns this bill raises, and none of them has been adequately discussed. H.R. 3722 clearly is controversial and thus deserves to be properly debated on the floor, with amendments allowed to be offered. For all the reasons I've outlined, I must vote against suspending the rule and passing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same so that H.R. 3722 can be considered under normal procedures.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2201. I want to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall as well as Subcommittee Chairman Radanovich and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen for their leadership in having the Resources Committee act so promptly on this bill. And I greatly appreciate the cooperation from the Veterans' Affairs Committee that has made it possible for the bill to come to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to help the government and the public to keep track of the many important war memorials on public lands throughout our country. It would also provide for a report to Congress to determine if there should be a permanent fund within the Treasury for the upkeep of these memorials. These memorials remind us that the freedom we enjoy in the United States has not just been given to us--Americans have made great sacrifices, including their lives, to protect our way of life. Unfortunately many of these memorials don't receive the care they deserve and have fallen into disrepair. These memorials may not be as large as those on the National Mall or Arlington Nation Cemetery but they are just as important and should be taken care of. In 2002, Congress agreed to a resolution expressing the need for cataloging and maintaining public memorials. The bill would follow through by taking the first step of cataloging our public war memorials. By cataloging and reporting to Congress on the condition of all war memorials on public lands and by considering how to maintain them we make sure that our veterans are not forgotten. Passage of this bill will be a step toward renewing our commitment to honor our Nation's veterans. I urge approval of the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Rick Crandall of Aurora, Colorado for his lifetime of achievement and service to his family, community, and country. Mr. Crandall served his country honorably with the U.S. Air Force in Guam. Following his service, Mr. Crandall created the popular radio talk-show ``The Breakfast Club'' emphasizing the sacrifices made by American veterans. On his show, Rick interviews veterans about their experiences on and off the battlefield. The show made history in 2000 when he went ``on the air'' from the American Cemetery above Omaha Beach. Rick's radio venue has been warmly welcomed by the veteran community and he has received special recognitions from the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars for his work. Mr. Crandall has been an outstanding advocate for several other causes as well. He holds annual charity events for the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association. He has also been helpful for community organizations like the Aurora Senior Center, Rainbow Bridge, and the Denver District Attorney's Office. Most notably, Rick hosts an annual golf tournament which raises funds for the local Meal on Wheels. Rick Crandall has made service a life-long pursuit. His latest undertaking is the establishment of the Colorado Freedom Memorial in Aurora. This memorial honors the thousands of Coloradans who have given their lives serving in combat for the United States since the Spanish- American War. The Colorado Freedom Memorial is just in its introductory stages, so Mr. Crandall surely has a project to keep him active for years to come. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to honor a man who has given so much to so many. Rick has been an inspiration to our Nation's youth by promoting community service and activism. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognition of Rick Crandall and the commitment he has made to improving his community.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I'm holding my nose and voting against H.R. 4280, which would limit medical malpractice awards. I am not pleased that we are voting on this bill again, since an identical bill is languishing over in the Senate and I doubt that by passing it today we will jolt the Senate into moving on the bill. I think the vote today has more to do with politics than with policy. I think we're beating a dead horse. Both sides have dug in and aren't willing to compromise. In the meantime, we aren't doing anything to reform our medical liability system and we aren't doing anything to make health care more affordable and accessible for Americans. Our system is inherently adversarial and we've continued this fingerpointing game and done nothing to improve patient safety and health care access, which is what we're really talking about here. I think we need a system that is non-punitive and encourages openness and improvement so that doctors can report medical errors without fear of being sued. This will help us understand medical errors and improve procedures and patient safety. Fewer medical errors will result in fewer medical malpractice suits, which in turn will help keep malpractice insurance rates and health care premiums down. That's why I voted for H.R. 663, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, which would create a voluntary medical error reporting system under which patient safety organizations would receive, on a confidential basis, and analyze information on reported errors. They would then be expected to develop and disseminate evidence-based information to help providers implement changes in practice patterns that help to prevent future medical errors. In addition to this legislation, I think we should explore ideas like alternate dispute resolution, no-fault systems, and medical courts. I also want to make it clear that I am not opposed to capping damages because I think it helps keep health care costs down and keeps doctors accessible, like in my home State of Colorado where we have caps. However, I think H.R. 4280 sets low and arbitrary limits on damages, which will hurt those at the bottom of the income scale the most. Also, I don't think we should be shielding large and powerful HMOs and drug companies from liability. Mr. Speaker, ultimately this issue is about health care access and patient safety. If we aren't going to compromise, I hope we'd start thinking outside the box on how to end the logjam on tort reform. I offer these ideas as a way to get there, because we aren't going to get there from where we are today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the coalition that has dedicated years of energy to restoring Colorado's Lower Blue River for the community, the economy and the environment. One of the most cherished aspects of Colorado life is the access to pristine views and the wide variety of outdoor activities. Summit County provides both, sitting in the heart of Colorado's mountain country. With scenic mountains, majestic forests, and wild rivers, this region is world-renowned for its remarkable vistas and outdoor activities. For decades the Blue River was designated a Gold Medal fishery. However, in recent years the Blue River in Summit County has been impacted by nearby historic mining activities and other development, as well as years of drought. The river became so shallow below the Dillon Dam that native fish species were unable to live in this river's habitat. This not only damaged the various fish, it also hurt the local fishing industry which relies so heavily on vacationing anglers. Facing a major environmental and financial problem, a diverse group of citizen groups united behind the idea of restoring the Blue River to its original state. Among these groups were Trout Unlimited, the Town of Silverthorne, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Summit County, the United States Forest Service, and the National Forest Foundation. These groups worked together to raise the money to return the river to its natural width, thus restoring the riparian habitat. Moreover these enhancements have helped bring the community together and have proven to be a model for similar restoration projects. The restoration has been a tremendous success. Mr. Andy Gentry, president of the local Trout Unlimited chapter, received a national award recognizing his role in the project. The American Public Works Association selected the project as one of the most outstanding projects in the nation. In addition to the national recognition and appreciation, the most rewarding aspect of the restoration project was returning the Blue River to its natural beauty. Anglers can now fish for trout in its sparkling waters. Hikers can walk the trails adjacent to the river and take in the wonderful views. Mr. Speaker, the Blue River Restoration Project is a shining example of collaborative and successful outdoor public works projects. It is a model for future projects and proves that groups of concerned citizens can cooperate to improve the environment and enhance the quality of life in their communities. This is especially important as hunting and fishing activities significantly contribute to the health of Colorado's economy--as well as the health of the environment. I have attached a newspaper story about this accomplishment. [From the Summit Daily, May 2, 2004] Restoration Named `Exemplary Project' (By Christine McManus) Silverthorne.--After receiving a third award for their Blue River restoration efforts, local Trout Unlimited members are looking for other stream beds in the county to improve for fish habitat. The most recent accolade for the Blue River project came April 17 when the Colorado Trout Unlimited (TU) honored the local Gore Range Anglers chapter of TU and its partners with the Exemplary Project Award. ``The one constant about trout is they like to live in beautiful places. Summit County fits that perfectly,'' said Andy Gentry, president of the local chapter. Trout Unlimited and its partners worked together to narrow the channel of the Blue River. With declining stream flows during the ongoing drought, and only minimal releases from the Dillon Reservoir Dam, the 120- foot wide channel below the dam provided water too shallow for fish to survive. The restoration project generally narrowed the channel to 30 feet wide. The project preserved the Gold Medal status of the fishery, as declared by the Colorado Division of Wildlife on 13 rivers in the state. The Exemplary Project Award from Colorado Trout Unlimited recognizes outstanding projects that have a significant impact on coldwater fisheries. The award also recognizes successful partnerships between Trout Unlimited and other local and state groups, local governments and/or state and federal agencies. Partners who worked on the Blue River restoration included the town of Silverthorne, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), the National Forest Foundation, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service and Summit County. Gentry said the project would not have been done without all the partners. ``The Blue River Restoration Project has made a significant impact on the county and the fishery,'' said Kevin Batchelder, Silverthorne town manager. ``This project really showed how many different government entities, nonprofit organizations and local organizations can work together to make a lasting impact on their community.'' Trout Unlimited and NWCCOG hope to work with other local governments and nonprofit organizations on additional river restoration projects, said Gentry and Liz Finn, NWCCOG assistant executive director. The chapter is putting together a list of river restoration projects they would like to explore this summer. The Upper Blue River, the Tenmile Creek, Swan River drainage and Lower Blue River are being considered, Gentry said. ``Hopefully other Summit County governmental entities and groups find projects for Trout Unlimited to be involved in as well,'' Gentry said. In January, the Colorado Chapter of the American Public Works Association selected the project for the Project of the Year Award in the Utility Drainage and Environmental in the Small Communities category. In September 2003, Gentry won the National Trout Unlimited Distinguished Service Award for his efforts with the Blue River Restoration Project.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution because I strongly agree with most of what it says. But I think its focus is too narrow and it does not say all that needs to be said. The portions of the resolution calling for action are addressed solely to the Secretary of the Army. Intentionally or not, that suggests that the Army alone--not the Defense Department as a whole, and not any other part of the Administration--bears responsibility for the shocking abuses the resolution rightly condemns. But what's involved here is not just an Army problem. It is much bigger than that. It involves not just the armed forces but civilian members of the intelligence community as well as civilians working for private companies under contract with the government. This morning's newspapers report that President Bush has privately admonished the Secretary of Defense and that the Justice Department is examining the involvement of Central Intelligence Agency personnel as well as contract employees in suspicious deaths of detainees. Clearly, the events at Abu Ghraib prison are only part of a bigger picture. The resolution rightly complains about the fact that Congress was not properly informed of the abuses at that prison or the investigation of those abuses. But I am concerned that this failure to inform the Congress and the American people may not have been an isolated failure but just another instance of the Bush Administration's standard operating procedure. In short, while this resolution is right in condemning the abuses at Abu Ghraib--and accurate in saying that they are offensive to the principles and values of the American people--passage of this resolution, by iself, is not an adequate response on the part of the House of Representatives. We need to insist that the Administration--all of it, not just the Secretary of the Army--take strong action to change the policies and attitudes that made the abuses at Abu Ghraib possible. And we need to insist that all those responsible for those policies and attitudes be held accountable. And that means Congress itself must do more than make speeches and pass resolutions. We must insist on finding out for ourselves; and for those we represent--the American people. They must bear the costs--in blood and treasure--for the Administration's actions in Iraq and around the world. Those costs will be made all the greater by abuses like those cited in this resolution and the policies and attitudes that have produced them, and Congress must take an active role in making necessary changes.