Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Sundance Institute and Sundance Film Festival for the many contributions the Institute and Festival have made to the arts and art education. The Institute and Film Festival are world renowned and have expanded the appreciation of arts while also providing encouragement and new venues for emerging young talent. It is a cherished, exciting and vibrant part of the American arts and humanities landscape, and I hope it will continue to thrive for many years to come. Founded by actor and director Robert Redford in 1981, the Institute is dedicated to the development of artists of independent vision and the exhibition of their new work. The Institute nurtures emerging screenwriters and directors and provides a supportive environment to explore path-breaking and innovative themes. It is guided by the primary aim of supporting artists whose work reflects an original, compelling vision. Since its creation, the Sundance Institute has become most known for its annual film festivals in Park City, Utah. Over the years, the Festival has become one of the most prestigious and important of all film festivals. Its selections and award winners have achieved wide acclaim, notoriety and artistic prominence. As a result, the Festival's influence on filmmaking has been extensive. However, the Sundance Institute has become much more than a catalyst for the Film Festival. It has expanded its scope to include a range of programs all designed to promote innovative filmmaking. It provides workshops for screenwriters and filmmakers so that they can expand their thinking and hone their craft in a creative environment away from the pressures of the marketplace and with the guidance of respected, veteran filmmakers. It has also established a Native American Program which supports new work by both emerging and established Native writers, directors, and producers. The commitment of the Sundance Institute to supporting Native American cinema is woven throughout its history and resides side-by-side with its contributions to American cinema. Rooted in the recognition of a rich tradition of storytelling and artistic expression by Native Americans, the Institute's Native American Initiative is a means of supporting the development of Native filmmakers and exhibiting their work. Today, the Native American Initiative maintains its full commitment to Native cinema in a multi-tiered effort that tracks and provides support to two to four projects and four producers each year, as well as programming the Native Forum at the Sundance Film Festival. More recently, the Native American Initiative has broadened its efforts to scout for Native playwrights, music composers, and non-fiction arts writers to participate in the Institute's other developmental programs and to include indigenous artists from all of North America and the South Pacific in its initiative. At its core, the Native American Initiative supports the creative control of indigenous artists in filmmaking and other art forms supported by the Institute programs. The Institute also holds professional conferences for film producers focusing on the professional and business aspects of independent film production such as marketing, financing, and distribution. It also has a long history of supporting documentary filmmakers through a year- round program which encourages the exploration of innovative nonfiction storytelling, and promotes the exhibition of documentary films to a broader audience. And it supports the growth of a more thoughtful and incisive body of writing about the arts through its screenwriting program. Now in its second year, the Program offers writers of creative nonfiction the opportunity to immerse themselves in Sundance Labs in the U.S. and abroad, and at the Sundance Film Festival, in order to more deeply understand and articulate the nature of the creative process in a range of art forms. When choosing Fellows for its programs and films for the Festival, the Institute is committed to encouraging the recognition of diverse voices--Native American, African American, Asian, Latino, and women filmmakers, among others. The films and plays developed or premiered by Sundance over the past two decades reflect the diversity of American culture and have been seen by millions of people. In all of its work, Sundance embraces the values of independence and community. The Sundance Institute is not just about making films--although that is clearly its primary focus. It also is about nourishing the artistic process and defending free artistic expression. There are many talented voices and visionaries in America from all cultures, ethnic backgrounds and walks of life. The Sundance Institute provides a wonderful haven for these talents. For all of these important contributions, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the Sundance Institute for keeping filmmaking and the arts exciting and vibrant and for providing an opportunity for Americans from all walks of life to participate in our film heritage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an important leader in the business community of Colorado. Ms. Sharon Vigil, president and chief operating officer of the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, will be leaving her post after 14 years of service. Established in 1978, the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has proven to be an outstanding member of the Colorado business community. Whether through influencing legislation, providing technical assistance to Hispanic businesses and professional associations, or strengthening the network of Colorado businesses as a whole, the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has been an exceptionally effective organization. Sharon Vigil was born in Walsenburg and raised in Pueblo, later attending school in Boulder at the University of Colorado. As an active member of the civil rights movement during the 1970s, she developed an early reputation as a leading voice in support of equal opportunity for minorities and women in business. She has a long history of exceptional and diversified management skills and is well-regarded for her experience in the fields of marketing and public relations. But above all, she is a motivated woman who uses both her mind and heart in working for the Hispanic community. In the early 1990s Ms. Vigil brought her considerable skills to the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, becoming President and Chief Operating Officer in 1995. Under her guidance, membership grew to more than 1,300, elevating the Chamber's success and positioning the organization as the largest and most influential minority chamber in the state. I met Ms. Vigil early in my career as a legislator and was immediately impressed by the enthusiasm she brought to the job of promoting economic opportunities in the Hispanic community. One of my fondest recollections of her is the pride and joy she had in showing me the Hispanic Chamber's facility in Denver. She walked me through several floors of offices and made sure I met and spoke to all the vendors and officers. As a dedicated leader, Ms. Vigil has diligently worked to assist countless Hispanic business owners throughout Colorado and the Denver Metropolitan area. It is that admirable and distinguished service that motivates me to acknowledge this remarkable community leader. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Sharon Vigil and in wishing her success in all her future endeavors. It has been a true privilege to work with her.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Sam Mamula of Breckenridge, Colorado for his exemplary public service. Mr. Mamula has proven his dedication to Breckenridge. He has held a variety of local government positions during his residency, including 8 years on the town planning commission and 8 years on the town council before becoming Breckenridge's mayor. The citizens of Breckenridge have benefited greatly from Mr. Mamula's dedicated leadership. Specifically, Mr. Mamula has taken leadership roles in Breckenridge's use of biodiesel in its diesel municipal vehicles which is reducing pollution in Colorado. Mr. Mamula has also been a tireless advocate for affordable housing in Summit County and was recognized nationally when Breckenridge won an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Award for Smart Growth Achievement in the built projects category for the Wellington Neighborhood affordable housing project. This project included a cooperative partnership among the town of Breckenridge, Summit County, the Environmental Protection Agency, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and a private developer. The dedication, enthusiasm and activism with which Mr. Mamula has pursued his work deserves our most sincere thanks. Thus, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Sam Mamula for his service and many contributions to his community. He is much appreciated For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching a copy of a recent story about Mr. Mamula that appeared in the Summit Daily News. [From the Summit Daily News, Jan. 28, 2004] Mamula To End a Political Era We have to admit it. We are big Sam Mamula fans. Nobody is sorrier than we are that the Breckenridge mayor is stepping down after one term as hizzoner. Mamula is a quote machine without peer, except for County Commissioner Tom Long. In this business, we like that. The thing about Mamula is that he always makes a point. We like that even better. Usually, his point is about the quality of life in the greater Breckenridge area. With Mamula at the top spot in town, locals knew they had somebody battling for the soul of the Summit. We say that with due apologies to The Summit Foundation, which considers itself the ``Soul of the Summit,'' and with good reason. But the battle for soul--quality of life--is really fought in the trenches of planning commissions and town councils where hundreds of small decisions add up to something ugly if somebody isn't on guard. Ironically, one of Mamula's biggest achievements on behalf of the town and taxpayers will occur after he's left office-- the huge open space purchase of the B&B Mines property in the Golden Horseshoe. The deal is scheduled to close in June. Mamula spent eight years on the town planning commission and eight years on the town council before ascending to mayor. It was a good run. ``It was a tough decision. I stalled to the last minute,'' said the reluctant retiree who needs to spend more time with his convalescing wife. ``I really like being mayor. I liked being on the town council and I liked being on the planning commission. It really has been a labor of love for me rather than a carrying out of duties,'' he added. Mamula called it ``fulfilling'' to work with a ``great town council and staff.'' ``With a town manager like Tim Gagen, being mayor is 'relatively simple, frankly,'' Mamula said. Mamula vows to stay involved in the town but promised not to become a ``town council observer.'' ``There has got to be something I can cut out of this whole thing that someone is going to let me do,'' he added. We hope so, too.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform our colleagues that the week of March 1 to March 5, 2004 will be Colorado Nonprofit Week and to express my gratitude for nonprofit organizations in Colorado. Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have dedicated our energy to help solve the problems which persist in America. However, in a country as large and diverse as ours, there are many problems that cannot be addressed by government alone. Nonprofit organizations throughout the nation play powerful roles in sustaining our communities and providing resources to help solve a myriad of problems. In Colorado alone, there are over five-thousand charitable nonprofit organizations that devote tireless effort year after year to improve the quality of life in our communities. In appreciation, the State of Colorado honors these organizations and the causes they champion by declaring the week of March 1st to March 5th to be Colorado Nonprofit Week. In Colorado, there are hardly any social problems that do not have a group of dedicated individuals trying to solve them. Indeed, there are nonprofits addressing such diverse challenges as promoting arts and humanities, protecting animals, sheltering the homeless, providing job training and saving open space, to identify just a few. Colorado's nonprofits have succeeded in raising awareness for their causes in recent years. As a result, the number of nonprofits organizations in Colorado and the magnitude of services they provide have more than doubled in the last decade. These organizations give hundreds of millions of dollars and countless hours of volunteer time to address their respective issues, yet are rarely given the credit they deserve. By recognizing the contributions of the nonprofit sector during Colorado Nonprofit Week, we acknowledge the exemplary public service and positive direction they provide for our communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing Colorado Nonprofit Week and in thanking nonprofit organizations for all of the good and important work they do in Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my cautious support of H.R. 3030, the reauthorization of the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG). The Federal government sponsors several programs which fight poverty on all levels. The CSBG ties these programs together and provides extra support and flexibility to meet the individual needs of each state. Many public and private organizations which fight poverty will benefit the lives of many more people throughout the country as a result of the help these grants provide. This bill makes several changes that enhance the quality of services these grant sponsor. For example, organization, when applying for the grant, must submit a detail plan about the type of services they will provide as well as criteria which effectively judge if the organization has meet the goals outline in their submitted plan. by establishing local goals, each organization can tailor their efforts to meet the needs of their clientele, while maintaining a high standard of service and effetive use of taxpayer dollars. I am also pleased that this bill continues to require funding to improve economic conditions and encourage self-sufficiency for the poor in rural areas. The rural poor face different barriers to reach self- sufficiency than those in urban areas and thus require different types of services to reach a level of independence. I do have many concerns that efforts to protect against religious discrimination in hiring made in both committee and through amendments to this bill were not adopted by this chamber. While I believe that it is important that religious organizations maintain their religious character, I do not favor discrimination of any kind with federal dollars. That being said, I believe that this ultimately is a good bill and the efforts made through the Community Service block Grants provide important services to the poor in our country. As a result, I will vote in favor of H.R. 3030 and am hopeful that the Senate will provide protection against hiring discrimination and that that language will remain in the final version of the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two faithful public servants who are constituents of mine, Barbara and Frederick McGehan. Fred McGehan, the Public Affairs Officer and Director of the Boulder Public Affairs Office at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, is retiring in February after 30 years of service at NIST. Barbara McGehan, the Public Affairs Officer for the NOAA Research Laboratories in Boulder, retired at the end of 2003, after 21 years of service to the Federal Government, 18 years dedicated to serving the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder. I've had the pleasure of working with both Fred and Barbara for the last five of their many years in the Federal Government. After earning her Bachelor of Arts in History and Government at the State University of New York at Buffalo, Barbara worked for U.S. Rep. Richard McCarthy in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1965 to 1968. She worked for the Maryland Democratic Party from 1971 to 1973. She and Fred moved to Colorado in 1977, where Barb worked at the Sacred Heart of Mary Church, first on the church newsletter and later as a substitute teacher at Sacred Heart School. In November 1985, Barbara started at NOAA in Boulder with the program that became the NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory (FSL). She worked for FSL until 1994, when she accepted the position of Public Affairs Officer for NOAA in Boulder. Fred graduated from Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1963 with a B.A. degree in English, and afterward from Columbia University with a graduate degree in journalism. Fred put his education and training to good use by working as a general assignment reporter at the Providence Journal in Rhode Island, and then covering science, space and medicine for Newhouse National News Service and the Baltimore Sun. With his experience in news reporting under his belt, Fred began his ``next career'' in public affairs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (then known as the National Bureau of Standards) in its headquarters laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in 1974. When he and Barb moved to Boulder in 1977, Fred continued his work at NIST as a science writer and public affairs specialist before taking over as Public Affairs Officer and Director of the Boulder Public Affairs Office. In his public affairs capacity and also while serving as Executive Officer and Acting Director of the NIST Boulder Laboratories and at various times during his nearly 30 years at NIST, Fred also has devoted enormous energy to working with the community. Fred and Barbara have three grown children and are active in St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Boulder. Fred is an avid fan of Colorado Rockies baseball. Of course, after so many decades of service, Fred and Barb deserve to have all the time in the world to spend with their children, be active in their community, and go to ball games. I'm sure they plan a very active retirement. But Barb and Fred will be missed by their colleagues and by the millions of Americans who benefit every day from NOAA and NIST research and services. They were outstanding public affairs officers and advocates for their respective labs. During my visits to NIST and NOAA, they both helped me understand the many ways in which the labs influence people's everyday lives. More importantly, Fred and Barb inspired me to continue my fight for Federal funding for research activities at NOAA and NIST and for infrastructure improvements that these labs so direly need. Fred and Barb have my assurance that I will continue to work in Congress to advance the needs and promote the tremendous achievements of Boulder's NIST and NOAA labs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as our country wrestles with the consequences of the war in Iraq, I think it is more important than ever to encourage thoughtful and critical discussion of America's role in the world and to be open to a continuing public dialogue on the wisdom of our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe. Whether one supported the war or not, I believe our responsibility as elected representatives of the people must include maintaining an open mind on these matters, and to seek out the judgment and opinions of those who may have experiences unique from our own. In this regard, I would like to submit for the Record a copy of remarks written by Mr. Ibrahim Kazerooni, an Iraqi dissident who fought against the regime of Saddam Hussein and who is now a respected clerical leader of the Muslim community in Colorado. I met Mr. Kazerooni shortly after the infamous attacks on our country on September 11, 2001 and have found his insights on the problem of terrorism and democracy in Iraq to be unique and well worth the attention of my colleagues. [From the Denver Post, Dec. 7, 2003] Iraq War Makes Us Less Safe, Not More (By Ibrahim Kazerooni) Having been imprisoned and tortured several times by the former Baathist regime of Iraq, I came to expect any absurdity from that dictatorship. Under the Baathists, the people of Iraq were fed a steady stream of government-generated lies on just about everything. The regime skillfully operated under the premise that as long as you said something often enough, it didn't have to be true in order to get people to believe it. Even though the Baathist regime is gone, it appears the Bush administration has adopted their practice of intentionally misleading the public--in this case, the American public--through the incessant repetition of false information. For example, we continue to be told by the White House that taking over Iraq was necessary for the war on terrorism, despite the absence of credible evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and the former regime of Saddam Hussein. On June 26, The Associated Press reported, ``The U.N. terrorism committee has found no evidence to support Bush administration claims of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and the United States has provided the committee with no proof.'' This should not be surprising, since the secular Saddam Hussein was notorious for brutally crushing any and all Islamist elements in Iraq. As a result, the Islamists and the Baathists had nothing but pure disdain and mistrust for one another. One of the most respected authorities on terrorism and defense issues, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, reported Oct. 15 that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has had the effect of ``swelling its [al-Qaeda's] ranks and galvanizing its will.'' Beyond that, the administration's mismanagement of post-war Iraq has created ripe conditions for terrorism to thrive, to the point where it is now feared Iraq is exporting terrorism to its neighbors. The White House and others also continue to insist that the security situation in Iraq--upon which everything depends, especially reconstruction--is improving. Yet, the facts reveal that the insurgency is spreading. Part of the reason for the spread of the insurgency is the resentment we've generated among ordinary Iraqis, the very people we said we came to liberate. Dr. Rajaa Habib Kbuzai, handpicked by the Bush administration to sit on the Iraqi Governing Council, said in September, ``There is considerable discontent with the coalition forces, the majority of whom treat the Iraqi people with violence and contempt.'' This analysis is shared by Marco Calamai, a special counselor to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, who resigned his position in November because he said the U.S.-led CPA has created ``delusion, social discontent, and anger'' among Iraqis and allowed terrorism to ``easily take root.'' Calamai's view was confirmed by a classified CIA report leaked in November, which found that more Iraqis are ``flooding to the ranks of the guerrillas'' and predicted the security situation in Iraq would continue to get worse as the insurgency spreads across the country. We invaded Iraq on the premise that the Baathist regime possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and would share them with al-Qaeda. Not invading, we were told, could likely result in ``mushroom clouds'' over American cities. However, not only was the supposed link to al-Qaeda grossly absent, so are the alleged WMDs. The failure to find Iraq's alleged WMDs is entirely consistent with Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement on Feb. 24, 2001, in Cairo: ``He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.'' Powell's statement reflects the statements of Iraqi scientists and Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who defected to the West in 1995 and was later murdered by his father-in-law for defecting. He told U.N., U.S. and British experts debriefing him in August 1995, ``I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed.'' The invasion and occupation of Iraq has not only distracted us from the war against al-Qaeda and diverted billions of dollars from homeland security to operations in Iraq, it has actually increased al-Qaeda's recruiting and created more sympathizers for the organization among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. As long as the White House arrogantly continues to mislead the public with fabricated intelligence and sugar-coated assessments, we cannot possibly expect to win the war on terror.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Michael Katz of Boulder, Colorado for his exemplary public service. Over the past 25 years, Michael Katz has been a successful and well- respected federal public defender for Colorado and Wyoming. Since 1978, he has handled thousands of cases, giving quality legal counsel to defendants who could not afford representation. In doing so, he has demonstrated and protected some of the most precious aspects of our democracy and Constitution. Unfortunately, Michael will be retiring this year. Instead of pursuing justice, he and his wife Susan will be pursuing the beauty of the Atlantic Coast as they sail from Chesapeake Bay to Key West. Michael began his law career in a small law firm with a staff of only three lawyers in a modestly-sized office. Over the years, he has been unswerving in his commitment to environmental protection. Yet his dedication to principles of justice and fairness enabled him to defend environmentally destructive people with professional integrity. Along the way he has also defended criminals whose civil liberties and individual rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. He has persevered through every challenge, putting justice and the Constitution ahead of his personal beliefs. His tireless dedication has gained national acclaim and respect, as well as leading his office to prominence. After years of hard work, his retirement is well earned. The people of Colorado and Wyoming will certainly miss him and his honorable service to the justice system. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Michael Katz for his relentless defense of our Constitution. I wish Michael and his family good health and happiness in their future together.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with my colleague from New Mexico, Representative Tom Udall, in introducing the Western Waters and Surface Owners Protection Act. The western United States is blessed with significant energy resources. In appropriate places, an under appropriate conditions, they can and should be developed for the benefit of our country. But it's important to recognize the importance of other resources--particularly water--and other uses of the lands involved--and our bill responds to this need. It has three primary purposes. The first is to assure that the development of those energy resources in the West will not mean destruction of precious water resources. The second is to reduce potential conflicts between development of energy resources and the interests and concerns of those who own the surface estate in affected lands. And the third is to provide for appropriate reclamation of affected lands. Water Quality Protection One new energy resource is receiving great attention. Gas associated with coal deposits, often referred to as coalbed methane. An October 2000 United States Geological Survey report estimated that the U.S. may contain more than 700 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of coalbed methane and that more than 100 tcf of this may be recoverable using existing technology. In part because of the availability of these reserves and because of tax incentives to exploit them, the West has seen a significant increase in the development of this gas. Development of coalbed methane usually involves the extraction of water from underground strata. Some of this extracted water is reinjected into the ground, while some is retained in surface holding ponds or released on the surface and allowed to flow into streams or other water bodies, including ditches used for irrigation. The quality of the extracted waters varies from one location to another. Some are of good quality, but often they contain dissolved minerals (such as sodium, magnesium, arsenic, or selenium) that can contaminate other waters--something that can happen because of leaks or leaching from holding ponds or because the extracted waters are simply discharged into a stream or other body of water. In addition, extracted waters often have other characteristics, such as high acidity and temperature, which can adversely affect agricultural uses of land or the quality of the environment. In Colorado and New Mexico and other states in the arid West, water is scarce and precious. So, as we work to develop our domestic energy resources, it is vital that we safeguard our water and we believe that clear requirements for proper disposal of these extracted waters are necessary in order to avoid some of these adverse effects. That is the purpose of the first part of our bill. Our bill (in Title I) includes two requirements regarding extracted water. First, it would make clear that water extracted from oil and gas development must comply with relevant and applicable discharge permits under the Clean Water Act. Lawsuits have been filed in some western states regarding whether or not these discharge permits are required for coalbed methane development. Our bill would require oil and gas development to secure permits if necessary and required, like any other entity that may discharge contaminates into the waters of the United States. Second, the bill would require those who develop federal oil or gas-- including coalbed methane--under the Mineral Leasing Act to do what is necessary to make sure their activities do not harm water resources. Under this legislation, oil or gas operations that damage a water resource--by contaminating it, reducing it, or interrupting it--would be required to provide replacement water. For water produced in connection with oil or gas drilling that is injected back into the ground, the bill requires that this must be done in a way that will not reduce the quality of any aquifer. For water that is not reinjected, the bill requires that it must be dealt with in ways that comply with all Federal and State requirements. And, because water is so important, our bill requires oil and gas operators to make the protection of water part of their plans from the very beginning, requiring applications for oil or gas leases to include details of ways in which operators will protect water quality and quantity and the rights of water users. These are not onerous requirements, but they are very important-- particularly with the great increase in drilling for coalbed methane and other energy resources in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and other western States. Surface Owner Protection In many parts of the country, the party that owns the surface of some land does not necessarily own the minerals beneath those lands. In the West, mineral estates often belong to the Federal Government while the surface estates are owned by private interests, who typically use the land for farming and ranching. This split-estate situation can lead to conflicts. And while we support development of energy resources where appropriate, we also believe that this must be done responsibly and in a way that demonstrates respect for the environment and overlying landowners. The second part of our bill (Title II) is intended to promote that approach, by establishing a system for development of Federal oil and gas in split-estate situations that resembles--but is not identical to--the system for development of federally-owned coal in similar situations. Under Federal law, the leasing of federally owned coal resources on lands where the surface estate is not owned by the United States is subject to the consent of the surface estate owners. But neither this consent requirement nor the operating and bonding requirements applicable to development of federally owned locatable minerals applies to the leasing or development of oil or gas in similar split-estate situations: We believe that there should be similar respect for the rights and interests of surface estate owners affected by development of oil and gas and that this should be done by providing clear and adequate standards and increasing the involvement of these owners in plans for oil and gas development. Accordingly, our bill requires the Interior Department to give surface owners advance notice of lease sales that would affect their lands and to notify them of subsequent events related to proposed or ongoing developments related to such leases. In addition, the bill requires that anyone proposing the drill for Federal minerals in a split-estate situation must first try to reach an agreement with the surface owner that spells out what will be done to minimize interference with the surface owner's use and enjoyment and to provide for reclamation of affected lands and compensation for any damages. We think that most energy companies want to avoid harming the surface owners, so we expect that it will usually be possible for them to reach such agreements. However, we recognize that this may not always be the case and the bill includes two provisions that address this possibility: (1) if no agreement is reached within 90 days, the bill requires that the matter be referred to neutral arbitration; and (2) the bill provides that if even arbitration fails to resolve differences, the energy development can go forward, subject to Interior Department regulations that will balance the energy development with the interests of the surface owner or owners. As I mentioned, these provisions are patterned on the current law dealing with development of federally-owned coal in split-estate situations. However, it is important to note one major difference--namely, while current law allows a surface owner to effectively veto development of coal resources, under our bill a surface owner ultimately could not block development of oil or gas underlying his or her lands. This difference reflects our belief that appropriate development of oil and natural gas is needed. Reclamation Requirements The bill's third part (Titles III and IV) addresses reclamation of affected lands. Title III would amend the Mineral Leasing Act by adding an explicit requirement that parties that produced oil or gas (including coalbed methane) under a Federal lease must restore the affected land so it will be able to support the uses it could support before the energy development. Toward that end, this part of the bill requires development of reclamation plans and posting of reclamation bonds. In addition, so Congress can consider whether changes are needed, the bill requires the General Accounting Office to review how these requirements are being implemented and how well they are working. And, finally, Title IV would require the Interior Department to: (1) establish, in cooperation with the Agriculture Department, a program for reclamation and closure of abandoned oil or gas wells located on lands managed by an Interior Department agency or the Forest Service or drilled for development of Federal oil or gas in split-estate situations; and (2) establish, in consultation with the Energy Department, a program to provide technical assistance to State an tribal governments that are working to correct environmental problems cased by abandoned wells on other lands. The bill would authorize annual appropriations of $5 million in fiscal 2005 and 2006 for the Federal program and annual appropriations of $5 million in fiscal 2005, 2006, and 2007 for the program of assistance to the States and tribes. Mr. Speaker, our country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy. To lessen this dependence and to protect our environment, we need to diversity our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix. However, for the foreseeable future, petroleum and natural gas (including coalbed methane) will remain important parts of a diversified energy portfolio and we support their development in appropriate areas and in responsible ways. We believe this legislation can move us closer toward this goal by establishing some clear, reasonable rules that will provide greater assurance and certainty for all concerned, including the energy industry and the residents of Colorado, New Mexico, and other Western States. Here is a brief outline of its major provisions: Outline of Bill SECTION ONE--This section provides a short title (``Western Waters and Surface Owners Protection Act''), makes several findings about the need for the legislation, and states the bill's purpose, which is ``to provide for the protection of water resources and surface estate owners in the development of oil and gas resources, including coalbed methane.'' TITLE I--This title deals with the protection of water resources. It includes three sections: Section 101 amends current law to specify that an operator producing oil or gas under a Federal lease must: (1) replace a water supply that is contaminated or interrupted by drilling operations; (2) assure any reinjected water goes only to the same aquifer from which it was extracted or an aquifer of no better water quality; and (3) to develop a proposed water management plan before obtaining a lease Section 102 amends current law to make clear that extraction of water in connection with development of oil or gas (including coalbed methane) is subject to an appropriate permit and requirement to minimize adverse effects on affected lands or waters. Section 103 provides that nothing in the bill will: (1) affect any State's right or jurisdiction with respect to water; or (2) limit, alter, modify, or amend any interstate compact or judicial rulings that apportion water among and between different States. Title II--This title deals with the protection of surface owners. It includes four sections: Section 201 provides definitions for several terms used in Title II. Section 202 requires a party seeking to develop federal oil or gas in a split-estate situation to first seek to reach an agreement with the surface owner or owners that spells out how the energy development will be carried out, how the affected lands will be reclaimed, and that compensation will be made for damages. It provides that if no such agreement is reached within 90 days after the start of negotiations the matter will be referred to arbitration by a neutral party identified by the Interior Department. Section 203 provides that if no agreement under section 202 is reached within 90 days after going to arbitration, the Interior Department can permit energy development to proceed under an approved plan of operations and posting of an adequate bond. This section also requires the Interior Department to provide surface owners with an opportunity to comment on proposed plans of operations, participate in decisions regarding the amount of the bonds that will be required, and to participate in on-site inspections if the surface owners have reason to believe that plans of operations are not being followed. In addition, this section allows surface owners to petition the Interior Department for payments under bonds to compensate for damages and authorizes the Interior Department to release bonds after the energy development is completed and any damages have been compensated. Section 204 requires the Interior Department to notify surface owners about lease sales and subsequent decisions involving federal oil or gas resources in their lands. Title III--This title amends current law to require parties producing oil or gas under a Federal lease to restore affected lands and to post bonds to cover reclamation costs. It also requires the GAO to review Interior Department implementation of this part of the bill and to report to Congress about the results of that review and any recommendations for legislative or administrative changes that would improve matters. Title IV--This title deals with abandoned oil or gas wells. It includes three sections: Section 401 defines the wells that would be covered by the title. Section 402 requires the Interior Department, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, to establish a program for reclamation and closure of abandoned wells on federal lands or that were drilled for development of federally-owned minerals in split-estate situations. It authorizes appropriations of $5 million in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Section 403 requires the Interior Department, in consultation with the Energy Department, to establish a program to assist states and tribes to remedy environmental problems caused by abandoned oil or gas wells on non-federal and Indian lands. It authorizes appropriations of $5 million in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this conference report. I can support neither the process by which it was assembled nor the misshapen result of that process. Once again the House is being asked to vote on a massive omnibus measure that rolls together the thousands of specific accounts that properly should be included in no fewer than seven separate regular appropriations bills. This is exactly what happened last year, and it is just as objectionable now as it was then. I do not blame our appropriations committee for this. I have the greatest respect for both its Chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, and its ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey. They and their colleagues did their work, and the House passed all of the regular appropriations bills, in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, however, the Senate did not follow suit--and the leadership of both chambers insisted on taking control of the process in order to accommodate the desires of the Bush Administration. As a result, the bill before us today not only has provisions not considered by either chamber, it also omits some things that were approved by both bodies. And while it does provide essential funding for many purposes, in several important respects it falls far short of what is needed. For example, one of my biggest concerns is how this conference report deals with important scientific facilities of two agencies--the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)--in Colorado. I voted against the commerce department funding bill when the House considered it earlier this year because it included severe reductions in funding for these facilities. I could not support such cuts, not just because these facilities employ so many Coloradans, but also because the work done there is so important for our country. Still, even though that part of the House bill was seriously inadequate, I hoped that the Senate would not make the same mistake and that the conference report would more appropriately recognize the needs of these facilities--but, as I have reviewed the conference report, that hope has faded. noaa laboratory funding The conference report isn't as clear as it could be. For instance, it hasn't been possible to determine whether or not the report includes $4.5 million to pay rent for NOAA's Boulder labs. In fact, even NOAA's budget office isn't sure whether or not that money was included. Similarly, it isn't readily apparent how the research funding breaks down and at what levels the Colorado labs are funded--apparently program accounts have been padded with an ``administrative charge,'' though we don't know the amount, there are across-the-board rescissions that also affect program accounts, and there are huge numbers of earmarks in the bill that take from program funds. Furthermore, it isn't yet clear whether or not jobs will be lost at NOAA. One thing that is possible to discern--through inference--is that NOAA's Space Environment Center (SEC) is funded at $5.3 million. This is barely two-thirds of the base funds needed by SEC, which suffered similar shortfalls last year, and 40 percent less than the President's $8.3 million FY04 request. This is more than disappointing--in my opinion, it is irresponsible. Let me briefly explain what leads me to that conclusion. In October, the Science Committee's Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee held a hearing to fully examine the issue of space weather and who should be responsible for its forecasting. We heard testimony from representatives of NOAA, the Air Force, and NASA, along with officials from the electric power, satellite, and airline industries, which are the predominant users of the SEC's forecasts. From that hearing, it was clear that: The services that NOAA's SEC provides are relied upon heavily by government and many critical private sector industries; The SEC functions cannot be easily transferred to another agency without huge expenditures and temporary to intermediate loss of forecasting services; and Even at the House approved funding level of $5.3 million, the SEC would have to significantly reduce current services at a time when our industries are more vulnerable to space weather. With our country increasingly vulnerable to these solar events, it is short-sighted and penny-pinching to reduce the services provided by the SEC. national institute for standards and technology (nist) The numbers for NIST are no more satisfactory. The overall Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account is funded at a lower level than both the House and Senate bills, and this lower level also includes $15.5 million in earmarks. The lab account thus will provide only minimal funding to cover mandatory cost-of-living increases, at the same time new responsibilities are being assigned to NIST. With approximately 55 percent of NIST's STRS budget devoted to personnel compensation and benefits, these cuts in the lab account will lead to more job losses at NISt, only continuing the steady decrease in the number of NIST staff in the laboratories since 1994. Funding for direly needed construction at Boulder's NIST laboratories is again less than is needed. The NIST Boulder laboratories have contributed to great scientific advances through its key facilities, but these facilities are now over fifty years old, and if they are to continue to make important contributions, they need help. Of the millions of dollars of work that was shown to be necessary in NIST's 1998 Facilities Improvement Plan, only about $11 million has been appropriated over the years--for the design of an electrical system upgrade at the Boulder facilities and for the first phase of construction of a new central utility plant. The central utility plan still needs $22.6 million, and the electrical services improvements need $5.5 million, yet the conference report includes $23.5 million in earmarks in the NIST construction account. Only about $20 million of about $65 million is left in the report for construction, and it's unclear how that total will be divided between NIST's Gaithersburg and Boulder labs. NOAA and NIST are not the only Commerce Department accounts that are shortchanged by the conference report--and the damage goes beyond federal agencies to hurt the private sector too. Manufacturing Extension Program The conference report cuts by more than two-thirds the Manufacturing Extension Program, which assists thousands of small and medium-sized manufacturers across this country. This cut effectively guts the program, which was the Bush Administration's intent. With manufacturing jobs still being lost every month and high-tech companies struggling, now is not the time to turn our back on the manufacturing community and our small high-tech entrepreneurs. It is one thing to make government more lean; it is another thing to cut programs and jobs year in and year out at facilities all over the country--not because there is fat to cut at these facilities, but because the Subcommittee allocation simply doesn't provide enough money to go around. This conference report continues the pattern of bleeding NIST and NOAA dry--agencies that do so much to support our nation's economy and the public's well-being. Of course, the conference report does include funding for programs to assist veterans, housing programs, and many other worthwhile purposes, including necessary investments in transportation infrastructure-- things that I definitely support. Some of the transportation items are of special importance for Colorado. These include: $8 million for the Boardway Bridge/I-25 interchange complex; $4 million for work on the Santa Fe/C-470 corridor; $3 million for the McCaslin Boulevard/U.S. 36 interchange; $3 million for repairs to the Red Cliff/Arch bridge; $2.5 million for implementation of the incident management plan for Interstate 70; $2.5 million for the Colorado I-225 and Colfax Avenue interchange; $800,000 for the U.S. 36, Wadsworth, and State Highway 128 interchange; $800,000 for the I-70 and State Highway 58 interchange; $500,000 for the Wadsworth Blvd/SH121/Grandview grade separation project; $500,000 for the East 104th Ave. and U.S. 85 intersection improvements; $500,000 for the U.S. 6 and State Highway 121 interchange; $450,000 for the U.S. 36, I-270 interchange; $400,000 for work on State Highway 149; and $200,000 for work on I-76 between Fort Morgan and Brush. In addition, the conference report includes $14 million for buses and bus facility projects of the Colorado Transit Coalition, whose request I strongly supported. If we had the chance to consider separate final bills for these purposes, I would be glad to support them. But instead they have been rolled into this conference report, with all the serious deficiencies I have mentioned. And those deficiencies are not the only ones--the conference report before us has other serious defects as well, such as the fact that it does nothing to prevent administrative actions that threaten the right of many workers to receive overtime pay to which they are now entitled, and the omission of the provision passed by both Chambers to make it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that these many deficiencies make it impossible for me to vote for this conference report.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1685, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. The Basic Pilot Verification program was created in 1997 to assist employers in verifying the eligibility of prospective employees to work in the U.S. Currently the program is only available to employers in six States. Recently I voted against a bill to expand and extend the program, H.R. 2359, because I thought an expansion of this program deserved more debate and allowance for amendments to fix some of the more problematic parts of the bill. The Senate-passed measure that we are considering today, S. 1685, is an improvement on the House bill. Unlike the House bill, this bill does not open up access to the databases of the Homeland Security Department and the Social Security Administration to other Federal agencies or to State and local government agencies. I had grave concerns about the infringement of civil liberties in the House bill, which would have permitted widespread sharing of employee information. I am also pleased that concerns already identified by the Department of Homeland Security about the Basic Pilot program are being addressed. I still have apprehensions that the data used in this program is not always up-to- date or accurate, specifically in regard to the visa status of employees. However, I am hopeful that the Homeland Security Department report required under this legislation will address these concerns so that they can be resolved by the time the program is expanded to all fifty states. The Basic Pilot Verifications program provides an efficient and effective method for ensuring that employers are hiring eligible employees. I hope that through the extension and expansion provided for in this bill, this program will provide accurate information about prospective employees and continue to address the needs of American employers.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the outstanding work of Hank Stovall. Hank served for 24 years on the Council for the City and County of Broomfield as a member for Ward 4 and as Mayor Pro Tempore for a number of years. Along with his colleagues on the city council, Hank helped make Broomfield the diverse and vibrant community that it has become today. He has also helped preserve the high quality of life that citizen in this community at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains have come to expect and appreciate. The citizens of Broomfield have benefited greatly from Hank's dedicated leadership. He helped secure a quality transportation system in the Broomfield region, including support for the Northwest Parkway, an important highway that will connect this community with the Denver International Airport and other important access roads in the region. This Parkway will also include an open space buffer that will add to the quality of the Broomfield neighborhoods as well as increase transportation efficiency and access. He also worked with coalition to improve the US 36 highway corridor and the Broomfield intersections to this important highway corridor. He also has helped ensure that Broomfield's transition from a city to a county was smooth, effective and successful. He and his colleagues recognized the importance of establishing Broomfield as a city and county so as to better serve its citizens. Before the conversion to a county, residents were required to travel to four distant county offices as the city was spread across four separate counties. By making Broomfield a county, the citizens of this community can now enjoy the efficiencies that come with that designation as well as further develop the sense of community that he and others have sought to accomplish. Hank has been involved in many regional and State governmental committees, authorities, task forces and coalitions. All of this work was designed to promote effective governmental function and quality services to citizens and communities in the Broomfield region. But perhaps his most lasting legacy will be his leadership on issues related to Rocky Flats, the former U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons production facility just south of the city and county. He brought his knowledge of nuclear issues to the table as strategies and approaches for cleaning up this facility were being discussed and developed. He insisted that the cleanup be thorough, cost effective and protective of the health, safety and environment of the surrounding communities. He was also a strong proponent of preserving the open space resources at this site and was an early advocate of designating the site as a national wildlife refuge. His support, as well as the support of other leaders surrounding the site, helped make this a reality. He remained very concerned with public health and safety issues related to this site and its cleanup, closure and conversion to a national wildlife refuge. He was especially concerned about the health and safety of the workers at the site and pushed for instituting a high level of safety in all facets of the work done there. Hank leaves the Broomfield County and City Council with a long and distinguished record of accomplishment and service. The citizens of Broomfield enjoy a quality of life, a strong sense of community and a solid reputation for service and leadership on regional issues because of Hank's involvement and public service work. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Hank every success in his future endeavors and hope that he remains active in community and regional issues for years to come.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2417. I voted for this bill earlier this year, but I cannot support it today. I have concerns about a provision in the conference report that would expand financial surveillance authority of our intelligence agencies. I also had concerns about this provision in the first version of the bill that passed the House, but I supported the bill then in the hope that the language would be further clarified in the final conference report. It has not been. Whereas currently banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions are required to provide certain financial data to authorized intelligence agencies and the Treasury Department, this legislation would expand the list of institutions to include car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, casinos, and other businesses. This expanded definition of ``financial institution'' may indeed be necessary for effective counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and international operations of the United States. But since this will represent such a significant expansion of the powers of our intelligence agencies, I believe it is important that it be clear and not go further than necessary. In particular, I am concerned that the language in the conference report only vaguely limits this expanded definition to financial information. I understand that report language makes this distinction more explicit, but that bill conferees objected to including this clarifying language in the conference report itself. The legislative intent of this provision is to expand surveillance in the area of financial--not other--information, but there are no assurances that this intent will be observed when the legislation is implemented. Mr. Speaker, this provision in the conference report involves the privacy rights of Americans--rights that I believe strongly we must protect even as we work to combat terrorism. Because I'm concerned that this conference report does not strike the right balance, I am voting against it today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to support a Medicare drug bill, but I can't support this bill. Instead of giving us a foundation to build on, I believe it will compromise the effectiveness of a very popular healthcare program for seniors in order to deliver an inadequate, unreliable and unfair drug benefit. Under this bill seniors will pay higher premiums, higher deductibles and higher prices for drugs. It will force seniors into HMOs, and millions of seniors will lose drug benefits that they get through their retirement plans. Instead of crafting a drug bill, the Republican leadership has used the opportunity to dismantle Medicare and turn it over to private insurance and drug companies. I have long believed that Congress should act to help seniors with their prescription drug expenses. Congress should give seniors greater choice in coverage, but it should not force seniors into HMOs in order to get a drug benefit. Colorado could be chosen as part of the demonstration project under this bill, which would force seniors into HOMs in order to get the drug benefit. According to a recent analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, most seniors would see increases in their premiums with some facing increases as high as 88 percent. Colorado seniors would pay some of the highest premiums in the country. For example, seniors in Adams County, CO would pay $100 a month while seniors in some parts of North Carolina will pay $58 a month. Why should Coloradans pay higher premiums than seniors in other parts of the country for the exact same benefit? It's no wonder that seniors in my district are skeptical about this plan. Let's not forget, we tried private competition in Medicare when HMOs were allowed to participate in the program as a result of legislation that passed in 1997. Seniors were told that managed care was better able to deliver healthcare services to them. Managed care aggressively courted seniors to join Medicare+Choice plans and then dropped them because they couldn't make a profit. That left millions of seniors searching for doctors and coverage. Now, this bill includes billions of dollars in subsidies to managed care to provide coverage. If privatization is such a good idea, why do insurance companies need these large subsidies in order to participate in Medicare? There are a few provisions in this bill that I support, such as the payment increases for hospitals and physicians and other providers. In fact, I have consistently voted to increase provider payments and I have cosponsored legislation to change the flawed formula upon which these payments are based. But those payments should have been brought up separately rather than as part of the Medicare bill. It is grossly ironic that Medicare will pay for a senior's care following a stroke but will not pay for the anti-hypertension drugs that prevent them. The time is ripe to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit, but not as proposed in this legislation. I had hoped that we would vote on a bill that created a fair, workable, financially sound prescription drug benefit. But I am not willing to set in motion forces that will lead to the destruction of a program that seniors and the disabled have trusted for nearly 40 years in exchange for a feeble prescription drug benefit. We should work to get it done right rather than get it done right now.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this conference report. It has flaws. But if its provisions are properly implemented it can help reduce the risk of severe wildfire damage that now threatens lives and property in many communities in Colorado and other States--and for me that is the bottom line. I am convinced we need to act to protect our communities and their water supplies. For that, a variety of things must be done, including working to reduce the built-up fuels that can increase the severity of the wildland fires that will periodically occur nearby. That's why I have introduced legislation to expedite those thinning projects. It is also why last year I joined with my Colorado colleague, Representative McInnis, and other Members to develop a bill that was approved by the Resources Committee. I voted for that bill last year, and if H.R. 1904 as it came to the House floor earlier this year had been the same as that bill, I would have voted for it again. But it wasn't the same bill, which was why I voted against it. Instead of building on last year's work in the Resources Committee, the Resources and Agriculture Committees this year brought forth a quite different measure--one that added a long list of new provisions while omitting some of the key parts of last year's bill. As a result, it has taken much longer than I though it should have for us to reach the point of being ready to vote on a measure that has a good chance of clearing both chambers and being sent to the President for signing into law. Because H.R. 1904 as passed by the House rejected key compromises that we worked our last year, the bill encountered more resistance in the Senate than otherwise would have been the case, and it was that much harder to shape compromises on a number of difficult points. However, in the end the Senate passed a bill that made important improvements on the House version--and this conference report, while far from perfect, is itself a definite improvement over the legislation that I voted against earlier this year. Let me briefly outline some of the ways in which the conference report is enough of an improvement over the House bill that I can and will vote for it today: funding focus Like the Senate bill, the conference report requires that at least 50 percent of all thinning-project funds be spent in the interface areas. Last year's Resources Committee bill would have required 70 percent of the money to be spent in the interface, but H.R. 1904 as passed by the House did not include any such requirement. So, the conference report is an improvement over the House bill in this area. wildland/urban interface I think the highest priority for fuel-reduction work needs to be on the forest lands where accumulated fuels present the most immediate risks to our communities--those within the wildland/urban interface, or the ``red zone,'' as it is called in Colorado--and to municipal water supplies. These are the places where forest conditions present the greatest risks to people's lives, health, and property, and so they should be where our finite resources--time, money, and people--are concentrated. To properly focus on these areas, we have to properly identify them. In that regard, I had no quarrel with the provisions of H.R. 1904 as passed by the House. By referring to lands within either an ``interface'' or ``intermix'' community, it provided an appropriate limitation on the discretion of the agencies without drawing an arbitrary mileage line that would not appropriately reflect the reality that a community's exposure to the risk of wildfire depends on terrain, forest conditions, and other factors that can vary greatly from one place to another and over time. However, proper focus also requires assured priority status for funds to carry out projects to protect communities and their water supplies. The bill reported by the Resources Committee last year required that at least 70 percent of the funds provided a for fuel-reduction purposes would have to be used for such projects--but no similar provision is included in H.R. 1904. I offered an amendment to restore the provision, and its absence was a major reason I voted against the House bill. The Senate bill had a basic limit of one-half mile from a community's boundary, with some exceptions--if a larger area was identified in a community protection plan developed through a collaborative process; or if land near a community was steep; or if there was a geographical feature that would provide a firebreak within three-quarters of a mile, in which case the interface would go to that feature. The ``community protection plan'' provision was particularly good, in my opinion, because it did not require an arbitrary cutoff, and because it allowed both Federal and non-Federal land to be included. The rest of the definition was problematical. The conference report improves somewhat on the Senate bill. It (1) retains the ``community protection plan'' part of the definition; (2) keeps the basic one-half mile limit; but (3) allows the interface to go to 1\1/2\ mile, if the slopes are steep or if there is a firebreak- feature within that distance and the lands are very susceptible to fire. Like the Senate bill, it also defines the interface as including a route identified as necessary for escape from a threatened community. I think it is well established that reducing the fuels closest to structures pays big dividends in terms of reduced fire risks. However, I do into favor defining the interface in terms of arbitrary lines on the map, because fires do not respect those lines and because our experience in Colorado has shown that some of the high-priority ``red zone'' areas are extensive. A prime example is the Hayman fire--it was among the largest in our State's history, but all of the lands involved were within the ``red zone'' as defined by our State Forester (a definition that is included in my bill, H.R. 1042). Nonetheless, on balance, I think the conference report is acceptable on this point because of the emphasis that it puts on community- protection plans. This should encourage at-risk communities, like those along the Front Range, to develop protection plans and to encourage owners of non-Federal lands to join in working to reduce fire risks.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1685, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. The Basic Pilot Verification program was created in 1997 to assist employers in verifying the eligibility of prospective employees to work in the United States Currently the program is only available to employers in six States. Recently I voted against a bill to expand and extend the program, H.R. 2359, because I thought an expansion of this program deserved more debate and allowance for amendments to fix some of the more problematic parts of the bill. The Senate-passed measure that we are considering today, S. 1685, is an improvement on the House bill. Unlike the House bill, this bill does not open up access to the databases of the Homeland Security Department and the Social Security Administration to other Federal agencies or to State and local government agencies. I had grave concerns about the infringement of civil liberties in the House bill, which would have permitted widespread sharing of employee information. I am also pleased that concerns already identified by the Department of Homeland Security about the Basic Pilot program are being addressed. I still have apprehensions that the data used in this program is not always up-to- date or accurate, specifically in regard to the visa status of employees. However, I am hopeful that the Homeland Security Department report required under this legislation will address these concerns so that they can be resolved by the time the program is expanded to all fifty states. The Basic Pilot Verifications program provides an efficient and effective method for ensuring that employers are hiring eligible employees. I hope that through the extension and expansion provided for in this bill, this program will provide accurate information about prospective employees and continue to address the needs of American employers.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor LeRoy Carlson for his three decades of exemplary work with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Leroy Carlson is one of Colorado's outstanding field biologists, preserving and protecting the Rocky Mountain region's wildlife. Lee received his bachelor's degree from Colorado State University in Wildlife Biology and his master's degree in 1974 with an emphasis on the wildlife impacts from oil shale development. He began his career in Galveston, Texas as a field staff biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service where he did permitting work for the Army Corps of Engineers on housing developments, levies and wetlands. After 2 years in Texas, Lee moved to the Lakewood, Colorado offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service where he worked for the next 27 years until his retirement in 2003. His innovative approaches to a wide range of issues enabled him to provide oversight and protection to the region's threatened and endangered species and to guide many of the region's largest projects to successful completion. Lee's ability to coordinate the protection of wildlife was most evident on large Federal projects, such as the Animas-LaPlata water project in Southwest Colorado. He earned the respect of all involved during his 3-year oversight of negotiations between the Bureau of Reclamation, the regional Native American tribes, local water users and regional environmental groups. From these contentious discussions, the San Juan Recovery Program was created, which provided significant mitigation for fish and wildlife resources and included an additional 7 years of research on listed fish. His experience and problem solving attitude in managing complex water projects led to the successful re-issuance of agency water permits on projects throughout the Roosevelt and Arapahoe National Forests. Lee also provided skilled leadership on the Platte River Program for endangered species conservation, involving multiple States and Federal agencies. The Platte River Program included a unique approach to conserving listed wildlife species through the conversion of water use to financial contributions paid by project developers. When the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) needed a new way to address U.S. Fish and Wildlife endangered species requirements, Lee developed an innovative solution that included staffing within CDOT to help that agency evaluate the impacts on wildlife so that the needs of CDOT could be met in a timely manner. His plan became a model for future projects and allowed CDOT to determine project impacts for the next 20 years and develop mitigation plans. The Short Grass Prairie Project received two national awards for the creative approaches Lee used with State and Federal agencies. This became the Colorado model for the Prebles Project in the East Plum Creek area, protecting the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse, a rare species that was placed on the Endangered Species list in 1998. Lee's service and achievements show how a skilled public servant can make important contributions to the quality of our natural environment, as well as our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking LeRoy Carlson for his far-reaching accomplishments and his commitment to the protection of our wildlife resources. I wish him good health and happiness in the future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when this House voted on H.R. 1588 in May, I voted against it. I didn't think the bill as it stood then was one I could endorse. The conference report that we are considering today is marginally better. Although I still have strong reservations, I will support the conference report. We are 2 years into our war on terrorism and still engaged in military action in Iraq. 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. That's why I'm in favor of provisions in the bill that support those men and women who have put their lives on the line in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill provides an average 4.15 percent pay raise for service members, boosts military special pay and extends bonuses, and funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations. I am pleased that the report includes provisions recognizing the importance of non-citizen soldiers and the many sacrifices and contributions they have made. The report eases the naturalization process for these soldiers and their families, reducing to one year the length of service requirement for naturalization during peacetime; allowing soldiers to apply and take oaths for citizenship overseas; and granting permanent resident status to the surviving family of U.S. citizen soldiers who are granted posthumous citizenship as a result of death incurred in combat. I'm also pleased that this bill will allow approximately one-third of eligible disabled military retirees to receive both their retirement and disability benefits. I would have preferred that the bill extend this ``concurrent receipt'' to all disabled retirees, but this is a great improvement on the bill the House considered earlier this year-- which included no such provisions. I am also pleased that the bill extends the military's TRICARE health coverage to National Guard and reservists and their families if servicemembers have been called to active duty. 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, the Administration and Congress have continued every major weapons system inherited from previous administrations. So although the bill brings overall defense spending to levels 13 percent higher than the average Cold War levels, it doesn't present a coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities. The bill still includes provisions that would exempt the Department of Defense from compliance with some requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). There is broad-based support for existing environmental laws--as there should be--and these laws already allow case-by-case flexibility to protect national security. The Pentagon has never sought to take advantage of this flexibility, so it strains belief that these laws are undermining our national security. Indeed, the General Accounting Office has found that training readiness remains high at military installations notwithstanding our environmental laws. I am not persuaded that the changes to these acts proposed by the military are justified. The bill still includes worrisome provisions to overhaul DOD's personnel system. Although they are improved from the bill the House considered earlier this year, these provisions would still strip DOD's civilian employees of worker rights relating to due process, appeals, and collective bargaining. Most disturbingly, the bill still includes provisions on nuclear weapons development. This bill provides funding to study the feasibility of developing nuclear earth-penetrating weapons and authorizes 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. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that this conference report rolls back civil service protections, environmental protections, and our work in the area of nuclear nonproliferation. But some of these provisions were improved in conference, and the addition of concurrent receipt provisions for our nation's veterans is critical. In view of these changes to the bill, added to my belief in the importance of supporting our men and women in uniform, I will support the conference report today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this legislation. We all know that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy. To lessen this dependence and to protect our environment, we must pass a bill that helps us balance our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't provide that balance. And for the most part it not only falls short of meeting the challenges of our time, in many ways it can be described as an energy policy for the nineteenth century. Of course just as no bill is perfect, even this bill is not totally bad. For example, I am pleased that legislation I've initiated is being considered as part of this bill. The bill includes the Federal Laboratory Educational Partners Act of 2003, legislation I introduced with my colleague Rep. Beauprez that would permit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and other Department of Energy laboratories to use revenue from their inventions to support science education activities in their communities. The bill includes the Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Act, a bill I introduced to direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and demonstration of distributed power hybrid energy systems. It makes sense to focus our R&D priorities on distributed power hybrid systems that can both help improve power reliability and affordability and bring more efficiency and cleaner energy resources into the mix. The bill includes my High Performance Schools Act, which would enable our school districts to build school buildings that take advantage of advanced energy conservation technologies, daylighting, and renewable energy to help the environment and help our children learn. As included in the conference report, my bill would be expanded to help state and local governments improve not only energy efficiency in schools, but also in public buildings in general. I am also pleased that this bill includes the Clean School Buses Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean, alternative fuel buses. But despite these bright spots, most of the bill is bad policy--bad for the environment, bad for the taxpayers, and bad for the country. Like its predecessor in the last Congress, this bill puts all its eggs in one basket, the wrong basket. For every step the bill takes to move us away from our carbon-based economy, it takes two in the opposite direction. The bill fails to take any steps whatsoever to require that the nation reduce its dependence on oil or improve the fuel economy of our cars, trucks, and SUVs. In fact, the bill makes it more difficult to update fuel economy standards by adding new requirements for redundant studies to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's CAFE standards-setting process. By contrast, just today we learned that China is preparing to impose minimum fuel economy standards on new cars for the first time--rules that will be significantly more stringent than those in this country. This is great news for the world--but what an embarrassing proof that we won't even do as much for our own national security and the environment. That contrast speaks volumes about this bill's priorities, which are the priorities of this Administration. This bill not only does nothing to decrease our dependence on oil--it also does almost nothing to control demand. But increasing production while ignoring demand is a recipe for disaster. The Administration boasts that this bill is a balanced approach because it would promote the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. But aside from a few provisions on electrical appliances and heating systems, the bill does little to promote energy conservation. And although there are some tax incentives for renewable fuels, they pale in comparison to the lavish tax breaks the bills gives the oil and gas industry. And for all we hear from the Administration about the hydrogen provisions, the bill doesn't go far enough. It's all well and good to authorize billions of dollars to deploy hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, but the bill includes no production or deployment requirements or even goals to ensure that a meaningful number of hydrogen vehicles will be delivered to consumers. As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I define a balanced bill as one that gives more than a passing nod to the development of alternative sources of energy. The Senate version of this bill included sensible provisions to require large utilities to get modest amounts of their power from renewable sources. Although 13 states have already passed their own versions of such a Renewable Portfolio Standard, and although the energy bill conferees just yesterday voted to include the RPS in the conference report, the Republicans stripped it out late last night. If this were really about jobs, as the Republicans claim, they would have retained the RPS provision--which experts say could create millions of new jobs in this country. I won't even get into some of the other egregious provisions, such as the incentives in the bill for new nuclear and coal development, and the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, the main law to protect consumers from market manipulation, fraud, and abuse in the electricity sector. Nor will I complain in detail about process--the fact that Democrats were shut out of conference proceedings, that we don't even know the cost of this 1100-page bill that we were able to review in its entirety only last night, that Republican conferees have essentially been buying votes over the last week to ensure the bill's passage. An example of this vote-buying is the bill's language to allow polluted areas to have more time to reduce smog pollution but without having to implement stronger air pollution controls, placing a significant burden on states and communities down-wind of these urban areas. There are other provisions related to public health that should never have been included in this bill. The bill eliminates protections for underground drinking water supplies from potential damages caused by hydraulic fracturing. The bill also provides a special liability waiver for MTBE producer who face lawsuits from states and localities for polluting their water supplies, thereby shifting cleanup costs to taxpayers. Bad for the country, the bill is particularly bad for the West. Many of its provisions will directly and immediately affect Colorado and other western States. We have important resources of oil and gas, as well as great potential for solar energy and wind energy. I support energy development in appropriate places and in ways that balances that development with other uses and such other vital resources as water and the people, fish, and wildlife that depend on it. Unfortunately, here again this bill does not reflect the needed balance. Instead, it combines big subsidies for energy development with lessening of the procedural and substantive requirement that have been established to protect our lands, water, and environment. Overall, the oil and gas title of the bill is intended to stimulate increased production from both the Outer Continental Shelf and onshore lands. It combines a series of royalty reductions, so companies will pay the public less for the oil, gas, and other energy resources developed on publicly-owned lands. It also would completely exempt oil and gas construction activities-- including roads, drill pads, pipeline corridors, refineries, and other facilities--from the stormwater drainage requirements of the Clean Water Act. It also has provisions designed to speed up establishing rights-of- way and corridors for oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines. Under section 350, within 2 years the federal agencies are to designate new corridors for oil and gas pipelines and electricity transmission and facilities on Federal land in the eleven contiguous Western States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. And it provides for a pilot project to speed up the processing of federal permits related to oil and gas development in several parts of the BLM lands. This includes the Glenwood Springs Resource Area in Colorado as well as areas in Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Nothing in the bill would increase the resources available to BLM or the other federal land managing agencies to carry out their other responsibilities in connection with management of the affected lands. As a result, this bill has the potential to essentially repeal multiple-use management and to make energy development the dominant use on the public lands. Similarly, the bill includes a requirement for a study and report on opportunities to develop renewable energy on the public lands and National Forests as well as lands managed by the energy and defense departments--including units of the National Wilderness Preservation System and wilderness study areas, National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, and other environmentally-sensitive areas. At best, this is a prescription for controversy. At worst, it threatens to open the door for incompatible development on lands that should be left as they are. These are big steps backward. So is the provision that would allow geothermal-energy leases to be in effect converted into claims under the Mining Law of 1872. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we need a well-designed policy to meet the challenges of our time, not a policy that will diminish our energy security. With the Middle East--the world's main oil-producing region-- in turmoil, we must question the predictability of future foreign oil supplies. Fully 30 percent of the world's oil supply comes from the volatile and politically unstable Persian Gulf region. Yet with only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home. This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. I only wish my colleagues in the House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology that exists today. In much the same way that America set about unlocking the secrets of the atom with the ``Manhattan Project'' or placing a man on the moon with the Apollo program, we can surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil. This bill would continue our addiction to finite and politically unstable energy resources, while undermining public health, the environment, and ultimately our national security itself. It should be rejected.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Don Mock for his exemplary public service as a member of the Boulder City Council from 1996 through 2003. I would like to thank him on behalf of all Boulder's citizens for the depth and diversity of contributions he has made to ensure that our city remains a very special place to live. Raised in Florida, Don received his BS and MS in Physics from the University of Florida, and his PhD in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Washington. He has worked as a Research Assistant in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and as a Support Scientist for the Physical Oceanography Group of the NASA/ Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In 1989, Don moved to Colorado to work as Systems Manager for the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Since 1991 he has been a Systems Manager and later a Director of Computing and Network Services at the Climate Diagnostics Center of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Environmental Research Laboratories. In 1996, Don was appointed to the Boulder City Council and elected a year later to another term. On the Council, he quickly earned the respect of his colleagues for his intelligence, sound judgment, and moderate approach to a wide range of issues. He provided thoughtful and skilled leadership in the areas of budget policy, taxes, transportation, affordable housing, school overcrowding and the environment. Don was actively engaged in resolving the status of the 9th and Canyon hotel site and was a strong proponent of the comprehensive rezoning project to address commercial growth issues. He has served successfully in such diverse organizations as the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the Bureau of Conference Services and Cultural Affairs, the Boulder Community Celebrations, and the Dairy Center for the Arts. An important part of his focus on Council has been sensible growth management, sustainable use of resources, and a strong, stable economy. Prior to his appointment to Council, Don was chair of the City's Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and served four years as a co-chair of the Whittier Neighborhood Association, as well as two years on the Steering Committee for the Pine Street/Whittier Traffic Mitigation Project. In 1995, he was especially effective in working with the Citizens for Parks and Recreation to successfully pass the Parks Ballot Issue which led to new acquisitions of park land in the city of Boulder. Over the years, Don has been unswerving in his commitment to policies that serve the environment, the education and health of people, and principles of integrity and fairness. I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Councilman Mock for his years of public service and his contributions to the people of Boulder, Colorado. I wish him continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. But I do have reservations about a number of provisions included in it. As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I have worked for years to increase--or at a minimum, hold steady--funding for DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development programs. So I am disappointed that for yet another year, the bill shortchanges these important clean energy programs. Given our finite supply of fossil fuels and increasing global demand, investing in clean energy is more important than ever. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests, helping provide strategies and tools to address the environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades. By reducing air pollution and other environmental impacts from energy production and use, they also constitute the single largest and most effective federal pollution prevention program. Investments in sustainable energy technologies meet multiple other public policy objectives. Far from decreasing, U.S. dependence on imported oil has increased to record levels over the past 25 years. These programs are helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports, thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds of new domestic businesses, supporting thousands of American jobs, and opening new international markets for American goods and services. While these technologies have become increasingly cost-competitive, the pace of their penetration into the market will be determined largely by government support for future research and development as well as by assistance in catalyzing public-private partnerships, leading to full commercialization. For our investment in these technologies to pay off, our efforts must be sustained over the long term. This bill does not do that. This bill is fully $75 million less than last year's bill in the area of research energy research. Much of this reduction is used to fund a new Office of Electricity Transmission and Distribution. Cuts to renewable energy accounts are also used to boost hydrogen programs fully $38 million above last year's levels. Although I'm certainly supportive of both the electricity and hydrogen programs, I believe they should be additive to take advantage of the synergies they present with the other important and established programs at DOE. Instead, the bill cuts biomass/ biofuels by $14.4 million, solar energy by $9.4 million, and geothermal by $3.8 million. I believe that the reductions in funding levels for the core renewable energy programs are ill-advised at a time when the need for a secure, domestic energy supply is so crucial. Clean energy technologies have a critically important role to play in promoting public health and enhancing the energy security of the nation by promoting fuel diversity, harnessing safe and abundant domestic resources, and expanding the use of small-scale, dispersed technologies. Overall, the bill provides necessary funding for some important Army Corps of Engineers projects and for DOE's Office of Science and non- proliferation programs. It also includes critical funding for defense environmental management programs--in particular, funding for Rocky Flats, the former weapons production site in Colorado. Funding in this bill keeps Rocky Flats on track for finishing cleanup and closure by the end of 2006. So on balance, Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill contains more good than bad. Although I am not satisfied with the levels of funding in this bill for DOE's clean energy programs, I will continue to work to increase funding for these programs in years to come.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Spenser Havlick, who this month is retiring from membership on the Boulder, CO, City Council. Elected to the council in 1982, Spense has had 21 years of distinguished public service. Born in Oak Park, IL and raised in Green Bay, WI, he received his B.A. Degree from Beloit College, his M.A. from the University of Colorado in limnology and his Ph.D. in environmental planning and water resource management from the University of Michigan. He became the Assistant Dean and Director of the College of Environmental Design at the University of Colorado in Boulder in 1975. His research and teaching focused on natural hazard mitigation, the citizen's role in the planning process, and the impact of urbanization on the environment. He has written on ecology and design and is preparing another book on transportation management and traffic calming. He has taught at the University of Michigan and Murdoch University in Western Australia, consulted for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Information Agency. With this outstanding academic background, Spense has been a champion of the values that embody the spirit of Boulder. His commitment to defending these values made him a distinctive member of the council. A passionate environmentalist, Spense had a two-decade struggle with transportation problems and worked diligently to promote public transportation, rail service between Denver and Boulder, bicycle paths, city open space and pedestrian walkways. In his role as professor of environmental design at the University of Colorado, Spense encouraged his students to adopt Boulder's environmental values. He urged students to give up their cars, get more exercise and walk, or use alternative transportation. A top vote getter in all his elections, Spense promoted a strategy to find more affordable housing, worked on growth management, led the effort for the largest purchase of open space in the history of Boulder and worked to streamline the city's budget in tough economic times. Spense's civic commitment is demonstrated through his service on the City Council Environmental and Transportation Committees, as an Eco- cycle block leader, and as a Commissioner for the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority. The City Council of Boulder, CO, has been fortunate to have had Spenser Havlick as a member for the past 21 years. On behalf of Boulder's residents, I wish him well as he continues to pursue his commitment to a better community and State.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Middle Park Land Trust and the Denver Water Department for their efforts in creating an outstanding conservation easement for Colorado's citizens in Grand County, Colorado. Open space in Grand County and the rest of our state is coming under increasing pressure because of the rapid expansion of Colorado's population. In response, Grand County's elected officials and citizens partnered together to begin a 7-year odyssey to protect and preserve the open ranges, meadows and ridges in the Fraser Valley. Through a series of deed restrictions, conservation easements and open space development, more than 20,000 acres of land are now under some form of protection from development in Grand County. The Denver Water Department was encouraged to ``donate'' properties they owned because of the efforts of Grand County citizens to raise approximately $6,000 in funds to help cover some of the costs related to monitoring lands in perpetuity and to provide funds to pay legal fees in case the easement is questioned in court. The Colorado General Assembly partnered in this historic easement by passing legislation that changed tax deductions to tax credits and increasing the value of allowable easements from $100,000 to $260,000, thus encouraging the development of multiple land trusts across the state. Road and trail easements are now being developed to connect the towns of Fraser and Winter Park while protecting connecting routes and surrounding lands. Once again, citizens in the county, Fraser's local library and county officials have been encouraged in their efforts by the historic conservation easement crafted by Grand County citizens. The Middle Park Land Trust has had its most successful and productive year. I applaud their innovative conservation efforts and encourage more partnerships like this, not only in Colorado's pristine mountain counties, but throughout the country as we seek to preserve our Nation's beautiful lands for now and for generations to come. Present and future generations will be thankful for the foresight in preserving some of the landscapes such as these in Grand County that inspire, enhance wildlife and recreational opportunities. I have attached a copy of a local newspaper story about this important effort. [From the Winter Park Manifest Oct. 29, 2003] Meadows Are Open Forever (By Harry Williamson) As you take your drive into the Fraser Valley this week, check out the meadows on the west side of Highway 40 just south of Tabernash. Ignoring a couple of dilapidated, ancient cabins way back in the trees, there's not a spec of building to be seen. It's just horses and the occasional coyote moving among the sagebrush. And that's the sight you're going to see forever--never a house, never businesses bordering the highway--thanks to a deal finalized by the county, the Middle Park Land Trust and the Denver Water Department. Completing seven years of work, a conservation easement has been signed that protects the 514 acres, part of the old Stadelman Ranch, from any type of development ever taking place. In addition, the approximately 300 acres on the east side of the highway is also protected by deed restrictions signed by the landowners that prohibits any building in those meadows. The only land that is not removed from possible future building is the approximately 160 acres at the far north end, just before Tabernash, which is owned by the city of Arvada. And, the approximately 45 acres of meadow in the Hidden River Ranch subdivision, located just north of the meadows on the west side of the highway is also removed from development by a deed restriction. So what you see today in those meadows, is pretty much what you're always going to get. ``In all of our surveys concerning what land local residents wanted to see protected, these meadows were always very high on the list,'' said Cindy Southway, Land Trust director. The easement on the west side meadows was signed between Denver Water and the county, which was assisted by the Land Trust in developing the agreement. Denver Water also owns the slightly more than 900 acres atop the ridge further west of the meadows, heavily-treed land that the agency likely plans to sell for development. Commissioner James Newberry said that under the agreement a developer would be able to use the meadows as a portion of the open space required to develop the remainder of the land under the county's Rural Land Use Process, which requires at least 66 percent open space. This type of land development was developed by the county in 1999 as a way to maintain the rural character of the county. County officials said that since the land atop the ridge is not included in an urban growth area, as designated by the county's master plan, the only way it can be developed is through the rural land process. Southway said that if and when the land is sold for development, it is hoped that a new conservation easement could be developed between the new owner and the Land Trust. ``We're in the business of holding these easement, and we could work with that developer to tighten it (the easement) up to get them tax benefits,'' she said. The effort to get the meadows under easement was started approximately seven years ago by the Land Trust, then called the Grand County Land Conservancy. The idea, however, floundered over the years for various reasons, including Denver Water's hesitance to make what the Land Trust referred to as a ``donation'' to cover some of the cost of ``monitoring the land for perpetuity. Southway added that funds are also needed to be held in reserve to pay legal fees in case the easement is ever questioned in court. She said that when a landowner balks at making a donation, then the Land Trust does fundraisers to obtain the funds, with approximately $6,000 raised for the Denver Water project. Newberry said that the county, involved in other discussions with Denver Water, suggested a few months ago that negotiations on the easement possibility be resumed. He said that due to state legislation passed last year counties are now able to hold non-development easements. ``Once Denver Water started talking about it, we got this thing done in record time, considering there was a government entity on the two ends of the deal,'' Newberry said. He added that the negotiations, once restarted, took just under three months. Newberry said another agreement has been finalized where Denver Water has donated an easement of an existing old farm road that extends along the bottom of the ridge. He said the county's plan is to make the roadway part of the Fraser Valley Parkway, which has been a concept for the last 20 years as an alternative route to Highway 40. Officials said, once developed, the roadbed would be a 60 feet wide collector road consisting of two lanes. He said the county has already acquired the necessary right-of-way for the parkway from County Road 522, through two developments near Tabernash and on through, via the Denver Water road, to County Road 50. Newberry said the county is currently working with the town of Fraser, the library and the people who own the land between County Roads 50 and 73 to identify and purchase a road easement. Once this route, to also include a trail easement, is determined the road would connect with the existing parkway. Plans are for the parkway to then run through a still-to-be-determined route through the Rendezvous subdivision and on through the town of Winter Park. Southway said 2003 has been a very successful year for the Middle Park Land Trust, which was started in 1995. She said that, during the year, approximately 1,400 acres have either been put under easement or that an agreement is being finalized. She added that its been her agency's most productive year, due in large measure to legislation passed last year that gives Colorado tax credits for land put under a conservation easement. She explained that the state before was like the federal government where a tax deduction was given. ``The State of Colorado changed to a tax credit, and increased the maximum value of the easement allowable for the credit from $100,000 to $260,000. These tax credits are dollar for dollar, and they're a commodity, they can be sold. This makes it much more attractive for landowners, who retain ownership and use of the land. They just can't develop it,'' she said. ``The exciting thing is that it has been a great year for land trusts all across Colorado,'' she added. Southway said that there are currently approximately 20,000 acres of land now under some form of non-development easement in Grand County.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an innovative and significant agreement between the various communities in Boulder County, Colorado. Working together in a spirit of cooperation, the nine municipal communities in the county came together with Boulder County to produce this agreement which will help promote wise planning and smart growth management and thereby preserve the quality of life in the county and these communities. Called the Boulder County Countywide Coordinated Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement (or the Super IGA), this plan was signed on October 16, 2003 by Boulder County and the communities of Boulder, Erie, Jamestown, Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, Lyons, Nederland and Superior. In Colorado, as in many States, intergovernmental agreements are typically created to address common management issues between neighboring communities. With this Super IGA, communities within the entire county have come together to address common concerns and issues and have established a roadmap for the benefit of all residents of the county. Over the past few years, county and city officials labored to come to terms on an accord that outlines growth boundaries for development, provides land use regulations that prevent growth into hazardous areas like flood plains, and designates buffer zones between communities. An IGA of this magnitude, across nearly 800 square miles, consisting of a dozen different municipalities, and encompassing over 300,000 people, is a remarkable achievement. This Super IGA is based on more than 10 underlying plans that inherently permit flexibility through an open amendment process. It is that basic flexibility that will likely drive this 20 year agreement, allowing the various governing bodies to strive for their individual success, yet within the framework of a larger consensual accord. This innovative and forward-looking approach to planning and growth management is indeed exciting. Clearly, as this is a new approach, we all are watching this carefully and hope that it is successful. But its very creation shows that communities can come together and work toward common goals. Boulder County and these communities have embarked on an approach which I hope will continue to foster positive intergovernmental relationships, and strengthen the sense of our collective community. It's an example of the things that local communities can do to make sure that growth and development complement the needs and desires of citizens and local communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the creators of this Boulder County Super IGA, and in wishing them continued success. For our colleagues' information, I am attaching an article from the Colorado Daily newspaper. [From the Colorado Daily, Oct. 16, 2003] ``Super IGA Now Rules Local Land Use in Boulder (By Richard Valenty) Mayors from Boulder County municipalities joined Boulder County Commissioners in signing the Boulder County Countywide Coordinated Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement Thursday at A Spice of Life Event Center in Boulder. Fortunately, the document has a short name, the ``Super IGA.'' The Super IGA partially coordinates at least ten smaller Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA), called Underlying Plans. IGA's, in general, often involve land use regulations to prevent situations like development in naturally hazardous areas like flood plains, or to manage growth by creating buffers of open space between communities. For example, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is a joint land use plan between the city and county of Boulder, thus is an IGA between the two entities. ``These IGA's are sort of a shared vision by the county and by various cities and towns about where growth will happen, and what parts of the county we want to see remain rural in the future,'' said Ron Stewart, Boulder County Commissioner. Representatives of the city of Boulder, Boulder County, Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, Erie, Jamestown, Lyons, Nederland and Superior signed the Super IGA. The town of Ward is not participating, since federal lands and county open space surround it and therefore urban sprawl is not a concern. According to Stewart, the Super IGA agreement is the culmination of years of hard work. ``I've been working on this for about the last three years,'' said Stewart. ``Also, the city managers and administrators throughout the county have been very helpful in putting this together. Every city council in the county ultimately voted in favor of this. Our county attorney told me that by the time we got it done, it was on its 30th draft.'' The City of Lafayette was the last county municipality to agree to be part of the Super IGA. According to Stewart, it was difficult to create a draft that would satisfy everybody. ``Lafayette simply had more concern about the agreement than other cities, and it took us longer than others to work those issues out,'' said Stewart. ``After the drought last year, they wanted assurance that they could build new reservoirs for water storage.'' Not all of Boulder County was covered by an IGA before Thursday, but the Super IGA contains a clause to ``cover additional unincorporated areas not covered by any Underlying Plan.'' ``The Super IGA covers additional territory in the county that would have been outside the area of those agreements,'' said Stewart. The Super IGA document is also designed to limit annexation plans of one entity from encroaching on another entity's Influence Areas, according to the document. ``The Super IGA says that everyone will respect each other's planning area, and that one town isn't going to be providing utility services in somebody else's planning area,'' said Stewart. ``It's the kind of commitment to planning and to a shared vision that allows us to keep the quality of life that we have in Boulder County.'' Stewart added that Boulder residents should not fear situations like the city of Jamestown trying to influence the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, since Underlying Plans would only be amended by members of the underlying IGA. ``No group or committee is created out of the formation of the Super IGA,'' said Stewart. ``If anyone wants to change a land use designation, the various underlying IGAs would have to be amended. In our Comprehensive Plan, the city and county of Boulder could change it without the approval of the rest of the Super IGA.'' Also, the Super IGA states that additional issues such as sales tax revenue sharing, affordable housing and library services could eventually become parts of regional agreements. ``There isn't any serious talk of revenue sharing right now,'' said Stewart. ``That paragraph is meant to state that there is additional work that could be done in terms of regionalism.'' James Burrus, Boulder County media information officer, called the signing of the Super IGA ``truly historic.'' Burrus indicated that this is the only agreement of its kind in Colorado, and Stewart believes it has some national significance as well. ``There are places in America where they do this kind of planning, setting urban growth boundaries, but these are places where the law requires it to happen,'' said Stewart. ``The historic thing here is that nobody required anybody to do this. It was done voluntarily. ``This is really a statement that even in a state like Colorado, where land use laws don't encourage a lot of cooperation, we were all able to get on the same page on a voluntary basis,'' said Stewart.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill which was introduced by our colleague and my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). As a cosponsor of the bill, I want to thank the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), as well as the Committee on Education and the Workforce chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for making it possible for the House to consider the bill today. As my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has explained, the bill would reauthorize the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. The institute is part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, which is located at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Its purpose is to provide mediation and facilitation to help resolve environmental conflicts. The bill would authorize appropriation of $4 million annually for the institute's work in fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The institute's projects involve a wide range of environmental natural resource and public lands issues. It provides impartial, nonpartisan expertise and services to all parties involved, and works with private individuals and organizations as well as with Federal, State, local agencies and Indian tribes. Over the past 5 years, it has had requests for assistance in more than 100 cases across 30 States. And there is every indication that the number of requests will increase in the years ahead. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill that will reauthorize an important program that aims at resolving conflicts and reducing the need for litigation. I urge its approval. Again, I want to thank the leaders of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing this important bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.