Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim the time, I thank the ranking member for his comments and I look forward to working with him, and I think we both agree that this important legislation should be brought forward to the proper committees and to the full House when the time arrives.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill. The bill does include some features that I support--but, overall, it does too little to address the real needs of the economy and the country, and it does too much to make our budgetary problems worse. The bill's supporters, reading from a script written by the White House, say that the bill will create jobs. That sounds like good salesmanship, because in fact there is a desperate need for an increase in employment to begin to make up for the millions of jobs that have disappeared over the last two years. But as any salesman knows, a good slogan can't disguise a product that won't perform--and when it comes to creating jobs, I am convinced this bill won't perform as advertised. No analysis I have seen--whether by the Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, or any other expert--supports the claim that enacting this bill will help put very many people back to work anytime soon. Of course, the bill's supporters--like the pitchman in the old TV ad--say we have their word on it. Excuse my doubts, but I don't think that's proof enough. On the other hand, while its claimed benefits are doubtful, there is no doubt about how the bill will affect the federal budget--it will throw it further out of balance and lead to much deeper deficits. I think this is well summarized by the analyses of the Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which show that the bill's effect on revenues is much greater than claimed. In fact, according to those experts, the bill ``fit[s] within the $550 billion allotted to the Ways and Means Committee only by using gimmicks that cloak its true cost. If the provisions scheduled to terminate before 2013 are extended--as Chairman Thomas envisions and as Congress would be likely to do--the total cost of the plan would be between $865 billion and $1.1 trillion through 2013. In other words . . . the plan could be twice as costly as advertised. [It] . . . thus manages both to be more tilted to the very well-off and more expensive than the original Bush proposal, which would cost $726 billion through 2013.'' This concerns me because I think we need to take deficits seriously, for reasons well stated in recent testimony by The Concord Coalition's President, Peter G. Peterson to the Committee on Financial Services. I was struck by Mr. Peterson's statement that ``A future of mounting deficits is a cause for grave concern. Mounting deficits can slow and even halt the steady growth in material living standards that has always nourished the American Dream. When such deficits are incurred in order to fund a rising transfer from young to old, they also constitute an injustice against future generations . . . This policy, after all, constitutes an explicit decision by today's adults to collectively shift the current cost of government from themselves to their children and grandchildren.'' In other words, because it would lead to deeper deficits, this bill would do just what President Bush, in his State of the Union address, said we should not do--instead of meeting today's challenges, it would simply create new problems for our children. I don't think that is sound policy--especially when a better alternative is available. And that is why I voted for the motion to recommit offered by Representative Rangel. If that motion had been approved, that alternative would have come to the floor. That alternative included very meaningful tax cuts. It included an increase in the child tax credit to $800 per child, an immediate expansion of the 10-percent tax-rate bracket to levels that under the 2001 tax bill would be reached in 2008, and immediate elimination of the ``marriage penalty'' aspect of the income tax. It also included investment tax credits for small businesses, such as business expensing up to $75,000 and bonus depreciation. Those cuts would immediately put money into the pockets of middle- income Americans, who are the people most likely to spend it promptly, boosting consumer demand and thus helping set the stage for an increase business investment needed to meet that demand. The alternative also had other important provisions to respond to the immediate needs of our country and the American people. It provided for extending and expanding unemployment insurance, whose benefits go to the families most affected by the economic downturn--the ones who need real help now. And it included a provision to create a permanent, revenue-neutral corporate tax deduction to encourage American manufacturing companies to expand their operations, as well as a new tax incentive to provide a tax credit of up to $2,400 to businesses that hire people who now are unemployed. And, while the administration and our Republican colleagues seem ready to forget the states, which are experiencing their worst fiscal crisis since World War II, the alternative did not. It would have provided $44 billion over 10 years in direct aid to states for homeland security, education, health care for senior citizens, and highway and other infrastructure improvements. And, just as important as everything else, the alternative was fiscally responsible--fully paid for over 10 years. So, it would have added as many as a million new jobs without adding anything to the deficit. Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Republican leadership refused to let the House even consider that alternative--but maybe those salesmen didn't want us to have that choice. For me, the choice would have been clear. I would have voted for the alternative--but I cannot vote for the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw Members' attention to the dangers of 15passenger vans. These vans have been associated with more than 500 traffic fatalities since 1990. In 2001, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that when these vans are fully loaded they have a rollover risk that is six times higher than when there are only five people in the van. I have become alarmingly aware of the danger of these vans when a church group from my district rolled over 2\1/2\ times while driving to a religious retreat. Four passengers died in this tragic accident. Only later did I find out that these vans are infamous for getting out of the control of the driver and rolling over. My colleagues can see firsthand what can happen when these vehicles lose control. This happened again last year when a van carrying firefighters who were on their way to fight a wildfire raging in Colorado lost control and rolled over more than four times, killing four of the firefighters. These vans were initially designed to carry freight, not people, but now they are widely used by airports, hotels, and other organizations to transport customers and schoolchildren. I have introduced H.R. 1641, the Passenger Van Safety Act, along with Senator Snowe, to make sure that these needless tragedies end and that the most precious cargo, our children, get home safe and sound. I encourage my colleagues to join me and Senator Snowe in cosponsoring this important safety bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a firm supporter of providing a free and quality education to students with and without disabilities, but also in opposition to H.R. 1350, the Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). When IDEA was initially enacted into law, Congress determined that the cost of educating a student with a disability was, on average, twice the cost of educating a student without a disability. In the original legislation, the Federal Government required States to provide an education to students with disabilities, but also agreed to help states fund the ``extra cost'' of educating disabled children by 40 percent of the total cost. It has been 28 years since the original implementation of IDEA, and Congress has yet to appropriate the full 40 percent to states for their special education programs. For 28 years, State and local governments have struggled to fulfill their obligation to disabled students with less than half of the funding that is necessary for the task. This year, Congress again had the opportunity to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation. Members on both sides of the isle and education organizations representing not only administrators and teachers, but students and their parents have voiced their support of appropriating full funding. H.R. 1350 allocates the highest percentage ever to IDEA, yet the funding level is barely over half of that that is required, at 21 percent. Even at a time when full funding for IDEA is almost unanimously supported, and education is touted as a priority by almost every Member of Congress, H.R. 1350 does not come close to backing IDEA's 28 year old promise. It is clear that in order to ensure substantial funding to the nation's disabled children, funding for IDEA must become a mandatory program that requires the Federal Government to appropriate the full 40 percent every appropriations cycle. It is past time for us to fulfill our obligation to this Nation's disabled children. H.R. 1350 does not appropriate full funding, and does not make full funding of IDEA mandatory, and so I feel it is my duty to oppose the bill. I also have serious concerns with the discipline provisions of this bill. Under the ``manifestation determination'' previously required in IDEA, when students with disabilities are disciplined the potential that their disability was a fundamental reason for the problem must be considered. H.R. 1350 would no longer require schools to determine whether a student's action was the result of the disability. Under the bill a child with cerebral palsy could be expelled for accidentally making contact with his teacher or a developmentally disabled child could be expelled for ``inappropriate public affection''. While the majority of schools and administrators would not expel a student for minor infractions, the original intent of IDEA was to protect students with disabilities. If every school was enthusiastic and dedicated to the education of disabled students there would have never been any need for IDEA in the first place. I understand the concerns voiced by national teachers and administrators regarding their need to have the authority to discipline students with and without disabilities. However, in order to protect the students from punishment for their disability, the law must include a requirement for the disability always to be taken into account before deciding on consequences. I have received many calls from parents in my district voicing anxiety over what will happen to their disabled children next time he or she makes a mistake related to their disability in school. I believe it is necessary to discipline disabled children, just as it is necessary to discipline children without disabilities, but we must ensure that the disabilities are always taken into account. H.R. 1350 would omit this requirement, and this was another reason that I cannot vote for the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, many things have changed since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our country. But one thing that has not changed is the importance of respecting the Constitution and its limits on the powers of the national government. That is the point of a recent editorial in the Rocky Mountain News concerning the Attorney General's assertion of authority to indefinitely detain people seeking asylum in America, regardless of the rulings of the courts. I am also troubled by the Attorney General's actions, and I share the editorial's view that ``The government has every right to deport illegal immigrants, but if it's going to detain them for any lengthy period, it has to accord them certain rights. For the benefit of our colleagues, here is the full text of the editorial: [From the Rocky Mountain News, April 29, 2003] U.S. Can't Just Throw Away The Key Attorney General John Ashcroft has given himself the power to lock up indefinitely, without hearings, whole classes of illegal immigrants even if he does not deem them individually to be a threat to national security. The decisions about which illegal aliens should be locked up properly belong to the immigration courts, and certainly should not be made on a wholesale basis. In asserting this new power, Ashcroft overrode an appeals panel of immigration judges that had upheld a lower court decision granting bond to an 18-year-old Haitian who entered the country illegally last fall. Ashcroft said he wasn't trying to block the right to seek asylum, only to deter ``unlawful and dangerous mass migrations by sea.'' While the intent may be laudable, it's a stretch to label it a matter of national security--even if Ashcroft is right in describing Haiti as a staging ground for some Muslim immigrants from the Mideast who are trying to get into the United States. The Constitution says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It doesn't make exceptions for noncitizens or people without the proper paperwork. Our protections for civil liberties are one of the reasons refugees are drawn to this country. Some argue that the Founding Fathers never anticipated the war on terrorism and such issues as illegal immigration. Maybe so, but they had a lot of experience with arbitrary use of government authority. The government has every right to deport illegal immigrants, but if it's going to detain them for any lengthy period, it has to accord them certain rights.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, some of the most far-reaching provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT'' Act will expire at the end of 2005 unless Congress acts to extend them. That is nearly three years from now. But reports persist that some think the time has already come for an indefinite extension of those temporary provisions. I disagree. I think the Denver Post got it just right in a recent editorial: ``Not so fast.'' For the information of our colleagues, here is the full text of that editorial: Keep Patriot Act Temporary When Congress passed the Patriot Act in October 2001, it wisely included a ``sunset'' provision that would cause the sweeping legislation to expire on Dec. 31, 2005, unless lawmakers vote to extend it. Now, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is leading Republicans in a push to make the legislation permanent. Not so fast. The legislation, passed in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, gives the government unprecedented (civil libertarians would say excessive) powers to snoop on Americans, including eavesdropping on communications, surveillance, access to financial and computer records, and other constitutionally deleterious practices. The U.S. Department of Justice claims the Patriot Act has given the FBI the ability to respond more quickly to stop terrorists before they can act, and given the still-potent threat posed by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations bent on doing harm to the United States, that might be a good thing. According to The New York Times, though, Justice wants the expiration date on the Patriot Act excised. And that may not be a good thing, especially considering that the Patriot Act was passed only because Democrats and moderate Republicans insisted on a sunset date. From our perspective, the Patriot Act is an extreme measure meant to deal with a crisis--much in the same way that martial law can be proclaimed by a state's governor in time of emergency. Once the danger has passed, martial law is revoked. No one wants troops and tanks in their streets forever. Another argument against extending the Patriot Act indefinitely is that we still don't know how its application ultimately will shake out. Will it be used to harass and intimidate unpopular groups expressing unpopular opinions? Will it be used against political enemies of this or future administrations? Fact is, the feds have been playing their cards very close to the vest on how they've used the Patriot Act. And Congress still doesn't have a handle on how the FBI and other government agencies have used this extreme legislation that treads so heavily on the Bill of Rights. Even if, in the final analysis, it's shown that the government hasn't abused the act, it should never become permanent. We repeat: Never. American liberty is too precious a commodity bought at a too high price in blood and treasure to be tossed aside in a panic. What does it profit us to bring freedom to Iraq while throwing our own away?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, as we prepare for the debate on taxes and spending, I want to call attention to an article in Sunday's Denver Post on the threat of shoulder-fired missiles to our airliners. The article quotes security experts as saying this threat is ``nearly impossible to defend against,'' and points out that equipping the U.S. commercial airline fleet with jammers or decoys could cost up to $10 billion. There are other threats, as well. We need to do much more to prevent ship containers that would be used to smuggle in weapons of mass destruction. Of course, we cannot prevent every conceivable threat to our homeland security. We have to set priorities and we have to fund those priorities. One thing is for sure: when the President proposed and this Congress passed a budget resolution that includes more than $1 trillion in tax cuts, we cannot, in good conscience, tell the American people we are funding these priorities. Madam Speaker, our States need help in beefing up security. When our homeland security alert system goes to orange, our State budgets go into the red. I fear this President and this Republican Congress are sacrificing homeland security and other needs in favor of deep tax cuts that will have little positive effect on our economy. We need to do better.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, recent news reports indicate that some are proposing that Congress make permanent some or all of the provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT Act'' now scheduled to expire at the end of 2005. I find that a matter of concern. Terrorist attacks must not go unanswered, and our law enforcement authorities need adequate tools to fight terrorists. However, I think that need must be carefully balanced with the need to preserve our civil liberties. In that context, I have had serious reservations about the additional authorities provided by the ``Patriot Act.'' My concerns have been somewhat allayed by the fact that many provisions of the Act are not permanent. So, I share the view expressed by an editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News: ``The jury is still very much out on whether the Patriot Act and its administration are consistent with constitutional safeguards and basic civil liberties. The sunset provisions should stay and the law should be subjected to a strong dose of sunshine. `` For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching the full text of the editorial: [From the Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 11, 2003] Don't Drop Sunset of Patriot Act As a precautionary measure to ensure that legislation works as planned, Congress often adds a ``sunset'' date, meaning that the targeted provisions of the law will expire after a certain period unless Congress reauthorizes them. The idea is to ensure Congress returns to the law for a thorough re-examination. Congress wisely added sunset provisions to the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism bill it passed one month after Sept. 11, 2001. That 342-page act gave federal law enforcement sweeping new search-surveillance powers, including covert access to computers and financial records--even the right to take a secret peek at what's being checked out of the local library. Congress has still not thoroughly examined how the act is being used--or abused. But the sunset provisions don't kick in until Dec. 31, 2005, so there's still plenty of time-- except that congressional Republicans want to lift those provisions now, making those broad new powers permanent. Why there's a sudden rush to make the Patriot Act permanent is something of a puzzle. The old axiom ``act in haste, repent at leisure'' comes to mind. The jury is still very much out on whether the Patriot Act and its administration are consistent with constitutional safeguards and basic civil liberties. The sunset provisions should stay and the law should be subjected to a strong dose of sunshine.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support this legislation. I am glad we have had the opportunity to debate these issues--for the second time in nearly as many years--and I am glad that legislation I've initiated is being considered as part of this bill. 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. I am pleased with most of what was included in the Science Committee part of this bill, and I commend Chairman Boehlert for his bipartisan approach. In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me. I am also pleased that this bill includes the Clean Green School Bus 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. H.R. 6 also includes provisions from my bill, the Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Act, which would 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 also includes the Federal Laboratory Educational Partners Act of 2003, a bill I introduced with my colleague Representative 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. Unfortunately, though, this bill--like the one we debated two years ago--is very reminiscent of that old Western movie--``The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.'' And, regrettably, some of the worst provisions are in the part of the bill developed by the Resources Committee--which is why I voted against them in that Committee. Worst of all, of course, is the provision that would open to drilling the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On that question, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds. The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/ subarctic ecosystems.'' What are the odds? Well, the best estimate is by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. But Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. So, USGS is saying that at $24 per barrel, there is a 50 percent chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain. There is one 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of renewable resources. But the idea of opening the refuge is only one example of misplaced priorities or flawed policies concerning energy. I tried to improve the Resources Committee's provisions with two amendments--one dealing with the biomass provisions and the other with something just as important as energy--water. I am a supporter of biomass, and I think the biomass provision is one of the better parts of the Resources Committee's work. But I think it should be more tightly focused--and that is what my amendment would have done. That part of the bill authorizes cash grants to people who own or operate biomass plants, and says they can use the money to buy material removed from the forests in order to reduce the risk of forest fires. My amendment would have narrowed that by providing that the grants could only be used to buy material taken from the areas of highest priority--the so-called ``wildland-urban interface,'' or as we say in Colorado, the ``red zones.'' These are the parts of the forests that are nearest to communities, the places where people's lives and property are most at risk. That means they should have the very highest priority for thinning out brush and little trees, so that smaller fires are less likely to become big, runaway fires. In Colorado alone, the ``red zones'' cover some 6 million acres--and there are millions of acres more in other states. There is lots of thinning work to be done in those areas--and lots of material that may be useful for biomass. So, my amendment would not have been an obstacle to biomass development. But it would focus the program where it ought to be focused. And, to make things clear, my amendment used a definition of the term ``wildland-urban interface'' that was essentially the same as the one that was in H.R. 5319, Chairman McInnis's bill, as reported by the Resources Committee last year. One of the reasons I supported that bill was because of the priority it put on thinning projects in these ``red zone'' areas. I thought the House should follow that example by adopting my amendment, and regret that the Rules Committee did not allow it to be offered. My second amendment dealt with water. In Colorado, we are blessed with rich mineral resources--we have lots of coal, oil, and gas. but in Colorado, and in the other states in the arid west, water is scarce and very precious. So, as we work to develop our energy resources, it is vital that we make sure that we protect our water. And this is just what this amendment would have done. The amendment would have required people who develop federal oil or gas--including coalbed methane--to do what is necessary to make sure their activities do not harm water resources. The amendment said that if oil or gas drilling damages a water source by contaminating it, by reducing it, or by interrupting it--the energy developer would have to provide replacement water. Sometimes water that is produced in connection with oil or gas drilling is injected back into the ground. The amendment said that has to be done in a way that will not reduce the quality of any aquifer. It also said that if that water is not reinjected, it has to be dealt with in ways that comply with all Federal and State requirements. And, because water is so important, it said that developers need to make protecting water part of their plans from the very beginning. It would have done that by requiring applications for oil or gas leases to include details of the way the developer will protect water quality and quantity and also protect 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. When the amendment was considered in the Committee, it was suggested that it might interfere with State laws relating to water. That was not my intent, and I am confident that the amendment I offered in the committee would not have had that effect. However, to remove any doubt, I modified the amendment to specifically say that it would not affect any state's authority over water or affect any interstate compact related to water. We do need to develop our energy resources--especially relatively clean-burning ones like natural gas and coalbed methane. But we need to do it in the right way, with balance. And that's what this amendment was all about. Again, I regret that the Rules Committee did not permit the House to consider it. Without my amendments, and without other amendments that were rejected by the Committee, the Resources Committee's part of this bill puts too much emphasis on unnecessary subsidies to industry and not enough on anything else. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need a plan in place to increase our energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30 percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and politically unstable region of the world. 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. For every step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it takes two in the opposite direction. 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. But this bill would merely continue our addiction to finite and politically unstable energy resources. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding time to me. This is about the future, but I think the past is instructive; and I ran across the following from a report in 1978. The subcommittee, it says, has noted the eloquent statements of a number of prominent Alaskans about the idea of building a pipeline across the coastal plain, and the report quotes the senior Senator from Alaska who told the Council on Environmental Quality, some have appropriately compared the idea with slicing a razor blade across the face of the Mona Lisa. I am not saying the Senator from Alaska would support this amendment. I am sure he would not, but in the spirit of what Teddy Roosevelt said when he saw the Grand Canyon, ``This is God's handiwork; we cannot improve on it,'' let us let the wildlife refuge be. We cannot improve on it. Support the Markey-Johnson amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very sensible amendment and I commend my colleagues Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Markey for their persistence in pushing this issue forward year after year. It shouldn't have to take years for Congress to act on improving fuel economy. With the average fuel economy of all new passenger vehicles at its lowest point since 1980 and with fuel consumption at its highest, there shouldn't be disagreement about the wisdom of improving CAFE standards. Yet there is disagreement, and clearly we can't count on the Administration to make the right choice. The President's recent CAFE proposal for light trucks is actually less ambitious than voluntary measures announced earlier by General Motors and Ford. And as much as I believe in the Administration's vision of a hydrogen future, I don't believe we should forgo making smart short-term choices. A recent study tells us that significantly increasing fuel economy standards now could save 25 times more oil than would be saved by waiting for fuel cell vehicles to become commercially available. So Mr. Chairman, I believe we must abandon energy inefficiency and instead work to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cut back on air and carbon dioxide pollution, and save consumers money at the gas pump. The American people can benefit from improved CAFE standards.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and in doing so, I would like to take a moment of personal privilege and speak about my father, Morris Udall, who served in this body for 30 years with many of us here today. And there have been suggestions in the Committee on Resources that Mo Udall, were he alive today, would vote against the Markey amendment. I would tell you that I believe he would vote for the amendment today. In 1980, my father opposed drilling in the refuge. I believe he would oppose drilling today, but he would say the real issue is not the past. It is the future. He lived by the credo that we do not inherit the Earth from our parents, but we borrow it from our children. And he would say we are gambling with our children's inheritance. The odds are not good and the stakes are too high. We should not gamble with the heart of the refuge for a few months of oil. We have better alternatives and we should leave our children with some choices about how they use their inheritance. That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on Markey-Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. On the question of whether to open the coastal plain, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds. The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems.'' What are the odds? Well, the best estimate is by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). in 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. But Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. So, USGS is saying that at $24 per barrel, there is a 50 percent chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain. There is one 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of renewable resources. For example, fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks could feasibly be raised to more than 40 miles per gallon by 2010. Experts estimate that alone would save 10 times as much oil as would likely be extracted from the Arctic refuge over the next 30 years. In short, when it comes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I think that the stakes are too high and the odds are too long--especially since we have better options. So I do not support it. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching excerpts from an article in Foreign Affairs by two Coloradans--Amory R. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins. Founders and leaders of the Rocky Mountain Institute, they are recognized experts on energy issues. The article, entitled ``Fool's Gold in Alaska,'' clearly shows that drilling for oil on the coastal plain does not make sense in terms of economics, national security, or environmental protection. As they put it, ``Drilling for refuge oil is a risk the nation should consider taking only if no other choice is possible. But other choices abound.'' We should opt for those other choices by adopting this amendment. Here are key excerpts from the article I mentioned: [From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001] Fool's Gold in Alaska (By Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins) the bottom of the barrel? Oil prices have fluctuated randomly for well over a century. Heedless of this fact, oil's promoters are always offering opportunities that could make money--but on the flawed assumption that high prices will prevail. Leading the field of these optimists are Alaskan politicians. Eager to keep funding their state's de facto negative income tax--oil provides 80 percent of the state's unrestricted general revenue--they have used every major rise in oil prices since 1973 to advocate drilling beneath federal lands on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Just as predictably, environmentalists counter that the refuge is the crown jewel of the American wilderness and home to the threatened indigenous Gwich'in people. As some see it, drilling could raise human rights issues under international law. Canada, which shares threatened wildlife, also opposes drilling. Both sides of this debate have largely overlooked the central question: Does drilling for oil in the refuge's coastal plain make sense for economic and security reasons? After all, three imperatives should shape a national energy policy: economic vitality, secure supplies, and environmental quality. To merit serious consideration, a proposal must meet at least one of these goals. Drilling proponents claim that prospecting for refuge oil will enhance the first two while not unduly harming the third. In fact, not only does refuge oil fail to meet any of the three goals, it could even compromise the first two. First, the refuge is unlikely to hold economically recoverable oil. And even if it did, exploitation would only briefly reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil by just a few percentage points, starting in about a decade. Nor would the refuge yield significant natural gas. Despite some recent statements by the Bush administration, the North Slope's important natural-gas deposits are almost entirely outside the refuge. The gas-rich areas are already open to industry, and environmentalists would likely support a gas pipeline there, but its high cost--an estimated $10 billion--would make it seem uneconomical. Furthermore, those who suppose that any domestic oil is more secure than imported oil should remember that oil reserves almost anywhere else on earth are more accessible and more reliably deliverable than those above the Arctic Circle. Importing oil in tankers from the highly diversified world market is arguably better for energy security than delivering refuge oil to other U.S. states through one vulnerable conduit, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. * * * * * Increase energy productivity now delivers two-fifths of all U.S. energy services and is also the fastest-growing ``source.'' (Abroad, renewable energy supply is growing even faster; it is expected to generate 22 percent of the European Union's electricity by 2010.) Efficient energy use often yields after-tax returns of 100 to 200 percent on investment. Its frequent fringe benefits are even more valuable . . . * * * * * Efficiency also has major policy advantages. It is here and now, not a decade away. It improves the environment and protects the earth's climate. It is fully secure, already delivered to customers, and immune to foreign potentates and volatile markets. It is rapidly an equitably deployable in the market. It supports jobs all over the United States rather than few firms in one state. * * * * * a barrel saved, a barrel earned If oil were found and profitably extracted from the refuge, its expected peak output would equal for a few years about one percent of the world oil market. Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) has claimed that merely announcing refuge leasing would bring down world oil prices. Yet even a giant Alaskan discovery several times larger than the refuge would not stabilize world oil markets. Oil prices reached their all- time high, for example, just as such a huge field, in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, neared its maximum output. Only energy efficiency can stabilize oil prices--as well as sink them. And only a tiny fraction of the vast untapped efficiency gains is needed to do so. What could the refuge actually produce under optimal conditions? Starting about ten years from now, if oil prices did stay around $22 per barrel, if Congress approved the project, and if the refuge yielded the USGS's mean estimate of about 3.2 billion barrels of profitable oil, the 30-year output would average a modest 292,000 barrels of crude oil a day. (This estimate also assumes that such oil would feed U.S. refineries rather than go to Asian markets, as some Alaskan oil did in 1996-2000.) Once refined, that amount would yield 156,000 barrels of gasoline per day--enough to run 2 percent of American cars and light trucks. That much gasoline could be saved if light vehicles became 0.4 mpg more efficient. Compare that feat to the one achieved in 1979-85, when new light vehicles on average gained 0.4 mpg every 5 months. Equipping cars with replacement tires as efficient as the original ones would save consumers several ``refuges'' full of crude oil. Installing superinsulating windows could save even more oil and natural gas while making buildings more comfortable and cheaper to construct. A combination of all the main efficiency options available in 1989 could save today the equivalent of 54 ``refuges''--but at a sixth of the cost. New technologies for saving energy are being found faster than the old ones are being used up--just like new technologies for finding and extracting oil, only faster. As gains in energy efficiency continue to outpace oil depletion, oil will probably become uncompetitive even at low prices before it becomes unavailable even at high prices. This is especially likely because the latest efficiency revolution squarely targets oil's main users and its dominant growth market--cars and light trucks--where gasoline savings magnify crude-oil savings by 85 percent. * * * * * As long as the world runs largely on oil, economics dictates a logical priority for displacing it. Efficient use of oil wins hands down on cost, risk, and speed. Costlier options thus incur an opportunity cost. Buying costly refuge oil instead of cheap oil productivity is not simply a bad business decision; it worsens the oil-import problem. Each dollar spent on the costly option of refuge oil could have bought more of the cheap option of efficient use instead. Choosing the expensive option causes more oil to be used and imported than if consumers had bought the efficiency option first. The United States made exactly this mistake when it spent $200 billion on unneeded (but officially encouraged) nuclear and coal plants in the 1970s and 1980s. The United States now imports oil, produces nuclear waste, and risks global climate instability partly because it bought those assets instead of buying far cheaper energy efficiency. Drilling for refuge oil is a risk the nation should consider taking only if no other choice is possible. But other choices abound. If three or four percent of all U.S. cars were as efficient at today's popular hybrid models, they would save the equivalent of all the refuge's oil. In all, many tens of times more oil is available--sooner, more surely, and more cheaply--from proven energy efficiency. The cheaper, faster energy alternatives now succeeding in the marketplace are safe, clean, climate-friendly, and overwhelmingly supported by the public. Equally important, they remain profitable at any oil price. They offer economic, security, and environmental benefits rather than costs. If any oil is beneath the refuge, its greatest value just might be in holding up the ground beneath the people and animals that live there.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this bill, because I do not see why it is necessary or desirable for Congress to act now to restrict just one kind of lawsuit, against just one kind of manufacturer. My reluctance to support such legislation is increased when it not just prospective, but would require the immediate dismissal of cases that are now being considered by the courts. I am not a lawyer, and it seems to me that the courts are in a much better position than I am to decide whether the people bringing these lawsuits have valid claims or whether the complaints are frivolous. It happens that this bill deals with lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. But my concerns would be the same if the bill dealt with similar lawsuits against the makers of other consumer products--for example, automobiles, electronic appliances, or toys. During the debate, some of the bill's supporters have argued that firearms manufacturers are different because there is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But the freedom of the press is also protected by the Constitution--yet I have not heard anyone say that Congress has to cut off lawsuits against the makers of printing presses or television cameras in order to sustain that right. And, if the lawsuits covered by the bill are contrary to the Constitution, I am confident that the judges--who are sworn to uphold the Constitution--will dismiss them. There is no doubt lawsuits can be costly, and I am not in favor of frivolous lawsuits. But, based on what I know now, I think we in the Congress should leave it to the courts to decide which of the lawsuits covered by this bill are frivolous and which are not. Therefore, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will be debating major legislation to revise our national policies regarding energy. There are many aspects to that debate. One that must not be overlooked is the need to balance energy development on Federal lands with the other resources, values, and uses of those lands. Colorado and the other Rocky Mountain states have a great stake in that part of the debate--something that was well illustrated by a recent article by one of our neighbors, Ted Kerasote, entitled ``Wyoming Lives Uneasily with Big Game and Big Equipment.'' For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching that article: [From the Writers on the Range] Wyoming Lives Uneasily With Big Game and Big Equipment (By Ted Kerasote) As meat lockers go, this corner of northwestern Wyoming is one of the prettiest on earth. Behind me, as I sit on this sage-covered bluff, is a great horseshoe of snow-dusted peaks: the Wind Rivers, the Gros Ventres, the Wyoming Range. Ahead lies the Upper Green River Valley: empty, vast and skeined with moving lines of pronghorn antelope. Twice each year, these herds move south to their winter range and return north to summer forage. Some of these antelope routinely trek 200 miles to Grand Teton National Park, making their particular migration the longest undertaken by any mammal in the Lower 48. In addition to the 32,000 pronghorn out here, there's also 48,000 mule deer, some of them moving upwards of a hundred miles to reach the surrounding national forests and their summer haunts. Now and then I see some of the 8,000 elk that seep down from the high country, and there's rarely a morning when, walking across these hills and draws, I don't flush a covey of sage grouse. The size of small turkeys, the birds stop my heart when they burst directly from beneath my feet. With the quarters of one antelope already on ice, I'm sitting up here and looking for another; in fact, two. Like many people in Wyoming, I haven't eaten farm-raised meat in decades. Three antelope, one elk and a variety of grouse, ducks, and geese feed my family and me, and the friends who help with the packing, from fall to fall. It's one of the blessings of living amid lots of publicly owned land: Food is inexpensive, healthy and fills the soul while it's gathered. Or so it's been until recently. Today, when I look south, I can see several pickup trucks leaving dust plumes, here and there an ATV skittering through the sage, men erecting aerials on hilltops, and a line of enormous ``thumper trucks,'' big as tanks, rumbling their slow way across the landscape. Overhead, helicopters flash as they tend seismic equipment that read what lies below. The antelope, trying to negotiate this gantlet, rush helter- skelter from thumper truck to hovering helicopter and back. Natural gas happens to be one of the other blessings of these public lands. The Bureau of Land Management has already permitted 3,090 wells in what's called the Pinedale Resource Area, with many more on the way. In fact, with the Bush administration's push to fast-track the production of domestic energy resources, the BLM has exceeded the number of wells permitted by its 1988 Resource Management Plan. It's now in the midst of writing a new one, which will decide the fate of the Upper Green's wildlife for next 15 to 20 years. I suspect that many hunters in the basin (2,600 go after antelope, 7,300 after mule deer, and 7,600 after elk) feel about the way I do: We all use natural gas, but we're not willing to extract it at the expense of the region's wildlife. So what I've been saying to the BLM is this: Protect the land critical to these animals in winter; make it off-limits to anything that might disturb it. The animals' transitional habitat needs to be protected as well. That's all the country antelope and deer use for food and rest while on their migrations to and from their summer and winter ranges. Anyone who has spent some time in this basin has probably noticed the passages through which deer and antelope have migrated for millennia, some of them only a half-mile wide. These bottlenecks need to be safeguarded. The Bureau of Land Management also needs to recognize that more than energy development is taking place out here. Private lands are being subdivided even as some livestock grazing continues, and an ever-increasing number of recreationists--from hunters and anglers to snowmobilers and ATVers--use roads and trails and everything in between. What I'm describing, of course, are cumulative impacts-- something the federal agency has done a poor job of adding up. The current resource plan, in fact, lacks such an analysis. Most of all, what I keep asking of our federal land managers is caution: Let's find out what's happening to wildlife before we permit more gas well development. Today, though, I have nothing left to say. Thumper trucks shaking the ground approach my bluff, and I head back to the car, looking for some undisturbed bit of country. These days in the Upper Green, it is getting harder and harder to find.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. The world has condemned Cuba's recent crackdown on human rights and democracy activists. What is most troubling is that this is nothing new. The recent crackdown is merely a continuation of the systematic human rights violations in Cuba committed by the Castro regime. Today I was most discouraged to learn of the prison sentences that have been handed down to dozens of these dissidents, who have been charged with ``subversion'' and collaborating with American diplomats, among other charges. Hector Palacious is but one I'll mention. Along with Oswaldo Paya Sardinas, Mr. Palacios has been a key organizer of the Varela Project, an effort to win Cuban popular support for a referendum on open elections, freedom of speech, freedom for political prisoners, and free enterprise. Yesterday he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for advocating democratic reforms. Today I join my colleagues in condemning Cuba's crackdown on democracy, in calling for the release of all Cuba's political prisoners, in supporting the right of the Cuban people to exercise their political and civil liberties, and in calling on the world to insist in the strongest terms that the Government of Cuba adhere to international human rights standards. I enclose for the record a letter to me from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, now Chairman of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. NDI has worked with organizers of the Varela Project to promote the movement internationally, and last year NDI honored Oswaldo Paya Sardinas for his courageous efforts to promote democracy. Enclosed also is a statement from him calling for the immediate release of the activists. Mr. Paya calls this moment the ``Spring of Cuba'' because for the first time, a peaceful movement is flourishing there. We must do all we can to help it take root.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to establish a process for orderly resolution of one of the most important problems associated with management of the Federal lands--claims for rights-of-way under a provision of the Mining Law of 1866. That provision was later embodied in section 2477 of the Revised Statutes, and so is usually called R.S. 2477. It granted rights-of-way for the construction of highways across Federal lands not reserved for public uses. It was one of many 19th-century laws that assisted in the opening of the West for resource development and settlement. More than a century after its enactment, R.S. 2477 was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, often called ``FLPMA,'' and was replaced with a modern and comprehensive process for establishing rights-of-way on Federal lands. However, FLPMA did not revoke valid existing rights established under R.S. 2477--and, unfortunately, it also did not set a deadline for people claiming to have such rights to file their claims. As a result, there is literally no way of knowing how many such claims might be filed or what Federal lands--or even lands that once were Federal but now belong to other owners--might be subject to such claims. But I have no doubt that potential claims under R.S. 2477 could involve thousands of square miles of Federal lands, not to mention lands that now are private property or belong to the states or other entities. This is obviously a serious problem. It also is the way things used to be with regard to another kind of claim on Federal lands--mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872. However, that problem was resolved by section 314 of FLPMA, which gave people 3 years to record those claims and provided that any claim not recorded by the deadline would be deemed to have been abandoned. The courts have upheld that approach. I think it should have been applied to R.S. 2477 claims as well. If it had been, R.S. 2477 would be a subject for historians, not a headache for our land managers or a nightmare for private property owners. I think that now, finally--more than a quarter of a century since it was repealed--the time has come to let R.S. 2477 sleep in peace. And that is the purpose of the bill I am introducing today. My bill is based on legislation proposed by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt in 1997, but is somewhat broader because it would apply not just to States or their political subdivisions with R.S. 2477 claims, but also to those individuals now able to assert such claims. It follows the sound example of FLPMA by providing that any R.S. 2477 claim not filed with the government within 4 years will be considered abandoned. I think this is more than reasonable, because those interested in claiming rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 already have had ample time to decide whether they want to file a claim. The bill also recognizes that as things stand now, R.S. 2477 claims are a potential threat to the National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, units of the National Trails and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, designated wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas as well as to lands that the United States has sold or otherwise transferred to other owners. It specifically addresses this threat by providing that any claim for such lands will be considered to have been abandoned when the lands were designated for conservation-purpose management or when they were transferred out of federal ownership unless a claimant can establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was a well-established right-of-way whose use for highway purposes was intended to be allowed to continue. The bill also spells out what information must be included in a claim, how claims are to be considered administratively, and the rules for judicial review of administrative decisions about the validity of R.S. 2477 claims. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced bill. It gives claimants under R.S. 2477 ample opportunity to come forward and seek to have their claims upheld, with an opportunity to seek ultimate redress from the courts if necessary. At the same time, it gives the American people-- the owners of the Federal lands--and private property owners assurance that the time will come when they will know what they own, without having to worry about new R.S. 2477 claims being made against their lands. In my opinion, such legislation is long overdue, and deserves the support of every Member of Congress. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a brief outline of the main provisions of the bill. Outline of R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way Act of 2003 The bill is based on a legislative proposal sent to Congress by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt in 1997. Here is a section-by-section outline of its provisions: Section 1 provides a short title, has findings about the bill's background, and states its purpose of setting a deadline for filing claims and specifying how claims will be handled. Section 2 defines key terms used in the bill. Section 3 deals with the filing of claims for rights-of-way based on R.S. 2477: Subsection (a) sets a deadline of 4 years after enactment for filing. Subsection (b) specifies where claims must be filed: in the state or regional office of a federal agency responsible for management of claimed Federal lands; with the commanding officer of a military installation subject to a claim; or with the Bureau of Land Management if the claimed lands are no longer in Federal ownership. Subsection (c) provides that claims not filed by the deadline shall be deemed abandoned--this parallels Section 314 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which required recordation of unpatented mining claims. A claimant would have 3 years to file a lawsuit challenging the effect of this provision on a claim. Subsection (d) provides for coordination among federal agencies. Subsection (e) provides that R.S. 2477 claims by non- Federal parties can only be validated in accordance with the process established by the bill. Section 4 provides procedures for handling R.S. 2477 claims: Subsection (a) specifies that claimants have the burden of proof and that claims for lands in conservation, wilderness study, or inventoried roadless areas or for lands not owned by the Federal government are presumed to have been abandoned unless a claimant can show that continued use of a right-of-way for highway purposes was clearly intended to continue after conservation designation or transfer of title by the United States. Subsection (b) specifies what information must be included in a filing by a claimant. Subsection (c) specifies procedures for review of claims by federal officials. Subsection (d) requires reviewing officials to consult regarding pending claims. Subsection (e) provides for issuance of a draft decision about a claim's validity, followed by a period of public comment Subsection (f) provides for issuance of a final decision on a claim within one year after release of the draft decision. Subsection (g) requires a lawsuit challenging a final agency decision on a claim to be filed within 3 years after the decision and limits judicial review to review of the administrative record. It also provides that the Federal Government can decide to purchase a right-of-way that a court determines belongs to another party. Subsection (h) requires a successful claimant to file information about the right-of-way with BLM and the relevant State within 5 years, and specifies that a failure to do so will constitute abandonment of the right-of-way. Subsection (i) provides that the Federal government can choose to purchase a right-of-way determined to belong to another party. Section 5 specifies that administrative decisions about claims are to be based on federal law and state laws that are consistent with federal law. It also provides that prior adjudications of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are to be recognized. Section 6 provides that nothing in the bill will affect provisions of FLPMA or the Alaska Lands Act related to rights-of-way.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to make it easier for people who share ownership of an unincorporated business with a spouse to comply with the tax laws and also receive Social Security and Medicare benefits they have earned. The problems the bill addresses arise from the fact that under current law an unincorporated business owned by a married couple is classified as a partnership for purposes of the federal income tax. That means the business is subject to complex record-keeping requirements and the owners are supposed to file a partnership income-tax return. However, the Internal Revenue Service estimates that it can take a partnership as much as 200 hours to complete and file that kind of tax return--enough work to keep a person who works a 40-hour week busy for more than a month. And this has to be done every year. When we think of everything else they have to do to keep their businesses running, it is not surprising that many of these couples take what looks like an attractive shortcut. They do that by filing as if their businesses were sole proprietorship--a kind of filing that the IRS estimates can take as little as 2 hours. But, attractive as that shortcut seems, it can lead to serious trouble. First, of course, it is a technical violation of the tax laws, which means a couple taking that shortcut could be subject to penalties for failing to file as a partnership. But that's not the worst part. Because spouses who own and run a business are self-employed, they need to complete self-employment tax forms to report and pay their Social Security and Medicare taxes. But to file as if their business were a sole proprietorship, they must report all income from the business under the name of just one spouse--and, if they do that, only that named spouse can receive credit for paying into Social Security and Medicare. That means the other spouse--the one not named as the ``sole proprietor''--should become disabled, he or she would not qualify for Social Security disability benefits. It also means that if the ``unnamed'' spouse dies, the named spouse and his or her children would not qualify for Social Security survivor benefits. And it means that the ``unnamed'' spouse would not qualify for Medicare. Further, in the event of a divorce, it can be very difficult for an ``unnamed'' spouse to prove that he or she owns a share of the business for purposes of dividing the assets. My bill will help couples like these to avoid these problems by enacting several recommendations outlined by Nina E. Olsen, the National Taxpayers Advocate, in her most recent annual report to Congress. Under the bill, if a married couple filing a joint tax return are the only owners of an unincorporated business, they could decide what part of the business's profits or losses each spouse would claim, and that share would be taken into account in determining their self-employment earnings. That way, each spouse could receive some credit for Social Security and Medicare. And, depending on state law, this also could facilitate more equitable divisions of property in the event of divorce. The Taxpayer Advocate's report indicates that while this change in the law would mean a major reduction in the record-keeping requirements applicable to many people, it would have little or no effect on federal revenues. I am not sure how many people in Colorado stand to benefit from this bill. However, according to the IRS, it appears that more than 2,000 Colorado couples who operate ranching or farming businesses would be covered by its provisions, and that it could also assist thousands of other Colorado couples who operate other kinds of unincorporated businesses. So, considering that Colorado is far from the most-populous State, I am not surprised that the Taxpayer Advocate's report indicates there could be as many as 2 million couples across the country who could benefit from enactment of this legislation. In short, while my bill would make only a relatively simple change in the tax laws, it has the potential to help many people and cut a lot of red tape at the same time. I greatly appreciate the Taxpayer Advocate's bringing it to our attention, and I think it deserves the support of every Member of the House. For the benefit of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am attaching an excerpt from the report of the Taxpayer Advocate that explains the recommendation upon which my bill is based. Explanation of Recommendation The National Taxpayer Advocate recommends that Internal Revenue Code section 761(a) be amended to allow husband and wife co-owned businesses to elect out of Subchapter K-- Partners and Partnerships. At this time, we recommend that the election be made available only to married couples who file joint income tax returns. By making the election, the business would be exempt from the application of the complex rules of subchapter K and the husband and wife would be entitled to file a Schedule C instead of a Form 1065, (U.S. Return of Partnership Income). Internal Revenue Code section 761(a) already allows certain categories of taxpayers to opt out of subchapter K, so there is precedent for this approach. Amending IRC Sec. 761(a) to allow a husband and wife co- owned business to elect out of subchapter K would not require an additional amendment to Internal Revenue Code section 6031 regarding filing partnership returns. Treasury Regulations currently state that a taxpayer who has made an election to be exempt from subchapter K is not required to file a partnership return except in the year of the election. In the election year, the taxpayers would only need to file a partnership return with the election statement. All income and deductions would then be reported on a Schedule C in the election year and for all subsequent years. If this proposal is enacted into law, we recommend that the IRS design a form to supplement Schedule C for married co- owners who make the election to opt out of subchapter K. It could be called Schedule C-MC (for ``Married Couple''). The business entity's income and expenses would be reported on Schedule C. The net profit (or loss) would then be allocated between the husband and wife on Schedule C-MC. The supplemental form would serve three important purposes. First, the amount of income allocated to each spouse--and thus carried to separate Schedules SE--would be shown on the form. Second, the form could be used to record each spouse's respective interest in the business. This could become important if, for example, one spouse dies and the value of his or her interest must be determined for purposes of computing the estate tax. Third, the form could be designed to allow the business to make certain tax elections that are only available at the entity level. This issue arises because even if a business co-owned by a husband and wife is excluded from the definition of a partnership for purposes of subchapter K, the business generally remains a partnership for all other purposes of the Code.\62\ The principal significance of partnership classification outside the context of subchapter K is that a partnership may make certain tax elections available only to an entity and not to individuals. For example, a partnership may make an election under IRC Sec. 179 to expense depreciable business assets. We see no reason to prohibit husband-and-wife-owned partnerships that elect out of subchapter K from making tax elections of this nature. In sum, our legislative proposal would reduce the tax compliance burden on many husband-and-wife-owned businesses, would facilitate the coverage of both spouses under the Social Security and Medicare systems and, depending on state law, could facilitate more equitable divisions of property in the event of divorce. The revenue impact of the proposal should be negligible. Regardless of how the net earnings from the business are reported--either as a flow-through item from the partnership return or as net earnings from Schedule C-- the income tax liability of the husband and wife generally will be the same. Social Security and Medicare receipts generally will also be the same.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Passenger Van Safety Act of 2003, legislation to enhance the safety of large passenger vans, which are highly susceptible to rollovers and have been associated with more than 500 fatalities since 1990. In the last Congress, I introduced the School Bus Safety Act which had been designed to prevent schools from taking advantage of a loophole that allowed them to purchase used 15-passenger vans even though it was illegal for them to purchase new 15-passenger vans because of safety issues. The bill I am introducing today goes farther and addresses the safety of these vehicles. I became alarmingly aware of the safety problems of these vehicles when a church group from Westminster, Colorado rolled the 15-passeneger van they were driving 2\1/2\ times en route to a religious retreat. This tragedy resulted in four people dying. I found out later that these vans were notorious for getting out of the drivers control and were highly susceptible to rolling. These kinds of accidents seem to be symptomatic to these kinds of vehicles. Early last summer another one of these vans, full of firefighters, rolled over numerous times killing four of the passengers in western Colorado. Accidents will happen, but I believe if these people had been in different vehicles their deaths may have been avoided. When these vans are fully loaded they become highly prone to rollovers. In 2001, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) conducted a study that demonstrated the dramatic increase in rollovers when these vehicles carry increasingly larger loads. A fully loaded van has a rollover risk that is six times higher than if there are only five people in the van. The bill I am introducing today would require NHTSA to include 15- passenger vans in their Dynamic Rollover Testing Program required by the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, which currently does not include these vehicles. It does not make a lot of sense to me to exempt them from the same safety standards that NHTSA will apply to other passenger cars and sport utility vehicles. This information will give drivers information they need in order to safely operate certain vehicles under different conditions. This legislation would also require 15-passenger vans to be included in NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP provides consumers information on how different vehicles withstand crashes, and was recently expanded to include the risk of rollover. Currently, NCAP does not do rollover testing for vehicles that carry more than 10 people. In addition, the bill requires NHTSA to work with van manufacturers to evaluate and test the potential of new technologies to help drivers maintain control of their vans. Specifically, NHTSA would look at Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems that some SUVs are already equipped with and rear-view mirror-based rollover warning systems. These kinds of innovative technologies could significantly reduce rollovers and save lives. ``Fifteen-passenger'' vans were initially designed to carry cargo, not people. But now these vans are widely used by airports, hotels, and other commercial interests to transport customers from one location to another. People using these vans may not realize that the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCA) has not completed rulemaking on Federal motor carrier safety regulations for 15-passenger vans that are used for commercial purposes. This bill would require the FMCA to complete their rulemaking, which began in 1999, to ensure that commercial passengers get to their destinations safely. This bill was built on the foundation of my School Bus Safety Act of 2001 and it still addresses the van loophole created in 1974 when organizations were banned from purchasing new 15-passenger vans to transport school age children but were allowed to purchase the vans used. This legislation removes this nearly 30-year-old loophole in the Federal regulations and extends the ban to include leasing, renting, and buying of these vans, thereby making the buyers accountable, as well as the seller. These changes will insure that the intent of the 1974 law is finally realized. The bill would also strengthen the penalties on those who violate this important safety provision. The legislation raises the prescribed penalty for breaking this law from ``not more than $1000'' to ``not more than $25,000,'' thereby giving the enforcement agencies something to make it worth their while to pursue. This provision is important because from 1974 until 1997, NHTSA, which had responsibility for administering the law, did not initiate a single enforcement proceeding in the entire country. Safety transcends party lines. Senator Snowe and I have had tragic events take place in our states that have unfortunately made us very aware of the dangers of 15-passenger vans. Last year there was a tragic accident in the State of Maine that cost the lives of 14 forestry workers who were killed when their 15-passenger van rolled off of a bridge, killing all but one. This was the single worst motor vehicle accident in Maine's history. So we are introducing identical bills in the House and the Senate. With bipartisan support we hope to end these kinds of needlessly tragic accidents. Mr. Speaker, one of the government's roles is to ensure the safety of its citizens. This legislation gives consumers the information they need to know about the safety of these vans and it eliminates a loophole that allows people to get around a child safety law. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this defense supplemental without hesitation, but with regrets and concerns. To begin with, I regret that we have to be voting on this bill now. I thought the President's decision to begin military action in Iraq was premature. I thought it would have been better to allow more time for other measures, including coercive inspections, to accomplish the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein. However, Congress--by adopting the resolution authorizing the use of force--left it to the President to decide if and when military action would begin. That is another source of regret. I opposed the resolution precisely because I thought it gave the President too much discretion about the timing of that action. But the resolution was enacted. And, now that military action has begun, it is necessary for Congress to consider the Administration's requests for funds to pay for it and for related purposes. Our troops are in the field, actively engaged in operations that Congress has authorized. Under those circumstances, I cannot make them the victims of my regrets by failing to support this bill to provide them what they need to carry out those operations. So much for my regrets. I also have strong concerns about some things that are in this bill and some things that were left out. The bill does have many good features. For example, I am glad that the Appropriations Committee placed some important limits on the President's request before bringing the bill to the floor. Among other things, the bill bars the Pentagon from controlling the over $2.5 billion it provides for humanitarian relief and reconstruction and instead designates the money for the State Department and other non-military agencies. The bill also reduces the President's request for no-strings-attached Pentagon funding from $63 billion to $25 billion by putting the rest of the funds into appropriate spending categories. Though the $25 billion still amounts to a signed check with the payee line left blank, it's an improvement over the request. Regardless of the Administration's preference, it remains the right and duty of Congress--not the White House--to decide how much money is allocated for what purpose. On the other hand, I am concerned that the bill does not do enough in other areas. In particular, I voted against ordering the previous question on the rule, and against the rule itself, because it did not allow a straightforward vote on the Obey amendment to add more funding for homeland security. The bill does include $4.25 billion for this purpose--slightly less than the President's request--but I think that is not nearly enough to meet the country's needs. Although many of our Republican colleagues would have you believe that states and localities are sitting on millions of dollars of unspent funds for first responders, my conversations with Colorado police chiefs, fire departments, and other first responders have convinced me that is not the case. Every time the Department of Homeland Security changes the official color-coded threat level, Colorado and the other States and localities are required to spend more money that they don't have. We are asking them to provide top-dollar security for our nation on a dime's worth of resources. So, I am very concerned that the Republican leadership has denied us the opportunity to vote to correct the bill's deficiencies. The Obey amendment would have provided $2.5 billion in additional funds for our local first responders, for port security grants, for protection for our waterways and nuclear plants, for our National Guard and Reserves to provide assistance with chemical and biological weapons attacks, and for other homeland security needs. I do not know how many of our colleagues would have joined me in supporting this amendment--and I will never know, because the Republican rule didn't permit a vote--but I know Colorado's first responders would have wanted it to be a majority. That's because homeland security is for Americans--it is not just for Democrats or Republicans. At a time when states and cities are suffering economically and crying out for federal assistance to meet their new and stepped-up homeland security obligations, I believe we must do more than we've done in this bill. Nonetheless, as I said, I am voting for this bill without hesitation because its prompt passage is needed--not just to support our men and women in uniform as they fight, but also to lay the foundation for the harder mission of winning the peace after they have won the war.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2003. This bill updates the existing law that formally established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in 1990. This bill is also similar to the Global Change Research and Data Management Act that I introduced in the 107th Congress. Over the past decade, the USGCRP has significantly advanced our scientific knowledge of Earth's atmosphere and climate and has provided us with a wealth of new data and information about the functioning of our planet. However, the program has not produced sufficient information, in terms of both content and format, to be the basis for sound decisions. The program has focused nearly all of its resources and efforts on scientific inquiry. Only one broad assessment of the impact of global change on society has ever been attempted by the program, and that assessment was completed nearly seven years after its Congressionally mandated deadline. The local, state, regional, and national policymakers responsible for managing resources, fostering economic development, and responding to natural disasters need information to guide their decisions. In my view, it is critical that Congress reorient the USGCRP toward a user-driven research endeavor. Most people agree that the climate is changing, but there is widespread disagreement about how much is the result of human activities. I think this bill deserves the support of people on both sides of that argument. We need to move beyond debates about whether global change is occurring and allocating responsibility for the changes. I continue to believe fervently that we must do all we can to soften our impact on the environment and to slow the pace of global change. But we are going to have to deal with climate change with some mix of mitigation and adaptation. We must acknowledge the interdependence of our social, economic and environmental systems and learn to anticipate and adjust to changes that will inevitably occur. In its recent review of the Administration's draft strategic plan for the USGCRP, the National Academy of Sciences acknowledged the need for research to evaluate strategies to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of global change, and the Academy recommended that the plan be revised to enhance efforts to support decision-making. The Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2003 reorients the program to accomplish these goals. The NAS praised the Administration for including the development of decision support tools in the strategic plan, but criticized the plan for its failure to ``recognize the full diversity of decision makers'' and for failing to ``describe mechanisms for two-way communication with stakeholders.'' The Global Change Research and Data Management Act would address these criticisms by requiring the Administration to identify and consult with members of the user community in developing the USGCRP research plan. The bill would also mandate the involvement of the National Governors Association in evaluating the program plan from the perspective of the user community. These steps would help to ensure that the information needs of the policy community will be met as generously as the funding needs of the academic community. The 1990 law outlined a highly specific organizational structure for the USGCRP. My bill would eliminate this detailed organizational structure and provide the President with the flexibility to assemble an Interagency Committee and organizational structure that will best deliver the products Congress is requesting. My bill would, however, retain many of the key features of current law--the requirements for a ten-year strategic plan, for periodic assessments of the effects of global change on the natural, social, and economic systems upon which we depend, and for increased international cooperation in global change science. My bill would establish a new interagency working group to coordinate federal policies on data management and archiving. Advances in computer, monitoring, and satellite technologies have vastly expanded our ability to collect and analyze data. We must do a much better job of managing and archiving these important data resources to support the work of current and future scientists and policymakers. As was clear from the impasse on the climate provisions of the energy bill in the 107th Congress, we have yet to agree on how much more information, if any, is needed before we take actions to slow the effects of human activities on global change. These are tough policy questions that we will continue to wrestle with. This bill does not offer specific policy direction, but it does affirm the need for the continued strong federal support for global change research, and it does map out a new emphasis on production of information needed to inform these important policy debates. As the world's leader in science and technology, it is incumbent on us to develop solutions that will protect our planet's resources and permit continued economic and social progress for our nation and for the world.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the distinguished service of John Moles, Chief of the Red, White and Blue fire department in Breckenridge, CO. Chief Moles is retiring this month after 27 years of service to his community. Chief Moles and his colleagues in fire departments throughout the country put their lives on the line daily to ensure our health and safety. Their service is especially critical in these times of war and threats to our homeland. Chief Moles recognized the importance of this service and helped to make the Breckenridge fire department the proud community asset that it is today. We too often fail to acknowledge the hard, selfless work of people like Chief Moles. So, I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking John Moles for his service and many contributions to his colleagues, community, state and nation and in wishing him and his family all the best for the future. For the information of our colleague, I am attaching a copy of a recent story about Chief Moles and his work for Breckenridge that appeared in the Summit Daily newspaper. From the Summit Daily, March 23, 2003 Breck fire chief retires after 27 years (By Jane Stebbins) Breckenridge.--After 27 years in the fire service, Red, White and Blue Fire Chief John Moles announced his retirement Thursday afternoon. Assistant chief Gary Green will serve as the interim chief until the fire district board selects a successor. Moles spent Friday packing up boxes of photos, awards and other memorabilia he's collected in his years at the Breckenridge fire station. ``I've been cleaning out my desk and finding pictures from 15 years ago, ID cards from when I started with the Breckenridge Volunteers,'' Moles said. ``I wondered where that went. `` Moles doesn't plan to do anything for a couple of weeks, then he'll take a vacation with his wife, Carol, daughters, Kelly and Jennifer, and son, Tommy. Then he'll look for a second career. ``I really don't know what, though,'' he said. ``After doing this for 27 years, I want to do something different.'' Moles joined the department as a volunteer in May 1975-- when the department was still known as the Breckenridge Volunteer Fire Department--and was promoted to maintenance officer a year later. Moles worked his way up the ranks, first as a training division captain for five years, then as the assistant chief of operations. In July 1993, he was promoted to chief. During his tenure, Moles saw two station remodels and the construction of a new station near Tiger Road and Highway 9. Several old, outdated vehicles and equipment were replaced. He worked on some of Breckenridge's biggest fires--at the Cedars condominiums in Breckenridge and at Jack Pine in Dillon--and numerous car accidents. Emergency response, however, took a different tack on Sept. 11, 2001. ``All of a sudden, we entered a new age,'' Moles said. ``It was a new age of anthrax and serious terrorism, biological and nuclear threats.'' Over the years, the fire department has matured from volunteers responding from their homes to a 24-hour staff of career, volunteer and resident firefighters. When he started, the Breckenridge Volunteers comprised 14 volunteers. Today, Red, White and Blue comprises 15 volunteers, 30 residents and career firefighters and five administrative staff members. Over the years, Moles helped the 911 dispatch center and spearheaded the program to get automatic external defibrillators (AED) for cardiac emergencies. He also was the first firefighter in the county to use an AED and save someone's life. ``We had just gotten certified by a hospital in Denver, and the paperwork was just coming in on a fax,'' he said. ``But the only thing that came in was a cover sheet--no names, no acknowledgement of certifications. And then we got a cardiac arrest at the Breck Inn (now the Breckenridge Mountain Lodge), and the defibrillator was sitting in my office. I had to decide whether to use it without truly being certified. I was a little nervous, but I opted to use it.'' That call was among his favorites, he said. ``It's the thrill of a victory,'' he said. ``You have this training, and you get instant results.'' Under his leadership, fire crews have expanded safety inspections, firefighter and medic training and public education. Despite all his accomplishments, Moles said he is happiest to have watched his firefighters grow into a group of dedicated professionals with expertise and training that rivals bigger city departments. ``They're very progressive, a very young bunch of enthusiastic firefighters who want to do the best for the citizens, and they'll continue to get better every year,'' he said. ``I'm proud of the whole system. I was proud of the firefighters when I started and where they went year after year. I feel that even back in '70s and '80s we were the best, and we kept getting better. We never settled to be `good enough.' ''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado, and to congratulate VOC for its two decades of working to enhance the beauty, accessibility and integrity of Colorado's parks, greenways and public lands. The work of VOC and its countless volunteers has benefited the entire state. Through countless thousands of hours of strenuous yet rewarding work, trails have been repaired, wheelchair ramps installed, trees planted and facilities constructed. The results have enhanced the outdoor experiences of visitors to Colorado's public lands splendor. Poll after poll shows that Americans believe that environmental protection and quality of life are high priorities. And just as many people believe themselves to be ``environmentalists.'' But too often, people lack a way to give practical expression to these views. VOC provides that opportunity. Participating in VOC activities is fun, easy and user-friendly. You don't need to be an expert, you don't need to know how to drive a tractor or a backhoe. All you need is a passion for the beauty and health of our surroundings--urban, suburban, in the mountains or on the plains--to participate. That, and a healthy willingness to get your hands and feet dirty. I am especially appreciative of VOC's legacy of active volunteerism because the values it engenders are needed now more than ever. Since I was first elected to Congress, I have visited high schools throughout Colorado's Second Congressional District. What I've heard from the young people I've met on these visits has reinforced my conviction that we need to provide them with opportunities to develop self-respect and a sense of accomplishment--because those experiences can be antidotes to much of the anger and alienation that can erupt into violence. Before entering public life, I headed the Colorado Outward Bound school. It provides challenging adventures, such as rappelling down a mountain, fording a rushing river and surviving alone in the wilderness. Outward Bound, not unlike Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado, aims at teaching people to take care of themselves and then to work together. This allows each individual to develop self-reliance and in turn enables each team to accomplish their collective goals. I think these time-tested principles are very relevant to our search for ways to help our young people and our society. They aren't new--ask any good coach, teacher or VOC project leader--but they do work. Along those lines, I think we should try to afford more young people the chance to confront challenges, tap into personal reservoirs of resourcefulness, and pull together as a group. And in the West as nowhere else we have a way to provide those experiences--outdoors, on the public lands. That's why VOC and its projects benefit not only our young people, but people of all ages to get closer to the land and develop stronger ties to their communities, their families and themselves. That's also a major reason why I am a strong supporter of VOC and also why I have introduced legislation in the Congress to promote more volunteerism like the work of VOC--especially on our public lands. In just a couple of weeks, we will be celebrating Earth Day. VOC, and the work it does every day, demonstrates the very principles that Earth Day was designed to celebrate and encourage. Earth Day gives us a chance to take stock of where we are and where we are going in our relationship with this planet. In this spirit and in recognizing the continuing work of VOC and all it participants, I'd like to read something that was written by my uncle, Stewart Udall. As many of you know, Stewart was Secretary of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. His book, the Quiet Crisis, was considered by many to be a precursor to the environmental beliefs that lead to the creation of the first Earth Day over 30 years ago. His book, like the work of VOC, opened the eyes of many as to what we are doing to the environment that sustains and enriches our lives. One passage that I think applies to the values of VOC reads: Each generation has its own rendezvous with the land, for despite our fee titles and claims of ownership, we are all brief tenants on this planet. By choice, or by default, we will carve out a land legacy for our heirs. We can misuse the land and diminish the usefulness of resources, or we can create a world in which physical affluence and affluence of the spirit go hand in hand. These words reflect the ethic that VOC invokes everyday--and I can think of no better way to mark its 20th anniversary. I wish VOC continued success for the next 20 years and beyond.