Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this bill. When President Bush called for the voluntary vaccination against smallpox of 500,000 health care workers and other first responders last December, many criticized the plan for being incomplete. Not only did it not include a federal compensation fund to help those injured by the vaccine or their survivors, but the plan did not provide adequate education, prescreening, or surveillance. The relatively few numbers of health care workers and first responders who have received the vaccine--only about 21,700 to date--indicate that there are real concerns about the plan's shortcomings. After all, the smallpox vaccine uses a live strain of the virus. The vaccine has the worst record of negative side effects of any vaccine in the world. So it is critical that those being vaccinated understand the risks involved and be prescreened for conditions that require them to avoid the vaccine. The recent deaths of a nurse, a nurses aide, and a National Guardsman after their vaccinations only underscore this point. Like the President's plan, this bill has serious shortcomings. In particular, I'm concerned that the compensation program is not comprehensive enough and that it does not provide adequate education and safeguards. I believe that the House must consider improvements to this bill. But the Democrats are being denied the opportunity to offer amendments to do that. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation in its present form.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Hugh and Marty Downey of Arvada, Colorado, who have dedicated their lives to over five hundred orphans in Matoso, Kenya. Raising more than $300,000 a year through private donations and small businesses, the Downeys are able to run a home and medical center for the children that is known as ``the place of hope'' or Lalmba to the people of Kenya. Stationed with the U.S. Army as a communications specialist in Africa over forty years ago, Hugh Downey knew little of Africa and the role he would play with Kenya's children. Today, he and Marty spend six months out of the year raising 500 children in African grass huts and the other six months with their own grown children back in Colorado. Home to 2.2 million out of 3 million AIDS victims, Africa has found itself in an epidemic affecting both children and adults. In Kenya, 190,000 deaths a year are caused by HIV/AIDS, so it is not surprising that the majority of the Downey's orphans were born to parents who died from AIDS. The rate of Kenyans contracting the AIDS virus has doubled in the past decade, and will continue to rise and affect children. As AIDS continues to greatly affect the African economy and society, Marty and Hugh Downey have been called upon to educate and house an increasing number of orphans. Many African adults, because they suffer from AIDS, are unable to support their families--in fact, their children are forced to drop out of school and work to support their dying parents. As the cost for AIDS medication and school fees increase, most children have no choice but to begin working at a young age. By offering education and preventive AIDS medication for the children, the Downey's are giving these Kenyan children the chance at a future. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Marty and Hugh Downey for their dedication and commitment to bettering the future for over 500 African children with their creation of Lalmba and to wish them continued success with their chosen mission of mercy and hope.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, last week Colorado experienced a very heavy snowstorm--in fact, it was a blizzard in many areas. This was good news for our state, which has been suffering from a serious drought. However, it seriously interfered with travel. As a result, I was unable to be present for votes on several measures. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall No. 65, H. Con. Res. 26--Condemning the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights--I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 66, H.R. 868--Nicaragua Property Dispute Settlement Act of 2003--I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 67, H. Res. 109--Urging passage of a resolution addressing human rights in North Korea at the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and calling on the Government of North Korea to respect and protect the human rights of its citizens--I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 68, H.R. 314--Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act (Royce Financial Services)--I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 69, H.R. 417--Cibola Wildlife Refuge Boundary Correction--I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 70, H.R. 699--To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study of the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley Aquifer, located in Idaho and Washington--I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 71, the Sherman amendment to H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 72, the Nadler amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 73, the Jackson-Lee motion to recommit H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 74, passage of H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 75, on approving the Journal, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 76, H.R. 1307--To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes-- I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 77, H. Res. 132--Expressing the sense of the House that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes--I would have voted ``present.'' I would have voted that way because I am not a lawyer and have not studied the relevant decisions of the Supreme court--and so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to say that the cited decision of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with those decisions. Last year, I voted in favor of a related (but not identical) resolution. However, as I said at that time, I did so not because I necessarily agreed that the Circuit Court's decision is ``inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence'' as that resolution said, but because I agreed that ``the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should agree to rehear'' the matter, as that resolution also stated. I am proud to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because I personally consider it as being neither a prayer nor a religious practice and so think its recitation is not a religious exercise but instead a verbal expression of support for our country. However, obviously not everyone shares my view. And, as I said last year, I am not prepared to conclude that the author of the Ninth Circuit decision--a long-serving judge originally appointed by President Nixon--was clearly wrong as a matter of law, even though as I understand it another appeals court, in a similar case, has ruled differently. So, I definitely think the issue needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. On rollcall No. 78, the Hill (Blue Dog) substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 79, the Toomey (Republican Study Committee) substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 80, the Cummings (Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 81, the Spratt (Democratic) substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 82, on passage on H. Con. Res. 95 (the budget resolution), I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 83, passage of H. Con. Res. 104--expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom--I would have voted ``yes.'' I would have done so because although I have disagreed with the way the President has handled the diplomatic events leading up to war, it is now time for us all to support our brave men and women in uniform who are charged with carrying out this mission and to pray for their success and safe return home. We all hope for a swift resolution with minimal casualties--among our troops and Iraqis as well. And we must do more to protect ourselves at home. I am confident that the United States and our allies will win the war. That will not be the end, but the beginning of the more difficult task of securing the peace. Congress must commit to providing aid to rebuild Iraq and the Administration must work to repair relationships with our allies. We will need them and the rest of the international community in our corner to rebuild Iraq, bring stability to the Middle East, and win the war on terrorism.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I learned today that Colorado has suffered its first casualty in the war on Iraq. Lance Corporal Thomas Slocum was one of nine Marines killed near Al Nasiriyah on Sunday, March 23, in an ambush. Another forty Marines were wounded in the fight. My heart goes out to Lance Corporal Slocum's family and friends. Thomas Slocum was based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina but called Thornton, Colorado, his home. He was just 22 years old at the time of his death--so young, but old enough to have developed the courage and dedication it took for him to answer the call to service. He was a brave and dedicated Marine who proudly served when his nation called on him to fight in the war against Iraq to bring freedom and justice to that country. The death of Lance Corporal Slocum brings this war closer to home for us all. All Coloradans, and indeed all Americans share in the pain of Lance Corporal Slocum's death, but we also share in honoring his unswerving dedication to our great nation. He will forever be remembered for his heroism and his sacrifice.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this legislation. I do think that high premiums for malpractice insurance are a serious problem for doctors in many states. And I agree with the bill's supporters that this is a problem for those who need medical services, because it tends to make health care less available. I would like to do something about that problem--but I think that if Congress is going to act, it should do so in a way that is both better balanced and better focused than the bill the House is debating today. The need for balance and focus is all the greater when Congress considers legislation that would apply everywhere and would override a number of different State laws, including laws related to the relations between Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and individual patients. Over the years, many of our colleagues--particularly those on the other side of the aisle--have been outspoken about the problems associated with that kind of top-down, one-size fits-all approach to a problem that can be addressed by State legislators who are in a better position to respond to the particular circumstances of their constituents. I haven't always agreed with those criticisms, but in this case I think they are appropriate. For example, Colorado law places limits on the amounts that can be awarded in some lawsuits against doctors. I do not think the Colorado law is perfect, but I do think that our legislature is in a better position to judge such matters than the Congress--especially when we are forced to act under the kind of restrictive rules the one that applies to this bill. I hoped the Republican leadership would let the House consider amendments that could have made this bill more effective and better balanced. However, that did not happen, and now we are forced with a take-it-or-leave it choice--a ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislating that is unworthy of this House. Under those circumstances, and after careful consideration, I have decided I cannot support the bill. I am not persuaded that it will have a significant effect on the premiums doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance--or at least an effect great enough to warrant the reduction in the ability of injured people to win redress of their damages. We have heard much about ``frivolous'' lawsuits--and I think there really are some. But not every lawsuit is frivolous--some are well- founded, because sometimes people really are hurt by negligence or other improper conduct. If I were persuaded that this bill struck the right balance, reducing the risks of frivolous lawsuits without unduly affecting the others--and if I were persuaded that as a result escalating insurance premiums would be effectively restrained--I would support it. But as it is, I am not persuaded of those things and so, given the sole choice of a yes or no vote, I must regretfully vote no.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill with my cousin Rep. Tom Udall to establish a federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The electric utilities throughout the country have done a good job providing this nation with reliable energy. They have done so well, in fact, that we take our energy for granted. But as demand continues to grow, we need to make sure that we continue to have affordable and reliable supplies. And, most importantly, as we move to more competition in the delivery of electricity, we must make sure that the environment and consumers are protected. So it makes sense to put incentives in place to ensure that less polluting and environmentally friendly sources of energy can find their way into the marketplace. But it's not enough to take protective steps. I believe it's critical that we also take affirmative steps to promote cleaner energy production. That's why I support requiring that a certain amount of our energy supplies come from renewable energy sources in the form of a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS. The RPS is a market-friendly approach that will provide increased reliability, energy security, and environmental and health benefits. By reducing the cost of new clean technologies, it will also make more choices increasingly available in the competitive marketplace, and help restrain fossil fuel price increases by creating more competition for those fuels. The RPS creates intense competition among renewables, with the market picking winners and losers among renewable technologies, not the government. An RPS will be good for consumers. According to the Department of Energy, an RPS will save consumers billions of dollars. An RPS will also spur economic development in the form of billions of dollars in new capital investment and in new property tax revenues for local communities, and millions of dollars in new lease payments to farmers and rural landowners. Importantly, an RPS will also keep our energy dollars at home and diversify our energy portfolio. Finally, the increased use of clean renewable energy through an RPS will take us toward a clean energy future by reducing air pollution from dirty fossil-fueled power plants that threaten public health and our climate. We have worked hard to draft legislation that we believe will create public benefits for everyone. The renewable energy goals the bill sets are significant--requiring retail electricity suppliers to derive 20 percent of their power production from renewables by 2025. In addition, the bill is not overly burdensome for states as it gives them flexibility to achieve these goals. The bill sets up a credit trading system that allows states to buy and sell credits to meet their renewable energy goals, which will work to further reduce costs. A cap of 3 cents a kilowatt-hour protects consumers from excessive costs. The bill permits states to borrow credits against future renewables, bank renewable credits for future use, or sell them on the open market. The bill gives federal credits for existing renewables and for renewables required under a state RPS. The bill also returns money to the states from the sale of credits for state weatherization programs, low-income energy assistance programs, and for encouraging the installation of additional renewables. Finally, our bill makes clear that while material removed from the national forests in connection with fuel reduction projects or for other reasons can qualify as biomass, we have been careful to make it clear that the bill does not set up a new program under which timber would be harvested specifically for that purpose. Our RPS bill will save consumers money, benefit farmers and rural landowners, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security. My cousin and I believe this RPS bill is a win-win proposition and worthy of the support of our colleagues. We will work together and with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to push it forward in the House.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003. I am very pleased that my colleague Representative Chip Pickering of Mississippi is joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill. I introduced this bill as H.R. 2426 in the 107th Congress, and the House--though not the Senate--passed it last year. I'm eager to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this Congress to see my legislation through to passage in both chambers. I introduced this bill in the 107th Congress mainly to address a real problem we have in Colorado, the problem of excess growth and sprawl. My goal was to point to a way to utilize the resources of the federal government to help foster wise community planning and management at the local level. As a member of the House Science Committee and the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, it made sense to me to look for ways to help communities grow in a smarter way through the use of technology. I have reintroduced the bill in this Congress because I still believe we need to do more to promote geospatial technology. Geospatial data from satellites can produce very accurate maps that show information about vegetation, wildlife habitat, flood plains, transportation corridors, soil types, and many other things. By giving state and local governments and communities greater access to geospatial data from commercial sources and federal agencies such as NASA, I believe that the federal government can help bring valuable-- and powerful--informational planning resources to the table. My bill would facilitate this transfer of information. The bill would establish in NASA a program of grants for competitively awarded pilot projects. The purpose would be to explore the integrated use of sources of remote sensing and other geospatial information to address state, local, regional, and tribal agency needs. State and local governments and communities can use geospatial information in a variety of applications--in such areas as urban land- use planning, coastal zone management and erosion control, transportation corridors, environmental planning, and agricultural and forest management. But another potential application that has garnered much recent attention is the use of geospatial technology to bolster our homeland security. Emergency management has always been an important responsibility of state and local governments. But in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the scope of this responsibility has broadened. Geospatial technology can help states and localities identify the location, nature, and scope of potential vulnerabilities and the impact of potential hazards, as well as how to respond to events and recover from them. Certainly it is important that we continue to add to our database of available geospatial information--more information is always better than less. But we also need to get maximum use of information we already have at hand. That is the need this bill would address. State and local officials are becoming more familiar with the uses of geospatial technology for various planning purposes. However, there is a need for federal agencies such as NASA, which has been pioneering the uses of satellite remote sensing technologies, to work with state and local organizations to demonstrate how remote sensing and other geospatial data can offer a cost effective planning and assessment tool. I'm pleased there was broad bipartisan cosponsorship of the bill in the last Congress and that it earned the endorsement of a number of important national organizations. These supporters of my bill understand the importance of targeting geospatial information at the places where it will have the greatest impact--the local and regional levels. The Remote Sensing Applications Act can help begin to bridge the gap between established and emerging technology solutions and the problems and challenges that state and local communities face regarding growth management, homeland security, forest fire management, and other issues. Mr. Speaker, this bill will be welcomed by states and localities nationwide. I look forward to working with Representative Pickering and other Members of the House, including my colleagues on the Science Committee, to move forward with this important initiative.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the State High-risk Pool Drug Assistance Program Act. The bill provides much needed relief on prescription drug costs for those individuals who get health insurance coverage through a qualified state high-risk pool insurance program. While much of the debate on prescription drugs has focused on older Americans, there is another group of Americans who need affordable access to prescription drugs. These people are the 153,000 individuals who get health care coverage through a state high-risk pool insurance program. Thirty states have established high-risk pools for individuals who cannot obtain or afford health insurance in the individual market. High-risk pools generally cover people who have been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition or who have received quotes from insurers that are higher than the premiums offered by the risk pools. Their premiums range from 124 percent to 200 percent of the standard market rates in their state. For example, a female, non-smoker who lives in Adams County in Colorado may pay $850 a month in premiums to obtain coverage through Cover Colorado, my state's highrisk pool. If this woman takes medications to manage a chronic disease, she will have fewer dollars to spend on them. I have heard stories about people with chronic conditions cutting their pills in half, choosing between paying for drugs and paying for food, or forgoing the medications altogether. These folks shouldn't be forced to make these choices at all. I think it's time for Congress to do something to help state high-risk pools, consumers, employers and state legislatures control the cost of healthcare. My bill would add qualified state high-risk pool programs to the list of entities that participate in the Public Health Service's 340B pricing program, which was created in 1992 to help safety net providers purchase outpatient drugs at discounted rates. The 340B program has expanded access to care to low-income and vulnerable populations without increasing the financial burden on taxpayers. The program has saved safety net providers and the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in outpatient drug costs. We should extend the program to include high-risk pools. My bill uses the National Association of Insurance Commissioners definition of qualified state high-risk pool so that all risk pools would be able to participate in the program. It gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to promulgate regulations to carry out the program so that it is run similarly to the successful AIDS Drug Assistance Program; however it sets minimum regulations for the operation of the program. People who are enrolled in a risk pool and who take maintenance drugs for chronic conditions could save 40 percent on their prescriptions. The bill uses the federal government's purchasing power to provide discounts to drugs for high-risk pools nationwide. If individuals in high-risk pools can't get the drugs they need to manage their condition, they could end up in the emergency room and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. If they weren't covered under the risk pool, they would most likely end up in Medicaid or uninsured, which would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. Ironically, many consumers in risk pools have conditions that would qualify them for one of the public programs currently covered under the 340B drug discount program. But their income level is too high for public health programs and too low to afford coverage in the individual market, and that's only if they aren't denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. Some may ask what the federal interest is in this issue. Congress has already determined that interest by guaranteeing that people have access to high-risk pools through the Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act of 1996 and the Trade Act of 2002, both of which are federal laws. Since the federal government is requiring high-risk pools to cover more people, it should make high-risk pools covered entities under the 340B program to save taxpayer dollars. The legislation is good for the insurance market, consumers, employers and states. It is good for the insurance market and for consumers because high-risk pools stabilize health insurance coverage and reduce the number of uninsured. It is good for the risk pools because the savings that they experience from the drug discount can be used to provide more affordable coverage and better health plans. It is good for consumers because it will give people in high-risk pools access to affordable maintenance medications for chronic conditions and keep them out of the emergency room. It is good for employers because if we control the costs of the high- risk programs, it will keep down the assessments that insurers and employers pay to fund the program. And it is good for states because if we control the costs of the program, cash-strapped states won't have to find additional funds to stabilize the risk pool, and the state's contribution will go a lot further. Mr. Speaker, a small but not insignificant number of people would benefit from my legislation, and it would save millions of dollars in health care costs and uncompensated care. This is a prevention bill, a cost savings bill, a pro-business bill and a taxpayer savings bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues and all interested parties to pass meaningful drug assistance legislation for our nation's state high-risk pools.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today, I am again introducing legislation to help ensure our nation's family farms and ranches continue to produce the agricultural products that have made us the breadbasket for the world. Small family farms and ranches helped build the foundation of America. Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter to George Washington, ``Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.'' Today many small farms and ranches have disappeared. This is in part because the smaller farms and ranches have not been able to change to more profitable means of production. To continue as a viable business in agriculture farmers and ranchers need to be able to use modern techniques that increase profitability, and do it in a manner that is environmentally sound. The Family Farm and Ranch Innovation Act (FFRJA) would provide necessary tools for small agriculture businesses to modernize and become more competitive in today's market, access to credit and a plan to turn the credit into increased revenue. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Commission on Small Farms report titled A Time to Act found, ``The underlying trend toward small farm decline reflects fundamental technological and market changes. Simply put, conventional agriculture adds less and less value to food and fiber on the farm and more and more in the input and post- harvest sectors. We spend more on capital and inputs to enable fewer people to produce the Nation's food and look primarily to off farm processing to produce higher value products. Sustainable agriculture strives to change this trend by developing knowledge and strategies by which farmers can capture a large share of the agricultural dollar by using management skills to cut input costs--so a large share of the prices they receive for their products remain in their own pockets--and by producing products of higher value right from the farm.'' (In context of the report farms include ranches.) The innovation plans in FFRIA, to be developed with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, would provide the blueprints to increase the value of farm and ranch outputs. The report also found, ``Agricultural operations require high levels of committed capital to achieve success. The capital-intensive nature of agricultural production makes access to financial capital, usually, in the form of credit, a critical requirement. Small farms are no different from larger farms in this regard, but testimony and USDA reports received by this Commission indicate a general under- capitalization of small farms, and increased difficulty in accessing sources of credit.'' If small farms and ranches are going to use improved technologies laid out in innovation plans they will need capital. The Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program has a long history of helping small businesses and would be a great tool for small farmers and ranchers to implement their plans. America's small farms and ranches need a hand up to remain viable in our rapidly changing marketplace. Often today's small agriculture businesses are family owned and have only a very small profit margin. The combination of low market prices for raw agricultural commodities and the rising cost of land means that many of these businesses cannot afford to carry on. And that causes more urbanization of valuable farm and ranch land. This legislation recognizing the importance of our small farming and ranching businesses. They provide diversity in the market place, local production of food, less pollution, and jobs, all of which strengthen our economy. And, farms and ranches that are part of our community remind us that food and other agricultural products don't just come from stores, and remind us of our connection to the land. Mr. Speaker, small farms and ranches have provided the livelihood for many families since the beginning of our country. This bill will help ensure small farms and ranches do not become a thing of the past by providing the technical expertise and capital to allow them to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Fact Sheet--Family Farm and Ranch Innovation Act Summary: Bill would authorize the USDA to assist Small farmers and ranchers who want to improve their operations by developing Innovation Plans and would authorize the Small Business Administration to provide loan guarantees to implement these plans. Loan Authority Bill authorizes the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to guarantee, under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, loans to small businesses engaged in farming and ranching, for the purpose of implementing Agricultural Innovation Plans. Agricultural Innovation Plans Plans are to be developed on request of a farmer or rancher whose operation has been certified as a small business concern under the definition of the Small Business Administration. Plans are designed to increase the on-farm or on-ranch income of small farmers or ranchers and protect the environmental quality of the farm or ranch where the farming and ranching operation is located by minimizing the production of pollutants and conserving the natural resource of the farm or ranch. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, will develop the plans.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, February 28th, we celebrated National Peace Corps Day, honoring the 168,000 Americans who have served as volunteers since the creation of the Peace Corps in 1961. These amazing men and women have served our nation in 136 countries. Peace Corps volunteers have made enormous contributions in the areas of agriculture, business development, education, health, and the environment, and in so doing have improved the lives of individuals and communities around the world. The Peace Corps has become an enduring symbol of out nation's commitment to encourage progress and create opportunity in the developing world. My own background as an educator and director at Outward Bound for twenty years taught me about the importance of national and community service. But I also have strong connections to the Peace Corps through my great state of Colorado and through my family. Colorado has one of the highest levels of recruitment of Peace Corps volunteers nationwide, and returned Peace Corps Volunteers in the 2nd Congressional District alone number over 500. Of course, the most important Peace Corps connection for me is my mother, who served as a volunteer in Nepal decades ago. Because of these connections I have a special interest in advancing the ability of the Peace Corps to play an important role in these new times. I believe we must work to continue to promote world peace and friendship through the people-to-people approach of the Peace Corps. That's why I worked with my colleague Rep. Sam Farr in the last Congress to introduce legislation known as the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act. We have reintroduced the bill again in this Congress as H.R. 250. The ``Peace Corps Charter'' strengthens the Peace Corps in a number of ways. It restates and further promotes its goals--to provide technical assistance to those in need around the world, to promote better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served, and to bring the world home to America. It authorizes funding to allow for a Peace Corps expansion to 15,000 volunteers in five years. It reaffirms the independence of the Peace Corps. It authorizes a number of reports, such as one on host country security. It spells out a commitment to recruit and place Peace Corps volunteers in countries where they could help promote mutual understanding, particularly in areas with substantial Muslim populations. It establishes training programs for Peace Corps volunteers in the areas of education, prevention, and treatment of infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS. It streamlines and empowers the Peace Corps Advisory Council, with an added focus of making use of the expertise of Returned Peace Corps Volunteers. Finally, the bill creates a grant program to enable Returned Peace Corps Volunteers to use their experience and expertise to continue to carry out the goals of the Peace Corps through specific projects. The Peace Corps is one of the most admired and successful initiatives ever put in place. I'm proud that the following young people from the 2nd Congressional District are presently serving in countries all over the world: Vanessa Adams, Ben Armitage, Shaun Cosgrove, Amy Ellerman, Thomas Fleming, Megan Haldy, Rebecca Knerl, Lydia Labelle, Lynell Lacey, Benjamin Liu, Erica Manteuffel, Kelly Oberg, Stephanie Ogden, Kelly O'Rourke, Johanna Patrick, Matthew Rice, Kathleen Shannon, Mary Simonson, and Robert Sweetman. A pebble tossed into a still pond creates ripples that begin small and grow larger. Peace Corps volunteers have had this same effect on the people they have touched. The Peace Corps experience exemplifies how individuals can make a tremendous difference in the lives and perceptions of people in developing countries as well as people right here at home. National Peace Corps Day honors the volunteers, past and present, and reaffirms our country's commitment to helping people help themselves throughout the world. Today I honor all of the men and women who have selflessly and generously served our country in the Peace Corps.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it includes many necessary provisions to protect Social Security beneficiaries. However, I do have concerns about one provision, and would have preferred for the bill to be considered under a procedure allowing for amendments. The troublesome provision is the one related to the ``government pension offset'' part of the Social Security Act. I understand the rationale for that provision, which would make application of the offset provision more uniform. However, I think it would be better for this provision to be considered separately, as part of a measure to make other revisions to the government pension offset. I think the offset should be revised, because as it stands it works a hardship on many people. That is why I am cosponsoring a bill (H.R. 887) which would assure that the offset will not reduce Social Security benefits below $2,000 per month. I hope the House will soon take up that much-needed legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, along with my cousin and colleague, Representative Tom Udall of New Mexico, I am today introducing the Forest Restoration and Fire Reduction Act. This bill is designed to accelerate efforts to reduce the risks from wildfires to communities--including their water supplies--and to promote locally-based efforts to restore the conditions of our forest lands. It is the result of over four years of involvement with questions of forest management and particularly the dangers of unusually severe wildfires. Since my election to Congress, I have visited forest lands in Colorado and elsewhere to see first hand the result of over 100 years of national policies emphasizing fire suppression--the accumulation of small diameter trees and thick underbrush. I have also examined areas where work has been done to reduce the likelihood of such fires and to move toward forest conditions that will make it possible for fire to play its historic role as a natural and valuable part of forest ecosystems. And I have studied areas like the lands affected by last year's Hayman Fire--which burned over 130,000 acres near Denver--to learn about the harm to lands, communities, and water supplies that can come from unnaturally hot fires resulting from drought and high winds combined with the build-up of vegetative fuels. I have also been listening to many Coloradans, other Westerners, scientists, and others with expertise in forest management to learn their views on the conditions of our forests and what if anything they think should be done to improve those conditions. From what I have learned, I have long been convinced that in some forest regimes, such as the ponderosa forests along Colorado's Front Range, reducing fuel loads through thinning--by controlled burns or mechanical means--can lessen the likelihood of unusually severe fires. I am also convinced that our limited resources--both of time, people, and money--should be expended on doing that kind of work in the areas where the likelihood of unusually severe wildfires presents the most urgent risk to homes, people and water supplies. Those areas are the lands where homes and municipal water facilities adjoin or intermingle with forest lands. These areas are often called the ``wildland/urban interface, but Coloradans usually call them the ``red zones.'' They extend across ownership boundaries, including not only federal lands but lands owned by others as well. In Colorado, the ``red zones'' encompass over 6 million acres--and there are additional millions of acres of such high priority lands throughout the country. I have long worked to accelerate thinning projects in Colorado's ``red zones.'' In July of 2000, 1 introduced a bill--cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado Springs, Representative Joel Hefley--to help get that work underway. It was not enacted, but many of its provisions were incorporated into the National Fire Plan put into place by Congress and the Clinton Administration after that fiery summer. Since then, I have strongly supported the National Fire Plan, but I have been concerned about the way it has been implemented--and particularly about the fact that there has been a continuing failure to put proper emphasis on urgently-needed work in the interface areas--the ``red zones.'' I joined others in asking the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the implementation of the National Fire Plan, to see what improvements were needed. Based on GAO's report, I again joined with Representative Hefley to introduce legislation to make needed changes. Since then, the Bush Administration has made some of the changes that were needed, but it still is expending too much time and money on thinning projects in low-priority areas. At the outset, only about 25 percent of the lands where thinning was done were in the ``red zones.'' Since then, there has been some improvement, but only a little. And unless there is a dramatic change, the prospect is not good--the President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 actually calls for treating fewer ``red zone'' acres than was done in fiscal 2002! The bill my cousin and I are introducing today would make the kind of dramatic change in this part of the National Fire Plan that is so badly needed. It would require that in the future all thinning projects funded as part of the National Fire Plan involve lands in the ``red zones,'' and it would enable funds for those projects to be used not only on Federal lands but on any other lands in those interface areas where such treatments are needed. Some who share my desire to accelerate needed thinning projects say that the environmental laws and procedures for public involvement are obstacles that must be removed. I disagree. And some claim many projects have been delayed or halted because of opposition, appeals, and litigation instigated by some environmental groups. However, the facts show otherwise. Some groups or individuals indeed have appealed some thinning projects, but that has been more the exception than the rule--and even when there have been appeals, often they have not challenged entire project, but just portions involving cutting trees or building roads in roadless areas or other sensitive areas--areas that for the most part are not located in the high risk red zones. I do not think it is necessary--let alone desirable--to exempt fire- risk reduction projects from environmental review, public comments and administrative appeals. While some say this would reduce delays, it could have just the opposite result, by inviting more litigation--the slowest process of all. It would run counter to the sound policy of enabling the public to be involved on decisions about their public lands and would not assist in developing sound forest management. Instead, the bill we are introducing today builds on the consensus that has developed about the need to thin in the ``red zones,'' while making some procedural adjustments that can expedite the process of resolving appeals. It would develop support at the front end for projects that are urgently needed, narrowly tailored and scientifically sound. It would do this through the creation of a cooperative program for hazardous fuels reduction projects with both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The centerpiece of this program is the creation of statewide advisory councils to work with these agencies in each state on the selection of specific projects. These councils would include broad representation of interests and would include scientific participation. The councils would develop projects in a collaborative fashion so as to avoid opposition, delays and appeals at the back-end when projects are being implemented. To be eligible under this program, the projects considered by the councils would have to meet certain criteria: they would have to be exclusively located in ``red zone'' areas and be outside of wilderness areas, roadless areas and other sensitive areas (lands that are typically not in the red zones and that in any event do not present as urgent a risk of unusually severe wildfires). The projects would have to be designed so as to minimize the cutting of large or old growth trees, which have proven to be resilient to fire events and are important to the ecology and diversity of our forested lands. The bill also would promote appropriate economic reuse of the brush, small trees, and similar material removed from the forests in connection with fuel-reduction projects. It would authorize federal assistance to homeowners seeking to reduce the risk to their ``red zone'' homes through the use of ``defensible space'' techniques or similar steps. And it includes provisions to establish collaborative, community-based restoration projects that would work on important tasks such as controlling erosion, implementing recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, restoration of native species of fish and wildlife, road and trail upkeep or obliteration. I believe that this bill would help us address the urgent fire risk situation on our forests. It keeps faith with the need to involve the public in the management of our precious public lands while also bringing important scientific principles to the table. It focuses scarce resources on the highest priority areas while maintaining opportunities to consider environmental and other potential impacts. In short, I believe that the program developed in this bill, along with the assistance it provides and the oversight it allows, appropriately address some of the most important aspects of current forest management--and I think the bill deserve wide support. For the information of our colleague, I am attaching a short outline of the bill's main provisions. Outline of Major Provisions of Draft Forest Restoration and Fire Risk Reduction Act FINDINGS.--Includes findings concerning results of past fire-suppression policies, need for actions to reduce the risks to communities and municipal water supplies and to restore ecological health of forests through cooperative efforts. PURPOSES.--Identifies 5 purposes of the bill: (1) Reduction of wildfire risks to communities and water supplies; (2) Refocusing of National Fire Plan fuel-reduction spending to highest-priority areas; (3) Improving communication and joint problem-solving; (4) Encouraging sustainable communities and forests through collaborative partnerships focused on forest restoration and fire-risk reduction; (5) Developing, demonstrating, and evaluating forest restoration techniques and projects. FOCUS ON ``RED ZONES''.--Requires all future National Fire plan funds for fuel-reduction projects go for work in wildland-urban interface or to protect municipal water supplies. PROGRAM FOR HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION PROJECTS.--Establishes cooperative community program to enable stakeholders to participate with Forest Service and BLM in planning and carrying out projects to reduce build up of hazardous fuels on forested lands in order to lessen risks to communities and municipal water supplies; establishes eligibility criteria for projects and limits federal share of costs to 80 percent; specifies that no projects can be done in wilderness or wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, or other parts of the Federal lands where removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted, and requires that limits be set on number and size of trees that can be removed in a project area; sets eligibility requirements and deadlines for any appeals of Forest Service fuel-reduction projects covered by the bill, while allowing waiver of deadlines to promote negotiations. SELECTION PROCESS FOR FUEL-REDUCTION PROJECTS.--Requires consultation with State Foresters and technical advisory panels to determine priorities for fuel-reduction projects. Specifies panel membership. MONITORING AND EVALUATION.--Requires project monitoring and evaluation. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.--Provides for public participation and set procedures related to development and review of fuel-reduction projects

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague Mr. Hunter of California in introducing the Renewable Fuel Equity Act. I'm grateful to my colleague for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with him to build bipartisan support for this important legislation. We all know we need to expand and diversify our production of energy from renewable resources. The legislation we have introduced today would help us do this by providing tax incentives for new renewable energy development. Solar, wind, hydropower, biomass and geothermal energy are each potentially enormous energy resources. Every state has renewable energy potential. But the various kinds of renewable resources are not spread uniformly across the country. Current tax law creates regional and technological inequities by failing to provide uniform benefits for all renewable energy resources. For example, the Section 45 production tax credit enacted in 1992 has spurred significant new investment, but it only applies to power plants using wind power. That's why we need to expand this proven incentive to all renewable energy sources. Clean power production provides greater reliability for our electricity system while promoting cleaner air and water. Renewable energy sources provide reliable power that is cost-effective over the long run, but their high initial capital cost discourages investment. Providing tax incentives for new renewable power production can make the difference. The Hunter-Udall bill also offers incentives for smaller power systems, particularly those not connected to the grid, as these systems are unlikely to get an effective stimulus from the production tax credit. Under current law, the production tax credit does not apply to off-grid systems, and it is complex for a small farm or business to use. To address such situations, our legislation would make a 20 percent investment tax credit available to all small renewable technologies as an alternative. Investment in new renewable power is good for the economy and the environment, and studies show that providing these tax incentives will spur new investment without cutting Treasury revenues. The Hunter-Udall bill makes good sense. I look forward to working with my colleague and with Congress to get this sensible legislation passed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, is this really the time for the United States to lead an attack on Iraq and to make this the immediate centerpiece of our war on terrorism? I think not. This is not to suggest that military action and war are never justified. Clearly, there are times when force is not only justified but is the most effective means of securing human rights, freedom and security. Knowing when to go to war is as important, however, as recognizing when a war is justified. Liberating the people of Iraq from one of the world's most repressive regimes and preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are all worthy goals that are beyond reasonable argument. But are we certain that we have reached the point where war is the only means of achieving these goals? A few weeks ago I joined Senator McCain and other legislators at the Wehrkunde Conference. During the conference, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld confronted the Europeans, challenging them to join in military action to disarm Saddam. Most Europeans balked, and they continue to balk today. We may not be entirely alone, but we remain largely isolated, and that will not only make success in Iraq harder. It will also risk our long-term success in the war against al Qaeda and terrorism. The administration speaks of a short war and assured success. But success in Iraq is not just about eliminating Saddam. Many military experts believe that that will be the easy part. Success in Iraq also means managing the ensuing social chaos, keeping a lid on the Middle East powder keg, thwarting terrorist attacks at home, rebuilding Iraq, and doing all of this when our own economy is faltering. Energy prices are rising and domestic priorities like health care and education are crying out for attention. The President should be commended for deciding to act through the United Nations with respect to Iraq. And Secretary of State Powell performed admirably in achieving the unanimous Security Council vote giving Iraq a last chance to disarm and instituting renewed inspections. Those were steps that earned us the support of the world community. But that support has dwindled as the administration presses for early action on a timetable that seems to be largely driven by the rising temperatures in the Iraqi desert rather than the degree to which we have built international support. In fact, this has gone so far that some members of the Security Council seem prepared to repudiate the resolution they so recently approved. The President's rhetoric has fueled the perception that America is eager for invasion, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. This perception has been compounded by seemingly shifting goals and rationales. President Bush did finally specify disarmament as opposed to regime change as the official goal of any U.S. invasion of Iraq. But the administration's emphasis has changed as it suited the President's case. It has been weapons of mass destruction one day, potential links to al Qaeda the next, and Saddam's atrocious human rights record the day after that. The point is not that these rationales are unfounded. Saddam is a ruthless tyrant who has attacked his neighbors and terrorized and murdered his own people. He has defied U.N. resolutions and has given every sign of trying to continue to evade disarmament. The point is that it is difficult to believe the administration did not opt for war long ago whatever the consequences. Although we could be left virtually alone to bear the costs of winning the war and securing the peace, the administration has appeared intent on moving forward, seemingly with contempt for international opinion. Although it seems that we are beyond the 11th hour and the clock is ticking, there are things we can and must do before taking military action against Iraq. I think continued diplomatic pressure and the threat of military action can force Saddam Hussein to disarm or seek permanent exile abroad. We should continue to apply this pressure through the United Nations. Further, I think we must be more open to the idea of so-called coercive inspections, using our military buildup in coordination with the U.N. to test the effectiveness of a more robust inspection and disarmament process in Iraq. This would involve putting the most qualified people in the field, providing them with real-time intelligence, destroying forbidden items as soon as they are detected, strictly prohibiting Iraqi flying in the designated no-fly zones and reinforcing the authority of inspectors with ground troops if necessary. Mr. Speaker, I am an optimist by nature, but I am not naive. Coercive inspections alone may not be enough to disarm Saddam. But I believe they may be the best step now to build greater international support for forcing him to disarm. And as a strategic move in our larger role against terrorism, tightening the international noose on Saddam strikes me as a smarter option, at least in the short term, than opting now for a war with all its known and unknown consequences.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Act. This bill would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of distributed power hybrid energy systems. Distributed power is modular electric generation or storage located close to the point of use, well suited for the use of renewable energy technologies such as wind turbines and photovoltaics, and also of clean, efficient, fossil-fuel technologies such as gas turbines and fuel cells. Distributed power can avoid the need for and cost of additional transmission lines and pipelines, reduce associated delivery losses, and increase energy efficiency. In addition, distributed power can provide insurance against energy disruptions and expand the available energy service choices for consumers. By their very nature, renewable resources are distributed. Our ability to cost-effectively take advantage of our renewable, indigenous resources can be greatly advanced through systems that minimize the intermittency of these resources. Distributed power hybrid systems can help accomplish this. ``Hybridizing'' distributed power systems--combining two or more renewable sources or a renewable and a fossil source--enables us to offset the weaknesses of one technology with the strengths of another. For example, in a hybrid system, the intermittency of wind power can be offset by the reliability and affordability of power generated by a microturbine. My bill would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop a distributed power hybrid systems strategy identifying opportunities for and barriers to such systems, technology gaps that need to be closed, and system integration tools that are necessary to plan, design, build and operate such systems. Mr. Speaker, distributed generation represents the most significant technological change in the electric industry in decades. Knowing this, 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. My bill would help us do this. I look forward to working with Members of the House to move forward with this important initiative. For the benefit of my colleagues, I've attached a fact sheet that explains the bill in more detail. The Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Act Fact Sheet The Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Act would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of distributed power hybrid energy systems. Background Distributed power is modular electric generation or storage located close to the point of use. Distributed systems include biomass-based generators, combustion turbines, concentrating solar power and photovoltaic systems, fuel cells, wind turbines, microturbines, engines/generator sets, and storage and control technologies. Distributed resources can either be grid connected or operate independently of the grid. In contrast to large, central-station power plants, distributed power systems typically range from less than a kilowatt (kW) to tens of megawatts (MW) in size. Distributed power is well suited for the use of renewable energy technologies such as wind turbines and photovoltaics, and also of clean, efficient, fossil-fuel technologies such as gas turbines and fuel cells. Many benefits can be realized by producing electricity and heat closer to the customer and integrating these distributed energy resources with our traditional central-station generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure. Combined heat and power systems at industrial plants or commercial buildings can be three times more efficient than conventional central generating stations. When facilities such as hospitals and businesses with computers or other critical electronic technology can get power from either the grid or their own generating equipment, energy reliability and security are greatly improved. Distributed power can avoid the need for and cost of additional transmission lines and pipelines, reduce associated delivery losses, and increase energy efficiency. In addition, distributed power can provide insurance against energy disruptions and expand the available energy service choices for consumers. Since 1998, the Department of Energy's Distributed Power Program has been working to reduce barriers to the widespread adoption of distributed energy resources. One area of research that has so far not received the attention it deserves, however, is distributed power hybrid systems. By their very nature, renewable resources are distributed. Our ability to cost-effectively take advantage of our renewable, indigenous resources can be greatly advanced through systems that minimize the intermittency of these resources. Distributed power hybrid systems can help accomplish this. ``Hybridizing'' distributed power systems--combining two or more renewable sources or a renewable and a fossil source-- enables us to offset the weaknesses of one technology with the strengths of another. For example, in a hybrid system, the intermittency of wind power can be offset by the reliability and affordability of power generated by a microturbine. Distributed power hybrid systems also have the potential for fuel flexibility--for instance, using biofuels for distributed power systems such as gas turbines and fuel cells. In addition, hybrid systems can be developed to serve multiple uses, such as combined heat and power, offering the opportunity to provide reliable energy services at lower cost. Legislation This legislation would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop a distributed power hybrid systems strategy identifying opportunities for and barriers to such systems, technology gaps that need to be closed, and system integration tools that are necessary to plan, design, build and operate such systems. This strategy might provide for the development of system integration tools for developing such systems; tests of distributed power hybrid systems, including field tests with industry and cost-shared demonstrations of such systems to validate performance; data to characterize grid operations, including interconnection requirements; and precise resource assessment tools to map local resources for distributed power hybrid systems. The legislation calls for the implementation of the plan over five years, along with its integration into the Department of Energy's Office of Distributed Energy Resources. The bill would also require an annual report on the use of and experience with distributed power hybrid systems, in addition to identifying the remaining R&D issues to ensure the successful application of these systems. To carry out the bill's requirements, the bill would authorize $60 million over fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing a bill to authorize a program to help states, local governments, and private groups protect open space while enabling ranchers and other private landowners to continue to use their lands for agriculture and other traditional uses. The bill, entitled the ``Cooperative Landscape Conservation Act,'' is based on provisions that were previously passed by the House as part of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) but on which the Senate did not complete action. It is also similar to a bill I introduced in the 107th Congress. I think the program that this bill would establish would be good for the entire country and it would be particularly important for Colorado. In Colorado, as in some other states, we have experienced rapid population growth. That brings with it rising land values and property taxes. This combination is putting ranchers and other landowners under increasing pressure to sell their lands for development. By selling conservation easements instead, they can lessen that pressure, capture much of the increased value of the land, and allow the land to continue to be used for traditional purposes. That's why conservation easements are so important for our state. It's why the state and many local governments are interested in acquiring conservation easements on undeveloped lands. It is also why non-profit organizations like the Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust and the Nature Conservancy--to name just two of many--work to help ranchers and other property owners to make these arrangements and so avoid the need to sell agricultural lands to developers. I strongly support this approach. Of course, by itself it is not enough--it is still important for governments at all levels to acquire full ownership of land in appropriate cases. But in many other instances acquiring a conservation easement is more appropriate for conservation and other public purposes, more cost-effective for the taxpayers, and better for ranchers and other landowners who want to keep their lands in private ownership. But while it is usually less costly to acquire a conservation easement than to acquire full ownership, it is often not cheap--and in some critical cases can be more than a community or a nonprofit group can raise without some help. That is where my bill would come in. Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to provide funds, on a 50 percent match basis, to supplement local resources available for acquiring a conservation easement. For that purpose, the bill would authorize appropriation of $100 million per year for each of the next 6 fiscal years--similar to the amount that would have been authorized by the CARA legislation that the House passed last year. The bill provides that the Secretary would give priority to helping acquire easements in areas--such as Colorado that are experiencing rapid population growth and where increasing land values are creating development pressures that threaten the traditional uses of private lands and the ability to maintain open space. Within those high-growth areas, priority would go to acquiring easements that would provide the greatest conservation benefits while maintaining the traditional uses-- whether agricultural or some other uses--of the lands involved. The bill would not involve any federal land acquisitions, and it would not involve any federal regulation of land uses--conservation easements acquired using these funds would be governed solely under state law. Mr. Speaker, the national government has primary responsibility for protecting the special parts of the federal lands and for managing those lands in ways that will maintain their resources and values-- including their undeveloped character--as a legacy for future generations. Regarding other lands, the challenge of responding to growth and sprawl is primarily the responsibility of the states and tribes, the local governments, and private organizations and groups-- but the federal government can help. This bill would provide help, in a practical and cost-effective way. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a summary of its main provisions. Digest of ``Cooperative Landscape Conservation Act'' The bill is based on provisions included in the House- passed Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) legislation of the 106th Congress. It would provide federal financial assistance to states, local governments, Indian tribes, and private groups working to preserve open space by acquiring conservation easements. Background: In Colorado and other rapidly-growing states, rising land values and property taxes are putting farmers and ranchers (and other landowners) under increasing pressure to sell their lands for development. By selling conservation easements instead, they can lessen that pressure, capture much of the increased value of the land, and allow the land to continue to be used for traditional purposes. The party acquiring the conservation easement would have an enforceable property right to prevent development. What the Bill would Do Program--The bill would establish the ``Cooperative Landscape Conservation Program,'' to be administered by the Department of the Interior. The program would provide grants to assist qualified recipients to acquire conservation easements. Funding--Bill would authorize appropriations of $100 million/year for fiscal years 2002 through 2007. Funds would be used for grants, would be on a 50%-50% matching basis, for purchase of conservation easements on private lands in order to provide wildlife, fisheries, open space, recreation, or other public benefits consistent with the continuation of traditional uses by the private landowners. Up to 10% of annual funds could be used by Interior Department to provide technical assistance. Priority--(1) Priority for grants would be to help acquire easements in areas where rapid population growth and increasing land values are creating development pressures that threaten traditional uses of land and the ability to maintain open space; (2) within those areas, priority would go for acquiring easements that would provide the greatest conservation benefits while maintaining traditional uses of lands. Eligible Recipients--would be agencies of state or local government, tribes, and tax-exempt organizations operated principally for conservation. Enforcement--Only an entity eligible for a grant could hold and enforce an easement acquired with program funds; at time of application, state Attorney General would have to certify that an easement would meet the requirements of state law. What the Bill Would NOT Do Bill would NOT involve any federal land acquisition. Bill would NOT involve any federal regulation of land use.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing a bill to improve the ability of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to respond to a serious problem affecting federal lands in Colorado and other states. Throughout the west, and especially in Colorado, increased growth and development has resulted in an increase in recreational use of our public lands. These recreational uses have, in some cases, stressed the capacity of the public land agencies to adequately control and manage such use. As a result, areas of our public lands are being damaged. One of the uses that cause the greatest impacts are recreational off- road vehicles. The results can include: damage to wildlife habitat; increased run-off and sediment pollution in rivers and streams; damage to sensitive high-altitude tundra, desert soils, and wetlands; creation of ruts and other visual impacts on the landscape; loss of quiet and secluded areas of the public lands; and adverse effects on wildlife. Recreational off-road vehicle use on our public lands should be allowed to continue, but it must be managed to minimize or avoid these problems, by appropriate restrictions and putting some sensitive areas off-limits to vehicle use. Most vehicle users are responsible--they stay on designated roads and trails, they are respectful of the landscape and they endeavor to tread lightly. However, there are a number of such users who do not obey the rules. Given the nature of this use (large, powerful motorized vehicles that are able to penetrate deeper and deeper into previously secluded areas), even a relatively few who violate management requirements can create serious damage to public land resources. Yet, in some cases, recreational off-road vehicle users ignore these closures and management requirements. Often times, when these activities occur, the federal public land agencies do not have the authority to charge fines commensurate with the damage that results. For example, under BLM's basic law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, fines for violations of regulations--including regulations governing ORV uses--are limited to $1,000. That figure has remained unchanged for a quarter of a century, and does not reflect the fact that in many cases the damage from violations will cost thousands more to repair. The bill I am introducing today would provide for increased fines for such violations--to $10,000 or the costs of restoring damaged lands, whichever would be greater. The bill is similar to one that I introduced in the 107th Congress. The need for this legislation was demonstrated by incidents in several state, including some in Colorado. For example, in the summer of 2000 two recreational off-road vehicle users ignored closure signs while four-wheel driving on Bureau of Land Management land high above Silverton, Colorado. As a result, they got stuck for five days on a 70 percent slope at 12,500 feet along the flanks of Houghton Mountain. At first, they abandoned their vehicles. Then, they returned with other vehicles to pull their vehicles out of the mud and off the mountain. The result was significant damage to the high alpine tundra, a delicate ecosystem that may take thousands of years to recover. As noted in a Denver Post story about this incident, ``alpine plant life has evolved to withstand freezing temperatures, nearly year-round frost, drought, high winds and intense solar radiation, but it's helpless against big tires.'' Despite the extent of the damage, the violators were only fined $600 apiece--hardly adequate to restore the area, or to deter others. Another example was an event in the mountains near Boulder, Colorado, that became popularly known as the ``mudfest.'' Two Denver radio personalities announced that they were going to take their off-road four-wheel drive vehicles for a weekend's outing on an area of private property along an existing access road used by recreational off-road vehicle users. Their on-air announcement resulted in hundreds of people showing up and driving their vehicles in a sensitive wetland area, an area that is prime habitat of the endangered boreal toad. As a result, seven acres of wetland were destroyed and another 18 acres were seriously damaged. Estimates of the costs to repair the damage ranged from $66,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most of the ``mudfest'' damage occurred on private property. However, to get to those lands the off-road vehicle users had to cross a portion of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest--but the Forest Service only assessed a $50 fine to the two radio disc jockeys for not securing a special use permit to cross the lands. Again, this fine is not commensurate to the seriousness of the violation or the damage that ensured, or stands as much of a deterrent for future similar behavior. These are but two examples. Regrettably, there have been many more such examples not only in Colorado but also throughout the west. These examples underscore the nature of the problem that this bill would address. If we are to deter such activity and recover the damaged lands, we need to increase the authorities of the federal public land agencies. My bill would do just that. Specifically, it would amend the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act and relevant laws governing the Forest Service to authorize these agencies to assess greater fines on recreational off-road vehicles for violations of management, use and protection requirements. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to assess up to $10,000 in fines, or 12 months in jail, or both, for violations of road and trail closures and other management regulations by recreational off-road vehicles. The bill also would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, in lieu of a specific dollar fine, to assess fines equal to the costs required to rehabilitate federal public lands from damage caused by recreational off-road vehicle violations. In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to apply any funds acquired from recreational off-road vehicle violations to the area that was damaged or affected by such violations, and to increase public awareness of the need for proper use of vehicles on federal lands. This would give these agencies additional resources to recover damaged lands and areas that may be exposed to repeated violations. The bill does not put any lands ``off limits'' to recreational off- road vehicle use. In fact, it does not affect any specific lands in any way. The bill also does not provide for increased fines for other activities that can damage federal lands. There may or may not be a need for legislation along those lines, but in the meantime I am seeking only to address this one problem. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I met with Chief Bosworth regarding several matters related to management of the National Forests. During our conversation, he said that he considered problems associated with off-road vehicles one of the greatest problems facing the Forest Service. I agree with the Chief--in fact, I think improper use of recreational vehicles is a problem of growing seriousness throughout the west. My intention with this bill is to help address this problem so that all recreational users of our public lands can have a rewarding, safe and enjoyable experience. Everyone's experience is diminished when a few bad actors spoil the resources and the beauty of our lands. I think this bill can help provide the BLM and the Forest Service with better tools to respond by allowing appropriate recreational use of our public lands while also protecting the resources and values of these lands that belong to all the American people. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a fact sheet about the bill. Responsible Off-Road Vehicle Enforcement and Response (``ROVER'') Act Background: In Colorado and throughout the west increased population growth has brought increased recreational use of federal lands. This has made it harder for land-managing agencies to adequately control and manage such use. Recreational and other use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) can present serious problems. This use should be allowed to continue, but must be managed and controlled to minimize or avoid adverse effects. That involves closing-off some sensitive areas and other regulations. Improper use of vehicles can result in serious damage to the national forests and the public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This can involve damage to wildlife habitat; increased run-off and sediment pollution in rivers and streams; damage to sensitive high-altitude tundra, desert soils, and wetlands; creation of ruts and other visual impacts to the landscape; loss of quiet areas due to the deeper penetration of off-road vehicles into previously secluded areas of the public lands; and impacts to wildlife from noise and effects on migration corridors. Currently, the Forest Service and BLM do not always have clear authority to assess fines commensurate with the costs of enforcement and the damage that often results. For example, under the law governing BLM lands, federal officials can only impose up to $1,000 in fines while the damage that results could cost thousands more to address. The Forest Service's authority also needs clarifying and strengthening. The bill would provide new authority, in order to increase public awareness, deter violations, and help cover the costs of enforcement and damages to affected lands. What the bill would do: Allow Increased Fines: The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to assess fines of up to $10,000 or the costs of restoration, whichever is greater, for violation of ORV regulations. The current provisions for imprisonment of 12 months in jail is retained. Apply Fines to Enforcement and the Area Damaged: The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to apply any funds acquired from recreational off-road vehicle violations to the costs of enforcing off-road violations, increasing public awareness of the problem, and to repair damages to lands affected by such violations. What the bill would not do: Increase Closures of Public Lands: The bill would not require that any particular lands be ``off limits'' to recreational off-road vehicle use. Decisions about which roads or trails will remain open to such use would continue to be made by the land-management agency. Apply to Other Uses: The bill would not impose increased fines for violation of any regulations other than those applicable to use of vehicles. Eliminate Fines for Other Violations: The bill would not affect the current ability of the federal public land agencies from assessing existing fines and penalties for other activities that violate management, use and protection requirements. Such fines would continue to apply to violations of other regulations.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to vote for this conference report, because it does include some things that I support and that are very important for Colorado and the country. If those items, or even the parts of this omnibus bill that included them, were being considered separately, I well could vote for them. But that is not the situation today. Instead, today Members of the House are presented with a more difficult choice. We must vote yes or no on this entire conference report, which rolls into one enormous package no fewer than 11 of the regular 13 appropriations bills that together cover all of the government except the Department of Defense. This is not the way the House should do its work. It is an embarrassment for all of us. But the responsibility lies solely upon the Republican leadership. They are the ones who refused to allow the House to consider only a few of the regular appropriations bills last year, either before the November elections or in the subsequent lame duck session. They are the ones who have brought this embarrassment, this shame, even, upon the House. Nonetheless, each of us has had to try to review the results, weighing its good and bad features, without adequate information and in undue haste--haste now, after months and months of delay--and decide, on balance whether to support it. So I have done my best to review and understand what is before the House. And, on balance, with some regret, I must vote against it. Let me briefly explain how I reached that decision, weighing the good parts of the bill against its serious defects. good aspects of the bill Here are some of the good things in the bill: colorado funding items The omnibus bill provides funding for several important activities in Colorado. I want to highlight just a few: Rocky Flats Cleanup Funds--I am very glad that the omnibus bill includes $664 million to continue the ongoing cleanup of the Rocky Flats Site. This is a matter of the highest priority to all Coloradans, because this former nuclear-weapons production site, with its large quantities of radioactive materials, toxic chemicals, and other dangers is just 15 miles from the heart of our largest metropolitan area. The Department of Energy, through its contract with Kaiser-Hill, is working hard to have it cleaned up so it can be closed and transferred to the Department of the Interior for management as a National Wildlife Refuge. The funding included in the omnibus bill will enable that effort to continue, so this is definitely a good part of the overall package. NIST laboratory repairs--I am particularly glad that these include more than $11 million to enable the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, to begin what the conferees very accurately describe as ``urgently needed construction and renovation'' work at NIST's laboratory in Boulder. The condition of this laboratory has been of great concern to me, and I want to express my thanks to Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Jose Serrano for making sure that these funds were included. I look forward to continue working with them and the rest of the appropriations committee so we can complete this important task. Beaver Brook acquisition--The conference report includes $2.5 million for the Forest Service to continue with acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook watershed, in Clear Creek County, now owned by the City of Golden. I am glad that this is included, but regret that the amount is significantly less than the $4 million for this purpose that was included in the Interior appropriations bill passed by the House. I will seek to have sufficient funds included in the appropriations bill for fiscal 2004 to enable the Forest Service to stay on schedule for completion of this acquisition. Great Sand Dunes--The bill includes $7 million to acquire lands slated to be included in this National Park System unit, and another $5 million for acquisition of lands that will be included in the adjacent unit of the National Wildlife Refuge system. I support these acquisitions. Other good aspects of the bill include the following: Medicare Provisions The omnibus bill includes increased payments for Medicare physicians and rolls back a scheduled March 1 pay cut that could result in serious health care access issues for our nation's seniors. I have long supported increased Medicare payments for providers and have cosponsored legislation to roll back the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services physician payment cuts scheduled for 2002 and 2003, and to devise a formula that better reflects the cost of care. So my vote against the omnibus bill should not be perceived as a vote against increasing payments for Medicare doctors. My record proves otherwise. Drought Assistance The drought Colorado and other states are suffering from has devastated many farmers and ranchers. Some of us in Congress have been asking for drought relief for almost a year. I am encouraged to see that there is some relief in the omnibus appropriation bill, but I am concerned that for many people it may be coming too late. It would have been appropriate for drought assistance funds to have been included in the supplemental appropriation passed last year, but the resistance of the Administration meant that didn't happen. And the refusal of the Republican leadership to act in a more timely fashion on the regular appropriations bills has compounded the problem. Limits on Information Program I am very glad that the conference report retains the Senate's provision limiting the Defense Department's ``Total Information Awareness'' program. I thought the potential for abuse of this program outweighed its purported advantages, and think the restrictions included in the conference report are most appropriate. International Assistance The conference report includes $295 million for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and $800 million for international HIV/AIDS programs. Bother are needed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing the ``Urban Sprawl and Smart Growth Study Act.'' This bill, similar to one I introduced in the 107th Congress, is designed to shine a bright light on the influence of federal actions on urban sprawl and assure that federal agencies consider how their actions may add to this problem. Mr. Speaker, communities in Colorado and throughout the country are struggling to preserve their special charter and quality of life in the face of burgeoning populations. Especially in the West and South, extreme population growth has resulted in the continual build-out of cities and the loss of surrounding farmland and open space. In my state, this growth is also spreading along interstate highways into the mountain valleys and forested regions. The resulting sprawl is creating congested highways, more air pollution, overtaxed city services, and crowded schools and shopping centers. According to the recent census, Colorado is one of the most rapidly growing states. Between 1990 and 2000, the population growth in the United States was 13.1 percent. During the same period, Colorado's growth was 30.6 percent! And in many of our counties, the rate was even higher. What does this mean? The City of Broomfield has grown so much that it has now become its own county. Traffic is so heavy in the area that Congress appropriated $1 million to study a new interchange at the intersection of U.S. 36 and Highway 287. The cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley are growing so fast, it's becoming difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. These three cities are likely to become one in the next 10 years. The south Denver portion of Interstate 25 near the Tech Center not only services the many offices in that area, but metro area sprawl has added more houses and towns on that end of Denver. Traffic is always bad there, no matter what time of day, and rush hour starts earlier and last longer now too. Citizens in Colorado are asking their leaders to address the symptoms of sprawl and to help them control and manage growth more effectively. We got started with this effort in 1994, when then Governor Roy Romer initiated his ``Smart Growth and Development Initiative.'' That initiative focused attention on the problems of sprawl, the unevenness of growth and development (some rural areas welcome more development), and the role of federal, state and local governments in creating and managing sprawl and its impacts. Other states from North Carolina and Georgia to California and Oregon have been experiencing similar growth problems. Many are developing processes and mechanisms to deal with these problems. Some states have used growth control legislation creating urban service areas. Others have relied on their local communities to slow down or temporarily cease the issuance of building permits. Many have appropriated funds or created sales tax initiatives to purchase and protect open spaces and agricultural lands. All of this has been done with an understanding that state and local governments are in the best place to plan for and manage growth and sprawl issues. Armed with zoning and other authorities, they are best suited to gauge the pulse of their citizens and determine where, when and how growth should best occur. But the efforts of state, local and tribal governments to plan for and manage urban growth and sprawl can be thwarted by actions taken at the federal level. A well-developed plan by a local community can be swept aside by the routing of a major highway or the construction of a poorly cited post office. The cumulative effects of a number of smaller federal actions and policies together create or foster the very sprawl that communities have fought so hard to control. need for legislation The bill I am reintroducing today is designed to focus attention on the many federal decisions and projects that can either foster or ameliorate sprawl. It does this through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of our nation's premier environmental laws. It requires all federal agencies to evaluate their activities and projects for social and environmental impacts and thereby take steps to avoid or mitigate these impacts. Specifically, NEPA requires all federal agencies to include for all ``major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment' a detailed statement by the responsible official on the environmental impacts of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that can't be avoided, alternatives to the action, the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should it be implemented. This is what is essentially required of an environmental impact statement (EIS). It is not, itself, a decision making document but is meant to guide agencies in making important decisions. Generally speaking, most federal agencies have done a reasonably good job in implementing NEPA. However, when it comes to the cumulative impacts and indirect effects of federal actions--such as on sprawl-- much of the NEPA analysis has not been adequate. Too often, federal agencies look at the specific, localized impacts of a proposed project and neglect to review the broader ``spill-over'' impacts that it may have on a region. This observation was in fact identified in a September 2000 General Accounting Office report entitled ``Community Development: Local Growth Issues--Federal Opportunities and Challenges.'' This report looked at the various ways that federal actions can foster sprawl or assist communities to better address sprawl impacts. The report also noted that although NEPA provides that federal agencies review the ``indirect and cumulative'' impacts of federal actions or projects (such as sprawl), often that review is rather thin and not well explored. The report noted that when it comes to evaluating the ``indirect and cumulative'' effects of proposed federal actions (such as highways), ``few agencies consider the effect of a proposed [federal] project on growth'' in their NEPA reviews. Contributing to this is the fact that Federal agencies often substitute an environmental assessment for a full EIS. On average, in recent years, Federal agencies prepared 30,000 to 50,000 environmental assessments annually compared to only 500 to 700 EIS's. An environmental assessment is usually much shorter and less comprehensive than a full EIS. Generally, the purpose of the assessment is to help determine whether a proposed action would result in an impact significant enough to require preparation of an EIS. Unlike an EIS, however, the treatment of alternatives is often cursory. No formal public review or comment process is required. Indeed, it is difficult to obtain a copy of an assessment, since there is no requirement that it be made publicly available nor is it sent to a public repository.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing the Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act. I introduced a similar bill in the 107th Congress. The bill is intended to help local communities identify ways to protect the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern sections of the Denver-metro area, especially the region just west of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site. The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes much of the land in this backdrop area, but there are other lands involved as well. Rising dramatically from the Great Plains, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains provides a scenic mountain backdrop to many communities in the Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado. The portion of the range within and adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation. The open-space character of this mountain backdrop is an important esthetic and economic asset for adjoining communities, making them attractive locations for homes and businesses. But rapid population growth in the northern Front Range area of Colorado is increasing recreational use of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and is also placing increased pressure for development of other lands within and adjacent to that national forest. We can see this throughout Colorado and especially along the Front Range. Homes and shopping centers are sprawling up valleys and along highways that feed into the Front Range. This development then spreads out along the ridges and mountain tops that make up the backdrop. We are in danger of losing to development many of the qualities that have helped attract new residents. So, it is important to better understand what steps might be taken to avoid or lessen that risk--and this bill is designed to help us do just that. Already, local governments and other entities have provided important protection for portions of this mountain backdrop, especially in the northern Denver-metro area. However, some portions of the backdrop in this part of Colorado remain unprotected and are at risk of losing their open-space qualities. This bill acknowledges the good work of the local communities to preserve open spaces along the backdrop and aims to assist further efforts along the same lines. The bill does not interfere with the authority of local authorities regarding land use planning. It also does not infringe on private property rights. Instead, it will bring the land protection experience of the Forest Service to the table to assist local efforts to protect areas that comprise the backdrop. The bill envisions that to the extent the Forest Service should be involved with federal lands, it will work in collaboration with local communities, the state and private parties. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe it is in the national interest for the federal government to assist local communities to identify ways to protect the mountain backdrop in this part of Colorado. The backdrop beckoned settlers westward and presented an imposing impediment to their forward progress that suggested similar challenges ahead. This first exposure to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West helped define a region. The pioneers' independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day. We need to work to preserve it by protecting the mountain backdrop as a cultural and natural heritage for ourselves and generations to come. God may forgive us for our failure to do so, but our children won't. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a fact sheet about this bill. Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act Generally: The bill would help local communities preserve the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern sections of the Denver-metro area in a region generally west of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site. Front Range Mountain Backdrop: The backdrop consists of the mountainous foothills, the Continental Divide and the peaks in between that create the striking visual backdrop of the Denver-metro area and throughout Colorado. Development in the Denver-metro area is encroaching in the Front Range backdrop area, and thus adversely affecting the esthetic, wildlife, open space and recreational qualities of this geographic feature. Now is the time to shape the future of this part of the Front Range. There is a real but fleeting opportunity to protect both protect Rocky Flats--a ``crown jewel'' of open space and wildlife habitat--and to assist local communities to protect the scenic, wildlife, and other values of the mountain backdrop. What the bill does: Study and Report: The bill requires the Forest Service to study the ownership patterns of the lands comprising the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in a region generally west of Rocky Flats, identify areas that are open and may be at risk of development, and recommend to Congress how these lands might be protected and how the federal government could help local communities and residents to achieve that goal. Lands Covered: The bill identifies the lands in southern Boulder, northern Jefferson and eastern Gilpin Counties in the Second Congressional District; specifically, an area west of Rocky Flats and west of Highway 93, south of Boulder Canyon, east of the Peak-to-Peak Highway, and north of the Golden Gate Canyon State Park road. what the bill would not do: Affect Local Planning: The bill is designed to complement existing local efforts to preserve open lands in this region west of Rocky Flats. It will not take the place of--nor disrupt--these existing local efforts. Affect Private Property Rights: The bill merely authorizes a study. It will not affect any existing private property rights. Affect the Cleanup of Rocky Flats: The bill would not affect the ongoing cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats nor detract from funding for that effort, and will not affect existing efforts to preserve the options for wildlife and open space protection of Rocky Flats itself.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the International Environmental Defense Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Defense to respond to environmental emergencies. It is cosponsored by my colleagues from Colorado, Representative Joel Hafley. I greatly appreciate his support. In times of natural disaster or other emergencies, the United States for decades has come to the aid of those in need--whether the crisis is the result of an earthquake in Turkey, an erupting volcano in South America, or deadly floods in some other part of the world. When the need arises, the U.S. Government provides humanitarian assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development, the State Department, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies. It also contracts with private voluntary agencies to provide such assistance and coordinates the U.S. response with that of other countries. The American military has an outstanding record of participation in these activities. All Americans take pride in the humanitarian assistance provided by the men and women of our armed services. I strongly support this policy. It is the right thing to do, and in the best interests of our country as well as of people everywhere. Humanitarian assistance is critical to help communities or regions or whole countries recover from devastating natural or man-made events. But global emergencies come in other forms as well--including environmental emergencies such as oil or chemical spills or other similar occurrences. They may not have the immediate impact on people of homes destroyed in an earthquake or of crops lost to drought. But by polluting waterways, killing fish or other species, or contaminating the air, water, or land, environmental disasters can have devastating effects on the health and well-being of people, wildlife, and ecosystems. So, wherever they occur, environmental emergencies have the potential to affect the national interest of the United States. And our government--including our military forces--should have the same ability to respond as in the case of other emergencies. Current law authorizes the Department of Defense to use it funds for the transport of humanitarian relief, allowing U.S. military personnel to help provide foreign countries with emergency assistance such as helicopter transport, temporary water supplies, and road and bridge repair. For example, U.S. military personnel were part of the U.S. response to Hurricane Mitch in Central America and recent earthquakes in El Salvador and India. But when it comes to environmental emergencies, under current law the military now has less ability to help. Those are the situations that are addressed by the bill I am introducing today. The International Environmental Defense Act would fill a gap in current law so U.S. military transport could be used not only for humanitarian, but also for environmental emergencies. The bill does not require that this be done--but it would authorize the Defense Department to do so, just as current law authorizes but does not require the transport of humanitarian assistance to respond to other emergencies. As an illustration of the limitations of the current law, consider a recent case about which I have first-hand knowledge. In 2001, there was a very serious oil spill in the Pacific Ocean that threatened to contaminate the Galapagos Islands. The government of Ecuador and people everywhere were very concerned that this could imperil the world-famous wildlife of the islands and the rest of that unique ecosystem. They hastened to organize a response. As part of that response, the Ecuadoran Government was in contact with a company in Colorado that makes a product to absorb oil from sea water. But complications arose, and the company contacted my office to see if we could help resolve them. As we explored the situation, we learned that while the government of Ecuador was interested in acquiring the Colorado company's product, they also wanted to arrange for the United States to transport it to Ecuador by military aircraft, because that would be quicker and cheaper than other alternatives. But when we contacted the Defense Department to see if there was a possibility that could be arranged, we learned about the limitations of current law. In short, we learned that while military transport might be possible to provide humanitarian relief, that option was not available to respond to an environmental emergency. The bill I am introducing today would change that--not by requiring the military to provide transport in such a case, but by providing that option in case the U.S. Government should decide it would be appropriate. Perhaps this would have been useful authority for the military to have when the Prestige broke up off the northwest coast of Spain in November 2002. Mr. Speaker, this is not a far-reaching bill. But I think it would provide useful authority for our country to respond to environmental problems that, ultimately, can affect us and the rest of the world.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Dr. Florine Raitano for her outstanding contributions to rural Colorado. Flo will be stepping down as the Executive Director of the Colorado Rural Development Council (CRDC) at the end of January. She has been a leader in this organization for 10 years bringing new ideas and innovative solutions to Colorado's rural communities. At this position, Flo has been a tireless advocate as working on such diverse issues as renewable energy, telecommunications, and teenage health, to name a few, in an effort to improve rural living. Rural communities often are many miles away from urban areas and lack much of the basic infrastructure and services most of us take for granted. One of the biggest needs in these areas include access to adult education opportunities for rural citizens so that they can enhance their skills and improve the quality of their lives. Most urban residents can find classes on almost anything, from cosmetology to computer science. These opportunities are rare for rural communities whose population are spread out over wide distances. Even on-line computer courses can be difficult if users haven't had training on how to use computers and the Internet. Living in Dillon, Colorado, Flo understands first hand the needs of these rural citizens and communities. Her work with the CRDC created a new volunteer program with Colorado State University Cooperative Extension to help residents learn how to use the Internet. Bringing rural areas up to speed on the information highway is critical if we are going to make sure that nobody is left behind. However, many rural areas are stuck on the information dirt road. Flo has worked with the state government to raise awareness and look for innovative solutions to ensure these communities keep pace with the rest of Colorado. Colorado has a rich and vibrant farming and ranching history, which is also still an important part of its economy. Looking forward, Flo has seen the possibility of how biofuels can stimulate rural economies. New fuels developed from crops could provide us with a renewable and sustainable energy supply and move our country beyond oil dependence-- while also creating new markets for these crops. Flo worked to bring ``Opening Windows,'' a unique theater and human services project that addresses adolescent health and behavior issues from a rural perspective, to Colorado. This entertaining, provocative and value-neutral program deals with such issues as substance abuse, domestic violence, teen pregnancy, eating disorders, sexually transmitted diseases and suicide, and is based on extensive interviews with rural adolescent teenagers and their families. Each performance is followed by a facilitated dialogue involving the cast, local resource personnel, and the audience. This interactive program helps communities understand some of the dilemmas today's adolescents are trying to deal with, as new ways to approach these issues. Flo will be missed at the CRDC, but I know she will continue to be a strong force working to improve Colorado. I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Flo for her years of dedicated service to Colorado, and to rural residents and communities throughout our nation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Abandoned Hardrock Mines Reclamation Act. This bill is designed to help promote the cleanup of abandoned and inactive hardrock mines that are a menace to the environment and public health throughout the country, but especially in the West. I introduced a similar bill in the 107th Congress. This bill contains a number of changes that were developed in consultation with interested parties, including representatives of the Western Governors' Association, the hardrock mining industry, and environmental groups. More detail regarding these changes is included at the end of this statement. The Background For over one hundred years, miners and prospectors have searched for and developed valuable ``hardrock'' minerals--gold, silver, copper, molybdenum, and others. Hardrock mining has played a key role in the history of Colorado and other States, and the resulting mineral wealth has been an important aspect of our economy and the development of essential products. However, as all westerners know, this history has too often been marked by a series of ``boom'' times followed by a ``bust'' when mines were no longer profitable. When these busts came, too often the miners would abandon their workings and move on, seeking riches over the next mountain. The resulting legacy of unsafe open mine shafts and acid mine drainages can be seen throughout the country and especially on the western public lands where mineral development was encouraged to help settle our region. The Problems The problems caused by abandoned and inactive mines are very real and very large--including acidic water draining from old tunnels, heavy metals leaching into streams, killing fish and tainting water supplies, open vertical mine shafts, dangerous highwalls, large open pits, waste rock piles that are unsightly and dangerous, and hazardous, dilapidated structures. And, unfortunately, many of our current environmental laws, designed to mitigate the impact from operating hardrock mines, are of limited effectiveness when applied to abandoned and inactive mines. As a result, many of these old mines go on polluting streams and rivers and potentially risking the health of people who live nearby or downstream. Obstacles to Cleanup Right now there are two serious obstacles to progress. One is a serious lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private person or entity can be held liable. The other obstacle is legal. While the Clean Water Act is one of the most effective and important of our environmental laws, as applied it can mean that someone undertaking to clean up an abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in the first place. As a result, would-be ``good Samaritans'' understandably have been unwilling to volunteer their services to clean up abandoned and inactive mines. Unless these fiscal and legal obstacles are overcome, often the only route to clean up abandoned mines will be to place them on the Nation's Superfund list. Colorado has experience with that approach, so Coloradans know that while it can be effective it also has shortcomings. For one thing, just being placed on the Superfund list does not guarantee prompt cleanup. The site will have to get in line behind other listed sites and await the availability of financial resources. In addition, as many communities within or near Superfund sites know, listing an area on the Superfund list can create concerns about stigmatizing an area and potentially harming nearby property values. We need to develop an alternative approach that will mean we are not left only with the options of doing nothing or creating additional Superfund sites--because while in some cases the Superfund approach may make the most sense, in many others there could be a more direct and effective way to remedy the problem. Western Governors Want Action For years, the Governors of our western States have recognized the need for action to address this serious problem. The Western Governors' Association has several times adopted resolutions on the subject. The most recent, adopted in August of 2001, was entitled ``Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines'' and was proposed by Governor Bill Owens of Colorado along with Governors Guinn of Nevada, Janklow of South Dakota, and Johnson of New Mexico. The bill I am introducing today is based directly on those recommendations by the Western Governors. It addresses both the lack of resources and the liability risks to those doing cleanups. Outline of the Bill title i. funds for cleanups Title I addresses the lack of resources. It would create a reclamation fund paid for by a modest fee applied to existing hardrock mining operations. The fund would be used by the Secretary of the Interior to assist projects to reclaim and restore lands and waters adversely affected by abandoned or inactive hardrock mines. A similar method already exists to fund clean up of abandoned coal mines. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) provides for fees on coal production. Similarly, my bill provides for fees on mineral production from producing hardrock mines on Federal lands or lands that were Federal before issuance of a mining-law patent. Fees would be paid to the Secretary of the Interior and would be deposited in a new Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund in the U.S. Treasury. Money in that fund would earn interest and would be available for reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines. The method of calculating fees is similar to that used by the State of Nevada, which collects production-based fees from mines in that State. Because over the years there have been proposals to establish royalties for hardrock production, in order to provide a greater return to the American people, they would require the Secretary of the Interior to reduce payments under this title so as to offset any royalties hardrock producers may pay in the future. This is intended to avoid possible inequitable treatment of a producer covered by both the royalty and Title I of this bill. Funds in the new reclamation fund would be available for appropriation for grants to eligible States to complete inventories of abandoned hardrock mine sites, as mentioned above. A State with sites covered by the bill could receive a grant of up to $2 million annually for this purpose. In addition, money from the fund would be available for cleanup work at eligible sites. To be eligible, a site would have to be within a State subject to operation of the general mining laws that has completed its Statewide inventory. Within those States, eligible sites would be those--(1) where former hardrock-mining activities had permanently ceased as of the date of the bill's enactment; (2) that are not on the National Priorities List under the Superfund law; (3) for which there are no identifiable owners or operators; and (4) that lack sufficient minerals to make further mining, remining, or reprocessing of minerals economically feasible. Sites designated for remedial action under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 or subject to planned or ongoing response or natural resource damage action under the Superfund law would not be eligible for cleanup funding from the new reclamation fund. The Interior Department could use money from the fund to do cleanup work itself or could authorize use of the money for cleanup work by a holder of one of the new ``good Samaritan'' permits provided for in Title II of the bill. Title II. Protection for ``Good Samaritans'' Title II addresses the threat of long-term liability. To help encourage the efforts of ``good Samaritans,'' the bill would create a new program under the Clean Water Act under which qualifying individuals and entities could obtain permits to conduct cleanups of abandoned or inactive hardrock mines. These permits would give some liability protection to those volunteering to clean up these sites, while also requiring the permit holders to meet certain requirements. The bill specifies who can secure these permits, what would be required by way of a cleanup plan, and the extent of liability exposure. Notably, unlike regular Clean Water Act point-source (``NPDES'') permits, these new permits would not require meeting specific standards for specific pollutants and would not impose liabilities for monitoring or long-term maintenance and operations. These permits would terminate upon completion of cleanup, if a regular Clean Water Act permit is issued for the same site, or if a permit holder encounters unforeseen conditions beyond the holder's control. Together, these two parts of the bill could help us begin to address a problem that has frustrated Federal and State agencies throughout the country and make progress in cleaning up from an unwelcome legacy of our mining history. Differences Between This Bill and the Previous Version Since the introduction of my original bill in the 107th Congress, I have been working with a variety of people interested in this subject. My staff joined discussions with a group that included representation of the western States through the auspices of the Western Governors' Association, the mining industry (including hardrock mining companies in Colorado and the Colorado and national mining associations), the environmental community, and relevant State and Federal agencies. The discussions were very productive, and led to much progress toward developing consensus solutions to a variety of concerns. This revised version of the bill reflects those discussions and I wish to express my personal thanks to those who participated. The significant changes in this version of the bill include the following: Title I Use of existing administrative system to disperse fees. At the request of the States, the bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to use the existing mine cleanup fund disbursement system under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). This will help facilitate the administration of the fund under the bill, reduced duplication and improve efficiency. For States that do not have a program under SMCRA, the Secretary is authorized to disperse funds in those eligible States as long as those States have a State-authorized abandoned mine cleanup program.'' Allocation of funds to the States. The bill specifies that 25 percent of the funds collected by the fee shall go back to the States where such fees originated; 50 percent of the funds collected annually will be expended in eligible States in relation to the extent of mining activity that occurred in those States during the years 1900 to 1980 (that is, from the turn of the last century until enactment of Superfund (more formally, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CRCLA)); and the balance of the fund will be used elsewhere at the discretion of the Secretary. Fee Off-set in case a royalty is applied. During the discussions over the bill, the mining industry expressed concerns regarding the fee title provision. They indicated that, as a general matter, the industry is not opposed to helping fund the cleanup of abandoned mines, but they were concerned that in the context of any potential reform of the General Mining Law of 1872, miners may be required to pay a royalty for hardrock minerals extracted from public lands in addition to the fee imposed in this bill and thus subjecting them to paying twice. This bill addresses that concern by providing that a fee collected under this bill would be reduced by an amount equal to any royalty established in the future that is credited to the hardrock reclamation fund. Title II Delegation to the States. The bill expressly authorizes the EPA to delegate the authority to issue ``good Samaritan'' reclamation permits to eligible States. This was done at the request of the States. Cooperating Parties. At the request of mining community representatives, the bill adds new provisions for ``cooperating parties'' that would be authorized to assist remediating parties with cleanup work under ``good Samaritan'' permits. These cooperating parties would also enjoy the liability protections afforded to full remediating parties. This will enable the mining industry to employ its expertise and capabilities to assist in the cleanups. Long-term Protection. The bill requires that cleanup plans include an obligation that the cleanup efforts will be maintained and operated to ensure continued long-term benefits from work accomplished at each site. Recoverable Value. At the request of many of the parties in the discussions, the bill allows remediating parties to beneficially use any materials found at the site during the cleanup. These materials could include any residual hardrock minerals that are present at the site. However, any value recouped from any sale of these materials would have to be used to defray the costs of the cleanup or to help cleanup of other abandoned hardrock mines. I think these changes are improvements that will further facilitate the cleanup of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines in the West.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing a bill to designate as wilderness most of the lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park, in Colorado. This legislation will provide important protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country, adding nearly 250,000 acres in the park to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill is essentially identical to one previously introduced by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, and one I introduced in the 107th Congress. Those bills in turn were based on similar measures earlier proposed, including some by former Senator Bill Armstrong and others. Over a number of years my predecessor and I have worked with the National Park Service and others to refine the boundaries of the areas proposed for wilderness designation and consulted closely with many interested parties in Colorado, including local officials and both the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the St. Vrain & Left Hand Ditch Water Conservancy District. These consultations provided the basis for many of the provisions of the bill I am introducing today, particularly regarding the status of existing water facilities. Covering some 94 percent of the park, the new wilderness will include Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of Rocky Mountain National Park are included in the wilderness that would be designated by this bill. The features of these lands and waters that make Rocky Mountain National Park a true gem in our national parks system also make it an outstanding wilderness candidate. The wilderness boundaries are carefully located to assure continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, and areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park management and visitor services. In addition, specific provisions are included to assure that there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities. This bill is based on National Park Service recommendations, prepared more than 25 years ago and presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. It seems to me that, in that time, there has been sufficient study, consideration, and refinement of those recommendations so that Congress can proceed with this legislation. I believe that this bill constitutes a fair and complete proposal, sufficiently providing for the legitimate needs of the public at large and all interested groups, and deserves to be enacted in this form. It took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a statewide national forest wilderness bill. Since then, action has been completed on bills designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge portion of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area, and the James Peak area of the Arapaho, Roosevelt National Forests. We now need to continue making progress regarding wilderness designations for deserving lands, including other public lands in our state that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain National Park that are dealt with in the bill I am introducing today. All Coloradans know that the question of possible impacts on water rights can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. So, it's very important to understand that the question of water rights for Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness is entirely different from many considered before, and is far simpler. To begin with, it has long been recognized under the laws of the United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national park itself. This is not, so far as I have been able to find out, a controversial decision, because there is a widespread consensus that there should be no new water projects developed within Rocky Mountain National Park. And, since the park sits astride the continental divide, there's no higher land around from which streams flow into the park, so there is no possibility of any upstream diversions. And it's important to emphasize that in any event water rights associated with wilderness would amount only to guarantees that water will continue to flow through and out of the park as it always has. This preserves the natural environment of the park, but it doesn't affect downstream water use. The bottom line is that once water leaves the park, it will continue to be available for diversion and use under Colorado law regardless of whether or not lands within the park are designated as wilderness. These legal and practical realities are reflected in my bill--as in my predecessor's--by inclusion of a finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill affects any such reservation. Some may ask, why should we designate wilderness in a national park? Isn't park protection the same as wilderness, or at least as good? The answer is that the wilderness designation will give an important additional level of protection to most of the park. Our national park system was created, in part, to recognize and preserve prime examples of outstanding landscape. At Rocky Mountain National Park in particular, good Park Service management over the past 83 years has kept most of the park in a natural condition. And all the lands that are covered by this bill are currently being managed, in essence, to protect their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, but will make it clear that within the designated areas there will never be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that interfere with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the mountains. This kind of protection is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As nearby land development and alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's landscape. Further, Rocky Mountain National Park's popularity demands definitive and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for development with the park. While only about one tenth the size of Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain sees nearly the same number of visitors each year as does our first national park. At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue improvements to park roads and visitor facilities. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill will protect some of our nation's finest wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any existing opportunity for new water development. And it will affirm our commitment in Colorado to preserving the very features that make our State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think the bill deserves prompt enactment. I am attaching a fact sheet that outlines the main provisions of this bill: rocky mountain national park wilderness act Rocky Mountain National Park Rocky Mountain National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks, possesses some of the most pristine and striking alpine ecosystems and natural landscapes in the continental United States. This park straddles the Continental Divide along Colorado's northern Front Range. It contains high altitude lakes, herds of bighorn sheep and elk, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra, old-growth forests and thundering rivers. It also contains Longs Peak, one of Colorado's 54 fourteen thousand- foot peaks. The Bill The bill is based on one introduced by Rep. Udall in the 106th and 107th Congresses and similar legislation proposed by former Congressman David Skaggs and others previously. It would: designate about 249,562 acres within Rocky Mountain National Park, or about 94 percent of the Park, as wilderness, including Longs Peak--the areas included is based on the recommendations prepared over 25 years ago by President Nixon with some revisions in boundaries to reflect acquisitions and other changes since that recommendation was submitted designate about 1,000-acres as potential wilderness until non-conforming structures are removed provide that if non-federal inholdings within the wilderness boundaries are acquired by the United States, they will become part of the wilderness and managed accordingly The bill would NOT: create a new federal reserved water right; instead, it includes a finding that the Park's existing federal reserved water rights, as decided by the Colorado courts, are sufficient include certain lands in the Park as wilderness, including Trail Ridge and other roads used for motorized travel, water storage and conveyance structures, buildings, developed areas of the Park, some private inholdings Existing Water Facilities Boundaries for the wilderness are drawn to exclude existing storage and conveyance structures assuring continued use of the Grand River Ditch and its right-of-way, the east and west portals of the Adams Tunnel and gauging stations of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Long Draw Reservoir, and lands owned by the St. Vrain & Left Hand Water Conservancy District--including Copeland Reservoir. The bill includes provisions to make clear that its enactment will not impose new restrictions on already allowed activities for the operation, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction of the Adams Tunnel, which diverts water under Rocky Mountain National Park (including lands that would be designated by the bill) or other Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities, and that additional activities for these purposes will be allowed should they be necessary to respond to emergencies and subject to reasonable restrictions.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Laboratory Educational Partners Act of 2003, a bill that would permit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and other Department of Energy laboratories to use revenue from their inventions to support science education activities. The bill is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Representative Bob Beauprez. I greatly appreciate his support. The Federal Laboratory Educational Partners Act would amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. Under the Stevenson-Wydler Act, federal labs can use licensing royalties, sometimes called Bayh-Dole revenues, for five purposes. These include rewarding laboratories' scientific employees; furthering scientific exchange among laboratories; educating and training laboratories' employees consistent with the labs' research and development missions; covering expenses incidental to the laboratories' administration and licensing of intellectual property; and conducting scientific research and development, again consistent with the labs' research and development missions. My bill would amend the fifth purpose to add educational assistance as another permitted use of licensing royalties. Federal laboratories, especially the Department of Energy's national laboratories, with their high concentrations of scientists and engineers, are uniquely positioned to aid surrounding communities in improving the learning experience of their students. Currently, NREL conducts some science education activities using funds provided by private sources, including funds from companies that operate the lab-- the midwest Research Institute, Battelle, and Bechtel. But enabling NREL to use licensing revenues would give the lab greater flexibility. Even without the expansion of permitted uses of licensing revenues that this bill would enable, NREL has conducted a number of science education programs with private funds and some funds from the Department of Energy and other federal agencies. For instance, NREL initiated the Coalition for Learning Opportunities and United Tutors (CLOUT) program in 1998. CLOUT began as a pilot program matching 200 volunteers with fourth graders in 17 Denver public schools who needed help with reading. The program has grown to be a great success. Another example is NREL's Junior Solar Sprint, which celebrated its twelfth year in 2002. This annual event gives students the chance to design, build, and race vehicles whose only energy source is sunlight. Each team starts with a motor and a silicon solar cell, and teams are awarded design trophies based on technology, craftsmanship, and innovation. A third example is NREL's Columbine Spirit Scholarship at the Colorado School of Mines. It was established in 1999 by the contractors that operate NREL, MRI, Battelle and Bechtel. The three companies gave an initial $25,000 to endow the fund, which is used to award scholarships to graduates of Columbine and other Jefferson County high schools through the Colorado School of Mines Foundation. The scholarship is offered first to Columbine graduates who are pursuing degrees in disciplines related to the laboratory's research and development mission. These three examples help us understand the importance of science education activities associated with federal laboratories and what they can mean for their surrounding communities. But because of the narrowness of current provisions in law, NREL and other labs are not able to utilize licensing revenues to support any of the activities outlined above or any other science education programs. As a result, NREL and other labs must depend on private funds for the bulk of its science education activities, which unnecessarily restricts what these labs can do in this area. My bill would expand the law to allow greater flexibility. Licensing revenues have grown markedly over the years as the technologies NREL has created have gained wide acceptance. It makes sense to me that we should give the labs a bit more freedom to spend these funds, especially on pursuits as worthwhile as science education which can expose young people to the excitement and relevance of careers in science and technology. Research is an investment in the future. I believe the integration of research and science education to take advantage of the unique resources and facilities of the Department of Energy's national laboratories and research facilities should be a high priority.