Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues news of an important development in medicine that is taking place in my district--the manufacturer of a new generation of HIV therapy. This complex, breakthrough therapy, called Fuzeon, generic name enfurvitide, is the drug formerly known as ``T-20'' Fuzeon is a new drug that attacks HIV in a new way, promising new hope for patients who have exhausted other therapies. Fuzeon is the product of groundbreaking medical research and cutting edge engineering and is an example of how the private sector is contributing to dramatic advances in healthcare and specifically in helping to manage the most devastating infectious epidemic in the recorded history of mankind. In July, Fuzeon clinical trial results were presented at the International AIDS Conference in Barcelona, the world's largest HIV/ AIDS meeting. These studies included over a thousand patients with advanced HIV who demonstrated resistance to a majority of currently available HIV treatments and were nearing the end of their treatment options. These study results showed that Fuzeon had a significant impact in reducing HIV viral load and improving immune response in these difficult to treat patients. Fuzeon, once approved by the Food and Drug Administration, could be commercially available as soon as early 2003. At present, there are 800,000-900,000 people living with HIV in the United States. Innovative HIV therapies, taken in combination ``drug cocktails,'' have allowed many of these individuals to live relatively healthy, productive lives. However, HIV is a formidable virus that can adapt to become resistant to existing treatments and is doing so. In fact, one of the biggest challenges facing people living with HIV today is an emerging resistance to currently available treatments. Fifty-one percent of AIDS patients are immune to at least two of the three available classes of therapies thereby severely limiting the treatment options available to them. Fourteen percent are resistant to all three classes and are left with no way to control the advancement of their disease. These patients are in desperate need of new options. That is why Hoffmann-La Roche, the pharmaceutical company that introduced the world's first protease inhibitor and the first HIV viral load test, has partnered with the biotech company Trimeries Inc., a leader in HIV innovation, to develop and manufacture Fuzeon--a new generation of HIV therapy. Fuzeon will help to addresses the urgent and unmet needs of HIV/AIDS patients who have built up resistance to current therapies. This internationally anticipated and complex drug will be manufactured right here in the United States--in Boulder, Colorado. It requires the creation of one of the most complex drug manufacturing processes ever undertaken because the drug is far more intricate in its structure and development than any existing drug. Roche and Trimeris are investing considerable resources to bring new therapies to people living with HIV/AIDS. The importance of these discoveries and developments cannot be stressed enough. Breakthrough biotechnology advances in the worldwide fight against HIV/AIDS, produce vital life-saving alternatives for patients living with HIV. What these companies have learned from developing state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities for Fuzeon will also improve our nation's ability to develop and manufacture new therapies for other diseases. The public sector has a role to play as well. I call upon my fellow colleagues to support funding of vital and fiscally prudent public programs that provide access to life-saving treatments such as Fuzeon. The AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) provides federal contributions to state run programs designed to provide innovative, life saving HIV drugs to low income, uninsured people living with HIV. I ask my House colleagues to include an increase of $162 million for ADAP funding in the House Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill for FY 2003. Many states are experiencing budget problems, and demand is outpacing available resources lot ADAP programs. From 1996 to 2001, the number of clients served nationally by ADAP programs has grown by 144 percent, with expenditures on drugs increasing by over 300 percent, and funding levels increasing at smaller rates. In my own state of Colorado, the ADAP has provided life saving HIV treatments to over 1,300 low income, uninsured people to date this year. Like other ADAPs, the Colorado program needs to respond to the increasing number of individuals seeking access to these treatments. With this recommended increase in funding, we offer a real helping hand, send a message that the federal government encourages private investment in groundbreaking research, and meet our fiscal objectives.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and pay tribute to the Natural Resources Law Center, a legal and policy research organization housed at the Unviersity of Colorado's School of Law. The Center is celebrating its 20th anniversary of providing path- breaking, scholarly and practical input and analysis on the use, development and protection of our natural resources and environment. The Center is widely recognized as one of the region's preeminent sources of research and educational programs on water and public lands issues, assisting managers, policy makers and other westerners committed to sustainable and balanced natural resource laws and practices. This mission has been the central thread in two decades of activity equally notable for its attention to emerging issues as its diligence in addressing long-standing areas of conflict and concern. The Center remains committed to informing and influencing natural resource decisions, recognizing that the quality of life so cherished by westerners is inextricably tied to our treatment of natural resources. Center projects take a variety of forms. Perhaps best known are the Center's events, particularly the western water conferences held each June. These conferences consistently focus the nation's best minds on a variety of pressing and timely concerns, including endangered species management, groundwater depletion and pollution, operation of dams, water reallocation, transboundary disputes, and water conservation. Water resources have also been a prominent focus of Center publications, including pioneering work on instream flows, water markets, legal and administrative reform, and watershed partnerships. Over time, a public lands program addressing issues as diverse as forest planning, wilderness preservation, and federal/state conflicts has balanced this traditional focus on water issues. The result is an organization intimately familiar with the many interconnections and dependencies found in natural resource systems and possessing expertise not limited to the physical environment, but equally relevant to the institutional landscape of laws, policies, administrative arrangements, and management practices. By focusing on institutional arrangements, rather than merely laws and legal precedents, Center projects define natural resource problems and solutions broadly, revealing opportunities for innovation that would otherwise be buried by narrow thinking and the perception of hopeless gridlock. Center projects consistently show the natural resource problems of the West to be formidable, but nonetheless solvable. It is the immense value of this contribution, more so than the mere passage of twenty years, that they and I are celebrating today. Looking forward, the natural resources of the West face several new challenges. Most central is the continued population growth that, over the life of the Center, has already made the West the most rapidly growing region of the country. With roughly 1 million new westerners expected every year over the next two decades, the stress on limited water resources is just one of several concerns. Other emerging issues derive from the region's renewed emphasis on energy production, the explosive growth in outdoor recreation pressures, the twin concerns of ongoing drought and long-term climate change, and wildfires. As is its tradition, the Center is already active on each of these issues, having produced reports, hosted conferences, and most importantly, having already informed and influenced decision makers struggling to keep up with the pace of change. The strength of the organization continues to be its staff, advisory board, and its impressive international network of collaborators, funders, and friends. The Center has been particularly blessed by a string of talented directors--Larry MacDonnell, Betsy Rieke, Gary Bryner, and currently, Jim Martin--and by the longstanding participation of prominent University of Colorado scholars including David Getches, Charles Wilkinson, and Jim Corbridge. Equally essential has been the research and writings of the professional staff, particularly Michael Gheleta, Doug Kenney, Ann Morgan, Kathryn Mutz, Teresa Rice, and Sarah (Bates) Van de Wetering, and the contributions of visiting fellows. Supported by a small but talented cast of administrative support personnel and by an ever-changing assemblage of law students, the Center has been able to leverage its modest staff and budget into a powerful voice showing the way to environmental, economic and social sustainability through the improved management of natural resources. This is an important and honorable service worthy of our recognition and gratitude. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Natural Resources Law Center for its twenty years of accomplishments and contributions to issues throughout the West, and to welcoming its continued contributions for many years to come.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support reform of the estate tax, but I do not support its repeal, and so I do not support this resolution. For me, this is not a partisan issue. Instead, it is an issue of reasonableness, fairness and fiscal responsibility. While I did not vote for last year's bill that included changes in the estate tax, there were parts of that bill that I think should be made permanent. That is why I voted to make permanent the elimination of the ``marriage penalty'' and the provisions of last year's bill related to the adoption credit and the exclusion from tax of resolution to Holocaust survivors. And, as I said, I support reform of the estate tax. I definitely think we should act to make it easier for people to pass their estates--including lands and businesses--on to future generations. This is important for the whole country, of course, but it is particularly important for Coloradans who want to help keep ranch lands in open, undeveloped condition by reducing the pressure to sell them to pay estate taxes. Since I have been in Congress, I have been working toward that goal. I am convinced that it is something that can be achieved, but it should be done in a reasonable, fiscally responsible way and in a way that deserves broad bipartisan support. That means it should be done in a better way than was provided in last year's bill. For example, I have supported legislation to raise the estate tax's special exclusion to $3 million for each and every person's estate--meaning to $6 million for a couple--and to do that immediately. Under that alternative, a married couple--including but not limited to the owners of a ranch or small business--with an estate worth up to $6 million could pass it on intact with no estate tax whatsoever. And since under the alternative that permanent change would take effect on January 1st of next year it clearly would be much more helpful to everyone who might be affected by the estate tax. At the same time, the alternative was much fiscally responsible. It would not run the same risks of weakening our ability to do what is needed to maintain and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors, invest in our schools and communities, and pay down the public debt. The tax cut bill signed into law last year included complete repeal of the estate tax for only one year, 2010, but contains language that sunsets all of the tax cuts, including changes in the estate tax after 2001. Making that permanent would reduce federal revenues by $109 billion between 2002 and 2012 ($99 billion in lost revenue and $10 billion in interest charges) and more than $1.2 trillion in the decade between 2013 and 2022--when the baby boomers will be retiring. But, as we all know, the budget outlook has changed dramatically since last year. In the last year, $4 trillion of surpluses projected over the next ten years have disappeared because of the combination of the recession, the costs of fighting terrorism and paying for homeland defense, and the enactment of last year's tax legislation. Full repeal of the estate tax would only make the budgetary outlook even more difficult, making it that much harder to meet our national commitments all in order to provide a tax break for less than 0.4 percent of all estates. I do not think this is responsible, and I cannot support it. And, as if that were not bad enough, just making permanent the estate-tax provisions of last year's bill would do nothing to correct one of the worst aspects of those provisions--the hidden tax increase on estates whose value has increased by more than $1.3 million, beginning in 2010, due to the capital gains tax. Currently, once an asset, such as a farm or business, has gone through an estate, whether any estate tax is paid or not, the value to the heirs is `stepped up' for future capital gains tax calculations. However, last year's bill now enacted into law provides for replacing this with a `carryover basis' system in which the original value is the basis when heirs dispose of inherited assets. That means they will have to comply with new record keeping requirements, and most small businesses will end up paying more taxes. That cries out for reform, but this resolution does not address that. Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are debating this resolution shows that the Republican leadership is continuing to reject any attempt to shape an estate-tax reform bill that could be supported by all Members. Since I was first elected, I have sought to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue to achieve realistic and responsible reform of the estate tax. But this resolution does nothing of the kind, and I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the important work of Colorado Clean Water Action and the outstanding efforts of many of the group's canvassers who work tirelessly to educate the public and improve the environmental quality of life for all Coloradans. Clean Water Action is a nationally recognized organization dedicated to enhancing the quality of our environment and especially of our nation's water resources. In arid states like Colorado, water is a precious and scare commodity. That makes the work of groups like Clean Water Action all the more important. Clean Water Action's efforts to enhance water quality not only benefit humans, they also benefit wildlife and promote a host of other environmental and economic values, such as productive agriculture, wetlands protection and recreation. Here in Colorado, Clean Water Action has been led by Carmi McLean, an effective and passionate leader for the cause of the environment. Over the past three decades, Carmi has been involved in most if not all of the high profile environmental issues facing Colorado and the nation. She has been active in wilderness protection, reducing pollution and holding polluters accountable for their releases, fighting damaging rollbacks of environmental protection laws and programs such as Superfund, and, of course, in all issues related to water quality. Colorado Clean Water Action has also been involved in these and similar issues since 1989. Recently, Colorado Clean Water Action has taken up the important, cause of reducing the toxic discharge of heavy metals and acids from old, abandoned hardrock mining operations. These mines, which occur in the hundreds of thousands across the west, have caused impacts to a number of watersheds which oftentimes supply drinking water to many western communities. These releases also can have devastating impacts to the aquatic life of many streams and lakes, which further impacts recreation and the ecological health of the lands affected by these sites. However, because those responsible for these abandoned, polluting mines cannot be found, most of these mines go on polluting. What's worse, because of the costs of cleanup and the risks of future liability exposure, many entities that would be willing to cleanup these mines are discouraged from taking steps to clean them up. To address this problem, I have introduced legislation--H.R. 4078 ``The Abandoned Hardrock Mines Reclamation Act of 2002''--to facilitate the cleanup of these mines by creating an abandoned mine cleanup fund and a special permit program that would encourage more federal, tribal, state, local and community efforts to clean up these languishing pollution sources. Carmi and her staff at Colorado Clean Water Action recognized the significance of this problem and the value that this legislation would bring to addressing it. As a result, she has made this issue and the need to address it a top priority for the efforts of Colorado Clean Water Action, including many hours of hard work by dedicated young people who canvass door-to-door in Colorado communities letting people know about this issue and what can be done to help address it. I want to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to Carmi and her canvassers who have been spending the summer and fall of 2002 working on this issue. Specifically, I want to recognize the following people who have been working especially hard at Colorado Clean Water Action on the abandoned mine waste problem: David Scheck, Brian Dunn, Stoney Bergman, Greg Sobczynski, Katie Tegeler, John De Wees, Nik Haynes, Lindsay Bennett, Noel Jensen, Melinda Miller, Whitney Hanson, Whitney Gann, Eric Hale, Ana Cordova, Courtney Bennett, Amy Addison, Dewey Brown, and Fred Kirsch. Mr. Speaker, the future of our democracy depends on the active involvement of our young people in the important issues facing our nation. I am pleased that these young people have taken a special interest in this issue and hope that they remain active on environmental protection as well as other issues of importance to them. I believe that it is important for us as leaders and elected officials to stop and take notice of the civic involvement of our young people, recognize the importance of it and encourage more such participation. I also want to thank organizations like Clean Water Action and people like Carmi McLean who provide leadership and an opportunity for young people to participate in our democracy. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking these young people and Colorado Clean Water Action for their great efforts.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rudd Mayer, a loving mother, tireless worker for the environment and passionate citizen of Boulder, Colorado, who tragically passed away on August 13, 2002. Rudd spent most of her life raising a family, but in her late forties she became a member of the Boulder-based Land and Water Fund of the Rockies working primarily on energy efficiency and renewable energy issues. Her work was essential in getting Colorado's publicly owned energy utility to include wind power as part of its energy supply portfolio. The success of that program is direct proof that Rudd was on to something. She was instrumental in encouraging consumers to pay a little extra for ``green energy'' such as wind power. She was the main force behind the program to allow consumers the choice of acting on their beliefs of a cleaner environment by helping to implement and promote renewable energy options. In addition to her important work, Rudd was someone who held friends and family close and instantly drew people in, constantly forming new friendships and acquaintances. Rudd's presence would light up any room and her enthusiastic personality contributed greatly to gatherings of groups and individuals. Rudd was first, and foremost, a mother. When her kids were growing up, she was always there after school, and set a table for six without fail. Rudd was incredibly active, and exercising was a huge part of her life in Winnetka, Illinois. She was an accomplished tennis player, platform tennis player, rollerblader, hiker and skier. She also enjoyed golf, mountain biking, and swimming breaststroke with her head out of the water wearing Ray Ban sunglasses and a floppy white hat. Rudd knew she belonged in the west ever since her father took her on a train to Yellowstone when she was about ten years old. When she arrived in Boulder in the 90's it was like coming home. Once in Boulder she lived in a solar heated house in Sunshine canyon. Refusing to use electricity, she would wake up every morning and light a fire to heat the house. During the winter she would sleep in full ski wear. Her first job in Boulder was at the Boulder Book Store. She grew to be a nationally recognized ``green power'' marketing expert at the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies. Shortly after her retirement, Rudd's energy program received a rare unsolicited grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. What we will remember in the end is more than her big smile, huge heart and sparkling eyes. She was truly an inspiration without bounds to our family and everyone who knew her. Rudd had always believed in the river of life; she believed that all things had a purpose, and she would have said there was a reason this time for her to go. Attached is a news story marking her passing. Those that had the pleasure of knowing and working with Rudd will miss her bright smile, her love of life and her passion for enhancing our quality of life. Boulder Activist Rudd Mayer Dies; Environmentalists Say Wind-Power Proponent Will Be Missed (By Katy Human) Rudd Mayer, an energetic environmental advocate and the driving force behind Xcel Energy's successful wind-power program, died unexpectedly of heart failure Tuesday. She was 58. The tiny, husky-voiced woman commanded great respect in Boulder's environmental community. ``All day long, I've been getting e-mails from Rudd's colleagues about what a pioneer she was,'' said Susan Innis, green-power marketing director for the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, an organization for which Mayer consulted. Several years ago, a merger settlement forced Xcel, then Public Service Company of Colorado, to develop a wind-power program, Innis said, but she said WindSource would have been a quiet, sidelined program without Mayer's input. Mayer and several colleagues developed a sophisticated marketing scheme for the wind program, which lets Xcel customers buy ``green'' power for slightly more than traditional electricity from coal-fired power plants. More than 23,000 households and businesses in Colorado are now signed up, according to Xcel figures. Several organizations praised Mayer's work with awards, including the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Center for Resource Solutions. Mayer's former colleague Kelley Green said her friend's greatest legacy is not WindSource but simply the attitude Mayer brought to her work. ``There are lots of people who do really amazing and wonderful things for the environment,'' Green said, ``but there are few that do it with her spirit, her integrity, her commitment, her joy.'' Mayer was born Sept. 8, 1943, in Washington, D.C., to Dorothy and Rudyard K. Magers. She spent most of her childhood in Evanston, Ill., and graduated from Smith College with a bachelor's degree in art history. She married Richard Mayer, her high school sweetheart, said Brooke Mayer Larson, a daughter. The two later divorced but remained friends. Mayer lived in Boulder for about a decade, and the West suited her, Larson said. ``She's such a passionate person. She loved the mountains, the land, the desert. . . .'' Mayer had some health problems as a result of childhood illness but was one of the most enthusiastic and energetic people around, said Claudia Putnam, also of the Land and Water Fund. On Tuesday morning, a friend of Mayer's drove her to Boulder Community Hospital because she was having trouble breathing, Putnam said. Mayer is survived by four children--Larson, Alexandra Mayer Druker of Palo Alto, Calif., Taylor Mayer of Billings, Mont., and Campbell Mayer, who has been traveling around the world-- and five grandchildren. The Mayer family is planning a ``memorial celebration'' at 10:30 a.m. Monday on the lawn in front of the Chautauqua Park Dining Hall in Boulder. In lieu of flowers, the family has asked donations be sent to the Land and Water Fund to support wind power.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I do have some concerns about it, but I think it deserves to be passed. I am united with my colleagues and with the President in a shared determination to win the war against terrorism. We must do everything we can to reduce the risks of further attacks. I believe we must reorganize our government to meet that goal. What we have chosen to take on in the aftermath of September 11th is an enormous task, the largest reorganization of the government in half a century, a total rethinking of how we approach security. We need to plan for the protection of all domestic people, places, and things. We need to fundamentally restructure our government to be more responsive to terrorism. This is a tall order. Homeland security has always been an important responsibility of Federal, state and local governments. But in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, the scope of this responsibility has broadened. The bill before us has much in common with a report that we received just last year from a commission headed by former Senators Gary Hart of Colorado and Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. The report recommended sweeping changes, including the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security. I have reviewed the commission's report carefully and discussed it with Senator Hart, and I have been impressed with the soundness of the report's recommendations. I have also cosponsored two bills dealing with this subject. So I am glad that the President has come to agree that a new Department of Homeland Security is necessary. The question we face today is whether the bill before us is up to the challenge. Will this bill actually make the American people safer? I'm not entirely certain. I believe this bill generally heads in the night direction, but it still contains a number of troubling provisions. One concern I have is that in our rush to create this new department, we may be assembling an unwieldy bureaucracy instead of a nimble department that can be quick to respond to the challenges at hand. The proposed department's size, cost and speed may well hamper its ability to fight terrorism. We need to recognize that no department can do everything. Homeland security will be the primary responsibility of the new department, but it will also continue to be the responsibility of other departments, of states and local governments, and of all Americans. It's also true that many of the agencies that will be subsumed by this new department have multiple functions, some of them having nothing to do with security. That's why I think it's right that the bill abolishes the INS and includes its enforcement bureau in the new DHS, while leaving a bureau of immigration services in the Department of Justice. I also think it's right that the bill moves only the agricultural import and entry inspection functions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service into the new department, while leaving the rest of the service--;including the unit that investigates chronic wasting disease and other possibly contagious diseases--;intact. I believe this same model should apply to the Federal Emergency Management Administration, or FEMA, which this bill would move as a whole into the new department. While it may seem that FEMA--;as the central agency in charge of disaster response and emergency management--;should constitute the heart of the new DHS, FEMA is primarily engaged in and especially effective at responding to natural hazards. This bill should leave FEMA outside the new department, or at a minimum transfer its Office of National Preparedness to the new department, while leaving FEMA's Disaster Response and Recovery and Mitigation Directorates intact. I voted today to leave FEMA outside the new department because I fear FEMA's current mission and focus will be lost in the new bureaucracy we are creating. I am hopeful that the President will continue to work with the Congress to make sure the agencies moved to the new Department will be supported in their many other important duties even as they focus anew on their security roles. I have other concerns aside from the organization of the agency. The bill includes language that denies basic civil service protections for the federal workers who would be transferred to the new department. While I am encouraged by the passage of two amendments that slightly improve the bill's language in these areas, I remain fearful for the 170,000-plus employees of the new DHS whose jobs this bill would put at risk in an attempt to give the President ``flexibility'' to manage in a ``war-time'' situation. That's why I voted for amendments to preserve collective bargaining rights, whistleblower protections, and civil service rules that have protected career employees for over 75 years. I don't believe we should use the creation of a new department as an excuse to take away these protections-- ;protections that Congress enacted so that we could attract the very best to government service. Taking away these protections now signals that we don't value our federal workers, their hard-won rights, or the integral role these workers will continue to play as part of the new department in the fight against terrorism. I also supported an amendment striking the overly broad exemptions in the bill to the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, which was designed to preserve openness and accountability in government. The bill includes a provision excluding information voluntarily submitted to the new department from requests for disclosure; it would also preempt state disclosure laws. FOIA does not require the disclosure of national security information, sensitive law enforcement information, or confidential business information, which makes the exemptions to FOIA in this bill unnecessary in my view. I think that these parts of the bill will need to be revised, and I will do all I can to improve them. There is one provision we debated today that I do think should remain in the bill. Last year, I strongly supported the airport security bill because I believed then--;as I do now--;that we must protect the public from a repetition of terrorist hijackings. One key part of that is to have baggage screened to safeguard against explosives being smuggled aboard airplanes in checked luggage. But today I voted to extend the baggage screening deadline established in the airport security bill because it doesn't make sense to me to mandate a deadline that clearly is impossible for a quarter of airports in this country to meet. It has been clear for some time that although 75% of airports would be able to meet the December 31st deadline, 25% of this country's largest airports would not. Denver International Airport (DIA) is among those airports still waiting for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to approve its security plan. DLA has developed its own plan that would employ a baggage-screening system that costs approximately $85 million to implement, versus $130 million for the system currently approved for use in the U.S. The bill before us today allows TSA to incrementally address individual airport requirements like DIA and accommodate new technology improvements. I am a cosponsor of legislation that would extend the deadline because I believe DIA will be able to provide a better, more cost- effective baggage screening system than the current TSA-approved model given a bit more time. So I am pleased that this bill includes an extension on the baggage screening system. In summary, I am pleased that this bill echoes the overall approach of the Hart-Rudman report recommendations. I am also pleased that the bill includes important Science Committee contributions, such as the one establishing an Undersecretary for Science and Technology in the new department, as well as provisions I offered in the Science Committee markup requiring the new department and NIST to engage in a systematic review and upgrading of voluntary consensus standards. I believe it is important that the bill includes a provision reaffirming the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the armed forces for civil law enforcement. And it is important that the bill prohibits the government from implementing the proposed ``Operation TIPS,'' an Orwellian program under which designated citizens would be trained to look for and report suspicious behavior on the part of their fellow citizens. Despite the problems in the bill, I am voting for it today because I remain committed to a strong, effective Department of Homeland Security. I am hopeful that the problematic issues I highlighted and other concerns will be successfully addressed in the conference committee.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate your former colleague and my predecessor, former Congressman David Skaggs, on his appointment as executive director of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship. Throughout his career David has been a dedicated public servant. He has represented Coloradans on both the state and federal level. During his twelve years serving Colorado here in the House of Representatives he did extensive work on public lands and environmental issues, advocated the rights of nonprofit organizations, and supported basic research and higher education. He worked to promote bipartisan civility, and played a key role in helping to start an annual Bipartisan Retreat. Throughout his tenure on Capitol Hill, David was an effective and devoted representative of the people of Colorado. David's post-congressional career is just as exemplary. Now, along with serving as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Colorado and being of Counsel to a Washington based law firm, he is the executive director for the Center for Democracy and Citizenship. The Center's focus is to find ways to make the institutions of America's democracy work better. One project started by the Center is the Young Voter Initiative. The goal of the project is to encourage voting by some 30 million young people who are ambivalent about political participation. The Center meet with six groups of young adults ages 18-21 and asked what would be the most effective way to reach young voters. From the group's ideas the Center developed a ``A Candidate's Tool Kit for Reaching Young Americans'' as a practical guide of actions candidate's can take to promote the involvement of young people. The hope is that, as a result of this project, the Center can improve America's democracy by increasing the involvement of the citizenry. David has repeatedly proven himself to be completely dedicated to the service of our nation and the improvement of our democracy. The Center for Democracy and citizenship is fortunate to have the leadership of such an inspiring individual, as noted in the following editorial from the Boulder Daily Camera: [From the Daily Camera, Aug. 1, 2002] Vote? Who, Me? 80% of young people won't, unless trend changes Former U.S. Rep. David Skaggs shouldn't have to spend part of his time looking for ways to persuade reluctant young people that voting makes a difference. He's doing the job because the rest of us haven't. This would be a different country if young people heard a stronger message from parents, schools and communities about participation in democratic life; if older adults were a little less inclined to declare that voting doesn't matter or that elected officials are crooks; and, yes, if politicians themselves could restrain some of their impulses to demean not only their opponents but government itself. But it wouldn't be the United States, where cynicism about public life was a part of the environment in which today's young people grew up. Partly for that reason, voter turnout among young Americans is low--and getting lower. Fewer than one in three Americans under 25 voted in the last two presidential elections. If past trends hold, fewer than one in five will vote in this midterm election. The past two years have created an opportunity for change. If any event could send the message that ``your vote counts,'' it was the 2000 presidential election, in which the candidates were separated by so few votes that a handful of people might have tipped the balance, kept the election out of the courts and literally changed the course of history. And after Sept. 11, who can say with a straight face that ``government doesn't make a difference in my life''? Young Americans may find in those events a new incentive to vote--but that's a hope, not a guarantee. There's still a lack of communication to overcome. Young people often report that they don't vote because candidates don't speak directly to them; candidates often don't seek out young voters because they don't vote. No one initiative or individual can break this cycle, but David Skaggs is doing his part. A Democrat who represented the 2d Congressional District for 12 years in the House of Representatives, Skaggs now serves as executive director of a Washington-based outfit called the Center for Democracy and Citizenship. One of its projects is designed to help political candidates reach out to young voters. The center has made available to thousands of political candidates across the country a ``tool kit'' of background information and common-sense guidance on reaching young voters. Candidates who study the material will find that it punctures a few stereotypes about young people. They're often disengaged from politics but aren't cynical as a group about the world around them; they're evenly divided in their political preferences and not wedded to any one party. There's no need to dwell on details intended for candidates rather than the general public. It's worth noting, though, that many of the suggestions for reaching young people would be sound advice for reaching any group of voters. Meet them on their own turf. Make it easy for them to find information. Do not adopt a ``youth agenda,'' because young people care about the same issues their elders do. Do not, under any circumstances, pretend to be one of them; they'll spot a phony in a minute. Show the connection between their concerns and the election results.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a junior Member of Congress, I have not known Tony Hall nearly as long as many of our colleagues who have spoken with such eloquence of his accomplishments and his record as a leader in the fight against hunger. But even in the brief time I have known him, I have been greatly impressed with his deep commitment to trying to make life better for people throughout the world. And I have also greatly appreciated the way he has helped me to do a better job in representing my constituents and to be a better and more effective Member of the House of Representatives. In particular, I have benefited from his cooperation and assistance with my efforts to expedite the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats--a former DOE nuclear-weapons site in my District--and to assist the people who work there to make the transition to new careers or secure retirement. Because of his own first-hand experience with a site in his District, Tony understood the challenges and opportunities at Rocky Flats. And because of his generosity and readiness to help, great progress has been made in meeting those challenges and making the most of those opportunities. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to join our colleagues in praising Tony Hall for his leadership and breadth of vision and in wishing him every success in the important new duties he will be assuming. And I also want to add a personal note of thanks and to say that I deeply respect him and am very glad to have had the chance to benefit from our brief time together here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I do have some concerns about it, but I think it deserves to be passed. I am united with my colleagues and with the President in a shared determination to win the war against terrorism. We must do everything we can to reduce the risks of further attacks. I believe we must reorganize our government to meet that goal. What we have chosen to take on in the aftermath of September 11th is an enormous task, the largest reorganization of the government in half a century, a total rethinking of how we approach security. We need to plan for the protection of all domestic people, places, and things. We need to fundamentally restructure our government to be more responsive to terrorism. This is a tall order. Homeland security has always been an important responsibility of federal, state and local governments. But in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, the scope of this responsibility has broadened. The bill before us has much in common with a report that we received just last year from a commission headed by former Senators Gary Hart of Colorado and Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. The report recommended sweeping changes, including the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security. I have reviewed the commission's report carefully and discussed it with Senator Hart, and I have been impressed with the soundness of the report's recommendations. I have also cosponsored two bills dealing with this subject. So I am glad that the President has come to agree that a new Department of Homeland Security is necessary. The question we face today is whether the bill before us is up to the challenge. Will this bill actually make the American people safer? I'm not entirely certain. I believe this bill generally heads in the right direction, but it still contains a number of troubling provisions. One concern I have is that in our rush to create this new department, we may be assembling an unwieldy bureaucracy instead of a nimble department that can be quick to respond to the challenges at hand. The proposed department's size, cost and speed may well hamper its ability to fight terrorism. We need to recognize that no department can do everything. Homeland security will be the primary responsibility of the new department, but it will also continue to be the responsibility of other departments, of states and local governments, and of all Americans. It's also true that many of the agencies that will be subsumed by this new department have multiple functions, some of them having nothing to do with security. That's why I think it's right that the bill abolishes the INS and includes its enforcement bureau in the new DHS, while leaving a bureau of immigration services in the Department of Justice. I also think it's right that the bill moves only the agricultural import and entry inspection functions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service into the new department, while leaving the rest of the service--including the unit that investigates chronic wasting disease and other possibly contagious diseases--intact. I believe this same model should apply to the Federal Emergency Management Administration, or FEMA, which this bill would move as a whole into the new department. While it may seem that FEMA--as the central agency in charge of disaster response and emergency management--should constitute the heart of the new DHS, FEMA is primarily engaged in and especially effective at responding to natural hazards. This bill should leave FEMA outside the new department, or at a minimum transfer its Office of National Preparedness to the new department, while leaving FEMA's Disaster Response and Recovery and Mitigation Directorates intact. I voted today to leave FEMA outside the new department because I fear FEMA's current mission and focus will be lost in the new bureaucracy we are creating. I am hopeful that the President will continue to work with the Congress to make sure the agencies moved to the new Department will be supported in their many other important duties even as they focus anew on their security roles. I have other concerns aside from the organization of the agency. The bill includes language that denies basic civil service protections for the federal workers who would be transferred to the new department. While I am encouraged by the passage of two amendments that slightly improve the bill's language in these areas, I remain fearful for the 170,000-plus employees of the new DHS whose jobs this bill would put at risk in an attempt to give the President ``flexibility'' to manage in a ``war-time'' situation. That's why I voted for amendments to preserve collective bargaining rights, whistleblower protections, and civil service rules that have protected career employees for over 75 years. I don't believe we should use the creation of a new department as an excuse to take away these protections-- protections that Congress enacted so that we could attract the very best to government service. Taking away these protections now signals that we don't value our federal workers, their hard-won rights, or the integral role these workers will continue to play as part of the new department in the fight against terrorism. I also supported an amendment striking the overly broad exemptions in the bill to the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, which was designed to preserve openness and accountability in government. The bill includes a provision excluding information voluntarily submitted to the new department from the requests for disclosure, it would also preempt state disclosure laws. FOIA does not require the disclosures of national security information, sensitive law enforcement information, or confidential business information, which makes the exemptions to FOIA in this bill unnecessary in my view. I think that these parts of the bill will need to be revised, and I will do all I can to improve them. There is one provision we debated today that I do think should remain in the bill. Last year, I strongly supported the airport security bill because I believed then--as I do now--that we must protect the public from a repetition of terrorist hijackings. One key part of that is to have baggage screened to safeguard against explosives being smuggled aboard airplanes in checked luggage. But today I voted to extend the baggage screening deadline established in the airport security bill because it doesn't make sense to me to mandate a deadline that clearly is impossible for a quarter of airports in this country to meet. It has been clear for some time that although 75% of airports would be able to meet the December 31st deadline, 25% of this country's largest airports would not. Denver International Airport (DIA) is among those airports still waiting for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to approve its security plan. DIA has developed its own plan that would employ a baggage-screening system that costs approximately $85 million to implement, versus $130 million for the system currently approved for use in the U.S. The bill before us today allows TSA to incrementally address individual airport requirements like DIA and accommodate new technology improvements. I am a cosponsor of legislation that would extend the deadline because I believe DIA will be able to provide a better, more cost- effective baggage screening system than the current TSA-approved model given a bit more time. So I am pleased that this bill includes an extension on the baggage screening system. In summary, I am pleased that this bill echoes the overall approach of the Hart-Rudman report recommendations. I am also pleased that the bill includes important Science Committee contributions, such as the one establishing an Under Secretary for Science and Technology in the new department, as well as provisions I offered in the Science Committee markup requiring the new department and NIST to engage in a systematic review and upgrading of voluntary consensus standards. I believe it is important that the bill includes a provision reaffirming the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the armed forces for civil law enforcement. And it is important that the bill prohibits the government from implementing the proposed ``Operation TIPS,'' an Orwellian program under which designated citizens would be trained to look for and report suspicious behavior on the part of their fellow citizens. Despite the problems in the bill, I am voting for it today because I remain committed to a strong, effective Department of Homeland Security. I am hopeful that the problematic issues I highlighted and other concerns will be successfully addressed in the conference committee.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Ann Morgan, the State Director of the Colorado Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management--the BLM. Ann will be leaving this position this week, after nearly five years of distinguished service in that demanding job. Ann started as Colorado State Director of the BLM in October 1997. In our state, the BLM manages 8.4 million acres that include the full range of Colorado's diverse land forms, from forested areas, to river corridors, to red rock plateaus and open range expanses along the western slope. Managing these varied landscapes presents many challenges. Important balances must be struck between those that wish to use these lands for wildlife protection, open space, recreation, mineral development, grazing, timbering and oil and gas extraction. As State Director, Ann had to work with the diverse interests to strike that balance. Her approach was to work for the kind of community-based partnerships that are so important for true multiple- use management. An example of this is the Colorado Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, where Ann was an active member. She also served as a co- chair of the Colorado Environmental Partnership, and has been an advisor to the University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center. She also encouraged BLM to work across jurisdictional lines with the U.S. Forest Service and Colorado State Parks to better manage these lands and serve the public. Ann recognized the value in conserving landscapes so that today's and future generations of visitors can enjoy the beauty and recreational potential of these public lands. To that end, she has helped build support for and increased the size of National Landscape Conservation System units. Working with the Colorado Congressional delegation, she was instrumental in the designation of the Gunnison Gorge and Colorado Canyons National Conservation Areas and the designation of wilderness areas within those NCAs. Through her leadership and the good work of the BLM employees, important guidelines are in place to make sure that recreation, grazing and other uses do not negatively impact our public lands. These guidelines help underscore that the environment can be protected in concert with economic benefits that inure to communities by these resources and activities. She also helped BLM make important strides toward integrating fire into overall land management. Today, the Colorado BLM has in place state-of-the-art Fire Management Plans, which utilizes naturally ignited fires to meet resource objectives. She has also helped create local community support for the BLM's fire program, and helped local communities develop fire management plans. She has also been helpful on wilderness protection. She demonstrated strong leadership when she agreed to re-evaluate areas that contained wilderness characteristics to determine if the management of these areas should be revised to protect their wilderness values. She also was a supporter of the BLM's Colorado policy of providing interim protection of areas that have been proposed for wilderness in order to give Congress the flexibility to determine this ultimate disposition of these lands. Before coming to Colorado, Ann served three years as BLM's State Director in Nevada, where she concentrated on developing standards and guidelines for rangeland health, improving the quality and timeliness of hardrock mining environmental analysis, and securing strong working relationships with local governments in a state where the BLM manages 67 percent of the land. Before embarking on her BLM career, Ann was manager of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Lands. There she was responsible for the multiple use management of more than 2 million acres of state public lands. She directed leasing, resource inventories and harvesting, public access and recreation, habitat protection and restoration, and statewide aquatic lands enhancement programs. Prior to that she managed engineering and construction projects for geothermal power plants for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Ann will be moving on to work on public land and environmental issues with, the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School in Boulder, Colorado. She also will be working with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution on special projects. At these positions, I know that she will have an opportunity to continue to make important contributions to public lands management. Her experience and expertise will help these organizations better understand and respond to natural resource issues. I wish her well in these endeavors and ask my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her dedicated public service to Colorado and the nation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and acknowledge the outstanding work of Thomas J. Dougherty, a Senior Advisor with the National Wildlife Federation. Tom will be retiring at the end of this year after serving 18 years with the National Wildlife Federation and decades of work on environmental and wildlife protection efforts. For over a quarter century, Tom Dougherty, who now lives in Loveland, Colorado, has worked to protect wildlife and its habitat on behalf of conservationists and the Wyoming and National Wildlife Federations. Tom's passion and talent for protecting wildlife first appeared in 1983, when Tom, then president of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, roused the State of Wyoming and its legislature to pass an instream flow law. That law recognizes that leaving water in the stream for the sake of fish and wildlife is a legitimate and beneficial use of water. About the same time, and on much drier ground, Tom began a campaign which found its way to the national evening news and into the courts. Tom dedicated himself to getting rid of a rancher's lethal twenty-eight mile fence, which blocked antelope from reaching their crucial winter range on Red Rim in south-central Wyoming. Thanks to Tom (with an assist from NBC Nightly News and the federal courts), the five foot high mesh wire fence, which was impenetrable to antelope, was completely removed, saving antelope from starving to death in severe winters. Several years later, Tom helped the Wyoming Game and Fish Department acquire the private lands on Red Rim so the Department and the Bureau of Land Management could manage those lands as The Red Rim Wildlife Habitat Management Area. In the later 1980s Tom moved to the National Wildlife Federation's office in Boulder, Colorado, where he eventually became Western Staff Director. At this position, he worked with Representatives Pat Schroeder and Wayne Allard, the City of Denver, the United States Army, Shell Oil Company, the State of Colorado, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to designate the Rocky Mountain Arsenal as a National Wildlife Refuge--an unusual urban wildlife refuge. Tom's advocacy for the new refuge and talent for bringing people together to fight for wildlife were becoming nationally known. That recognition may help explain his participation in the early 1990s of efforts to reform the grazing of livestock on our public lands. When then Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt was embarking on reform efforts, heated controversy in the west naturally ensued. The Secretary, in order to forge a compromise, turned to Colorado, where Governor Roy Romer was working to bring all sides together to develop a workable slate of reform proposals. Governor Romer included Tom in these efforts as he knew of Tom's ability to work with all sides, understand the concerns of the ranchers, and bring a spirit of collaboration--along with a passion for protecting the sustainability of the land for livestock and wildlife. When that effort expanded through Secretary Babbitt's participation, the Secretary and Governor Romer included him in the grazing roundtable that ultimately lead to new grazing regulations. Once again Tom's talent for bringing diverse interests together for the sake of wildlife was making a big difference on the ground. While Tom was working on the Arsenal Refuge and Red Rim, there was a sound absent from Yellowstone National Park. Now, you might be lucky enough to hear a wolf howl in Yellowstone, and if so you owe some thanks to Tom Dougherty. He and the National Wildlife Federation, along with many other conservation organizations, worked with citizens, teachers, biologists, ranchers, hunters, lawyers, politicians, and regulators (to name just a few) to bring back the gray wolf Tom was among those invited to be in the Park with Secretary Babbitt during the release of the first wolves back into Yellowstone. Tom's dedication to wildlife and his thoughtful and heartfelt encouragement for those who care about wildlife is not limited to federal lands. South and east of Yellowstone, Tom and the National Wildlife Federation joined with the Shoshone and Arapaho Indian Tribes on the Wind River Indian Reservation in an effort to convert the Tribes'agricultural water rights into instream flow rights. Keeping the water in the river would have restored the Wind River and bolstered the Tribes cultural and economic hopes to once again rely on the river's formerly fertile fishery. All of this dedication and commitment may be traced to an event early in his life that Tom likes to recite and that he swears is a true story. Forty years ago, as a boy at a Cheyenne, Wyoming, high school, he helped dangle another student by his heels out of a second story school window. Perhaps those few seconds of outdoor aerial suspension created a heightened appreciation of the earth and its environment--the boy who was dangled became a leader of private property rights advocates, and Tom, who kept a firm grip on those inverted heels, became the dedicated environmental leader, teacher, and wildlife guardian that he is today. Perhaps those few seconds at the sill of that second story high school window gave Tom a knack for recognizing serious wildlife issues before most even realize there's a threat. A decade ago he led the National and Wyoming Wildlife Federations into court to enforce Wyoming's laws against game ranching. Today, game ranches in other states are often at the center of concern about the spread of chronic wasting disease. Tom Dougherty has been the instigator, producer, coach, minister, and manager for those working to protect wildlife. Certainly one beneficiary of his passionate guardianship and persistent defense is the wildlife we enjoy in the Rocky Mountain region. But the creatures who thrive thanks to Tom are but a token compared to his greatest contribution: his recognition and nurturing of those willing to join in defending wildlife. Tom has motivated hundreds to care for and defend wildlife across the west. The allies Tom has mentored will ensure the West's wildlife legacy will endure. For these reasons and more, I am proud to call Tom Dougherty a friend, and urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing his contributions to wildlife, our county, and the hundreds of citizens he has inspired to join together to make the West a better place for wildlife and people.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, in Colorado we are experiencing some of the worst wildfires in our state's history. We owe an enormous debt to the men and women who have heroically battled these blazes to save lives, protect homes, and lessen the damage to other resources. In particular, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize one such firefighter, Ms. Marilyn Fagerstrom. Ms. Fagerstrom is an example of the people who always strive to use their abilities to make positive contributions to their communities. At 71 years of age, Marilyn Fagerstrom is an esteemed firefighter-- and a grandmother of six. After having moved to the mountains nearly twenty years ago, Ms. Fagerstrom decided that becoming a volunteer firefighter was the best way to give back to her community. Through the years she has stood shoulder to shoulder with firefighters who, more often than not, were much her junior. In recent days, she has been tirelessly working to help fight the Big Elk wildfire burning between Estes Park and Lyons, Colorado. It has been said that Marilyn Fagerstrom does more in retirement than many people do during their careers. As such, she is a source of inspiration deserving of our respect and commendations. For my colleagues' interest, I have attached a news story about Ms. Fagerstrom's firefighting efforts. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in honoring Mariyln Fagerstrom for her spirit, service and tenacity. I wish her continued health and happiness. [Denver Post Northern Colorado Bureau] 71-year-old Stays Young Fighting Fires (By Coleman Cornelius) Sunday, July 21, 2002--LYONS--Marilyn Fagerstrom's graying hair, pearl earrings and round spectacles form the image of a grandmother. Then there are her Nomex fire-retardant shirt and black lug-soled boots. Fagerstrom is 71 years old, a grandmother of six--and an esteemed firefighter. She is the oldest firefighter among nearly 400 at the Big Elk blaze and a veteran of the Hayman wildfire. Fagerstrom began fighting fires at age 53, when she retired to a mountain home northwest of Boulder and realized it was the best way to give back to her wildfire-prone community. ``I suddenly realized I live in an area that could burn. I began investigating. `Do we have a fire department? What's going on?' '' said Fagerstrom, a former physical-education teacher. Fagerstrom quickly joined the Lefthand Fire Protection District, a volunteer force that responds to blazes primarily in Boulder County. As part of the district's engine team, she drives the heavy rig, hauls hoses and sprays down threatened homes and structures with water and fire retardant. In the devastating fire season of 2000, she spent six straight weeks in the field on wildfires including the monster at Mesa Verde National Park in southwestern Colorado. She slept in tents, bathed in portable showers and ate elbow- to-elbow with sweaty, soot-smudged firefighters, many of whom are younger men and women. At the Big Elk wildfire, Fagerstrom has an office job. She works as an information officer for the federal team managing fire response. Her engine crew was in the field protecting homes in the Big Elk Meadows subdivision as Fagerstrom came through leading a media tour. ``She brings us intelligence, charm, wit, wisdom and experience--definitely experience,'' Lefthand volunteer David Keyek said of Fagerstrom. Added Dave Nyquist, chief of the Lefthand Fire Protection District: ``Marilyn is one of those people who makes things work. She's busier in retirement than most people are in their normal jobs.'' Fagerstrom said she has made firefighting her life because it allows her to experience camaraderie, adrenaline-laced physical challenge and the reward of helping others. She also wears the hats of information officer and treasurer for the Lefthand Fire Protection District. ``It keeps me going. I'm not ready to sit in the rocker yet,'' she said with a laugh.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of Pete Seibert--a great man and a true pioneer. Mr. Seibert has often been described as a humble visionary guided by his passions more than his quest for material gains. His vision pioneered the Colorado ski industry and will no doubt continue to shape the industry for years to come. Mr. Seibert started skiing on pair of his mother's wooden skis at the age of seven. He quickly fell in love with the sport and soon decided that he would one day create a ski resort of his own. As a young man, he joined the Army's storied 10th Mountain Division where he learned unparalleled mountaineering skills and served his country honorably during World War II. After being severely wounded in 1945, during some of the most difficult combat of the war, Pete Seibert was sent home from Italy with a Bronze Star and Purple Heart and was told that he would likely never walk again. He did not accept that verdict--in fact, he totally rejected it, and went on to overcome the odds against rehabilitation. So complete was his success that in 1950 he qualified for the U.S. Alpine Ski Team. A few years later, Pete Seibert set out in earnest to create a ski resort. After considering many possible locations, he chose the site near Gore Creek that is now known as Vail Mountain. With the same tenacity with which he overcame his war injury, Mr. Seibert shrugged off suggestions that, the area was too flat, too close to the interstate and too close to Aspen. Chris Jouflas, a lifelong rancher in the area, tells about tending sheep high on the mountain before it was ever referred to as Vail. He remembers one day encountering two young men scanning the mountain, excitedly pointing out terrain features and taking copious notes. The two men were Pete Seibert and his friend Earl Eaton. Mr. Jouflas asked them what they were doing. They matter-of-factly replied that they were going to turn the mountainside into a world class ski resort. Mr. Jouflas likely had his doubts, but Pete Seibert's dreams of that day evolved into one of the most successful ski resorts in North American history. Vi Brown, a longtime local in Vail, recalls, ``Pete was a real hero. If you saw him when you were walking down the street people would say to their kids, `There goes Pete Seibert. He is the man that invented Vail.' '' But despite his achievements and his fame he remained sincerely humble and was an imminently likable man. I believe that humility may well have come from his deep love and understanding of the mountains. Any real mountaineer will come to recognize that you must have perseverance, respect and humility in order to fully experience a mountain. One would be hard pressed to find a man who better embodied these qualities than did Pete Seibert. It was not greed but passion that inspired him to create a place where millions of people have been able to experience the beauty of that mountain through the years. Our great state and skiers around the world owe a huge debt to Pete Seibert. He will be deeply missed but never forgotten. I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude for his contributions and our sorrow for his passing. For the information of our colleagues, I attach a news story from the Denver Post about Mr. Seibert and his life and accomplishments. Ski Pioneer Seibert Dies of Cancer at 77--10th Mountain Veteran Founded Vail Resort [From the Denver Post Mountain Bureau, July 17, 2002] (By Steve Lipsher) Vail.--Pete Seibert, the visionary ski pioneer who turned Vail and Beaver Creek from dreams into two of the world's pre-eminent ski resorts, has died at age 77. Seibert, who succumbed to cancer Monday evening, more than 50 years after Italian artillery shells nearly claimed his life during World War 11, was one of a small cadre of 10th Mountain Division veterans who developed Colorado skiing into an industry that generates billions of dollars annually. ``Peter is the one who really founded Vail and Beaver Creek, and ... those two areas are giants in the ski industry,'' said lifelong friend Bill Brown, one of the original nine men recruited by Seibert. It was Seibert who, along with local rancher Earl Eaton, saw the potential in 1957 in what would become Vail Mountain, 100 miles west of Denver. ``Willy Schaeffler, God bless him, said Vail will never work as a resort; it's too flat,'' Seibert said in a December 2000 Denver Post interview, recalling the legendary former University of Denver ski coach. ``I'd seen the places in Europe that worked. They were pretty easy, cruising. People liked that. They don't want to be holding an edge all the time. The skis should flow, and you should be able to go with them.'' Seibert also rallied skeptical investors into paying $10,000 apiece for shares in the company--along with homesites in the village and lifetime ski passes--that now are worth millions. And it was Seibert who oversaw the cutting of the original ski trails, and ultimately it was Seibert who first lured the World Alpine Ski Championships to Vail. ``He had an idea a minute, almost, in the early days, and he saw the potential of Vail,'' said Bob Parker, another 10th Mountain Division veteran who left his job as editor of Skiing magazine to join Seibert as Vail's first marketing manager. ``We all believed in Vail because we believed in Peter. It was his real leadership and enthusiasm.'' Pat O'Donnell, head of Aspen Skiing and chairman of industry trade group Colorado Ski Country USA, credited Seibert with setting the industry standard in resort development. He's an icon, a visionary ``He's an icon, a role model, a visionary and is largely responsible for the success, through his dreaming and implementation, of what the ski industry is today for the state of Colorado and the nation,'' O'Donnell said. Fired as CEO by incoming Vail owner Harry Bass in the 1970s, Seibert later returned to the company under George Gillett as a full-time adviser, a position he held until his death. ``He was always one to share his experience, to brainstorm ideas of how to improve our business,'' said Beaver Creek chief operating officer John Garnsey. ``He was such an innovator and just a great thinker. He was always coming up with ideas, and he never stopped challenging us to come up with better ways of running our resort.'' Two years ago, when Vail opened Blue Sky Basin--finally realizing the full scope of the ski area envisioned by Seibert in the 1950s--the company named one of the expanses ``Pete's Bowl.'' ``That is the signature homage to Pete Seibert,'' said Vail Resorts CEO Adam Aron. ``There were a number of people who were involved in the founding and funding of Vail. But clearly, Pete Seibert was the conductor of that orchestra and deserves the great credit.'' In recent years, Vail attracted the ire of environmentalists, who complain that it is too big and caters to the wealthy at the expense of nature. Seibert once told a Denver Post reporter: ``We weren't trying to save the world. We were just trying to build a ski area.'' Born in Sharon, Mass., on Aug. 7, 1924, Seibert started skiing at age 7 on a pair of his mother's wooden skis, winning races by age 15. After graduating from high school, he joined the U.S. Army's famed 10th Mountain Division, which trained at Camp Hale and then fought in the 1945 siege of Fiva Ridge-- the name of one of the seminal runs at Vail--and Mount Belvedere. Wounded so badly in the battle for Mount Terminale a few days later that doctors warned him he probably wouldn't walk again, much less ski, Seibert was sent home with a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Seibert, however, endured a painful rehabilitation and quickly took up skiing again, teaching himself to get down the hill practically on his one good leg with such speed that he made the U.S. Ski Team in 1950, wrapping his damaged right leg heavily before each run. ``One way or another, skiing was going to be my life,'' he wrote in his book on the history of the resort, ``Vail: Triumph of a Dream.'' After working for Aspen and Loveland ski areas, training as a gourmet chef and attending L'Ecole Hoteliere de Lausanne, an international school for hotel management in Switzerland, Seibert began in earnest pursuing his dream of creating a world-class ski resort of his own. The greatest personality ``He could sell an icebox to an Eskimo,'' Brown said. ``Pete has the greatest personality.'' Despite repeated run-ins with Paul Hauk, the U.S. Forest Service supervisor for ski-area development, as well as a mad scramble for money from investors, Seibert and Vail Associates finally opened for business in 1962. Little snow had fallen that autunm, but after a stunt in which Seibert hired Indians to perform a snow dance, a blizzard struck, and Vail was off and running. Still, it was hand-to-mouth for a while, as all profits had to be dumped back into improvements on the mountain. ``As Vail was being built, we were always balancing on the brink of failure,'' Seibert recounted in his book. Soon, however, the resort achieved success, accompanied by the development of an upscale town modeled after a Bavarian village. But, truth be told, Seibert never achieved the wild wealth of many of the later arrivals to Vail, although after he was hired again by Gillett, he certainly lived comfortably and was as accustomed to wearing a tuxedo as a ski parka. ``He always seemed driven by his dreams and vision rather than by material considerations,'' said Vail Mayor Ludwig Kurz, the longtime former director of the Beaver Creek ski school who helped Seibert sketch out the treacherous Birds of Prey downhill course at that mountain that challenges top World Cup skiers today. Seibert was diagnosed with stomach cancer last year, and although he underwent aggressive treatment, it spread into his lungs and esophagus. ``We all knew that he was fighting a tough battle,'' Garnsey said. ``But Pete had overcome a lot of tough battles and adversity in his life, and he always came through.'' He died in his sleep at his Edwards home, surrounded by his former wife, Betty, with whom he remained very close, two of his three sons and family friends. He also is survived by three grandchildren. ``He was really a patriot of skiing and tried to make the town something,'' said prominent Vail hotel and restaurant owner Sheika Gramshammer, who came to Vail in the early days with her husband, Pepi, at Seibert's insistence. ``Vail was really a small family, and Pete was like our patron, our father. I think he was born to do this kind of thing. He was a dreamer.'' The family has asked that, instead of flowers, donations be sent to the Shaw Regional Cancer Center at the Vail Valley Medical Center. No services have been announced.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson Amendment to the Department of Interior Appropriations bill to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities by fifteen million dollars. The value of supporting the arts is widely accepted. Art provides a venue for expression and understanding of human thought and emotion. Educators have argued that there are many educational benefits to students enrolled in the arts. Some institutions looking to bridge the gap of understanding between different cultures use art as a universal means of communicating concerns and developing understanding. The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities consistently work to give artists across the country the opportunity to participate in the arts. In fact, forty percent of the money allocated to the national endowment is transferred directly to states so that they are able to fund local programs. In Colorado, money from the National Endowment of the Arts is used to fund the Arts and Education Learning Network which teaches arts organizations how to work with schools, and the Online Poetry Project to help schools address poetry related questions on standardized CSAP exams. The bulk of funding requested in the amendment will go to the Challenge America Program that works to start arts and humanities programs in communities that have yet to receive funding from the Endowment. Along with the immeasurable value of the contribution of the arts and the humanities as an expression of our culture and of the individual, the arts have proven to have a quantifiable value as well. A study recently conducted by an economist at the University of Georgia of ninety-one communities nationwide showed that communities that spend money on the arts, make money from the arts. One of the communities in the study was Boulder, CO. It was calculated that just over nineteen million dollars in spending by the nonprofit arts industry in Boulder generated over thirteen million dollars in revenue and income for Boulder businesses, residents and local government, and supported five hundred and ninety-four full time jobs. The arts and humanities bring money and jobs to communities in today's difficult economic environment. This amendment would allocate necessary funding to a grossly underfunded national arts program. Support of the amendment is necessary so that arts can continue to bring all of the benefits that come from encouraging and supporting development of the arts.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I support it, and urge its passage by the House. This bill is important for the whole country, of course, but it is particularly important for Colorado and other states that include large amounts of federal lands. So, I am very appreciative of the hard work of Chairman Joe Skeen, ranking Member Norm Dicks, and the other members of the Interior Subcommittee as well as Chairman Young and ranking Member Obey of the full Appropriations Committee. In particular, I want to thank them for including in the bill $700 million in Fiscal Year 2002 emergency firefighting funds. As we in Colorado are all too aware, the combination of serious drought conditions and the results of a century's policy of suppressing all fires on federal lands has produced a series of extreme wildfires that have threatened the lives and property of thousands of people in our state and elsewhere. As a result, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other federal land-managing agencies have exhausted the funds budget for firefighting and have had to divert money from other important purposes to respond to the emergency conditions. That was why last month, along with my Colorado colleagues, Representative Hefley, Representative DeGette, and Representative Tancredo, and my cousin, Representative Tom Udall of New Mexico, I wrote to Chairman Young and Mr. Obey, urging that the agencies be provided with emergency supplemental firefighting funds. I thought then--and still think--that the best way to accomplish this would be to include the funds in the conference report on the emergency supplemental bill already passed in both Chambers. However, I understand that the Administration opposes that idea and therefore as an alternative the money has been included in this bill. I certainly support that, although I am concerned that the result may be to unnecessarily delay the provision of these vitally-needed funds to the agencies. I also want to express my appreciation for inclusion of the bill of $4 million to enable the Forest Service to continue acquiring lands in the Beaver Brook area of Clear Creek County, in Colorado's Second Congressional District. This tract encompasses almost the entire watershed of Beaver Brook, which flows into Clear Creek. the city of Golden originally acquired the lands as a potential source of water. However, it now wants to sell the lands so it can use the money for pressing municipal needs. The Beaver Brook lands, nearly 6,000 acres in all, are important elk habitat and include pristine riparian areas and ponderosa pine stands that are comparatively rare in this part of Colorado. The tract also is a key part of a corridor of open and undeveloped lands linking the alpine terrain of the Mount Evans Wilderness with the foothills and piedmont of the Front Range area. In short, these lands provide scenic, recreational, and wildlife resources that are important to all Coloradans, and it is very important that they remain undeveloped-- especially because our population growth is leading to increasing development throughout this part of the state. The City of Golden--the property owner--is willing to sell the lands to the federal government so they can be added to the national forest. Clear Creek County, where the lands are located, also supports that acquisition, and the Forest Service has identified it as a high regional priority. The acquisition is also supported by a wide range of other individuals and groups in Colorado--and here in Washington, Representative Tancredo and I have been working together on the idea as well. Last week, I had the pleasure of attending a ceremony marking transfer of part of the lands to the United States for inclusion in the Arapaho National Forest. The funds provided in this bill will help maintain momentum as we move toward completion of this important acquisition. The bill also includes a number of other items of particular importance to Colorado, including money for construction work at Rocky Mountain National Park and the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, funds to make the land acquisition that will set the stage for upgrading the Great Sand Dunes to National Park status, and funds for important work to further the protection of endangered species and the sound management of our natural resources. Of course, no bill is perfect. But this bill is a good one and I urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment that would increase funding by $3 million for the Energy Star program, bringing it to the level of the President's request. Energy Star is a voluntary partnership program that helps businesses, state and local governments, homeowners, and consumers save money by investing in energy efficiency in homes, businesses, buildings, and products. For every federal dollar spent on program costs, the Energy Star program produces average energy bill savings of $75 and sparks $15 in investment in new technology. Recognizing this impressive track record, the Bush Administration called for Energy Star's expansion in last year's National Energy Policy report, and this year requested a higher level of funding for the program. Sixty of my colleagues in the House indicated their endorsement of the President's request by signing a letter I circulated this year in support of increased Energy Star funding. Through programs like Energy Star, we can reduce pollution, promote economic growth by stimulating investment in new technology, help reduce dependence on imported oil, and help ensure the reliability of our electric system by reducing peak demand. An investment in Energy Star today means greater energy security tomorrow. The President's FY03 request for increased funding for Energy Star recognized that this program could accomplish more with increased funding. It is estimated that if all consumers chose only Energy Star- labeled products over the next decade or so, the nation's energy bill would be reduced by about $100 billion while avoiding 380 million metric tons of carbon-equivalent in greenhouse gas emissions. These are real benefits that make the Energy Star program worthy of funding at the level of the President's request. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on July 15th I was unavoidably detained in returning to Washington, D.C. from Colorado. As a result, I was unable to vote on three measures considered that day. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 296, passage of H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act, I would have voted ``yes.'' I also would have voted ``yes'' on both rollcall No. 297, passage of H.R. 4755, and rollcall No. 298, passage of H.R. 3479.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Forest City Stapleton, Inc., for their role in the redevelopment of the former Stapleton International Airport in Denver, Colorado. Stapleton International Airport served as Denver's municipal airport from 1929 to 1995. After that function ended with opening of the new Denver International Airport, there was much discussion about what to do with the 7.5 square mile Stapleton property--land that once was at the edge of town but that is now surrounded by residential development. What evolved from those discussions is the vision that Forest City Stapleton, Inc. is implementing today--a vision that I am proud to recognize as an example of the kinds of responsible community redevelopment. As Colorado continues to increase rapidly in population, policies that promote smart, responsibly managed growth become ever more important. The new Stapleton community that Forest City Stapleton, Inc. has planned displays the finest aspects of both smart growth and ``New Urbanism.'' New urbanism refers to community development that concentrates a diversity of uses (residential, commercial, governmental) and thus avoids some of the impacts that come with suburban sprawl (such as long commutes, lost open space). Forest City Stapleton, Inc. has consistently remained mindful of the critical importance of developing land so as to maximize the use of natural resources while minimizing the impact on the natural environment. Over the next 20 years, Stapleton's 4,700 acres will become a new community of 12,000 homes and 13 million square feet of offices and shops as well as over 1,100 acres of parks and open space. The Stapleton redevelopment alone will increase the acreage of Denver parks by 30 percent. With new homes, schools, retail and office space, Stapleton will be a self-sustainable community where people can live, learn, work and play. By varying land-use and density of development, Forest City Stapleton, Inc. is able to create the social and economic diversity characteristic of any great urban community. Essentially, through the foresight of the Stapleton redevelopment committee, the surrounding communities and the City and County of Denver, Coloradans are converting a once productive property into a new community that will serve its residents well, The redevelopment of Stapleton represented an opportunity to employ innovative and workable approaches that will result in healthy, livable communities. I hope that this model can be used as an example of alternatives to traditional development in communities throughout Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our appreciation for the conscientious development Forest City Stapleton, Inc. has undertaken. I wish them continued success.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), based in Golden, Colorado, on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. As the Department of Energy's premier laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development, NREL has played a critical role in advancing our knowledge and technical ability to integrate power from renewable resources into our nation's energy supply. On July 5, 1977, NREL opened its doors. Created as the Solar Energy Research Institute, it began its work during an energy crisis, with a mission to make renewable energy a viable national energy option. NREL has succeeded in its mission, and it continues to make remarkable strides. For a modest investment in renewable energy research and development over the last two decades, the price of wind energy has dropped from 30 cents/kWh to between 4-6 cents/kWh, mostly due to past research at NREL. Photovoltaic modules have lowered their cost by nearly a factor of ten, while the cost of solar systems has been reduced by 50 percent in the last decade. Biomass ethanol has decreased its cost per gallon from roughly $4.00 fifteen years ago to $1.20 today due to research at this laboratory. Commitment to cooperative research and development with laboratories, universities, and the private sector has led to ground-breaking technology improvements that are now beginning to make their way into the market in nearly all renewable energy technologies. NREL's work has earned it many awards over the last 25 years. Among them are 31 R&D 100 awards, the most per researcher of any Department of Energy laboratory. But NREL does more than good research. I have always been particularly impressed by NREL's dedication to its community in Colorado. A good example of this dedication: As a way of celebrating the laboratory's anniversary, NREL's employees chose to build an energy-efficient home for Habitat for Humanity. NREL's managing partners are funding the project, and NREL employees and their friends and families will contribute 3,000 volunteer hours to build the house. So NREL has a great deal to celebrate on this anniversary. As NREL Director Richard Truly remarked earlier this year, the goal of the anniversary activities is not only to call attention to NREL's great achievements, but also to recognize NREL's 1,000-plus employees, to remind stakeholders how NREL's efforts helped them achieve success, and to announce that there will be much more to come from NREL in the next 25 years. And there must be much more to come. With total world energy use expected to double by the year 2025 and quadruple by 2100, it is clear that NREL has an increasingly important role to play in transforming the way we think about and use energy. As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I have consistently supported NREL's vision for a sustainable energy future. I look forward to sharing in NREL's future successes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation for the good work of Barbara Mazurowski, the Department of Energy's manager of the Rocky Flats Field Office in Colorado. Barbara will soon be moving to DOE's national headquarters from her post overseeing the complex and monumental cleanup of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site after more than two years of hands-on management. Barbara came on board during a critical time for Rocky Flats. The cleanup and closure were well underway, but concerns over worker safety, schedule and cost were ever present. She did not shy away from these challenges and met them head-on. As a result, she kept this project on track--within schedule and budget--so that we now have a good chance of seeing this site cleaned up and closed by 2006, our target date for closure. But perhaps her most lasting legacy will be in the area of worker health and safety. When concerns were raised about the commitment of the DOE to these critically important aspects of the cleanup work, Barbara elevated this as a high priority. A number of unfortunate safety mishaps had occurred, one of these involving serious exposures to a number of workers. Following these incidents, Barbara sent a lengthy and hard- hitting letter to Kaiser-Hill, the general contractor for the site, and insisted that the improvements be made in safety protocols. I understand such a letter was unprecedented at Rocky Flats. The end result of her intervention has been a measurable improvement in safety at the site. These efforts and many others have earned her the respect and admiration of many, including the hard working employees at the site, both union and non-union--employees who put their health and safety on the line every day so that we can see the site closed in a timely manner. Her contribution to keeping work on schedule and her insistence on maintaining open channels of communication also have been appreciated by the local communities surrounding Rocky Flats. Barbara also managed the site through two high profile milestones-- designating the site as a national wildlife refuge upon cleanup and closure, and complications with the plans for shipment of surplus plutonium to DOE's Savannah River site in South Carolina. Both required long hours, extensive coordination and serious attention, and throughout both she demonstrated calm, dedicated leadership. Her work on these issues and many others will be a standard by which to judge her successor managers. We have much more work ahead at this site, much of that involving the demolition of buildings and the extensive cleanup work that still needs to be done. I hope that we can continue the progress that has been accomplished during her tenure. I wish her well and continued success in her future endeavors and ask my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her dedicated public service to Colorado and the nation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the Republican prescription drug bill. And not only the bill, but the process by which we considered it. Since being elected to Congress in 1998, not a day has gone by without my hearing from a senior who is struggling to pay for prescription drugs. I've told the story of the woman from Westminster, CO who has to visit the food bank once a week so that she can afford her prescription drugs. I've told the story of another woman who plays her own version of the lottery. She puts all of her bills in a fish bowl, draws one bill, and the one she draws is the one she puts off paying so that she can buy the drugs her doctor tells her she has to take. And I've told the story of Juanita Johns, a constituent who kept the thermostat in her home at 60 degrees so she could pay her drug bills. That is until she sold her house and moved in with her son in order to afford her medicines. Juanita is not with us anymore. Unfortunately, these women are not alone. Over one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have no drug coverage. Medicare does not cover outpatient prescription drug costs. Many seniors turn to supplemental plans for drug coverage, but these plans often are expensive and have high deductibles or low benefits. No senior should be faced with the choice of buying food, paying the electric bill or buying critical life saving medicines. We have an obligation to our Nation's seniors to provide them with the lifesaving treatments they need and deserve. Last month, we had the opportunity to do something about it. But the Republican leadership insisted on pushing through a proposal that subsidizes insurance companies and drug companies instead of helping seniors. Their bill does nothing to guarantee coverage for seniors. It has a gap in coverage that will leave Medicare beneficiaries 100% financially liable for thousands of dollars in drug costs, covers only 6% of Medicare beneficiaries, and does nothing to lower the price of prescription drugs. Instead, their bill gives $310 billion to insurance companies to encourage them to offer stand-alone prescription drug plans, something that the insurance companies themselves say will not work. If this bill becomes law, and if past is prologue, we will have insurance companies knocking on our door in the not too distant future telling us that they don't have enough money to provide these plans, and that they need more. It's just like what is happening with Medicare+Choice. Several insurance companies promised seniors affordable health care, took their premiums and then dumped them a year later. And now many seniors are scrambling to find a new doctor. Now, I support the increase in payments for providers, which are included in the Republican bill. As a matter of fact, I am cosponsoring legislation to increase physician payments and to change the formula upon which those payments are based. I support increased payments to our Nation's hospitals, and I've joined with several of my colleagues asking the leadership of this body to address Medicare HMO payment issues. But in a cynical political move, the authors of this bill attached these provider payments to their prescription drug bill to force us to vote against them. So I am going on the record today to say that my vote against this bill should not be construed as a vote against provider payments. And my vote against this bill should not be construed as a vote against prescription drugs for seniors. I support the Democratic plan, which is a defined benefit under Medicare. It has a guaranteed premium, a guaranteed copayment, guaranteed coverage, and is available to all those seniors who need it. It doesn't have any gaps in coverage, and it has no gimmicks. That's what our seniors deserve. But the Republican leadership wouldn't even let us bring our bill to the floor for debate. They wouldn't even let us offer amendments to their bill. Why not? If it was so bad, they could have just voted it down. But they knew that our plan was better and if it were put up against the Republican plan, it would have prevailed. Instead, they took a ``my way or the highway'' approach. On the day of the vote, many members took to the floor of the House to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. ``. . . one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' Where is the indivisibility? Where is the liberty in this rule? Where is the justice in this rule? In this debate? In this bill? We should set a better example for other governments around the world. This is not the way democracy works. Mr. Speaker, the great civil rights worker Fannie Lou Hamer once said, ``I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' So am I, and so are the millions of seniors who can't afford the drugs their doctors tell them they have to take. The number of seniors in this Nation will double over the next twenty years, and at that time, their voices and actions will be stronger than the insurance companies and the drug manufacturers. I just hope we don't have to wait that long. I could not support the rule or the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it seems that every week we hear another story of a corporation cooking the books, too often with the help of accountants who are supposed to be protecting investors and the public. And while they cook the books, they burn the American people and the economy suffers. Some of those involved say, these are just technical details, or they act like the piano player in the bordello, saying they did not know what was going on upstairs. But it is becoming clear that many knew all about it and it is nothing but plain, old-fashioned fraud. Congress needs to clean up this mess by passing stronger corporate accounting and pension protection legislation than the version the House passed this spring. Talk is cheap, but the cost to the public has been high, and will be higher yet if we do not act. Corporate CEOs need to be accountable with criminal and financial penalties when they falsify financial reports or mislead the public about company stock. CEOs should not be allowed to sell company stock in an executive plan during a lockdown period when the employees are prohibited from doing so. We need to set up a strong, independent watchdog over the accounting industry. For markets to work fairly, the American public needs the truth. Strong legislation is crucial to restoring the truth and trust in corporate America and faith in our markets.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ruben Valdez for his leadership and service to Colorado. Cesar Chavez once said, ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community. Our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sake and our own.'' Even a cursory glance at Ruben Valdez's life illuminates why he has been named to the Cesar Chavez Leadership Hall of Fame. The hall of fame recognizes Colorado Latinos for their outstanding contributions to civic life. Ruben's contributions to Colorado, the Hispanic community and public life have been extraordinary. Ruben was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives in 1971. A few short years later he was elected Speaker of the House making him the first Hispanic to ever serve in that position. After retiring from the House in 1978, President Jimmy Carter appointed him to be the Regional Director for the United States Department of Transportation. The following year, he was selected by Colorado Governor Dick Lamm to serve as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Social Services. In 1985, Ruben accepted an unprecedented dual appointment by Governor Lamm to be Executive Director for both the Colorado Department of Social Services and the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. At the end of this extraordinary period in his public life, Ruben was perhaps the most successful Latino leader in Colorado history. For many young Latinos interested in politics and government at the time (some on whom now serve on my staff) Ruben Valdez was a pioneer--living proof that having a Spanish surname did not disqualify a person from having a successful career in public service. Cesar Chavez was a leader who organized the Hispanic community from ``outside'' the halls of power in government. Ruben showed that another leadership model was available to Hispanics. Ruben showed that Hispanics could also work from inside the corridors of power, not only in the halls of government, but in corporate boardrooms. I think Cesar Chavez would have been pleased by Ruben's success, particularly because it paved the way for so many other talented Hispanic leaders to come. Today Ruben Valdez is a very successful consultant helping clients at every level of government. He was a well-known figure in the halls of the Colorado State Legislature when I served there, and I came to admire him for his reputation as a respected lobbyist. Ruben Valdez is a thoughtful and experienced leader. Those who know him will tell you that he is the kind of man you want on your side in a difficult battle. His service to Colorado has been exceptional, and I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his achievements.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution--not because I necessarily agree that the recent decisions it addresses is ``inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence'' as the resolution says, but because I do agree that ``the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should agree to rehear'' the matter. I am not a lawyer, and have not had a chance to carefully review the decision. So, I am not prepared to conclude that its author--a long- serving judge originally appointed by President Nixon--was clearly wrong as a matter of law. However, it is my understanding that another appeals court, in a similar case, has ruled differently. So, I definitely think the issue needs to be resolved, either through reconsideration or by the Supreme Court. I also strongly agree with the part of the resolution which states that ``the United States Congress recognizes the right of those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge to refrain from its recitation.'' I am proud to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because I personally agree that, as the resolution states, ``the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a religious practice'' and its recitation ``is not a religious exercise'' but instead ``the verbal expression of support for the United States of America.'' However, I think it is not a good idea for the Congress to attempt to define what constitutes a religious practice or a prayer. So, I am uncomfortable with the parts of the resolution dealing with those points. The resolution is only an expression of opinion, of course, but still I would have preferred if those clauses had been omitted. Similarly, I am not sure it is correct to say, as the resolution does, that the court's decision ``treats any religious reference as inherently evil and is an attempt to remove such references from the public arena.'' That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, especially since under our legal system the courts rule only on cases brought to them, and--unlike the political branches of the government--do not have complete control over their agenda. On balance, however, and for the reasons I have outlined, I am generally in agreement with the resolution, and so I will vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today my colleague Representative Sam Farr and I are introducing the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act. I thank my colleague for working so closely with me on this important bill. I also thank Senator Christopher Dodd for introducing a companion bill in the Senate and working with us every step of the way in this effort. I look forward to continuing communication between the House and Senate and with the Administration to ensure the product that emerges from the legislative process is one that has strong bipartisan support as well as the support of returned and current Peace Corps volunteers everywhere. 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. As Americans, we have never been more proud of our country, our freedoms, our democracy, our diversity. We know how fortunate we are to live in the United States. And yet we were sent a clear message on September 11th that we are not necessarily viewed abroad the way we view ourselves at home. Why is this so? More importantly, how can we change this? One way is to take multilateral action against terrorism, which we have done with the help of our allies in the months since 9-11. Another way is to continue to promote world peace and friendship through the people-to-people approach of the Peace Corps. For over forty years, Peace Corps volunteers around the world have taught English and other subjects to foreign students, worked with small farmers to increase harvests, taught local people how to monitor their environment, and raised community awareness of health issues, among other things. The Peace Corps is one of the most admired and successful initiatives ever put in place. But the Peace Corps's first director, Sargent Shriver, said in a speech at Yale last November that its founders made one mistake when they created the Peace Corps: They didn't go far enough or dream big enough. As he put it, ``Our present world cries out for a new Peace Corps--a vastly improved, expanded, and profoundly deeper enterprise. . . . Peace is much more than the mere absence of war. Peace requires the simple but powerful recognition that what we have in common as human beings is more important and crucial than what divides us.'' I think he was right. And the bill we are introducing today echoes that vision. The Peace Corps mission reflects the fact that with economic development and mutual understanding come greater opportunities for peace. And every small step we take to help and understand people in other countries has its own rewards. 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. More than 166,000 Americans have served in 135 countries over the past 40 years. Many more are prepared to serve; since the beginning of this year, requests for Peace Corps applications have increased by 77 percent. This is good news, as we are finally building solid support behind the idea of doubling the size--as well as the impact--of the Peace Corps. It was the Reagan Administration that first articulated the notion of expanding the size of Peace Corps to 10,000 volunteers. We're pleased that President Bush has embraced this important goal and has pledged to seek to double the size to 15,000 in five years. The bill we're introducing today builds on that concept and goes beyond it to propose a new post-9-11 ``Charter'' for the Peace Corps. 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. As Sargent Shriver stated in his November speech, we need a new world of peace. Today we join with the Administration in its call for an expanded and refocused Peace Corps that can take on the new challenges that September 11th has presented to us, a Peace Corps that can be ``a pragmatic and dramatic symbol of America's commitment to peace.'' I believe that passage of the Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century will help us head in this direction. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the House as we move forward with this vital legislation.