Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, not a day goes by without my hearing from a senior who is struggling to pay for prescription drugs. Recently a senior in the town of Westminister, Colorado, told me how she has to visit the food bank once a week so she can afford her prescription drugs. Another told me how she 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 she can afford to take the drugs that the doctor tells her she needs. Unfortunately, these women are not alone. Medicare only covers two- thirds of its enrollees. No senior should be faced with a choice of paying for food, paying the electrical bill, or buying critical lifesaving medicines. We have an obligation to our Nation's seniors to provide them with the lifesaving drugs that they need and deserve. Mr. Speaker, when we take up, and we need to take up a prescription drug bill next week, we must provide a Medicare drug benefit that is affordable and dependable, without gaps or gimmicks in coverage. Members of Congress, government employees, employees of major corporations have this kind of coverage today. It is time our seniors did, too.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise Matt Keyser, an engineer at the Center for Transportation Technologies and Systems, part of the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, based in Golden, Colorado. Matt was chosen as one of the world's 100 Top Young Innovators by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Magazine of Innovation, Technology Review. I have submitted for the Record an article about Matt from the Arvada Sentinel, a newspaper in Arvada, Colorado. I am proud that Matt hails from NREL, which is involved in such important work trying to secure for all Americans a clean energy future. I am proud of the example Matt has set for our young people, who need models like Matt to look to as they make choices about their own careers and futures. Most importantly, I thank Matt for his contributions to our environment and to this country. [From the Sentinel and Transcript Newspapers, June 7, 2002] National Magazine Names NREL Engineer Top Young Innovator (By Sabrina Henderson) An engineer in the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory Center for Transportation Technologies and Systems, Matt Keyser of Arvada, was chosen as one of the world's 100 Top Young Innovators by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Magazine of Innovation, Technology Review. Technology Review's top-100 list recognizes young innovators for their contributions in transforming the nature of technology in industries such as biotechnology, computing, energy, medicine, manufacturing, nanotechnology, telecommunications, and transportation. Keyser was honored May 23 during a conference and awards ceremony at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass. The event, called ``The Innovation Economy: How Technology is Transforming Existing Businesses and Creating New Ones,'' included a full day of conference sessions and panel discussions followed by an evening awards ceremony. Keyser has received two patents since 1992, with three more in the works. In 2001, he and co-workers were able to significantly extend the life of lead-acid batteries used in electric and hybrid vehicles by changing the charging technique. Conventional charging techniques cause lead-acid batteries to reach the end of their lives prematurely. But by employing a ``current interrupt'' technique, which includes turning the charging current on for a few seconds then off for a few seconds, the degradation of the battery plates is reduced. The current interrupt technique also allows the battery to cool between charges. Batteries charged this way last up to four times longer than batteries charged conventionally. Ford Motor Co. is testing the innovation in a prototype electric vehicle. In 1997, Keyser wrapped a catalytic converter with a vacuum insulator to keep it warm longer. The warmer converter reduced toxic tailpipe emissions 80 percent by eliminating the ``cold start'' problem of waiting for the catalytic converter to heat up. Auto parts supplier Benteler Industries is developing the device. Keyser said his selection for participation in the event with so many other innovators was a tremendous learning experience. ``It was a huge honor to be compared with people like Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster, and Bill Nguyen, who sold his company, One Box, for $850 million because it wasn't successful enough for him,'' Keyser said. ``Speaking with the other people there sparked a lot of ideas and interest in new fields.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce that Colorado is open for business! Recently, in great State of Colorado has been the focus of a lot attention because of the fires. However, the fires are burning only in one-percent of the state and much of our beautiful state has not been affected by fire. Many people associate Colorado with winter sports like skiing and snowboarding, but there is no where on Earth during the summertime like Colorado. Our state is home to fifty-three 14,000-foot peaks that are ready to be conquered, several creeks and rivers ripe for fishing or rafting, and numerous golf courses and mountain bike and hiking trails. Summer vacationers can take a ride on the Summer Ski Train to Winter Park. Music lovers can watch the sun set over the Rocky Mountains and take in the sounds of the National Repertory Orchestra in Breckenridge or at the Hot Summer Nights Concerts in Vail. Visit historic Central City and try your luck at one of the area's casinos. Or come to the River Run Annual Bluegrass and Beer Festival and Fiddle Contest and Bluegrass Concert in the Park Lane Pavilion at Keystone Resort. Sip on a tall cool one, grab a dance partner, marvel at the talents of the best fiddlers and watch the state's best lumberjacks compete for the title. And what would the Fourth of July be without the Greeley Independence Stampede, which is home to the largest Fourth of July Rodeo in the nation. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate all that the nation has done to assist us in fighting wildland fire. But there is nothing like a summer in Colorado. Colorado is open for business. Come one, come all and enjoy Colorful Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Richard McCray of the University of Colorado, who is one of six professors nationwide being recognized and rewarded with a National Science Foundation Director's Award for Distinguished Teaching Scholars. The NSF Director's Award honors individuals who have made outstanding contributions to research in their discipline as well as education of undergraduate students, including those who are not majoring in the sciences. It is the highest honor bestowed by the National Science Foundation for excellence in both teaching and research. In awarding this honor to Prof. McCray, the NSF selection committee commended him for his many innovative contributions in the area of teaching standards. In particular, the committee credited Prof. McCray's use of Web-based learning tools with transforming the way introductory astronomy is taught to large classes. Prof. McCray has been a member of the National Academy of Sciences since 1989, as well as a member of the Educational Advisory Board of the American Astronomical Society, and his many other accomplishments are too numerous to mention here. This award singles out Prof. McCray for his contributions to the University of Colorado, to the teaching profession, and to the overall enhancement of undergraduate education. He deserves to be proud of his efforts to strengthen the standard of excellence toward which our nation's professors and educational institutions strive.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, already this year is nearly half gone. But more than half our year's work remains undone--including consideration of the President's proposal to establish a new Department of Homeland Security. If we are to complete the year's work on time, we need to put every day to good use. But that's not what we are doing today. Instead, today the House is again considering a proposed constitutional amendment that was debated, and that failed of approval, just last year. I think that is a waste of time, especially since the proposal does not deserve to pass. I'm not a lawyer, but it's clear that the language of the proposal is an invitation to litigation--in other words, to getting the courts involved even further in the law-making process. To say that Congress can define when a constitutional requirement would apply, provided that the Congressional decision is ``reasonable,'' is to ask for lawsuits challenging whatever definition might be adopted. Aren't there enough lawsuits already over the tax laws? Do we need to invite more? But more important than the technical aspects of this proposal, I think it is bad because it moves away from the basic principle of democracy--majority rule. Under this proposal, there would be another category of bills that would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. That's bad enough as it applies here in the House, but consider what that means in the Senate. There, if any 34 Senators are opposed to something that take a two-thirds vote, it cannot be passed. And, of course, each state has the same representation regardless of population. Consider what that means if the Senators in opposition are those from the 17 States with the fewest residents. Looking at the results of the most recent census, the total population of the 17 least-populous states is about 21 million people. That's a respectable number, but remember that the population of the country is more than 280 million. So, what this resolution would do would be to give Senators representing about 7 percent of the American people the power to block some kinds of legislation--even if that legislation has sweeping support in the rest of the country, even if it had passed the House by an overwhelming margin, and even if it was responding to an urgent national need. Right now, that kind of supermajority is needed under the constitution to ratify treaties, propose Constitutional amendments, and to do a few other things. But this resolution does not deal with things of that kind. It deals only with certain tax bills--bills that under the constitution have to originate here, in the House. Those are the bills that would be covered by this increase in the power of Senators who could represent such a very small minority of the American people. Why would we want to do that? Are the proponents of this constitutional amendment so afraid of majority rule? Why else would they be so eager to reduce the stature of this body, the House of Representatives, as compared with our colleagues in the Senate? Remember, that's what this is all about--``internal revenue,'' however that term might be defined by Congress or by the courts. When Congress debates taxes, it is deciding what funds are to be raised under Congress's Constitutional authority to ``pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.'' Those are serious and important decisions, to be sure, but what is wrong with continuing to have them made under the principle of majority rule--meaning by the members of Congress who represent the majority of the American people? So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this proposed change in the Constitution. Our country has gotten along well without it for two centuries. It is not needed. It would not solve any problem--in fact, it probably would create new ones--and it would weaken the basic principle of democratic government, majority rule. It should not be approved.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the city of Westminster, Colorado. This outstanding community was recently recognized at the 40th Annual Excellence in Government Awards Program hosted by the Denver Federal Executive Board as the recipient of the Distinguished Local Government Award. Westminster, in the Congressional District I am proud to represent, has used the concept of ``Improvement through Cooperation'' as it strives to improve local services through a series of innovative intergovernmental cooperative agreements with local, state and federal government partners. The City has taken a leadership role in providing strong, representative management on complex issues that affect citizens living in Westminster and surrounding communities. Westminster led the way in 1980, bringing the cities of Thornton and Northglenn and other stakeholders to set up a water-monitoring program that led to The Clear Creek Watershed Management Agreement in 1994. Over a period of 20 years the original agreement has been expanded to more than 23 entities that benefit from this successful watershed-monitoring program. Water quality has been improved and enhanced and many ancillary groups help in the sampling efforts, sample collection and quality assurance. In 1986 Westminster negotiated a first of its kind Intergovernmental agreement with the city of Thornton to address the development of the Interstate 25 corridor to make a commitment to study and plan for orderly growth and development. The goal was to simplify governmental structure and reduce and avoid friction between the two cities. This groundbreaking agreement crafted a joint land use plan, established annexation and service areas and revenue sharing. In 1997, Westminster led the way again by taking the leadership on a second intergovernmental agreement with the cities of Broomfield and Thornton to study additional highway interchanges on Interstate 25 as the traffic impacts continued to grow. New intergovernmental agreements were signed, original agreements were amended to meet current needs and the citizens of these communities have highway corridors that are designed to address traffic demands. Water rights and water quality are concerns for every western city. In a state with limited supplies and an expanding population, carefully negotiated water agreements are critical to limiting legal disputes and preserving financial resources. Fourteen years ago, Westminster provided regional leadership when it signed the Clear Creek Water Quality Agreement with three neighboring cities and the Coors Brewing Company. Citizens have cleaner, more abundant supplies of water and can be proud of the sophisticated legal agreement that has served the partnership for more than a decade. Regional parks, libraries and recreation facilities have all been enhanced by cooperative agreements with neighboring cities and educational institutions. Strong intergovernmental agreements expand services for local residents in several communities. New golf courses, fitness centers, ice skating arenas and parks with campsites, hiking trails, campgrounds and water recreation all provide exceptional leisure time activities. On a personal note, I have, on my own, ``adopted'' a section of the Dry Creek open space in Westminster as a way to help maintain the quality of life and the environment of this community. Through these efforts, along with many volunteers, I have witnessed firsthand the pride that the citizens of this city have for their community and its environment. This dedication has also been manifest in the City's extensive oversight of the cleanup of the Rocky Flats facility, a former nuclear weapons production facility that exists just west of Westminster. The City was one of the first to suggest that this site be converted into a national wildlife refuge once it is cleaned and closed. Westminster continues to find innovative ways to partner with private corporations, sister communities, public officials and local citizens to bring a superior quality of life to its residents. I applaud Westminster for the outstanding examples of cooperative agreements that have been instituted and look forward to their continued success on behalf of the Coloradans they serve.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an American hero. Sergeant First Class Daniel Romero was killed while diffusing ordinance in Afghanistan on April 15, 2002. A member of the Colorado National Guard from Lafayette, Colorado, Daniel was called to active duty following the September 11 attacks against our country. A ten-year veteran of the National Guard, Daniel was a communications specialist in the Special Forces. He also attended jump school, language school, and paramedic school. Daniel received the highest praise from his fellow soldiers including his Master Sergeant, who said, ``I always rode him hard and every time he stepped up to the plate.'' He was sent with his unit to Afghanistan as a paramedic coordinator and ended up mastering a new communications system that had confused the rest of the unit. Daniel's versatility was just one of the traits that made him a model soldier. Like so many of our brave men and women, Daniel left his home to defend his country. He left behind his parents Michael and Geralyn, his two sisters Stephanie and Gabrielle, and his new wife Stephanie Wendorf. To them, our humble nation thanks them and praises them, for they have paid the ultimate price in the name of freedom. Mr. Speaker, as we are engaged in this battle to free the world from terror, I am sure that every one of my colleagues will join me in saluting Sergeant First Class Daniel Romero. His dedication and devotion to his family, his unit, and his country can serve as an example to all Americans. He is a symbol of the values that makes America great and is a testament to the spirit that will see this country through even these troubled times.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Lao-Hmong American Coalition to thank my colleagues in both the House and Senate for their unanimous vote in favor of a National Lao-Hmong Recognition Day. Mr. Yang Chee, president of the Lao-Hmong American Coalition, has asked me to relay his own deep gratitude to the United States Congress for passing this historic proclamation. During the Vietnam War, the Lao-Hmong people were one of this country's most loyal allies. They fought alongside U.S. soldiers against the communists and the North Vietnamese, sacrificing their lives for freedom and democracy. Many of these brave people now call the United States their home, becoming an integral part of American society. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Chee and all of the Lao-Hmong people for their dedication to this country and its ideals. Mr. Speaker, the resolution proclaiming National Lao-Hmong Recognition Day was passed unanimously through both houses of Congress. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their support, and it is my hope that President Bush will join us in expressing the gratitude of this nation to the Lao-Hmong people. This long-overdue day of recognition will take place in July. May it promote a sense of understanding and appreciation for the sacrifices made in the name of freedom and democracy. I urge all Americans to take a moment on this day to thank our brave and loyal friends, the Lao- Hmong.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding history program in Colorado and throughout the United States. National History Day is a year-long nonprofit program through which students in grades 6-12 research and create historical projects related to a broad theme, culminating in an annual contest. This year's National History Day theme, ``Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History,'' encompasses endless possibilities for exploration. Each year more than 700,000 students participate in this nationwide event that encourages students to delve into various facets of world, national, regional, or local history and to produce original research projects. By encouraging young Coloradoans to take advantage of the wealth of primary historical resources available to them, students are able to gain a richer understanding of historical issues, ideas, people and events. Students in this program learn how to analyze a variety of primary sources such as photographs, letters, posters, maps, artifacts, sound recordings and motion pictures. This significant academic exercise encourages intellectual growth while helping students to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills that will help them manage and use information. I want to congratulate the outstanding accomplishments of the following students that will represent Colorado at the National History Day national contest, June 9-13 at the University of Maryland: Barbara Bragaglia, Darcy Evans, James Norton, Megan Fong, Emily Gu, Lili Mundle and Masha Godina. Their respective teachers also deserve our respect today. They have proven that excellent teaching must go beyond the 8 to 3 school day. Leigh Campbell-Hale of Fairview High School and Andy Aiken of Boulder High School are fine examples of the best in the teaching profession. Their encouragement and dedication has encouraged these students to strive to excellence and be successful in their endeavors. I would also like to thank Nancy Brown, State Coordinator of Colorado History Day, for all her hard work on behalf of these students. These impressive students represent educational excellence in America. Every student in Colorado should have the opportunity to participate in this enriching experience. I commend the coordinator of our state program and the Department of History at the University of Colorado at Boulder for their commitment to expanding History Day in Colorado. The National History Day program is truly a great asset to Colorado educators for instilling academic curiosity in our youth.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elizabeth H. Richardson, a citizen of Colorado, who for the past 38 years has been a vital member of our State's political, educational and social fabric. Elizabeth has recently retired from Colorado Open Lands, where she served with distinction for the past ten years, working to preserve Colorado's open space for future generations. Her commitment to Colorado's environment continues today with her service on the Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts. Elizabeth has also served on the Board of Thorne Ecological Institute and was a member of the Denver Chamber of Commerce's Energy Legislation Task Force. Her interest in public lands and open space was also enhanced by her service as a director on the Colorado Open Space Council. It is through these outstanding commitments to Colorado's environment and her devotion to the protection of our Western lands that Elizabeth has set a shining example for all who choose to serve their country and their communities. A native of Massachusetts, Elizabeth graduated from Radcliffe College and completed graduate studies at the University of Southern California and the University of Denver, as well as studying ecology at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Elizabeth came to Colorado in 1963 where she quickly became a political force to be dealt with. A member of The League of Women Voters since 1963, she has chaired their Environment Committee, served as the League's Metro Denver President, and lobbied on environmental and transportation issues at the Colorado State Legislature. Colorado's public servants have also benefited from Elizabeth's commitment to their campaigns and staffs. She has served as a House District captain for more than 20 years, was a county campaign coordinator for Democratic National Committeeman Ray Kogovsek, served on the transition committee for Governor-elect Richard D. Lamm, has been a campaign manager for Denver City Council member Doug Linkhart, served as the Issues Coordinator for Josie Heath for U.S. Senate, has been the treasurer of Colorado House of Representatives member Andrew Romanoff, and served on the senior policy staff of Governor Richard D. Lamm. Elizabeth also was twice a candidate for the Colorado House of Representatives, in 1976 and 1980. Her commitment to lifelong learning and teaching began in 1959 when she was an assistant biology teacher in Australia and continued as a drama teacher in Concord, Massachusetts in the early 1960's. She has since served on the Denver Public Library Friends Foundation and has been a steadfast member of the Simon's Rock College of Bard Board of Directors for more than a decade. Elizabeth's passion for learning continues today with her 20 years of leadership on the Board of the Rocky Mountain Women's Institute, guiding this outstanding regional organization which supports and promotes women artists, writers and scholars. A writer, a reader, a teacher, a community activist, a proud mother and grandmother, an adventurer and world traveler, but most importantly, a role model for us all. Colorado--its lands, its schools, its public servants and its citizens--owe Elizabeth Hall Richardson gratitude and appreciation for her dedicated service. I wish her well in her future endeavors as I am sure she will continue to improve the quality of life in Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the District Director of the Small Business Administration, SBA, in Colorado, Patricia Barela Rivera. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said that the true measure of a person's character is how they handle themselves in times of adversity. By this gauge, Patricia Barela Rivera's character is worthy of our admiration. Ms. Barela Rivera certainly knows a great deal about overcoming adversity, shrugging off disappointment and competing against unfavorable odds. She built a successful business in Colorado when Latina entrepreneurs were few and far between. She volunteered countless hours on behalf of minority non-profits, and eventually became the Director of the Governor's Advocate Corps in Colorado, where she swiftly built a reputation for inspirational management and was recognized as a leading voice on behalf of diversity in the Romer administration. Tragically, just weeks ago, Ms. Rivera's condominium burned down just days before the SBA's biggest event of the year. Ms. Rivera lost her home and all of her possessions. This kind of blow would level many, but not Patricia Barela Rivera. She picked herself up, bought something to wear, attended the event and served gracefully as the Master of Ceremonies. That kind of dedication is worth our attention. At a time when many question the determination and quality of public servants, I find Ms. Barela Rivera's example inspiring. Reflecting on the fire, she reasserted her belief that ``everything happens for a reason and eventually shows itself to be something good''. On her choice of attending the event in the midst of her personal chaos she said simply, ``I had to be here. It's about strength. It's about surviving when we have devastation in our lives.'' Particia Barela Rivera, or ``PBR'' as she is affectionately known to her friends, is clearly a dedicated public servant. She also is a remarkable human being. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Barela Rivera.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support reform of the estate tax--that is why I voted for the substitute. But I do not support repeal of the estate tax--and so I cannot vote for this bill as it stands. 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 am cosponsoring the bill to make permanent the elimination of the ``marriage penalty'' and why this week I voted to make permanent the provisions of last year's bill related to the adoption credit and the exclusion from tax of restitution 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 particular important for Coloradans who want to 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 by enacting this bill, and the substitute would have done that. That alternative would have provided real, effective relief without the excesses of the Republican bill. It would have raised the estate tax's special exclusion to $3 million for each and every person's estate--meaning to $6 million for a couple--and would have done so immediately. So, 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 1 of next year--not in 2011, like the bill before us--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 more 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 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. This bill would exempt repeal of the estate tax from the general sunset provisions. It 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--the time 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 10 years have disappeared--because of the combination of the recession, the cost of fighting terrorism and paying for homeland defense, and the enactment of last year's tax legislation. And now the proposal is to 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, this bill does nothing to correct one of the worst aspects of the estate-tax provisions in last year's bill--the hidden tax increases 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 in taxes. That cries out for reform, but this bill does not provide it. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the evident determination of the Republican leadership to insist on bringing this bill forward. Just as they did last year, they have rejected any attempt to shape a 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 bill does not meet that test, and I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Lao-Hmong American Coalition to thank my colleagues in both the House and Senate for their unanimous vote in favor of a National Lao-Hmong Recognition Day. Mr. Yang Chee, president of the Lao-Hmong American Coalition, has asked me to relay his own deep gratitude to the United States Congress for passing this historic proclamation. During the Vietnam War, the Lao-Hmong people were one of this country's most loyal allies. They fought alongside U.S. soldiers against the communists and the North Vietnamese, sacrificing their lives for freedom and democracy. Many of these brave people now call this country their home, becoming an integral part of American society. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Chee and all of the Lao-Hmong people for their dedication to this country and its ideals. Mr. Speaker, the resolution proclaiming National Lao-Hmong Recognition Day was passed unanimously through both Houses of Congress. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their support, and it is my hope that President Bush will join us in expressing the gratitude of this nation to the Lao-Hmong people. This long-overdue day of recognition will take place in July. May it promote a sense of understanding and appreciation for the sacrifices made in the name of freedom and democracy. I urge all Americans to take a moment on this day to thank our brave and loyal friends, the Lao- Hmong.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4664, I rise in support of this important bill that will put the National Science Foundation on a track to double its budget in five years. I thank Chairman Boehlert and my colleagues in the Science Committee for their hard work on this bill. I think we all recognize that investing in basic research is critical for a strong economy and national security. In the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported it. Despite this fact, over the last two decades Federal investment in R&D has fallen by one- third as a share of the GDP. This bill will help put us on the right track. Federal investment in science underpins our global competitiveness and our prosperity. NSF- funded research made possible the discovery of the ``ozone hole,'' developed the first Web browser, advanced the field of molecular genetics, and funded much of the early research leading to the development of speech activation and recognition technology. Less directly but no less importantly, NSF is often the major source of support for education and training of Ph.D. scientists and engineers, many of whom have gone on to make major private-sector contributions in the development of cell phones, fiber optics, and computer assisted design. NSF provides fully 23% of total Federal support for university research--or nearly half excluding NIH sponsored biomedical research. From sources such as former science advisor to the first President Bush, Allen Bromley, and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security, we hear that Federal funding for research is a necessary precondition for continued economic success and security in our high technology economy. I think former Speaker Newt Gingrich said in best in a 1999 Washington Post op-ed. He wrote that ``Out of our sense of patriotism and our own enlightened self-interest, we should . . . insist that Federal investment in scientific research be doubled over the next five years. . . . Anything less will weaken the future for all of us.'' Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I urge support of this important bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill. In 1996, Congress passed a largely successful welfare reform bill that gave states much more flexibility to manage their own welfare assistance programs as they saw fit. This approach has significantly reduced the number of people who need welfare and put many impoverished people into jobs that have brought their standard of living above the poverty level. Still, there is more that needs to be done. The 1996 law has helped move people from welfare to work. But it has not had similar success in helping people escape poverty--and there is no reason anyone should live in poverty in the most prosperous country in the world. And some important things have changed since 1996--right now, our economy is struggling to recover, many businesses have had to lay people off, and other firms even have had to shut down. So, as we consider whether to renew or revise the 1996 law, we have both important opportunities and serious challenges. But this Republican Welfare reform bill does not rise to the occasion. Their bill would penalize--not assist--people who are trying to escape poverty. Their bill takes away the flexibility states have had to develop their own programs. It discriminates against legal immigrants. It doesn't provide enough funding for childcare. It doubles the number of work hours required for mothers with children under the age of six and provides a new ``superwaiver'' authority to the President to waiver almost any Federal requirement in food stamps and housing. In short, its most important effect would be to make things worse, not better for millions of people--something I cannot support. And that's not all--the Republican bill would make it harder for the States as well. It has been estimated that this bill dictates up to $11 billion in unfunded mandates. In fact, I have seen estimates that my own state of Colorado might have to pony up an extra $84 million to pay for Federal mandates. I very much regret that the Republican leadership has insisted on depriving the House of the opportunity to pass a better bill. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, contained many provisions focused on moving welfare recipients into real, wage-paying jobs. It would have provided the states with the discretion to determine the best mix of activities needed to move recipients toward selfsufficiency. It would have restored the option of states to provide assistance to legal immigrant families with Federal Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) funds and eliminated the current ban on providing Medicaid to legal immigrant pregnant women and children. It would have provided an additional $11 billion for mandatory child care funding over the next five years and would have increased access to education and training for welfare recipients. And, that substitute did not include the new ``superwaiver'' authority that the Republican bill gives to the President--a nearly unbounded authority that I think is excessive. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped it would be possible for me to support balanced, bipartisan legislation to build on and broaden the success of the 1996 welfare reform law. In particular, I had hoped that the House would have the Opportunity to shape a new law that would do more than just get people off welfare roles, but instead would make it more likely that we could achieve the goal of ending poverty. Unfortunately, this bill does not come near to that, and I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Joanne Ditmer on being awarded the prestigious Dana Crawford Award for Excellence in Historic Preservation. The award is named after Dana Crawford who has been a pioneer in historic preservation since the 1960s. I join all Coloradans today in thanking Ms. Ditmer for her many invaluable contributions to historic preservation in our state. Joanne Ditmer is a salient example of the power of the written word. Since her colunm, ``Raising the Roof'' began appearing in The Denver Post in 1962, Joanne Ditmer has used that forum to highlight the importance of preserving Colorado's history for future generations. Without question, she has been an integral part in raising awareness about conservation and preservation-related causes. For over 40 years, the general public and elected officials alike have turned to Ms. Ditmer's column as a gauge for Colorado's conservation climate. She is a respected columnist and a tireless advocate for preserving our unique Colorado history. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Ditmer on receiving the Dana Crawford Award for Excellence in Historic Preservation. Her accomplishments in preserving Colorado heritage are invaluable, and I wish her good health and happiness in the future. Provided here is an example of her passion and prose on preservation, from the Denver Post. Bringing Life to Old Structures (By Joanne Ditmer) Sunday, May 19, 2002.--Historic preservation was born in the Battle of the Bulldozer. The wrecking ball was a demolition derby against buildings of Colorado's past, as horrified citizens struggled to keep the historic structures that define a community's soul and spirit. Three decades later, it's Brains over Brawn. Savvy people craft increasingly ingenious new ways to save and give new life to distinctive old buildings. These memories particularly surface in May, National Historic Preservation Month. In Denver and other communities, the sense of place and unique character is shown in historic structures. The impact of preservation goes far beyond saving old buildings. It's the immediacy and liveliness of the efforts. In Colorado, the Historic Gaming Fund, with money from proceeds in the three gambling towns, is inspiring imaginative solutions. And Colorado Preservation Inc.'s annual list of Endangered Places brings new attention to significant structures that are endangered. Among the continuing efforts: When Historic Denver undertook saving the Paramount Theatre in 1978 and formed a separate foundation to continue the work, it saved the last of Denver's opulent downtown movie palaces. Years later, when a bank called a loan, HD couldn't immediately repay. Ownership went to a private individual and another non-profit foundation was formed. Now there are two petitions on the street: One would prohibit any new theater of more than 5,000 seats--presumably aimed at the tent theater by the Pepsi Center--and another, possibly retaliatory petition demanding that the Paramount owner put in $600,000 of improvements. A pox on both. Handsome church buildings are the most memorable landmarks of a neighborhood, but when older areas change and church members move to the suburbs, the support dries up. Faith Action was formed by Historic Denver and others to help find funds and uses for 30 of the most threatened churches, the majority of them more than 100 years old. Look down the 16th Street Mall toward Highlands, and you'll see the beautiful 1890 Asbury Church. A new congregation numbers only a couple dozen, and can't afford upkeep. Some practical help came from Ron Judish, who moved his contemporary art gallery to the lower floor. The Masons have given Denver some marvelous buildings, but these, too, face problems. The wonderful El Jebel at 1770 Sherman St., with its absolutely amazing interior spaces, has been endangered in recent years. Current hopes lie with the new owners, who are working to support the building through special events--parties, weddings, etc.--and through a high- rise condominium building to be constructed next door on the parking lot. Preservation efforts of schools are among the most optimistic. Historic Denver and Denver Public Schools formed a partnership program, with a community committee finding 56 school buildings eligible for landmark designation. The City Council has designated 23 schools so far. In each school, students in second to 12th grades do the research on the history and architecture, and present the nomination. Some 500 kids have been involved, making scrapbooks, videos and school models. That's certainly bringing new life to old buildings.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important and continuing contributions that Colorado Preservation, Inc. has made to historic and archeological preservation in Colorado. Too often our communities can lose their history in pieces, not realizing until it is gone just what they have lost. Colorado Preservation, Inc. works to keep that from happening in our state. And it is very appropriate to recognize their many contributions in May, because that is officially Colorado Archeology and Historic Preservation Month. Colorado has become a world-class destination for people around the country and around the world who come here to visit and often to make our state their new home. With them they bring many diverse cultural heritages. We welcome this diversity with open arms--and, at the same time, we recognize the importance of preserving the things that have shaped our history and that are uniquely Coloradan. It becomes ever more critical that we take care to ensure the survival of our historic buildings and archaeological sites. We have to honor the cultures of people who no longer live among us, the buildings of our heritage even if they have outlived their original purpose, and landmarks of our history even if they are painful. Colorado Preservation, Inc. has worked tirelessly to ensure these important cornerstones of our history remain available for generations to come. Here are some examples: At Camp Apache in Granada thousands of Japanese Americans were exiled during WWII for fear of espionage. This site should be preserved as an important reminder of our nation's tragic internment history. The Shield Rock Art Site in Rio Blanco County dates back to 1200 AD. This site contains some of the oldest Native American pictographs and petroglyphs in Colorado. The Bradford Perley House in Jefferson County is one of the more impressive historic buildings in our state. The sandstone mansion was once a Civil War recruiting station. Colorado Preservation, Inc. hopes to use the site to educate young people about its unique place in Colorado history and is working to raise funds for an archeological study and master plan to preserve the site for the most optimal future use. As Colorado Preservation, Inc. often says, ``it is vital that we remember the future by preserving the past.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in thanking Colorado Preservation, Inc. for all of the good and important work they do for Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill dealing with the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats, a Department of Energy (DOE) site just 15 miles from downtown Denver, Colorado. Rocky Flats once produced vital components of nuclear weapons. But now production there has ended, and the site is being cleaned up and readied for closure--after which, under legislation enacted last year, it will become a National Wildlife Refuge. Cleanup at Rocky Flats is proceeding under a plan agreed to by DOE, EPA, and the State of Colorado. DOE's goal is to complete cleanup and close the site on or before December 15, 2006. Closure of Rocky Flats will mean increased greater safety for Coloradans. But it will also mean reduced demands for funds for security and maintenance of the site as well as for cleanup work. And that can make additional funds available to meet the needs of other nuclear-weapons sites, including sites in Washington, Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, New Mexico, and other States. As a crucial part of the cleanup, DOE intends to relocate several tons of plutonium and other radioactive materials from Rocky Flats. The previous Administration planned to ship the plutonium to the Savannah River site, in South Carolina. There, some of it was to be used to create mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for commercial nuclear reactors and some was to be immobilized for disposal elsewhere. This plan was developed to implement an international agreement under which both the United States and Russia agreed to reduce stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium, This is an important part of our efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, which of course is so vital an aspect of our foreign and defense policies. It is also important to our national security to consolidate this surplus plutonium in one location so that it can be effectively guarded and efficiently managed--and since Rocky Flats is slated for closure, it does not make sense to keep the plutonium there. However, the Bush Administration now has adopted a new plutonium- disposition strategy that does not include immobilization. In turn, that has prompted the Governor of South Carolina to raise objections to having plutonium shipped to that State. The Governor has gone into federal court to prevent that from happening--and as a result, shipments of plutonium from Rocky Flats have been delayed. Other legislation has been introduced that addresses issues raised in that lawsuit, and the bill I am introducing today does not focus on them--it focuses only on the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats. That is because while Coloradans may differ about some things, we all agree that a prompt and effective cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats site is a matter of highest priority for our state--and we are all concerned that the shipments of plutonium, originally scheduled to begin last fall, are not yet underway. We are worried that unless those shipments begin soon the DOE will be unable to achieve its goal of completing the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats by 2006. That is why I was disappointed last week when the House's Republican leadership refused to even allow consideration of including in the defense authorization bill a simple statement of the importance of a timely cleanup. That is why I think it is now essential to act to protect Colorado's interests in case DOE does not soon overcome obstacles to removal of the Rocky Flats plutonium. And that is the purpose of the bill I am introducing today. The bill is intended to make it more likely that DOE will have the ability and the incentive to meet the 2006 cleanup goal. It provides that if shipments of the Rocky Flats plutonium under the current disposition plan have not begun by July 1 of this year, DOE will be required to examine alternative plans and to report on those alternatives within 6 months. And if shipments have not been completed by November 1 of next year, as called for in current cleanup plans, DOE would be required to compensate Colorado at the rate of $1 million per day--up to $100 million per year--until all the Rocky Flats plutonium has been removed. These deadlines were not selected arbitrarily. It is essential that the plutonium now stored at Rocky Flats be removed by the fall of next year so DOE can accomplish other essential cleanup work that must be done in order to achieve a 2006 closure. If the plutonium stays at Rocky Flats too long, DOE runs the risk of missing other cleanup and closure milestones and of failing to live up to its commitments to Colorado. That is also why there is an immediate need to explore other alternative locations to which the plutonium can be sent. DOE did look at other alternatives before selecting the South Carolina site, so I think a new examination of alternatives would not take very long, but it must be done soon for DOE to stay on schedule at Rocky Flats. Admittedly, this is strong medicine. But I think strong medicine is required in this case, because this is a matter of such great importance to the country and particularly to Colorado. In drafting this bill, I cannot claim great originality. The requirement for a consideration of alternatives is based on legislation that Senator Wayne Allard, Colorado's junior Senator has proposed, and the idea of a $1 million-per-day incentive is based on legislation introduced by our colleague, Representative Lindsey Graham to protect the interests of South Carolina. My purpose in shaping this proposal was not to be innovative, but to develop legislation that would protect Colorado's interests and advance the national interest in reducing our stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium. Mr. Speaker, I have supported DOE's efforts to achieve an effective cleanup of Rocky Flats, closure of the site, and its transformation into a National Wildlife Refuge before the end of 2006. I have done so because I have considered that to be in the national interest as well as the interests of all Coloradans--and of that I am still convinced. The bill I am introducing today reflects my continuing determination to do all I can to see that DOE will continue to press forward to achieve those goals.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and honor the following young people. Hayley Cook, Emilie Hanson, Ryan Johnson, Courtney Lee, Beth Smulow, Lydon Wilkenson, Tim Bennhoff, Heather Grimm, Willie Arnold, Colin Hale, Cameron Marlin, Kristin Bonk, Ashley Gilbert, Paul White, Julie North, Linnea Pearson and Chris Wilson. These students, from Clear Creek High School, recently competed in the national ``We the People'' competition in Washington, DC. This exceptional group of students, along with their coach, Mr. Bob Warmack, worked aggressively throughout the year studying the U.S. Constitution, the intent of the framers of the Constitution, the origins and intent behind the Bill of Rights and the role of citizenship in our democracy. After winning the state competition in Colorado in December 2001, this team set their sights on the national competition in Washington, DC. They spent countless hours preparing their presentations, debating the issues and practicing their speeches. Each student was responsible for a brief statement and had to be prepared to answer questions from the judges. As a result of their intensive studies, these students acquired a very high level of proficiency on the subject of the U.S. Constitution, American history and federal case law. I have no doubt that they will use this knowledge to participate more fully in the civic life of their communities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or several of them eventually serve in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank these young people and Mr. Warmack for taking such a strong interest in their government. I congratulate them on finishing in the top ten in the nation at the ``We the People'' competition. I am both honored and proud to have such excellent young minds in the 2nd Congressional District.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on May 1, I attended a ceremony in the White House at which the Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously to Captain Jon Swanson, who was killed during the war in Vietnam. As a result, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 120, on the Sanders of Vermont amendment to H.R. 2871, a bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that amendment. Also, on Tuesday, May 7, I was in Colorado for a ceremony marking the return to the United States of the remains of Daniel Aaron Romero, a Colorado Army National Guard sergeant serving with the 19th Special Forces Group. Sergeant Romero was killed April 15 when an accidental explosion rocked a demolition range in Kandahar, Afghanistan. As a result, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 127, on the bill designating the Federal Building located at 5100 Paint Branch Parkway in College Park, MD, as the Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question. For the same reason, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 128, on the concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the national importance of Health Care Coverage Month. Had I been present for that vote, I would have voted ``yea.'' For the same reason, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 129, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 414, the rule dealing with H.J. Res. 84. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that rollcall. And, for the same reason, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 130, on H. Res. 414, the rule dealing with H.J. Res. 84. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on adoption of that resolution. Also, for the same reason, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 131, on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that motion.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, after careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot support this resolution. The resolution would approve the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a high-level nuclear waste repository. This is the site with which the Governor of Nevada has submitted a notice of disapproval under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. Congressional approval of the joint resolution would override the governor's objections and would endorse the decision of the President approving the site. Under the law, the Energy Department would then be required to request the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a construction license for the repository. In my opinion, to vote for the resolution would mean voting to make a premature decision, based on incomplete science and without adequate consideration of all the important factors involved. I do not think that would be a responsible course or in the public interest. The President's decision evidently was based on the recommendation of Energy Secretary Abraham, who said that he was convinced that sound science supports the Yucca Mountain site. In reaching that conclusion the Secretary evidently relied on the Energy Department's comprehensive performance assessment. However, in recent months three other agencies have issued reports that cast serious doubt on that conclusion. Last September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste reported that, among other things, the system-performance assessment used assumptions that ``mask a realistic assessment of risk'' and that its analyses were ``assumption-based, not evidence-supported.'' Then, in December, the General Accounting Office identified more than 290 relevant issues, including such matters as the geologic integrity of the site and the flow of water through the site, and concluded that ``DOE will not be able to submit an acceptable application [to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission] within the express statutory time frame for several years because it will take that long to resolve many technical issues.'' In January of this year, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board reported that it had ``limited confidence in current performance estimates'' underlying the Energy Department's recommendation and that it considered the technical bases for those estimates to be ``weak to moderate''--far from a ringing endorsement, especially for a project of such scope and importance. Those are not the only analyses that give me pause. Another appeared just last month in a Science magazine article by Rodney C. Ewing, a faculty member at the University of Michigan, and Allison McFarlane, who is in the Security Studies Program at MIT. In the article, Dr. Ewing and Dr. McFarlane note that ``the passive properties of the [Yucca Mountain] repository site do not provide a long-term barrier to radionuclide release.'' That means there will be a need to rely on other things--engineering fixes--to prevent such releases. They say that the choice of Yucca Mountain as a repository site ``is based on an unsound engineering strategy and poor use of present understanding of the properties of spent nuclear fuel,'' and that ``there are other unresolved technical issues,'' including ``the continuing controversy over the frequency and impact of volcanic activity'' at Yucca Mountain. And they conclude that ``a project of this importance, which has gone on for 20 years, should not go forward until the relevant scientific issues have been thoughtfully addressed . . . To move ahead without first addressing the outstanding scientific issues will only continue to marginalize the role of science and detract from the credibility of the DOE effort.'' I agree with that conclusion, which is why I am troubled by what seems to be a rush to judgment on the part of the Administration. I do think that there are very important considerations that argue in favor of establishing a repository for the kind of high-level nuclear wastes that are at issue here, particularly the potential role of such a repository for disposition of military wastes such as spent fuel from our Navy's nuclear-powered vessels and in connection with our efforts to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, I think questions about Yucca Mountain in the context of homeland security are not clear-cut. On the one hand, the Administration points to the fact that more than 161 million Americans now live within 75 miles of a site where highly radioactive materials are stored and that while these facilities ``should be able to withstand current terrorist threats . . . that may not remain the case in the future,'' as Secretary Abraham wrote in his February 14th letter to the President, and would be ``better secured . . . at Yucca Mountain, on federal land, far from population centers, that can withstand an attack well beyond any that is reasonably conceivable.'' On the other hand, there is something to be said for the argument that transporting large quantities of such materials over long distances would multiply the current opportunities for terrorist attacks because the vehicles doing the transporting would be attractive targets that could not always be totally concealed. Further, I am not convinced that the Administration has adequately made the case that Yucca Mountain is the right site for such a repository or that ``a repository at Yucca Mountain is indispensable'' for our energy security, as Secretary Abraham also claims in his February 14th letter to the President. So, as things now stand, I am not persuaded that the case has been made for selection of the Yucca Mountain site, and I therefore am not ready to override the Governor's objections by voting for this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of the most important measures that the House will consider this year. It is intended to set out our vision for the defense of our country in the years ahead--both in terms of policy direction and spending priorities. Unfortunately, the vision this bill puts forth is not one I can endorse, and so I cannot vote for it. There is no doubt that September 11th changed the way we view our national defense. There is no doubt that more than ever, we must focus on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our military personnel, and we must give our military the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world. Like all of my colleagues, I remain steadfastly committed to our fight against terrorism. And yet, as this nation faces the most difficult threat it has faced in decades, I believe it is essential that we understand how our defense capabilities need to change to reflect new 21st century threats. I believe Secretary Rumsfeld is trying to refocus and reprioritize our defense programs along those lines, but clearly he isn't being assisted by some of our colleagues here in the House, who seem content to address new threats with Cold War-era technologies. So my first objection to this bill is that although it funds defense programs at their highest levels since 1966, it doesn't present a coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities. We need to make clear decisions about our defense spending, and this bill doesn't begin to consider the choices that must be made. I have other objections to the bill. It includes provisions concerning the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, matters within the jurisdiction of other Committees, including the Resources Committee, but which that Committee had no opportunity to consider. There is broad-based support for existing environmental laws--as there should be--and these laws already allow case-by-case flexibility to protect national security. I find it simply unacceptable that neither our Committee nor the full House will have the opportunity to consider whether the changes that would be made by this bill are necessary or appropriate. The bill also includes an entire title--Title XIV--that not only includes provisions dealt with in a bill referred to the Resources Committee, but also goes further to include matters within our Committee's exclusive jurisdiction. Many Armed Services Committee members themselves have said this was ``a procedural foul,'' but once again the Rules Committee has made it impossible for the House to consider changes. That is another reason I must oppose the bill. I am also concerned that the bill endorses the President's recent review of the U.S. nuclear posture. That review includes some troubling provisions, such as the one to increase the speed at which nuclear testing could resume if needed. Another provision would reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 weapons, but without destroying the weapons removed. I worry that simply storing weapons would encourage a similar move in Russia, where the government's control over its nuclear stockpile is considered less than secure. I also worry that the bill includes a minimum requirement of operationally deployed weapons at 1,700, which would not give the president flexibility in his current negotiations with Russia. The bill would also urge the Administration to develop nuclear earth- penetrating weapons and nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptors. I believe we must be extremely cautious before we consider expanding applications of nuclear use. We all agree on the need to maintain the deterrent capability of our nuclear forces, but I fear the language in this bill could begin to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons and thus increase the likelihood of nuclear use. Finally, I am concerned that this bill would give the Pentagon's National Missile Agency exemptions from regulations for controlling and monitoring new weapons programs. Giving the Pentagon this exemption effectively eliminates the checks and balances that are so necessary in weapons development, and especially given the past technical failures and cost overruns in missile defense programs to date, I can't support a bill that includes this provision. In short, Mr. Chairman, I don't question the urgent need to provide for this country's defense--I just think we need to do it right. This bill doesn't do it right, and so I can't support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a serious abuse of power on the part of the Republican leadership and should be rejected by the House. Everyone knows that the Defense Authorization bill is one of the most important measures that the House will consider this year. It should be considered under a rule that will allow the full House--not just members of the Armed Services Committee and some others favored by the Rules Committee--to have an opportunity to participate in shaping the legislation. That is particularly true this year because the bill as approved by the Committee includes many controversial provisions. Some of these controversial provisions involve matters appropriate for debate in the context of a bill to authorize defense programs. They include provisions authorizing weapons systems not requested or needed by the Pentagon as well as provisions authorizing policy changes in the area of missile defense and nuclear weapons development. But other controversial provisions go beyond the normal or appropriate scope of a defense authorization bill. For example, the bill includes provisions concerning the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, matters within the jurisdiction of other Committees, including the Resources Committee but which our Committee has had no opportunity to consider. And, in addition, the bill includes an entire title--Title XIV--that not only includes provisions dealt with in a bill referred to the Resources Committee but goes further to include matters within our Committee's exclusive jurisdiction. Many Armed Services Committee members themselves have said this was ``a procedural foul.'' At the very least, the Rules Committee should have allowed the House an opportunity to consider changing or removing these very controversial provisions. But the rule does not allow that debate to take place. Further, I cannot support the rule because it would not even allow the House to consider going on record in support of finishing the cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats site by 2006. That former nulcear-bomb plant is right at the edge of the most heavily-populated part of our state. The Energy Department is working to clean it up so it can be closed by 2006 and transferred to the Interior Department for management as a National Wildlife Refuge. This is a matter of highest priority for all Coloradans, and we think it should be a high priority for the Congress and the Administration as well. So, I filed an amendment that would have added to this bill a mere ``sense of Congress'' statement reiterating that DOE should do all that is needed to meet the goal of a 2006 closure. But this rule does not even allow the House to consider adding that to the bill. Just allowing my amendment would not, by itself, have made this rule fully acceptable. Not allowing just makes the rule worse. I urge rejection of the rule.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Tom Barron for his extraordinary advocacy of environmental causes and his unwavering commitment to young people everywhere. A dear friend of mine once said that she looked for two qualities in leaders--that they care about the earth, and that they care about kids. If caring about the earth and kids is the mark of a special leader, and I believe it is, then Tom Barron is such a man. Tom grew up in the ranch country of Colorado with his seven brothers and sisters. It was on the family ranch that he developed a love for the land and a passion for exploring nature--all at a very young age. Tom has been a manager of a successful venture capital business, a Rhodes Scholar, a board member of the Wilderness Society, Yale University and a Trustee for the Nature Conservancy of Colorado. Today he is a very popular writer who has created the beloved characters of young Merlin and Kate, in The Ancient One. He believes that stories are the most powerful and effective way to express complicated and philosophical points of view. He knows that experience, rather than lectures, are often what teach us the most in life. This is very clear in all of his work. In The Lost Years of Merlin, Merlin learns all of his most important lessons from nature. He learns how to be humble and to understand his connection to the larger universe. Most important of all, he realizes his fundamental responsibility to something greater than his own self-interest. Tom's character Kate, the heroine of The Ancient One, turns herself into an ancient redwood tree in order to save her town. In the book, a chain saw cuts into the side of the tree, into Kate's side, which is a powerful metaphor for violence, cruelty and senseless destruction. Throughout his professional and private life Tom Barron has made it a goal to bolster educational causes and recognize exceptional young people. He has donated incredible amounts of his own time and many resources to the betterment of children's lives. His mother, Gloria Barron, spent twenty years creating The Touch Museum at the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind. She was an example of selflessness and service, and to honor his mother, Tom Barron founded the Gloria Barron Prize for Young Heroes. The prize honors young people from diverse backgrounds who have shown exceptional leadership in making the world a better place. Recipients of the award have distinguished themselves by organizing many wonderful projects, including the creation of scholarships, working to conserve a local river, and organizing a rodeo for disabled children. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude to Tom Barron for his extraordinary contributions to Mother Earth and to all of her children.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, but I'd also like to take this opportunity to clarify my support. I support the resolution's call for our continued solidarity with Israel and for the condemnation of terrorism everywhere and of Palestinian suicide bombings, in particular. I support the resolution's call for the Palestinian Authority to clamp down on terrorism in its territories and for Arab States to declare their opposition to terrorism. I support the resolution's call for the international community to help alleviate the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people. Most importantly, I support the resolution's urging that all parties in the region pursue efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace. However, I wonder what has prompted the leadership to schedule this resolution for consideration at this moment. I do not think anyone has any doubt about our country's continuing support for the people of Israel. That has been a fundamental part of American foreign policy for decades, and remains so today. I do not think anyone, at home or abroad, has any doubt about it--so, as far as I can see, this resolution is not needed to remove any doubt. Further, I am concerned that the timing of this resolution could make the Administration's efforts to resolve the current crisis more difficult. I believe the Administration must continue to work with the Saudis and other moderate Arab states to get the parties to agree to move forward with the Mitchell and Tenet plans, and down the line, to restart negotiations. In addition, I believe that Congress should consider additional assistance for Israel, but that it should also consider emergency humanitarian assistance--provided through NGOs--for Palestinian civilians, whose misery grows and feeds extremism in the region. I believe that Israel must heed President Bush's call to end its recent incursions into West Bank cities and that it must end settlement expansion, recognizing that these actions diminish the possibilities of what this resolution calls for--a ``just, lasting, and comprehensive peace.'' I believe that with crisis comes opportunity. There is now a window of opportunity to move away from the potential for a regional conflagration. Only the U.S. has been accepted by both parties as one that can lead them to peace. Now is not the time to take any action that might reduce our leverage with the Palestinian or with our Middle East allies. At this critical time, Congress should not only be signaling its strong support for Israel and signaling its rejection of violence, but it should also be trying to help--not hinder--the Administration as it works to get the parties back to the table. International Relations Committee Chair Henry Hyde said it best: ``I would have preferred a more balanced resolution, because I think we have to get beyond finger-pointing and ask ourselves, will this action help move us toward a cease-fire and a comprehensive peace agreement?'' I'm not sure that the answer is yes.