Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant but real opposition to the Conference Report for H.R. 2646, the Farm security Act. My opposition is reluctant because I do think Congress should enact a new farm bill this year, to establish sound policies for agriculture and to do such essential things as the extension and expansion of the food stamps program and further the use of renewable sources of energy. But my opposition is real because this conference report not only falls short of the ideal--as does most legislation--but also fails the fundamental tests of fairness and responsible public policy. In 1996, Congress passed the Freedom to Farm Act. I was not a Member of Congress at that time, but I understand its basic purpose was to allow more flexibility to farmers to plant different crops depending on market demands. It was also supposed to reduce government involvement in farming and save taxpayers money. It seems clear to me that experience since 1996 has shown that the legislation needed revision--but this bill goes far beyond a mere revision. Instead, the principles of the 1996 legislation have been abandoned, and now we are faced with a farm bill that increases spending by more than $73 billion dollars. The Commodity Title of this bill, which is supposed to provide farmers with ``security,'' is seriously flawed. First off it provides government payments to only a few commodity producers, those who produce corn, rice, wheat, cotton, soybeans, sorghum, barley and oats. And even for those producers it is structured so that it will provide the most subsidies to the largest producers. As a result, the small family farmers will get a little government assistance, while some of the largest farms will receive the bulk of the subsidies. In my opinion, this is not the way to really provide security for America's farm families or to stabilize commodity prices in a sustainable way. Instead, this title will encourage farmers to overproduce the favored commodities because they are guaranteed a price for their crop, and taxpayers will make up the difference between the set price and the market price. Equally important, the conference report's conservation provisions are simply inadequate. There are a number of farmer conservation programs that have had a history of success that are authorized by the farm bill. The biggest problem with these programs is that they have been underfunded and many farmers who qualify and want to participate in these programs can't. The House farm bill provided $1.6 billion for these programs and the Senate bill provided $2.4 billion. But the Conference report only provides $1.4 billion for these programs. This bill does not go far enough with these conservation programs that farmers support. So, while the conference report does have some provisions that deserve support--from school lunch programs, to WIC--overall it does not deserve enactment. Farmers need some sort of security program to protect them from poor weather conditions, rapid price fluctuations, disease, and other perils. They need security, but this bill does not do that. This bill will have Colorado taxpayers--including both farmers and consumers--pay out more money to subside out of state farmers than Colorado farmers and the environment will receive in benefits. We need a better bill to provide security to all farmers.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush rightly emphasized that ``Iran aggressively pursues weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.'' This grim reality was recently underscored in the latest report by the U.N. Special Representative on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran who denounced an increase in public stonings, floggings, and executions in Iran. Attorney General John Ashcroft pointed last year to the Iranian regime's role in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. The Minister of the Revolutionary Guards at the time claimed responsibility for the 1983 bombing against Americans in Lebanon and said: ``both the TNT and ideology which in one blast sent to hell 400 officers, NCOs and soldiers at the Marine Headquarters have been provided by Iran.'' The Iranian regime continues to support the terrorist and fundamentalist groups in the region. The intervention of the Revolutionary Guards in Afghanistan is of great concern as well. The Iranian regime's track record inside the country is even worse, and includes the execution of some 120,000 and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands for political charges. In a resolution last December, the UN General Assembly condemned the ``growing number of executions,'' in particular ``public and especially cruel executions, such as stoning,'' and ``the use of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment,'' as well as discrimination against persons belonging to minorities'' and the ``systematic discrimination against women.'' In the same month, the European Parliament in a unanimous resolution announced that the human rights situation in Iran has actually deteriorated in many aspects. Five years after President Khatami's election, the Iranian regime continues to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism, pursues an ambitious weapons of mass destruction program, and has stepped up repression against its own population. This is further substantiated in the State Department human rights report released on March 4th of this year, which states that the regime's record ``regarding freedom of expression, which has worsened during the past few years, continued to deteriorate;'' that ``the Government denies the universality of human rights;'' and that ``discrimination against women is reinforced by law'' with the regime enforcing ``gender segregation in most public spaces.'' Summarizing the horrific situation in Iran, the State Department report highlights that: ``Systematic abuses include summary executions, disappearances, widespread use of torture and other degrading treatment. . . .'' The State Department report on human rights practices also acknowledges that resistance groups such as the Mojahedin have become the target of the political repression of the Iranian regime. The report states that supporters of political organizations ``such as the Mojahedin, are believed to make up a large number of those executed each year.'' Photographic evidence of the flogging and hangings that supporters of the Mojahedin are subjected to was provided at a hearing on March 6, 2002 of the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations. The President announced recently that in dealing with regimes such as Iran's, ``the price of indifference would be catastrophic.'' I agree, and I urge the Administration to review all options available to hold the Iranian government accountable for its support of terrorism and its abysmal human rights record, and to help promote democratic change in the country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Cindy McKee, an official in the Colorado State Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Cindy is retiring from the BLM after 30 years of dedicated and outstanding government service. She has been a shining example of the quality work of those who choose to serve their country and communities through working in the public sector. Cindy came to the BLM shortly after passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM's organic statute. She first served as an employee of the Public Affairs Office of the Wyoming State Office, and then quickly moved up to a position as a public affairs specialist. At this position, she edited the BLM's statewide newsletter and thus reported on the wide-ranging and at times controversial issues facing the agency. She then moved to Colorado where she became the first public affairs officer assigned to the BLM's district office in Grand Junction. There she frequently appeared on television and radio describing and discussing BLM's policies and positions. In the early 1980s, she was involved in the debates related to oil shale development, coordinating environmental impact statements tied to the potential production of this resource on Colorado's western slope. The BLM asked the Grand Junction Office to take the lead for a national celebration to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Taylor Grazing Act, whose author was Representative Edward Taylor of Colorado. That Act provided for establishment of the Grazing Service, one of BLM's predecessor agencies. Cindy took charge of this effort, developing a series of events, public education materials and conferences to highlight public lands grazing and the Act. She also initiated a number of other projects that garnered national attention, such as the opening of the western slope fire operations center, a dinosaur discovery areas and the Little Book Cliffs wild horse area. During this time, Cindy won a number of BLM awards for her photographic work, and a number of her pictures appeared in national publications. In 1992, she assisted the Federal Emergency Management Agency in community relations and public affairs support following the devastating Hurricane Andrew in Miami, Florida. From a makeshift tent community in Homestead, Florida, she conducted daily briefings on the efforts to respond to this disaster. She returned to Colorado where in this experience helped her meet the challenge of being one of the information officers responding to the tragic 1994 South Canyon fire near Glenwood Springs, Colorado, where 14 firefighters lost their lives. She was the lead in coordinating the media, various responding agencies as well as attending to the needs of the victim's families. During the past ten years, Cindy has designed and taught media, public affairs roles and responsibilities, congressional relations, and fire information classes for a number of BLM and U.S. Forest Service offices. More recently, she served as the liaison between the BLM's Colorado Office and the Interior Department on the legislative transfer of the U.S. Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands in Colorado. She also was the lead public affairs coordinator for the recently created Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area and the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area in Colorado. And, she developed one of the first BLM websites, for which she received national recognition. It was voted one of the top 20 sites in Colorado. For all of this and more, Cindy received the Superior Service Award from the Department of the Interior. Her approachable style has been well received by many who have had the pleasure to work with her and interact with the agency. I applaud Cindy for all of her efforts to improve the public's understanding and appreciation of our public lands and the important work of the land-management agencies. These lands are an important part of the western heritage and her work has helped promote and further that legacy. I wish her well in her future endeavors and again thank her for the work she has done for Colorado, the BLM and the communities of Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3231. I am a cosponsor of this bill, which will help us begin to address chronic and longstanding problems at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The recent discoveries that the INS processed visa extensions for two of the dead September 11th hijackers and that INS inspectors allowed Pakistani seamen to come ashore in Virginia (after which three of them disappeared) are only two of the latest embarrassments attributable to INS mismanagement. I know that efforts to overhaul INS predate my time here in Congress by several decades. But I'm glad that I'm here to witness the beginning of this long overdue restructuring. I think we can all agree that an agency that is expected to wear two distinct hats--one to serve our immigrant population, and one to watch our borders and enforce immigration laws--is bound to run into problems. And indeed, the INS has run into problems wearing both hats simultaneously, especially as we have asked it to accomplish disparate tasks using the same tools and the same staff. This bill would change that, and that's why it deserves support. H.R. 3231 would effectively abolish the INS as we know it, establishing separate enforcement and service divisions. But it would maintain important coordinating functions through a new associate attorney general for immigration affairs to oversee both bureaus. I know there are concerns that the coordinating role the bill establishes won't be strong enough to enable the two bureaus to share information and work closely together. I also want to ensure that resource allocation is fair and that the appropriate amount of funding goes both to adjudication and to enforcement. There are also calls for the long backlogs at INS to be reduced before any reorganization goes into effect. There is some merit to these ideas, and I am hopeful that the version of this bill that emerges from House and Senate consideration will address them and any other concerns about the bill that might arise. At the same time, I think it's important we pass this bill now. We need to send a strong message that the days of the INS as we know it are over, and that soon there will be changes for the better--both in how immigrants are served, and in how we enforce immigration laws that are already on the books. Mr. Chairman, passage of this bill today is yet another step the House has taken in the months after September 11th to try to fix a system that doesn't work as well as it should. Other steps we have taken include passing H.R. 1885, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, a bill I supported to strengthen U.S. border controls and to improve our ability to screen and keep track of those who enter this country. That bill would also allow those who already quality for immigration because of their family or employer ties to complete the process in the U.S. Also known as Section 245(i), this provision does not grant an amnesty, give immigrants the right to work, or protect them from deportation if they are living in the U.S. illegally. What it does do is keep families together and encourage those who qualify for permanent residency to continue filling an economic need and to become part of a regulated system. Restructuring the INS--as H.R. 3231 would do--is just one part of comprehensive immigration reform. Strengthening our border security mechanisms is another. A third part involves modernizing our immigration laws to be enforceable as well as responsive to our country's labor needs. This is where some of the toughest decisions will lie. The Administration and the Congress need to work together to find workable and sound answers for some of these broader issues--such as determining whether our legal immigration levels are sustainable; figuring out how best to stem illegal immigration, both for security reasons and to ensure that American workers are not displaced; and addressing questions about the status of people already in this country. The challenge we face is to implement measures that will make our country more secure without turning away from our tradition as a nation of immigrants. I support H.R. 3231 because I believe this bill will begin to take us in this direction.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this proposition. I think everyone in the chamber knows what is going on today. We all know why the Republican leadership has brought this bill forward. They are more interested in trying to score some political points than in trying to work in a bipartisan way to address the budget and the economy. I do not think that the supporters of this proposal expect it to become law this year. So, it might be said that there is no reason not to vote for it. But that would not be the responsible thing to do. A vote for this would be a vote for the underlying tax legislation in the form that it passed the House last year. I voted against that bill because it was based on economic projections that were very doubtful then--and that now have been shown to have been wildly over-optimistic. When that bill was passed, the economic weather seemed bright--we did not yet know that we already were in recession--and the sponsors of the bill claimed that we could rely on that to continue not just for a matter of months but for a full decade. Now, considering the dramatic change in economic conditions and the need for increased resources to fight terrorism and for homeland defense, it would seem reasonable to review the legislation to see if it needs adjusting. But instead, the supporters of the legislation are calling on us to say that nothing has changed and that we should permanently lock into place all of its provisions. I am not opposed to cutting taxes. I have supported--and still support--a substantial reduction in income taxes and the elimination of the ``marriage penalty.'' I have supported--and still support-- increasing the child credit and making it refundable so that it will benefit more lower-income families. And I have supported--and still support--reforming, but not repealing, the estate tax. But the affordability of last year's tax bill depended on uncertain projections of continuing budget surpluses that now may inspire nostalgia but are otherwise meaningless. As I said last year, the tax bill was a riverboat gamble. It put at risk our economic stability, the future of Medicare and Social Security, and our ability to make needed investments in health and education. For me, the stakes were too high and the odds were too long, and I had to vote against it. Those same considerations still apply. I agree with the Concord Coalition that we should not ``compound the problem by making the entire package permanent,'' and so I cannot vote for this proposal.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, during the recent District Work period, we learned of the death of Peggy Wayburn. An accomplished author and photographer, her work taught us about some of the most special parts of our country and the importance of saving them for future generations. She was a New Yorker by birth but a Westerner at heart, drawn to wild country. And she played an important role in the efforts to protect it. In the late 1950s, she joined her husband, Dr. Edgar Wayburn, in working for establishment of a Redwoods National Park. In 1961, 1963, and 1965 she was the organizer of the biennial national wilderness conferences sponsored by the Sierra Club. At the 1961 conference, she sat next to Interior Secretary Stuart Udall and first broached the subject of a new national park to him. While he didn't come out to the proposed park site, as a follow up to her suggestion he did send his assistant, who toured the area with the Wayburns and Martin Litton. This was one of the key developments that ultimately led to the establishment of the park. And, like her husband, she had a special love for the Alaska. Her writings about that ``Great Land'' were influential in the debates that led to the enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, signed into law by President Carter in December, 1980. Her role in passing that monumental act was recently recognized by our colleague, Representative Nancy Pelosi who said, ``Dr. Wayburn and his wife Peggy were captivated by the unique beauty of the Alaska landscape on their first visit almost thirty years ago . . . Today, 104 million acres remain wild largely because of that first visit made to Alaska by the Wayburns.'' She also was involved in working for establishment of the Point Reyes National Seashore, Redwoods National Park, and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In addition to serving as Honorary Vice President and Trustee of the Sierra Club Foundation, Peggy Wayburn co-founded People for Open Space, directed the Point Reyes Seashore Foundation, and served on the Board of Audubon Canyon Ranch. Her efforts earned numerous awards including the Sierra Club's Special Achievement Award, the California Conservation Council Award, and the Sierra Club of California's Special Service Award. In 2001, both of the Wayburns were honored with the Wilderness Society's Robert Marshall Award, their highest honor presented to private citizens who have devoted lifetime service to, and have had notable influence upon, conservation and the fostering of an American land ethic. Mr. Speaker, America and the conservation movement are diminished by Peggy Wayburn's departure. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching reports from two newspapers concerning her life and accomplishments. [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 30, 2002] When Peggy Wayburn sat down to write her second book about Alaska, she chose to begin with a simple statistic: Anyone wishing to explore the entire state would have to visit about one million acres per day--for a year. It was a simple, elegant number meant to impress upon readers the enormity of a place that Wayburn argued should be left as is. A prolific nature writer and environmentalist who was instrumental in preserving millions of acres in Alaska and creating some of Northern California's most cherished parks, Peggy Wayburn died March 21 in San Francisco after a long illness. She was 84. Known primarily for five books she wrote on the outdoors, Wayburn also was published in a variety of magazines and was an accomplished photographer whose images graced many calendars. She was involved in a number of conservation organizations, including the San Francisco-based Sierra Club. A native of New York City who was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at Barnard College, she moved to San Francisco in 1945 and quickly fell in love both with the area's beauty and with doctor and outdoorsman Edgar Wayburn. Their first date was spent hiking on Mt. Tamalpais, just north of the city. They were married in 1947. Edgar Wayburn was a rising figure in the Sierra Club, and by default--at least initially--Peggy Wayburn was thrust into some of the state's most contentious environmental battles. In California, the club was battling to protect small but important places previously overlooked by the state and federal governments. The Wayburns were part of the push that would eventually lead to the creation of Point Reyes National Seashore in 1962 and, later, Redwoods National Park and Golden Gate National Recreation Area. But in 1967, the Wayburns took their first trip to Alaska-- a voyage they would take dozens more times over the next 30 years. ``What Peggy and Ed found in Alaska were vast, intact, pristine ecosystems,'' said Deborah Williams, executive director of the Alaska Conservation Foundation. ``Peggy felt that human beings have a profound obligation to be good stewards to the land,'' Williams said, ``and she saw in Alaska both an opportunity and responsibility to do that.'' Upon returning to California, the Wayburns began pushing the Sierra Club to pay more attention to Alaska. It was a critical time for the newly created state, with tremendous pressures to divvy up tens of millions of acres of federally owned land between the fledgling state government and the many tribes native to the area. It also was a time when there was a growing awareness that intact ecosystems in the United States were rare. Environmentalists began pointing out how the West--even with its expansive national parks and forests--was missing vital members of its natural communities. Not only did Alaska still have all its native species, but it had them in almost unimaginably large numbers. Inspired, Wayburn wrote two books on the state. The first, ``Alaska, the Great Land'' was co-written by Mike Miller and published in 1974. Along with John McPhee's ``Coming Into the Country,'' it was influential because it expressed how different--and how wild--Alaska still was to an audience that mostly never had seen the state, nor ever would. The book also became a staple on Capitol Hill in the 1970s as the debate over federal land in Alaska heated up in Congress. The second book, ``Adventuring in Alaska,'' was the first Sierra Club adventure guide and remains in print. It was one of the first comprehensive guidebooks for the state, offering readers practical travel tips and a myriad of facts on Alaska's natural wonders. In December 1980, just weeks before leaving office, President Carter signed the Alaska Lands Act, which set aside 104 million acres in the state as either national parks, national wildlife refuges or national forests. Carter has since called it one of the most important accomplishments of his presidency. In 1999, President Clinton awarded Edgar Wayburn a Presidential Medal of Freedom, citing his and Peggy's work in Alaska during a White House ceremony. ``I think what captivated my parents about Alaska was that it was California 500 years ago and there were such great pressures [to develop it],'' said Cynthia Wayburn of Seattle, one of the couple's four children. ``What Mom was able to convey in her books was that there should be places where life can go on as it has gone on for thousands and thousands of years.'' In addition to her husband and daughter Cynthia, Peggy Wayburn is survived by two other daughters, Diana Wayburn of New York and Laurie Wayburn of Boonville, Calif.; a son, William of Seattle; and three grandchildren. A memorial service is planned April 7 at the Presidio in San Francisco. Donations in her name can be made to the Sierra Club Foundation, Alaska Conservation Foundation or Earthjustice.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not all that it should be. It is not even the bill that we should be passing today. We should be passing the substitute offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. George Miller, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel. That was why I voted for that substitute and why I am very disappointed that it was not adopted. But now we are left with the choice of voting for this bill or voting for no legislation at all. And I think there definitely is an urgent need for legislation to address the serious problems made so evidently by recent events, including the collapse of the Enron Corporation. For that reason--and solely for that reason--I will vote for the bill. I do not think that it would be responsible to say that it would be better to do nothing. In voting for the bill, I am under no illusions about its flaws. In particular, I very much disapprove of the changes the bill would make in current law related to investment advice provided to employees. Those provisions are similar to those in H.R. 2269, which the House passed last year. I voted against that bill, and if this bill did not include anything more, I would vote against it as well. However, while the rest of the bill falls short of what I would prefer, it does make some improvements in current law. Further, passage of the bill will set the stage for the Senate to make further improvements--including correction or deletion of the investment-advice provision. I am voting for the bill today so that can take place, as I expect it will.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I regret that I cannot vote for this bill today, but unfortunately the way the Republican leadership has brought it to the floor makes that impossible. There are many things in this bill that I support, especially provisions similar to those in H.R. 2695. That bill, introduced by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Houghton, would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude stock options and employee stock purchase plans from the definition of wages for purposes of employment taxes. This is a clarification that is very important to many of my constituents and to other people across the country and that needs to be enacted without unnecessary delay. I also support enactment of most of the other provisions of this bill--particularly the sections dealing with tax penalties and interest, collection procedures, confidentiality and disclosure, and tax administration. They are desirable improvements in current law. But that isn't true with regard to another provision--the one dealing with the disclosure of information about donations to and expenditures by certain political groups. Under section 527 of the Tax Code, limited tax-exempt status is available for ``issue advocacy'' groups organized for the primary purpose of accepting contributions and making expenditures to influence elections at the Federal, State, or local level. Until 2 years ago, these ``527'' political organizations did not have to report to anybody about the source of their contributions or the beneficiaries of their expenditures. They could and did operate free from public scrutiny and free from public accountability. That changed with enactment of the 527 Organization Disclosure bill, which now is Public Law 106-230. Under that law, if the groups want to keep their tax-exempt status they generally must let the public know where they get their money and the political purposes for which it is spent. I strongly supported that important change. But one provision of this bill threatens to undo much of that important reform by retroactively exempting some groups that now are covered by the disclosure law. I understand that some careful adjustment of the scope of the disclosure legislation might be appropriate, but I am concerned that the exemption in this bill is so broad that it might in effect create a major loophole that could be exploited by groups that would not be subject to comparable disclosure requirement under applicable law. That could go far to undermine the campaign-finance reform so recently signed into law. If this bill had been brought to the floor under more normal procedures, there would have been more time for debate on this and other provisions, and the House could have considered amendments to lessen the possible abuse of this exemption. However, the Republican leadership instead has insisted on using a procedure that limits debate and does not allow any amendments. I cannot support that approach, and I cannot support the bill's provisions related to these political groups. So, under the procedures chosen by the Republican leadership, I have no choice but to vote against the entire bill today. My hope is that if the bill does not pass today, the Republican leadership will bring it back under a fairer procedure that will permit changes that would allow me to vote for its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Julie Roche, a dedicated member of the community and of my campaign staff for officially becoming an American citizen on February 22, 2002. Julie graduated from the University of California in San Diego in 1992 with a degree in political Science and lived for 6 years in Washington, DC, before settling in Colorado, which is now her permanent home. Though Julie has lived in the United States for almost her entire life, she had retained her Irish citizenship until earlier this year. Giving up her Irish citizenship was a hard decision to make. Like most Americans who have come from abroad, Julie is very proud of her heritage. However, her dedication to public service, her interest in politics and her love for the United States persuaded her to make the choice. While she is a new citizen, Julie is not a newcomer to our country or our democratic system of government. In addition to working for both my colleague, Representative Diana DeGette, and for me, Julie also works for the Colorado Democratic Party. She has decided--rightly--that American citizenship would allow her to even more fully participate in public affairs and to work for the betterment of what is now fully our common country. In her free time, Julie plays on a soccer team in Denver, runs marathons and is a volunteer for the Colorado Red Cross, where she is on call one week of every month and helps victims of disaster. She is a shining example of the spirit and promise of American democracy and the diversity that makes our country so special. On behalf of her fellow citizens of Colorado and the United States, I congratulate Julie on her becoming an American citizen.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the religious persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in mainland China. Falun Gong representatives believe that over 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners have been arrested. Tens of thousands have been thrown into labor camps without trial, and at least 1,000 healthy practitioners have been put into mental hospitals and have suffered illegal psychiatric abuse. It has also been reported that between 365 and 1,600 people have been killed in police custody. It is thought that there are as many as 100 million Falun Gong practitioners worldwide. Falun Gong believers hold that this spiritual practice instills the three principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. They would merely like the opportunity to peacefully practice their beliefs without fear of torture or imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Falun Gong and its practitioners' quest for peace and tolerance.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Abandoned Hardrock Mines Reclamation Act. This bill is designed to help promote the cleanup of abandoned and inactive hardrock mines that are a menace to the environment and public health throughout the country, but especially in the west. The Background For over one hundred years, miners and prospectors have searched for and developed valuable ``hardrock'' minerals--gold, silver, copper, molybdenum, and others. Hardrock mining has played a key role in the history of Colorado and other states, and the resulting mineral wealth has been an important aspect of our economy and the development of essential products. However, as all westerners know, this history has too often been marked by a series of ``boom'' times followed by a ``bust'' when mines were no longer profitable--because ore bodies were exhausted or not economically recoverable with contemporary technology, or because of depressed mineral prices. When these busts came, too often the miners would abandon their workings and move on, seeking riches over the next mountain. The resulting legacy of unsafe open mine shafts and acid mine drainages can be seen throughout the country and especially on the western public lands where mineral development was encouraged to help settle our region. The Problems The problems caused by abandoned and inactive mines are very real and very large--including acidic water draining from old tunnels, heavy metals leaching into streams killing fish and tainting water supplies, open vertical mine shafts, dangerous highwalls, large open pits, waste rock piles that are unsightly and dangerous, and hazardous dilapidated structures. And, unfortunately, many of our current environmental laws, designed to mitigate the impact from operating hardrock mines, are of limited effectiveness when applied to abandoned and inactive mines. As a result, many of these old mines go on polluting streams and rivers and potentially risking the health of people who live nearby or downstream. The full scope of these problems is hard to estimate because many of these old mines are in remote regions and because a complete inventory does not exist. Some states and federal agencies have done some inventory work, but in 1996 the General Accounting Office, after reviewing available data, found that many agencies had not done thorough surveys and those that did showed a range of results. For example, GAO's report showed that the U.S. Forest Service listed about 25,000 abandoned mine sites within its boundaries, while the U.S. Bureau of Mines reported 12,500 sites on Forest Service lands. On the other hand, the Mineral Policy Center, a private non- profit group, has estimated that over 560,000 sites exist on public and private land. As a first step, my bill would provide a source of funds to assist states to complete inventories. But if we do not know exactly how big the problem is, we already know enough to recognize more than inventories will be needed to fully address it. In particular, we know that timely solutions will require efforts by more entities than just the federal government. We need to assist and encourage the states, local governments, and Indian Tribes-- as well as private groups--to join in the work of cleaning up these sites. Obstacles To Cleanups However, right now there are two serious obstacles to their involvement. One obstacle is a serious lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private person or entity can be held liable. For example, the 1996 GAO report found that the U.S. Forest Service estimated it would cost $4.7 billion to clean up abandoned mine sites on its lands alone-- and many other sites are on lands managed by other federal agencies. Another obstacle is legal. While the Clean Water Act is one of the most effective and important of our environmental laws, as applied it can mean that someone undertaking to clean up an abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in the first place. As a result, would-be ``good Samaritans'' understandably have been unwilling to volunteer their services to clean up abandoned and inactive mines. They have not wanted to be required to secure long-term pollution discharge permits and thus face long-term costs and potentially stiff fines and penalties. For example, near the Keystone ski resort in Colorado is an abandoned mine, named the ``Pennsylvania Mine.'' Each minute, the tunnel of this mine releases between 30 and 200 gallons of orange-tinted, highly acidic water into Peru Creek. That mountain stream flows into the Snake River, which in turn feeds into Dillon Reservoir in Summit County--a major source of drinking water for many people in our state. To reduce this health risk, the state, with some private and federal partners, began working to have the contaminants from this mine filtered out by a wetland and other methods. However, this effort has come to a halt-- partly because of technical problems with the cleanup method, but more importantly because of a recent judicial decision regarding a similar situation in California. In that case, the court ruled that ``good Samaritans''--like the parties working on the Pennsylvania Mine cleanup--could be held liable under the Clean Water Act for creating a ``point-source'' discharge from a wetland and other techniques and thus be liable for permits, costs and penalties. Faced with that prospect, the Colorado volunteers abandoned the effort. In short, in this case the valiant and laudable efforts of volunteers were frustrated by the very laws that are designed to stem this type of pollution. Unless these fiscal and legal obstacles are overcome, often the only route to clean up abandoned mines will be to place them on the nation's Superfund list. Colorado has experience with that approach, so Coloradans know that while it can be effective it also has shortcomings. For one thing, just being placed on the Superfund list does not guarantee prompt cleanup. The site will have to get in line behind other listed sites and await the availability of financial resources. In addition, as many communities within or near Superfund sites know, listing an area on the Superfund list can create concerns about stigmatizing an area and potentially harming nearby property values. For example, that is just what is happening in the case of some abandoned mines above the communities of Jamestown and Ward in Boulder County. These sites are creating water quality concerns for these communities and others downstream, and the Environmental Protection Agency has been considering placing this old mining region on the Superfund list. That would mean that eventually the sites could receive attention and cleanup. In the meantime, however, these communities have to live with a potential Superfund designation and all the issues and concerns associated with that designation. We need to develop an alternative approach that will mean we are not left only with the options of doing nothing or creating additional Superfund sites--because while in some cases the Superfund approach may make the most sense, in many others there could be a more direct and effective way to remedy the problem. Western Governors Want Action For years, the Governors of our western States have recognized the need for action to address this serious problem. The Western Governors' Association has several times adopted resolutions on the subject. The most recent, adopted in August of last year, was entitled ``Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines'' and was proposed by Governor Bill Owens of Colorado along with Governors Guinn of Nevada, Janklow of South Dakota, and Johnson of New Mexico. That resolution begins by pointing out that these sites are ``responsible for threats and impairments to water quality'' throughout the west and also often are safety hazards. It notes that their cleanup is ``hampered by two issues--lack of funding and concerns about liability.'' And it says that Congress should ``protect a remediating agency from becoming legally responsible [unless they would be otherwise] . . . for any continuing discharges . . . after completion of a cleanup project'' and that ``reliable sources of funds that do not divert from other important Clean Water programs should be identified and made available for the cleanup of hardrock abandoned mines in the West.'' The bill I am introducing today is based directly on those recommendations by the Western Governors. It addresses both the lack of resources and the liability risks to those doing cleanups. Outline of the Bill Title 1. Funds for Cleanups First, the lack of resources. To help fund cleanup projects, the bill would create a reclamation fund paid for by a modest fee applied to existing hardrock mining operations. The fund would be used by the Secretary of the Interior to assist projects to reclaim and restore lands and waters adversely affected by abandoned or inactive hardrock mines. A similar method already exists to fund clean up of abandoned coal mines. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) provides for fees on coal production. Those fees are deposited into the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund and used to fund reclamation of sites that had been mined for coal and then abandoned before enactment of SMCRA. Similarly, my bill provides for fees on mineral production from producing hardrock mines. In developing this part of the bill, I have followed the lead of a 1999 resolution of the Western Governors Association. That resolution (proposed by Governors Guinn of Nevada and Leavitt of Utah), notes that ``While society has benefited broadly from the metal mining industry, problems created by some abandoned mine lands [are] a significant national concern . . . [and] industry can play an important role in the resolution of these problems through funding mechanisms'' as well as in other ways. In accord with that suggestion, the bill provides for fees that would apply to hardrock mines on federal lands or lands that were federal before issuance of a mining-law patent. The fees would be paid to the Secretary of the Interior and would be deposited in a new Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund in the U.S. Treasury. Money in that fund would earn interest and would be available for reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines and associated sites. In developing the bill, I decided that a one-fee-fits-all approach would not be fair. Instead, the bill provides for only modest fees and a sliding scale based on the ability of mines to pay. Mines Exempt from Fees To begin with, the bill would entirely exempt mines with gross proceeds of less than $500,000 per year. That means many--probably most--small operations, such as Alaskan prospectors working individual placer claims, will not be liable for any fees under the bill. Calculation of Fees For more lucrative mines, fees would be based on the ratio of net proceeds to gross proceeds. If a mine's net proceeds were under 10% of gross proceeds, the fee would be 2% of the net proceeds. For mines with net proceeds of at least 10% but less than 18% of gross proceeds, the fee would be 2.5% of net proceeds. Mines where the net proceeds were at least 18% but less than 26% of gross proceeds would pay a fee of 3% of net proceeds. If the net proceeds were at least 26% but less than 34% of gross proceeds, the fee would be 3.5% of net proceeds. Where the net proceeds were at least 34% but less than 42% of gross proceeds the fee would be 4% of net proceeds. Mines with net proceeds equal to at least 42% but less than 50% of gross proceeds would pay a fee of 4.5% of net proceeds. And mines whose net proceeds were 50% or more of the gross proceeds would pay a fee of 5% of the net proceeds. For the purpose of calculating these fees, the bill defines gross proceeds as the value of any extracted hardrock minerals that are sold, exchanged for good or services, exported ready for use or sale, or initially used in manufacture or service. Net proceeds are defined as how much of the gross proceeds remain after deducting the costs of mine development; mineral extraction; transporting minerals for smelting or similar processing; mineral processing; marketing and delivery to customers; maintenance and repairs of machinery and facilities; depreciation; insurance on mine facilities and equipment; insurance for employees; and royalties and taxes. Based on Nevada Model This method of calculating fees is similar to that used by the State of Nevada, which collects similar production-based fees from mines in that state. However, the fees in my bill are more moderate than those set by the Nevada law in one important respect--Nevada imposes its maximum fee rate on all mines with net proceeds of $5 million or more, regardless of the ratio between those net proceeds and the gross proceeds. My bill does not do that--instead, all of its fees are based on the ratio. In other words, under my bill a mine with earnings (i.e., net proceeds) of more than $5 million per year still might pay the minimum fee if those earnings were less than 10% of the gross proceeds. Estimated Proceeds from Fees and Use of Fund There are not sufficient data available to say exactly how much money would go into the new reclamation fund each year under my bill. However, the United States Geological Survey does have information about the number of operating copper and gold mines and the State of Nevada has data about the money raised by their similar fee system. By extrapolating from those data, it is possible to estimate that the fees provided for in my bill would generate about $40 million annually for the Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund. Funds in the new reclamation fund would be available for appropriation for grants to States to complete inventories of abandoned hardrock mine sites, as mentioned above. A state with sites covered by the bill could receive a grant of up to $2 million annually for this purpose. In addition, and again subject to appropriation, money from the new reclamation fund would be available for cleanup work at eligible sites. To be eligible, a site would have to be within a state subject to operation of the general mining laws that has completed its statewide inventory. Within those states, eligible sites would be those--(1) where former hardrock-mining activities had permanently ceased as of the date of the bill's enactment; (2) that are not on the National Priorities List under the Superfund law; (3) for which there are no identifiable owners or operators; and (4) that lack sufficient minerals to make further mining, remining, or reprocessing of minerals economically feasible. Sites designated for remedial action under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 or subject to planned or ongoing response or natural resource damage action under the Superfund law would not be eligible for cleanup funding from the new reclamation fund. The Interior Department could use money appropriated from the fund to do cleanup work itself or could authorize use of the money for cleanup work by a holder of one of the new ``good Samaritan'' permits provided for in Title II of the bill. Among eligible sites, priorities for funding would be based on the presence and severity of threats to public health, safety, general welfare, or property from the effects of past mining and the improvement that cleanup work could make in restoration of degraded water and other resources. The first priority would be for sites where effects of past mining pose an extreme danger. After that, priorities would be sites where past mining has resulted in adverse effects (but not extreme danger) and then those where past mining has not led to equally serious consequences but where cleanup work would have a beneficial effect. Further, the bill recognizes that in Colorado and other states there are often concentrations of abandoned mining sites that vary in the severity of their threat to the public health and the environment but that can and should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. Therefore, it provides that sites of varying priority should be dealt with at the same time when that is feasible and appropriate. Title II. Protection for ``Good Samaritans'' Second, the threat of long-term liability. To help encourage the efforts of ``good Samaritans,'' the bill would create a new program under the Clean Water Act under which qualifying individuals and entities could obtain permits to conduct cleanups of abandoned or inactive hardrock mines. These permits would give some liability protection to those volunteering to clean up these sites, while also requiring the permit holders to meet certain standards and requirements. The bill specifies who can secure these permits, what would be required by way of a cleanup plan, and the extent of liability exposure. Notably, unlike regular Clean Water Act point-source (``NPDES'') permits, these new permits would not require meeting specific standards for specific pollutants and would not impose liabilities for monitoring or long-term maintenance and operations. These permits would terminate upon completion of cleanup, if a regular Clean Water Act permit is issued for the same site, or if a permit holder encounters unforeseen conditions beyond the holder's control. I think such protection would encourage more efforts to resolve problems like those at the Pennsylvania Mine. Together, these two programs could help us begin to address a problem that has frustrated federal and state agencies throughout the country and make progress in cleaning up from an unwelcome legacy of our mining history. The Pennsylvania Mine and the Jamestown area are but two examples--others can be found throughout the west. And as population growth continues near these old mines, more and more risks to public health and safety are likely to occur. We simply must begin to address this issue--not only to improve the environment, but also to ensure that our water supplies are safe and usable.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 64, H.R. 2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act, I was delayed on official business on the other side of the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert into the Record an editorial published in the ``Boulder Daily Camera'' on March 6. The editorial comes at a critical time, as the Senate is even now debating an energy bill that could lead us in the right--or wrong--direction. The piece ends by calling on the Senate to recognize conservation and alternative energy as not just personal virtues, but as ``important components of a national energy policy.'' I couldn't agree more. Demand Less Demand In recent months, some have complained that the United States needs an over-arching, under-girding energy policy. They are, in fact, right. President Bush has proposed an energy policy that emphasizes increased production of oil, gas and electricity and places relatively little emphasis on conservation and alternative energy. The Bush plan, whose fundamental components were approved by the House of Representatives last year, includes a provision allowing for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the last true wilderness areas. The energy bill passed by the House was predicated on the assumption that we are in an energy crisis and that the best way to confront this crisis is to increase energy production as rapidly as possible. That's the stated justification for drilling in ANWR, and that's the clear rationale for handing $34 billion in subsidies to oil, gas and nuclear industries. Curiously, the Bush-backed energy bill does not appreciably boost efficiency standards for the nation's automobiles. The House killed an amendment that would have sharply raised the fuel-efficiency standards for the nation's sport-utility vehicles and light trucks--to an average of 27.5 miles per gallon, the standard that cars now meet. Such an increase would obviate the demand for ANWR oil. The House rejected the higher fuel standards because a study concluded that the imposition of fuel-efficiency standards coincided with a higher highway fatality rate. A National Academy of Sciences study last year opined that tough fuel-economy standards imposed three decades ago might have caused an additional 100 deaths or so annually. The Academy's report also argued that the safety concerns could be satisfactorily addressed. That didn't faze the House, which capitulated to the auto industry and labor unions. This week, a competing energy bill is being discussed in the Senate. The 500-page Senate bill, sponsored by Sens. Tom Daschle and Jeff Bingaman, is markedly different from the Bush plan. The Daschle bill would increase fuel-economy standards to 35 mpg by 2013. It would provide incentives for citizens to buy hybrid gas- electric cars such as the Honda Insight. It would require that electric companies produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable resources such as wind by 2020. Critically, the Daschle-Bingaman bill would not open ANWR to drilling. The Daschle-Bingaman bill represents a less-lopsided approach to the nation's energy picture. It would focus both on increased production of traditional sources of energy and on conservation and alternative energy. This plan has drawn fire from both ends of the spectrum. Greenpeace dubbed the Daschle plan ``Bush lite.'' Sen. Frank Murkowski, the Alaska Republican, suggested that the Daschle plan would make the nation less secure. ``The House has done its job (in passing the Bush bill). The job of the Senate remains in front of us. But I think most members would agree, our energy policy is a critical first step in this challenge. And it is a challenge. It is a challenge when we fight for freedom, when we seize the day for democracy.'' But while framing the energy debate as a fight for democracy, Murkowski argued that Americans should not be called upon to sacrifice. ``We turn to energy as we look at the standard of living that Americans enjoy. If it is an SUV, it is an SUV because Americans prefer that as opposed to being dictated by government as to what type of an automobile they have to drive.'' The United States uses one-quarter of the world's energy. Here in the world's largest energy sink, conservation and alternative energy are not just personal virtues. They are important components of a national energy policy. In a clear and convincing voice, the Senate should say so.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will support this measure. The bill before us responds to the urgent needs of hundreds of thousands of people who are out of work and whose unemployment benefits have been or soon will be exhausted. It also provides important provisions that can help speed up the recovery from recession and create jobs. My only regret is that it has taken so long for us to take up this kind of bill. If we had done so sooner, fewer people would have reached the end of their benefits and the economic recovery might by moving at a faster rate. So, I hope that the fact the bill must go back to the Senate will not lead to further unnecessary delays. To show why prompt action is essential, I am attaching a story from this morning's Rocky Mountain News. It reports that Colorado's unemployment rate recently surpassed the national rate for the first time in more than a decade. We also have a high concentration of high-tech employment--and many provisions of this bill are particularly important for high-tech firms, which is another reason I support it. [From the Rocky Mountain News, Mar. 7, 2002] Jobless Picture Bleak (By Heather Draper) Colorado's unemployment rate hit 5.7 percent in January, its highest level since 1993 and surpassing the national jobless rate for the first time in nearly 12 years. The U.S. employment rate in January was 5.6 percent. The state's increase from 5.1 percent in December was the second-highest jump in the nation behind New Mexico, which recorded a 0.9-point rise from December, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday. Colorado's 3-percentage-point increase from its historic low of 2.7 percent in January 2001 was also the nation's second-largest year-over-year increase, behind Oregon's 3.1- point jump. ``It's definitely of concern,'' said Patty Silverstein, economist with Development Research Partners. ``We haven't seen levels like this since the early 1990s. You can't really sugarcoat this.'' The state's 5.7 percent seasonally adjusted jobless rate translated to about 135,000 Coloradans out of work in January. The city and county of Denver's non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate hit a whopping 7.4 percent in January, up from 6.1 percent in December and 3.4 percent in January last year, according to the state Labor Department. About 69,000 metro Denver residents were unemployed in January, 21,200 of those in Denver County alone. `The last time Colorado's jobless rate was higher than the national rate was March 1990,' said Tom Dunn, chief economist for the state legislative council. ``We have a higher concentration of high-tech employment here and a lot of travel-related jobs, so Colorado has been hit harder. And I think, Sept. 11 introduced a whole new wrinkle (in the economy).'' Dunn said the recession hit Colorado later than the rest of the nation, so the state will start to recover later. Economists were surprised by the size of the state's increase, as most were predicting unemployment of about 5.5 percent in January. ``All bets are off now,'' Silverstein said. ``It's hard to say how much higher we might possibly go. The bottom line is that we aren't out of the woods yet.'' The unemployment rate is a lagging economic indicator, but ``that is still a huge jump,'' said Tucker Hart Adams, economist with US Bank ``The recession may be officially over, but I think that's kind of irrelevant,'' Adams said. ``The layoffs continue and housing is getting worse. I just don't see any signs of strength locally.'' At least one economist was a bit more bullish on the state's economic outlook. ``I think the good news is that the U.S. economy has bottomed out,'' said Sung Won Sohn, Chief economist at Wells Fargo & Co. ``Since Colorado's economy depends so much on the U.S. economy, we have to view the U.S. economic outlook as the light at the end of the tunnel.'' Job losses were greatest in Colorado's trade sector, with 16,000 fewer jobs in January 2002 than December 2001. Government jobs were down 12,200, and service industry jobs were down 11,400, the labor department said. The only sector to see an overall gain in January was the finance, insurance and real estate sector, which was up 1,100 jobs. Pueblo had one of the state's highest unemployment rates in January at 8.2 percent, up from 6.5 percent in December 2001 and 4.7 percent in January 2001. Colorado Springs hit 6.8 percent unemployment in January, up from 5.6 percent in December and 3.2 percent a year ago. The Boulder-Longmont area registered 5.7 percent unemployment in January, up from 4.7 percent in December and more than double its 2.4 percent rate a year ago.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to improve the way the federal government is working to reduce the risk of wildfire damage in the most vulnerable communities of Colorado and other states. The bill is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Representative Joel Hefley and my close colleague from New Mexico, Representative Tom Udall. We have worked closely in its development and I greatly appreciate their support. The bill deals with the fuel-reduction program that is a key part of the National Fire plan. Under that program, the land-managing agencies remove brush and other material that can fuel high-intensity fires through techniques such as burning (``prescribed fires''), mechanical thinning, vegetation control (such as defensible space around homes and buildings) or timber removal. I have supported that program, but have had some questions about the way the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the other land-managing agencies have been implementing it. So, I joined a number of our colleagues in the House and Senate in asking the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the steps the agencies have taken so far to see if improvements should be made. GAO has now completed that review and submitted a report that includes a number of recommendations. This bill would require that those recommendations be adopted. I am attaching a fact sheet that outlines the main provisions of the bill, as well as the ``Results in Brief'' portion of the GAO report. The GAO highlighted the need for two things--more and better interagency coordination, and better focus on identifying and responding to the highest-risk communities in the wildland/urban interface area. Improvements in these matters are important nationally, but they are particularly important for Colorado and other western states. That is because Colorado, like other Western states, has been experiencing ever more growth and development in and near forested areas. We are seeing more people, structures and investments placed at risk. It is this increasing risk to people and property--increasing because of growth as well as because of the unnatural forest conditions that we have created in many forests in Colorado through decades of fire suppression policies--that led to my interest in focusing on questions of wildlife management. And two particular things then lead me to take action. First, I took a tour of an area west of Boulder, Colorado, called Winiger Ridge. It is near an area where there was a major forest fire in 1989. Following that fire, a number of citizens, along with the Forest Service and Boulder County officials, got together to find a way to reduce the danger of a repetition of such a dangerous blaze. That group's efforts ultimately lead to the identification of conditions that lead to wildfire risks and the recommendation that some steps be taken to reduce that risk. The Winiger Ridge area was chosen as a location to explore some of these techniques--which involve some mechanical thinning and some controlled burning. When I toured this area and learned of the issues and the proposed strategy, I was struck by the condition of the forest--a condition of dense stands of small diameter trees--and, more importantly, I was very concerned about the homes and families that reside within this area. These homes and families are literally in the path of a possible major fire that could be devastating. It was important to identify this Winiger Ridge area because soon after my tour of it, another fire arose there in the summer of 2000, called the Walker Ranch fire. That fire threatened a number of mountain homes just west of Boulder. However, no structure was damaged because treatment with prescribed fire and vegetative thinning resulted in conditions that led the fire to drop to the ground and be more easily controlled. Had this not been done in previous years, the fire could have been much more devastating. That fire, and other devastating fires in Colorado and throughout the west, was the second event that strongly affected my thinking about this subject. I was interested in what I might do to address the problem and to try to lessen the dangers to our communities in ways that still recognized the need for sound management of forest lands and proper protection for their most sensitive areas. An early opportunity came when the House took up the appropriations bill for the Forest Service for fiscal year 2001. Reviewing the bill as it came to the floor, Representative Hefley and I were struck by the fact that the Appropriations Committee was proposing to reduce the funding for the wildland fire management account by some $4 million. In response, we offered an amendment to restore that funding that was approved by the House by a solid vote of 364 to 55. Then, after consulting a number of experts, I developed and introduced a bill intended to focus directly on our situation here in Colorado. It was cosponsored by Representative Helfly and by Representative Tancredo and DeGette as well. To put it in its simplest terms, our bill was intended to promote and facilitate efforts like the Winiger Ridge project, and thus help reduce the risk of a repeat of this past fire season, in the parts of Colorado that are at greatest risk of such disasters. That bill was not enacted itself, but its main principles were included in the fuel-reduction part of the National Fire Plan. And I have continued to work to make sure that this important fuel-reduction work was done the right way and in the right places. Since then, I have strongly supported the appropriation of funds for this purpose--but I have been concerned Congress has not done enough to spell out appropriate guidelines for their use, such as staying away from wilderness and roadless areas and ensuring that the projects are carefully targeted to protect the people who are at greatest risk from wildfires. We need to be very careful not to overcompensate for past shortcomings in working to reduce fuels. Fire is a natural part of our forests and eliminating fire from the landscape--as we tried to do for many years--was a big part of what produced the situation we now have. But the risks to people, property and the environment from creating this unnatural condition should not be used to justify a wholesale return to nearly-unrestricted timber cutting, as some seem to what. We need instead to have a careful, appropriate program of fuel reduction that is based on good science and focused where it is most needed--on the at-risk communities in the wildland/urban interface. The purpose of this bill is to help make that a reality. Fact Sheet on Bill To Improve Implementation of National Fire Plan The scale and intensity of forest fires in 2000 made that fire season one of the worst in 50 years. In response, the Agriculture and Interior Departments revised fire-management policies and congress approved increases in funding accompanied by policy directives. This combination of policies and directives is known as the National Fire Plan. A major part of the plan is reduction of hazardous fuels, in order to lessen the intensity of future fires. The primary agencies doing this work on federal and tribal lands are the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Methods used include burning (``prescribed fires''), mechanical thinning, vegetation control (defensible space), and timber cutting. The fire plan calls for giving priority to fuel-reduction projects that will reduce the risk to communities in the ``wildland/urban interface'' (where development borders or intermingles with forested areas).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Young Peacebuilders Act of 2002, a bill intended to help young people from regions of conflict around the world learn about conflict resolution, communication, and leadership. The legislation aims to get at one of the root causes of terrorism by enabling young people to interact with each other and gain a greater understanding of their cultures and their differences. The goal of the Young Peacebuilders Act is to help international youth learn the value of working together to solve problems, break down barriers and mistrust, and avoid the cultural misunderstandings that have plagued their parents' generation. My hope is that the program this bill would establish can be part of a solution that will prevent another September 11 from ever happening again. The bill would establish a program in the State Department for youth from regions of conflict around the world. The program would provide for visits in the United States of 90 days or less for training in conflict resolution and mutual understanding. Non-profit organizations and other organizations as determined by the Secretary of State would provide training, with the State Department working in conjunction with the Attorney General to establish criteria for eligibility. With this program, Americans would have another opportunity to respond to President Bush's call for national and community service. I believe that groups like Seeds of Peace and Outward Bound, where I was an educator and director in Colorado for 20 years, could be vehicles for developing leaders of tomorrow and stewards of peace. At the Colorado Outward Bound School, I saw first-hand how young people developed strong character and leadership skills by working in the outdoors. Our young people are our greatest resource and our future. Building peace requires an investment in new generations of young people around the world. In light of the violence and turmoil in the Middle East and the September 11 attacks, it is clear that this modest investment has never been so timely or needed more urgently. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to move forward with this important initiative, and I am attaching a fact sheet on this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this rule would clear the way for the House to debate a nonbinding resolution about changing the hunting seasons for migratory mourning doves. That is an interesting resolution, and it could make for an interesting debate. But the fact that it is proposed for debate today on the House floor is little short of a disgrace because of what it says about the priorities of the House's Republican leadership. In short, they have made it a priority to debate this nonbinding resolution, instead of trying to help people who have lost their jobs and are in an economic bind. I know we are all encouraged by the signs the economy is recovering from recession. But the recovery is far from complete, and unemployment insurance is running out for thousands of people who have lost their jobs. Extending those benefits is something they need and something that will help the economy because it will enable them to continue paying their bills. And it is what we should be doing today instead of debating whether Congress should go on record with some opinions about changing a hunting season. There should not be any partisan disagreement about this. That is why the Senate has already twice unanimously approved bills that would extend unemployment compensation benefits for 13 weeks. And that is what we should be doing today, instead of debating hunting seasons. We should be passing that bill--the bill supported by every Senator, regardless of party--and sending it to the President so he can sign it into law. It's too bad the Republican leadership does not think that should have priority over this resolution. I don't share that view, and so I cannot support this rule.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 60th birthday of Stan Sloss, who serves as my Senior Legislative Counsel and heads my legislative staff. I would not ordinarily take the time of my colleagues to thank a member of my personal staff, but Stan is so well known and beloved by members on both sides of the aisle, and his reputation is so well regarded, that I believe it is entirely appropriate to commemorate his birthday in a journal that he has known so well and to which he has contributed so much. Many of you know Stan and have had an opportunity to work with him over the years. Stan's distinguished service has resulted in his becoming a valued resource--not only as an experienced voice on substantive policy issues, but also for his knowledge of the venerated but often byzantine procedures of the House. I heavily draw upon his experience, expertise and diplomatic operating style. A native of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Stan is a graduate of Amherst College and the Harvard Law School. He came to Washington, DC in the late 1960s, working first in the General Counsel's office of the Atomic Energy Commission. He next spent some time in private practice, and among other things spent some time in Alaska working on some issues related to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Stan's congressional career started in 1975 when he joined the staff of what was then known as the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. He served as counsel to the Mines and Mining Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Patsy Mink. He assisted with some important amendments to the Coal Leasing Act that were passed over the veto of President Ford and with a variety of other measures that came before that Subcommittee. In 1977, Stan became a counsel to the new Subcommittee on General Oversight and Alaska Lands, chaired by former Representative John F. Seiberling. In this capacity, Stan worked with both Representative Seiberling and my father, Morris K. Udall, who was the Chairman of the full Interior Committee. Stan helped draft a number of key parts of the legislation that became the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), particularly those related to subsistence uses by Alaska's Native peoples. Stan staffed hearings throughout the lower 48 states and Alaska and was one of the many key professional staff who helped shape the final legislation. ANILCA was a milestone in conservation, setting aside more than 100 million acres of Alaska's most pristine, public lands--an area larger than the State of California--and more than doubling the size of the nation's systems of national parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness and wild and scenic rivers. In addition to ANILCA, Stan has been involved with many other laws and regulations affecting the public lands and natural resources. He served as Representative Seiberling's staff counsel to the Select Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). That Committee developed the 1978 When John Seiberling retired in 1987, Stan remained on the Interior Committee staff, serving under former Representative Bruce Vento, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. He was involved in development of legislation, including the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act sponsored by my father, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 that included legislation developed by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, and the California Desert Protection Act. In 1995, Stan left the Resources Committee to become the Legislative Director for David Skaggs. Representative Skaggs was a member of the Interior Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, so Stan was able to use his familiarity with public lands issues to assist in connection with those issues as they arose in that new context. He also dealt with the contentious issues related to Rocky Flats and the other sites in the DOE nuclear-weapons complex. Stan was one of the first people I hired following my election in November 1998. I was fortunate to have someone who worked for my predecessor and so was familiar with the Second Congressional District. As a newly elected Member of the Resources Committee, I also appreciated his familiarity with matters within its jurisdiction as well as the more senior members and the Committee staff. At my office, Stan has made important contributions in drafting legislation to establish Rocky Flats as a national wildlife refuge after it is cleaned up and closed. He also has worked on the Udall- McInnis wilderness bill for James Peak, and fire prevention legislation I have proposed with my colleague, Mr. Hefley. Stan's work has not been confined to the environmental arena. His keen intellect, common sense and sharp legal analysis have been invaluable on the wide range of issues and topics that face all members every day. He has been especially effective in tutoring many of the younger members of my staff on the inner workings of the House, the nuances of legislative drafting and as an example of the highest standard of professionalism for congressional staff. Like any thoughtful and accomplished lawyer, Stan is often fond of saying that he ``can argue it flat or argue it round'', and his objectivity is legendary in our office. Having said that, however, I also know that beneath his always calm demeanor and his ability to see all sides of a question, there beats the heart of a man who is passionate about doing the ``right thing.'' Stan has never compromised his firm and unswerving commitment to civil rights and liberty. He loves the absurdity that is sometimes politics, but he doesn't allow political analysis to get in the way of his strongly held views about the majesty of our constitution. Stan is a public servant in the best sense. He brings a work ethic and code of professionalism that is always focused on the promotion of policies that best serve the environment, the public good and the values of honesty and bipartisanship that are the hallmarks of American democracy at its best. His contributions to my office, the offices of my predecessors, the House Resources Committee and the whole House of Representatives--and ultimately the people of the United States--serve as an example of a professional life that commands both respect and affection. I wish Stan a happy birthday and many productive years ahead.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the Young Peacebuilders Act of 2002 recognizes that our young people are our greatest resource and our future. It also recognizes that promoting international cooperation and increased mutual understanding--in effect, building peace--requires an investment in new generations of young people. This legislation would offer young people from regions of conflict opportunities to develop strong character, integrity, and leadership skills, and would help them to learn about conflict resolution and communication. The bill is intended to instill hope--instead of fear-- in the hearts of the world's young people, as well as in the hearts of Americans who are at a loss as to how to view the months and years ahead. For 20 years, Representative Udall was director of the Colorado Outward Bound School, where he saw first-hand how young people developed strong character and leadership skills by working in the outdoors. Outward Bound and similar programs in the U.S. could help international youth learn the value of working together to solve problems, as well as to help them avoid the cultural misunderstanding that have plagued their parents' generation. The Young Peacebuilders Act of 2002 would establish a program in the Department of State for youth from regions of conflict. The program would provide for visits in the United States of 90 days or less for training in conflict resolution and mutual understanding. Training would be provided by non-profit organizations and other organizations as determined by the Secretary of State. The State Department, working in conjunction with the Attorney General, would establish criteria for eligibility for participation. The bill would authorize $2 million for each fiscal year to carry out this Act.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Club 20 as it starts its second half-century as a forum and advocate for Colorado's majestic western slope region. Founded in 1953 by the publisher of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel and a number of business leaders, Club 20 took its name from the 20 counties from which its original membership came. Now it includes 22 counties, 75 incorporated cities and towns, the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribes, 40 chambers of commerce, a number of special districts, and hundreds of businesses and individuals. In its 50 years of service, Club 20 has been an active participant in lively debates about issues important to the economic vitality and quality of life in the communities of the western slope. From transportation, health care and other social services to the whole range of issues related to federal lands--which make up a large share of this region--Club 20 has been an effective advocate for its members. It has worked to identify issues of concern, inform its members about them, develop as great a degree of consensus as possible regarding ways to address those issues, and, most importantly, communicate to elected officials and others to make sure the voice of its members are heard on important policy matters. As part of its work, Club 20 members make an annual visit to the nation's capital to meet with Members of Congress and their staffs and officials of the Executive Branch. These trips help inform people in Washington about the issues affecting western Colorado and the views of its citizens. They help us better understand how issues are affecting western Coloradans--people who are directly affected by federal decisions on public lands, agriculture, transportation, rural social services, and water as well as other issues. These direct contacts put a human face on the issues and are very valuable for all of us who work on these matters. I ask all our colleagues to join me in congratulating Club 20 for its successful 50 years and in wishing them continued success for the next 50 years and beyond.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent of mine, Mr. Dan Tang, who was recently featured in the Rocky Mountain News for his success as an entrepreneur in the restaurant business. Mr. Tang's story reminds us that perhaps no one enjoys the fruits of the opportunity that America has to offer as much as those who have never had the luxury of taking it for granted. Over twenty years ago, having heard countless stories of how much our great country has to offer, Mr. Tang bravely escaped communist China with the hope of one day becoming an American citizen. He spent nearly a year in extremely harsh conditions at a refugee camp in Canton awaiting permission to come here. Thankfully, Mr. Tang had relatives in Los Angeles who were able to give him a floor to sleep on, and a roof over his head when he finally received permission to enter the United States. As an immigrant who spoke no English, he had a life-sustaining dream to overcome the obstacles he faced and move to Colorado. In Colorado he was able to get a job as a dishwasher in an American-owned Chinese restaurant. He worked tirelessly, learned English, and moved up the ladder of the restaurant business, eventually becoming a chef. Recognizing Mr. Tang's talent, a Colorado restaurant owner took him under his wing and taught him the financial side of the business. This knowledge and experience enabled Mr. Tang to purchase his first restaurant, ``Heaven Dragon.'' The restaurant is one of the most popular and successful restaurants in my district and has enabled Mr. Tang to buy a second restaurant nearby, ``Pearl Wok''. He is a leader in the Chinese-American community of Colorado, a successful businessman, a friend to the Governor of Colorado, and an example of how the so-called ``American dream'' is still a reality. Mr. Speaker, at a time in our country's history when many are skeptical of the enormous contribution that immigrants and their families make in contributing to the success of America and strengthening our communities, I am encouraged by the example of Dan Tang. Mr. Speaker, I commend Dan Tang's story to this House and to my colleagues for the inspiration it evokes, and for a reminder of what it is to be an American. [From the Rocky Mountain News, Feb. 20, 2002] Feeding the American Dream (By Marty Meitus) Fourteen people. One rusty old boat, A harrowing glide down the river to Macau, then a Portuguese colony more than 100 miles from the farm near Canton, with two toddlers to keep quiet. If the boat went toward the shore, Dan Tang says, they would cover the children with a blanket to make it look as if they were transporting something. If the boat had sprung a leak and sunk, or if the children had cried out at the wrong moment, Tang and company would have risked prison and a steep fine. ``It was pretty scary,'' he says in his heavily accented English. Tang, owner of the Heaven Dragon restaurant, a hidden treasure tucked away in a strip mall in Thornton, has been asked to tell the tale of his escape from communist China over and over since he arrived in this country 20 years ago. The affable 40-year-old is given to easy laughter, taking pleasure and pride in his pretty restaurant. In honor of the Chinese, New Year, which began Feb. 12 and lasts 15 days, we talked to Tang about his journey toward the American dream. Tang's father was a rice and yam farmer in Canton; his mother was a housewife. He and his five brothers slept in the same bed in their two-bedroom wood-and-dirt house. Needed in the fields, he attended school only to fifth grade. The family never rose above the poverty level, restricted by a government that confiscated most of their earnings and limited their activities. In 1980, hearing that fortunes could be made here, Tang decided to leave China for the United States. ``They (his parents) let me try it to escape to freedom,'' he says. ``The government limited what you could do. You had to escape, because there were no travel visas; you had to get permission to go from city to city.'' In Macau, he stayed in a refugee camp for 11 months, under rough conditions, while he waited for his visa to come through. His goal was to reach his aunt, his father's sister, who lived in Los Angeles. Eventually, he was granted permission to leave. He lost sight of the other 13 people on the boat, although he knows that a couple of them immigrated to Canada. ``We were lucky,'' he says. ``I know people who tried to get out four or five times.'' In Los Angeles, he slept in his aunt's dining room, hoping to break into the restaurant business, one of the few fields open to an immigrant who spoke no English. Struggling to survive, he finally moved to Colorado, where he had friends, and went to work for Americans who owned a Chinese restaurant in Aurora. His experience with cooking was limited. ``The first time I saw a grocery store in the U.S., I'm in paradise,'' he says. He worked his way up from dishwasher to prep cook to deep- fry cook to chef, moving around the metro area to 10 restaurants in all. Then an American businessman took him under his wing and taught him the restaurant business, enabling Tang to buy Heaven Dragon in 1985. Tang has brought all his family except two brothers to America, and they should be allowed to come in the next couple of years. The family includes his wife, Ying Li, the woman chosen to be his bride by his parents in an arranged marriage. When he brought her over as an adult for their wedding, he hadn't seen her since she was 9. ``When she got off the plane,'' he says. ``I didn't recognize her, except a little bit.'' Choosing his own wife would have been out of the question. ``We still have old culture, so I wouldn't even think of not doing it,'' he says. But all's well that ends well. He and Yung Li have been married for 11 years and have three children: Victor, 10, Tracey 8, and Audrey, 7. Tang has been successful enough to open a second restaurant, the Pearl Wok, at West 120th Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard. Although he'd like to have more free time to devote to learning English and he regrets never being able to return to school, the restaurant life has been its own education. ``If you work hard,'' he says, ``you get rewarded.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, after careful consideration I have decided that I cannot support this bill. The stated goal of the bill is to promote growth and development in high-speed (broadband) data services offered by regional Bell operating companies such as SBC, Verizon, BellSouth, and Qwest. The bill seeks to achieve this by relaxing requirements placed on the Bells in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. What we need is competition to drive prices down and give consumers more choices. However, I am not convinced the bill would achieve these goals, and am concerned that it might have the opposite effect. I do believe the bill is well intentioned and is intended to respond to a real need. I agree with the bill's sponsors that the expansion and use of broadband services is vital to our economic growth. But Colorado's consumer groups, state and local government officials, small telecommunications firms, and residents in rural and underserved areas in Colorado tell me that they think this bill will consolidate the Bell companies' monopoly and result in increased prices for consumers. I give great weight to the views of those Coloradans. Today in Colorado small telecommunications companies are working hard to play by rules that Congress passed in a bipartisan fashion in 1996. And our regional Bell company, Qwest, is doing the same thing because it has hopes to enter the long distance market soon. In short, in Colorado the current system seems to be working, and I am not prepared to vote to attempt to fix something that I am not convinced is broken.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I think today's action on the House floor is exactly the kind of thing that makes people cynical about Congress and the political process. As our businesses are struggling to recover from recession, unemployment insurance is running out for thousands of people who have lost their jobs. Extending those benefits is something they need and something that will help the economy because it will enable them to continue paying their bills. Those are the facts. There should be no partisan disagreement about them--which is why the Senate unanimously approved the bill before us, which would extend those benefits for 13 weeks. And there should be no disagreement about what we should be doing today as we prepare to adjourn and leave town for more than a week. We should be passing that bill--the bill supported by every Senator, regardless of party--and sending it to the President so he can sign it into law. But we aren't doing that. Instead, the Republicans leadership is insisting on holding that bill hostage--which means holding hostage everyone who need the extension of unemployment coverage--by sending it back to the Senate loaded down with a bulging grab bag of other legislation that the House has already passed before. No wonder people are cynical about Congress. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that none of the things in this legislative package is any good. As a matter of fact, there are a number of items that I support. For example, I strongly support the extension of the clean-energy production credits and the work- opportunity credit. I also support a number of provisions to give tax relief to small businesses and to shorten the period for depreciating leasehold improvements. And I definitely think we need to change the way the alternative minimum tax is applied to individuals. But all those provisions were already included in legislation that the House passed last year. There is no need to hijack this bill--a bill to provide urgently-needed help to thousands of Americans--to get them to the Senate, because they are already there. I understand that the Republican leadership here in the House wants the Senate to act on a stimulus bill--and I agree that a sound stimulus bill would be good for the economy and good for the country. But I cannot agree to their strategy. I cannot agree to holding hard-pressed Americans hostage to try to coerce our colleagues in the other body. So, I cannot support this motion.