Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill. I believe in free trade and am philosophically opposed to protectionism. I am particularly sensitive to the economic challenges faced by the ``high technology'' sector of our economy, and believe that there was an opportunity to craft a bill that would have secured broad bipartisan support on trade. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of that bipartisan promise. The stakes on trade promotion authority--or ``fast track''--have changed, along with the global trade landscape. Easing barriers to trade no longer simply involves tariffs or quotas. In our increasingly globalized world, trade negotiations involve areas that used to be considered U.S. domestic law--from regulatory standards and antitrust laws to food safety and prescription drug patents, to name just a few. And because the trade landscape has changed, I--along with many of my colleagues--believe that the way in which we go about negotiating those trade agreements should be different than it has been in the past, when Congress agreed to limit its role in this important aspect of national policy. Now, even more than before, broad support is needed for any bill that would relinquish the authority of Congress to represent the nation by reviewing agreements or decisions reached by the Executive. If we are going to vote to reduce congressional review and give favorable treatment to trade agreements, we should at least provide that these agreements meet certain minimum standards. The stakes--for American workers and for the environment--are too high for us to do otherwise. In June of this year, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Crane introduced a fast-track bill that was roundly criticized as not providing a strong enough role for Congress and not addressing concerns about labor or environmental standards. As Ways and Means Chairman Thomas prepared his revised legislation, many of my colleagues and I had hoped that he might have better understood that building a bipartisan consensus requires consultation of Members on both sides of the aisle. Only then could Chairman Thomas's bill have correctly been named the ``Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act.'' So I was disappointed when H.R. 3005 was introduced, as it was clear that Chairman Thomas wasn't willing to work to gain broad support for his bill. In contrast, in my view, the version of the legislation introduced by Ways and Means Ranking Member Rangel and Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Levin would take important steps in the right direction and would provide a better foundation for developing sound legislation. But the rule under which this bill is being debated does not even provide for consideration of the Rangel-Levin bill as an alternative. Although the rule does make some slight improvements to the Thomas bill, the changes are too little and too late. It is incumbent on us in Congress to continue to work to update our trade policy to take account of this changed landscape. That means we need a trade promotion bill that includes a stronger role for Congress, and stronger environmental and labor provisions. The Thomas bill before us does not measure up, and I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Penelope Purdy, a member of the editorial board of the Denver Post. Ms. Purdy's columns and editorials on land and natural resource protection issues were recently recognized by The Wilderness Society, which selected her has the 2001 recipient of the Aldo Leopold Award for Editorial Writing. This award was established by The Wilderness Society in 1998. It is given to an editorial writer ``who has produced editorials forcefully making the case for protecting America's remaining wild lands.'' It is named for Aldo Leopold, a celebrated conservationist and a founder of The Wilderness Society whose book ``A Sand County Almanac'' has come to be viewed as one of the leading guides for the establishment of an environmental ethic focused on the conservation of landscapes and ecosystems. I can think of no one who is more deserving of this award than Penelope Purdy. Ms. Purdy's body of work is impressive. She holds a masters degree in international and intercultural communications, and writes on a wide variety of domestic and foreign-policy issues. But her contributions on environmental topics are especially noteworthy. She has come to be seen as an expert on these issues, which run the gamut of Superfund cleanups, forest policies, public land recreational use, growth and open space management, federal land agency budgets and pollution of the atmosphere and water. Her insights on these issues--so important for all of us in Colorado and the west--have had a very beneficial effect on the shaping of public policy. But it is her work on lands protection--the work that drew the attention of The Wilderness Society--that is especially extensive and distinguished. Through a number of columns, she has effectively and forcefully promoted the practical virtues of protecting special, vanishing lands in Colorado and throughout the west. She is not simply an automatic proponent of any and all lands protection proposals, but evaluates each one on its individual merits and doesn't hesitate to make suggestions based on on-the-ground realities and real world politics. Her well- reasoned arguments have in fact helped persuade others to join in the efforts to preserve what is left of the stunning and majestic landscapes in Colorado. I have heard it said that while good poetry is emotion recollected in tranquillity, good journalism is more like apathy stung awake in a beehive. In either case, the best writing requires passionate involvement. And the quality of Ms. Purdy's prose is no exception. It obviously arises from her own passion and perspectives as a person who combines intelligence and understanding of complex issues with the personal and emotional values that come from experiencing the outdoors. She has personally visited many of the special places--in Colorado and elsewhere--that have been the subjects of her writings. This personal touch helps inform her views and leads to an enhanced understanding of her subject matter. To illustrate, I am attaching two of her columns. One is an informative discussion of the complex realities of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. The other gives a glimpse of Ms. Purdy's mountain-climbing experiences. The first is a matter of great importance to all Coloradans, while the latter has a particular resonance with those of us who have also spent time seeking to reach a summit or two. In conclusion, I again congratulate Ms. Purdy on her well-earned award, and look forward to many more insightful, well-written contributions from her on important issues facing Colorado and the nation. [From the Denver Post, Nov. 28, 2000] Arsenal's Harsh Reality (By Penelope Purdy) The Rocky Mountain Arsenal exudes such a warm, fuzzy image as a wildlife refuge that Coloradans sometimes forget it's still one of the most polluted landscapes in America. In recent weeks, workers at the federal property north of Aurora discovered six bomblets that may contain sarin, a nerve gas so deadly just a drop will kill a person--and each grapefruit-sized mini-bomb could hold 1.3 pounds. Arsenal officials admit more unpleasant surprises might be unearthed as cleanup crews pick through the site's hazardous garbage. That confession may surprise folks who view the arsenal as a place scout troops and school groups take guided tours to gawk at bald eagles and 300 species of birds, mammals and reptiles that make their home there. But many of these creatures live on the arsenal simply because its 27 square miles represent some of the last open prairie in the metro area. It's a sad comment on the destructive impacts of urban sprawl that wild animals prefer to live atop chemical waste than amid endless strip malls. Yet the animals' presence doesn't erase harsh facts about the land they inhabit: Starting in 1942, the U.S. Army used the place to manufacture hideous weapons including sarin, mustard gas and wheat rust, a biological agent capable of wiping out crops. From 1952 to 1988, Shell Oil Co. used the same property to make pesticides, some now outlawed as too dangerous. For 40 years, the feds and Shell dumped deadly liquid and solid wastes into unlined pits. Some of these pits, or basins, eventually leaked, letting poisons seep into the drinking water of nearby communities. The government didn't keep proper tabs on where it tossed unused munitions, so sarin bomblets and other explosives may be strewn around several parts of the arsenal. Worst of all: The 1996 pact between the feds and the state of Colorado really doesn't insist on decontaminating the land. It just calls for the feds and Shell to dig up the worst toxic goo and rebury it elsewhere on the property. So the pact is less a cleanup plan than a reburial plot. Changing the signs at the arsenal from army post to wildlife refuge didn't erase decades of lies, delays and political hardball that the feds used to stop Colorado from getting a more thorough cleansing of the place. The feds cornered Colorado into this unhappy position despite bipartisan efforts to make the Army do better. In 1987, then-State Attorney General Duane Woodard, a Democrat, sued the federal government to force a cleanup. When Republican Gale Norton succeeded him in 1990, she pursued the case with gusto. Indeed, Colorado won several big federal court decisions. But the Army maneuvered to stall and complicate the case. Meantime, Congress grew alarmed at how much a full-blown decontamination of the site would cost--estimates ranged up to a mind-boggling $20 billion. Congress would never approve such a massive amount. So by 1995, then-Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler, another Democrat, tried to bust loose the logjam. She got a deal inked by the state, the Army, Shell, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The planned cleanup will cost about $2 billion, of which more than $700 million already has been spent. Now the job of holding the feds' feet to the fire has fallen to Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican who shows the same high level of concern. And rightly so, for the 1996 deal gave Colorado half-a- loaf. For example, Adams County communities whose drinking water was ruined by the arsenal's runoff had been promised clean water. But they'll get only 4,000 acre-feet annually instead of the 10,000 acre-feet they need. Yet, without the 1996 pact, toxins might still be oozing into the environment; lawyers certainly would still be arguing; and Congress could still be refusing to fund any real cleanup work. As it is, some progress has been made. The feds built systems to stop pollution from reaching drinking water supplies. Some chemicals have been incinerated. A vast vat of toxic sludge called Basin F has been dug up, and its materials moved to a more stable containment site. And arsenal workers are investigating suspected problem areas-- which is how they found the sarin bomblets. Much more work lies ahead. In fact, the 1996 plan envisioned the cleanup taking at least 10 years. Even when the plan is fulfilled, though, the place will still be polluted by substances that require decades, sometimes centuries, to break down into less toxic forms. So despite the eagles and tour groups, here's the harsh reality about the arsenal: It will harbor deadly wastes for longer than our great-grandchildren will be alive.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to rise today to acknowledge Stephanie S. Rudy for the depth and diversity of contributions she has made to so many local organizations in Colorado. Stephanie's energy is boundless, her smile matchless, and her compassion far-reaching. She is a dedicated advocate for the arts and one of the rarest and most wonderful talents in our community. This year she was selected by the Denver Foundation as the recipient of the ``Minoru Yasui Community Volunteer Award,'' which recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the city of Denver and their community through volunteerism. She also was chosen by the Boulder Chamber of Commerce to receive the ``Women Who Light Up The Community'' honor. Among the many organizations Stephanie has enriched with her talents are the ``Open Studios'' for artists and art lovers throughout the Boulder area, the Colorado Music Festival, the Conference on World Affairs at the University of Colorado, the Boulder County Safehouse for women and children, the Boulder Community Hospital, and the Boulder Police Department. To serve so broadly, so successfully, and with such grace, heart, and spirit is deserving of recognition. I first met Stephanie when, as a representative of ``Open Studios,'' she enlisted my help in inviting Mr. William Ivey, chairman of the National Endowment for the arts, to visit Colorado. Through her coordinating genius with the Colorado Council on the Arts, the Colorado Business Committee for the Arts, the Arvada Center for the Arts, Chairman Ivey's office and my staff, Stephanie booked the chairman to speak before full audiences in Denver, Arvada, and Boulder. This special engagement with the chairman was a triumph only to be dreamed of by others in Colorado. For the past 4 years Stephanie has been the personable Steering Committee Chair in charge of Publicity and Marketing for ``Open Studios.'' This program is a self-guided tour of over 130 studios of Boulder's finest visual artists. Under her inspired direction, attendance has increased nearly thirty percent, and ``Open Studios'' has garnered generous coverage in local and national newspapers and magazines. Her creativity in designing the unique Press Kits has generated remarkable public participation in this exceptional annual event. In addition to the incomparable work Stephanie does for ``Open Studios,'' she also serves as a member of the Board of the Colorado Music Festival. This festival orchestra has been described as ``the best orchestra is Colorado,'' and ``the most important orchestra between Chicago and Los Angeles.'' To celebrate the Colorado Music Festival's 25th Anniversary, Stephanie graciously gave me the tremendous honor of having the U.S. flag presented to the festival's accomplished young conductor, Mr. Michael Christie, for his debut season. Stephanie has also been a member of the General Committee for the Conference on World Affairs, an annual event held at the University of Colorado each April. She has been in charge of publicity for this conference that is attended annually by over 50,000 people. She has recently been asked to use her extraordinary skills as a member of the committee to plan the World Affairs Athenaeum. The Boulder Police Department has benefited for three years from her volunteer work as a Victim's Advocate. This program requires Stephanie to respond to the scene of a crime and inform victims and witnesses of their rights, give them resources, and help them find constructive ways to cope with incidents. She has dealt sympathetically with victims of sexual assault, assault, bank robberies, domestic violence, and harassment. She has also worked sensitively with groups of people affected by the suicide of others. Stephanie has enhanced the ``Chocolate Lover's Fling,'' among other projects for the Boulder Country Safehouse, a human service organization serving women and children victimized by domestic violence. She cochairs the arts committee of ``Wine Women and Food,'' an event sponsored by the Boulder Community Hospital. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to Stephanie Rudy for touching our community socially, culturally, and artistically. Her constant and loving contributions go beyond reckoning, and I wish her good health and happiness in the future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to help restore and preserve our nation's treasured veterans' memorials. The freedom we enjoy in the United States has not just been given to us. Men and women have made great sacrifices, some with their lives, to protect our way of life. We have erected memorials to honor these soldiers, sailors, and aviators and their valiant deeds. Unfortunately many of these expressions of our gratitude don't receive the care they deserve. These memorials may not be as large as those on the National Mall or Arlington National Cemetery but they are just as important. My bill would provide grants to rehabilitate those memorials that have fallen into disrepair. The grants would be distributed from a Veterans' Memorial Restoration Fund that would be administered by the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. With the additional resources provided by this fund we would be able to revive those veterans' memorials on public lands to their original splendor. People should know the hallowed ground where departed veterans have been laid to rest. These are the most important memorials, where families go to reflect on the lives of their loved ones who have passed on. This bill would make veterans' cemeteries eligible for supplemental guide signs placed on any federally aided highway. Also, this bill would make sure that people who willfully desecrate a veterans' memorial on public land could be fined or put in jail, and they would be subject to civil penalties to cover the cost of repairing damages. Mr. Speaker, as we honor America's men and women in uniform now fighting in Afghanistan to protect our freedom we cannot forget those who have protected us before. We can do this by making sure memorials to their memory do not fall into disrepair. This bill will help to ensure that our veterans are not forgotten. For the benefit of my colleagues I have attached a fact sheet that outlines the bill. Fact Sheet: ``Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act'' ``Veterans' Memorial Restoration Fund'' Creates a fund to cover the costs associated with the repairs or restoration of veterans' memorials. These funds are also to cover the costs of continued maintenance and upkeep of veterans' memorials. The funds made available in this account are to be in addition to other monies designated by the Treasury to be used for repair and maintenance of veterans' memorials. The funds would be distributed to individuals or entities that are responsible for the upkeep of a veterans' memorial through Federal grants. (The Secretary of Veterans' Affairs would determine the criteria for how the grants are to be awarded.) (There is not a specified amount of money designated for the fund. The fund would be augmented by donations. Also, money collected as a civil penalty from willful damage to memorials would go into the fund.) Desecration of veterans' memorials Persons who willfully damage a veterans' memorial on public property can be imprisoned up to 10 years and fined (the fine amount is not defined in this legislation). If the damage does not exceed $1000 then the defendant cannot be imprisoned for more than one year. Whoever willfully damages a memorial will be subject to civil penalties in an amount equal to the cost of repairing the damage. Highway Signs Relating to Veterans Cemeteries A veterans cemetery will be eligible for a supplemental guide sign placed on any highway that receives Federal monies.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the important energy and environmental research and achievements of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), located in Snowmass, Colorado. Over the last two decades, RMI has compiled an outstanding record of achievement--and it is poised to make even greater contributions now, as we address the interrelated problems and opportunities of energy policy, environmental protection and national security. Resource analysts Hunter and Amory Lovins, who still lead it, established the RMI in 1982. It began as a small group of colleagues focusing on energy policy, and has grown into a broadbased institution with more than 45 full-time staff, an annual budget of nearly $7 million, and a global reach. RMI focuses on a wide range of pressing and important issues--such as energy efficiency, resource productivity, market-oriented solutions to resource problems, and unlocking the positive power of corporate structures. But its principal focus is on what it calls a ``whole- systems approach.'' Instead of viewing resource problems as merely symptoms (reduced supplies) or as discrete, isolated components (oil, gas, water, etc.), RMI looks at the root causes of scarcity (wasteful, counterproductive activities) and devises cost-effective, profit- generating responses that result in greater efficiencies, fewer environmental impacts, and greater economic and national security. In short, RMI and its team of researchers ask more probing questions that in turn lead to the creation of exciting new techniques for more profitable and sustainable living, while also increasing awareness and understanding of the impacts of bad habits and practices. The creation of RMI came in response to a well-remembered energy crisis--the oil embargo of 1973--a time of challenges in some ways similar to those we face today. At that time of high gas prices, long lines at the gas station and a war in the Middle East, most of the country was focused on how we could become more energy independent by increasing our traditional energy supplies. Amory Lovins was also thinking about this problem, but he came at it from a different perspective. Instead of trying to find solutions to feed our existing consumption, he was asking more bedrock questions, such as--What are the activities for which we need energy? Can we Find other energy sources to supply these needs? What are the cheapest ways to supply that energy? From this thinking arose a whole new era of looking at energy issues from the end-use/least-cost approach--the core focus of RMI. Since then, Amory and his team of researchers, which includes his wife Hunter Lovins, have examined the whole range of energy consumption, supply and delivery systems and considered ways to achieve the same social goals at lower costs and lower environmental impact. They have been the leaders in promoting the more effective use of buildings (over 30 percent of America's total energy usage is tied to buildings; as RMI notes, weatherizing homes, using energy-efficient appliances and harnessing the natural heating and cooling effects of the sun and earth can lead to dramatic reductions while also resulting in increased productivity and enhanced living environments). They have been leaders in the promotion of high-efficiency light-bulbs (about 20 percent of our electricity generation goes for lighting; as RMl notes, if the country fully utilized the now commercially available efficient light bulbs, we could displace 120 Chernobyl-sized power plants). And, they have been leaders in the development of new transportation technologies to reduce oil consumption (transportation needs comprise nearly two-thirds of our oil consumption, and RMI notes that if we increased the average fuel efficiency of vehicles by just 10 miles per gallon from today's current 19 mpg, we could displace all of the oil we import from the Persian Gulf). Also in the transportation arena, RMI researchers introduced the Hypercar concept in 1992. This car was built using the same bedrock, whole-systems thinking used in all of RMI's work--they imagined what a car could be if designed from scratch. Not losing sight of consumer needs and the demands placed on cars, they produced a car composed of sturdy and light components that is aerodynamic and uses a combination of gas and electricity. This past spring, RMI unveiled the ``Revolution''--an actual working prototype employing Hypercar concepts. The Hypercar, like all of RMI's other work, is not based on science- fiction, or environmentally utopian precepts. RMI's work is based on real world, practical techniques that are available today. In fact, as can be attested to by the many companies that RMI consults for, the whole-system approach can result in tangible benefits that increase productivity and, ultimately, profits. But perhaps RMI's most important contribution that has particular importance for today's world has been to highlight the connection between energy use and national security. In their probing, and, unfortunately, prescient 1982 book ``Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security,'' Amory and Hunter Lovins made a convincing case that our reliance on centralized, concentrated distributed power systems is inherently insecure. Potential terrorists can take advantage of this system by targeting power grids, pipelines and production facilities to cause major power and energy disruptions. The authors then argued that a more secure energy system is one that is dispersed, diverse and involves more locally produced energy--in addition to the simple technique of reducing consumption altogether. Given the events of September 11th, we would be well advised to reengage in these issues and begin to seriously consider the recommendations outlined in this book. As the work of RMI continually points out, enhancing our national security, does not only involve a reexamination of our energy infrastructure, consumption and resource supplies. It also involves creating strong and healthy communities. As Amory and Hunter Lovins note, ``Security also derives from a society in which people are healthy and have a healthful environment, a sustainable economy, a legitimate system of government, and abundant cultural and spiritual assets.'' This again involves looking at the problem from a whole-system approach. An example the authors use to underscore this point is the costs of maintaining our military forces to keep oil flowing from the Middle East oil fields. They note that if we simply weatherize our homes, businesses and office complexes and increase gas mileage of our cars, we could eliminate U.S. oil imports from all sources. Again, it is this kind of thinking that we need now to address our security needs. These are but a few examples of the critically important work of the RMI--and RMI not only produces abstract analyses, but it also puts its ideas into practice. A prime example is the RMI office building in Snowmass, Colorado. The 4,000-square-foot building is passive-solar, super-insulated, and earth-sheltered. It has no heating system in the traditional sense, but is kept comfortable even at 20 degrees below zero by passive solar gain through super-insulated windows. Savings of 99 percent in space-and water-heating energy and 90 percent in household electricity repaid the costs in building this facility in 10 months. RMI can even grow bananas in its greenhouse--in the high mountains of Colorado. More importantly, the RMI building demonstrates to homeowners that this level of efficiency is possible and cost effective. This work--and much more--now has spanned the past twenty years. It has been highly praised and recognized with a number of awards, including the Right Livelihood Award (the ``alternative Nobel Prize'') in 1984, the Onassis Foundation's fist Delphi Prize (one of the world's top two environmental awards) in 1989 for its energy work, and Amory and Hunter Lovins were named ``Heroes of the Planet'' by Time magazine in 2000. As we seek solutions for the vast array of energy and national security issues we are now confronting, we would do well to draw upon the ideas and approaches being explored, tested and implemented by the people at RMI. I look forward with anticipation to RMI's next twenty years and the exciting contributions and innovative ideas they will no doubt produce.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the contributions of the Jolly Rancher candy company and to express sadness that its factory in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, is closing next year after 53 years of production. Bill and Dorothy Harmsen opened the Jolly Rancher factory in Wheat Ridge in 1949. They named the factory Jolly Rancher for the welcoming and western sound of the name. The couple started the business with chocolate and ice cream production. However, they soon found nation- wide success in its line of fruit flavored hard candy. Bill and Dorothy sold the factory to Beatrice foods in 1966, but still stayed personally involved with production. Bill was known to come down to the factory in his bathrobe in the middle of the night if there was a problem. As a result of their hard work, the company grew, and has earned fame as a favorite all over the world. Currently, the factory produces about one million pounds of candy every week and employs three hundred and twenty people. The factory was eventually sold to Hershey who has decided to shut down the original production facility in Wheat Ridge and relocate it to another location. The growth and success of the Jolly Rancher factory is a real life example of the American Dream; with hard work and ingenuity anything is possible. Perhaps more impressive than the company's success, is the impact that the factory has made on the surrounding community. While the factory produces the flavor of the day, the aroma encompasses the surrounding community. The fruit fragrance makes mouths water and tests the culinary aptitude of children as they try to guess the flavor that the factory is making that day. Adults in the area remember touring the factory as children and being permitted to taste warm Jolly Ranchers right off the assembly line. Trick or treaters would go to the factory every Halloween to have loads of candy dumped into their Halloween sacks. This Colorado confectionery has delighted the sweet tooth of the community for decades. It is a landmark and member of the community. I join with others in the community to express my disappointment that this fixture of the community and example of small business success is being relocated.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Schoolbus Safety Act of 2001, legislation designed to close a loophole in federal regulations that can threaten the safety of children who ride a bus to and from school. As my colleagues may know, the sale of new 15-passenger vans to carry school-age children has been banned since 1974 because they do not have the same safety features as school buses and because the vans are more likely to roll over when carrying many passengers. However, current regulations allow schools to purchase used 15-passenger vans--the loophole my legislation addresses. School buses and 15-passenger vans are radically different vehicles. A school bus must meet numerous mandated federal safety standards. School buses have multiple horizontal and vertical steel beams bonded together in such a manner that essentially wraps the passengers in a cage of steel. The inside and outside of the bus is further reinforced by thick sheets of steel. A school bus is generally heavier than a comparable sized passenger vehicle and has exit doors, superior roof structure, an interior aisle, significant interior seat padding, driver visibility, fuel system integrity, and a far superior center of gravity and stability. In addition school buses have special warning light and pedestrian control systems and are generally painted a bright yellow, which are all significant safety features. The traditional 15-passenger van is structurally and generally a significantly different vehicle. These vans were originally rated as ``light trucks'' and, as such, were not required to meet passenger safety standards. Therefore, the area behind the driver is anticipated only to carry cargo and does not have side bar protection which accompanies normal passenger vehicles, including mini vans. The numbers tell the whole story. When evaluating the relative safety of all passenger vehicles and school buses per road mile, studies show that school buses are markedly safer vehicles. In 1994, there were 21,813 deaths in passenger vehicles, which translates to .86 deaths every 100 million miles. In school buses, there were two occupant deaths, which translate into .005 deaths per 100 million road miles. In other words, passenger vehicles per road mile had a fatality rate 170 times higher than school buses. School buses are the safest form of mechanized transportation that exists. School buses are 34 times safer than train travel and 4 times safer than commercial aviation. My legislation removes the nearly 30 year old loophole in the federal regulations that allows used vans to be purchased while new vans are banned. In addition, this bill extends the ban from sale of vans to leasing, renting and buying, thereby making the buyers accountable as well as the seller. These changes will insure that the intent of the 1974 law is finally realized. The bill also would strengthen the penalties on those who violate this important safety provision. In light of numerous high profile cases involving colleges and universities, my bill extends the definition of ``schools'' for these provisions to include ``postsecondary'' institutions. The legislation raises the prescribed penalty for breaking this law from ``not more than $1000'' to ``not more than $25000'', thereby giving the enforcement agencies something to make it worth their while to pursue. This provision is important because from 1974 until 1997, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which had responsibility for administering the law, did not initiate one single enforcement proceeding in the entire country. Finally, the bill mandates that fines collected under this legislation would be pooled into an account under the Secretary of Transportation for use in enforcing these provisions. Mr. Speaker, as a nation, we long ago decided that the means by which we transport our children to and from school and school-related activities, should be as safe as possible. This bill will go a long way in ensuring that safety for our children.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the public service of the Mayor of Northglenn, D.L. ``Don'' Parsons. Mayor Parsons is retiring this year, after serving the City of Northglenn for 14 years. Mr. Parsons was born in Brewster, Kansas and graduated from Kansas State University with a degree in Business Administration. He was President and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company and Manager of State Legislation for KN Energy, Inc. Mr. Parsons currently heads up his own consulting firm, specializing in utility management, rates and finance. In addition to being an active member of Colorado's oil and gas community, the Mayor has dedicated much of his time to improving the quality of life for the people of Northglenn. After being elected to public office in 1987, Mr. Parsons has brought economic development to his city, while allowing it to maintain its small town identity. Northglenn is a great place to live and raise children, and this is a direct reflection of Don Parsons' guidance and leadership. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Mayor Parsons for his vision and his hard work. I would like to thank him for his years of public service. His dedication to those who elected him is admirable, and I wish him much success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support his rule and will support the conference report. However, I do have some concerns about particular parts of the conference report. In particular, I have noted that the conference report does not include any funds for payments under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or ``RECA.'' The people covered by RECA include uranium miners and miller and some others who worked to support the nuclear weapons program or who were exposed to its fallout. They were exposed to radiation. And because of that exposure they are sick, with cancers and other serious diseases. Many of them are residents of Colorado and other western States. When Congress enacted the RECA law, we promised to pay compensation for their illnesses. but we have not fully kept that promise. We have been slow in appropriating enough money for this purpose--and, earlier this year the Justice Department ran out of funds to make RECA payments. As a result, people who should have been getting checks were instead getting letters--IOU letters, you could call them. What the letter said was that payment would await further appropriations. What they mean was that we in the Congress had not met a solemn obligation. That shameful situation was temporarily resolved when the first supplemented appropriations bill provided funds to resume payments. But those funds will not be adequate to continue payments in the future-- more money will be needed before very long, and unless it is provided in a timely way, the Justice Department will again have to send out IOUs instead of check. We should not let that happen. We should change the law so that in the future RECA payments will not depend on annual appropriations. They should be paid automatically, and I am cosponsoring legislation to make that change. But in the meantime, Congress must appropriate the needed funds. I understand why RECA funds were dropped from this conference report. Clearly, the conferees on this bill expect that funds for RECA payments or fiscal year 2002 and several years thereafter will be included in the defense authorization bill, because the version of that bill adopted in the other body so provides. I also hope that will be the outcome, since that Senate provision-- even if it does not provide for permanent funding--would be a definite improvement over the current situation. But the conferees on the defense authorization bill have not yet completed their work and we do not yet know whether the RECA funds will be included in the conference report on that legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, that is why I am concerned about omitting RECA funds from this conference report. And that is why the passage of this conference report will make it all the more important for the House conferees on the defense authorization bill to accept the Senate's provisions related to RECA payments. I also am concerned about the funds provided for construction at NIST facilities, including some in my own district, and at the appropriate time I will seek to engage the bill's managers in a brief colloquy on that subject.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to affirm what the gentleman has just pointed out, that we have the opportunity here as we move to provide for the homeland defense, two months ago, few of us had heard that term, ``homeland defense,'' but we now have that responsibility, not only to ourselves and our constituents, but to our children and their children. If we were to continue the work of the Homeland Security Commission headed by Senator Rudman, a Republican from New England, and Senator Gary Hart from Colorado, who suggested that we combine about 40 Federal agencies into a Homeland Defense Agency, part of that would be airline security. It is so, so crucial. It is at the core of our economic activity and our economic strength. So I think the gentleman makes a very good point as to why it is important now, as soon as possible, to get about the job of federalizing our airport security and airline security system.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman will yield, it strikes me that given the advances in telecommunications and computing and data processing, that all we need is the will and the resources to provide the system that would make that bag and passenger match, something that could be done.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. People of all backgrounds and professions and experiences in my district have said to me, I will gladly pay the extra $2 or $3 on each ticket to insure that the security system is one that provides me a safe experience, provides my family and my friends a safe experience, and provides all Americans who want to use our air system with the understanding and the security of knowing that they are not going to be threatened by another set of terrible acts such as we saw on September 11. I want to thank my colleague for hosting this Special Order tonight.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for calling this important special order tonight. I want to change the thrust of our discussion, if I could, somewhat and talk about the economic consequences of not having an airline security bill in place. In my home State, we have a beautiful airport, Denver International Airport, known as DIA locally. It is a driver in our economy and a driver in the entire Rocky Mountain West of all of the States' economies that make up the Rocky Mountain West. We have seen a falloff of about 30 percent in flights, in concessionaire revenue and in subsequent falloff to the local tax collection moneys that accrue to the city of Denver, which incidentally has a responsibility to pay the bonds that covered the cost of the airport. I have talked with a lot of people in the business community across the various sectors in our State, high tech, telecommunications, manufacturing, agriculture, you name it, we have it. I say, what can we do to bring our economy back to where it was? They say the number one thing we can do is get people back on airplanes again. The ripple effect in our economy of people using our air transportation system, which is still second to none, is phenomenal. That is why passing this legislation is so, so important. That is why it was so disappointing to all of us here last week when we did not take the opportunity to pass the legislation. It was bipartisan in nature, as we all remember. It would have been on President Bush's desk on Friday. We would now today on Tuesday be in the process of implementing this legislation. I also wanted to just underline what I have heard here too about the law enforcement function that we are trying to put in place. The people who are now doing the security work at our airports are well- intentioned. Many of them are hardworking. They want to do a good job. But they are not law enforcement professionals. That is what we want to do by federalizing this work force. We would be able to provide them with the training, with the uniformity of approach, with a relationship with the intelligence community so that we can do a better job of catching people who should not be on our airplanes. We would provide these people with a career track. There are some very thoughtful proposals that would link our airport security system, were it to be federalized, to Customs and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. People could work across those various agencies. I think that is a powerful concept and one that would be very, very useful to us.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman would yield for another minute, I want to thank my colleague from California (Ms. Woolsey) for joining us as well. I wanted to make one final point. Frederico Pena, the Mayor of Denver, well respected for his accomplishments, helped to see that our new international airport was first approved and then built; and it has now become a world class facility. He then served as the Secretary of Energy and then Secretary of Transportation. He wrote an editorial last weekend entitled ``Federalize Airport Screeners.'' If I could, I would like to enter this in the Record. He makes a compelling set of arguments for why we need to move to federalize our workers. He rebuts all of the arguments that have been made by people who do not want to take this step. I know my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), talked about this argument that somehow unionizing these workers would result in them being less productive; and we would not have an opportunity to dismiss those who were not effective. That is inaccurate at best, and just not right, when you get under the surface and understand what we were proposing in our legislation last week. He says, just one example, that some people say the one-size-fits-all solution would not work. That was one of the arguments against our legislation. But it is uniform, consistent high security at all airports, which is exactly what is necessary, because terrorists can find the weakest link, as they did when they went to Boston and drove to Portland, Maine, flew back to Boston and then boarded those airlines that hit the World Trade Center. If I could, I want to thank my colleague for hosting this very important Special Order, and I hope a week from now we can all celebrate because this legislation will be on the President's desk, he will sign it, and before the holiday season begins, we can know that the American people will not only be secure physically, but secure psychologically. That is as important in this process as providing for the physical safety of all Americans who use our world-class aviation system.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman will yield further, he makes a very, very important point; and I want to once again remind the viewers that the bill had bipartisan support. This is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is not about partisan advantage or disadvantage. This is about creating a new system of airline security that will ensure that every person who gets on our world-class airline system will know that they are going to arrive safely at their destination. They will know that when they go to the airport that they are going to proceed through a security system that is going to treat them respectfully, treat them as if their time is important, but also make sure that the bottom line is emphasized, which is to ensure that our airline system is safe and secure.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I wish that we did not have to adopt this motion--but I strongly support it. We should not have to have a conference on this legislation. Instead, the House should have approved the bill that was unanimously approved by the Senate--the bill I voted for last week--and sent to the President for signing into law. Unfortunately, that bill was rejected by a narrow margin. This motion instructs the conferees to resolve their differences with the Senate version of this legislation and return a bill for the House's consideration by this Friday, November 9th. In other words, it reminds the House conferees that with the normally busy holiday travel season just around the corner, it is urgent that Congress act to improve the safety of airline passengers and the health of our air transportation system. No such reminder should be needed. But it has been nearly a week since the House Republican leadership defeated the Senate bill, thereby preventing improved aviation safety procedure from being immediately launched. And, as we saw with yesterday's security failure at Chicago O'Hare Airport, we can't afford to wait another week. Aviation security is a matter of national security and public safety. It is part of the front line of our national defense and Congress should put in place an effective, federally managed system. I believe that baggage screeners should be part of a professional, highly skilled, highly trained law enforcement workforce and serve as the front line of our nation's defense. We would never consider contracting out the war in Afghanistan, and we shouldn't contract out airline security. As I said last week, we need to put people before politics and action before acrimony. We need a strong aviation security bill--and we need it without more delay. The conference committee must quickly produce a bill that improves the House bill and that holds contractors accountable for the aviation security system. The safety of airline passengers and of our air transportation system depends on it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the important work of Mary Harlow, the Rocky Flats Coordinator for the City of Westminster, Colorado. Mary, known to her friends and colleagues as ``Mickey'', is leaving this post after nearly seven years of service to her community on the vast array of issues regarding Rocky Flats--the Department of Energy's former nuclear weapons production facility located just west of Westminster. I join with her friends and co-workers in wishing her well in her future endeavors, which I understand may involve retiring to North Carolina. The site was originally used for processing plutonium and other materials to fashion triggers for nuclear weapons in a nearly 400 acre industrial complex surrounded by a 6,000 acre open buffer zone. That mission now is done, and DOE is working to clean up Rocky Flats so it can be closed. This is a complex, highly technical, and politically charged project--one of the more extensive cleanup efforts in Colorado and the nation, and one that poses unique and serious challenges. Mickey has met these challenges and developed a mastery of the issues and effective strategies to influence the decisions affecting the cleanup to ensure protection for the citizens of Westminster and people throughout the Front Range region. She also has been very effective in building coalitions with other surrounding communities and citizen groups to address pressing issues. Many have relied on her to sift through the thick, technical documents and provide input. Her work has resulted in better plans and approaches to the cleanup and closure and enhanced citizen involvement at the site--not to mention the valuable advice she has provided to Westminster officials. Mickey began her work on Rocky Flats for the city in 1994. Since then she has recorded many accomplishments. Among other things, she served as an official with the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, represented Westminster on a task force to determine potential future uses of the industrial area of the site, and helped create a focus group to evaluate the cleanup agreement governing the site. In addition, she co-chaired the oversight panel that evaluated the proper and safe level for the cleanup of radioactive contamination of the soil at the site. On the national level, she participated with representatives from other nuclear weapons sites to develop long-term stewardship of DOE nuclear weapons sites, examine the effects of low- level radiation, and promote development and use of innovative cleanup technologies. For all of this and more, especially her positive outlook and personable demeanor, Mickey has been a valuable asset in our efforts to ensure a thorough, effective and safe cleanup of Rocky Flats. Her legacy of service will help Colorado and the nation to transform Rocky Flats from a problem into an open space and wildlife asset for generations to come.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. So that would mean the conferees intend for the Corps to proceed with the Van Bibber-Arvada Plaza drainage project in Colorado as specified in the House report?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank my good friend from Indiana for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, regarding the Corps of Engineers small flood control projects, also called section 205 projects, am I right in understanding that the conference report directs the Corps to proceed with all the projects listed in both the House and Senate reports?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the important work of University of Colorado Professor Tim Seastedt in weed control research. Professor Seastedt's exciting and path-breaking research on using insects and soil chemistry to control the spread of noxious, non-native plants holds promise in addressing a vexing--and spreading--problem, especially on our western lands. Professor Seastedt's work was recently recognized through a $280,000 grant awarded to him by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue his work of examining the soil chemistry of diffused knapweed and devising a way to develop soil nutrients that kill or hamper the growth of this problem weed in Colorado and elsewhere. Through this grant and his existing work on the role of insects in controlling the spread of weeds, Professor Seastedt is demonstrating that we can address our weed problems and do so in an effective and environmentally sensitive manner. The nature and extent of the weed problem in the west is dramatic and serious. In Colorado alone, there are 85 species of weeds that are taking root in millions of acres of rangeland, have displaced nearly 10 percent of the state's native plant species, have destroyed habitat for bighorn sheep and other wildlife, and caused upwards of $100 million in lost crop productivity annually. Similar impacts exist in many other states. Weeds get here and take hold for a host of different reasons. In the case of diffused knapweed, it is theorized that this plant came over from Europe from imported alfalfa crops. But no matter how they get here, once these plants take hold they are very hard to eradicate. In North Dakota, for example, where another plant--leafy spurge--is a particularly bad problem, the state has been spending nearly $100 million a year to control it. Such controls involve everything from herbicides, mowing, hand-pulling, and the use of grazing animals such as sheep--all to little or no effect. The plants keep coming back. In addition, some of these methods, such as the spraying of chemical herbicides, are controversial as they may be harmful to the environment. That's where Professor Seastedt's work comes in. Given the cost, low- effectiveness and environmental concerns of these traditional methods, Professor Seastedt and his researchers began looking for better methods. He latched on to insects. For example, in the case of diffused knapweed, Professor Seastedt found that a number of species of weevil feed upon the roots, stems, seeds and flowers of this plant. So, he released a swarm of them in test plots along Colorado's Front Range, an area especially hard hit by this weed. The result: where there once were 30 stems of diffused knapweed per square meter, there now are hardly any at all. And native grasses and plants, which are not palatable to the weevils, are now making a strong return. This story is being copied in North Dakota with the leafy spurge. There is a species of insect called flea beetles that seems to thrive on this weed with the result of reducing by half the acreage that has been affected there. This insect is now being used to control the leafy spurge problem at Colorado's Cherry Creek State Park, which has resulted in a 60 percent reduction of the growth of this weed at this popular state park. Insects are thus proving to be an exciting tool in our arsenal against weeds. The other weapon is the new research on soil chemistry. Professor Seastedt has been studying the soil conditions that are favorable to diffused knapweed. He has found that some nutrients are more favorable to this plant than others. Armed with this knowledge, it may be possible to use natural elements of the soil to enhance the growth of favorable plants and retard the growth of harmful ones like diffused knapweed. The grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture will help him continue this research. Professor Seastedt's success in this regard will further help restore the health of our lands, increase agricultural productivity, and enhance the quality of life in the west. I look forward to the continuing work of Professor Seastedt and his researchers on our ongoing struggle to get ahead of and win our war with weeds. [From Westword, Aug. 9-15, 2001] Weed Whacker! Tim Seastedt takes no prisoners in the war against knapweed (By Harrison Fletcher) Tim Seastedt is at war. His enemy is a drifter, voracious and cruel, striking fast and furiously. By 1997, it had already ravaged more than three million acres of rangeland in the West and fought off assaults by ravenous goats, chemical agents and flamethrowers. Then Seastedt arrived on the scene, squaring off against the scourge on a 157-acre slice of prairie in Boulder County. His chances didn't look good: What could one lanky ecologist from the University of Colorado do to combat the dreaded Centaura diffusa? Study it to death? But now, four years later, on a bright summer day, Seastedt strides through the pasture like an actor in an allergy- relief commercial, wearing a T-shirt bearing the words ``Ecology With Attitude.'' Looking beyond the wildflowers, butterflies and meadowlarks, he spots signs of death and destruction. Weeds with stems stripped bare. Weeds with leaves eaten away. Weeds with seedheads decimated. Weeds starved for nutrients. Weeds pushed back by native grasses. Seastedt bends down on one knee and plucks a spindly forb from the damp soil. ``This guy's not going to make it,'' he says, examining the taproot, which has been split wide open by a burrowing weevil. ``This is more than just good news. This is advanced good news!'' Seastedt casts aside the carcass and continues his stroll. Out on the prairie, armed with little more than bugs and fertilizer, he is winning the war against diffuse knapweed. Colorado officials list 85 weeds they'd just as soon see wiped off the face of the earth--plants that have overrun millions of acres of rangeland, displaced 10 percent of the state's native plants, destroyed habitat for bighorn sheep, elk and sage grouse, and caused $100 million in lost crop productivity annually. Diffuse knapweed ranks in the top five on this roster, behind only Canada thistle, field bindweed, Russian knapweed and leafy spurge. At last count, 83,000 acres along the Front Range along were infested with diffuse knapweed, most of them in Boulder and Douglas counties. Under the 1991 Undesirable Plant Management Act, every county is required to develop a plan to identify and handle noxious weeds. And so county officials wrote rules, formed weed-management boards, coordinated strategies and set about to educate the public. But they've had trouble enforcing the rules, coordinating the strategies and educating the public. So the act was amended in 1996 and the position of state weed manager created. Today, however, Eric Lane, Colorado's weed manager, grudgingly draws this conclusion: ``Uninfested areas are still becoming infested. In that respect, with this one species, we are slowly losing the battle.'' Enter Tim Seastedt A 52-year-old Nebraska native with a suntanned face, bristle-brush mustache and vocabulary loaded with phrases like ``biomass'' and ``stem density,'' Seastedt started his scientific career as a zoologist in Montana, tagging grizzly bears. But he longed to ``solve big-picture questions'' about ``whole-level landscapes,'' and after spending two years as a Peace Corps worker in Tonga, ``waiting for Nixon to solve Vietnam,'' he returned to the U.S. and became an ecologist. He studied in Alaska and Georgia and Kansas, where he specialized in grasslands, ``trying to understand why dominant species are dominant.'' He arrived in Colorado in 1990 and became a professor of environmental population and organic biology at the University of Colorado. In 1996, at the height of the battle over herbicides in Boulder County, Citizens for Alternatives to Toxins in Boulder tried to enlist Seastedt's help. He turned them down, but when they asked again a year later, Seastedt offered to review the scientific reports for Boulder County's weed plan. ``But there were no reports,'' Seastedt recalls. ``There was no science justifying their management program. As an ecologist, I was used to doing science-based, ecosystem land management. The first ground rule is you obtain data. I though, `If they're doing these things without data, there might be a problem.' '' Although Seastedt wasn't officially affiliated with the anti-toxics group, he sympathized with them. When fighting weeds, employing herbicides is like using an anvil to hammer a nail. ``My advocacy has always been the least toxic approach,'' he says. ``In my mind, using that stuff as a routine tool was just unacceptable.'' So he started doing some investigating of his own. And he realized that while the chemicals were killing a lot of weeds, ``the weeds are just going to come back. We need something more sustainable.'' His first thought was bugs. In Colorado, insects have been used to fight diffuse knapweed for more than a decade, with decidedly mixed results. But when Seastedt visited places such as Walker Ranch, where bugs have been deployed on and off for years, he found that at least one species, a weevil, had enjoyed some successes before being hindered by herbicide spraying, weed pulling or mowing. So despite the popular consensus that bugs had failed, Seastedt was encouraged. ``I saw evidence that biocontrols could work, given enough time,'' he says. After getting the green light from Boulder County to conduct this experiment on 157 acres near Superior, he visited state agricultural offices and loaded upon on free bugs. But instead of releasing one or two species, which had been the approach in the past, Seastedt decided to use five bugs to attack different parts of the weed simultaneously. If one bug died or moved along, another would take over. So in the summer of 1997, Seastedt released fifty root- boring weevils named Cyphocleonus, which feed upon infant knapweeds and lay eggs on their roots. Then he released 300 beetles named Sphenoptera jugoslavica, which attack the roots, stunt growth, reduce flower production and kill rosettes. Next, he released 200 Larinus minutus seedhead weevils, which lay eggs on flowers, eat blossoms and gobble up seeds. Two species, seedhead gall flies called Urophora affinus and U. quadrifasciata, had already been released; they lay eggs on flowers and sap the weed's energy. Then he waited. For two years, nothing seemed to happen. In fact, he remembers, the weeds got bigger and covered more ground. But in the summer of 1999, Seastedt noticed a bug boom, an exponential growth of insects ``straight out of an ecology textbook.'' Then weeds became stunted. Then weeds stopped producing as many seeds. Then they stopped spreading as rapidly. When he studied the results this summer, even Seastedt was surprised: Rosettes have dropped from 50 per square meter in 1997 to three; seed production has been slashed from 5,00 per square meter to blow 100; adult weeds have fallen from twenty per square meter to less than five. And weeds that appear healthy are little more than insect reservoirs, serving as both a home and a food source. By next summer, he says, those weeds will be producing new bugs instead of new knapweeds. And if that happens, the insect population could soar beyond twenty million--enough to supply knapweek-eating bugs to the entire Front Range. ``Look at this,'' Seastedt says, yanking a droopy weed from the pasture. ``What we're getting are these wimpy little plants. Roots have been hit. Seedheads are empty. They've been defoliated. Larinum has done its damage. The gull flies have been doing their thing. There's just nothing here to support the final product. Next year, I'm not sure there will be knapweeds here.'' With the knapweed in full retreat, native plants will be free to take their place. Some already have. ``When we started, you could hardly find June grass here,'' Seastedt says. ``And when you did, it was just these tiny clumps. Now it's all over. The recovery has just been spectacular. Next year, I predict 90 percent restored prairie. And the 10 percent of knapweed that is here will be grazed to the ground.'' Even if the bugs are successful, Seastedt believes that the ultimate way to beat diffuse knapweed is to understand why is has flourished in Colorado--and then reverse the process. His ream is trying to do just that on the land outside Superior. Here is Seastedt's theory. Diffuse knapweed has been able to thrive in Colorado because, among other things, changes in the soil over the past 150 years gave the weed a competitive edge. First, the rangeland has been grazed continuously, and plants that might have offered competition have been repeatedly nibbled away. Second, fires have been limited, and fires cleanse the soil of nutrients that weeds love, including nitrogen. In fact, scientists have discovered that one of the fastest ways to turn healthy grasslands into weed fields is to add nitrogen. And nitrogen, as it turns out, is the third factor: Nitrogen levels have been rising steadily in the soil, in part because of increases in atmospheric deposits. Seastedt wonders: Can scientists reverse the process? Can they tinker with soil chemistry and restore rangeland to its pre-knapweed condition? And if they succeed, will it blunt the weed's competitive edge? Will it bring back healthy native plants and grasses? To find out, Seastedt and researchers Katie Suding and Kate LeJeune cordoned off certain plots and added nitrogen. The plants--particularly pepper grass, which grew in thick bunches loved it. But diffuse knapweed stayed more or less unchanged. Interesting, the researchers thought. Perhaps nitrogen wasn't so vital to knapweed after all. Perhaps another nutrient determined whether the weed would live or die. In other parts of the world, like the tropics, phosphorus is a key nutrient; perhaps knapweed needed phosphorus. So they added phosphorus, and while other plants stayed more or less unchanged, diffuse knapweed bulked up like a linebacker on steroids. Interesting, the researchers thought. Diffuse knapweed liked phosphorus; perhaps phosphorus would prove knapweed's Achilles heel. So they tinkered some more, adding phosphorus and nitrogen, removing phosphorus and nitrogen, pulling knapweed from some plots and leaving knapweed in others. Although it's too early to tell what the results of this summer's experiments will be, they think they're on the right track. In May, they were awarded a $280,000 federal grant. Now if they can find the right mix of phosphorus, nitrogen or some other nutrient, they might be able to tip the balance away from knapweed and toward native plants and grasses. ``Once native grasses are happy and healthy again, we think they are capable of greatly reducing knapweed,'' Seastedt says. No matter how successful his experiments, Seastedt doesn't believe diffuse knapweed will ever be completely eradicated. In fact, he doesn't think weed managers should even try. At best, they can only hope to reduce the weed to a level that allows native plants and grasses to return. ``What I'd like to see is a prairie dominated by the vegetation we want to be there: native plants given the maximum potential to express diversity,'' Seastedt says. ``If that means 1 or 2 percent cover by diffuse knapweed, that wouldn't bother me at all. It would be just like the dandelion. And if we can get knapweed to be like a dandelion, then we've done our job.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the tremendous accomplishments of two of my constituents, Dr. Carl Wieman and Dr. Eric Cornell. It was announced this week that Dr. Wieman and Dr. Cornell have been awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their work in creating a new state of matter. Dr. Wolfgang Ketterle, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also awarded the prize. The goal of the scientists was to create Bose-Einstein condensation, an extreme state of matter predicted by Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose and later expounded upon by Albert Einstein. Beginning with atoms of rubidium gas at room temperature, the Colorado team--led by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman, and including CU- Boulder undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral researchers--cooled the atoms to less than 170 billionths of a degree above absolute zero. This low temperature caused the individual atoms to behave as one ``superatom.'' To cause matter to behave in this controlled way has long been a challenge for researchers. Physicists were initially skeptical about the approach taken by Wieman and Cornell to create the condensate, but they soon came around when they recognized the advances the scientists were making. As the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences noted upon awarding the prize, this year's Nobel Laureates have caused atoms to ``sing in unison.'' The creation of Bose-Einstein condensate is a ground-breaking accomplishment that will significantly affect the scientific community, its work, and its direction for years to come. I am proud that the work of Dr. Wieman and Dr. Cornell is a result of federally funded research at the University of Colorado, JILA, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I am proud that the institutions in the 2nd Congressional District are capable of attracting and producing such talent. Finally, I am proud that these two men call Colorado their home. Again, I congratulate Dr. Wieman and Dr. Cornell for their extraordinary work and for the great honor that has been bestowed upon them.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year we began this Congress by taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. It was the second time I did so, but for me it was still a solemn moment and a source of great price--as I am sure it was for you and for the many of our colleagues who have served far longer than I. It was a solemn moment because we were pledging ourselves to upholding the basic framework of our government, including the basic guarantees of the Bill of Rights. I think that is the highest and most important duty any American can undertake. And it was an especially proud moment for me because it meant that I would again be privileged to be part of this great institution, the House of Representatives--an institution for which I have for so long had such great respect. Since then less than six months have passed--but how long ago that seems to have been. Since September 11th, so many things have happened, and so many things have changed. And, unfortunately, one of the things that has changed is my pride in the way the House is meeting its responsibilities. That is because today we are proceeding in a way that falls far short of the standard to which we should hold ourselves--and doing so in connection with legislation of the very highest importance, legislation that can affect the lives and liberties of all the American people. To start with, like so many of our colleagues, I have not had an opportunity to learn fully what is in this bill beyond a cursory discussion in caucus, and while some Members of the House are versed on the particulars, I don't believe there has been enough time for debate and full consideration. On a subject so dear as our civil liberties, particularly in a time of crisis, surely the House could afford time to allow Members to read and understand this complicated legislative package before a vote. I do not know whether the objections raised by the bill's critics--such as those in today's letter from the American Civil Liberties Union--are well-founded or not. But I have no doubt that when it comes to matters as important as these it is far better to err on the side of caution. Mr. Speaker, in times of war and crisis there is always a very delicate balance between the need to be secure and the need to protect civil liberty. There have been moments in our nation's history when this balance was not carefully preserved--and with shameful consequences. In the rush to fight the terrorist threat, I want to be absolutely certain that we strike the right balance and avoid looking back on this time with regret about our haste and lack of wisdom. I am not an expert on fighting terrorism, but I know that if we are not careful in choosing our weapons, we can damage the very Constitution we have sworn to uphold. And I do know that there is a right way and a wrong way to legislate--and this is the wrong way. And that, Mr. Speaker, is why I cannot vote for this bill today. American Civil Liberties Union Washington, DC, October 12, 2001. Be Patriotic--Vote Against the Revised ``Patriot Bill'' Dear Representative: The ACLU is urging Members to vote no on the Rule, no on final passage and yes on the motion to recommit. Sadly, most Americans do not seem to realize that Congress is about to pass a law that drastically expands government's power to invade our privacy, to imprison people without due process, and to punish dissent. More disturbing is the fact that this power grab over our freedom and civil liberties is in fact not necessary to fight terrorism. Briefly, the substitute bill has the following problems: Sharing Sensitive Information without Privacy Protections: The bill authorizes law enforcement to ``share criminal investigative information.'' This section permits the disclosure of sensitive, previously undisclosable information obtained through grand jury investigations or wiretaps about American citizens to the CIA, NSA, INS, Secret Service and military, without judicial review, and with no limits as to how these agencies can use the information once they have it, and without marking the information to indicate how the information can be used. Sneak and Peek Searches: this section authorizes the wholesale use of covert searches for any criminal investigation thus allowing the government to enter your home, office or other private place and conduct a search, take photographs, and download your computer files without notifying you until later. The Congress rejected this provision two times last year because it was misguided and overbroad Single-Jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism: This provision enables the government to go to a court in any jurisdiction where it is conducting a terrorism investigation, regardless of how insubstantial that location is to the investigation, to conduct a search anywhere in the country. This will allow the government to forum shop and make it practically impossible for individuals who are subjected to the search to challenge the search when the warrants are issued by a judge in a distant location. New crime of Domestic Terrorism: This new crime is wholly unnecessary for the Administration's ``War on Terrorism.'' It expands the ever-growing cadre of federal crimes by authorizing the federal government to prosecute violations of state law and may be used to prosecute political protestors who engage in acts the government considers to be dangerous to human life. Requires People to Turn in Suspects Even If They Don't Know Whether the Person Has Committed a Crime. This bill creates a new crime exposing people to criminal liability for lodging a person who he or she knows ``or has reasonable grounds to believe'' has committed or is about to commit a crime. This places a new burden on persons to turn in family and friends never before imposed on individuals. Disclosing Intelligence Information on Americans to the CIA: The bill mandates that the FBI turn over any information on terrorism, even if it is about American citizens, that is developed in criminal cases. This will result in the CIA getting back into the business of spying on Americans. Imposing Indefinite Detention: The bill allows for non- citizens to be detained indefinitely, without meaningful judicial review; Reducing Privacy in Student Records: The bill overturns current law by giving law enforcement greater access to and use of student records for investigative purposes. Under the substitute, highly personal and potentially damaging information about American and foreign students will be transmitted to many federal agencies and could lead to adverse consequences far beyond the stated goal of the anti- terrorism bill. Sunset of Wiretap Provisions: The House Judiciary Committee's bill would have sunset all of new wiretapping authorities in two years and two months. The sunset was designed to permit Congress to evaluate how the new authorities were being used, and whether there were abuses that would require additional privacy protections. The bill now pending before the House would gut the sunset provision by extending it to five years and three months (three years and three months, plus two more years upon a presidential certification). Exclusionary Rule: The House Judiciary Committee's bill included a provision to exclude from criminal cases evidence that law enforcement seized illegally when monitoring Internet communications. This would have conformed the rules pertaining to illegal interception of Internet communications to the rules governing illegal interception of telephone calls. The bill now pending in the House omits this provision. Expansion of Wiretapping Authority: The wiretapping provisions in the pending House bill are virtually identical to those in the bill the Senate approved last night. Both bills minimizes judicial oversight of electronic surveillance by: subjecting private Internet communications to a minimal standard of review; permitting law enforcement to obtain what would be the equivalent of a ``blank warrant'' in the physical world; authorizing scattershot intelligence wiretap orders that need not specify the place to be searched or require that only the target's conversations be eavesdropped upon; and allowing the FBI to use its ``intelligence'' authority to circumvent the judicial review of the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Most of these provisions are unnecessary for fighting international terrorism; some would be acceptable if they were implemented with appropriate judicial oversight. Law enforcement agents make mistakes--for example, the life of suspected Atlanta Olympic bomber Richard Jewell was turned upside down. Essential checks and balances on these new powers are omitted from this legislation. We can be both safe and free if the House takes the time to do this right. For more information, please contact: Wiretapping--Greg Nojeim 202/675-2326, Crime Provisions--Rachel King 202/675- 2314, Immigration--Tim Edgar 202/675-2318, Privacy--Katie Corrigan--202/675-2322. Sincerely, Laura W. Murphy, Director. Gregory T. Nojeim, Associate Director & Chief Legislative Counsel.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this bipartisan amendment because it will help farmers and ranchers to be even better stewards of their lands. Farmers provide the backbone of America by putting food on our tables. But agriculture is a hard business. Food prices fluctuate for a number of reasons, which in turn can affect the demand and price for certain crops. Poor crop prices hit farmers were it hurts the most--the pocketbook. When a farmer is having trouble taking care of his or her own family, taking care of the land can become a less important priority. But we can change that with this amendment, which will put a new and greater emphasis on successful conservation programs. The Wetland Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, and the Conservation Reserve Program are just a few of the programs that are the focus of the amendment. These programs give incentives to farmers to restore wetlands, improve natural habitats for endangered species and hold the line against urban sprawl by preserving open space. Farmers and ranchers want to participate in these programs. Unfortunately, many cannot. These programs have not had the resources to allow everyone who qualifies to take part. This amendment will go far to remedy that situation. This farm bill will leave a lasting mark and provide the direction for American farm policy for the next 10 years. So, it is important that we make it as good as we can. Passing this amendment will be a big, important step in that direction. I urge adoption of the amendment. If we do we will strengthen our family farms while making conservation an even bigger part of the foundation of our farm policy. For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like attach an editorial that was printed in the Denver Post that helps illustrate why we need to pass this important amendment. Aid Farmers and Environment Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal tried to stabilize farm prices during the Great Depression, laws passed by Congress have waged a losing fight against the laws of economics. This year, four U.S. representatives--Sherwood Boehlert, R- N.Y.; Ron Kind, D-Wis.; Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md.; and John Dingell, D-Mich.--are trying to introduce a note of realism into U.S. farm policy by amending key parts of their Working Lands Stewardship Act, HR 2375, into the latest farm bill. To understand why the new approach is promising requires a quick look at why the old one failed. Low farm prices are caused by an oversupply of farm commodities. Seven decades of subsidies haven't cured that problem because--by definition-- subsidies encourage more production of the very commodities that are already in oversupply. To be sure, for more than 60 years, the U.S. imposed half- hearted restrictions on production of subsidized crops. But a farmer who planted 100 acres of wheat and later received a 90-acre allotment invariably tore up his or her least productive land. Then, that supposedly ``idled'' land would be sown with millet, barley or some other unsubsidized crop-- as allowed by the subsidy law--and thus go on contributing to the overall surplus of feed grains. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act separated subsidies from production and supposedly intended to phase out subsidies entirely in seven years. But the Asian currency collapse ruined U.S. export markets, farm prices plunged and Congress hurriedly renewed the counterproductive policy of subsidizing overproduction. The Boehlert amendment is designed to help farmers and the environment alike by diverting $5.4 billion per year from subsidies to conservation. Instead of merely diverting acreage from one crop to another as the discredited allotment system did, the Boehlert amendment pays farmers to put more land into conservation programs, including: The Environmental Quality Incentives program, which helps farmers and ranchers preserve watersheds. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which helps landowners enhance wildlife habitat. The Wetlands Reserve Program, which protects, preserves and restores wetlands on marginal soils. The Grassland Reserve Program, which authorizes preservation of 3 million acres of fragile grasslands that should not be plowed. The Conservation Reserve Program, a long-term cropland retirement program that enables producers to convert highly erodible or environmentally sensitive cropland to cover crops. The environmental benefits of such programs are obvious. The benefit for the farmers who receive such payments is equally clear. But even farmers who don't participate in such programs also benefit indirectly--because taking environmentally fragile farmland out of production also reduces the surpluses that keep farm commodity prices at ruinous levels. For nearly seven decades, Congress fought the law of supply and demand--and the law of supply and demand won. It's high time to stop subsidizing the very overproduction that causes the need for subsidies in the first place. We urge all members of Colorado's congressional delegation to support the Boehlert amendment.