Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as some of my colleagues in this body know, before I was elected to Congress I was an instructor and later executive director of Colorado's Outward Bound School. While Outward Bound gave me unparalleled opportunities to satisfy a passion for mountain climbing and other experiences in the outdoors, I believe my participation and involvement in Outward Bound may have been most rewarding for me because it began a life-long interest in the question of how we work to fully develop human potential and in the dynamics of leadership. The credo of Outward Bound is that every human being has the inner potential to become a leader. This potential can be unlocked in many ways, whether it is facing a 14,000 foot mountain climb, beginning a trek across miles of desert and wilderness, working with a group of inner city school children, building a shelter for those who are homeless, or comforting a person in need. How leadership is awakened is less important than acknowledging the diversity of ways in which each one of us faces deep challenge, whether it is physical, emotional or as part of a collaborative venture with others. Earlier this year, a group of Coloradans came together to celebrate the individual and collective challenge of leadership in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. These Coloradans were participants in an exhaustive and comprehensive national initiative called ``Leadership Challenge 2001: Connecting, Communicating, Collaborating'' sponsored by the Lundy Foundation, in partnership with the Gill Foundation and 40 other non-profit and corporate supporters. Over the course of three years, 41 participants spent 56 days in intensive training sessions, addressing fundamental issues of trust, race, socioeconomic status, diversity and other challenges in building collaborative leadership within the LGBT community. By vigorously addressing their own individual and communal issues, the participants in this innovative leadership training project also enhanced the potential of Colorado's LGBT community to address the needs and concerns of a much broader community, namely, the community we call ``America.'' As an enthusiast of leadership theory, I am very pleased to bring this initiative to the attention of my colleagues in this body, and to commend the project coordinates and the 32 participants who graduated from this program. Their commitment and perseverance is admirable, and worthy of acknowledgement. Please join me in recognizing their achievement today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed about the way the House has handled this legislation. I think legislation to help the airline industry is urgently needed, but I think this bill falls far short of doing everything that urgently needs to be done. I voted against the rule because I thought we should be taking the time to do a better job before we go home for the weekend. And I voted for the motion to recommit because it would have made the bill better. I wish that the outcome to those votes had been different, because I am not enthusiastic about this bill. I am not enthusiastic about it because while it will help the airlines, it does not do enough for the airline employees who are facing unemployment. I am not enthusiastic about it because it does not do enough to address the effects of the airlines' problems on many other businesses. And I am not enthusiastic about this bill because it does nothing to respond to the very urgent need to improve the safety and security of airline passengers and the American people--a need that I think nobody can deny after the tragic and criminal events of last week. Still, while not enthusiastic about the bill I will vote for it because I think it is urgently needed. And, above all else, I will vote for it because of the assurance of the Speaker and the leadership that the House will act quickly to address the problems of employees and the other things that should have been part of the legislation. On that basis, and that basis alone, I am prepared to support passage of this incomplete and unbalanced bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this resolution with a heavy heart, but without hesitation. Like the hearts of all Americans, my heart is heavy with grief for all those killed and injured in this week's despicable attacks. It is weighted with sympathy for all their families and friends, and with concern for what may lie ahead for our country and for other people around the world. But, however heavy our hearts, we in the Congress and throughout America know we must not lose heart. We know we must not hesitate to fulfill our responsibilities to our fellow citizens and to our country. We know that if we do, we will be giving way to terror and giving victory to those who seek to terrorize America. And all Americans--Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all others, too-- know that we cannot let these criminal deeds go unanswered. This resolution is a key part of the answer. It says the President can use force in a ``necessary and appropriate'' response directed at those who ``planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,'' as well as those who harbored the perpetrators, so they will not commit new offenses. It is broad, but it is not unlimited. It covers the culpable but it is not aimed at anyone else. In other words, in voting for this resolution, I am voting not for vengeance but for justice. I think it is the duty of all civilized people to insist on meting out justice to those who are guilty, including those who have aided and abetted the perpetrators--and we must not hesitate to carry out that duty. But we have another duty as well--a duty to ourselves and to the things we hold most dear. To paraphrase Churchill, this week may prove to be only the end of the beginning of events that will challenge us all. Those events likely will test our resolve in persisting through a long and unsettling struggle. And they definitely will test our dedication to our own principles--the very principles that have made America what it is and so have made us hated by those who hate those principles. We must not waiver in defending those principles. We must not weaken in our determination to maintain our Constitution and democracy. And we must not surrender or reduce the basic freedoms and the rights of all Americans--because, if we do any of those things we will have lost the struggle, whatever the results of the use of force authorized by this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like today to pay tribute to Cole Kugel. At the age of ninety-nine, Cole is the oldest certified pilot in the nation. For over half a century, Cole sat side by side in the cockpit with his wife Mildred, soaring in one of the six planes he has owned. Flying safely at any age is a challenge. To have done it for as long as Cole has is truly an accomplishment. Cole began flying in 1929 and never once crashed or even damaged a plane. Many people might say that flying for over seventy years without a scratch to show for it is just plain lucky. I'm told that while luck might keep you flying, it is good judgment that brings you home at the end of the day. Cole Kugel has been blessed with an abundance of good judgment. For over seventy years he has used his head to safely bring back every plane he has taken off in. Today, he continues to use that judgment. He has said that when his certificate comes up for renewal by the FAA this year, he probably will not renew it. To willingly walk away from something you love when you realize that you may not be able to do it like you used to I believe is the epitome of good judgment. I applaud Cole for loving flying so much yet still walking away from it while he is on top. Mr. Speaker, I am attaching an article about Cole from a recent edition of the Denver Post. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this heroic individual and to wish him a safe landing wherever the winds shall take him. Oldest U.S. Pilot Faces End of ERA (By Kevin Simpson) Monday, September 10, 2001--LONGMONT--Throughout the rambling house where Cole Kugel lives alone, airplanes still take flight--images in photographs, models on pedestals, even a replica constructed entirely of 7-Up cans that dangles from a perch on the patio. But Kugel let go of the plane he cared for most--the single-engine Cessna Skylane hangared at nearby Vance Brand Airport--last spring, just about the same time he lost the bigger love of his life, his wife, Mildred. Together, the events signaled the end of an era. Kugel, who at 99 is the oldest certified pilot in America-- and one of only 30 over the age of 90, according to the Federal Aviation Administration--figures that maybe he has soared long enough. The man who helped lay down the gravel that formed the city's first airstrip may not try to renew his certification when it expires in a few weeks. And he sold the plane emblazoned with the registration 29CM. ``Twenty-nine Charlie-Mike,'' Kugel says wistfully, echoing the words he'd radio to the airport tower. ``But the letters really meant Cole and Mildred.'' As early members of a group of aviation enthusiasts called the Colorado Flying Farmers, they sat side by side in the cockpit for more than half a century before a succession of strokes finally took her in June at age 97. ``It just indicates that plane was their baby,'' says Warren Rempel, who has known the couple for 40 years. ``They were in the flying game together. Then came the day she couldn't get out anymore. And he said if she couldn't go, then he wouldn't be doing a lot of it either.'' Mildred never was certified, but took enough lessons to know how to put the plane down safely if anything ever happened to her husband in mid-flight. In the last year and a half, though, her health declined to the point where she could no longer take her accustomed seat in the Cessna. ``She told him on many occasions, ``Don't you sell that plane until I'm gone,'`` Rempel says. ``I heard her say it. And he didn't sell it.'' The transaction happened almost by chance, when local veterinarian Lynn Ferguson, whose grandparents had flown with the Kugels, called to talk flying. Ferguson had offered to buy the plane three years earlier, but Kugel, citing his wife's admonition, had declined. But in May, as Mildred's health failed in a nursing home-- and Kugel would go nowhere without his flying partner-- Ferguson found that things had changed. ``He said, `Maybe we ought to take it up and see if you like it,' `` Ferguson says. They struck a deal just days before Mildred died. Kugel has tried not to dwell too much on the sale of the Cessna and the larger loss that accompanied it. But he takes some solace in the fact that the plane will remain nearby, where he can still go see it. And a stipulation in the sale agreement provides that he be allowed to take it up next March 14--``if I'm still here''-- on his 100th birthday. The FAA requires a physical exam every two years for medical certification for a third-class pilot's license, and some minor vision trouble with one eye gives Kugel pause, although he doesn't think that would necessarily keep him from passing the exam. ``But as old as I am, maybe I ought not to be flying anyway,'' he says. ``I feel competent, but as you get older, everything about you gets out of order and slows down. And a plane is an expensive item to have sitting around and not use it.'' If he doesn't get recertified, he said, he'll still take his century flight with Ferguson. Kugel embraced aviation as a young man for the most prosaic of reasons: ``Because I wanted to go someplace.'' In 1943, Kugel and his wife left their Oklahoma farm to farm cheap land near Longmont. He remained a farmer most of his life, resuming the flights of fancy that had been grounded by the Depression. He bought his first plane in 1946, 17 years after he learned to fly in an open-cockpit biplane. Over the years, he owned six before selling the Cessna. ``I never busted one up,'' Kugel says. ``I miss it, but maybe it's better.'' Rempel tries to put it in perspective. ``When a guy goes to 99 before he sells his plane, and still has his physical certification, he's done pretty well,'' he says. ``At this point, I'd have to say Cole represents the goal we'd all like to attain in terms of longevity and mental acuity. He's alone at the top.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. It says what all Americans are saying and expresses our unbroken resolve in the face of this outrageous and cowardly attack on our country. When I think of the horrific events that happened yesterday, I am consumed with feelings of great sadness and anger. Yesterday was a day of outrage and deep loss. Like all Americans, I am filled with sympathy for the victims and families who have lost loved ones in these brutal attacks. The enormity of this loss is impossible to measure. it may be some time before we fully understand what happened and who is responsible. But make no mistake--those who organized these inhumane and dastardly attacks will be found and they will be brought to justice. These attacks on Americans on American soil have not and cannot extinguish the American spirit. Now more than ever, we must steel ourselves to do what must be done--and to do it carefully and correctly. Words and rhetoric are not enough. We can no longer appeal to the hearts and souls of terrorists and those who support and harbor them--they have no heart and they have no soul. Clearly, our concept of national security must include stronger and more effective measures to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks. We must commit ourselves to a course of action to ensure that this kind of catastrophe never happens again and that those responsible are brought to justice for their crimes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elizabeth Hoffman, President of the University of Colorado. As Betsy enters her second year on the job, I can proudly say that CU is well on its way to fulfilling her vision of becoming one of the top three public research universities in the country. During her first year in office, CU has set records in private gift giving, federal research income and state capitol construction funding. One of these gifts, a $250 million donation, is the largest gift ever to a public university. This donation allowed for the creation of a CU institute that will help twenty million Americans with cognitive disabilities. In addition to her drive to make CU a world class university, Betsy Hoffman knows that the University of Colorado is also a school for the people of Colorado. She travels tirelessly around the state to ``bring CU back to the people of Colorado.'' She has quickly gained the support of the people of our state in her endeavors. Governor Owens says, ``She's been very good at representing the university around the state. I give her an A plus.'' She is also supported by state legislators on both sides of the aisle and by members of the Colorado congressional delegation. Under Betsy's leadership, I have no doubt that CU will become the world class university she is steering it toward. I am including an article about her that was recently published in the Denver Post. Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues to join me in praising the work of a visionary and an educator. [From the Denver Post, September 2, 2001] CU Chief Earns Fans, High Marks

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joyce Meskis. Owner of Denver's famous Tattered Cover Bookstores, Joyce is an ardent supporter of reading and literacy and a strong defender of intellectual freedom. She has served as president of the Colorado Citizens Against Censorship, was a founder of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, and a leader in the National Coalition Against Censorship. Her leadership in this area now has been recognized by her receipt of the National Intellectual Freedom Award given by the National Council of Teachers of English. A strong supporter of the freedoms that are guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution's First Amendment, Joyce recognizes how these freedoms make our democracy great. She is an outstanding American who has dedicated herself to ensuring that intellectual freedom and diversity will continue to enrich our lives and the lives of our children. Her contributions have been well summarized in the words of Carol Edmonds Sullivan, a professor at the Colorado School of Mines who nominated Joyce for the National Intellectual Freedom Award: ``Bookseller Joyce Meskis is nurturing democracy's vital need for access to books, even unpopular ones.'' Mr. Speaker, I am attaching an article on Joyce that recently ran in the Denver Post and ask my colleagues to join me in this tribute. [From the Denver Post, September 2, 2001] (By Carl Edmonds Sullivan) Confronted a year ago by five police officers expecting to execute a search warrant for the purchasing records of one of her bookstore customers, Denver's Tattered Cover owner Joyce Meskis refused access to the store's files, on behalf of the First Amendment rights of her customers. Later, she wrote her customers a ``Dear Reader'' letter, admitting that, ``When you get served, or even threatened with a subpoena or search warrant, it's pretty scary.'' Meskis and her bookstore, which she purchased in 1974, have consistently protected readers' rights by offering a diversity of materials and author events ``without prejudice.'' In other words, she explains, ``We cannot abrogate our responsibility to the First Amendment, which we believe to be the cornerstone of our democratic tradition and of our bookstore. And make no mistake, it is just as much a censorial act to prevent an author signing because one doesn't like the view of the author as it would be if the book were disallowed on the shelf.'' In October 2000, Denver District Judge Stephen Phillips ruled that Meskis was obligated to turn over her purchase records to law enforcement officials. Meskis appealed the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court, where it is still pending. Meskis' love of reading is rooted in her childhood, when, she says, ``I read my way through the library.'' One can readily picture her as Roald Dahl's Matilda, particularly in the fourth grade when an adult (whom she declines to identify) told her she couldn't read a particular book since it was for adults, not children. ``But my mother wouldn't mind,'' she protested. That was among the earliest of Meskis' indefatigable efforts to protest actions that would muzzle intellectual freedom. When she was a young woman working at the Littleton Public Library, a parent chastised her because Meskis recommended Margaret Mead's ``Coming of Age in Samoa'' to a teenager. Meskis has organized or led various coalitions to assert intellectual freedom--including her service as president of the Colorado Citizens Against Censorship, a founder of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, and a leader in the National Coalition Against Censorship. When the Tattered Cover offers controversial books, it loses customers. ``Permanently,'' Meskis emphasizes. Critics accuse her of seeking profit at the expense of morals. Meskis said she has found, ``When we have a controversial author, there's a far greater likelihood'' that offended customers will never return. Meskis also worries about the shrinking harbor for ideas outside the mainstream. In the closing of a ``Dear Reader'' letter to customers, Meskis makes this declaration: ``I increasingly wonder how will we ever continue to be a viable bookstore presenting the variety of books and authors that, in their diversity, strengthen our democracy in the debate of ideas. I worry that all of these forces may interfere with our freedom to read, and faster than a lightening bolt, zap away the soul of our First Amendment, thereby diminishing our democratic society.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking the time to come speak on this important issue; and I want to associate myself with his comments on stem cell research. Stem cell research is an important part of understanding Parkinson's disease and eventually finding a cure. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the days and months and years to come to see that that promise is fulfilled. I thank the gentleman for taking the time to join us today. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the State of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to commemorate the anniversary of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act. This act, which was passed 4 years ago this month, has strengthened our national research effort to develop more effective treatments and hopefully a cure for Parkinson's disease. Before I say what I have to say, I want to salute the millions of people who are in the daily battle against this disease. I also want to thank Joan Samuelson and the Parkinson's Action Network for their hard work on behalf of all of us. Additionally, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues on the Congressional Parkinson's Working Group. To name a few, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen); they have been on the front lines in fighting for research dollars and holding various projects accountable for the wise use of these funds. Parkinson's is a devastating disease that affects more than 1 million Americans and their families. Fifty thousand people are newly diagnosed with Parkinson's each year, and of those with Parkinson's today, roughly 40 percent are under the age of 60. Most of us know someone with Parkinson's, or we know someone whose life has been touched by Parkinson's. For some of us, this issue hits close to home. Many people knew my dad, Mo Udall, and his story. He enjoyed great health until 1976, when he broke both his arms in a fall off a ladder, caught viral pneumonia, his appendix burst, he got peritonitis, and he contracted Parkinson's Disease, all within 8 months. He had a long battle with Parkinson's before he passed away in December of 1998. One way my father chose to deal with Parkinson's was to make light of it. Shortly after he was diagnosed, there was a scandal involving a woman by the name of Paula Parkinson, a blond lobbyist who kissed and told about her affairs with several Congressmen. He used to tell a joke that there were two kinds of Parkinson's disease, the kind discovered by an English doctor during the 1800s and the kind you get when you go to Florida with a blond lobbyist. There were no similarities between the two afflictions, he said, except they both cause you to lose sleep and they both give you the shakes. In all seriousness, though, I think Mo would be humbled and honored by the fact that this important act and the centers of excellence it creates are named after him. He dedicated his life to making a difference in the lives of people, and by having his name associated with this act, he continues to have an impact on the world even after his death. The act authorizes $100 million at the National Institutes of Health for Parkinson's research. It also establishes 10 centers for research throughout the Nation and creates a national Parkinson's information clearinghouse for support of research and education. Mr. Speaker, the Udall Act has helped us make tremendous progress in the fight against Parkinson's and in understanding other neurodegenerative diseases. That is why we need to act soon and reauthorize the act. We need to give researchers the necessary funding and support to combat this debilitating and ruthless disease. We will be introducing legislation in the next month to reauthorize the act, and I fervently hope that my colleagues will work with us to make the dream of finding a cure for Parkinson's come true. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from the great State of North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for expressing those sentiments, and I know everyone in my family appreciates the affection and respect that the gentleman has acknowledged that exists for my father. I would add to the comments that the gentleman made that I think Parkinson's disease should truly be characterized as the most common uncommon disease. And by that I mean, the researchers tell us only about a million Americans have the disease. But I guarantee that if we were to walk out on the streets outside the Capitol here and we were to talk to four or five people, by the time we would get to the fifth person, they will know somebody in their immediate family or a friend who has Parkinson's disease and who is battling it valiantly. They would also, I think, be excited to know that we are so close to not only finding ways to combat the disease but to actually identify a cure, and that is why it is so important to reauthorize this act and continue the momentum that has been generated over the past 10 years.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks and for her vision as well. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to urge all of the Members of this body to join us in a bipartisan fashion when we introduce this legislation in the next couple of weeks to reauthorize the Udall Act. I want to thank, in particular, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their support and hard work on behalf of all the people and all the families who suffer from Parkinson's disease. I know we will do the right thing in this body and reauthorize this very, very important act and we can all be proud when we find the cure for Parkinson's sooner rather than later.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If I might add an additional comment, I am confident that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in this important effort to reauthorize this piece of legislation. Parkinson's is not a Republican or a Democrat or a Green Party or Libertarian Party disease. It affects people across our country and across the world. And the work that has been done, as the gentleman points out, is far-reaching. And we are so close to understanding how to not only, as I mentioned earlier, make sure that the disease is mitigated but literally cured. The area of the brain where this takes place has been identified and mapped. And as the gentleman points out, there are indications that the disease is, in some cases, genetic or hereditary; but in other cases, is environmentally induced. There is excellent work going on in the Department of Defense also, working with veterans, and they are looking through their own program on how to combat Parkinson's disease or contributing to the efforts at NIH has undertaken. I want to again thank the gentleman for taking his time to come to the floor and to point out to our colleagues the great opportunity we have to make a difference in a lot of lives. If we think about a million Americans who have the disease, think about the extended families that are affected by the disease and the costs that are incurred, not just financially, but emotionally, in these communities, this is a terrible disease; and it is one that we can cure and we ought to get about the business of it now. So I thank the gentleman.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for joining us today. It is my pleasure at this point to yield time to my colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the important environmental achievements of the Aspen Skiing Company. As most people know, Aspen is one of the nation's premier ski resorts. It is nestled at the head of the Roaring Fork Valley in Colorado, and is surrounded by dramatic, rugged peaks which draw people from around the world to ski its slopes. The officials and employees of the Aspen Skiing Company know first-hand the value of the environment to their operations. If they do not preserve the beauty that surrounds this resort, then they know that they will lose skiers and ultimately profits. They know that a healthy, quality environment equals a healthy, profitable ski operation. As a result, the company has taken a number of steps and adopted a number of practices that, in the long run, will help preserve the environmental quality of the valley. Their environmental and energy efficiency initiatives have won them many awards over the years. But as a recognition of their belief that environmental actions are not just transient and short-term policies, the company was awarded the Golden Eagle Award for Overall Ski Area Operation at the National Ski Area Association's annual convention. This award, established in 1993 by Mountain Sports Media, recognizes the positive environmental efforts of ski areas across the county. A panel of judges evaluates ski areas for their environmental efforts and grants these awards to deserving areas that employ environmental practices at their areas. Aspen Skiing Company received this special award for its long-term environmental excellence and in setting high standards for other resorts to follow. It was also recognized for the fact that its environmental stewardship is evident in every facet of its operation-- its purchasing of wind power, recycling demolished building material, water saving, energy efficient lighting, environmental scholarship program and its design of ski runs to reduce erosion and limit tree cutting. It also has established partnerships with the Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Colorado on pollution prevention practices. All of these actions and more demonstrate that Aspen Skiing Company takes its environmental obligations seriously. Skiing is by its very nature an environmental sport. Skiers are exposed to the elements and the majesty of the mountainous environment. That experience is diminished when the resorts do not respect the landscape and take steps to preserve the very asset that draws people to the sport in the first place. I congratulate Aspen Skiing Company for its great work and the model it is providing to resorts across the country. As the following story indicates, other ski areas, such as Vail, are also incorporating environmental values and practices at their operations. Let's hope that Aspen's example can be replicated at all resorts in Colorado and throughout the nation. [From the Vail Daily] Eco-challengers: Resort Companies Go Green (By Maia Chavez) Has the time come for ski resorts to flex some real muscle in the eco-arena? Resort company decision-makers are betting a portion of their revenue that it has, and while that portion may still be little more than a token, the very existence of increasing structured environmental programs within resort companies is telling. ``I've seen a few significant industry trends since I've had an environmental position at the resort,'' said John Gitchell, environmental manager for Vail Resorts. ``One major trend that has impacted us is the investigation of impact at ski resorts. When I started my job that trend was just beginning. But the impact of ski resorts is highly visible, and sooner or later, it was going to attract attention.'' Gitchell also cited increasing strictness by regulators, scrutinization of both of development and resort operations, and ecoterrorism as having given a boost to the development of environmental programs within resort companies. Recent episodes of eco-terrorism directed at ski resorts might be a harsh--and extreme--indicator, but as a cultural barometer they have served to force the issue onto the media's consciousness. Once in the spotlight, resort companies feel the pressure to take action, and to make their presence known as activists for the cause of environmentalism. As part of the Partnership for Environmental Education Programs speaker series, Gitchell recently shared the podium with Aspen Skiing Company director of environmental affairs Auden Schendler for a presentation on the ``greening the resort culture.'' As spearheads for environmental programs at their respective resort companies, Gitchell and Schendler represented an interesting counterpoint as they outlined recent developments at each resort. Big Mac world In a humorous attempt to highlight the problem with a ski company trying to represent itself as an environmental activist, Schendler compared Aspen Skiing Company to the MacDonalds franchise. ``We're an investing company, too,'' he said. ``We're trying to make money. The one difference from our perspective is that Aspen is privately owned. We're not beholden to shareholders. We can't actually be sued if we don't make enough money, though our owners don't like it much.'' As a private company, Aspen has, in the past three years, developed one of the most extensive and award-winning environmental programs in the ski industry. According to Colorado Ski Country USA, Aspen is recognized as one of the country's most environmentally responsible ski areas, striving to ``redefine corporate environmentalism.'' Taking a stand Aspen Skiing Company was the first in the industry to create an Environmental Affairs Department, and to make it an integral part of their senior management. What does that mean in practical-speak? ``We have a set of guiding principles, and the main principle is that we provide the opportunity for `the renewal of the human spirit','' explained Schendler. ``That may sound cheesy, but the truth is that, as director of environmental affairs it allows me to do whatever I think best in order to uphold that principle. For instance, if I want to sell consulting services and help other ski areas become more environmentally responsible, I'm still conforming to our `guiding principles'.'' This year, the company produced its first published ``sustainability report'', a detailed catalog of the company's environmental programs and policies, statistics on its natural resource consumption and pollution, resource efficiency, hazardous waste management and compliance, community and environmental education programs, habitat, wildlife and open space protection. Sustainable slopes? ``Ski companies don't have to be rape-and-pillage organizations,'' said Schendler. ``We don't have to clearcut slopes. We can have a more harmonious relationship with the community and the environment.'' To that end, Aspen has implemented such initiatives as s- curved, bio-diverse and un-bulldozed slopes to minimize erosion and protect wildlife, wind-powered ski lifts, employee and community initiatives and a pollution prevention partnership with the EPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Recent developments in Aspen Skiing Company's program have included the deconstruction of the mountain's popular Sundeck Restaurant and the Snowmass Lodge and Club, two buildings which were scheduled to be razed and rebuilt. Materials from both structures were harvested and recycled, with unsalvageable materials composted. According to Schendler, 94 percent of the structures were diverted from the Pitkin County landfill. That comes to 8,000 cubic yards of space, or an addition of three months to the projected life of the landfill. The Sundeck Restaurant was rebuilt to conform with guidelines established by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. LEED is the nation's first national certification process for environmentally friendly building. The 3,700-square-foot deck was built from recycled materials, ozone-depleting CFCs in refrigeration systems, insulation and carpet pads were eliminated, landscaping was designed with native vegetation to reduce water use, low toxicity paints glues and sealants were used, and the list goes on. A drop in the bucket As Schendler pointed out, however, many of these adjustments are a mere drop in the bucket when factored into total resort operations. ``Thirty percent of the Sundeck Restaurant is wind- powered,'' he said. ``But you have to ask, what percentage of our total energy purchase does that represent? The answer is half of one percent, Barely anything.'' Does it have a major influence on pollution? Not really, said Schendler, who calculated the total impact as the equivalent of not driving your car for 97,000 miles, or planting 40 acres of trees. So, is this an example of ``greenwashing''--a mere pretence on the part of a resort company? ``We couldn't power the whole operation with wind,'' explained Schendler, ``It's too expensive. We'd go bankrupt. But what we can do is buy some wind power, make that statement, popularize it among our employees and guests, and encourage other ski areas to follow suit.'' Vail develops its policies Vail Resorts' environmental program began to take shape in 1998, although Gitchell stressed that the arduous process of adopting a company policy is very much still in the formative stages. Last season, Vail Resorts developed a computer-generated assessment tool allowing the four resorts to measure their environmental practices against an outline of pre-set standards. The tool was subsequently adopted by the National Ski Areas association who, after some modification, passed it on to resorts throughout the country. The Skiing Company awarded Vail with the Silver Eagle award for environmental achievement in ``visual impacts'' for the Blue Sky Basin project, touted by Colorado Ski Country USA as the most environmentally sensitive ski area expansion undertaken in North America. Among recent environmental initiatives are the prototype composting operation introduced last season at the Game Creek Club on mountain restaurant, third-party audits by an environmental consulting firm (initiated this summer), the replacement of 25 fleet vehicles with ``townie'' bicycles, and the purchase of 475 blocks of clean, wind-generated electricity per month. ``To emphasize Mr. Schendler's point, our wind energy purchases also come out to less than one percent of our total energy purchase,'' said Gitchell. ``But the stage has to be set for continuing policies.'' Gitchell said that Vail Resorts' goals for the coming year are to improve education and communication, improve regulatory systems, reduce green house gas emissions, and implement a sustainable building program. He said that likes the idea of Aspen Skiing Company's community environmental advisory committee, which integrates local environmental activists into the resort's management process. ``The bottom line is that we don't know for sure that we can achieve sustainability in this world,'' said Schendler. ``By doing what we are doing, we are making the assumption that we can. And it's a vital leap of faith.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, since being elected to Congress, I have worked hard for a meaningful Patient's Bill of Rights. But I cannot support the White House proposal that was crafted in the wee hours of the night because it favors HMOs over patients. This proposal is bad for Colorado. Patients will not have the full right to sue their HMO if it unfairly denies them access to critical medical care. And worse yet, the White House proposal overrides strong patients' rights laws already enacted in Colorado. When I served in the Colorado State House, we put in lots of hard work on a bipartisan basis to enact strong, meaningful patient protections. This deal will wipe away those protections with one fell swoop. We should keep our strong state protections in tact and not let the weaker federal laws take precedence. So Mr. Chairman, I stand with the American Medical Association and the millions of Americans who will be greatly harmed by this legislation. I am disappointed that the Republican Leadership has worked with the White House to strike a deal that is acceptable to the President and unacceptable to patients and doctors. They have hijacked a good bill and filled it with protections for special interests. I hope that the House-Senate conference committee will come up with a bill that reflects the McCain bill that was approved in the Senate earlier this year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Many have asked me about what my father would say, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am here tonight to tell you he would support the Markey amendment. But this is not about my father, it is about my children and their children. It is about leaving them options in the future. Barry Goldwater was asked if he had any regrets about the votes he cast in the Senate when he served here so admirably. He said, One vote, when I voted to dam the Glen Canyon area. He understood that you could not develop and preserve a wilderness area at the same time. Let us not have any regrets. Let us remember what Teddy Roosevelt said about the Grand Canyon and that it also applies to the wildlife refuge, ``Man cannot improve on it. Let us leave it like the Creator envisioned it.'' On the question of whether to open the coastal plain, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds. The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems.'' What are the odds? Well, the best estimate is by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. But Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. So, USGS is saying that at $24 per barrel, there is a 50 percent chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain. There is one 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of renewable resources. For example, fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks could feasibly be raised to more than 40 miles per gallon by 2010. Experts estimate that alone would save 10 times as much oil as would likely be extracted from the Arctic refuge over the next 30 years. In short, when it comes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I think that the stakes are too high and the odds are too long--especially since we have better options. So I do not support it. For the benefit of our colleagues, I attach excerpts from a recent article in Foreign Affairs by two Coloradans--Amory R. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins. Founders and leaders of the Rocky Mountain Institute, they are recognized experts on energy issues. The article, entitled ``Fool's Gold in Alaska,'' clearly shows that drilling for oil on the coastal plain does not make sense in terms of economics, national security, or environmental protection. [From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001] Fool's Gold in Alaska (By Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins) the bottom of the barrel? Oil prices have fluctuated randomly for well over a century. Heedless of this fact, oil's promoters are always offering opportunities that could make money--but on the flawed assumption that high prices will prevail. Leading the field of these optimists are Alaskan politicians. Eager to keep funding their state's de facto negative income tax--oil provides 80 percent of the state's unrestricted general revenue--they have used every major rise in oil prices since 1973 to advocate drilling beneath federal lands on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Just as predictably, environmentalists counter that the refuge is the crown jewel of the American wilderness and home to the threatened indigenous Gwich'in people. As some see it, drilling could raise human rights issues under international law. Canada, which shares threatened wildlife, also opposes drilling. Both sides of this debate have largely overlooked the central question: Does drilling for oil in the refuge's coastal plain make sense for economic and security reasons? After all, three imperatives should shape a national energy policy: economic vitality, secure supplies, and environmental quality. To merit serious consideration, a proposal must meet at least one of these goals. Drilling proponents claim that prospecting for refuge oil will enhance the first two while not unduly harming the third. In fact, not only does refuge oil fail to meet any of the three goals, it could even compromise the first two. First, the refuge is unlikely to hold economically recoverable oil. And even if it did, exploitation would only briefly reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil by just a few percentage points, starting in about a decade. Nor would the refuge yield significant natural gas. Despite some recent statements by the Bush administration, the North Slope's important natural-gas deposits are almost entirely outside the refuge. The gas-rich areas are already open to industry, and environmentalists would likely support a gas pipeline there, but its high cost--an estimated $10 billion--would make it seem uneconomical. Furthermore, those who suppose that any domestic oil is more secure than imported oil should remember that oil reserves almost anywhere else on earth are more accessible and more reliably deliverable than those above the Arctic Circle. Importing oil in tankers from the highly diversified world market is arguably better for energy security than delivering refuge oil to other U.S. states through one vulnerable conduit, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Although proponents argue that exploiting refuge oil would make better use of TAPS (which is all paid for but only half- full), that pipeline is easy to disrupt and difficult to repair. More than half of it is elevated and indefensible; in fact, it has already been bombed twice. If one of its vital pumping stations were attacked in the winter, its nine million barrels of hot oil could congeal into the world's largest Chapstick. Nor has the 24-year-old TAPS aged gracefully: premature and accelerated corrosion, erosion, and stress are raising maintenance costs. Last year, the pipeline suffered two troubling accidents plus another that almost blew up the Valdez oil terminal. If TAPS were to start transporting refuge oil, it would start only around the end of its originally expected lifetime. That one fragile link, soon to be geriatric, would then bring as much oil to U.S. refineries as now flows through the Strait of Hormuz--a chokepoint that is harder to disrupt, is easier to fix, and has alternative routes. Available and proven technological alternatives that use energy more productively can meet all three goals of energy policy with far greater effectiveness, speed, profit, and security than can drilling in the refuge. The untapped, inexpensive ``reserves'' of oil-efficiency technology exceed by more than 50 times the average projection of what refuge drilling might yield. The existence of such alternatives makes drilling even more economically risky. In sum, even if drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge posed no environmental or human rights concerns, it still could not be justified on economic or security grounds. These reasons remain as compelling as they were 14 years ago, when drilling there was last rejected, and they are likely to strengthen further with technological advances. Comparing all realistic ways to meet the goals of national energy policy suggests a simple conclusion: refuge oil is unnecessary, insecure, a poor business risk, and a distraction from a sound national debate over realistic energy priorities. If that debate is informed by the past quarter-century's experience of what works, a strong energy policy will seek the lowest-cost mix of demand- and supply-side investments that compete fairly at honest prices. It will not pick winners, bail out losers, substitute central planning for market forces, or forecast demand and then plan capacity to meet it. Instead, it will treat demand as a choice, not fate. If consumers can choose optimal levels of efficiency, demand can remain stable (as oil demand did during 1975-91) or even decline--and it will be possible to provide secure, safe, and clean energy services at the lowest cost. In this market- driven world, the time for costly refuge oil has passed. From 1979 to 1986, GDP grew 20 percent while total energy use fell by 5 percent. Improved efficiency provided more than five times as much new energy service as the vaunted expansion of the coal and nuclear industries; domestic oil output rose only 1.5 percent while domestic natural gas output fell 18 percent. When the resulting glut slashed energy prices in 1985-86, attention strayed and efficiency slowed. But just in the past five years, the United States has quietly entered a second golden age of rapidly improving energy efficiency. Now, with another efficiency boom underway, the whole cycle is poised to repeat itself-- threatening another energy-policy train wreck with serious economic consequences. From 1996 to 2000, a complex mix of factors--such as competitive pressures, valuable side benefits, climate concerns, and e-commerce's structural shifts--unexpectedly pushed the pace of U.S. energy savings to nearly an all-time high, averaging 3.1 percent per year despite the record-low and falling energy prices of 1997-99. Meanwhile, investment in energy supply, which is slower to mature, lagged behind demand growth in some regions as the economy boomed. Then in 2000, Middle East political jitters, OPEC machinations, and other factors made world oil prices spike just as cold weather and turbulence in the utility industry coincidentally boosted natural gas prices. Gasoline prices are rising this year--even though crude-oil prices are softening--due to shortages not of crude oil but of refineries and additives. California's botched utility restructuring, meanwhile, sent West Coast electricity prices sky-high, although not for the oft-cited reasons. (Demand did not soar, and California did not stop building power plants in the 1990s, contrary to many observers' claims.) The higher fuel and electricity prices and occasional local shortages that have vexed many Americans this past year have rekindled a broader national interest in efficient use. The current economic slow-down will further dampen demand but should also heighten business interest in cutting costs. Efficiency also lets numerous actors harness the energy market's dynamism and speed--and it tends to bear results quickly. All these factors could set the stage for another price crash as burgeoning energy savings coincide, then collide, with the new administration's push to stimulate energy supplies. Producers who answer that call will risk shouldering the cost of added supply without the revenue to pay for it, for oil prices high enough to make refuge oil profitable would collapse before or as supply boomed. Policymakers can avoid such overreaction and instability if they understand the full range of competing options, especially the ability of demand to react faster than supply and the need for balancing investment between them. As outlined above, in the first half of the 1980s, the U.S. economy grew while total energy use fell and oil imports from the Persian Gulf were nearly eliminated. This achievement showed the power of a demand-side national energy policy. Today, new factors--even more powerful technologies and better designs, streamlined delivery methods, and better understanding of how public policy can correct dozens of market failures in buying efficiency--can make the demand- side response even more effective. This can give the United States a more affordable and secure portfolio of diverse energy sources, not just a few centralized ones. it's easy (and lucrative) being green Oil is becoming more abundant but relatively less important. For each dollar of GDP, the United States used 49 percent less oil in 2000 than it did in 1975. Compared with 1975, the amount that energy efficiency now saves each year is more than five times the country's annual domestic oil production, twelve times its imports from the Persian Gulf, and twice its total oil imports. And the efficiency resource is far from tapped out; instead, it is constantly expanding. It is already far larger and cheaper than anyone had dared imagine. Increased energy productivity now delivers two-fifths of all U.S. energy services and is also the fastest growing ``source.'' (Aboard, renewable energy supply is growing even faster; it is expected to generate 22 percent of the European Union's electricity by 2010.) Efficient energy use often yields annual after-tax returns of 100 to 200 percent on investment. Its frequent fringe benefits are even more valuable: 6 to 16 percent higher labor productivity in energy-efficient buildings, 40 percent higher retail sales in stores with good natural lighting, and improved output and quality in efficient factories. Efficiency also has major policy advantages. It is here and now, not a decade away. It improves the environment and protects the earth's climate. It is fully secure, already delivered to customers, and immune to foreign potentates and volatile markets. It is rapidly and equitably deployable in the market. It supports jobs all across the United States rather than in a few firms in one state. Yet the energy options now winning int he marketplace seem oddly invisible, unimportant, and disfavored in current national strategy. Those who have forgotten the power of energy efficiency should remember the painful business lessons learned from the energy policies of the early 1970s and the 1980s. Energy gluts rapidly recur whenever customers pay attention to efficiency--because the nationwide reserve of cheap, qualitatively superior savings from efficient energy use is enormous and largely accessible. That overhand of untapped and unpredictably accessed efficiency presents an opportunity for entrepreneurs and policymakers, but it also poses a risk to costly supply investments. That risk is now swelling ominously. In the early 1980s, vigorous efforts to boost both supply and efficiency succeeded. Supply rose modestly while efficiency soared. a barrel saved, a barrel earned If oil were found and profitably extracted from the refuge, its expected peak output would equal for a few years about one percent of the world oil market. Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) has claimed that merely announcing refuge leasing would bring down world oil prices. Yet even a giant Alaskan discovery several times larger than the refuge would not stabilize world oil markets. Oil prices reached their all- time high, for example, just as such a huge field, in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, neared its maximum output. Only energy efficiency can stabilize oil prices--as well as sink them. And only a tiny fraction of the vast untapped efficiency gains is needed to do so. What could the refuge actually produce under optimal conditions? Starting about ten years from now, if oil prices did stay around $22 per barrel, if Congress approved the project, and if the refuge yielded the USGS's mean estimate of about 3.2 billion barrels of profitable oil, the 30-year output would average a modest 292,000 barrels of crude oil a day. (This estimate also assumes that such oil would feed U.S. refineries rather than go to Asian markets, as some Alaskan oil did in 1996-2000.) Once refined, that amount would yield 156,000 barrels of gasoline per day--enough to run 2 percent of American cars and light trucks. That much gasoline could be saved if light vehicles became 0.4 mpg more efficient. Compare that feat to the one achieved in 1979--85, when new light vehicles on average gained o.4 mpg every 5 months. Equipping cars with replacement tires as efficient as the original ones would save consumers several ``refuges'' full of crude oil. Installing superinsulating windows could save even more oil and natural gas while making buildings more comfortable and cheaper to construct. A combination of all the main efficiency options available in 1989 could save today the equivalent of 54 ``refuges''--but at a sixth of the cost. New technologies for saving energy are being found faster than the old ones are being used up--just like new technologies for finding and extracting oil, only faster. As gains in energy efficiency continue to outpace oil depletion, oil will probably become uncompetitive even at low prices before it becomes unavailable even at high prices. This is especially likely because the latest efficiency revolution squarely targets oil's main users and its dominant growth market--cars and light trucks--where gasoline savings magnify crude-oil savings by 85 percent. New American cars are hardly models of fuel efficiency. Their average rating of 24 mpg ties for a 20-year low. The auto industry can do much better--and is now making an effort. Briskly selling hybrid-electric cars such as the Toyota Prius (a Corolla-class 5-seater) offer 49 mpg, and the Honda Insight (a CRX-class 2-seater) gets 67 mpg. A fleet that efficient, compared to the 24 mpg average, would save 26 or 33 refuges, respectively. General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford are now testing family sedans that offer 72--80 mpg. For Europeans who prefer subcompact city cars, Volkswagen is selling a 4-seater at 78 mpg and has announced a smaller 2003 model at 235 mpg. Still more efficient cars powered by clean and silent fuel cells are slated for production by at least eight major automakers starting in 2003-5. An uncompromised fuel-cell vehicle--the HypercarSM--has been designed and costed for production and would achieve 99 mpg; it is as roomy and safe as a midsized sport-utility vehicle but uses 82 percent less fuel and no oil. Such high- efficiency vehicles, which probably can be manufactured at competitive cost, could save globally as much oil as OPEC now sells; when parked, the cars' dual function as plug-in power stations could displace the world's coal and nuclear plants many times over. As long as the world runs largely on oil, economics dictates a logical priority for displacing it. Efficient use of oil wins hands down on cost, risk, and speed. Costlier options thus incur an opportunity cost. Buying costly refuge oil instead of cheap oil productivity is not simply a bad business decision; it worsens the oil-import problem. Each dollar spent on the costly option of refuge oil could have bought more of the cheap option of efficient use instead. Choosing the expensive option causes more oil to be used and imported than if consumers had bought the efficiency option first. The United States made exactly this mistake when it spent $200 billion on unneeded (but officially encouraged) nuclear and coal plants in the 1970s and 1980s. The United States now imports oil, produces nuclear waste, and risks global climate instability partly because it bought those assets instead of buying far cheaper energy efficiency. Drilling for refuge oil is a risk the nation should consider taking only if no other choice is possible. But other choices abound. If three or four percent of all U.S. cars were as efficient as today's popular hybrid models, they would save the equivalent of all the refuge's oil. In all, many tens of time more oil is available--sooner, more surely, and more cheaply--from proven energy efficiency. The cheaper, faster energy alternatives now succeeding in the marketplace are safe, clean, climate-friendly, and overwhelmingly supported by the public. Equally important, they remain profitable at any oil price. They offer economic, security, and environmental benefits rather than costs. If any oil is beneath the refuge, its greatest value just might be in holding up the ground beneath the people and animals that live there.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to both honor and thank Scott Prestidge. I first met Scott when he came to one of my town hall meetings. He approached a member of my staff with a resume and within a few weeks was working in my district office. Scott graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder with a degree in Political Science. He has been a caseworker in my Colorado office dealing primarily with the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and the Small Business Administration. He has demonstrated exceptional professionalism and knowledge in dealing with business, technology and veterans issues. His patience, understanding, and sense of humor have made him a great asset to my staff. One of Scott's most meaningful accomplishments was helping me to obtain World War II medals for a woman whose husband died in the war. Her son had never met his father and was overjoyed at finally receiving the medals for his father's bravery and courage. This is just one of the many examples of the excellent constituent services Scott has helped me provide to the people in my district. He has been invaluable in communicating with Spanish-speaking constituents and is always compassionate and understanding to those in need. Scott is moving to Boston, Massachusetts to be with his wife, Abbey, while she attends graduate school. I wish them the best of luck in all their future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding time. I, too, like the previous speaker had scheduled to speak on behalf of the Committee on Science but want to take advantage of this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. As I look it over, I am reminded of the old Western movie ``The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.'' There are a few good things in the bill. For example, it includes the text of my three bills dealing with clean school buses, energy-efficient schools, and distributed energy. There are a few other good things as well, but the good things are far outweighed by the bad. The restrictive rule imposed by the leadership makes it impossible to remove or improve all those things that are bad for the environment, bad for taxpayers, bad for the economy and bad for the country. So even if the House adopts the amendments to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as we should, the bill would still be so ugly that it should be rejected by the House. Let us reject this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to both honor and thank Mary Johns, a dedicated member of the community and my staff. Mary has a long history of involvement in the 2nd Congressional District of Colorado and is deserving of special recognition. After graduating from Santa Monica College with a degree in Public Administration, Mary moved to Colorado to raise a family and pursue her interests in local and national government. Her commitment to public service is apparent when one looks at her involvement in local politics and community-based organizations. She was a member of the City of Thornton Career Service Board, also serving as Vice-Chairwoman, and was Chairwoman and Trustee of the MetroNorth PAC. Mary's interests also included involvement in the ADCO Partners in Progress for a New Airport and the Adams County Airport Task Force. During this time she went to work for United States Congressman David Skaggs. It was in that office that she began working with veterans, postal workers and labor organizations. She demonstrated great understanding and compassion with all constituents that she came in contact with and continued to work towards improving the quality of life for the people of her community. Beyond working for elected officials, Mary became one herself in 1989 when she was elected to the Adams Twelve Five Star School District Board of Education. Mary understood the importance of our public education system and worked hard to ensure that every child in her district had access to quality schools. She has served as President and Vice President during three terms on the school board, and I am sure that she will continue to be an advocate for education. Mary has been a member of my staff since I was elected in 1998. She has continued to help constituents as a caseworker, and her knowledge and experience have been invaluable to both my staff and me. I wish her the best of luck as she continues her journey from public service to full-time grandmother, mother and wife. On behalf of the people of the 2nd Congressional District, I thank her for all she has done.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1858, the National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act. I would like to thank Science Committee Chairman Boehlert for working with me and my colleagues on the committee to craft this important bipartisan legislation. I want to express particular support for Title IV in this bill. Title IV sets up the Robert Noyce Scholarship program, which would provide scholarships and programming designed to recruit and train mathematics and science teachers. I introduced a similar bill earlier this year, provisions of which have been incorporated into Title IV. My bill, the Science Teachers Scholarships for Scientists and Engineers Act, provided for scholarships to students or professionals who have a degree in science or engineering to enable them to take the courses they need to become certified as science or math teachers. From a series of Science Committee hearings last year about the state of science and math education, and from talking to constituents, students, and educators at home, it has become clear to me that we need to improve science and math education in this country. In particular, I've come to understand that poor student performance in science and math has much to do with the fact that teachers often have little or no training in the disciplines they are teaching. While the importance of teacher expertise in determining student achievement is widely acknowledged, it is also the case that significant numbers of K-12 students are being taught science and math by unqualified teachers. So I'm pleased that this bill would begin to address the shortage of qualified science and math teachers by providing an incentive for individuals with the content knowledge to try teaching as a career. Mr. Speaker, to keep economic growth strong in the long-term, we need continued innovation. But innovation doesn't happen by itself--it requires a steady flow of scientists and engineers. That's why this legislation is so important. H.R. 1858 will help ensure we are prepared for the demands and challenges of the economy of this new century.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the original 29 Navajo Code Talkers, who courageously served this country during WWII. The original 29 Navajo code talkers developed a Navajo language-based code to transmit information while in the Pacific theatre. Their efforts were invaluable to this nation and helped bring the war in the Pacific to a close, impacting all Americans. Today these men or their surviving family members are receiving Congressional gold medals of honor as a symbol of our Nation's appreciation for their valor. In early 1942 the Marines started to recruit Navajo men to serve as code talkers in the Pacific. The Marines were searching for a code, which the Japanese would be unable to break. Since the Navajo language is incredibly complex and consists of complicated syntax and tonal qualities, plus different dialects it was an ideal code. The original 29 Navajo Code Talkers developed a code dictionary, which had to be memorized. This code consisted of English translations of Navajo phrases. The Japanese were never able to break the complicated code. The Navajo Code Talkers successfully sent thousands of messages, enabling the Marines and this Nation to achieve victory. The war in the Pacific was brought to a close with the help of these original 29 Navajo code talkers and the hundreds of code talkers who followed. The Navajo, who bravely served this country, despite poor governmental treatment at home, should be commended for their service. I would ask my colleagues to join me, now and forever, in paying tribute to the original 29 Navajo Code Talkers who bravely served this nation. I am including an article from a recent edition of Indian Country Today, which recognizes the significant contributions of the Navajo Code Talkers. [From Indian Country Today, July 11, 2001] Navajo Code Talkers To Get Congressional Gold Medals True recognition a decade after heroism (By Brenda Norrell) SANOSTEE, N.M.--The late Harrison Lapahie's Dine name Yieh Kinne Yah means ``He finds things.'' His son, Harrison Lapahie Jr., is honoring his father's name by finding Navajo Code Talkers who will receive Congressional gold and silver medals. Born here in Sanostee, officially in 1923 but closer actually to 1928, Harrison Lapahie served in the U.S. Marines using his Native tongue to transmit the code never broken by the Japanese during World War II. Aircraft bombers were ``Jay-Sho'' buzzards, dive-bombers were ``Gini'' chicken hawks and battleships were ``Lo-Tso'' whales. The original 29 Navajo Code Talkers who created the code will join George Washington, Robert Kennedy, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela as recipients of the Congressional gold medal, the nation's highest civilian honor. With beautiful piano music and galloping horses, an eagle and an American flag on his Web site, Harrison Lapahie's son Harry links readers worldwide to the legacy and history of the Navajo warriors being honored more than half a century after their heroism with their Dine-based military code. Charles Hedin, Navajo working in health recovery with veterans in Denver, discovered the search for his uncle on the Web site. The late John Willie Jr. was among the original 29 being sought to be honored in Washington this month. ``I was surfing the Web and I landed on Mr. Lapahie's Web site. I didn't know Zonnie Gorman was searching for relatives of Code Talkers. Filled with overwhelming pride, I called her and explained that John Willie Jr. was my uncle.'' ``We compared some notes and I also helped her to find Adolf Murgursky, another Code Talker.'' Willie did not live long enough to receive his recognition. ``I have mixed emotions because the recognition for my uncles' war contributions has come 50 years later,'' Hedin said, ``He was one of the first 29.'' Still, he said, ``I am so proud it is hard to express the feelings.'' Like Lapahie, Zonnie Gorman honors the memory of her father, Carl Nelson Gorman. The late artist, professor and storyteller and father of internationally renowned artist R. C. Gorman was president of the Navajo Code Talkers Association before his death in 1998. Gorman, struggling to find the last five of the original 29 code talkers, said plans are being completed with the White House for the award ceremony. Another ceremony later in the summer on the Navajo Nation will honor nearly 400 other Navajo Code Talkers with silver medals. Lapahie's Web site includes rare, original letters concerning creation of the code and his father's original maps from World War II in the Pacific, along with recognition from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. Bingaman introduced legislation in April 2000 and pressed Congress to honor Navajo Code Talkers with gold and silver medals. The bill was signed into law Dec. 21, 2000, and the U.S. Mint began designing the special gold and silver medals. ``It has taken too long to properly recognize these soldiers, whose achievements have been obscured by twin veils of secrecy and time. As they approach the final chapter of their lives, it is only fitting that the nation pay them this honor,'' Bingaman said. Another secret is revealed in the House bill that describes the code kept secret for 23 years and declassified in 1968. ``Some code talkers were guarded by fellow Marines, whose role was to kill them in case of imminent capture by the enemy.'' There are also the names of others who did not live long enough to be recognized, young Navajos who died in combat in Okinawa, Guam, Iwo Jima and other on far away shores and hilltops. Navajo Code Talkers killed in action were Paul Begay, Johnson Housewood, Peter Johnson, Jimmy Kelly Sr., Paul Kinlachcheeny, Leo Kirk, Ralph Morgan, Sam Morgan, Willie Notah, Tom Singer, Alfred Tsosie, Harry Tsosie and Howard Tsosie. In the Web tribute to his father, Lapahie says Navajos have been warriors time and again since they signed the Treaty of 1868 with the United States. ``When the United States entered World War II in 1941, the Navajos again left the canyons, plains and mesa's of their reservation homes to join the armed forces and played a crucial role in such combat arenas as Guadalcanal, Saipan, Bougainville, Tinian, Anzio, Salerno, Normandy, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and countless other bloody islands and forgotten battlefields.'' More than 3,600 young Navajo men and women joined the armed forces during World War II. ``Proportionately, that figure represents one of the highest percentages of total population in the armed service of any ethnic group in the United States.'' Lapahie's Web site includes his father's translation of the Marine Corps Hymn into Navajo and a letter from the president of the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation. Lt. Gen. Ron Christmas writes of an upcoming print honoring the Navajo Code Talkers and notes Lapahie's translation of the corps hymn. In remembering his father, Harry said, ``There is a story when Dad was strolling on one of the islands, and went into a Japanese military site.'' ``Yet he was untouched because the Japanese though that he was Japanese!'' Harry's father died in his Los Angeles apartment Nov. 26, 1985, and is buried near Aztec, N.M., not far from the Ute Boarding School in Ignacio, Colo., he attended as a child where he learned his baking skills.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man considered, after twenty years of service to be the ``Conscience of the Colorado Senate.'' As a State Senator Regis Groff was a man who never backed down from a fight and always stood up for what he believed in. Although he often stood alone, he never hesitated to do what he believed was right. As an African-American political leader from West, Regis was often pitted against the forces of discrimination, a battle in which he was consistently outnumbered. He pushed for Colorado to divest itself from business relationships with the apartheid regime of South Africa, and was a strong voice for enhancing voter registration. When it wasn't popular, he was also a voice for rational gun control. He was responsible for carrying Senate legislation in Colorado designating the birthday of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. as a state holiday. Regis Groff's convictions earned him respect from both sides of the aisle. One former colleague remarked, ``there would be a hush when Regis went to the microphone.'' The former Colorado Senate President, a member of the opposing party, said, ``Regis was the most fun and challenging person to debate at the microphone of anyone I served with in the legislature.'' I would ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a great and dedicated public servant. I am including an article from a recent edition of the Denver Post that recognizes the significant contributions of Regis Groff to the people of Colorado. Whatever Happened To . . . Regis Groff?: Former ``Conscience of Colorado'' Speaks From Sidelines (By James B. Meadow) The former ``Conscience of the Colorado Senate,'' the man who spent 20 years fighting--and mostly losing--the good fight is staring out the window of the clubhouse of the Park Hill Golf Course sympathetically watching grown men flail at a little white ball. ``Most retirees assume their golf game will be much, much better, but it doesn't happen that way,'' says Regis Groff. He flashes his trademark megawatt smile as he adds, ``At least it didn't happen to me. But then I only play one-third as much golf as I want to.'' Not that he's complaining, because these days life is better than just OK for Groff. For one, he looks a decade younger than his 66 years, almost too youthful to be the grandfather of four. For another, he takes a winter hiatus in Las Vegas every year. He also indulges his passion for baseball by taking advantage of his Colorado Rockies season tickets. True, they're not his beloved Chicago Cubs, but few know better than Groff that life is riddled with compromise. For two decades, he was the impassioned, eloquent spokesman for liberal causes in the Colorado Senate, a man whose flights of oratory were legendary. ``There would be a hush when Regis went to the microphone,'' says former Sen. Mike Feeley, calling the Democrat ``the finest public speaker ever to grace the floor of the state Senate.'' Even those at the opposite end of the political spectrum were Groff fans. ``Regis was the most fun and challenging person to debate at the microphone of anyone I served with in the legislature,'' says Tom Norton, former Senate president. ``I don't know that he ever passed a whole bunch of bills. But he always made sure the point of view he represented was adequately considered.'' Norton isn't exaggerating in his remarks about Groff not passing a whole bunch of bills. ``Oh, it was thorough frustration to have zero influence, no power,'' says Groff of his 20 years in the minority party; years of futilely fighting to ban capital punishment, have the state divest itself from business relationships with the apartheid regime of South Africa, enhance voter registration and establish gun control. ``But you have to raise issues that aren't popular,'' says Groff. ``You try to raise issues that touch the conscience of each human being.'' Although Groff dismisses Sen. Jana Mendez's claim that he was the conscience of the Senate as ``overspeak,'' he doesn't deny that he was loath to back down from an issue. That's why in April 1993, only months after Coloradans passed Amendment 2--largely seen as a slap at homosexual rights--Groff tried to get the Senate to put it back on the ballot to let voters ``revisit'' the measure. That same session, he was blunt about his feelings for Douglas Bruce, author of Amendment 1, which limited the state's ability to raise taxes and spend money. On the Senate floor, Groff said that Bruce, a California transplant, ``slithered into Colorado and hoodwinked the state.'' Standing alone was second nature to Groff: He was the Senate's only black. And political ostracism was nothing new for a guy who knew all about racial discrimination. When he first arrived in Denver in 1963, to begin what would be a lengthy career as an educator, he and his wife were repeatedly denied rental homes in Park Hill because, as landlords told him, ``We don't rent to coloreds.'' Growing up the son of a potter in Monmouth., Ill., a small rural community, Groff wasn't allowed in the YMCA pool. Racial intolerance was still an emphatic given when he was attending Western Illinois University. Along with a group of other black students, Groff led a successful push to force a local barbershop to serve black students. His proudest moment as a legislator came in 1984, when he persuaded the Senate to pass a bill making Martin Luther King's birthday a state holiday. He recalls that debate over the bill almost caused a fist fight with another senator. ``I told him, `I should kick your ass!,' and he said, `C'mon!' but others stepped between us,'' laughs Groff. Groff left the Senate in 1994 to head the state's Youth Offender System, a multimillion-dollar rehabilitation facility for violent juveniles. He quit in 1998 and then headed the Metro Denver Black Church Initiative. These days, he says, ``I have no gainful employment,'' content to be a grandfather, serve on boards, travel, golf, watch baseball, adjust to life as a divorced male after 33 years of marriage and basically do what he pleases. Would he ever again consider elective office? ``No, no, no!'' he says, recoiling in mock horror. ``If 20 years of politics doesn't fill you appetite, then that appetite is so insatiable as to be dangerous.'' Still, he does confess to more than a trace of envy now that Democrats control the Senate. ``You bet I'm jealous. I'd like to know how it feels to be in the majority,'' he says. But then you'd expect a frank answer. After all, anything less from the Senate's former conscience would be, well, unconscionable.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to modify the 1875 Act--usually referred to as the Colorado Enabling Act-- that provided for admission of Colroado to the Union. The bill is cosponsored by my colleague, Representative DeGette. I greatly appreciate her support. The purpose of this bill is to remove any possible conflict between a decision of the people of Colorado and that original federal legislation under which some 3 million acres of federal lands were granted to our state. In granting the lands to Colorado, Congress provided that they were to be used as a source of revenue for the public schools--and for many years they were managed for that purpose. However, over the years the revenue derived from these lands has become a less and less significant part of the funding for Colorado's schools, while there has been an increasing appreciation of the other values of these lands. As a result, in 1996 the people of Colorado voted to amend our state constitution to permit part of these school trust lands to be set aside in a ``stewardship trust'' and managed to preserve their open space, wildlife and other natural qualities. To assure that this decision of the voters can be implemented, my bill would amend the original Colorado Enabling Act to eliminate the requirement that the state must raise revenue from the school-trust lands that are set aside for their natural resource values and qualities. Similar legislation has been introduced by other Members of Colorado's delegation in the Congress. However, those bills include a specific limit on the acreage that could be placed in the stewardship trust. The 1996 state legislation does set such a limit. I supported that part of the state legislation. However, I think that whether that limit should be retained or revised should be decided solely by the people of Colorado, and not determined by Congress. So, the bill I am introducing today does not include a specific acreage limit. That would be left to Colorado law to control. Mr. Speaker, Colorado is experiencing rapid population growth. That is putting increasing pressure on all our undeveloped lands. In response, the people of Colorado have voted to allow some of these school-grant lands to remain as open spaces to be managed for their wildlife and other natural resources and values. This bill will keep faith with that decision by our votes by removing any conflict with federal law. I will do all I can to press for its speedy enactment. For the information of our colleagues, I submit a recent newspaper editorial on this subject: [From the Denver Post, May 28, 2001] Enable Land-board Fixes Disputes over State Land Board deals arise partly because the board's narrow mandate may no longer fit Colorado's needs. But altering the board's focus literally may take an act of Congress. As Uncle Sam welcomed new states into the union, the federal government set aside entire sections of land to raise money for public education through grazing leases, mineral rights, etc. The federal law that granted Colorado statehood in 1876, called the Enabling Act, included a similar provision. But during the past 125 years, Colorado has found other ways to fund public education. Colorado's school acres now supply less than 2 percent of the state's annual K-12 budget. Today, some school sections offer tremendous public value as open space or recreational land. Emerald Mountain forms the scenic backdrop to Steamboat Springs. In 1996, Colorado voters put Amendment 16 in the state Constitution, aiming to give the State Land Board, which manages the school lands, flexibility to preserve open space and wildlife habitat, as well as support public education. The amendment told the land board to set aside 300,000 acres of the 3 million school acres as a Stewardship Trust. Note that 90 percent of the school acres still raise money for education. But soon after the amendment's passage, a federal court firmly said the land board is obligated always to fund schools first, under the federal law that granted Colorado statehood. That means the State Land Board might have to accept profitable offers even on lands now in the Stewardship Trust. Clearly, public school funding is of utmost importance. But taken together, the court decsision and statehood act mean the Stewardship Trust that voters thought they were putting in place might prove ephemeral. Instead of preserving the cherished 300,000 acres, Amendment 16 simply may have run up their utlimate real estate development value. To solve the problem, Colorado must ask Congress to amend our statehood act. The 10 percent of state lands held in the Stewardship Trust then could be permanently set aside. However, the state could only ask the federal government to do so if the legislature guaranteed an equally secure funding source for public education. Moreover, the Stewardship Trust will work in the long run only if the legislature also patches an obvious and troubling gap in Amendment 16, which we'll discuss tomorrow.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will support this conference report, because while it is not perfect it is a great improvement over the bill as originally passed by the House last month. The House bill did include some very good things. It provided for an additional $100 million for essential environmental restoration and waste management at Savannah River, Hanford, and other sites in the DOE complex and for acquisition of additional containers for shipping wastes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. These are important for Colorado, because our ability to have the Rocky Flats site cleaned up and closed by 2006 depends on the ability of other sites in the complex to play their roles in that process. So, I was--and remain--very appreciative that the appropriations committee has responded to these needs. Similarly, the House bill's additional $300 million for low-income home energy assistance will enable that important program to provide much needed assistance this year, even if it will not meet all needs. But for me all the good things in the bill were outweighed by one glaring omission--the total absence of any funds to pay already- approved claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or ``RECA.'' RECA provides for payments to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases because of exposure to radiation released during above-ground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of their exposure to radiation during employment in underground uranium mines. Some of my constituents are covered by RECA, as are hundreds of other Coloradans and residents of New Mexico and other states. Last year, the Congress amended RECA to cover more people and to make other important modifications. I supported those changes. But there was one needed change that was not made--we did not make the payments automatic. Unless and until we make that change, the RECA payments can only be made when Congress appropriates money for that purpose. And the undeniable fact is that we in the Congress have not appropriated enough money to pay everyone who is entitled to be paid under RECA. As a result, people who should be getting checks are instead getting letters from the Justice Department. Those letters--IOUs, you could call them--say that payments must await further appropriations. What they mean is that we in the Congress have failed to meet a solemn obligation. We failed to meet it when we passed the regular appropriations bill for the Justice Department--and as the bill passed the House originally, it again failed to meet that obligation. So, I am very glad that the conference report provides for $84 million for paying these claims. I understand that the way that has been scored could mean that not all that amount will be paid before October. I hope that the Administration will do all that is needed to assure that payments are made as soon as possible, because these people have already waited too long as it is. Of course, this conference report is only a stopgap resolution of the bigger problem with RECA. We need to do more. We should change the law so that future RECA payments will not depend on annual appropriations, but instead will be paid automatically in the way that we now have provided for payments under the new compensation program for certain nuclear-weapons workers made sick by exposure to radiation, beryllium, and other hazards. I have joined in sponsoring legislation to make that change. But, meanwhile, I urge approval of the conference report. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this bill because I think that on balance it deserves the approval of the House. However, I do want to call the attention of the House to some areas in which it does not meet some very important needs.