Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization bill. This rule prevents Democrats from offering key education priorities as amendments to the bill--including School Modernization and Class Size Reduction. In addition, I am troubled that an amendment I offered in the Rules Committee to establish a program in the Department of Education to help school districts produce ``high performance'' school buildings was rejected. The amendment I offered in the Rules Committee--the ``High Performance Schools Program''--takes the concept of ``whole buildings'' and puts it into the context of our schools. My amendment would have established a program in the Department of Education to help school districts produce ``high performance'' school buildings. It would provide block grants to state offices of education that would then be allocated as grants to school districts for building design and technical assistance. These grants would be available to school districts that are faced with rising elementary and secondary school enrollments, that can't afford to make major investments in construction or renovation, and that commit to work with the state agencies to produce school facilities that incorporate a ``high performance'' building approach. We wouldn't dream of putting only manual typewriters in new school buildings--we would install today's computer technology. Nor should we build yesterday's ``energy inefficient,'' non-sustainable, and less effective schools. Our kids are our country's future, and they should have the best school facilities, especially if they will cost less and benefit us all in other ways. As the Congress begins debate on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the important legislation that governs our nation's education priorities, I fear the House Rules Committee has missed a golden opportunity. I am especially disappointed that today--a day when Congress is focused on energy issues because of the release of the administration's energy plan--the Rules Committee chose to overlook this opportunity to take care of our children and our environment at the same time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Cultural Heritage Assistance Partnership Act. The legislation would establish a program within the National Park Service to help preserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the United States. The program would coordinate Federal activities and provide information, technical assistance and grants to States, Indian tribes, local governments and non-profit organizations. Our nation's cultural heritage is a diverse array of natural, historical, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources. The hallmark of these treasures is that they are authentic. Together they define an area or region's distinct character. Communities increasingly recognize their cultural heritage as a valuable resource, both esthetically and economically. Cultural heritage tourism is now a $50 billion segment of the $600 billion US travel industry. Within Colorado are six state heritage areas, designated by the Colorado Heritage Area Partnership and the governor. Colorado also has one federally designated heritage area, Cache La Poudre. The Colorado program is still relatively young and depends largely on volunteers and some small grants. Yet the heritage they share is very important not just to Colorado, but to the rest of the country as well. Other states--such as Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah--have developed or are in the process of developing heritage area programs. I'm told that at least 20 states have developed cultural heritage tourism programs. At the national level, however, no Federal agency has the role of coordinating the many government programs that could assist the cultural heritage programs being developed by States, tribes, local governments and private organizations. My legislation would create the Cultural Heritage Assistance Partnership Program in the National Park Service to provide information and technical assistance on cultural heritage resources and activities, including heritage areas, heritage tourism and related economic and community development. Technical assistance would include developing models of cultural heritage partnership agreements; holding workshops, conferences, training and public meetings; developing guidance on ways to access Federal programs; and coordinating meetings with Federal agencies and non-federal partners. An awards program would be established to recognize exemplary projects or program that carry out the purposes of this Act. The legislation also provides for a modest grant program, to provide grants, on a competitive basis, to States, Indian tribes, local governments and nonprofit organizations. Annual funding for the grants is capped at $9 million. No applicant could receive more than $50,000 in grants in any fiscal year, all grants must be matched on a 50 percent basis, and all recipients must have at least one partner who also contributes facilities, supplies or services for the project. Mr. Speaker, my bill has gained support from many international, national and local interests--not only from my own State of Colorado, but organizations from all over the country. Many of them are listed below, and the list grows daily. They speak far more eloquently than I can about what the bill would do to further their efforts to preserve and enhance the cultural heritage of our great nation. Organizations Supporting Cultural Heritage Assistance Partnership Act

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today is the final day of federal service for Loretta Neumann. Since January, she has been a member of my staff, but that was only the latest way she has been involved with important questions of public policy. A graduate of Oklahoma State University, Loretta began her career in public service as a writer for the National Park Service, where she rose to become the Chief of the Branch of Internal Communications. Form that, she became very familiar with the entire National Park System and the many issues related to management of those lands and the other functions performed by the National Park Service. In 1973, Loretta began her Capital Hill career when she joined the staff of Representative John F. Seiberling of Ohio, who was a member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs as well as the Judiciary Committee. During the next four years, she was responsible for advising Representative Seiberling on all issues relating to energy, environmental protection, land conservation, and historic preservation. She played a key role in helping achieve enactment of the legislation that established the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area in Ohio as well as important provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. She also was involved with development and enactment of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1976. In 1977, Loretta joined the professional staff of the Interior Committee, and remained with the Committee for 10 years. During that decade, she was instrumental in helping shape many important measures, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980, as well as bills establishing new parks and protected areas such as the Harry S Truman National Historic Site and the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor. Many of these measures were of particular importance to my father, Mo Udall, as well as to Representative Seiberling and other Members of the committee and the House. After that, Loretta next spent a number of years in the private sector. She built up her own consulting firm, CEHP Incorporated, which provided services in conservation, environmental protection and historic preservation. And she continued to be involved with many of the matters where she had gained expertise on Capital Hill, including the National Historic Preservation Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act, and the Archeological Resources Protection Act. Among other things, she chaired the Four Corners Governors Conference that brought together agencies dealing with matters of importance to Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. Loretta returned to service with the Federal Government in 1998, as an employee of the Department of Transportation. She served as DOT's representative to and director of the American Heritage Rivers Interagency Task Force of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. She also worked on other special projects for the Secretary of Transportation in a number of areas, including tourism and transportation and cultural and heritage tourism. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that last year's Presidential election did not have the result that I would have preferred. But for me there was at least one silver lining to that particular cloud--the change in Administrations gave me the opportunity to take advantage of Loretta's talents, at least for this brief period. As a member of my staff, Loretta has worked on a number of conservation issues, especially focused on the issue of urban sprawl, an issue of great concern to Colorado and other states faced with rapid increase in population growth. She helped craft a bill to direct the Council on Environmental Quality to do a study of urban sprawl and smart growth. Building on her extensive experience with historic preservation and cultural heritage, she also helped draft the Cultural Heritage Assistance Partnership Act, which I am introducing today. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleagues that while Loretta is retiring from federal service, she will continue to be involved with public policy. She will soon begin work as the Director of Leadership Development for the Natural Resources Council of America. I look forward to her continued contributions as I work with our colleagues in the Congress and the Administration to promote sound policies regarding our natural and cultural resources, the environment, and other matters.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today, my colleagues, Reps. Wamp, Portman, Serrano, Etheridge, Isakson and Green (WI) join me, in introducing the YMCA Teen Action Agenda Enhancement Act of 2001. For 150 years, the YMCA has provided our nation's youth with safe, healthy activities. The YMCA is volunteer founded and volunteer-led. The YMCA depends on more than 600,000 volunteers to meet the unique needs of their communities. YMCAs serve people of all faiths, races, abilities, ages and incomes. 1 in 10 teens--2.4 million teens across the nation--are involved in a program offered by a local YMCA. Recognizing the unique obstacles faced by the teenagers of today, the YMCA has launched the Teen Action Agenda, a nationwide campaign to double this number and serve 1 in 5 teens by 2005. This legislation authorizes federal appropriations of $20 million for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 to carry out the Youth Teen Action Agenda. Similar legislation was enacted into law in the 105th Congress to aid the Boys and Girls Club of America and in the 106th Congress to aid Police Athletic Leagues, in their efforts to improve academic and social outcomes for youth. Under this legislation, subgrants will be made to YMCA teen programs that have a primary purpose of serving youth that are at-risk of delinquency or are in failing schools. In my district, a number of YMCA clubs are serving our teenagers. In the town of Lafayette, CO alone, twenty-five programs at two YMCA Centers serve close to 1300 kids. The YMCA Arapahoe Center is a full youth and family center for teens and preteens ages 11-17, and the YMCA Lafayette Youth Center serves low income, at risk kids. These two clubs lead programs for Youth Employment services, after school drop-in, drop-in sports, field trips, Leaders club, Arts and Humanities classes and camps, high school and middle school sports, baby-sitting training, Youth and Government, Leadership development (Leaders-in-Training and Junior Leaders summer program), and Teen Adventures camps. A recent nationwide study shows that participation in afterschool activities leads to better grades and better behavior in teens. Nearly eight in 10 teens (79%) that engage in afterschool activities are A or B students, but only half (52%) of teens who do not participate in afterschool activities earn these high marks. Teens that do not engage in afterschool activities are five times more likely (15%) to be D students compared to students who do participate in activities after school (3%). This study has also documented the need for more afterschool programs. Over half (52%) of teens say they wish there were more afterschool activities in their neighborhood or community. Two in three (67%) teens say they would likely participate in afterschool programs that would help them get better grades, develop leadership skills and be more involved in their community while having fun with other teens if they knew that churches, recreation centers and the YMCA offered such programs. Six in 10 (62%) teens left unsupervised during the week say they would likely participate in afterschool programs. The need for more after-school opportunities has been made clear to me in my visits to every high school in my district. Students have told me that if there were more after school activities, they would participate in them. This bill will help give kids safe, productive places to go when the school bell rings at the end of the day. We all know that the teenagers of today face challenges and pitfalls unimaginable a generation ago. I believe this bill helps a proven community based organization with a rich history of providing quality programs for America's youth to offer our teenagers with the opportunity to develop and thrive.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we first debated this budget resolution in the House, I opposed it because I thought it would risk the opportunities of the future on the outcome of a riverboat gamble. The original resolution was based entirely on a long-range forecast about the economy--a forecast that predicts good economic weather and budget surpluses for a full decade ahead. How prudent is that? If you want to know, ask any rancher in Colorado, or anyone who watches for fires in our forests, or anybody who has watched the stock market lately. They will tell you how risky it can be to bet too much on forecasting the weather or the economy for one year, let alone for a decade. The original resolution ran the risk of shortening the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, while neglecting other important needs in order to pay for the President's tax plan. And it would not have done enough to reduce the publicly held debt and would have shortchanged education, seniors, research, and the environment. I had hoped that after the Senate considered the resolution and there had been a conference between the two bodies, it would improve. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened--in fact, in some important ways the conference report is not even as good as the original resolution passed by the House. It's still a gamble, all right. But while the original resolution was like a high-stakes poker game on a riverboat, this conference report makes me think of a rigged roulette wheel in a mining town gambling hall--complete with the false front. On the gambling hall, the false front gave the illusion of a full- sized building, concealing the incomplete structure that lay behind. Here, the label of ``budget'' conceals what is not in the conference report. It conceals that the conference report doesn't include a way to pay for a realistic Medicare prescription drug benefit. It conceals that the conference report doesn't include enough for education. It conceals that the conference report doesn't include enough to adequately protect the environment. It conceals that the conference report doesn't include enough for scientific research. It conceals that the conference report would not do enough to reduce our debt. And, like the false front on the gambling hall, the ``balanced budget'' label on this conference report conceals the real game here. That game is to get the President's tax plan over to the Senate under rules that will shorten the time for debate and that will make it harder to make adjustments so it would be less of a gamble with our fiscal future. Once that has been done, I expect that this unrealistic budget has served its purpose--and I am tempted to hope it will then be disregarded. I would like to think that its false front will be replaced by a sounder structure that will accommodate doing what should be done to bolster Social Security and Medicare and to make needed investments in education, health, and other vital needs. But banking on that would be another gamble--and I am afraid that the odds are not very good. What is much more likely--almost a sure thing, in fact--is that the imbalance will be made worse when the Administration completes its defense-policy review and seeks increases in defense spending that are not accounted for in this budget. What will be the result when that happens--as I expect it will? What will result when Congress acts to relieve middle-class families from the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax--as it definitely should? And what will result when Congress extends other tax provisions, like the credits for research and development--as it should? The answer is that the approach of this budget will lead us to further weaken Medicare and fall further short of meeting the test of fiscal responsibility. I do not want to play that game. And so I cannot support this conference report.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this important legislation introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I commend the gentleman for his leadership in this regard. I also note with pride that he and I last year introduced a piece of legislation specifically targeted at the State of Colorado to deal with the red zone situation that we face there, the urban wildland interface, and my pride is because much of what is in the National Fire Plan includes some the ideas and sections of our legislation from last year. The legislation provides that the United States Forest Service can use National Fire Plan monies to undertake Endangered Species Act studies. In the end, this will ensure that projects comply with the Endangered Species Act so we can reduce fuel loads, return our forests to a healthier condition and minimize the potential for catastrophic fire this year and in years to come. So, in short, I urge the House to promptly pass this legislation to forestall problems and to keep the fire plan both on track and on a sound legal and environmental footing. Madam Chairman, I thank again the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands. Madam Chairman, an original cosponsor, I rise in support of this bill and I congratulate my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Hefley, for his leadership in introducing it. This is an important bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is not complicated or controversial. It was passed by the Resources Committee by a unanimous voice vote and could well have been considered under suspension rather than being brought up under a rule. As has already been explained, the bill deals with funds provided to the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to implement the new national fire plan established and funded in last year's Interior appropriations bill. The bill makes clear that fire plan funds can be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The purpose of that is to enable those agencies to make sure the requirements of the Endangered Species Act are met in connection with fuel-reduction and other projects that are part of the fire plan. This is completely consistent with the intent of the legislation establishing the fire plan. But the Agriculture Department's lawyers think the current wording of the legislation does not permit the transfer of funds from the Forest Service to the other agencies for that purpose. So, the bill does not establish a new policy--it merely makes clear what was intended when the fire plan was enacted last year. We definitely need to press forward with the important work of reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires in the areas where our communities border on forest lands. But it is just as important that this be done in a way that fully complies with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and all the other environmental laws--and this bill will help make sure that occurs. This is very significant for everyone in Colorado and in other western States. Across Colorado--and across the west--rapid population growth means that more and more communities are pressing against and into our forest lands. That means our state has a large ``urban interface''--what in Colorado we refer to as the ``red zone.'' That is the area where forest fires present the greatest dangers to people's lives and homes. The fire plan focuses on that ``urban interface,'' and that is where it will be implemented through projects to reduce the danger by reducing the buildup of brush and other fuels that has resulted from policies that suppressed the normal role of fire in the ecosystem. Of course, this danger of forest fires in the ``red zone'' is not new. But last year we got a wake-up call about it--and so did the rest of the county. That was what led to enactment of the fire-plan legislation. It also was what had earlier led me to introduce a bill to address the problem in Colorado. That bill was cosponsored by my colleague, Mr. Hefley, and by Representatives DeGette and Tancredo as well. Our bill had many similarities to the legislation that set up the national fire plan. But it would have applied only to Colorado--and it had some other significant differences, too. For one thing, our bill emphasized public involvement by providing for setting up a committee--representing a broad spectrum of interests--to establish priorities for use of funds. And our bill specifically provided that fuel-reduction projects would have to meet some essential guidelines. Like the fire-plan legislation, our bill required compliance with the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. It also specified that projects could not be performed in Congressionally-designated wilderness areas and that roadless areas would have to be protected. And, notably, our bill included a specific limit on the size of trees that could be removed as part of a fuel-reduction project. That idea--a cutting limit based on tree size--drew many comments from people holding differing views about the use of mechanical thinning to reduce fire risks. Some people do not support removal of trees as big as our bill would have allowed, or perhaps of trees of any size. Others see any specific limit as both arbitrary and too restrictive. I respect the sincerity of both those points of view. However, I think our bill struck an appropriate balance and represented a legitimate starting point for legislative action. The bill recognized that where the risk of catastrophic wildfires comes from overly-dense vegetation, it is because of the build-up of small-sized materials. It also reflected the fact that cutting larger trees often can lead to more severe fires, for a variety of reasons, and can also have other adverse effects. The limit in our bill also reflected the fact that cutting larger trees is controversial--especially when the larger trees may have commercial value. It is simple fact that some will see the inclusion of larger trees as evidence that a project ostensibly aimed at reducing the risk of fire is really intended to be a commercial undertaking, by the Forest Service and by industry. This could lead to challenges that would unnecessarily complicate necessary projects that were otherwise not controversial. In short, both on the scientific merits and for reasons of public acceptability, I thought--and I still think--that there should be limits on the scope of these projects, of the kind that would have been set by our bill. That is why last year, after enactment of the legislation setting up the national fire plan, I initiated a letter--ultimately also signed by 25 other Members of the House--to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior urging that the fire plan be implemented under appropriate safeguards and conditions. I later received a response from the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service for State and Private Forestry, stating that the Agriculture Department shares the concerns expressed in our letter and outlining how those concerns will be addressed in the implementation of the national fire plan. At the end of my remarks, I will attach both of these letters for inclusion in the Record. In conclusion, Madam Chairman, in Colorado's ``red zone'' and other areas covered by the national fire plan, there are very real risks to people, property and the environment--some of them resulting from past fire-management policies. It is important that we respond to those risks--and that is why I support the national fire plan. But it is also important that the need to respond to those risks is not misused as a convenient rationale for projects that do not meet proper standards. That's why the fire-plan projects should reflect public involvement. That's why the projects need to be based on sound science. And that's why the projects need to be completely consistent with applicable environmental laws. Enacting this bill will be an important step in that direction-- because, as I said, the purpose of this bill is to make sure the projects comply with the Endangered Species Act. So, I urge the House to promptly pass this legislation, to forestall problems and to keep the fire plan both on track and on a sound legal and environmental footing. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, October 20, 2000. Hon. Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Glickman and Secretary Babbitt: As you know, the fiscal 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act provides important funding for work to restore federal lands damaged by large-scale forest fires and to lessen the risk of such fires in the future by reducing accumulations of fuels. We support these objectives. However, in the past there have been efforts to use the ``fuel reduction'' label to justify environmentally-unsound timber sales and it is very important that pursuit of restoration and fuel reduction does not weaken sound land management or the protection of the environment. So, we urge you to make sure that these activities will be subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions. Recent events have shown the importance of a scientifically sound fuels reduction program targeted to protect communities in the wildland/urban interface. However, the relevant language in the Interior appropriations bill does not spell out adequate environmental safeguards to protect wilderness, roadless areas, old growth forests, endangered species habitat, or riparian areas. Wilderness areas should be off- limits to fuels reduction by mechanical means, and appropriate conditions should be imposed to assure that mechanical fuel-reduction projects will not adversely affect old growth forests, roadless areas, endangered species habitat, or riparian areas. In addition, we believe direction is needed to ensure that fuels reduction projects focus on the fine and surface fuels that create the greatest fire risks. We urge that the agencies be directed to develop ecologically-sound treatment criteria with an emphasis on underbrush and small-diameter trees. The Interior bill also includes language providing the Administration with an option to develop expedited NEPA procedures within the next 60 days. We are strongly opposed to any weakening of the current NEPA procedures and public involvement in decision- making for fuels reduction projects. We respectfully urge the Administration to not exercise this authority to expedite NEPA procedures. We also believe the funding increase for fuels reduction should be carefully targeted to protect communities at risk from wildfire. The need for fuel reduction is greatest in those areas where homes exist within or about forested areas--the wildland/urban interface or ``red zones,'' and in particular in the areas closest to homes and communities. In many cases that means within 200 feet of homes or communities. We urge the Administration to prioritize emergency fuels reduction funds to support projects to reduce risks in these narrowly defined areas to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, we urge the Administration to support the Firewise program and other cooperative efforts for community protection in the wildland/urban interface. There is a significant increase in funding for preparedness activities. We urge the Administration to make the completion of fire management plans the top priority for these funds. Currently only 5 percent of the National Forests have completed fire management plans which were mandated by the Fire Management Policy of 1995. The Forest Service and BLM undoubtedly will be pressured to expedite fuel-reduction efforts by taking old projects, including timber sales, off the shelf regardless of whether they are environmentally sound fuels reduction projects. We urge that before funds under this program be allocated for any ``old project,'' the projects first be reevaluated to make sure that they are consistent with the focus on fuels reduction rather than other objectives. We have noted with some concern that the report to the President in response to this year's fires seems to identify ``recovering some of the economic value of forest stands'' as one reason for including removal of burned trees in restoration and fuel-reduction efforts. We think that salvage logging based in part on economic considerations should remain separate from fuels reduction. We are also concerned that funds intended to address hazardous fuels issues in western forests will be diverted to eastern forests which do not have the same ecological needs. For example, conditions in the relatively moist Southern Appalachian forests naturally limit the spread of fire. Fuel reduction bears little relevance to the decline of native forest types, which is a major threat confronting the Southern Appalachians. We urge that emergency fuels reduction funds be used in the Forest Regions that are subject to the greatest risks--principally those in western States. On a related point, the Interior bill authorizes the Forest Service to enter into an additional 25 ``end-result'' stewardship contracts. The ``goods-for-services'' authority allows the Forest Service to trade National Forest trees for contracted services and, if not subject to appropriate restrictions, could encourage large-scale logging in conjunction with restoration projects. We urge that in the fuels-reduction program the Forest Service be directed to place priority on use of appropriated funds rather than issuance of additional stewardship contracts under the fuels- reduction program and that all agencies be required to ensure that the protections discussed above are followed in any ``goods-for-services'' contracts to assure that these projects remain exclusively focused on fuels reduction purposes. Finally, we appreciate that the Administration opposed and was able to remove from the Interior bill language to set excessive targets for timber sales. However, the statement of managers in the conference report still urges the Forest Service to prepare for sale 3.6 billion board feet of timber. This would represent a significant increase in timber sales above the current level of 2.1 billion board feet, and this timber targets language is backed up by a significant increase in funding for logging. The bill contains a $40 million increase in logging subsidies, including $5 million earmarked specifically for the Tongass National Forest. We are very concerned that this $40 million in additional logging subsidies could result in unsound timber sales on the National Forests. We urge that instead this unrequested increase in funding be used to mitigate environmental degradation by spending it on forest restoration through road decommissioning and obliteration. If the fuels-reduction program is to bring real benefit, it must be implemented in a way that avoids the controversies, appeals, and litigation associated with significant increases in logging that degrade water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. We look forward to working with the Administration to avoid such results. Sincerely, Mark Udall, James Leach, George Miller, Cynthia McKinney, Lloyd Doggett, John Lewis, Frank Pallone, Jr., Barbara Lee, Fortney (Pete) Stark, Grace F. Napolitano, Edolphus Towns, Sam Gejdenson, Sander Levin, Bob Filner, Rush Holt, Earl Blumenauer, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Nancy Pelosi, Anna G. Eshoo, Maurice Hinchey, Sherrod Brown, Henry A. Waxman, Diana DeGette, Howard L. Berman, Ellen O. Tauscher, Michael R. McNulty.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Urban Sprawl and Smart Growth Study Act. This bill is designed to shine a bright light on the influence of federal actions on urban sprawl and assure that federal agencies consider how their actions may add to this problem. Mr. Speaker, communities in Colorado and throughout the country are struggling to preserve their special character and quality of life in the face of burgeoning populations. The expected benefits of moderate, planned growth are being overtaken by the economic and environmental costs of rapid, unmanaged growth. Especially in the West and South, extreme population growth has resulted in the continual build-out of cities and the loss of surrounding farmland and open space. In my state, this residential and commercial growth is also spreading along interstate highways into the mountain valleys and forested regions. The resulting sprawl is creating congested highways, more air pollution, greater energy consumption, overtaxed city services, and crowded schools and shopping centers. Local governments are facing rapidly increasing demands for costly public services that accompany such growth. According to the recent census, Colorado is one of the most rapidly growing states. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. population grew by 13.1 percent. During the same period, Colorado's growth was 30.6 percent! And in many of our counties the rate was even higher. What does this mean? Let me highlight some issues that are occurring in my district north of Denver. The growth of businesses and homes along US Highway 36, the major road between Denver and Boulder, is causing tremendous pressures on this roadway and greatly increasing congestion and traffic woes. The communities along its route are working together to address this problem, and I have been doing what I can to help by securing funds for the reconstruction of one of the more complex and troublesome overpasses near Broomfield. Clearly the Federal government can and should have a helpful role in addressing transportation issues like US Highway 36. The growth has also created the risk that communities along Denver's Front Range will ``grow together'' and thereby create an unending metropolis from Fort Collins in the north to Colorado Springs in the south. The communities in this region are doing what they can to control this development and preserve their special character. But they could use help from the Federal government to make sure that Federal policies do not hamper their ability to keep their communities intact. Indeed, these problems are neither inevitable nor incurable. Citizens in Colorado are asking their leaders to address the symptoms of sprawl and to help them control and manage growth more effectively. We got started with this effort in 1994, when then Governor Roy Romer initiated his ``Smart Growth and Development Initiative.'' That initiative focused attention on the problems of sprawl, the unevenness of growth and development (some rural areas welcome more development), and the role of federal, state and local governments in creating and managing sprawl and its impacts. Other states from North Carolina and Georgia to California and Oregon have been experiencing similar growth pressures. Many are developing processes and mechanisms to deal with these problems. Some states have used growth control legislation creating urban service areas. Others have relied on their local communities to slow down or temporarily cease the issuance of building permits. Many have appropriated funds or created sales tax initiatives to purchase and protect open spaces and agricultural lands. All of this has been done with an understanding that state and local governments are the best place to plan for and manage growth and sprawl issues. Armed with zoning and other developing management authorities, they are best suited to gauge the pulse of their citizens and determine where, when, and how growth should best occur. But the efforts of state, local and tribal governments to plan for and manage urban growth and sprawl can be thwarted by actions taken at the federal level. A well-developed plan by a local community can be swept aside by the routing of a major highway or the construction of a poorly sited post office. The cumulative effects of a number of small federal actions and policies together may create or foster the very sprawl that communities have fought so hard to control. Need for Legislation The bill I am introducing today is designed to focus attention on the many federal decisions and projects that can either foster or ameliorate sprawl. It does this through the existing requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of our nation's premier environmental laws. NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate their proposed activities and projects for social and environmental impacts and to take timely steps to avoid or mitigate these impacts. Specifically, since 1970 NEPA has required all federal agencies to include in the planning stages for all ``major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment'' a detailed statement by the responsible official on the environmental impacts of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that can't be avoided, alternatives to the action, the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should it be implemented. This analysis is what is essentially required in an environmental impact statement (EIS). It is not the only document required for agency decision-making, but is meant to guide agencies to consider potential environmental impacts and alternatives in making important decisions. Most federal agencies have done a reasonably good job in implementing NEPA. However, when it comes to considering the cumulative impacts and indirect effects of federal actions--such as on sprawl--much of the NEPA analysis has not been adequate. Too often, federal agencies look at the localized short-term impacts of a proposed project and neglect to review the broader ``spill over'' impacts that the activity may have on a region, especially when viewed cumulatively in relation to other ongoing or planned actions influencing regional growth and development. This observation was in fact identified in a September 2000 General Accounting Office report entitled ``Community Development: Local Growth Issues--Federal Opportunities and Challenges.'' This report looked at the various ways that federal actions can foster sprawl or assist communities to better address sprawl impacts. The report also noted that although NEPA requires that federal agencies review the ``indirect and cumulative'' impacts of federal actions or projects (such as sprawl), often that review is rather thin and not well explored. The report noted that when it comes to evaluating the ``indirect and cumulative'' effects of proposed federal actions (such as highways), ``few agencies consider the effect of a proposed [federal] project on growth'' in their NEPA reviews. Contributing to this weakness is the fact that Federal agencies often substitute a less rigorous environmental assessment (EA) for a full EIS. On average, in recent years, Federal agencies prepared 30,000 to 50,000 EAs annually compared to only 500 to 700 EISs. An EA report is usually much shorter and less comprehensive than a full EIS. Generally, the purpose of the assessment is to help determine whether a proposed action would result in an impact significant enough to require preparation of an EIS. Unlike an EIS, however, the treatment of alternatives is often cursory. No formal public review or comment process is required for EAs. Indeed, it is often difficult to obtain a copy of an EA report, since there is no requirement that it be made publicly available or sent to a public document repository. CEQ Study The bill that I am introducing today will address these problems. Specifically, this bill would direct the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the agency that implements NEPA, to study how well federal agencies have been evaluating sprawl impacts of proposed federal actions in conducting their environmental reviews. CEQ has done this type of review in the past. In 1974, CEQ studied the impacts of sprawl and produced a widely-praised report entitled ``The Costs of Sprawl.'' In 1981, the CEQ also looked at the loss of agricultural land due to sprawl in its ``National Agricultural Lands Study.'' My bill would require the CEQ to update these studies by reviewing a variety of recent EISs and EAs from at least 15 federal agencies. CEQ would analyze how well these documents have examined the impacts of proposed Federal actions on growth and urban sprawl. Among the programs to be reviewed are land and facility management programs, such as those in the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Defense and the General Services Administration. Also transportation programs, such as those of the Federal Highway Administration and other agencies within the Department of Transportation; infrastructure programs of agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and some within the Environmental Protection Agency; regulatory programs, such as those of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and development assistance programs, such as those in the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Commerce, to name a few. The bill further requires the CEQ to involve the public in this review by holding hearings in at least five different regions throughout the country that are experiencing an increase in urban sprawl. A city like Denver or Boulder would be a prime place, along with others in the northeast, south, mid and far west. Within 18 months, the CEQ would be required to provide a report to the Congress on its review. This report would include findings concerning the economic, environmental and land use effects of urban sprawl. It would describe how well federal agencies have been examining the sprawl impacts of their actions and projects, and make recommendations on how their environmental reviews can be improved. CEQ would also make recommendations for nonregulatory actions that Federal agencies can take to assist States and local communities in promoting the beneficial effects of smart growth and to minimize actions by the agencies that result in adverse effects of urban sprawl. The bill would also require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide written comments of any proposed federal action or project on its potential for causing sprawl. This provision will clarify EPA's oversight role to make sure federal agencies are looking at the sprawl effects. Consultation The bill also does one other very important thing. It would require greater interaction between the federal agencies and those persons affected by agency decisions. Since the effect of federal actions or projects will be most acutely felt at the state and local level (including by Indian Tribes), it is critical that federal agencies work with these levels of government to ensure that potential growth and urban sprawl effects are addressed in Federal environmental reviews. In that regard, the bill would require federal agencies to be more open early in the process of preparing EAs as well as EISs. Agencies would be required to notify persons that may be significantly affected by the proposed action, including each State and local government, Indian tribe and private property owner. Agencies must conduct discussions with such persons on their proposed actions and alternatives, and seek to address their concerns, if any. This process would assure a more thorough NEPA analysis if a state governor or a lead local or tribal governmental official requested the preparation of a full EIS, due to the proposed project's impact on urban sprawl. Although the decision is not dictated by such a request, the agency would be required to give it great weight in deciding to whether to do an EIS. Through this process, state, local and tribal governments gain extra power to make sure that the sprawl impacts of federal actions or projects are thoroughly identified and reviewed--and potentially mitigated or addressed. In so doing, the bill would help communities plan for and manage such impacts on their communities and also help federal agencies to develop actions and projects that do not exacerbate sprawl. Obviously, this bill addresses just one federal dynamic related to sprawl. There are hosts of other ways that the federal government can help communities address sprawl issues and retain their quality of life. These include federal assistance for open space purchases, providing incentives to preserve and keep agricultural land productive, affordable housing assistance, alternative energy planning, mass transit options, and so on. But the first step in helping communities grapple with growth and sprawl is to give them the tools they need and to make sure that proposed federal policies are not working at cross purposes. My bill is an attempt to increase the coordination between federal actions and local efforts so that communities can preserve the quality of life for their citizens and still grow in a positive, more sustainable and livable fashion. It is our obligation as federal officials to make sure the federal role is similarly positive, complementary and preserves our overall quality of life. I submit a brief outline of the bill's provisions. Overview--Urban Sprawl and Smart Growth Study Act (By Rep. Mark Udall)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 10, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001. H.R. 10 increases the maximum amount that can be contributed annually to both traditional Individual Retirement Accounts and Roth IRAs from the current $2,000 to $5,000 over the next three years. In addition, the bill increases the limits on annual contributions to 401(k) and other defined contribution plans from the current $10,000 to $15,000 over five years. Workers who are 50 or older the bill would allow additional annual contributions of up to $5,000 to both IRAs and 401(k) plans. This provision is particularly important for women who may have entered and left the workforce during their careers to respond to the needs of their families. This bill does more than just raise contribution limits. H.R. 10 accelerates vesting of employer matching contributions to defined contribution plans from five years to three years, and increases the portability of account balances in pension plans when workers change jobs. While H.R. 10 is a good step forward, it is important to note that only half of our workforce is covered by any type of pension plan. Of those workers who are covered by a pension plan, only about one-quarter of low- and moderate-income workers actually participate in them. As a member of the House Small Business Committee, I am committed to helping small businesses provide pension plans that help lower- and moderate-income workers save for retirement. That is why I support the Rangel-Neal-Andrews-Tierney amendment to add three small business tax credits to H.R. 10. The first provision in the Rangel-Neal-Andrews-Tierney amendment is a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent of an employee's contribution to a traditional IRA or employer-sponsored plan up to a maximum credit of $1,000 per year. This credit would be available for people earning at least $5,000 and would phase-out as income increases from $25,000 to $75,000 for married couples and $12,500 to $37,500 for single people. The second tax credit is to encourage employers that do not currently have pension plans to start one. Employers of fewer than 100 people could receive a tax credit of 50 percent of contributions up to 3 percent of payroll for the first three years they have a plan. The final tax credit in the Rangel-Neal-Andrews-Tierney amendment will be available for three years to help small employers with the initial administrative costs for setting up a plan.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult and most important jobs in the Federal Government is overseeing the cleanup of the vast complex of Department of Energy sites where plutonium and other nuclear weapons components were produced or processed. Coloradans have a big stake in this because our State is home to a number of these sites, notably the Rocky flats site in the district I represent. So, I rise to applaud the reported decision of President Bush to nominate Ms. Jessie Roberson, to the important position of Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management. I think it is an excellent choice. I had the opportunity to work with Jessie when she headed the Rocky flats project in Colorado. I took an immediate liking to her--not just because of her professionalism and no-nonsense style, but also because she seemed to me to enjoy working hard, while maintaining a sense of good humor. Her tenure at Rocky flats was highly successful. She led agency efforts to keep the commitment, first made by Energy Secretary Federico Pena, to give a high priority to finishing full cleanup and closure of rocky flats on a much earlier timetable than had previously been proposed. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in the Colorado delegation in wishing her the very best as she undertakes important new responsibilities at the Department of Energy. A recent editorial by the Denver Post put it right by calling Jessie Roberson a ``top flight'' pick. For the information of our colleagues, I submit that editorial for the Record: [From the Denver Post, April 3, 2001] Roberson a Top-Flight Pick U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abrahams is getting some top- flight help in cleaning up the nation's Cold War legacy: Jessie Roberson, who headed the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats closure project in Colorado, is being nominated to manage DOE's entire environmental cleanup program nationwide. Roberson will be the second Rocky Flats veteran to move into a key DOE post. Earlier, the White House announced it will nominate Robert Card for undersecretary of energy. Card previously headed Kaiser-Hill, the contractor doing the cleanup at Rocky Flats, the mothballed nuclear bomb trigger factory north of Golden. The Rocky Flats crew led by Roberson and Card accomplished, in just three years of teamwork, more progress toward cleanup and closure than the facility had logged in the previous decade. It's understandable that Abrahams would look toward the people who brought DOE past success to move the entire department toward its future goals. Roberson is an excellent choice. She is a nuclear engineer who in 1996 was named the national Black Engineer of the Year for Professional Achievement in Government. That same year, she took the reins at Rocky Flats, where her personable but no-nonsense style got the flagging project on track. In 1999, the Democratic Clinton administration tapped Roberson for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, which provides independent oversight at DOE nuclear sites on all issues affecting health and safety. Now the Republican Bush Administration also has recognized the value of her 17 years of nuclear safety experience. As assistant energy secretary for environmental management, Roberson will oversee the cleanup of all the country's Cold War atomic sites. Among them: Hanford, the toxic and radioactive nightmare in eastern Washington. Savannah River, the South Carolina reactor and processing plant that must be modernized. And Rocky Flats, the one place DOE has scored read progress toward cleanup. With Abrahams at the top and Card in the No. 2 slot, Roberson will round out DOE's civilian management team. The department's environmental management job, in fact, is one of the toughest positions in the federal government today. There likely isn't a better person around to tackle the task, however, that Jessie Roberson.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, here it comes again. I was a newly-elected Member of Congress the last time we debated this proposed constitutional amendment--but I was told that the House had already considered it more than once. So, it was no surprise that the debate about it sounded very rehearsed. I got the impression--and it has only been strengthened today--that many Members have heard all the arguments before. And I am pretty sure the debate will not change many minds about the proposal. But, as I said last time, this resolution strikes me as one of the oddest pieces of legislation that I've encountered--and I think it's one of the worst. For one thing, while I'm not a lawyer it seems clear to me that the language of the proposal is an invitation to litigation--in other words, to getting the courts involved even further in the law-making process. To say that Congress can define when a constitutional requirement would apply, provided that the Congressional decision is ``reasonable,'' is to ask for lawsuits challenging whatever definition might be adopted. Aren't there enough lawsuits already over the tax laws? Do we need to invite more? But more important, I must oppose this proposal because it moves away from the basic principle of democracy--majority rule. If this were part of the Constitution, there would be another category of bills that would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. That's bad enough as it applies here in the House, but consider what that means in the Senate. There, if any 34 Senators are opposed to something that takes a two-thirds vote, it cannot be passed. And, of course, each state has the same representation regardless of population. Consider what that means if the Senators in opposition are those from the 17 States with the fewest residents. Looking at the results of last year's census, the total population of the 17 least-populous states is about 21 million people. That's a respectable number, but remember that the population of the country is more than 280 million. So, what this resolution would do would be to give Senators representing about 7 per cent of the American people the power to block some kinds of legislation--even if that legislation has sweeping support in the rest of the country, and even if it had passed the House by an overwhelming margin. Right now, that kind of supermajority is needed under the Constitution to ratify treaties, propose constitutional amendments, and to do a few other things. But this resolution does not deal with things of that kind. It deals only with certain tax bills--bills that under the Constitution have to originate here, in the House. Those are the bills that would be covered by this increase in the power of Senators who could represent such a very small minority of the American people. Why would we want to do that? Are the proponents of this constitutional amendment so afraid of majority rule? Why else would they be so eager to reduce the stature of this body, the House of Representatives, as compared with our colleagues in the Senate? Remember, that's what this is all about--``internal revenue,'' however that term might be defined by Congress or by the courts. When Congress debates taxes, it is deciding what funds are to be raised under Congress's Constitutional authority to ``pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.'' Those are serious and important decisions, to be sure, but what is wrong with continuing to have them made under the principle of majority rule--meaning by the members of Congress who represent the majority of the American people? So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this proposed change in the Constitution. Our country has gotten along well without it for two centuries. It is not needed. I would not solve any problem--in fact, it probably would create new ones--and it would weaken the basic principle of democratic government, majority rule. It should not be approved.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to protect a key part of the high alpine environment along Colorado's Continental Divide. The 13,294-foot James Peak is the predominant feature in a 26,000 acre roadless area within the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest just north and east of Berthoud Pass. The James Peak roadless area straddles the Continental Divide within 4 counties (Gilpin, Clear Creek, Grand and Boulder). It is the largest unprotected roadless area on the Northern Front Range. The area offers outstanding recreational opportunities for hiking, skiing, fishing, and backpacking. I have been interested in wilderness protection for the James Peak area since my election to Congress in 1998. In 1999, 1 introduced a bill (H.R. 2177) in the 106th Congress that would have designated about 22,000 of the James Peak roadless area as wilderness, including about 8,000 acres in Grand County. This proposal was designed to renew discussions for the appropriate management of these lands that qualify for wilderness consideration. The bill I am introducing today--the James Peak Wilderness, James Peak Protection Area and Wilderness Study Area Act--is the product of nearly two years of subsequent discussions with county officials, interested groups, and the general public. The previous bill had broad support. However, after its introduction, the County Commissioners of Grand County--which includes the western side of the James Peak area--expressed some concerns with the proposed wilderness designation for the lands in that county. They indicated that in their view any such legislation needed to make accommodation for any ``dispersed recreation'' opportunities in the area and needed to address private inholdings. The Commissioners also indicated that the Rollins Pass road should be excluded from wilderness. I agreed to work with Grand County on these and a number of other issues. We held several discussions, including a public meeting in Grand County. After that, the Grand County Commissioners indicated that they could not ``entirely support [H.R. 2177] as presented,'' and outlined a ``James Peak Protection Area'' alternative. The Commissioners' ``protection area'' alternative did not spell out all details, but its essence was that instead of designation of wilderness there should be designation of a ``protection area'' that would include the lands in Grand County proposed for wilderness in my previous bill and also an additional 10,000 acres of national forest land. The Commissioners' proposals also would have allowed for a section of high tundra above Rollins Pass along the divide to be open to motorized and mechanized recreation (snowmobiles and mountain bikes). I gave serious attention to this alternative and also carefully considered the views of a variety of interested individuals and groups who had concerns about it. Based on that, on February 12, 2001, I released a more detailed legislative proposal for public review and comment. This proposal was based on the Commissioners' ``protection area'' alternative. It would have designated as wilderness 14,000 acres of the James Peak roadless area in Boulder, Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties. It also would have designated 18,000 acres in Grand County as a ``James The proposal included language to spell out in more detail the management regime of the ``protection area.'' These provisions (including a ban on hardrock mining, a ban on campgrounds, and a ban on timber cutting) were largely based the management rules for the Bowen Gulch ``backcountry recreation'' area and the existing ``special interest area'' Forest Service management under the 1997 Forest Plan. Inclusion of the latter provision was at the request of the Grand County Commissioners. Following the release of this proposal, I met with the Grand County Commissioners to discuss this proposal and for the option of wilderness for some lands in the Grand County part of the James Peak roadless area. This was a productive meeting. We discussed a number of issues, most of which have been addressed in the bill that I am introducing today. In summary, those issues included: (1) Prohibiting Motorized and Mechanized Recreation Atop Rollins Pass--Although this area was identified as a possible location for motorized and mechanized recreation in the previous proposal, all agreed (including the snowmobile and mountain bike users) that this area should not be available for such use. (2) Reopening the Rollins Pass Road--The Commissioners and the users of the Rollins Pass road (also known as the Corona Pass road) indicated an interest in reopening this road for two-wheel drive traffic. Presently, this road is blocked due to the closure of the Needle Eye tunnel and degrading railroad trestles. As a result, a number of motorized recreational users have been creating roads and trails to bypass these blockages. The users of Rollins Pass road indicated that if this road could be reopened, then they would be willing to work with the Forest Service to close these bypasses. The Grand County Commissioners agreed with this suggestion. (3) The Berthoud Pass Ski Area--The Commissioners expressed an interest in drawing any proposed boundaries near Berthoud Pass to accommodate the existing Berthoud Pass Ski Area's permitted boundary. Everyone agreed that this should be done. (4) Private Inholdings--The Commissioners expressed an interest in ensuring that the rights of private inholders be preserved. (5) Forest Service Management--The Commissioners requested that the proposal include specific language indicating that the ``protection area'' would be managed according to the 1997 Forest Plan. In addition, the Commissioners and recreational users requested that this management be flexible enough to allow the Forest Service to relocate trails, roads or areas in order to address future management issues. (6) Wilderness Addition to Indian Peaks--The Commissioners expressed support for including the approximately 2,000-acre wilderness addition to Indian Peaks--an area that was ``recommended for wilderness'' in the 1997 Forest Plan. (7) Buffer Zone--The Commissioners indicated an interest in considering the inclusion of language that would prohibit the establishment of a restrictive ``buffer zone'' around the area. This provision would ensure that the existence of a ``protection area''/ wilderness area would not lead to managerial restrictions on the lands outside the proposed boundaries. (8) Telecommunication Opportunities on Mount Eva--The Commissioners also indicated an interest in keeping the top of Mt. Eva open for telecommunication facilities as this area was used in the past for such activity. However, the State Land Board permitted the previous facilities on Mt. Eva as the intention was to site these facilities on the State Land Board section. But the facilities were mistakenly located on Forest Service land. Nevertheless, these facilities were removed when the company went bankrupt. In addition, there are no access roads or services to this area. Given all of these difficulties, it was suggested that other locations for these options may be more appropriate. (9) Rogers Pass Trail--Members of the public also expressed interest in keeping this trail open and available for mountain bike recreational use. It is unclear whether this trail is in fact open to such use. Nevertheless, the Grand County Commissioners indicated that they would like to pursue the option of allowing such use of this trail. (10) Prohibition of Land Exchanges--The Commissioners expressed an interest in having the bill prohibit any further land exchanges in the area to prevent further development from encroaching into Forest Service areas. I reworked my proposal to incorporate these issues. It was my hope that in accommodating these concerns in the bill, that the Grand County Commissioners would reconsider some wilderness protection for the lands in the James Peak roadless area south of Rollins Pass. However, the three Grand County Commissioners were divided on this question (one Commissioner did suggest extending the wilderness boundary westwards over the Divide and down to timberline in Grand County). Nevertheless, the Grand County Commissioners did express support for the wilderness addition to the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, support for the ``protection area'' to be managed according to the 1997 Forest Plan and for the adjustments that I had made based on their input. Regrettably, however, they expressed opposition to any wilderness designation now for lands south of Rollins Pass or Rogers Pass. The Commissioners also indicated a concern that such a designation might have some effect on water rights. I think it is clear that there are no grounds for such concerns. Careful review has convinced me that there are no water rights except those for national forest purposes and no diversion facilities in the portion of the James Peak roadless area south of Rollins Pass. In addition, if any such rights do exist, they would not be extinguished by wilderness designation. Furthermore, as any wilderness designation for this area would be governed by the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, the courts would be barred from considering any assertion that the designation involved a federal reserved water right. Further, this area is essentially a headwaters area. Wilderness protection would thus ensure that water would continue to flow out of this area--unimpeded--for downstream users and benefits. The Grand County Commissioners did indicate that they understood and found acceptable the Forest Service's process for periodic review of the way it manages national forest lands in Grand County. Further, the Commissioners indicated they would not oppose having the Forest Accordingly, the bill I am introducing today provides for such a renewed study of these lands. It designates the James Peak roadless lands in Grand County south of Rollins Pass as a ``wilderness study area'' and directs the Forest Service to re-look at this area for suitability as wilderness. This provision will preserve the status quo on approximately 8,000 acres south of Rollins Pass by keeping this area in its current roadless and pristine state. The bill would require the Forest Service to report its recommendations for these 8,000 acres within three years. It will then be up to Congress to decide regarding the future management of these lands. This part of the bill also addresses the Roger Pass trail issue--an issue of importance to the Grand County Commissioners and users of this trail. While I believe that this trail should be included in wilderness (it is within the proposed wilderness study area), the bill directs that the Forest Service evaluate whether and to what extent this trail should be managed for mechanized recreational use. I believe that the bill I am introducing today keeps faith with my commitment to work with local County Commissioners and others. It addresses a majority of the issues that were raised. These lands are indeed special. They contain a number of high alpine lakes and tundra ecosystems. This area also represents one of the last remaining unprotected stretches of the Continental Divide that comprises the Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop. With the population growth occurring along the Front Range of Colorado, I am concerned that if we do not protect these special lands for future generations, we could loose a critical resource for future generations. That is why I am introducing this bill and why I will work hard for its enactment into law. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching a fact sheet that summarizes the main provisions of the bill. James Peak Wilderness, James Peak Protection Area and Wilderness Study Area Act Summary--The bill would designate the James Peak Wilderness Area, add to the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, designate a James Peak Protection Area and a James Peak wilderness study area, all within the Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado. Background: In 1999, Congressman Mark Udall introduced the James Peak Wilderness Act (H.R. 2177) which would have designated about 22,000 acres of land in the Arapaho- Roosevelt National Forest as wilderness north of Berthoud Pass and south of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area. Since then, there have been further discussions with county governments, the Forest Service, and the public. On January 31, 2000, the Grand County Commissioners proposed the alternative of designating lands in that county as a ``protection area'' instead of wilderness. On February 12, 2001, Congressman Udall released a proposal that was similar to the Grand County ``protection area'' proposal. This bill is a refined version of that proposal resulting from discussions with the Grand County Commissioners and other interested parties. The Lands: The 13,294-foot James Peak is the predominant feature in a 26,000-acre roadless area within the Arapaho- Roosevelt National Forest just north and east of Berthoud Pass. The James Peak roadless area straddles the Continental Divide within 4 counties (Gilpin, Clear Creek, Grand and Boulder). It is the largest unprotected roadless area on the Northern Front Range. The area offers outstanding recreational opportunities for hiking, skiing, fishing, and backpacking, including the popular South Boulder Creek trail and along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. It also includes the historic Rollins Pass road which provides access for mechanized and motorized recreation in the area. James Peak is one of the highest rated areas for biological diversity on the entire Arapaho National Forest, including unique habitat for wildlife, miles of riparian corridors, stands of old growth forests, and threatened and endangered species. The area includes a dozen spectacularly situated alpine lakes, including Forest Lakes, Arapaho Lakes, and Heart Lake. Many sensitive species such as wolverine, lynx, and pine marten only thrive in wilderness settings. Adding James Peak to the chain of protected lands from Berthoud Pass to the Wyoming boundary will promote movement of these species and improve their chances for survival. What the bill does: James Peak Wilderness: The bill would designate over 14,000 acres of the James Peak area in Clear Creek, Gilpin and Boulder Counties as the James Peak Wilderness Area; Indian Peaks Wilderness Area Addition: The bill would add about 2,000 acres in Grand County to the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness area (these acres were recommended for wilderness in the Forest Service's 1997 revised plan); James Peak Protection Area: The bill would designate about 18,000 acres in Grand County as the James Peak Protection Area and provide the following: Forest Service to manage the area consistent with the management directions for this area under the 1997 Forest Plan for the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest; No transfer of federal lands by exchange or otherwise; Forest Service required to designate appropriate roads, trails and areas for motorized and mechanized recreation. James Peak Wilderness Study Area: The bill would designate about 8,000 acres in the part of the Protection Area generally south of the Rollins Pass Road as a wilderness study area. For these lands, the bill would direct the Forest Service to do the following--study Fall River Trailhead: The bill would establish a new trailhead and Forest Service facilities in the Fall River basin east of the proposed wilderness area--to be done in collaboration with Clear Creek County and the nearby communities of St. Mary's Glacier and Alice Township General provisions: The bill also would: encourage but not require the Forest Service to acquire two non-federal inholdings within the wilderness study area; prohibit the creation of a restrictive buffer zone around the wilderness area, the Protection Area or wilderness study area; direct the Forest Service to work with the respective counties if the Rollins Pass road is reopened to two-wheel drive traffic. What the bill does not do: Designate any portion of the James Peak Roadless Area in Grand County as wilderness: The bill would not create wilderness in the James Peak roadless area in Grand County. Instead, it would designate a James Peak Protection Area, subject to use and management restrictions, as proposed by the County Commissioners and within that would designate a wilderness study area. Restrict Off-Road Vehicle Use Throughout the Area: The bill would prohibit motorized and mountain bike recreation use in the wilderness and wilderness study areas, but would allow this use, consistent with the Forest Service's management directives, in the Protection Area. Furthermore, the bill would require the Forest Service to identify appropriate roads, trails and areas for such use within three years. Such identifications can be revised by appropriate Forest Service processes. Affect Water Rights: The bill would not affect any existing water rights. In addition, all lands designated by the bill are headwaters areas. Affect the Berthoud Pass Ski Area: The bill would exclude this Ski Area's existing permitted boundary. Affect Search and Rescue Activities: The bill would not affect the activities related to the health and safety of persons within the area. Such necessary activities will be allowed, including the need to use mechanized equipment to perform search and rescue activities.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill--but not because I oppose estate-tax relief, and not because I am sticking with my party leadership on a partisan basis. First, I do not think taxes should be a simple partisan issue. For example, last week, I joined in supporting a Republican-authored proposal to eliminate the marriage penalty and increase the child credit. And, I do support reducing estate taxes for everyone, and especially for family-owned ranches and farms as well as other small businesses. I definitely think we should act to make it easier for everyone to pass their estates--including lands and businesses--on to future generations. This is important for the whole country, of course, but it is particularly important for Coloradans who want to help keep ranch lands in open, undeveloped condition by reducing the pressure to sell them to pay estate taxes. Since I have been in Congress, I have been working toward that goal. I am convinced that it is something that can be achieved--but it should be done in a reasonable, fiscally responsible way and in a way that deserves broad bipartisan support. That means it should be done in a better way than by enacting this Republican bill--a bill that is even less balanced, even less responsible than the one that President Clinton vetoed last year. That is why I voted for the Democratic alternative. That alternative bill would have provided real, effective relief without the excesses of the Republican bill. It would have raised the estate tax's special exclusion to $2 million for each and every person's estate--meaning to $4 million for a couple--and would have done so immediately. So, under that alternative, a married couple--including but not limited to the owners of a ranch or small business--could pass on an estate worth up to $4 million could pass it on intact with no estate tax whatsoever. Once you look closely at the Republican leadership's bill, you can see that the Democratic alternative actually would be much more helpful to everyone who might be affected by the estate tax. That's because the Democratic alternative would have taken effect immediately--it would not have been phased in over a decade, like the Republican leadership's bill. Further, the Democratic alternative would immediately apply equally to every estate--unlike the Republican bill, which would start by reducing estate tax rates for the very largest estates, and only fully apply to all estates 10 years from now. In other words, under the Republican bill a couple passing on their estate in the near future would avoid more tax under the Democratic plan than under the Republican bill. They would not have to hope to live long enough to see the benefits of the Republican bill. Further, the Republican bill actually has the potential to greatly increase taxes for many people, because it revises the rules for valuing assets that people inherit. Should that become law, it will mean, first, a great increase in the record-keeping and paperwork burden for many people and, second, higher capital-gains taxes for many heirs. Evidently, those provisions--like the bill's very slow phase in--were included to make the bill appear to fit within the overall size of the President's tax plan. But the result is that this bill's name--estate tax ``repeal''--is an empty slogan, a pretty label that disguises the reality. The Democratic alternative was much more substantive--real reform, not just rhetoric. And, the Democratic alternative was much more fiscally responsible. It would not run the same risks of weakening our ability to do what is needed to maintain and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors, invest in our schools and communities, and pay down the public debt. The net cost of the Democratic bill would be $40 billion over 10 years. In contrast, the Republican bill's 10-year revenue reduction will be $193 billion, with 45 percent of that coming in just the last 2 years. But that is far from the whole story. Because of the way the bill is phased in, its true cost is cleverly hidden and does not show up until after the 10-year budget window. That means the full effects of the Republican bill will come just at the time when we will have to face budget pressures because my own ``baby boom'' generation is starting to retire. And if we feel we need to ``phase in'' H.R. 8 because we cannot afford the full repeal now, how are we ever going to afford it 10 years from now? We do not need to engage in this fiscal overkill. According to the Treasury Department, under current law only 2 percent of all decedents have enough wealth to be subject to the estate tax at all. To be more specific, Treasury Department data show that in 1998 the estates of only 743 Coloradans were subject to paying federal estate taxes. Under the Democratic alternative, that number would have been even smaller. That's because the average Colorado gross estate for which an estate tax return was filed was $1.87 million--an amount that would be completely exempted by the Democratic bill for which I voted. And I would support going even further. I have joined in sponsoring a bill--H.R. 759, introduced by Representative Patsy Mink from Hawaii-- that would fully exempt estates of $5 million or less from estate taxes. Based on Treasury Department data, in 1998 that would have exempted all but 45 Colorado estates from paying any federal estate tax at all. Of course, all these numbers only relate to the cases in which an estate tax was actually paid. Clearly, in many other cases families have taken actions to forestall the estate tax. But just as clearly, the Democratic bill would have greatly reduced the pressure that prompted some of those actions. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the evident determination of the Republican leadership to insist on bringing this bill forward and to reject any attempt to shape a bill that could be supported by all Members. Since I was first elected, I have sought to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue to achieve realistic and responsible reform of the estate tax. I initially voted for an estate-tax bill in the last Congress, although it was far from what I would have preferred, hoping that as the legislative process continued it would be improved to the point that it deserved enactment. Unfortunately, that did not occur and the final bill was vetoed, as it should have been. And now the Republican leadership is insisting on going forward with this bill, which is even less balanced and responsible than that vetoed bill of the last Congress. I cannot support that, and I cannot vote for this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado Mr

Mr. UDALL of Colorado Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to improve the ability of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to respond to a serious problem affecting federal lands in Colorado and other states. Throughout the west, and especially in Colorado, increased growth and development has resulted in an increase in recreational use of our public lands. These recreational uses have, in some cases, stressed the capacity of the public land agencies to adequately control and manage such use. As a result, areas of our public lands are being damaged. One of the uses that cause the greatest impacts are recreational off- road vehicles. The results can include: damage to wildlife habitat; increased run-off and sediment pollution in rivers and streams; damage to sensitive high-altitude tundra, desert soils, and wetlands; creation of ruts and other visual impacts on the landscape; loss of quiet and secluded areas of the public lands; and adverse effects on wildlife. Recreational off-road vehicle use on our public lands should be allowed to continue, but it must be managed to minimize or avoid these problems, by appropriate restrictions and putting some sensitive areas off-limits to vehicle use. Most vehicle users are responsible--they stay on designated roads and trails, they are respectful of the landscape and they endeavor to tread lightly. However, there are a number of such users who do not obey the rules. Given the nature of this use (large, powerful motorized vehicles that are able to penetrate deeper and deeper into previously secluded areas), even a relatively few who violate management requirements can create serious damage to public land resources. Yet, in some cases, recreational off-road vehicle users ignore these closures and management requirements. Often times, when these activities occur, the federal public land agencies do not have the authority to charge fines commensurate with the damage that results. For example, under BLM's basic law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, fines for violations of regulations--including regulations governing ORV uses--are limited to $1,000. That figure has remained unchanged for a quarter of a century, and does not reflect the fact that in many cases the damage from violations will cost thousands more to repair. The bill I am introducing today would provide for increased fines for such violations--to $10,000 or the costs of restoring damaged lands, whichever would be greater. The need for this legislation is well shown by a recent article in the Denver Post by Penelope Purdy that outlines problems in New Mexico, Utah, and Idaho as well as some recent events in Colorado. As she reports, last August, two recreational off-road vehicle users ignored closure signs while four-wheel driving on Bureau of Land Management land high above Silverton, Colorado. As a result, they got stuck for five days on a 70 percent slope at 12,500 feet along the flanks of Houghton Mountain. At first, they abandoned their vehicles. Then, they returned with other vehicles to pull their vehicles out of the mud and off the mountain. The result was significant damage to the high alpine tundra, a delicate ecosystem that may take thousands of years to recover. As noted in a Denver Post story about this incident, ``Alpine plant life has evolved to withstand freezing temperatures, nearly year-round frost, drought, high winds and intense solar radiation, but it's helpless against big tires.'' Despite the extent of the damage, the violators were only fined $600 apiece--hardly adequate to restore the area, or to deter others. Another example was an event that occurred last year above Boulder, Colorado, that has become popularly known as the ``mudfest.'' Two Denver radio personalities announced that they were going to take their off-road four-wheel-drive vehicles for a weekend's outing on an area of private property along an existing access road used by recreational off-road-vehicle users. Their on-air announcement resulted in hundreds of people showing up and driving their vehicles in a sensitive wetland area, an area that is prime habitat of the endangered boreal toad. As a result, seven acres of wetland were destroyed and another 18 acres were seriously damaged. Estimates of the costs to repair the damage ranged from $66,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most of the ``mudfest'' damage occurred on private property. However, to get to those lands the off-road vehicle users had to cross a portion of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest--but the Forest Service only assessed a $50 fine to the two radio disc jockeys for not securing a special use permit to cross the lands. Again, this fine is not commensurate to the seriousness of the violation or the damage that ensued, or stands as much of a deterrent for future similar behavior. These are but two examples. Regrettably, there are many more such examples not only in Colorado but also throughout the west. These examples underscore the nature of the problem that this bill would address. If we are to deter such activity and recover the damaged lands, we need to increase the authorities of the federal public land agencies. My bill would do just that. Specifically, my bill would amend the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act and relevant laws governing the Forest Service to authorize these agencies to assess greater fines on recreational off-road vehicles for violations of In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to apply any funds acquired from recreational off-road vehicle violations to the area that was damaged or affected by such violations, and to increase public awareness of the need for proper use of vehicles on federal lands. This would give these agencies additional resources to recover damaged lands and areas that may be exposed to repeated violations. The bill does not put any lands ``off limits'' to recreational off- road vehicle use. It does not affect any specific lands in any way. The bill also does not provide for increased fines for other activities that can damage federal lands. There may or may not be a need for legislation along those lines, but in the meantime I am seeking only to address this one problem. Mr. Speaker, I fear that that improper use of recreational vehicles is a problem of growing seriousness throughout the west. My intention with this bill is to help address this problem so that all recreational users of our public lands can have a rewarding, safe and enjoyable experience. Everyone's experience is diminished when a few bad actors spoil the resources and the beauty of our lands. I think this bill can help provide the BLM and the Forest Service with better tools to respond tools to response by allowing appropriate recreational use of our public lands while also protecting the resources and values of these lands that belong to all the American people. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a fact sheet about the bill as well as an editorial and other material from the Denver Post: RESPONSIBLE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE ENFORCEMENT AND RESPONSE (``ROV- ER'') ACT Background: In Colorado and throughout the west increased population growth has brought increased recreational use of federal lands. This has made it harder for land-managing agencies to adequately control and manage such use. Recreational and other use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) can present serious problems. This use should be allowed to continue, but must be managed and controlled to minimize or avoid adverse effects. That involves closing-off some sensitive areas and other regulations. Improper use of vehicles can result in serious damage to the national forests and the public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This can involve damage to wildlife habitat; increased run-off and sediment pollution in rivers and streams; damage to sensitive high-altitude tundra, desert soils, and wetlands; creation of ruts and other visual impacts to the landscape; loss of quiet areas due to the deeper penetration of off-road vehicles into previously secluded areas of the public lands; and impacts to wildlife from noise and effects on migration corridors. Currently, the Forest Service and BLM do not always have clear authority to assess fines commensurate with the costs of enforcement and the damage that often results. For example, under the law governing BLM lands, federal officials can only impose up to $1,000 in fines while the damage that results could cost thousands more to address. The Forest Service's authority also needs clarifying and strengthening. The bill would provide new authority, in order to increase public awareness, deter violations, and help cover the costs of enforcement and damages to affected lands. What the bill would do Allow Increased Fines: The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to assess fines of up to $10,000 or the costs of restoration, whichever is greater, for violation of ORV regulations. The current provisions for imprisonment of 12 months in jail is retained. Apply Fines to Enforcement and the Area Damaged: The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to apply any funds acquired from recreational off-road vehicle violations to the costs of enforcing off-road violations, increasing public awareness of the problem, and to repair damages to lands affected by such violations. What the bill would not do Increase Closures of Public Lands: The bill would not require that any particular lands be ``off limits'' to recreational off-road vehicle use. Decisions about which roads or trails will remain open to such use would continue to be made by the land-management agency. Apply to Other Uses: The bill would not impose increased fines for violation of any regulations other than those applicable to use of vehicles. Eliminate Fines for Other Violations: The bill would not affect the current ability of the federal public land agencies from assessing existing fines and penalties for other activities that violate management, use and protection requirements. Such fines would continue to apply to violations of other regulations.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act. The bill intended to help local communities identify ways to protect the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern sections of the Denver-metro area, especially the region just west of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site. The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes much of the land in this backdrop area, but there are other lands involved as well. Rising dramatically from the Great Plains, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains provides a scenic mountain backdrop to many communities in the Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado. The portion of the range within and adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation. The open-space character of this mountain backdrop is an important esthetic and economic asset for adjoining communities, making them attractive locations for homes and businesses. But rapid population growth in the northern Front Range area of Colorado is increasing recreational use of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and is also placing increased pressure for development of other lands within and adjacent to that national forest. We can see this throughout Colorado and especially along the Front Range. Homes and shopping centers are sprawling up valleys and along highways that feed into the Front Range. This development then spreads out along the ridges and mountain tops that make up the backdrop. We are in danger of losing to development many of the qualities that have helped attract new residents. So, it is important to better understand what steps might be taken to avoid or lessen that risk--and this bill is designed to help us do just that. Already, local governments and other entities have provided important protection for portions of this mountain backdrop, especially in the northern Denver-metro area. However, some portions of the backdrop in this part of Colorado remain unprotected and are at risk of losing their open-space qualities. This bill acknowledges the good work of the local communities to preserve open spaces along the backdrop and aims to assist further efforts along the same lines. The bill does not interfere with the authority of local authorities regarding land use planning. It also does not infringe on private property rights. Instead, it will bring the land protection experience of the Forest Service to the table to assist local efforts to protect areas that comprise the backdrop. The bill envisions that to the extent the Forest Service be involved with federal lands, it will work in collaboration with local communities, the state and private parties. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe it is in the national interest for the federal government to assist local communities to identify ways to protect the mountain backdrop in this part of Colorado. The backdrop beckoned settlers westward and presented an imposing impediment to their forward progress that suggested similar challenges ahead. This first exposure to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West helped define a region. The pioneers' independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day. We need to work to preserve it by protecting the mountain backdrop as a cultural and natural heritage for ourselves and generations to come. God may forgive us for our failure to do so, but our children won't. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a fact sheet about this bill. Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act Generally: The bill would help local communities preserve the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern sections of the Denver-metro area in a region generally west of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site. Front Range Mountain Backdrop: The backdrop consists of the mountainous foothills, the Continental Divide and the peaks in between that create the striking visual backdrop of the Denver-metro area and throughout Colorado. Development in the Denver-metro area is encroaching in the Front Range backdrop area, and thus adversely affecting the esthetic, wildlife, open space and recreational qualities of this geographic feature. Now is the time to shape the future of this part of the Front Range. There is a real but fleeting opportunity to protect both Rocky Flats--a ``crown jewel'' of open space and wildlife habitat--and to assist local communities to protect the scenic, wildlife, and other values of the mountain backdrop. What the bill does Study and Report: The bill requires the Forest Service to study the ownership patters of the lands comprising the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in a region generally west of Rocky Flats, identify areas that are open and may be at risk of development, and recommend to Congress how these lands might be protected and how the federal government could help local communities and residents to achieve that goal. Lands Covered: The bill identifies the lands in southern Boulder, northern Jefferson and eastern Gilpin Counties in the Second Congressional District, specifically, an area west of Rocky Flats and west of Highway 93, south of Boulder Canyon, east of the Peak-to-Peak Highway, and north of the Golden Gate Canyon State Park road. What the bill would NOT do Affect Local Planning: The bill is designed to complement existing local efforts to preserve open lands in this region west of Rocky Flats. It will not take the place of--nor disrupt--these existing local efforts. Affect Private Property Rights: The bill merely authorizes a study. It will not affect any existing private property rights. Affect the Cleanup of Rocky Flats: The bill would not affect the ongoing cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats nor detract from funding for that effort, and will not affect existing efforts to preserve the options for wildlife and open space protection of Rocky Flats itself.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and commend the work of Tom Strickland, who has served the federal government and Colorado with distinction as United States Attorney. Tom Strickland was nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as U.S. Attorney for Colorado a little over two years ago. Before that time he was a successful attorney with the law firm of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Strickland, and prior to that was a senior advisor to Colorado Governor Dick Lamm. Tom and his wife, Beth, have been good friends to my father and me. I have enjoyed his association and believe that his service as U.S. Attorney will be remembered for a high degree of professionalism and a commitment to the welfare of Colorado and the nation. I believe Tom's service as U.S. Attorney ought to be recognized in this House and I submit for the Record the following words from the March 28, 2001 addition of the Denver Post, which say better than I can how his service will be remembered. Good Work, Tom Strickland We'd like to tip our hats to U.S. Attorney Tom Strickland, who will be leaving office Saturday, for a job well done during the nearly two years he's been in office. Strickland was sworn in April 21, 1999--the day after the Columbine massacre--but in a relatively short period of time acquired a reputation as a tough, effective law-and-order prosecutor. Strickland took the initiative in establishing Colorado's version of Project Exile, a Virginia program aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of felons. Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies cooperated in prosecuting the often- overlooked federal violation when felons busted for other crimes were found to possess firearms. Colorado Project Exile enforces existing gun laws, prosecuting criminals in the jurisdiction with the toughest penalties. During Strickland's tenure, the number of federal firearms prosecutions tripled from 54 defendants in 1999 to 147 in 2000. The successful program is a rare bit of common ground where such diverse factions as the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc. and SAFE Colorado can agree. But Strickland also targeted other criminal groups, from the Sons of Silence outlaw motorcycle gang to big-time drug traffickers, and even a group of federal prison guards who were brutalizing inmates. The University of Texas Law School graduate was an effective administrator and well-respected by veteran lawyers in his office. Strickland is a Democrat who was asked for his resignation by President Bush, a Republican, John Suthers, former El Paso County district attorney, is considered the front-runner for Strickland's post. One of the unfortunate aspects of the spoils system is that positions such as U.S. Attorney are presidential appointments, and whenever the party in power in the White House changes, many able public servants are asked to leave. Strickland is a recent example; an earlier one is Richard Stacy, who as U.S. Attorney for Wyoming, had to resign when the Clinton administration took office, despite being an aggressive, effective prosecutor. It's a shame that well-qualified public servants like Strickland and Stacy are asked to resign instead of being given a second look, party affiliation notwithstanding.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the great American heroes of our time, Cesar E. Chavez. Throughout his life, Cesar embraced nonviolent tactics to lift up the lives and spirits of millions of people and to advance the cause of equality and social change, particularly for migrant farm workers. At an early age, young Cesar and his family were forced from their ranch because of an unscrupulous land deal. They went to work in the fields. Cesar traveled throughout California and followed the seasonal work and attended 37 schools before dropping out after the Eighth grade in a great sacrifice to his father, who was injured in an accident, and his mother, whom he didn't want to work in the fields. He joined the U.S. Navy at Seventeen and returned to the San Joaquin Valley in California and became involved in community action programs. Even though his own formal education was limited, later in life education became his passion. He was inspired by the teachings of a Catholic priest and by the writings of St. Francis, Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and once said that, ``The end of all education should surely be service to others.'' Cesar put that belief into practice and formed the National Farm Workers of America, which later became the United Farm Workers, and began a great social movement to fight for safe and fair working conditions, reasonable wages, decent housing and outlawing child labor. Chavez used fasting, marching rallying picketing and boycotting to call attention to the plight of the farm workers who endured great pain and exploitation to put food on tables of millions of American families. In 1965, he led the Delano grape strike and a 340-mile march across California, which gained national attention and ended in an agreement to improve wages for farm workers. Chavez's work did not end there. He led another boycott to protest the use of dangerous pesticides in the fields, and in 1973, he led another strike against lettuce growers for higher wages. ``La Causa'' had broad-based support not only from farm workers and Latinos, but from labor unions, religious groups, minorities and students. The UFW became a symbol of empowerment and pride for many workers throughout the nation for over three decades. Cesar Chavez died in his sleep on April 23, 1993. He died while he was defending the UFW against a lawsuit brought by a California lettuce and vegetable producer, which demanded that the farm workers pay millions of dollars in damages resulting from a UFW boycott of its lettuce during the 1980's. Cesar Chavez received many honors for his commitment to social change. They included an honorary degree from Arizona State University West in 1992, induction into the LIFE Hall of Heroes in 1997, and the Medal of Freedom, the United States' highest civilian honor, bestowed upon him posthumously by President Clinton in 1995. In addition, several states honor him and his work with a state holiday--and, just last week, our own State of Colorado joined that number when the legislature passed a law creating a state holiday to commemorate the birthday of Cesar Chavez. The successful effort to pass this legislation was led by my friends, Colorado State Senator Rob Hernandez and Colorado State Representative Frana Mace. I think all Coloradans owe them a debt of gratitude--and I especially want to thank them for raising my own consciousness and inspiring me to support federal legislation that would create a national Cesar Chavez holiday. So, Mr. Speaker, it's with great pride and humility that I stand here today on the floor of the House of Representatives and pay tribute to Cesar E. Chavez, a national hero and one of the giants of the civil rights movement in America. I honor him for his leadership, his vision, his bravery, and his unselfish commitment to the principles of social justice and respect for human dignity. He is an inspiration to those of use who seek to create a better world, and his legacy is one which serves to remind us that ``Together all things are possible.'' tSi se puede!

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to authorize a program to help states, local governments, and private groups protect open space while enabling ranchers and other private landowners to continue to use their lands for agriculture and other traditional uses. The bill, entitled the ``Cooperative Landscape Conservation Act,'' is based on provisions that were passed by the House last year as part of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (``CARA'') but on which the Senate did not complete action. I think the program that this bill would establish would be good for the entire country--and it would be particularly important for Colorado. In Colorado, as in some other states, we are experiencing rapid population growth. That brings with it rising land values and property taxes. This combination is putting ranchers and other landowners under increasing pressure to sell lands for development. By selling conservation easements instead, they can lessen that pressure, capture much of the increased value of the land, and allow the land to continue to be used for traditional purposes. That's why conservation easements are so important for our state. It's why the state and many local governments are interested in acquiring conservation easements on undeveloped lands. It is also why non-profit organizations like the Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust and the Nature Conservancy--to name just two of many--work to help ranchers and other property owners to make these arrangements and so avoid the need to sell agricultural lands to developers. I strongly support this approach. Of course, by itself it is not enough--it is still important for government at all levels to acquire full ownership of land in appropriate cases. But in many other instances acquiring a conservation easement is more appropriate for conservation and other public purposes, more cost-effective for the taxpayers, and better for ranchers and other landowners who want to keep their lands in private ownership. But while it is usually less costly to acquire a conservation easement than to acquire full ownership, it is often not cheap--and in some critical cases can be more than a community or a nonprofit group can raise without some help. That is where my bill would come in. Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to provide funds, on a 50 percent match basis, to supplement local resources available for acquiring a conservation easement. For that purpose, the bill would authorize appropriation of $100 million per The bill provides that the Secretary would give priority to helping acquire easements in areas--such as Colorado--that are experiencing rapid population growth and where increasing land values are creating development pressures that threaten the traditional uses of private lands and the ability to maintain open space. Within those high-growth areas, priority would go to acquiring easements that would provide the greatest conservation benefits while maintaining the traditional uses-- whether agricultural or some other uses--of the lands involved. The bill would not involve any federal land acquisitions, and it would not involve any federal regulation of land uses--conservation easements acquired using these funds would be governed solely under state law. Mr. Speaker, the national government has primary responsibility for protecting the special parts of the federal lands and for managing those lands in ways that will maintain their resources and values-- including their undeveloped character--as a legacy for future generations. Regarding other lands, the challenge of responding to growth and sprawl is primarily the responsibility of the states and tribes, the local governments, and private organizations and groups-- but the federal government can help. This bill would provide help, in a practical and cost-effective way. For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a summary of its main provisions. I also am attaching a recent article from the DENVER POST about how the Larimer Land Trust has helped ranchers near Buckeye, Colorado to assure that their lands, with their resources of habitat for a wide variety of wildlife and many geographic and cultural treasures, will remain undeveloped and will continued to be used for grazing and other agricultural uses. I think this article shows the importance of the program that would be established by the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing a bill to designate as wilderness most of the lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park, in Colorado. This legislation will provide important protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country, adding nearly 250,000 acres in the park to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill is essentially identical to one previously introduced by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, and one I introduced in the 106th Congress. Those bills in turn were based on similar measures proposed, including some by former Senator Bill Armstrong and others. Over a number of years my predecessor and I have worked with the National Park Service and others to refine the boundaries of the areas proposed for wilderness designation and consulted closely with many interested parties in Colorado, including local officials and both the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the St. Vrain & Left Hand Ditch Water Conservancy District. These consultations provided the basis for many of the provisions of the bill I am introducing today, particularly regarding the status of existing water facilities. Covering some 94 percent of the park, the new wilderness will include Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of Rocky Mountain National Park are included in the wilderness that would be designated by this bill. The features of these lands and waters that make Rocky Mountain National Park a true gem in our national parks system also make it an outstanding wilderness candidate. The wilderness boundaries are carefully located to assure continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, and areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park management and visitor services. In addition, specific provisions are included to assure that there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities. This bill is based on National Park Service recommendations, prepared more than 25 years ago and presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. It seems to me that, in that time, there has been sufficient study, consideration, and refinement of those recommendations so that Congress can proceed with this legislation. I believe that this bill constitutes a fair and complete proposal, sufficiently providing for the legitimate needs of the public at large and all interested groups, and deserves to be enacted in this form. It took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a statewide national forest wilderness bill. Since then, action has been completed on bills designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, the Gunnison Gorge, and the Black Ridge portion of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area. All Coloradans know that the question of possible impacts on water rights can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. So, it's very important to understand that the question of water rights for Rocky Mountain National Park wilderness is entirely different from many considered before, and is far simpler. To begin with, it has long been recognized under the laws of the United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national park itself. Division One of the Colorado Water Court, which has jurisdiction over the portion of the park that is east of the continental divide, has already decided how extensive the water rights are in its portion of the park. In December, 1993, the court ruled that the park has reserved rights to all water within the park that was unappropriated at the time the park was created. As a result of this decision, in the eastern half of the park there literally is no more water for either the park or anybody else to claim. This is not, so far as I have been able to find out, a controversial decision, because there is a widespread consensus that there should be no new water projects developed within Rocky Mountain National Park. And, since the park sits astride the continental divide, there's no higher land around from which streams flow into the park, so there is no possibility of any upstream diversions. As for the western side of the park, the water court has not yet ruled on the extent of the park's existing water rights there, although it has affirmed that the park does have such rights. With all other rights to water arising in the park and flowing west already claimed, as a practical matter under Colorado water law, this wilderness designation will not restrict any new water claims. And it's important to emphasize that any wilderness water rights amount only to guarantees that water will continue to flow through and out of the park as it always has. This preserves the natural environment of the park, but it doesn't affect downstream water use. Once water leaves the park, it will continue to be available for diversion and use under Colorado law regardless of whether or not lands within the park are designated as wilderness. These legal and practical realities are reflected in my bill--as in my predecessor's--by inclusion of a finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation. Some may ask, why should we designate wilderness in a national park? Isn't park protection the same as wilderness, or at least as good? The answer is that the wilderness designation will give an important additional level of protection to most of the park. Our national park system was created, in part, to recognize and preserve prime examples of outstanding landscape. At Rocky Mountain National Park in particular, good Park Service management over the past 83 years This kind of protection is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As nearby land development and alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's landscape. Further, Rocky Mountain National Park's popularity demands definitive and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for development within the park. While only about one tenth the size of Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain sees nearly the same number of visitors each year as does our first national park. At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue improvements to park roads and visitor facilities. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill will protect some of our nation's finest wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any existing opportunity for new water development. And it will affirm our commitment in Colorado to preserving the very features that make our State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think the bill deserves prompt enactment. I am attaching a fact sheet that outlines the main provisions of this bill: Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act April, 2001 Rocky Mountain National Park Rocky Mountain National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks, possesses some of the most pristine and striking alpine ecosystems and natural landscapes in the continental United States. This park straddles the Continental Divide along Colorado's northern Front Range. It contains high altitude lakes, herds of bighorn sheep and elk, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra, old-growth forests and thundering rivers. It also contains Longs Peak, one of Colorado's 54 fourteen thousand- foot peaks. The bill The bill is based on one introduced by Rep. Udall in the 106th Congress and similar legislation proposed by former Congressman David Skaggs and others in previous years. It would: designate about 249, 562 acres within Rocky Mountain National Park, or about 94 percent of the Park, as wilderness, including Longs Peak--the areas included is based on the recommendations prepared over 25 years ago by President Nixon with some revisions in boundaries to reflect acquisitions and other changes since that recommendation was submitted designate about 1,000-acres as potential wilderness until non-conforming structures are removed provide that if non-federal inholdings within the wilderness boundaries are acquired by the United States, they will become part of the wilderness and managed accordingly The bill would NOT: create a new federal reserve water right; instead, it includes a finding that the Park's existing federal reserved water rights, as decided by the Colorado courts, are sufficient include certain lands in the Park as wilderness, including Trail Ridge and other roads used for motorized travel, water storage and conveyance structures, buildings, developed areas of the Park, some private inholdings Existing Water Facilities Boundaries for the wilderness are drawn to exclude existing storage and conveyance structures assuring continued use of the Grand River Ditch and its right-of-way, the east and west portals of the Adams Tunnel and gauging stations of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Long Draw Reservoir, and lands owned by the St. Vrain & Left Hand Water Conservancy District--including Copeland Reservior. The bill includes provisions to make clear that its enactment will not impose new restrictions on already allowed activities for the operation, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction of the Adams Tunnel, which diverts water under Rocky Mountain National Park (including lands that would be designated by the bill) or other Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities, and that additional activities for these purposes will be allowed should they be necessary to respond to emergencies and subject to reasonable restrictions.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of an institution that has improved the lives of thousands of people, the University of Colorado. The university is celebrating 125 years of providing a superior education to the people of Colorado, the Nation, and individuals from around the world. The university, which was established in 1876, opened its doors on September 5, 1877, with just one building, 2 instructors, and 44 students. Since its founding, the University of Colorado has grown from one building in Boulder to four different campuses throughout the State. The Boulder campus alone has nearly 200 buildings and includes 10 colleges and schools. Over the course of the university's proud history, more than 200,000 degrees have been earned. It is this continued commitment to education and improving people's lives that we celebrate today. America has been built on the ideas and intellect of an educated society. CU has played an important role as a catalyst--helping minds grow and providing students with opportunities to learn about subjects as diverse as space flight dynamics and African-American history. The inspiration and knowledge that CU's students gain today will change the way we all will live tomorrow. CU has helped countless students find their paths in life. Many of them went on to make important contributions to our country. Although it's not possible to name them all, I'd like to acknowledge a few of CU's most outstanding alumni: Byron White--Not only was he CU's first all-American football player, but after an outstanding career at the Justice Department, he was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice. Scott Carpenter--As one of just thirteen CU graduates to travel to outer space, Scott was one of the original seven Mercury Astronauts and flew the second American manned orbital flight. Cynthia Lawrence Calkins--the world-renowned opera star. Three-term Colorado Governor Roy Romer and former U.S. Senator Hank Brown. CU played a significant role in helping these alumni become leaders in their fields. In addition to training young minds, the University of Colorado is also a leading research institution. As one of just 34 public research universities invited to join the prestigious Association of American Universities, CU has more than 900 separate research investigations in progress--in such areas as biotechnology, superconductivity, information technologies, telecommunications, and environmental and space sciences. The University of Colorado also ranks eleventh among public universities in the country in Federal research support. CU's research programs are at the cutting edge of scientific inquiry, producing award-winning science that is transforming the way we live. The discoveries of CU biochemistry professor Thomas Cech, for instance, have helped us understand the catalytic properties of RNA. Prof. Cech was awarded the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his efforts. I am very proud of CU and its accomplishments, and expect to hear about amazing new contributions that future CU graduates will make to our economy, to our knowledge base, to our society, and to our world. The continued excellence of CU's teachers, faculty, and students guarantees another successful 125 years for the University of Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support changing the tax laws so that people will not pay higher income taxes just because they are married. And I also support increasing the child credit, to assist families who are struggling to make better lives for their children. So, reluctantly, I am voting to pass this bill. I do so without illusions. I recognize that the bill is very far from perfect. I wish it were better. And it would have been better if a majority of our colleagues had joined me in voting for the Rangel substitute or for the motion to recommit. But that did not happen, and I am voting for the bill because the Republican leadership has made it clear that they will not allow the House to pass a better one. As was made clear in the debate, the bill does far more than is needed to deal with the problem of the so-called ``marriage penalty''-- in fact, many of the married couples covered by the bill already pay lower income taxes then they would if they were single. But it does respond to the problem faced by those people who do pay a ``marriage penalty.'' And, the bill does not do all that should be done regarding the child credit. For starters, it is slow, so that the full increase does not take effect until 2006. And, while it does allow the credit to offset the alternative minimum tax, it does not make the credit fully refundable. That is something that we should be doing--and something that I will work to achieve in the future. But, I have concluded that the bill is enough of an improvement on the current law that I can support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, to govern is to choose--and today the House was called on to make some basic choices about the future of the economy and the future of our country. We need to proceed carefully and responsibly. We should steer a course that responds effectively to the challenges of today without risking the opportunities of the future on the outcome of a riverboat gamble. That is why we should take a different course than the one proposed by the Republican leadership. And that is why I supported the Blue Dog alternative and the Spratt Substitute--because those alternatives were more credible, less risky, and more responsible. Mr. Chairman, Coloradans know well the dangers of relying on long- range forecasts. We live in an arid state--visit us in the summer and you will see that the sun shines almost every day. We like it that way, and so do our summer visitors. But it means we have to be careful and plan ahead. We know it would be imprudent to drain the reservoirs and rely just on forecasts of surplus water in the years ahead. But that is what the Republican budget does--not with water, but with fiscal policy, with the budget, and with the economy. The Republican plan relies on a ten-year economic forecaster and runs the risk of shortening the solvency of Social Security and Medicare if that forecast doesn't pan out. And, in the meantime, it would neglect other important needs in order to pay for the President's tax plan. As a result, it would not do enough to reduce the publicly-held debt and would shortchange education, seniors, research, and the environment. By contrast, the Blue Dog substitute was far more prudent. To start with, it was a five-year plan, not one depending on a 10-year forecast. It would have allowed us to immediately reduce taxes by $23 billion this year, and to make further substantial reductions in taxes over the next four years. It would have allowed us to pay off a full half of the publicly-held debt by 2006. And it would have allowed us to make the investments we need to make in education, health care, and our communities. Unfortunately the refusal of the Republican leadership to proceed on that reasonable course meant that the Blue Dog substitute was rejected. That was a mistake--and it was compounded by the rejection of the Spratt substitute. The Spratt substitute was also a ten-year plan. But it was much better than the Republican plan. It would have allowed us to pay off most of the publicly-held debt by 2008. It would have enabled us to provide tax relief to all taxpayers, including the millions of people who pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. It would have allowed us to provide a real and meaningful prescription-drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries--without risking the solvency of Medicare as the Republican plan does. And it would allow us to do what needs to be done to promote science, protect our environment, and respond to the pressures of population growth and sprawl--needs that the Republican plan seriously shortchanges. When the Spratt substitute was rejected, I was left with no responsible choice except to vote against the risky Republican budget plan. That plan is very deficient--it is filled with problems. In area after area it seriously shortchanges our country's needs and offers the American people a series of empty promises--all that while betting our continued prosperity on a 10-year forecast that leaves no room for error. Mr. Chairman, the list of deficiencies in the Republican plan is a long one--too long for me to spell out now. So, let me focus on just a few. shortchanging the environment The Republican budget plan backtracks on last year's landmark agreement to provide dedicated funding for conservation. It does not provide the funding called for in that agreement, and falls far short of a commitment to meeting the needs of our communities to protect open space and respond to the pressures of growth and sprawl. In contrast, the Democratic substitute offered by Representative Spratt would have provided the full $10.4 billion called for in last year's agreement. It also would have made sure we have the resources to improve the nation's water-supply infrastructure, revitalize brownfields in our cities, and make other needed investments in our public lands and environment. These are areas of particular concern to all of us in Colorado, and I am particularly disappointed by these shortcomings in the Republican plan. shortchanging science The Republican plan also pays too little attention to important funding needs of our science, space, and technology programs. In particular, the numbers on NSF and NASA concern me. Neither of these premier science agencies receives a requested increase that even keeps pace with inflation. Even VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Walsh has described the NSF request as falling far short of what is needed. Along with my Democratic colleagues on the Science Committee, I have committed my support to an increase in the NSF budget for FY 2002 of at least 15 percent to enable the Foundation to carry out adequately its vital role in support of science and engineering education and research. Federal funding for research is a necessary precondition for continued economic success and security in our high-technology economy. I believe that science funding for all our agencies must be increased. Also of particular concern to me is the funding levels of research accounts at the Department of Energy. The Republican resolution would cut appropriated energy programs for FY2002 by 15 percent, or $500 million, below the level needed, according to CBO, to maintain constant purchasing power. It remains unclear how this 15 percent cut will translate into decreases in specific DOE programs, but rumors are that DOE's clean energy research and development programs will see cuts of between 20 to 50 percent from FY2001 levels. Funding for these accounts is critical to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil and diversify our energy production portfolio. The Bush budget claims an increase in this account, but it would not materialize until FY2004, and then only under the far-from-certain scenario of oil extraction from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I am glad that the Republican budget resolution does not assume receipts from oil leasing in ANWR--but neither does it make clear how clean energy accounts will be funded. Dr. D. Allen Bromley, former President Bush's science advisor from 1989-1993, wrote in a March 9 New York Times op-ed that the Bush budget--which the Republican budget resolution mirrors almost exactly-- ``includes cuts, after accounting for inflation, to the three primary sources of ideas and personnel in the high-tech economy: NSF is cut by 2.6 percent, NASA by 3.6 percent, and the Department of Energy by an alarming 7.1 percent. The proposed cuts to scientific research are a self-defeating policy. Congress must increase the federal investment in science. No science, no surplus. It's that simple.'' I believe we must heed Dr. Bromley's call. In FY2002, the Democratic substitute would provide $300 million more than the Republican resolution for NSF, NASA, and Department of Science programs--and $3 billion more than the Republican resolution over the ten-year period. Here again, adoption of the Democratic substitute would have been a step in the right direction. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I regret that today the House decided to bet so much on such a risky proposition as the Republican plan. I hope that our losses are less than I fear--but the odds are very much against us.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that experience is what enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again. If that's true, then the Bush Administration may be demonstrating its experience by repeating--for at least the third time--the serious mistake of lessening the protection of the environment. The first mistake was to break a promise that the Administration would work to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The second was to move to weaken the protection of drinking water from the risk of arsenic. And now it looks like there will be a third mistake, this time to weaken the regulation of mining on the public lands. Yesterday, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that it will act to suspend recently-adopted regulations to limit adverse effects of mining on these lands, which are the property of all the American people. The announcement indicated that BLM would take public comments for 45 days, and then decide whether to replace these new regulations with prior regulations first adopted two decades ago. I understand why the new administration might want to review these new rules--but I hope that it will not make the mistake of simply trying to turn back the clock. I seriously doubt that there is a need for further delay in implementing rules that were years in the making and on which the mining industry and the public have had ample opportunity to be heard. And, as an editorial in today's Denver Post noted, if the Bush Administration overturns these rules, it would be ``committing the very mistake for which it eviscerated the Clinton regime: running roughshod over legitimate concerns of Western communities and putting the federal treasury at risk.'' In Colorado, we understand the importance of mining--but we are also very aware of the damage that unregulated or careless mining can bring. From the 19th century's mineral rushes we have inherited a rich lore of history--and miles of poisoned streams and scarred slopes. And the dangers remain, even though the modem mining industry is more regulated and much more responsible. So, the Bush Administration should proceed with caution, and avoid repeating the past mistakes of overly- lax safeguards against those dangers. For the information of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am attaching the Denver Post's editorial on this subject: Mining Mistake Redux Mar. 22, 2001.--The Bush administration wants to toss out important rules about mining on public lands, thereby committing the very mistake for which it eviscerated the Clinton regime: running roughshod over legitimate concerns of Western communities and putting the federal treasury at risk. A decade ago, during the reign of George H.W. Bush, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management tried to revamp environmental rules and financial accountability standards for hard-rock mines operating on public property. But the effort got sidelined while Congress debated major changes to the underlying federal statute. After the congressional push fizzled in 1997, then-U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt started a formal process to modernize the mining rules. The old regulations were written in 1980, just before technological changes revolutionized the modern mining business. The old rules simply didn't reflect the new realities--to leave them in place would be akin to regulating jet airliners based on the concept of horse-drawn wagons. The tough administrative process took four years, generated 550 pages of public comments and survived several congressional attempts to scuttle the effort. So while the rules took effect just before President Clinton left office, they'd been in the works for years and had been thoroughly and publicly discussed. Despite the hyperbolic complaints leveled by partisan critics, the new regulations won't prevent mining on public lands. Instead, they just fixed glaring problems. For decades, the BLM said it couldn't block any mining operation on public land, even if the mine would cause social or environmental harm. Near Yarnell, Ariz., for instance, a proposed mine would have opened within 500 feet of the town. People would have had to evacuate their homes during blasting, and would have suffered from mine dust, noise and other problems. Yet under the 1980 rules, BLM couldn't either stop it or do anything to help. Moreover, the old rules left taxpayers liable for cleaning up environmental messes. The poster child for all mining fiascoes is Summitville in southwestern Colorado, where in the early 1990s poisons from a bankrupt mine devastated the Rio Grande's high altitude headwaters. But other states have suffered, too, Nevada alone has 36 bankrupt mine sites--all recent, modern operations-- where taxpayers have been left footing the environmental clean up bill. By contrast, the Clinton-era rules require mines to put up adequate bonds, so if the companies go bankrupt, taxpayers aren't stuck with the tab. Yet the Bush administration's announcement Tuesday indicates that the BLM may retreat to the old way of doing business. It's hypocritical for the Bush team to pretend it can provide more thought and public input on the matter in just a 45-day comment period than the issue received during four years of intense administrative and congressional debate.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Charles Traylor, a longtime leader of our state and a man whose compassion for others was as big and open as Colorado's sky. ``Charlie'', as he was known by most, was an excellent writer whose wit often graced the editorial pages of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. He was a strong spokesman for improving public education and a champion of opportunity for the less advantaged in our society. As a highly respected lawyer, Charlie understood the power of education in elevating a person's life. He worked hard to carry this message into the lives of others. Often, you could find him at school district meetings or working to improve Mesa State College. Charlie was known throughout Colorado as a ``damn good lawyer.'' Over the years, he was ready to take on the hard fights for people who didn't have a lot of money--and he often won. He won admiration for his selfless commitment to helping Coloradans who needed a hand up. He will be missed. A recent article in the Daily Sentinel illustrates Charlie's accomplishments and character, which left a lasting impression on Colorado. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching a copy of that column, for inclusion in the Record. [From the Daily Sentinel, February 6, 2001] Legendary GJ Lawyer Traylor Dies at Age 85 (By Gary Harmon) Grand Junction, CO--To have known Charlie Traylor was to have generated a story, one that would always have a point in the telling. Today, though, someone else at the Aspinall Foundation will have to tell Mr. Traylor's tales as a committee interviews scholarship candidates. Members of the Mesa County Bar Association won't have the opportunity to hear Mr. Traylor spin out his recollections of the law practice in the mid- 20th century and what they mean in the new millennium. Mr. Traylor--advocate, political adviser, sage and raconteur--died Sunday. He was 85. There are to be no services. But there are recollections aplenty. The Aspinall Foundation Scholarship Committee, which is unusual in conducting personal interviews with applicants-- who must aspire to public service--will meet despite the death of the man that banker Pat Gormley described as the ``patron saint'' of the foundation founded in 1968. ``We're going to go ahead and hold it because that's what we think he would have wanted,'' Gormley said. What Mr. Traylor wanted, he rarely left to doubt. A lifelong Democrat, Mr. Traylor once was tempted to switch party registration for the limited purpose of voting to oust a certain Republican officeholder, then switch back a day later, recalled Jim Robb, a Grand Junction lawyer, federal magistrate, and occasional political foe as a Republican and a consistent admirer of Mr. Traylor. His response to that suggestion after a day of thinking about it, Robb said, was this: ``He walked into work from his house and if someone were to hit him on that day, he would show up at the Pearly Gates and would have to answer that he was registered as a Republican and he wouldn't have gotten in. ``So he decided not to do that.'' Mr. Traylor, though, was more than a political partisan, even if his home was known to Bobby and Teddy Kennedy during the 1960 election campaign, Robb said. Mr. Traylor greeted John Kennedy on a visit to Grand Junction. ``I think I would describe him as a legendary lawyer in western Colorado,'' Robb said. ``Our religions were different, our politics were different. We had so many differences and yet I felt very, very close to Charlie Traylor. I think he brought out friendship in anyone he met.'' U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., said that Mr. Traylor ``gave immeasurably to his community, state and nation. Western Colorado is undoubtedly a better place because of Charlie's life of service. He will be greatly missed, but not soon forgotten.'' Mr. Traylor knew how to work as an outsider from an early age, said Tom Harshman, a former law partner. Mr. Traylor, a Roman Catholic, was elected student body president at Ole Miss in strong, Baptist country when religion was an issue. ``He used to say Catholics in Mississippi were as welcome as dogs in a cathedral,'' Harshman said. ``He was quite a phenomenon.'' He frequently joked that he graduated from college with more money than he had to begin with because he started a business delivering sandwiches to the dorms, Harshman said. Mr. Traylor knew how to get what he wanted, Gormley said, remembering the time he was recruited to be treasurer for the campaigns of U.S. Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall, the Palisade lawyer who chaired the House Interior Committee. Mr. Traylor was Aspinall's longtime campaign manager. Mr. Traylor didn't approach Gormley directly. ``He asked my father and my father told me that's a good job.'' A gift of being able to condense issues into a few words, Gormley said, made Mr. Traylor a strong trial attorney. When Mr. Traylor moved to Grand Junction in 1946, he took on the duties of bailing out the prostitutes who were hired by madams who kept his firm on retainer. When Harshman joined the firm in 1965, his job was to assist Mr. Traylor at trial and that first year was a doozy: five murder trials. Mr. Traylor got four of his defendants off and one guilty on a lesser charge. ``He was an excellent lawyer,'' said Terry Farina, a former Mesa County district attorney. ``He was shrewd and he had the common touch.'' He didn't try only murder cases. Mr. Traylor was one of the first attorneys to recover damages for widows whose husbands had died of radiation-related diseases contracted in the uranium mines that dotted the Southwest. In the meantime, Mr. Traylor and his wife, Helen, raised seven children and he was active in trial lawyers groups. ``He was always trying to stretch the paradigm,'' said another former law partner, Dick Arnold. ``I don't think he realized he had this knack for being creative.'' Mr. Traylor retired from his law firm, Traylor, Tompkins, Black and Gaty, on Jan. 12, his 85th birthday. Four days later he suffered a stroke and was set to begin a rehabilitation regimen. ``I was thinking positive,'' said Bill Cleary, a Traylor friend from 1961. ``He told me it was pretty tough, this rehab. I was looking forward to his regaining a certain mobility.'' Mr. Traylor, in fact, was to have been on the county bar association program on Jan. 22 to recall the old days, Farina said. Mr. Traylor, though, never completely retired. ``He was so robust,'' Farina said. ``I recently gave him a book about a lawyer-turned-journalist who goes back to Natchez and I thought Charlie would like it. ``After two weeks, he and Helen both had read it and liked it and he returned it to me with a critique of the fictionalized trial. He just had that kind of mind.'' Even to the end, Mr. Traylor kept a few surprises. It wasn't until Robb visited him in his office as Mr. Traylor was moving out that Robb realized he and Mr. Traylor were fraternity brothers. And Mr. Traylor, effusive as he was, rarely discussed his experiences in World War 11, said Harshman. As commander of a heavy-weapons company, he earned a Bronze Star and liberated Gunkirchen, a camp holding Jewish and Polish prisoners. Mr. Traylor's public passion, though, was education. He frequently attended meetings of the School District 51 board and pressed for several programs, including MESA, which promoted math and science for minorities and women, and a committee promoting partnership between District 51 and Mesa State College. ``Charlie Traylor was one of a kind,'' said Marilyn Conner, assistant superintendent and a Traylor acquaintance for 15 years. ``I believe he was as intelligent and as insightful and as gentlemanly a person as you would run across.'' Mr. Traylor also was a supporter of Mesa State, regularly attending plays at the college, Robb recalled. ``We're going to take a walk along the river and think about him,'' Robb said of his wife, Maggie, who directed many of those plays. ``This is going to take some getting used to,'' Cleary said. ``He was bigger than life and that always leaves a vacancy. He was a man of stature. He could be admired by a great many people.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the High Performance Schools Act of 2001, a bill intended to help school districts build schools that provide better learning environments for children, while also saving on energy costs and protecting the environment. I am pleased that my colleagues Representatives Sherwood Boehlert, George Miller, David Bonior, Bob Etheridge, and Mike Honda are joining me as original cosponsors of this bill. This legislation is part of a package of bills I plan to introduce or cosponsor that promotes sustainable development and preserves quality of life in communities that are undergoing intense growth. As we have seen in my State of Colorado and in many parts of the West, unprecedented population growth has led to urban sprawl and congestion, which has eroded much of the quality of life we value, including valuable open space, farmland, wildlife, and natural, cultural and recreational resources. I believe that the Federal Government can do a better job to support State and community efforts to control growth and prevent sprawl. And this bill is one step toward that goal. Many of you know about my interest in clean energy. As lead co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I am committed to promoting these technologies that further our national goals of broad-based economic growth, environmental protection, national security, and economic competitiveness. In recent years, we've seen a wide array of successes in developing these technologies. In particular, much research has focused on improving energy efficiency and increasing the use of renewable energy in buildings in a ``whole building'' approach to design and construction. By incorporating advanced energy efficiency technologies, daylighting, and renewable energy, ``whole buildings'' provide benefits in the way of energy savings, environmental protection, and economic efficiency. As buildings account for roughly a third of our annual energy consumption and a commensurate share of greenhouse gas emissions, this research focus seems well justified. They are also important components in any smart growth plan. The bill I am introducing today--the ``High Performance Schools Act of 2001''--takes the concept of ``whole buildings'' and puts it into the context of our schools. My bill would establish a program in the Department of Energy to help school districts produce ``high performance'' school buildings. It would provide block grants to State offices of energy that would then be allocated as grants to school districts for building design and technical assistance. These grants would be available to school districts that are faced with rising elementary and secondary Now is the time for improving the way we build our schools. One reason why--the current energy crisis is taking its toll on school districts across the country. Many of them are being forced to pay higher heating bills with funds that had been budgeted for textbooks or new teacher salaries. We must do all we can to ensure that scarce education resources are used primarily for education purposes, not to keep our children warm. Another reason why the timing for this initiative is critical--this country is currently experiencing a dramatic increase in student enrollment due to the ``baby boom echo,'' the children of the baby boom generation. During the 20 years from 1989 to 2009, this Nation is being asked to educate an additional 8.3 million children. At the same time, over 70 percent of our Nation's schools were built before 1960 and are now in need of major repairs. Visiting schools in the 2nd Congressional district in Colorado, I have seen firsthand the spaces in which our children are learning and growing. Many districts can't afford sorely needed remodeling or construction of new schools, while others are scrambling to address severe overcrowding issues. And we aren't alone: School enrollment in Colorado increased by 70,000 students in the last five years. While new schools open at or above capacity, enrollment is projected to grow in Colorado by 120,000 in the next decade. Clearly, there's an urgent need for school construction--in Colorado and in every State across the country. Thousands of communities nationwide are even now in the process of building new schools and renovating existing ones. But in drawing up construction plans, schools often focus on short-term construction costs instead of longterm, life- cycle savings. My bill would help ensure that school districts have the tools and assistance they need to make good building decisions. High performance schools are a win for energy savings and a win for the environment, but best of all, they are also a win for student performance. A growing number of studies link student achievement and behavior to the physical building conditions. A study from Mississippi State University, for example, showed that in schools in North Carolina, Texas and Nevada, variables such as natural light and climate control played a role in improved test scores, higher morale and fewer discipline problems. And in one of the most rigorous studies of its kind, a 1999 report commissioned by Pacific Gas & Electric found that students who took their lessons in classrooms with more natural light scored as much as 25 percent higher on standardized tests than other students in the same school district. We wouldn't dream of putting only manual typewriters in new school buildings--we would install today's computer technology. Nor should we build yesterday's ``energy inefficient,'' non-sustainable, and less effective schools. Our kids are our country's future, and they should have the best school facilities, especially if they will cost less and benefit us all in other ways. In short, we have an enormous opportunity to build a new generation of sustainable schools, schools that incorporate the best of today's designs and technologies and as a result provide better learning environments for our children, cost less to operate, and help protect our local and global environment. The High Performance Schools Act would start us on the road to achieving these goals. I look forward to working with Reps. Boehlert, Miller, Bonior, Etheridge, and Honda and other Members of the House to move forward with this important initiative. The High Performance Schools Act of 2001 The High Performance Schools Act would enable our school districts to build today's schools with today's designs and technologies, producing school buildings that take advantage of advanced energy conservation technologies, daylighting, and renewable energy. Not only has this ``whole building'' approach been demonstrated to improve student performance, but such buildings also cost less to operate and help protect our local and global environment. Context Fully 25 percent of the energy used in today's schools is wasted, costing schools some $1.5 billion every year. Ending this waste could pay for the entire careers of 70 additional teachers in each of our congressional districts. These savings could be especially significant at a time when there is a clear need for more teachers. There is also a clear need for school construction. Students of the ``echo boom'' generation--the children of the baby boomers--are reaching school age even while class sizes are being reduced. At the same time, studies show that over 70 percent of our nation's schools were built before 1960 and are now in need of major repairs. School construction and modernization earned an ``F'' from the American Society of Civil Engineers in its 1998 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Many districts can't afford sorely needed remodeling or construction of new schools, while others are scrambling to address severe overcrowding issues. How It Would Work The High Performance Schools Act of 2001 would help give school districts the tools and assistance they need to make good building choices. The bill would establish a program in the Department of Energy to help school districts produce ``high performance'' school buildings. Funds would be directed to school districts through state offices of energy for building design and technical assistance. These grants would be available to school districts that are faced with rising elementary and secondary school enrollments, that lack the resources to make major infrastructural investments, and that commit to work with the state agencies to produce school facilities that incorporate a ``high performance'' building approach. Some grants would also be available to facilitate private and public financing, promote the use of energy service companies, work with school administrations, students, and communities, and coordinate public benefit programs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the High Performance Schools Research Act, a bill that would establish a research program at the National Science Foundation to quantify the relationship between the physical characteristics of elementary and secondary schools and student academic achievement in those schools. I am pleased that my colleagues Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Honda are joining me as original cosponsors of this bill. This legislation is part of a package of bills I plan to introduce or cosponsor that together will promote ``federal smart growth.'' As we have seen in my state of Colorado, sprawl around our fast-growing towns and cities destroys valuable open space, farmland, wildlife, and natural, cultural and recreational resources. I believe that the federal government can do a better job to support state and community efforts to control growth and prevent sprawl. I am introducing the High Performance Schools Research Act in conjunction with a bill I am reintroducing today, the High Performance Schools Act of 2001 (H.R. 3143 in the 106th Congress). The High Performance Schools Act takes the concept of ``whole buildings'' and puts it into the context of our schools, establishing a program in the Department of Energy to help school districts produce ``high performance'' school buildings. With energy costs and school enrollment on the rise and school buildings across the country in need of construction or major repairs, school districts need to have the appropriate tools and assistance to make good building decisions. The High Performance Schools Act is intended to help school districts make these good decisions, as well as to conserve energy and protect the environment. In addition to the economic and environmental benefits of smart building choices, evidence is growing that high performance buildings are beneficial for student performance. A growing number of studies link student achievement and behavior to the physical building conditions. A study from Mississippi State University, for example, showed that in schools in North Carolina, Texas and Nevada, variables such as natural light and climate control played a role in improved test scores, higher morale and fewer discipline problems. And in one of the most rigorous studies of its kind, a 1999 report commissioned by Pacific Gas & Electric found that students who took their lessons in classrooms with more natural light scored as much as 25 percent higher on standardized tests than other students in the same school district. But while these studies have begun to reveal important information correlating a school building's environment with student performance, no large-scale, comprehensive study has been conducted to date. Understandably, school districts are reluctant to base infrastructure investment decisions on the results of a few narrowly conceived studies. So to give them the information they need to make better decisions, I am introducing the High Performance Schools Research Act, which will establish a National Science Foundation research program to thoroughly investigate the linkages between specific characteristics of the physical environment of a school and student learning. My hope is that further research will confirm initial findings correlating a school's environment to academic achievement, thus bolstering the case for high performance schools, which are themselves important components in any smart growth plan. I look forward to working with my colleagues Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Honda and other Members of the House to move forward with this initiative. The High Performance Schools Research Act The High Performance Schools Research Act would establish a research program at the National Science Foundation to quantify the relationship between the physical characteristics of elementary and secondary schools and student academic achievement in those schools. This bill is intended as a companion to the High Performance Schools Act of 2001, which takes the concept of ``whole buildings'' and puts it into the context of our schools, establishing a program in the Department of Energy to help school districts produce ``high performance'' school buildings. Context In addition to the economic and environmental benefits of smart building choices, evidence is growing that high performance buildings are beneficial for student performance. A growing number of studies link student achievement and behavior to the physical building conditions. Although these studies have begun to reveal important information correlating a school building's environment with student performance, no large-scale, comprehensive study has been conducted to date. How It Would Work The High Performance Schools Research Act is intended to help give school districts the information they need to make better decisions. The bill would establish a National Science Foundation research program to thoroughly investigate the linkages between specific characteristics of the physical environment of a school and student learning.