Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the new Administration is reviewing a number of new rules and regulations proposed or adopted by the Clinton-Gore Administration last year. I understand why a new Administration would want to undertake such a review. And there may be some areas where a change of course might be appropriate. But there is definitely one set of new rules that should be retained as they stand--the new rules to protect the remaining roadless areas of our national forests. Those rules make good sense as a way to protect natural resources, provide more diverse recreational opportunities, and preserve some of the undisturbed landscapes that make Colorado and other western States such special places to live and visit. That is why the Mayor of Boulder, Colorado, has written to President Bush urging retention of the roadless-area rules. It is why the Boulder City Council has adopted a resolution supporting those rules. And it is why I have written Secretary of Agriculture Anne M. Veneman, urging that the rules be kept in place. For the information of our colleagues, I am including in the Record at this point my letter to the Secretary, the letter to the President from Mayor R. Toor, and the resolution of the Boulder City Council. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 13, 2001. Hon. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Veneman: I am enclosing a copy of a letter to the President from William R. Toor, Mayor of the City of Boulder, Colorado, regarding the new rules for management of inventoried roadless areas published in the Federal Register in January, 2000, and a resolution regarding those rules that was recently adopted by the Boulder City Council. As you can see, Mayor Toor's letter and the City Council's resolution support these rules and urge their full implementation. I join in that recommendation. I am convinced that these rules make good sense as a way to protect natural resources, provide more diverse recreational opportunities and preserve some of the undisturbed landscapes that are such a special part of Colorado and other Western states. The new rules were developed through an extensive public process. They were the subject of both draft and final environmental impact statements. They were discussed at more than 600 public meetings and were the subject of more than 1.5 million public comments. In my opinion, these rules reflect the highest standards of science-based public policy. Biologists tell us the inventoried roadless areas of the national forests are valuable for wildlife, and support ecosystem health and the full range of native species. They also are important sources of clean water for many communities like Boulder, in Colorado and other states, and provide a bulwark against the spread of invasive species, such as the many species of weeds that plague ranchers in our state and throughout the west. And, above all, these special areas ``possess social and ecological values and characteristics that are becoming scarce in an increasingly developed landscape,'' in the words of the final environmental impact statement. The areas to be covered by the new rules were identified by detailed, on-the-ground studies that have been regularly updated and supplemented through the regular forest-planning process and additional studies focused on threatened and endangered species or other aspects of forest management. For example, the Forest Service's latest Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest plan, developed with extensive public involvement, was completed in 1997. It identifies more than 300,000 acres of roadless areas--including some 40,000 acres in Boulder County alone. The new rules will apply to those areas and will simply mean that their roadless characteristics will be maintained. That forest is one of the closest to the Denver-metro area, so it is one of the most heavily used and affected. If we do not begin now to protect the unspoiled lands in that forest--and similar forests throughout Colorado and the West--we will lose forever the natural benefits and special qualities that they provide. These rules will provide long-overdue protection for some of the most important parts of our federal lands. People in other states may have different reactions, but in view of the importance of the national forests for our state and our country I think they deserve the support of every Coloradan and should be retained by the Bush Administration. Sincerely, Mark Udall.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my colleagues, Representatives Frost, Owens, Hilliard, McKinney, Baldacci, Blumenauer, Cummings, Davis (IL), Hinojosa, Kucinich, McGovern, Tauscher, Baird, Baldwin, Tubbs Jones, Udall (NM), Wu, and Jo Ann Davis (VA), in introducing the Small Business Telecommuting Act to assist our nation's small businesses in establishing successful telework programs for their employees. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts will be introducing companion legislation in the Senate. Across America, numerous employers are responding to the needs of their employees and establishing telecommuting programs. In 2000, there were an estimated 16.5 million teleworkers. By the end of 2004, there will be an estimated 30 million teleworkers, representing an increase of almost 100%. Unfortunately, the majority of growth in new teleworkers comes from organizations employing over 1,500 people, while just a few years ago, most teleworkers worked for small to medium-sized organizations. By not taking advantage of modern technology and establishing successful telecommuting programs, small businesses are losing out on a host of benefits that will save them money, and make them more competitive. The reported productivity improvement of home-based teleworkers averages 15%, translating to an average bottom-line impact of $9,712 per teleworker. Additionally, most experienced teleworkers are determined to continue teleworking, meaning a successful telework program can be an important tool in the recruitment and retention of qualified and skilled employees. By establishing successful telework programs, small business owners would be able to retain these valuable employees by allowing them to work from a remote location, such as their home or a telework center. In addition to the cost savings realized by businesses that employ teleworkers, there are a number of related benefits to society and the employee. For example, telecommuters help reduce traffic and cut down on air pollution by staying off the roads during rush hour. Fully 80% of home-only teleworkers commute to work on days they are not teleworking. Their one-way commute distance averages 19.7 miles, versus 13.3 miles for non-teleworkers, meaning employees that take advantage of telecommuting programs are, more often than not, those with the longest commutes. Teleworking also gives employees more time to spend with their families and reduces stress levels by eliminating the pressure of a long commute. Mr. Speaker, our legislation seeks to extend the benefits of successful telecommuting programs to more of our nation's small businesses. Specifically, it establishes a pilot program in the Small Business Administration (SBA) to raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers and to encourage those small businesses to establish telecommuting programs for their employees. Additionally, an important provision in our bill directs the SBA Administrator to undertake special efforts for businesses owned by, or employing, persons with disabilities and disabled America veterans. At the end of the day, telecommuting can provide more than just environmental benefits and improved quality of life. It can open the door to people who have been precluded from working in a traditional office setting due to physical disabilities. Our legislation is also limited in cost and scope. It establishes the pilot program in a maximum of five SBA regions and caps the total cost to five million dollars over two years. It also restricts the SBA to activities specifically proscribed in the legislation: developing educational materials; conducting outreach to small business; and acquiring equipment for demonstration purposes. Finally, it requires the SBA to prepare and submit a report to Congress evaluating the pilot program. Several hurdles to establishing successful telecommuting programs could be cleared by enacting our legislation. In fact, the number one reported obstacle to implementing a telecommuting program is a lack of know-how. Our bill will go a long way towards educating small business owners on how they can draft guidelines to make a telework program an affordable, manageable reality.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as its author, I obviously support passage of this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and our ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for making it possible for the House to consider it today. I introduced the bill last year at the request of the commissioners of Clear Creek County. It was passed by the House last fall, but time ran out before the Senate could complete action on it prior to the end of the 106th Congress. The bill amends section 5 of the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993. The effect of the amendment would be to allow Clear Creek County additional time to determine the future disposition of some former Federal land that was transferred to the county under that section of the 1993 act. The 1993 act was originally proposed by my predecessor, Congressman David Skaggs. Its purpose was to clarify Federal land ownership questions in Clear Creek County while helping to consolidate the Bureau of Land Management administration in eastern Colorado, and assisting with protecting open space and preserving historic sites. As part of its plan to merge its eastern Colorado operations into one administrative office, the BLM has determined that it would be best to dispose of most of its surface lands in northeastern Colorado. The 1993 act helped achieve that goal by transferring some 14,000 acres of land from the Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. Forest Service, to the State of Colorado, to Clear Creek County, and to the towns of Georgetown and Silver Plume. Of course, the BLM would have sold all these lands, and the local governments could have applied for parcels under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Under current law, however, BLM would have first had to have completed detailed boundary surveys. Since the land in question included many odd-shaped parcels, including some measured literally in inches, the BLM estimated these surveys could have taken another 15 years to complete and could have cost as much as $18 million. Mr. Speaker, but the estimated value of these lands was only $3 million. Because these administrative costs were expected to be so much higher than the value of these lands, their disposal under existing law could never have been completed, and this would have been the worst of all outcomes. Because, after reaching the conclusion that these lands should be transferred, BLM would in effect stop managing them, to the extent that they could be managed at all. In short, until some means could be found to enable their transfer, these 14,000 acres were effectively abandoned property, potentially attracting all the problems that befall property left uncared for and ignored. The 1993 Act responded to that situation. Under it, about 3,500 acres of BLM land in Clear Creek County were transferred to the Arapaho National Forest. Another 3,200 acres of land were transferred to the State of Colorado, the county, and the towns of Georgetown and Silver Plume. Finally, about 7,300 acres were transferred to the county. The bill before us deals today only with those 7,300 acres that were transferred to the county. The 1993 Act provides that after it prepares a comprehensive land use plan, the county may resell some of the land. Other parcels will be transferred to local governments, including the county, to be retained for recreation and public purposes. With regard to the lands that the county has authority to sell, the 1993 Act in effect authorizes the county to act as the BLM's sales agent, and it provides that the Federal Government will receive any of the net receipts from the sale of these lands by the county. Under the 1993 Act, the county has until May 19, 2004, to resolve questions related to rights-of-way, mining claims and trespass situations on the lands covered by the Act. While the county has completed the conveyance of some of these lands, there are still about 6,000 acres to dispose of, and they are working to complete the job. For example, the county is seeking to have some 2,000 acres transferred to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for the management of Bighorn Sheep habitat. However, the commissioners have found the process is taking longer than they anticipated and that an extension of time would be helpful to a successful conclusion. The bill we are considering today responds to their request by providing that extension; and it set May 19, 2015, as the new deadline for the county to either transfer or retain these lands. The county commissioners have indicated to me that they are confident that there will be sufficient time for them to resolve the matter under this new piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, in summary, there is no controversy associated with the legislation; and I urge its adoption.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this bill, I rise in its support. I also want to commend my colleague from Colorado, Mr. McInnis, for his initiative and persistence in connection with this legislation. The bill makes a modest but very important improvement in the laws that govern the National Trails system. It would relax the current restrictions that now limit the ability of the federal government to acquire lands needed for proper management of some trails. Under the bill, the federal government would be authorized to acquire appropriate lands from willing sellers. The bill would not authorize use of condemnation to acquire any lands. Among the trails covered by the bill is the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which runs from Canada to Mexico along the spine of the continent--the Continental Divide that separates the drainages of the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of California from that of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. That trail runs through the heart of Colorado, from our border with Wyoming to the New Mexico state line. Over the years, the Forest Service, assisted by thousands of volunteers organized by the Continental Trail Alliance, has worked to complete it and to make it available to all who would travel along it through some of America's most remarkable wild country. This bill will greatly assist in that effort by allowing private landowners who wish to do so to provide easements or other interests in lands for the purposes of this and the other trails covered by the bill. I urge its adoption.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this bill--but I am convinced that to vote for it today would be a serious mistake. In fact, we should not even be considering the bill today. We have not yet even begun consideration of an overall budget resolution, let alone reached an agreement with the Senate on a budget framework. We have not had a chance to weigh how this bill or any other bills to reduce taxes would affect other important priorities, including continued progress in reducing the publicly-held debt, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and investing in our schools, our communities, and our country. We do not yet have a complete budget proposal from the President, but already we can see he is proposing to make room for his tax bill by cuts in other areas, including important research and development programs. And the bill before us today is only the first installment on the President's plan. That is why the law says, and what is provided for by the House's own rules. But that is not what we are doing--we are waiving the rules, so that we can rush to pass this bill before we have a chance to consider how--or whether--it would fit with every other part of the budget. It may be politically important for the new Bush Administration to rush this process, but it is not a responsible way to make budgetary decisions that may have profound consequences for future generations of Americans. That is the way the budget process is supposed to work. That is not the way any family in America would go about making a budget, and it is not how we should go about doing our jobs either. That is why I voted against the resolution to waive the normal rules and bring the bill to the floor today. But since the Republican leadership insisted on going forward, regardless of the normal rules and common prudence, we should have at least proceeded more cautiously and with a better focus. That is why I voted for the Democratic substitute--because it was the more prudent alternative. Mr. Speaker, Colorado is an arid state. If you come to visit us in the summer you will find it is sunny almost every day. We like it that way, and do so our summer visitors. But that means we have to be careful about water. We watch the snowpack carefully, and we work to conserve water so we will be prepared for a dry season. We know how hard it is to accurately forecast the weather, and how risky it would be to drain our reservoirs prematurely because of a long-range forecast of surplus water in coming years. And, Mr. Speaker, it is just as risky to rely too much on long-range forecasts of future budget surpluses--as the Republican bill does. The Democratic alternative took a more cautious approach. The Democratic alternative would have lowered taxes for everybody, by lowering from 15 percent to 12 percent the tax on the first $10,000 for a single taxpayer, the first $18,000 for heads of households, and the first $20,000 for married couples filing jointly. It also would have addressed the ``marriage penalty'' by allowing married couples filing jointly twice the standard deduction used by single filers. And it would have adjusted the alternative minimum tax (AMT) to assure that all taxpayers who pay income taxes would receive the benefit of its reduction in rates and that everyone eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child credit would receive the full benefit of those provisions of the law. But it would not have gone as far as the Republican bill to slow reduction of the publicly-held debt. It would not have gone as far to reduce our ability to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. I would not have bet as much on a 10-year forecast of good economic weather. In short, the Democratic alternative would have provided real tax relief for millions of Americans, without the same risks to the economy as the Republican bill. It is very important that we continue on the path of fiscal responsibility and pay down the public debt, which will mean lower interest rates, lower mortgages, and lower student loan payments. That is first-class tax relief. Today, my first choice would have been for us to first debate an overall budget resolution under normal rules, so that we could carefully frame real, substantial tax reductions in the full context of the debt and other important priorities. My second choice was to support the Democratic alternative. The Republican leadership rejected both those courses and have left me only with the choice of an irresponsible vote or a vote against this bill. That means I have no responsible choice except to vote no, and hope. I hope that the Senate will take a more cautious, responsible course than the Republican leadership here in the House. And I hope that the result will be a sounder, more balanced bill that all of us can and should support.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today the Science Teacher Scholarships for Scientists and Engineers Act. The bill is cosponsored by my colleague Mr. Wu, and I appreciate his support. The bill would authorize a program of one-year, $7500 scholarships to those with bachelors degrees in science, mathematics, or engineering, or those nearing completion of such degrees, to enable them to take the courses they need to become certified as K-12 science or math teachers. From a series of Science Committee hearings last year about the state of science and math education, and from talking to constituents, students, and educators at home, it has become clear to me that we need to improve science and math education in this country. In particular, I've come to understand that poor student performance in science and math has much to do with the fact that teachers often have little or no training in the disciplines they are teaching. While the importance of teacher expertise in determining student achievement is widely acknowledged, it is also the case that significant numbers of K-12 students are being taught science and math by unqualified teachers. Not only do we need to ensure a high quality of science and math education for our students, but we also need to ensure there is sufficient quantity of trained teachers available to teach them. The bill I am introducing today would begin to address the shortage of qualified science and math teachers by providing an incentive for individuals with the content knowledge to try teaching as a career. Most students emerge from college with a heavy debt load--and studies have shown that average debt has tended upward, since college tuition costs have been increasing faster than inflation. So scholarships would be particularly beneficial for those considering entering the teaching field where starting salaries are relatively low. Mr. Speaker, to keep economic growth strong in the long-term, we need continued innovation. But innovation doesn't happen by itself--it requires a steady flow of scientists and engineers. My bill can begin to help provide this steady flow and ensure that our future workforce will be prepared to succeed in our increasingly technologically based world. With estimates of 240,000 new science and math elementary and secondary teachers needed over the next decade, we must work to provide the incentives now to bring these teachers into our schools. For the information of our colleagues I am submitting a summary of the bill. Science Teacher Scholarships for Scientists and Engineers Act

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I salute my friend Carroll Beach, President of the Colorado and Wyoming Credit Union Leagues, on receiving the 2001 Herb Wegner Memorial Award for Lifetime Achievement from the National Credit Union Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Credit Union National Association. I feel that Credit Unions exemplify the great American ethic of pulling together with our neighbors to accomplish worthy goals that we could not hope to achieve individually. Credit unions help to foster a much-needed sense of community. They are member-owned cooperatives, where members typically receive their dividends in the form of more favorable interest rates and lower fees. Since Carroll assumed control of Colorado's credit unions in 1973, the Colorado Credit Union system has grown from a handful of employees to 180 employees serving 1.4 million members. Nearly one out of three adults in Colorado belongs to a credit union. Credit union membership in Colorado has risen from 350,000 to 1.4 million under Carroll's leadership. Over the last three decades, Carroll has worked to improve access to credit unions, striving towards his stated goal of seeing a day when every American can access a credit union and own the financial institution that serves them. I commend Mr. Beach on his innovative and creative leadership of the Colorado and Wyoming Credit Union Leagues, and congratulate him on receiving this much-deserved honor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of this legislation being introduced today by my colleague, Representative DeGette. Representative DeGette has been a leader in the Colorado delegation in connection with the issue of wilderness designations of lands in our State managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and I am hopeful that the bill will serve to advance the debate on that issue. Conclusion of that debate is long overdue, and I am hopeful that we can get on with it. I am sure some will object to this bill and find reasons, both philosophical and technical, to oppose it. I am also sure others will argue for its intact passage without change or amendment. I expect that the legislative process will produce results that are not completely satisfactory to either of those groups. In my view, the bill outlines a good way to make progress--that is, through comprehensive legislation to address the majority of the BLM areas that have been proposed for wilderness. Of course, members of the delegation may also want to explore legislation dealing just with one or more of these areas, and I am ready to work with them on that approach as well. All wilderness bills eventually are about compromise and map-drawing. Introduction of this bill obviously is not the end of the wilderness discussions in Colorado, and I look for-ward to working with the rest of my colleagues in the delegation to seek the maximum feasible degree of consensus that can result in wilderness designations for BLM lands in our State.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today reintroducing a bill to designate Rocky Flats as a National Wildlife Refuge once that former nuclear-weapons site in Colorado is cleaned up and closed. This bill, the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001, is essentially identical to one I introduced last year on which action was not completed before the end of the 106th Congress. It will convert Rocky Flats into a National Wildlife Refuge, but only AFTER the site has been cleaned up and closed and a final Onsite Record of Decision has been submitted by EPA under the Superfund rules. And it includes specific provisions to make sure that the bill will not result in a less thorough cleanup. The bill has been developed through a process of collaboration with Senator Wayne Allard, who is introducing corresponding legislation in the Senate, and is cosponsored by Representatives DeGette, Tancredo, Schaffer, and Hefley. In shaping this legislation, Senator Allard and I have worked closely with local communities, State and Federal agencies, and interested members of the public. We received a great deal of very helpful input, including many detailed reactions to and comments on related legislation that I introduced in 1999 and discussion drafts that Senator Allard and I circulated earlier last year. Both Senator Allard and I recognize that introduction of legislation is only the initial step in the formal legislative process. We welcome and will consider any further comments that anyone may have regarding the bills we are introducing today. However, we believe that these bills address the points raised by the many parties in Colorado who are interested in this important matter. Here is a brief outline of the main provisions of the bills Senator Allard and I are introducing today, and the few points on which it differs from the earlier version of last year: Here's what the bill would do, with changes from last year's bill noted in italics: Maintain federal ownership of the property Preserve the Lindsay Ranch Homestead facilities Prohibit annexation of the site by any local government Prohibit through roads Allows up to 300 feet of land along Indiana Street to be used in the future for transportation improvements (conditional on support of local communities, conformance with DRCOG's Regional Transportation Plan, and minimization of any adverse impacts to the refuge) Require DOE to continue to cleanup and close the site Continue the federal government's long-term obligation for cleanup Require the DOE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an agreement document on how the land and natural resources will be managed during cleanup Requires the DOE to retain ownership of any long-term cleanup and pollution control facility (with consultation with federal and state agencies) Require DOE to cleanup the site under the levels established by the regulators, the public and interested state and federal agencies based on science, law and agreements reached with the public on appropriate cleanup levels (directs that the National Wildlife Refuge cannot be used to affect the level of cleanup) Direct that the refuge's management will be consistent with refuge- system laws, while allowing wildlife-dependent public use where appropriate and consistent with wildlife protection Create a public involvement process to advise the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on how the refuge should be managed and to address other issues such as use of the site for wind power research, perimeter fencing, and a visitor center Protect existing property rights, such as existing mineral rights, water rights and rights-of way for utilities--subject to reasonable conditions to protect cleanup actions and refuge resources Require the DOE to attempt to purchase mineral rights at Rocky Flats Allow the owners of any water-related easements on the site to do any needed surveys. Authorize the creation of a Rocky Flats Museum to commemorate the work done at this site in helping to win the cold war and its challenging cleanup legacy Require DOE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify funding needs The bill will not: Affect ongoing cleanup activities Allow for the reduction of the extent of cleanup based on the creation of a refuge Reduce the levels of funds allocated for cleanup work (cleanup and closure are to remain priorities) Transfer any existing land from the site for other purposes (except for the possibility of some land along the eastern boundary for transportation improvements along Indiana Street, possible leasing on the site for wind power research, and utility rights-of-way) Direct that a practice shooting range now on site remain when the site is converted to a wildlife refuge Let me take a moment to address a few of the more important issues that were raised by the local communities and other parties and how they are addressed in this bill. First, transportation issues. Rocky Flats is located in the midst of a growing area of the Denver metropolitan region. As this area continues to grow, pressure is being put on the existing transportation facilities just outside the boarders of the site. In addition, the Denver-metropolitan region has been constructing a beltway around the city. The last segment of this beltway yet to be completed or approved for construction is to be in the northwest section of Denver, the same general areas where Rocky Flats is located. The communities that surround the site have been considering transportation improvements in this area for a number of years-including the potential completion of the beltway, However, we are willing to continue to listen and to work with the local governments and the public on this issue. So, one of the questions on which Senator Allard and I sought comments was whether our bills should allow some use of Rocky Flats land to assist in addressing the transportation needs and future demands. We asked for and received the views of the public and the local communities. That input, along with the recent decision by the local communities to forego for now the construction of the beltway in the northwest region of Denver, overwhelmingly indicated that the bill should allow for possible availability of some land along Indiana Street along the eastern Second, the Rocky Flats Cold War Museum. This section of the bill authorizes the establishment of a museum to commemorate the cold-war history of the work done at Rocky Flats. Rocky Flats has been a major facility of interest to the Denver area and the communities that surround it. Even though this facility will be cleaned up and closed down, we should not forget the hard work done here, what role it played in our national security and the mixed record of its economic, environmental and social impacts. The city of Arvada has been particularly interested in this idea, and took the lead in proposing inclusion of such a provision in the bill. However, a number of other communities have expressed interest in also being considered as a possible site for the museum. Accordingly, the bills being introduced today provide that Arvada will be the location for the museum unless the Secretary of Energy, after consultation with relevant communities, decides to select a different location after consideration of all appropriate factors such as cost, potential visitorship, and proximity to the Rocky Flats site. Third, private property rights. Most of the land at Rocky Flats is owned by the federal government, but within its boundaries there are a number of pre-existing private property rights, including mineral rights, water rights, and utility rights-of-way. In response to comments from many of their owners, the bills acknowledge the existence of these rights, preserve the rights of their owners, including rights of access, and allow the Secretaries of Energy and Interior to address access issues to continue necessary activities related to cleanup and closure of the site and proper management of its resources. With regard to water rights, the bills protect existing easements and allow water rights holders access to perfect and maintain their rights. With regard to mineral rights, the bills urge the Secretaries of Energy and Interior to seek to acquire these rights from existing owners--but ensure that no funds from cleanup and closure can be used to accomplish this goal. Finally, with regard to power lines and the proposal to extend a line from a high-tension line that currently crosses the site, the bills preserve the existing rights-of-way for these lines and allows the construction of one power line from an existing line to serve the growing region northeast of Rocky Flats. Fourth, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) National Wind Technology Center. This research facility, which is located northwest of the site, has been conducting important research on wind energy technology. As many in the region know, this area of the Front Range is subjected to strong winds that spill out over the mountains and onto the plains. This creates ideal wind conditions to test new wind power turbines. I support this research and believe that the work done at this facility can help us be more energy secure as we find ways to make wind power more productive and economical. The bills we are introducing today preserve this facility. It is outside the boundaries of the new wildlife refuge that the bill would create and thus would be allowed to continue at its present location. In addition, NREL has been considering expanding this facility onto the open lands of Rocky Flats. The bill allows NREL to pursue this proposal through the public involvement process. Fifth, the bill does not include language to retain the existing shooting range on the site. This range--constructed by the DOE to train the site's security forces--has been used for local law enforcement training, and some have suggested that the bill should require it to remain available. However, under current cleanup plans the range is to be eliminated, and we are aware that both the public and local governments have concerns about the desirability of having such a range in a wildlife refuge. So, given the fact that the local governments are willing to work to locate an alternative facility, we have not included language in the bill to require that it remain. Finally, cleanup levels. As this legislation has been developed, some concerns have been expressed that the establishment of Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge could result in a less extensive or thorough cleanup of contamination that has resulted from its prior mission. Of course, that was not the intention of the bill I introduced in 1999 and it is definitely not the intention of the bills being introduced today. The language in these bills has been drafted to ensure that the cleanup is based on sound science, compliance with federal and state environmental laws and regulations, and public acceptability. The bills now tie the cleanup levels to the levels that will be established in the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA) for soil, water and other media following a public process to review and reconsider the cleanup levels in the RFCA. In this way, the public will be involved in establishing cleanup levels and the Secretary of Energy will be required to conduct a thorough cleanup based on that input. In addition, the bills require that the establishment of the site as a wildlife refuge cannot be used to affect the cleanup levels--removing any possibility of arriving at a lesser cleanup due to this ultimate land use. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to Senator Allard for his outstanding cooperation in drafting this important legislation. I am very appreciative of his contributions and look forward to continuing to work closely with him and the other members of the Colorado delegation in both the House and Senate to achieve enactment of this legislation. In the past, Rocky Flats has been off-limits to development because it was a weapons plant. That era is over--and its legacy at Rocky Flats has been very mixed, to say the least. But it has left us with the opportunity to protect and maintain the outstanding natural, cultural, and open-space resources and value of this key part of Colorado's Front Range area. This bill would accomplish that end, would provide for appropriate future management of the lands, and would benefit not just the immediate area but all of Colorado and the nation as well.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) in honoring the National Institute of Standards and Technology and its employees on the occasion of its centennial. The National Institute of Standards and Technology was chartered by Congress on March 3, 1901, as the Federal Government's first physical science research laboratory. Scientists, engineers and industrialists first advocated the establishment of a standards laboratory, pointing to the new challenges facing the U.S. as a rapidly industrializing world power. Beginning with just a staff of 12, NIST has grown to become a vital arm of the Department of Commerce's technology administration. In its first 100 years, NIST has partnered successfully with industry, science and government to establish the foundations for this country's technological advances. The resolution we are considering today appropriately calls NIST a crown jewel in the Federal Government, emphasizing its contributions to the Nation. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the work of NIST's laboratories in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. In 1950, to address the lack of laboratory space, NIST established a cryogenic engineering laboratory and radio facilities on land donated by the citizens of Boulder, Colorado. NIST facilities were expanded in the mid-1960s when NIST and the University of Colorado joined forces to create the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, known as JILA, a cooperative effort that has gained widespread recognition in atomic physics and other fields. This partnership between NIST and the University of Colorado has led to some amazing discoveries. Beginning in the 1970s, the discipline of cooling and trapping atoms was established in part by experiments with electrically charged atoms by researchers at the NIST Boulder campus. This work inspired Dr. William Phillips and his team to demonstrate both the trapping and the cooling of atoms well below the temperature limits generally believed possible. Dr. Phillips was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for this work. In 1995, using the same techniques of laser cooling and trapping of atoms, scientists at JILA cooled rubidium atoms to less than one- millionth of a degree above absolute zero. This was 300 times lower in temperature than ever achieved before, and created a new state of matter predicted decades ago by Einstein and the Indian physicist Bose. The Bose-Einstein condensate is widely hailed as one of the century's major achievements in physics. This research has enabled the design and construction of one of the world's most accurate clocks, which is used by NIST, in cooperation with the Naval Observatory, to maintain the Nation's time standard. This clock, which is called the NIST F-1, is so accurate that it will neither gain nor lose a second in 20 million years, something that is almost incomprehensible. If we think about this precise time information, it is needed by electric power companies, radio and television stations, telephone companies, air traffic control systems, the Global Positioning System, participants in space exploration, the Internet, and navigators of ships and planes. All need to compare their own timing equipment to a reliable, internationally-recognized standard, which NIST provides. Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the contributions NIST has provided to the Nation in the half century of their existence. As we approach the 50th anniversary of these labs in Boulder, I would like to raise my remarks on another issue in regard to the current state of the labs. Some know, and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) just mentioned it, NIST celebrated the completion of the NIST Advanced Chemistry Science Laboratory in Gaithersburg. After an $80 million investment, NIST can now boast another world-class facility in which to conduct more world-class research. Also at Gaithersburg just last year, ground was broken for the Advanced Measurement Laboratory, which has projected costs of over $200 million. Now that Gaithersburg's needs have been addressed, Boulder is next in line to receive critical funding for construction and maintenance projects. This, according to NIST's published plans, lists construction and maintenance project priorities for the labs. I am very hopeful that the new administration will recognize the value of the Boulder lab's contributions, and the necessity of upgrading these facilities so the scientists in Boulder can continue to contribute top-flight research. NIST's Boulder campus, as has the campus in Gaithersburg, has done much for the Nation and for Colorado, and it will continue to do so in the future. But in order to get the full value from the asset, we must invest in its upkeep. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Congress is acknowledging today the critical role NIST has played in helping build this country's science and technology infrastructure in the 20th century. This resolution also recognizes that NIST is poised to make significant contributions to even greater advances in the 21st century. I will continue to support NIST's work, and call attention to NIST's important contributions to ensure our ``crown jewel'' gets the credit it deserves. As always, I am grateful to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for working with me on this important resolution. Again, I salute NIST on the occasion of its 100th birthday, and urge the adoption of this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add a note to what the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) just said, that when we look at our colleagues on the Committee on Science, particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), he served at the JILA Laboratory in Boulder a number of years ago, and has the direct experience himself with the great contributions that these labs have provided. I know he would be here today with us if his schedule permitted.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution. It's been ten years since the Persian Gulf War and the allied victory in Operation Desert Storm. We learned a great deal during the war, perhaps most importantly that strong relationships with our allies and others were critical to building the kind of support necessary to see the war through. Those relationships have also been critical in maintaining pressure on Saddam Hussein in the years following the allied victory. The war also taught us that we can achieve our objectives--with minimal loss of life--thanks to our professionally trained troops and technologically advanced weapons systems. While we know that war inevitably entails loss of life, and that soldiers assume the risks of war, this realization doesn't make it easier to bear the news when a loved one is killed in service to our country. Today we honor the sacrifices of the 28 servicemen killed in February 1991 when an Iraqi Scud missile hit a U.S. Army barracks in Saudi Arabia. We extend our sympathy and thanks to their families, and we honor their memories. In the same spirit, we honor the contributions of those serving today in our armed forces. Every day they brave hardships in the name of defending our country and our freedom. We can never be grateful enough for what they do. This resolution also asks us to resolve to support ``appropriate and effective theater missile defense programs to help prevent attacks on forward deployed United States forces from occurring again.'' I am supporting this resolution for what it says and not for what some may believe it says. Just to be clear: Theater missile defense systems are different from the proposed national missile defense system, which continues to raise many questions and concerns that I believe must be addressed before deployment can be considered. There is no question that we must do all we can to defend our troops in the field. We should provide them with the best training, equipment, and weapons. We should also develop better technologies to protect them from incoming enemy fire. This means doing all we can to be better able to counter the kind of threat posed by Iraq's Scud missiles back in 1991. Mr. Speaker, this ten-year anniversary presents us with a duty and an opportunity. We have the duty to look back in honor of our servicemen, but we also have the opportunity to look forward to identify possible new solutions to longstanding regional problems. This is an opportunity for us to consider anew questions about our overall Persian Gulf policy--the viability of our current sanctions regime on Iraq, the importance of working with our allies in the region, and our overdependence on foreign oil. Along those lines, I was encouraged to learn today of Secretary Powell's proposal to refocus sanctions more narrowly on Saddam Hussein's military capabilities and ease the economic sanctions that have placed an unfair burden on Iraq's population, This is a step in the right direction. If we can help to bring stability to the region, we can rest assured knowing that our servicemen will be less likely to be put in harm's way in the future. Again, I stand with my colleagues here today to honor the memories of the U.S. soldiers lost in Operation Desert Storm. We will not forget their sacrifice.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would just echo the statements of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for his leadership in bringing it forward today. I am proud to join him, as always, as a cosponsor. People of African-American descent have been involved in the history of the West for centuries, at least since the time of Coronado. As the resolution before us notes, they were an integral part of the expansion into and settlement of Colorado and other western States by people from other parts of the United States. Notable among them were African Americans who served in the U.S. Army, often referred to as Buffalo Soldiers, especially by Native Americans, for whom the term was one of respect. In Colorado and elsewhere, African Americans were involved in ranching. By some estimates, fully one-third of the cowboys who have so greatly shaped our image of the West have been African Americans. In Colorado, they worked in the mines, labored in industrial towns like Pueblo, helped shape Denver and other communities, and were farmers as well. Today African Americans continue to make important contributions in Colorado to our economy, to our culture, and at the highest levels of our municipal and State governments. Together with fellow Coloradans, they look forward to this new century with hope and determination to make our State's future one of opportunity and achievement. But as we look forward, it is important that we not lose sight of the past and the distance that we in Colorado and in the Nation have come. For as we all know, we must remember the past if we are to understand the present and to build for the future. So the resolution before us is most appropriate, both as it pertains to a specific example of African- American pioneers, and as it calls for us to remember the larger story of which they were a part. As noted in the resolution before us, as my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) pointed out, Oliver Jackson and other African Americans joined to form an agricultural colony in northeastern Colorado early in the last century. The result was the founding of Dearfield, which reached a peak population of 700 before it, like so many other agricultural communities on the Plains, began to fade away. Today, the resolution notes, Dearfield is no longer an active community. Drought, the Great Depression, and other economic and social changes have left it abandoned, but Dearfield has not been forgotten. On the contrary, by passing this resolution, the House today will be saying that it is important for all of us in Colorado and in the rest of this country to remember the contributions of Oliver Jackson and the other settlers of Dearfield, and all of the other African-American pioneers in Colorado and the West. So again, I thank my colleague for bringing forward this resolution, and look forward to working with him to help increase public recognition and understanding of the importance of the Dearfield settlers and of other African Americans, the history of our State, and the West. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. speaker, I will vote for this bill, in the hope that its other supporters are as serious as I am about protecting Social Security and Medicare. Of course, that is what this bill is supposed to be about. But I think anyone who gives it a careful look will understand why I have my doubts. On the one hand, the bill would establish the principle that Social Security and Medicare are to be off-limits when Congress makes decisions about federal revenues. It would do that by making it against the rules to consider measures that would invade the Social Security or Medicare surplus. Its sponsors say that this will put both Social Security and Medicare into a ``lockbox'' to keep them safe. However, on the other hand there is some fine print in this bill suggesting that this ``lockbox'' is not all that secure. In fact, when you read the bill carefully, it looks like this `'lockbox'' is more like the treasure cave in the story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. Remember, the secret to opening that treasure cave was to know the passwords--``open, sesame.'' Well, it's exactly the same story here except that for this ``lockbox'' the passwords are ``Social Security reform legislation or Medicare reform legislation.'' Those are the passwords because under this bill the new rules to protect Social Security and Medicare will not apply to any bill that includes them. If you doubt that it is that simple, just read the bill. First it says that we will have these new rules--but then it says they ``shall not apply to social security reform legislation or medicare reform legislation.'' And it defines ``medicare reform legislation'' as a bill that ``includes a provision stating the following: For purposes of section 316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this Act constitutes medicare reform legislation'' and also defines ``social security reform legislation'' as a bill that ``includes a provision stating the following: For purposes of section 316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this Act constitutes social security reform legislation.'' So, regardless of what else may be in a tax bill or a spending bill, if it includes those magic words the new rules won't apply--because those are the passwords that will open the ``lockbox.'' Is it any wonder that some of us have our doubts about whether the ``lockbox'' is real? Is it any wonder that we have some fears about the reliability of this promise to protect Social Security and Medicare? Still, Mr. Speaker, today I will be guided by my hopes, not my fears. I will vote for this bill, and I will hope that the promise of its title--``The Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act'' is not a false one. But, to rephrase Ronald Reagan, I think that the best policy is to hope now--by voting for this bill--but when the tax and spending bills come, to verify by making sure that we fulfill the promise of protecting Social Security and Medicare for the future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, Colorado's national forests are among the things that make our state a very special place to live. But as our population increases, so do the pressures on our forests. That is why I strongly supported last month's adoption of new Forest Service rules for managing roadless parts of the national forests-- areas that, in the words of the final environmental impact statement on the new rules, ``possess social and ecological values and characteristics that are becoming scarce in an increasingly developed landscape.'' I think those new rules are both timely and welcome. They make good sense as a way to protect natural resources, provide more diverse recreational opportunities and preserve some of the undisturbed landscapes that are such a special part of Colorado and other Western states. This week, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman acted to delay the effective date of those new rules, so that they will take full effect in May instead of next month. According to the formal notice, the delay is intended to give the current Administration an opportunity to give the rules further review and consideration. I understand why the new Administration would want to review these new rules. But I hope that their action in delaying implementation does not signal an intent to weaken or abandon this important initiative. I am confident that a full and fair review will show that the new rules, developed through an extensive public process, reflect the highest standards of science-based public policy. I also think a fair review will show the rules are needed to protect the roadless areas--areas that are valuable for wildlife, support ecosystem health and the full range of native species, serve as important sources of clean water, and provide a bulwark against the spread of invasive species such as many of the weeds that plague Colorado's ranchers. Meanwhile, there have been some press reports suggesting that Congress might be asked to overturn the rules through legislation. I hope those reports are wrong. I do not think that is what we in Congress should be doing. In fact, I think we should move to strengthen, not weaken, the protection of the roadless parts of our forests. That is why I am today introducing a bill that would provide additional legal protections to roadless lands in the portion of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest within Colorado's Second Congressional District. My bill, the ``Northern Front Range Roadless Area Protection Act,'' would require the Forest Service to manage over 80,000 acres on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest as ``protected roadless areas.'' These lands--all within the Congressional District I represent--are areas that the Forest Service identified as roadless in its 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Arapaho- Roosevelt, and will be covered by the new roadless-area rules when those rules take effect. Further, most if not all of these areas would be appropriate additions to existing wilderness areas. The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest is within a few minutes' drive for more than 2.5 million people in the Front Range Denver-Boulder metro area. It is experiencing increasing use of all kinds, especially recreational use. So, at least with respect to some of its most valuable lands, I want to undergird the new Forest Service rules with a statutory requirement to protect the special qualities of these areas. Under the bill, these roadless areas would be managed under the ``recommended for wilderness'' management category in the existing Forest Plan until Congress decides otherwise. The bill would also require the Forest Service to study and evaluate these areas and make recommendations to Congress regarding their future management. That report would be submitted within three years. The bill will thus allow the Congress the opportunity to ultimately resolve the status of these roadless lands. Mr. Speaker, this bill is limited in scope and deals only with some of the lands in Colorado that need legislative protection. More will need to be done to respond to the pressures of growth on our national forests and other public lands. But I think it represents an important first step, and I will seek to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to have it enacted into law. Northern Front Range Roadless Area Protection Act Summary The bill would give interim protection to over 80,000 acres of roadless areas on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado's 2d Congressional District The forest, roadless areas, and the bill The Forest: The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes more than 1.5 million acres along Colorado's northern Front Range. It surrounds Rocky Mountain National Park and contains a number of designated wilderness areas. It contains a wide range of ecosystems and topography including level grasslands and peaks rising over 14,000 feet. It includes the rugged part of the Continental Divide seen from the Denver-Boulder metro area. Because of its proximity to 2.5 million people, it is heavily used by the public, and provides vital watersheds. Roadless Areas: The Forest Service's 1997 Revision of the management plan for the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest identified lands that qualify as roadless. The Clinton Administration developed new rules restricting certain activities in national forest roadless areas in order to protect their roadless character and other natural resource values. The Bush Administration has acted to postpone implementation of these rules in order to review their provisions. The bill would provide statutory interim protection to maintain the roadless quality of some Arapaho- Roosevelt roadless areas until Congress decides on their ultimate status. What the bill does Acreage Affected: The bill would apply to over 80,000 acres in 12 areas within the Second Congressional District (Boulder and Clear Creek Counties) that were identified as roadless in the 1997 forest plan. The bill would designate these areas as ``protected roadless areas.'' Management: The bill would require the Forest Service to manage these lands in accordance with the ``recommended for wilderness'' directive in the 1997 forest plan. This would: (a) prohibit timber harvesting; (b) prohibit motorized vehicles; (c) allow the location of ``hard rock'' minerals (gold, silver, etc.); (d) prohibit oil and gas leasing. Grazing: The bill would specifically allow grazing to continue under existing laws. Report: The bill would require the Forest Service to report to Congress in 3 years with their recommendations as to whether these lands should become wilderness areas or other land management status. What the bill would not do: Designate New Wilderness Areas: The bill does not designate any wilderness areas. Apply Forest-wide: The bill does not apply to the whole Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest only to specified roadless areas within the Second Congressional District. Address James Peak: The bill does not include the James Peak Roadless Area.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor Bill and Claudia Coleman for donating the largest gift ever given an American public university--$250 million--to the University of Colorado to be used to fund advanced research and development of innovative technologies to enhance the lives of people with cognitive disabilities. Today, approximately 20 million persons, or 7 percent of the U.S. population experience significant cognitive disabilities, such as mental retardation, autism, severe and persistent mental illness, traumatic brain injury, stroke, and Alzheimer's disease. Based on the Coleman's generous donation, the University of Colorado will establish the Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities. The Institute will focus on education, research, and the development of new technology and software programs to improve the quality of life for the cognitively disabled. The Coleman Institute at the University of Colorado, which will include all four campuses of the University, will help bring together many areas of engineering, medical and biomedical, clinical and brain research necessary to make a significant advance in understanding cognitive disabilities and developing future generations of assistive technology devices. I commend University of Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman for her vision in making the Coleman Institute the international center of excellence in developing adaptive assistive technologies, based on advanced biomedical and computer science research, for people with cognitive disabilities. This unprecedented gift is a tribute to the Colemans' generosity and vision, as well as to the University's growing reputation for work in developmental disabilities and assistive technology. I am proud to represent the University of Colorado's Boulder campus, and I look forward to aiding the Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities in realizing Bill and Claudia Coleman's worthy goal.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on his second day in office--also the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade--President Bush acted to reimpose the ``global gag rule,'' a policy begun in the Reagan years to restrict international family planning assistance. I am seriously concerned about what this step will mean for the more than 150 million women worldwide who currently want access to family planning resources. I am concerned as well that President Bush's action might be only the first step in a longer-term effort to chip away at women's reproductive rights. Not only would the reimposition of the ``global gag rule,'' keep women's rights advocates around the world from working to prevent the suffering that results from unsafe abortions, but such restrictions would also prohibit international family planning organizations from spending their own, non-U.S.-finds to provide legal abortion services or to advocate for changes in abortion laws in their own countries. In explaining this step, President Bush stated that he did not want taxpayer dollars to be spent to perform or promote abortions overseas. This is a misrepresentation of the nature of international family planning funding. Currently, no U.S. funds are spent to perform or promote abortions overseas, nor can they be under current U.S. law. President Bush also stated that he hoped the reimposition of restrictions would help make abortions more rare. But when the policy was previously in effect, it didn't achieve this stated goal. Instead, according to the Center for Reproductive Law and Politics, it reduced access to health care and caused more unintended pregnancies and more abortions. Anti-abortion activists remain adamantly opposed to using U.S. aid for international family planning programs. Yet as the Denver Post points out, an investment in these programs is important ``not only to save women from horrible deaths, but also to quell the population explosion in impoverished nations. . . . Using tax dollars to prevent unwanted pregnancies is far more cost-effective than spending huge sums to feed starving populations who remain unenlightened about family planning.'' Mr. Speaker, I agree, and for the benefit of our colleagues, I am submitting for inclusion in the Record the full editorial from the Denver Post, another editorial from the Boulder Daily Camera, and a letter to the Denver Post in opposition to the ``global gag rule'' written by former Colorado first lady Dottie Lamm, who also served as a delegate to the UN Conference of Population and Development in 1994. [From the Denver Post, Jan. 24, 2001] Global Gag Rule Backfires Nobody likes abortions--not the women who have them nor the activists who believe in a woman's right to choose. Yet the most adamant anti-abortion activists were rejoicing Monday when President Bush instituted a ban that likely will spur even more abortions in Third World countries. Bush banned federal aid from international organizations that perform or ``actively promote'' abortion as a family planning method. Yet those are the same groups that promote birth control so women can avoid abortions. And because illegal abortions are rampant in Third World countries, those organizations cannot eliminate abortion discussions from their services. Such groups must be able to counsel women who are seeking illegal abortions. Without such counsel, many women die during illegal abortions--and many don't learn about family planning methods that can make abortion unnecessary. The only way to stem the high rate of abortions in such countries is to make family planning readily available. But when the U.S. strips money from family planning groups, it also strips hope that Third World women will have access to birth control. So Bush's action, while oddly satisfying to anti-abortion forces, ironically guarantees that abortions will continue to increase. Opponents denounced it as an ``international gag rule'' on discussion of abortions, a move that would be unconstitutional if imposed in the United States. Yet some anti-abortion activists even question why the U.S. should provide any family planning to foreign countries. ``I'm not sure it's an effective use of our tax dollars . . .'' said Chuck Gosnell, president of the Colorado Christian Coalition. The Post, however, has historically upheld the need to support worldwide family planning--not only to save women from horrible deaths, but also to quell the population explosion in impoverished nations. Using tax dollars to prevent unwanted pregnancies is far more cost-effective than spending huge sums to feed starving populations who remain unenlightened about family planning. We deeply regret Bush's action Monday, and we urge the administration to reconsider the ultimate effects of such a ban.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the new Administration is reviewing some of the actions of their predecessors. That is understandable and in some cases may be appropriate. But I am concerned about reports that the review may lead to actions to delay or undo important recent initiatives to protect the public health and safety and the quality of our environment. For example, the Forest Service recently completed development of new rules for the management of the remaining roadless areas in the national forests. They are sound, balanced rules to protect these areas that are so important for fish and wildlife, clean water, recreation, and other values. They should be allowed to stand. Similarly, the National Park Service has acted to reduce the noise and other adverse effects on some parks for snowmobiles and aircraft. Here again, it would be a mistake to simply discard the work that has been done to respond to some very real problems. As the Denver Post noted in a recent editorial, ``the Park Service didn't react arbitrarily. The agency held extensive public hearings, conducted numerous scientific studies, and invited tens of thousands of written citizen comments. . . . the Park Service was responding to a public outcry, so the new policies in fact largely emerged from the grassroots. . . . Our beloved national parks must be preserved for future generations . . . the ban on loud, intrusive machines in these awe-inspiring wonderlands should remain.'' Mr. Speaker, I agree, and for the benefit of our colleagues, I am submitting the full Denver Post editorial for inclusion in the Record. [From the Denver Post, Jan. 23, 2001] Don't Disrupt Parks Policy President Bush should stand up to the narrow political interests who would wreck the tranquility of our national parks. For years, visitors at Yellowstone and Grand Canyon National parks often complained about snowmobiles in Yellowstone, and airplane and helicopter flights over the Grand Canyon. Clearly, the National Park Service had to craft a new policy responding to numerous citizens infuriated by the noise, pollution, wildlife harrassment and inappropriate machine use. In Yellowstone, for instance, visitors couldn't even hear Old Faithful's great roar over the constant whine of hundreds of snowmobiles. But the Park Service didn't react arbitrarily. The agency held extensive public hearings, conducted numerous scientific studies and invited tens of thousands of written citizen comments. Based on that input, the Park Service imposed the bans on Grand Canyon aircraft flights and snowmobiles in Yellowstone. However, some conservative Western politicians want President Bush to discard these thoughtful policies. In a Dec. 27 letter, U.S. Rep. Jim Hansen, a Utah Republican, told Bush he should overturn a host of Clinton administration public land policies. At the top of Hansen's promachine wish list: the ban on Grand Canyon aircraft flights and snowmobiles in Yellowstone and other national parks. Hansen wrongly asserts that these policies were imposed top-down and would harm good stewardship of our public lands. Nothing could be further from the truth. IN both the Yellowstone and Grand Canyon cases, the Park Service was responding to a public outcry, so the new policies in fact largely emerged from the grassroots. Moreover, most people who visit either park don't use the machines. Instead, they walk, hike, ski, ride horses or mules, or take the family car, public transportation or, in Yellowstone, the quieter snow coach tours. By contrast, of the 130,000 miles of snowmobile trails in the continental United States, only 670 miles are in the national parks. So Hansen's assertion that efforts to protect the parks' tranquility somehow restrict public access are just plain bizarre. Our beloved national parks must be preserved for future generations, not sacrificed for short-term political gamesmanship. Mr. President, as a Texan you know one of the greatest qualities about the West is the pockets of public land where it's still possible to find a little peace and quiet. Please don't ruin that irreplaceable experience at our national parks. The ban on loud, intrusive machines in these awe- inspiring wonderlands should remain.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Scott Flores, the outgoing chairman of the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, who has made significant contributions to the Hispanic community and to Colorado as a whole. The Denver Hispanic Chamber flourished under his leadership. It has been recognized not only as the Regional Hispanic Chamber of the Year for a nine-state region, but also as the leading large Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in the country, highlighting its important leadership role in the local and national Hispanic community. During the past year, Scott Flores has been the individual most responsible for uniting the seven Hispanic Chambers throughout Colorado into a single Colorado Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Alliance. Although this alliance is still in the development phase, it has the potential to unite Colorado Hispanics economically and socially. This new organization could help strengthen existing businesses and establish new ones. Additionally, this new organization will likely be partnered with the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, which could help to foster cultural unity and stimulate further achievements on the part of the Hispanic community in Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Mr. Scott Flores for his efforts. I have no doubt that his work with the Denver Hispanic Chamber will continue to benefit our economy and improve American equality and social justice.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a Good Samaritan named Scott Chase. Scott braved the freezing cold temperatures to save the life of an older woman, who was involved in a tragic accident on January 17. On that fateful Wednesday afternoon, long-time friends Shirley Maris and Mary Belle Hamm were meeting other friends for lunch at a popular restaurant in Southeast Denver. Ms. Maris parked in a space that appeared to be on a parking lot. In reality, she drove her car onto a 9-foot-deep pond that was covered with ice and 3 inches of snow. When the two women parked on the ice, their vehicle plunged into the water. Several onlookers witnessed this horrible incident. One of these witnesses was Scott Chase, who ran out of his company's boardroom and to the site where he saw Ms. Hamm in the vehicle's rear window. An employee from the restaurant broke the rear window with a propane tank and Scott dove into the water and rescued Ms. Hamm from the frigid water. Tragically, officers and rescue teams could not save Ms. Maris, who drowned after being trapped underwater for 20 minutes. However, Ms. Hamm was treated for hypothermia and released from the hospital. Mr. Speaker, the entire state of Colorado was saddened by Shirley Maris' untimely death. But we were also encouraged by Scott Chase's heroic efforts. When I hear of such courageous acts, it gives me great hope for our nation because it reminds me of the deep wells of compassion that many people shelter in their hearts. So today, I honor Scott Chase, who did not flinch and who did not brag--he merely did what any Good Samaritan would do. Scott is a model citizen, and we all can learn from his example.