Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, last November I heard with great regret of the death of the father of our colleague from Texas, Representative Gonzalez. And I listened with great interest to the remarks of the many Members who spoke about their memories of the days when our colleague's father had served here in the House of Representatives. The accomplishments, the character, the leadership of Henry B. Gonzalez are also well known to many Coloradans--as is shown by a column, entitled, ``America Lost a Visionary Leader in Henry B.'' in a recent edition of the Colorado Daily, a newspaper published in Boulder, Colorado. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am submitting a copy of that column, for inclusion in the Record. [From the Colorado Daily, Jan. 19, 2001] America Lost a Visionary Leader in Henry B. (By Yolanda Chavez Leyva) Henry B. Gonzalez, 84 died on Nov. 28 in a San Antonio hospital. Henry B., as he was affectionately known, was a fierce fighter for the poor. Throughout almost half a century of public service, he dedicated himself to civil rights and social justice. Gonzalez, who served 37 years in the House of Representatives before retiring in 1998, was the first Mexican American from Texas elected to that position. Although he stated that his politics were not shaped by his ethnicity, his championing of issues such as voting rights and economic opportunity made him a hero to many Mexican Americans. His career helped open the door to other Mexican-American politicians. According to political scientist Rodolfo Rosales, Gonzalez' election was ``a cornerstone'' in the creation of a middle-class Mexican-American leadership. Gonzalez was known for his controversial stands. He was willing to take on Republicans and members of his own Democratic Party to defend his principles. He advocated the impeachment of Presidents Reagan and Bush for the 1983 invasion of Grenada and the Iran-Contra scandal, respectively. He also investigated their friendly dealings with Iraq and Saddam Hussien prior to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. During his tenure on the powerful House Banking Committee, he led the investigation into the savings and loan scandals of the 1980s, which implicated five Democratic senators. In 1993, he was one of two Mexican-American representatives who voted against NAFTA. The other one was Rep. Matthew Martinez, D-Calif. Over the years, Henry B. survived many challenges to his political leadership. His political astuteness was unquestioned, his charisma obvious. As significant as his individual achievements were, however, it is important to understand the community from which Henry B. emerged. Gonzalez was a much a product of the Mexican-American community's dream of justice as a champion of its cause. Henry B. was born in 1916 to immigrant Mexican parents. He graduated from St. Mary's Law School in 1943. After working as a probation officer and deputy director of the Bexar County Housing Authority, he was elected to the San Antonio City Council in 1953 as a result of a grassroots campaign. Henry B. came of age in a Texas that regarded Mexican Americans as second-class citizens. Texas Rangers and other law-enforcement agencies kept Mexican Americans ``in line'' through intimidation and violence. The Southern legacy of segregation was still thriving, although both African Americans and Mexican Americans continually challenged the status quo. The poll tax worked to keep the poor from participating in the political process. Education was but a dream to many. In 1950, only one in 10 Mexican Americans graduated from high school in Texas. Less than one in 100 finished colleage, according to historian Rodolfo Acuna. Poverty and racism had closed the school door to the majority of Mexican-American children. In San Antonio, where Henry B. grew up, the streets of the barrios remained unpaved. Health care for the poor was negligible. Tuberculosis and other diseases were rampant. Despite the poverty and second-class citizenship, a dream of justice lived. In the 1930s, thousands of Mexican-American workers took to the San Antonio streets demanding better working conditions. In the 1940s and '50s, Mexican Americans used the Texas courts to demand equality. In the 1948 Delgado vs. Bastrop Independent School District case, the court ruled that the segregation of Mexican-American children in schools violated the 14th Amendment. In the 1954 case of Hernandez vs. The State of Texas, the court ruled that qualified Mexican Americans could not be excluded from juries. Gonzalez built on these victories. Following election of the state Senate in 1956, he opposed efforts by other Texas legislators to maintain segregated schools. When legislators introduced bills to withhold funds from integrated schools following the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, Gonzalez responded with a now-famous filibuster. Henry B. was often called ``a man of the people,``' and his defense of the common folk is well-known. He was, however, also a man who emerged from the people with a dream: a dream of social justice and equality.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. America is a country of many faces and we take pride in our nation's diversity. America is known as the ``great melting pot'' because it has welcomed many people from all over the world to share in living the American dream. Unfortunately, reality is often different than the dream for many Americans. The reality has often been ugly. Segregation was a blight on our nation that deprived millions of people equality in this country and was often used as a tool to oppress people and keep them from living up to their full potential. The system kept many people in the shackles of poverty. America needed a bold leader who, despite hardships and violent attacks, would continue to fight for justice. In 1955 frustration at the system of segregation boiled over in Montgomery, Alabama when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a city bus to a white passenger. She was consequentially arrested. Her act sparked a citywide boycott of the bus system by African-Americans that lasted more than a year. The boycott elevated an unknown clergyman named Martin Luther King, Jr., to national prominence and resulted in the end to segregation on city buses. Dr. King continued to promote peaceful protest and inspired a generation of Americans to work to end segregation and to fight for equality. His dedication to the cause of ending a broken system and bringing America's reality closer to the dream won him the Nobel Peace Prize and empowered many Americans. But his work is not done. Barriers to racial equality must still be torn down and many hearts still need to be healed. We cannot let Martin Luther King's work go unfinished; we have not reached the mountaintop yet. Even today, ethnic minorities, women, gays and lesbians, the disabled and others are often treated as if they are second class citizens. This must not stand. There is no reason why our nation, which prides itself in being the home of the free, should continue to treat people unequally. It is time to make the dream fully real. We must challenge ourselves to reach across divides and embrace and celebrate our nation's diversity. We as a country and as a people will be stronger because of it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today reintroducing a bill to provide additional time for Clear Creek County to sell certain lands that it received from the United States under legislation passed in 1993. Under that legislation--the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public Lands Transfer Act--the County took title to certain public lands with explicit authority for their sale, subject to two basic requirements: the County must pay to the United States any net proceeds realized after deduction of allowable costs, as defined through agreement with the Secretary of the Interior; and any lands not sold within 10 years after enactment of the Transfer Act must be retained by the County. In the last Congress, I introduced a bill to extend for an additional ten years the period during which the County will be authorized to sell these lands. This has been requested by the Commissioners of Clear Creek County because it has taken longer than anticipated for the county to implement this part of the Transfer Act. Additional time would mean a greater likelihood that the County can sell these lands, and thus a greater chance that the national taxpayers will benefit from payments by the County. Last year, the House passed the time-extension bill, but the Senate did not complete action on it. The bill I am introducing today is almost identical to the one the House passed last year. The only difference is that the new bill would extend until May 19, 2015 the time for the county to sell the lands in question--one year longer than under the previous bill. The additional year would be provided in recognition of the additional time that will now be required for the bill to be enacted into law.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3594, I rise in strong support of the bill. I am very glad that it is being considered today rather than being left to languish until the new Congress convenes next month. The bill would repeal a change in the tax law that was part of the ``Ticket to Work'' bill enacted last year. It evidently was included as a way to help offset the costs of that bill by increasing tax receipts. However, I do not think that it was necessary or appropriate. The 1999 change prohibited use of the ``installment method'' for calculating taxes on certain asset sales where the seller is paid over time rather than all at once. The effect of this is to make it much harder for small-business owners to sell their businesses or to seriously reduce the amount they can receive if they do sell. I have heard from many people in Colorado who have been and remain concerned about this aspect of the changes made in 1999. H.R. 3594 would repeal that, restoring the ability of sellers to spread their receipts--and taxes--over several years. I think that is a good idea, which is why I joined as a cosponsor. I urge the House to approve the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, while I have some serious reservations about this conference report, I will vote for it. One of my concerns relates to the way this bill has been brought to the floor of the House. We all expect that this will be the last real appropriations bill--as opposed to a continuing resolution--of the year, and that when it is enacted funding will be available to keep all federal agencies running. This is the good news about the parliamentary situation in which we find ourselves. The bad news is that we must vote yes or no, up or down, on an omnibus bill that few if any of us have had much time to review and that includes many substantive provisions that have little or nothing to do with appropriations and that may well be contrary to good public policy in several areas, including protection of the environment. This is not the way the Congress should do its business. It is not the fault of the House--we completed action on all the appropriations bills in a relatively timely way. But regardless of how we got here, this is not where we should be. From my perspective, there is also both good news and bad news about the bill's specific provisions. The good news is that the bill includes many provisions that will greatly benefit the nation as a whole and Colorado in particular. The bad news is that it includes some things that should not be included and omits some things that should be part of the conference report. Let me first mention some of the good news about the conference report. education While not all I would have liked, the conference report will allow for $6.5 billion increase over last year in education spending, with increased funding for Special Education Grants, the TRIO Program for minority and disadvantaged students and Head Start. The bill allows for an increase in Pell Grants, bringing the maximum award to $3,750. The conference report also provides $1.2 billion for school modernization. I think we should be doing more in several areas, including assisting school districts to repair schools and build new ones, but overall this is part of the good news. Health care provisions The conference report will increase the National Institutes of Health budget $2.5 billion. It also restores funding to health care service providers and managed care plans that provide health care services to Medicare beneficiaries that have been hard hit by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This is also good news, although more remains to be done. In 1997, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Balanced Budget Act, which made cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in order to balance the budget and secure the solvency of these two critical health care programs. However, these cuts have left America's hospitals in a state of crisis. Cuts in funding for disproportionate share hospitals (DSH), coupled with the skyrocketing costs for prescription drugs, have left some of the Nation's premier hospitals operating in the red and at the brink of bankruptcy. In late January 2000, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its revised baselines for fiscal year 2001 spending programs and projections for fiscal year 2001 through 2005. Budget officials project that Federal health program spending will be cut by more than $226 billion--approximately $123 billion more than Congress or the Administration ever intended. In addition, the BBA 97 backloaded the cuts in Medicaid, so the real hemorrhaging hospitals will experience will be in 2001 and 2002. During 1999 total Medicare spending fell by almost one percent--the first absolute spending reduction in Medicare history. And the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (which provides payment for inpatient hospital and nursing home services) fell by 4.4 percent. Simultaneously, our Nation's uninsured rate continues to climb, to the tune of 100,000 people every month. Cutting DSH payments while the uninsured rate increases does not make sense. At a time of budget surpluses, Congress should provide relief to our Nation's safety net hospitals that provide critical health care access to the uninsured, and I'm pleased we've addressed this is the bill. Also, the bill provides more funding for Medicare managed care organizations. Since the inception of the Medicare HMO Program three years ago, managed care companies have discontinued participation in the program, leaving many seniors scrambling to find another managed care plan or enrolling in traditional Medicare. Many HMOs argue that the reimbursement rates are not adequate enough for them to continue to provide coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, in the last two years in my district, the number of Medicare HMOs has dropped from five to one. Many seniors rely on managed care plans for affordable and quality health care. While I believe the funding in this bill for Medicare HMOs is only a band-aid solution to a growing problem, I think it's an acceptable move at this point. But I think we need to think seriously about how we will continue to provide quality health care coverage for our current and future retirees. noaa funding Another part of the good news is that the conference report is a definite improvement over the House bill in terms of the funding it provides for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA operates six of its twelve environmental research laboratories in Colorado, and Boulder has the largest concentration of NOAA research staff in the nation--300--as well as the largest concentration of university staff funded by NOAA research. We in Colorado are proud to be the home of so many top-quality scientists engaged in unraveling the secrets of the Earth. Earlier this year, the work of NOAA's scientists and researchers was threatened by much reduced FY 2001 funding levels in the House. Particularly devastating would have been cuts to NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. So, it is definitely good news that in the course of the conference process, funding was increased--almost to the higher Senate-passed levels. Although we can and should do better next year, I am glad that conferees were able to realize the value of NOAA's programs. nist funding It is also good news that the conference report includes increased the funding levels for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The earlier House-passed bill not only would have cut NIST's science programs, but also would have provided inadequate funding for critically needed repairs and maintenance for NIST's laboratories in my hometown of Boulder, Colorado. About 530 scientists, engineers, technicians, and visiting researchers are based at NIST-Boulder, where they conduct research in a wide range of chemical, physical, materials, and information sciences and engineering. But NIST's deteriorating labs--most of them 45 years old--mean that scientists can't do their work. So I am pleased that maintenance funds for NIST--Boulder have been increased in the final bill. I am hopeful that this is only the beginning of what must be a long-term commitment to maintenance and construction funding for NIST- Boulder. I will continue to fight to ensure NIST's needs are addressed. sbir reauthorization I am also pleased that the conferees saw fit to include the reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program in this omnibus legislation. This has been a long time in coming--the Senate and the House have spent most of the 106th Congress finetuning the SBIR reauthorization language. But we finally have a reauthorization bill that all parties can support and that will extend this important program through 2008. I come from an area of the country that is home to many innovative small businesses at the cutting edge in a number of fields. As creative as these companies are, they often struggle to come up with the funds necessary to refine their ideas, turn them into products, and to take those products to the commercial marketplace. This SBIR Program has filled a real need for these companies over the years, giving them easier access to capital and functioning as a seal of approval. It is an important source of funding for the ideas that will lead to our future prosperity, and I welcome the inclusion of its reauthorization in this omnibus bill. broomfield interchange I also want to express my appreciation to the Appropriations Committee for allocating $1 million to the City of Broomfield, Colorado to complete an environmental impact study on the U.S. 36--Wadsworth Blvd. Interchange. This will be an important step towards relieving traffic gridlock along this seriously overcrowded route that serves an area where growth and development have been occurring at a fast pace, and in particular a complex intersection that serves the Interlocken business park, the Jefferson County Airport, the Flatirons Crossing Mall, and the city--soon to be the county--of Broomfield. I greatly appreciated being able to work with the committee and with Broomfield to help provide this federal assistance to begin to unclog this transportation ``bottleneck.'' navajo code talkers I also am very pleased that the conference report includes legislative language similar to H.R. 4527, authorizing the President to present a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to the Navajo Code Talkers in recognition of their contributions to the Nation. Last year, a high school history teacher in my district, Jim Hamilton of Centarus High School in Lafayette, Colorado brought a group of students to Washington. Through meeting with Mr. Hamilton and his students, I learned that for several years he has been teaching his classes at Centarus High School the history of the Navajo Code Talkers service in World War II. Like many other Westerners, I am very familiar with the inspiring story of these Navajo Code Talkers, whose unique and highly successful communications operation greatly assisted in saving countless lives and in hastening the end of World War II in the Pacific. So, I am happy to have played a role in drawing our colleagues attention to the appropriateness of their receiving this long overdue honor. Now I have to mention some of the bad news about this conference report. Part of the bad news is that there are areas where the amounts included are short of what is needed. reca shortfalls One important example of a shortcoming is the funding for awards under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). RECA provides for payments to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases as a result of their exposure to radiation released during above-ground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of their exposure to radiation during employment in underground uranium mines. Some of my constituents are covered by RECA, as are many other Coloradans as well as residents of New Mexico and other states. On July 10th of this year, RECA was amended to cover more people and additional compensable diseases, to lower radiation exposure thresholds, to modify the medical documentation requirements, and to remove certain disease restrictions. These are improvements that I supported. Unfortunately, Congress has not appropriated sufficient money to pay all the awards that have been made under RECA. As a result, the Justice Department has had to send successful claimants letters--IOUs, in effect--indicating that payments must await further appropriations. And while this conference report does provide some $10 million for RECA payments, that still is far from adequate. In fact, the Justice Department tells me that an additional $70 million to $80 million would be required just to pay what the government already owes RECA claimants. We need to do better. We need to provide all the needed funds--but that is not all. We should act so that RECA payments will no longer be subject to appropriations, but instead will be paid automatically in the way that we now have provided for payments under the new compensation program for certain nuclear-weapons workers made sick by exposure to radiation, beryllium, and other hazards. other legislation provisions Finally, another part of the bad news about this conference report is that it also includes a number of legislative items that more properly should be considered on their own rather than as part of this appropriations bill. I want to highlight one of those provisions that is of particular importance to Colorado. animas-la plata project The conference report includes legislation to authorize a revised version of the Animas-La Plata project, in southwestern Colorado. In our state, few things have been so controversial for so long. The original authorization for an Animas-La Plata Project dates back more than thirty years, but for many years it seemed that nothing would ever come of that authorization. The idea was given new life in 1988 by enactment of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. By that Act, Congress ratified an agreement under which the two Ute tribes agreed that water from the project would resolve their water-rights claims and they and the other parties could dispense with litigation. However, since then more than a dozen more years have gone by without a resolution--and unless the current law is changed the tribes will have to decide either to go back into court or to continue to wait. So, I fully understand why the tribes and many others said it is time to resolve this matter. Like them, I am troubled about the time that has already elapsed without achieving a final resolution of these tribal claims and I am very uncomfortable with the prospect of reopening litigation that could be very long and costly for all concerned. In addition, the project that would be authorized by this legislation is not the same as the original proposal and in its revised form it has the support of the Clinton Administration. Still, while I think notable progress has been made, it is clearer that there is not--and may never be--complete consensus on either the environmental issues or the fiscal questions that over the years have been part of the debate about this contentious matter. Personally, I have serious concerns about the very idea of constructing a large water storage project as a way to resolve the kinds of water-rights claims that are involved here. I think that over the past century we have learned--or should have learned--that water projects like the one proposed here represent an old approach that is not very well-tuned to today's realities. They are costly, environmentally disruptive, and inefficient for many reasons, including the amount of water they simply lose through evaporation. In fact, it is because we have learned about these shortcomings that across the country we are seeing a greater emphasis on removing dams than on building new ones. In addition, as I said earlier I find it very unsatisfactory that the House must today vote on this strictly on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no opportunity to consider amendments or even a separate up-or- down vote on this or any other part of the overall conference report. It would have been much better if the House had had a chance to consider this matter separately under an open rule, to permit full debate on the legislation and consideration of amendments. We could have done that if the similar bill reported by the Resources Committee had ever been brought to the floor. When the Resources Committee debated that bill, I voted ``present'' even though, as I said, I found--and still find--it very hard to support even the scaled-down water project now being proposed. My vote in the committee was based on three things. First, because while I had--and still have--serious doubts about this project, I was persuaded that the time has come for the Congress to resolve this matter. Second, I recognized the West-wide significance of this project and believed the Congress in its entirety--and not just one Committee-- should have an opportunity to debate and vote on this matter. And there was a third reason--perhaps the most important one. It has to do with the involvement of the Ute tribes. If it were up to me alone, the Resources Committee would have considered a different bill and neither the bill the committee approved nor the Animas-La Plata provisions of this conference report would be before us. As I told the Resources Committee, I am hard pressed to see how the project that would be authorized by this bill can adequately provide the tribes with ``wet'' water, barring some future distribution system that will have significant environmental consequences--consequences that it may not be possible to fully and adequately mitigate. But it was my view--it is still my view--that I must take very seriously the fact that the tribes have asked for this project. I thought then--and I still think--it would not be right for me to substitute my judgment for theirs when it comes to the option they prefer. Whatever I may think about the merits of the project, I feel that I must respect their decision about what is best for them and their future. So, I did not oppose the action of the Resources Committee in ordering the bill reported to the House. I expected that the reported bill would by now have been brought up for debate. But, for whatever reasons, that did not happen. The Senate did give separate consideration to a similar measure, which it passed in October. Prior to passage, the Senate revised the bill, and I think the result was to improve it--particularly by making it even less likely that the bill could be construed as somehow waiving any of the requirements of applicable environmental laws or as limiting any judicial review in connection with this project. Had that Senate bill been considered separately here in the House, it would have been possible to amend it further to make this absolutely clear--something that I think would have been desirable even though perhaps not absolutely necessary. But, on balance, I support resolving this contentious matter in a way that is finally acceptable to the Tribes rather than allowing this issue to continue to languish. While I would have preferred that this Animas-La Plata legislation not be included in this conference report, I think it is sufficiently acceptable--particularly considering the desirable provisions of the conference report I have already mentioned--that I will support the conference report even though it is included.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5477, as amended, is legislation which addresses the concerns of seven Indian tribes in Southern California to provide that lands purchased in part with Community Development Block Grant funding are used for health care facilities unless alternatives are approved by all of the tribes. There have been a number of complicated issues with regard to the original version of this legislation; and through the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), those issues have been addressed. We appreciate the work of our colleagues on this legislation and support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we considered this bill last month I had some serious reservations about it, especially those parts dealing with oceanfront development, dredging, and other projects to be carried out by the Corps of Engineers. I thought the House should have had the chance to consider amendments that would have improved the bill and regretted that it was considered under procedures that did not permit that. However, I voted for the bill because I strongly support authorizing the important program of environmental restoration for the Everglades. The bill then went to conference with the Senate, and today we are considering a revised version that was produced in that conference. Compared with the original bill, the conference report is much improved and deserves to be passed and sent to the President for signing into law. As has been noted already, the conference report not only authorizes restoration work for the Everglades, it also includes important provisions to improve the way the Corps of Engineers carries out its work. I do not think they fully address all the changes that need to be made, but they are an improvement and deserve support. So I will vote for the conference report, and urge its approval by the House.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this resolution and I rise in its support. The resolution commends the men and women who fought the year 2000 wildfires for their heroic efforts in protecting human lives and safety and limiting property losses. As the resolution notes, this summer's wildfire seasons was the most severe in the last 50 years. Across the country, there were more than 85,000 wildfires that affected almost 7,000,000 acres of public lands and adjacent State and private lands--and more than 30,000 professional and volunteer firefighters were called upon to join in fighting them. These were men and women from all parts of the country, including members of the Armed Forces, and also 1,800 men and women from Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Mexico. In Colorado, though we were more fortunate than some of our western neighbors, we had several major fires along the Front Range and in other parts of the state. In addition, Coloradans joined in fighting fires in Montana, Idaho, and elsewhere. As the resolution says, without their hard work and dedication, there could have been even greater loss of lives and the loss of property could have been even greater than it was. So it is very appropriate for the Congress to commend all those who joined in this effort, and to remember and mourn the 16 persons who died while fighting these fires. I urge adoption of this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to instruct. Right now, as the autumn leaves are falling, is an excellent time to emphasize the importance of LIHEAP specifically. But we also need to focus on this country's overall energy situation. We have all heard the statistics: Domestic crude oil stocks are at a 24-year low, which is translating into significant price increases in propane, kerosene and other forms of heating fuels. Natural gas prices have increased by 40-50% over the past year, and with low storage levels, increased used of natural gas for electric generation, and higher industrial use, we can only expect higher prices to come. Meanwhile, gasoline prices remain high--a reality that constitutes to highlight our dependence on foreign oil. Today we are importing significantly more oil than we did during the energy crisis in the 1970s. So putting enough money into funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--or LIHEAP--is critical for low-income families this winter. In September, I urged the President to release $4 million in emergency LIHEAP funding for Colorado. Shortly after that, he did release emergency funds--something for which all Coloradans should be appreciative. But that action by the President needs to be followed by Congressional action. We need to increase the overall LIHEAP funding for fiscal 2001. Remember, two-thirds of LIHEAP households have incomes of less than $8,000 per year and even with the assistance, the average LIHEAP family spends over 18 percent of its income on home energy costs, compared with 6.7 percent for all households. So, in a time of higher fuel prices we need to act to make sure our low-income senior citizens and children need not be forced to be cold or to choose between heating and eating. But beyond that, there is a broader question to consider--how can we avoid these energy crises in the future? What should not be focused just on the short-term issue of oil prices. We also need to be addressing the core problem: our continued excessive dependence on petroleum. We need to be actively and strongly promoting alternative energy and increasing our energy efficiency. We need to do it for the environment--and also because it promotes our national security and strengthens our economy. By promoting these alternatives, we're making one of our most valuable investments in America's future. These investments can stimulate the private sector, and jobs, reduce our reliance on imported oil, and improve our air and water quality. So I urge adoption of this motion, for increased support for LIHEAP, and I urge all of us to work together to strengthen our national commitment to clean energy.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I want to rise in support of this very important motion to instruct. Over the last year, I have taken the opportunity to visit every school in my district, and I have seen students trying to learn in hallways, in bathrooms, in closets, and cafeterias. It is time to do something to help our local school districts. This is not about the Federal Government stepping in and telling local school districts what to do, it is about working in partnership with our school districts all over the country, whether they be in rural or urban or suburban or fast-growing districts. I urge this body to support the motion to instruct. There is nothing more important we can do for our future and for our children. I rise today in support of the School Construction Motion to Instruct Conferees, because I believe the last days of this Congress present us with a clear choice. We can help communities hire 100,000 new teachers, reduce class size, and modernize schools or we can pass block grants that don't ensure that a single new teacher will be hired or a single classroom built. My district, the Second Congressional District of Colorado, is a microcosm of the American West. It is urban, suburban and rural, high growth and unspoiled mountain communities. For all of my districts diversity of terrain and community size, it is a district of crumbling schools. Since coming to Congress last year, I have traveled to every high school in my district. I can tell you there are far too many kids crammed in classrooms of 30 or more and far too many students trying to work in modular or temporary spaces like trailers. One High School I visited (one of the newer schools) is already surpassing its growth projections. High Schools built in the 1970s and designed for graduating classes of 200-300 students, now face numbers that are two and three times that. I am not happy to be here on a Saturday morning, nearly a month into the fiscal year, to encourage the Majority to make good on their stated goal of improving education. I would rather be at home with my family, among my constituents, but I am here because a firm commitment to school modernization and construction is needed nationwide. With this vote we can send a message to the Majority that it is time to target funds to build much needed new schools and to rebuild our crumbling schools. While time is running short, I believe there is still time to do right by our nation's children.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the companion House legislation, I support the passage of this Senate measure so it can go to the President for signature into law. This bill is important for the country, and particularly for Colorado because it would authorize establishing a National Historic Site at the site of the Sand Creek Massacre--an event that for more than a century has been regarded as one of the most emotionally charged and controversial events in American history. On November 29, 1864, Col. John M. Chivington, leading about 700 soldiers of the First and Third Colorado Volunteers, attacked a village of about 500 Cheyenne and Arapaho people. These people were under the overall leadership of Black Kettle, and had camped on Sand Creek at the direction of Major Scott Anthony, who commanded Fort Lyon, about 40 miles to the south. By day's end, the soldiers had killed at least 150 people, including women and children. The massacre resulted in almost instant controversy, which ultimately led to three federal investigations, all of which condemned Chivington's actions. By the 1865 Treaty of Little Arkansas with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, victims of Sand Creek received minor compensation for their suffering and loss of property. While some efforts were made to understand the massacre, place blame on the responsible parties, and compensate the tribes, little was actually done. Many people, including Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, visited the site and collected artifacts of all kinds. The land involved later was used for large-scale cattle operations, and eventually small private landowners farmed and grazed the property. As time passed, evidence of the massacre slowly disappeared. Although the event continued to be remembered, mostly by the tribes and historians, the only commemoration of the massacre was a simple granite marker placed near the site by the local community in 1950. In 1998, Public Law 105-243 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to identify the location and extent of the Sand Creek Massacre and to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the site as a unit of the National Park System. Starting in 1998 a variety of techniques and methods were used to locate the site of the Sand Creek Massacre. These included a thorough research of written records, archaeology, geomorphology, aerial photographic analysis, traditional tribal methods and recording the oral traditions of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, the Northern Cheyenne and the Northern Arapaho. Once the location of the site was identified, the next task was to determine national significance and suitability and reasonability of the site as a unit of the system. To be eligible for consideration, National Park Service management policies state that an area must possess nationally significant natural, cultural or recreational resources; be a suitable and feasible addition to the system; and require direct NPS management instead of protection by some other governmental agency or private sector. The Special Resource Study for the Sand Creek Massacre site, completed in July 2000, concluded that the area is nationally significant. I agree with that assessment. The Sand Creek Massacre site possesses exceptional value in illustrating and interpreting the history of U.S.- Indian relations in the American West. The Thus, a National Park System unit at Sand Creek would provide an opportunity for Americans to better understand the significance of the massacre, the chain of events that led to it, the relationship between Indians and whites during the mid-to late-19th Century, the devastating effects of the massacre upon the Cheyenne and Arapaho peoples, and its far reaching repercussions, many of which linger today. The site also retains a high degree of physical integrity, and its isolated setting will give visitors an opportunity to contemplate the complexities of the human tragedy that unfolded there. The Interior Department's Special Resource Study also concluded that Sand Creek is both suitable and feasible as a unit of the National Park System--suitable because it represents a cultural theme that is not already adequately represented in the system, and feasible because the area taken as a whole is of sufficient size and configuration to ensure long-term resource protection and accommodate public use. S. 2950 would authorize the establishment of Sand Creek National Historic Site. The unit would be established once the Secretary of the Interior determines that sufficient lands have been acquired to provide for the protection and commemoration of the Sand Creek Massacre. Lands are identified on a map dated July 1, 2000 and would be acquired through donation, purchase from willing sellers or exchange. Priority for acquisition is given to the site containing the historical member. Keys to managing the site would be protection of the natural and cultural features that and critical to telling the story of Sand Creek; and cooperation and consultation with the tribes in the development of management plans and educational programs. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by commending the senior Senator from Colorado, Senator Campbell, for introducing this bill and for all he has done to make it possible for this bill to be before the House today. I urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the companion House legislation, I rise in support of this important bill to designate the Spanish Peaks as wilderness. Enactment of this legislation has been delayed far too long. The mountains we call the Spanish Peaks are two volcanic peaks in Las Animas and Huerfano Counties. Their Native American name is Wayatoya. The eastern peak rises to 12,893 feet above sea level, and the summit of the western peak is at 13,626 feet. These two peaks were landmarks for Native Americans and for some of Colorado's other early settlers and for travelers along the trail between Bent's Old Fort on the Arkansas River and Taos, New Mexico. This part of the San Isabel National Forest has outstanding scenic, geologic, and wilderness values, including a spectacular system of more than 250 free-standing dikes and ramps of volcanic materials radiating from the peaks. These lands are striking for their beauty and are also very valuable for wildlife habitat. Since 1977, the Spanish Peaks have been included in the National Registry of Natural Landmarks, and the State of Colorado has designated them as a natural area. The Forest Service first reviewed them for possible wilderness designation as part of its second roadless area review and evaluation and first recommended them for wilderness in 1979. However, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980 instead provided for their continued management as a wilderness study area--a status that was continued on an interim basis by the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993. In short, Mr. Speaker, the Spanish Peaks are a very special part of Colorado. As I said, their inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System has been too long delayed. In fact, I had hoped that designation of this area as wilderness would be completed two years ago after the House passed a Spanish Peaks wilderness bill sponsored by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, and Representative McInnis. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on that measure, so it was necessary to start again in this Congress. And again it has taken longer than I would have liked--the House passed a bill more than a year ago, and the bill now before us was passed by the Senate back in April of this year. But, better late than never. This bill does differ from the prior Skaggs-McInnis bill in a few respects, and in particular by the exclusion from wilderness of an old road, known as the Bulls Eye Mine Road, and the inclusion of language related to that road. There have been some questions about the scope and effect of that language. However, in a floor colloquy when the House debated the companion legislation last year the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Mr. McInnis clarified matters-- and the committee report on the Senate bill echoes that colloquy. That report says: ``Section 3(a) addresses the management of the Bulls Eye Mine road. The subsection directs the Secretary of Agriculture to allow for the continuation of Like the House colloquy, this report language is an important part of the legislative history of this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is the third wilderness bill involving lands in Colorado that has passed during this Congress. I have supported all of them, because I think we need to make it a priority to protect our state's open spaces and wilderness areas, and I think we should be proud of their enactment. But much more remains to be done. Still pending in the Resources Committee are two wilderness bills I have introduced, dealing with the James Peak area and with lands within Rocky Mountain National Park, as well as a very important bill by our colleague Ms. DeGette that breaks important new ground in terms of protecting wilderness areas on public lands in Colorado managed by the Bureau of Land Management. I had hoped that before now all these measures would have been given consideration in our Committee and here on the floor of the House. But that hasn't happened. So, if I have the opportunity to serve in the next Congress, I will do all I can to have them considered next year. Meanwhile, I urge enactment of the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), I strongly support passage of this bill to provide for an expansion of the Great Sand Dunes National Monument in Colorado and its redesignation as a national park. I want to thank again my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), for his leadership in making it possible for the House to consider this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, the Great Sand Dunes National Monument is one of Colorado's gems. The remarkable dunes within its boundaries exist because of a set of very unusual circumstances. They are also part but only part of a complex ecosystem that includes adjacent lands. This natural interconnective system includes towering peaks soaring 14,000 feet above sea level, an intricate underground water supply, and a vast valley filled with wonderful wildlife and rare plants. The natural resources of the area are complemented by a rich human history that includes American Indians, Spanish explorers and the mountain men. All of these elements culminate in the amazing site of sand dunes reaching hundreds of feet high piled up against the rugged snow capped Rockies. Enactment of this bill will authorize the acquisition of key parts of adjacent lands from willing sellers. That will allow not just an expansion of the national monument but also for boundary revisions of the San Isabel National Forest and for establishment of a national wildlife refuge. This will protect the Dunes and also protect the many lives that depend on the water and other resources of the affected lands. Physically, these dunes have a long geologic history. Politically, their protection is an example of one of the most important conservation laws on our books, the Antiquities Act. That law gave President Hoover the authority for establishment of the national monument and it gave Presidents Truman and Eisenhower the authority to enlarge it. The Antiquities Act has proved its value over the years. Since its enactment, almost every President, starting with Theodore Roosevelt, has used it to set aside some of the most special parts of our public lands as an enduring legacy for future generations. In some instances, Presidential action has been controversial, but they have stood the test of time and nowhere more than with the Great Sand Dunes and other national monuments in Colorado. We are very proud of the special places that have been set aside in our State. We do not want to abolish the Colorado National Monument. We do not want to weaken the protection of Dinosaur National Monument. We highly prize the archeological and other values of Yucca House and Hovenweep Monuments, and we are very protective of both the Great Sand Dunes National Monument and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. We know the values of these areas. That is why last year the Colorado delegation worked together to further expand the Black Canyon Monument and to redesignate it as a national park. That is why I strongly support this bill. Like the Black Canyon, the Great Sand Dunes are a remarkable natural wonder, visible for many miles and attracting the interest of ordinary visitors as well as geologists, biologists, and other scientists. Together with the adjacent lands addressed by the bill, they are part of an array of diverse natural, environmental and scientific resources that the Department of Interior has found deserving of inclusion in our national park system. In short, this is a good bill. It has broad support among our Coloradans, including both Senators, our governor and our State's attorney general. It is supported as well by the Clinton-Gore administration. I urge its approval by the House. Currently, the Great Sand dunes National monument covers approximately 38,000 acres in the San Luis Valley of south central Colorado. The current monument boundary includes only the dunes themselves, which, at over 700 feet in height, are the tallest in North America. The dunes, however, are only one part of a highly complex system that includes the extremely fragile and vulnerable sand sheet, the surrounding watershed, and the underground aquifer, all of which are integral to the flow of water and replenishment of sand that created and maintains the dunes. These critical elements of the system are located mostly outside of the monument boundaries, on Federal, State, and private lands. Expanding the boundaries of the national monument to include the entire natural system, as provided for in S. 2547, will help to ensure the long-term preservation of the dunes. The bill will also help to address long-standing concerns surrounding protection of the water resources of the San Luis Valley. A large ranch, known as the Luis Maria Baca Grant No. 4, is located to the west of the existing national monument and contains key lands in the sand sheet and water resources that support the dune system, as well as other wetlands, rich wildlife habitat, and a diversity of ecosystem types. In 1986, the private owners of the Baca property attempted to obtain a water right to pump as much as 200,000 acre-feet-per year from the unconfined aquifer beneath the land to communities along Colorado's Front Range. The effort failed when the courts dismissed their claims, and the owners subsequently sold the property. The potential for development and export of the water, however, is still a major concern for residents of the valley because of the potential for such a project to affect the availability of water for irrigation and other local uses. S. 2547 would authorize the Federal acquisition of the Baca property, incorporating parts of the property into a national park, national wildlife refuge, and the existing national forest. The legislation requires the Department of the Interior to work with the State of Colorado to protect the water dependent resources of the dunes while not jeopardizing valid existing water rights. S. 2547 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Great Sand Dunes National Park when the Secretary determines that land having a sufficient diversity of resources has been acquired to warrant its designation as a national park. The national park will include the existing national monument (which will be abolished when the national park is established), as well as adjacent lands located generally to the west, including the Baca property and other State, private, and Federal lands which would be acquired by or transferred to the National Park Service. In addition, S. 2547 establishes the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve from lands that are currently included in the Rio Grande National Forest. Administrative jurisdiction over these lands is transferred from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior to be managed as a unit of the National Park System. Finally, S. 2547 authorizes the Secretary to establish the Baca National Wildlife Refuge after determining that sufficient lands have been acquired to constitute an area that can be efficiently managed as a National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge would be comprised of the western portion of lands acquired from the Luis Maria Baca Grant No. 4, as well as adjacent State and private lands, and land currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management. As noted by Stephen Saunders, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Park, this legislation is an excellent example of what Congress and the Administration can accomplish when we work together. In December of last year Secretary Babbitt traveled to Colorado and met with Senators Allard and Campbell, Congressman McInnis, Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, and other Coloradans to explore the threats to the sand dunes and the opportunities to preserve them. In that meeting--which some in the Colorado press immediately called the Summit at the Dunes--it became evident that there was broad agreement about what needs to be done, and about the need to work together to make it happen. Since then, the Secretary and others in the Department have worked closely with the Colorado Congressional delegation, the state government, and others in reaching agreement on the broad outlines of this legislation. The bill before the House is the result of that process. It is supported by Colorado Senators and Representatives of both parties, by Governor Bill Owens, a Republican, and by the Attorney General of Colorado, Ken Salazar, the highest ranking Democrat in the state government, who, as a native of this part of the State, understands this issue especially well. It has been editorially endorsed and is supported by people throughout Colorado. It deserves enactment. Statement of Ken Salazar, Attorney General of Colorado, on S. 2547, Great Sand Dunes National Park Act of 2000 I offer this statement to express my strong support for S. 2547, which redesignates the Great Sand Dunes National Monument as a national park and adds protection to the rare geological and ecological area within and surrounding the current Monument. This action will protect and enhance one of the great ecosystems in the Sangre de Cristo mountain range, as well as head off damaging water export schemes that threaten the existence of that ecosystem. The San Luis Valley in Colorado is the largest, highest alpine valley in the country with an average elevation of over 7,000 feet. The Valley extends 140 miles from the divide with the Arkansas River on the north to the San Antonio Mountains in New Mexico to the south. The Valley spans about 70 miles east to west, from the Sangre de Cristo Mountain Range to the San Juan Mountain Range. The headwaters of the Rio Grande are located in the San Juans above the town of South Fork. The Valley has a colorful and rich heritage starting with the Native American tribes, the first Colorado settlements in the 1850's, and a history of agriculture and mining. The Great Sand Dunes became a national monument in 1932. The Dunes cover 39 square miles and sit at the center of one of the most extensive wetland systems in the Rocky Mountains. The Dunes are inextricably tied to the flows of Sand Creek and Medano Creek, the latter of which not only transports sands, but exhibits an interesting and rare phenomenon known as a ``pulsating'' or ``surge'' flows, creating mini-waves in the creek. The government has obtained reserved rights for those creeks. The Dunes and the surrounding area overlie the groundwater system on which the features of the Dunes and adjacent wetlands rely. The San Luis Valley in Colorado has unique hydrologic characteristics. Underlying the lands in the Valley are two aquifers: the upper aquifer is known as the ``unconfined'' or ``shallow'' aquifer, the lower aquifer is called the ``confined'' aquifer. These aquifers interact with the surface streams to create a delicate hydrologic balance within the Valley. The agricultural economy and the wildlife values are dependent on maintaining that balance. Although there is a considerable amount of water in the confined aquifer, pumping that water to the surface will disrupt the overall balance. The State Engineer recognized this in 1972, when he stopped issuing well-permits. S. 2547 recognizes that some lands adjacent to the Dunes contain important portions of the sand dune mass and the ground water system on which the sand dune and wetland systems depend. S. 2547 provides the Secretary of the Interior with authority to protect this hydrologic system by purchasing lands surrounding the dunes, thus protecting the aquifers from being significantly depleted. The State of Colorado, along with New Mexico and Texas, is party to the Rio Grande Compact, which allocates waters of the Rio Grande among the three states. Under the 1938 Compact, Colorado must make deliveries to the state line pursuant to a schedule based on the amount of flows in the river. The State Engineer closely regulates all withdrawals of water from the stream system and connecting groundwater system in order to make Colorado's Compact deliveries. The Closed Basin Project, located in the San Luis Valley, is a federal project, authorized by the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 to provide water to local federal reserves and to assist Colorado in making its Compact deliveries. The Project captures water historically discharged by evapotransporation from water on the surface or in the soil or by native plant life. That water is then used to augment the flows of the Rio Grande, assisting Colorado in meeting its Compact delivery obligations and the United States in meeting its treaty obligations to Mexico. Viability of the project is dependent upon maintenance of the delicate hydrologic balance in the Valley. The Baca Grant No. 4 is a 100,000-acre parcel of land located just north and west of the Great Sand Dunes National Monument. In 1986 American Water Development, Inc. (``AWDI'') sought the right to withdraw 200,000 acre-feet of ground water per year from the aquifers underlying the Grant. AWDI's plans met with strong opposition from the water users, the State, and the United States, all of whom spent a great deal of time, effort and funds to protect the Valley resources. The United States opposed the project not only because of its effect on the Sand Dunes, but also because of the damage that would be sustained by the Closed Basin Project and the national wildlife reserves in the Valley. The water court found that the withdrawals of groundwater proposed by AWDI would lower the water level in the unconfined aquifer, depleting flows in the natural stream system and significantly reducing the annual yield of the Closed Basin Project. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the water court. Water users and the State of Colorado have been concerned about a new project that threatens the hydrologic balance in the Valley. The project, billed as the ``No Dam Water Project,'' is sponsored by Stockman's Water Company, successors in interest to AWDI. The project proposes the transbasin export of up to 100,000 acre- feet of confined aquifer water from a well field on the Baca Grant No. 4. We know that the withdrawal of any water will affect the system overall. Over the last seven years, the community has made efforts through The Nature Conservancy to acquire land near the Sand Dunes in an effort to protect this natural resource. Last year, The Nature Conservancy purchased over 50,000 acres of land in two ranches known as the Zapata Ranch and the Medano Ranch located directly adjacent and south of the Sand Dunes National Monument. The federal government has also acquired another parcel of land in the area known as the White Ranch for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge system. S. 2547 will assure further protection of the ecosystem. I strongly support the creation of the Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve as provided in S. 2547. The bill contains sufficient language to protect existing water rights and provides that the Secretary shall obtain any new water right in accordance with federal and State law. Further, if lands on the Baca Grant No. 4 are acquired, all water rights and water resources associated with the Grant shall be restricted for use only within the park, preserve, or immediately surrounding areas of Alamosa or Saguache Counties in Colorado. This protects the Valley from future speculative water projects intended to export water to other basins within and outside the State of Colorado, which would be damaging to the Sand Dunes and its ecosystem. S. 2547 will preserve a very unique and outstanding resource in this country, the Sand Dunes and their associated resources. It will also protect the delicate hydrologic balance of the San Luis Valley, assuring the resources necessary to sustain the Sand Dunes. I am committed to working with Congress and the Administration to achieve these laudable goals. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to add a final word. I urge passage of this bill. I think it is the right thing to do for the State of Colorado. It is the right thing to do for the country. My colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), has made a powerful argument. It is the right thing to do for the citizens of the world who would come to see this very unique area that starts with the Sand Dunes in a low elevation and rises to 14,000-foot peaks. I hope the House will do the right thing. Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I had two comments I wanted to add to the debate this evening. I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), that this is not just a question of the third district in Colorado; it is a question I think for all of Colorado and really for all of the Nation; and that is why I support the bill, because I believe it will be good for Colorado, and it will be good for the Nation. I think it is important to bring it to the House and let all 435 of us have our say on this idea, that we would create a national park. The other thing I want to add just from a personal point of view is that when you go to that area and you look at the Sand Dunes and their uniqueness, I agree with the gentleman, if it was just the Sand Dunes we were talking about, they might not rise to the level of a park. But when you add in this very diverse set of ecosystems that rise to the 14,000-foot level, it is truly unique, and I believe truly worthy of national park status. That is why I support this legislation, and I think my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), has been right in bringing this question forward to the full House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4271, the National Science Education Act, an important bill that recognizes the need to educate for the future. I do have some concerns about one part of the bill that would permit allocation of federal funds to private schools. I would have preferred for that to have been omitted. However, the rest of the bill deserves enactment. So, I will support sending the bill to the Senate, in hopes that it will be further improved to the point that it can be supported without reservation by anyone. I'd like to talk specifically about the merits of one provision, added by an amendment that I offered, that is designed to encourage would-be science and math teachers. My amendment authorizes a program of one-year, $5000 scholarships to those with bachelors degrees in science 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. Over the last year, the Science Committee held a series of hearings about the state of math and science education in this country. From these hearings and from talking to constituents, students, and educators at home, it has become crystal clear to me that we have much work to do to prepare our students to succeed in the 21st century workplace. In particular, we've been hearing 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. The bill includes a number of important provisions to assist teachers, and deserves to pass. 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. My amendment provides 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, sine 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, this bill takes some critical steps to help ensure that we can sustain our current economic growth and that our future workforce will be prepared to succeed in our increasingly technologically based world. I urge support for this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I rise in support of the general concept that is being proposed by my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). But I have to tell the House that I have concerns about the fact that we have had a closed rule that will not allow us to perfect this piece of legislation. It would sail through, I am convinced, both this House and the other body if we could ensure that this parcel of land was purchased at a price that would allow us then to purchase equivalent land in the Tahoe area. And I think that is at the core of the issue that we are now debating here tonight. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my colleague, spoke earlier on the rule and I think made the case strongly and eloquently that this is not an appropriate way to proceed because these are taxpayer lands and these are taxpayer monies that are at risk here. I urge my colleague to continue to work with us so that we can continue to perfect the bill and do right by the school system in his State and also do right by the taxpayers of the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the companion House legislation, I rise in support of S. 1438, to authorize the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund to establish the National Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land in Washington, D.C. This bill would build on the foundation laid by Public Law 98-534, which authorized the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. That memorial was dedicated in 1991. The memorial was built on Federal property in the District of Columbia by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Memorial Fund), a non-profit organization. The site is highlighted by the names of more than 15,000 Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty. The Memorial Fund desires to build a facility to serve as the most comprehensive law enforcement museum and research facility anywhere in the world, and which would be the premiere source of information on issues related to law enforcement history and safety. The museum is intended to complement the existing National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, and is proposed to be located directly across the street. Just as the existing memorial reminds us all of the bravery and dedication of our nation's law-enforcement officers, the museum would help to improve public understanding and support for the law enforcement profession. In addition, its research component would serve as a tool for policy makers and law enforcement trainers in their efforts to make the profession safer and more effective. S. 1438 authorizes the Memorial Fund to construct the Museum on Federal property that was transferred to the District of Columbia in 1970 for municipal purposes. The property is located on E Street between 4th and 5th Streets, NW, and is currently used as a parking lot for the District of Columbia Courts. All funds used in the construction of the Museum will come from private donations. S. 1438 was introduced by Colorado's senior Senator, Senator Campbell, and the House companion bill was introduced by Representative Hefley. The Resources Committee has approved the House bill. I urge the House to send the Senate bill to the President for signing into law.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I supported this bill when the House first considered it, but I did have some concerns about it. Now, as it comes back to us from the Senate, it is considerably improved and I will support it without the same reservations. The bill was prompted by the Resources Committee's oversight of the implementation of several important programs under which the federal government assists the state wildlife agencies. As a result of our committee's review, it became clear that we should revisit the underlying statutes. At the same time, though, it's clear that some of the charges about the actions of the current Administration were exaggerated and that some of the people making those charges failed to point out similar actions that occurred during prior Administrations. The programs of assistance to state wildlife agencies addressed by this bill are very valuable for Colorado and many other states. And I certainly agree with the bill's sponsors that it would be good to tighten the current law that allows the Interior Department an unusually large degree of discretion in the administration of these programs. However, as originally passed by the House, I was concerned that the bill went overboard in responding to the ways the Interior Department has used that discretion. I certainly understand the purpose of limiting the amount of money that can be spent on administration, because obviously what's spent that way won't be available for the substantive purposes of the programs. But we need to recognize that administration is necessary, and adequate administration is essential to avoid the risk of misuse of taxpayer funds, either by the Department of the Interior or by other parties. The Senate amendments would authorize more realistic funding levels for administration, and would allow some additional flexibility for unexpected administrative costs. I think those are definite improvements, and so are some other changes that reduce the extent to which the bill imposes micro-management requirements. Accountability is essential, but excessive paperwork for its own sake can eat up resources that could be put to more productive purposes. Also, as it comes before us today the bill includes a reauthorization for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, so that it can continue its very important work in support of conservation and sound management. And it also includes legislation to commemorate the centennial of the National Wildlife Refuge System that is similar to H.R. 4442, a bill that I cosponsored and that the House passed earlier this year. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to concur in the Senate amendments and send the bill to the President for signing into law.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to add a few words to those of my colleagues in support of this bill to designate the U.S. Courthouse on 12th Street in Riverside, California, as the ``George E. Brown, Jr., United States Courthouse.'' I think this is a worthy honor for a man who brought so much to his constituents in California, to colleagues in Congress, and to the citizens of this country. The death of George Brown, Jr. last year deprived this Congress and this country of a great champion of science and technology. While I worked with him for only a brief time, I felt as though I had known him for years because he had been a colleague and friend of my father and because his reputation was so well known. George Brown was a man of courage and vision and ideological consistency. In his 34 years of distinguished service in the House, he worked to advance energy and resource conservation, sustainable agriculture, advanced technology development, space exploration, international scientific cooperation, and the integration of technology in education. With or without a Courthouse in his name, George Brown will be remembered. But I'm sure if he were with us here today, George would appreciate this gesture on the part of his colleagues and the country to ensure his legacy lasts beyond our own lifetimes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 209, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act conference report. This report is the product of over 2 years of hard work on the part of the Committee on Science, the Senate Commerce Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Administration. Developing a version of the legislation that is acceptable to all these parties has been no small feat in the realm of patent policy, and I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Democratic Member George Brown, Subcommittee Chairwoman Morella, and Subcommittee Ranking Democrat Barcia for their hard work. H.R. 209 is the result of the first comprehensive review of federal patent policy in 15 years. The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which it amends, has made a major difference in the commercialization of federal inventions. Before Bayh-Dole passed, it was relatively rare for inventions resulting from federal research to reach their market potential. As many as 20,000 federal inventions were patented but not licensed. Only two or three inventions at that point had achieved royalties as high as $1,000,000, and the total royalty stream for the entire Federal Government at that time was less than the royalties received by a midsized research university today. Bayh-Dole has opened major opportunities to research universities like the University of Colorado. It has been a major contributor to the outreach activities of contractor-operated laboratories like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. It has led to benefits for federally employed inventors and their laboratories at the Department of Commerce and throughout the government. Over the nearly 20 years since enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, we've learned of the need for some improvements. The bill before us takes advantage of the lessons learned and is intended to make the law more user-friendly. It also updates the act to reflect the new ways that industry now gets and shares information. I am also pleased that the bill includes an amendment promoted by some of my Democratic colleagues on the Science Committee that requires each DOE laboratory to have an ombudsman and to report quarterly on its operations to DOE. This provision addresses problems that citizens around the country have experienced in getting their issues with DOE weapons laboratories addressed in a timely fashion. Small businesses now will have a place to turn within the laboratories to have their concerns addressed, and there will be quarterly reporting of the progress being made by the ombudsmen to all of the pertinent officials within the Department of Energy. I urge passage of the bill.