Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a rule proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, that would affect the consulting affiliates of auditing firms. In response to concerns voiced by some of my constituents, I joined many of my Small Business Committee colleagues in writing to SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt. We asked that the comment period on the proposed rule be extended past its September 25 deadline and that the rule be modified to address the concerns raised by members of the accounting industry. It was not my intention to delay the final decision to next year. I strongly oppose any attempts to delay the final rulemaking process through legislative means. As the SEC moves forward with this rule, it is my hope that all interested parties will have adequate time to voice their concerns. That being said, I have no doubt that SEC Chairman Levitt will conduct a thoughtful, inclusive comment period.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end of this 106th Congress--but we have not finished all the work that needs to be done. When the new Congress meets next year, it will find a long list of unfinished business. An important thing on that list will be action to support and improve the ability of all Americans to look forward to fiscal security in their years of retirement. I want to take this opportunity to outline my thinking about the steps that Congress should take toward that goal, in several areas.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have some serious reservations about this bill, especially those parts dealing with oceanfront development, dredging, and other projects to be carried out by the Corps of Engineers. I think the House should have had the chance to consider amendments that would have improved the bill. I regret that the rule adopted earlier does not permit that. However, I will vote the bill because I strongly support authorizing the important program of environmental restoration for the Everglades. The bill will now go to conference with the Senate. I hope that will result in improvements in the measure to make it one that everyone can support without reservations.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues and in particular acknowledge the articulate and eloquent comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As I think he pointed out, the geologists tell us we have probably something along the order of 6 months' supply in this area, and to me it would be a big mistake for that short-term supply of oil to trample an area that was described in such fashion. It is a trade-off that is not really acceptable, I think. What is acceptable? Well, if we look at what Vice President Gore has been talking about, what is acceptable is to throw ourselves into all of these opportunities that we have to develop different types of energy production methods that are really exciting technologies out there. One hundred years ago, when petroleum was discovered, there were only two or three obvious uses for it. What did we do as a country? What did we do as a society? We said let us invest in research and development. The Federal Government stepped in, and now we have almost countless uses for petroleum. In fact, some historians, I think, will tell us that we wasted it in our automobiles in the latter half of the 20th century. We have very promising technologies in solar, as demonstrated by phototechnologies. We have wind technologies where the price of kilowatts is coming down dramatically. Biogas. We ought to be throwing all of those kinds of technologies into the mix at this time. I think we are going to see some enormously exciting things happen. It is a false choice: it is going to hurt our economy, or it is going to hurt our environment. It is truly a false choice and the Vice President is saying, look, we have incredible opportunities in the developing world to take these technologies to places like China and Indonesia and India, and in the process do right by our economy, do right by the economic development opportunities. So the Vice President looking ahead, oil is going to be a thing of the past; the geologists tell us that those supplies are limited, that in the next 100 years oil as we know it will not be available to us. Let us look ahead, follow the leadership and the vision of the Vice President.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. I also will support the conference report. The conference report does include some things that I do not like. It omits some things also that I think should been included, especially the hate-crimes provisions that were in the Senate bill and that the House instructed the conferees to accept. But I will support it because it includes vital legislation to set up a system of compensation and care for current and former nuclear weapons workers made sick by on-the-job exposure to radiation, beryllium, and other dangers. This has been a priority for me. For over a year, I have been working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to achieve its enactment, and I am very pleased that the House today will be voting on it. This is a very important matter for our country. It is particularly important for many Coloradans because our State is home to the Rocky Flats site, which for decades was a key part of the nuclear weapons complex. Now that that site's military mission has ended and we are working hard to have Rocky Flats cleaned up and closed, we need to work just as hard to take care of the people who worked there. The people who worked at Rocky Flats and the other nuclear weapons sites were part of our country's defense just as much as those who wore the uniform of an armed service. They may not have been exposed to hostile fire, but they were exposed to radiation and beryllium and many other hazardous substances. And because of that, many have developed very serious illnesses while others will develop such illnesses in the future. Unfortunately, they have not been eligible for veterans' benefits and they will be excluded from other programs because they technically worked for DOE contractors and for far too long the Government was not on their side. To explain what I mean, let me summarize part of a recent statement by Dr. Lee Newman as it affects nuclear weapons workers. Dr. Newman says these workers were ``failed by the Federal Government in at least eight ways.'' The Federal Government failed to adequately warn them. The Government failed to adequately protect them. The Government failed to institute medical monitoring. The Government failed to support investigation of a beryllium disease epidemic affecting them. The Government failed to support compensation claims they filed. The Government failed to do enough to reduce exposure, provide education, and detect early disease. The Government failed to support adequate research on treatment. And the Government failed to study and act on other occupation illnesses, including ones now covered by the conference report now before us. Now, the good news is that things have changed. Secretary Richardson and the administration have reversed a decades-old policy of opposing workers' claims. Now we in the Congress need to finish the job. Today, by approving the conference report, we can start to do just that. I am not saying this is perfect legislation. In fact, I think it can be further refined to include wages that workers lost because of these illnesses. But we are nearing the end of this Congress and time is of the essence, so we should adopt this rule and pass the conference report in order to take this essential first step. Mr. Speaker, we must pass this conference report today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report, which combines a number of law-enforcement measures, including two very important measures to protect women around the world and here in the United States. Worldwide, the conference report takes important steps to make the United States a full partner in the international effort to curb exploitation of women who are the victims of the international sex trade. This is very important because recent favorable international developments--including the breakup of the Soviet Union and greater freedom of travel--have also had the effect of making it easier for this exploitation to occur. Here at home, the conference report also authorizes the important programs of the Violence Against Women Act, or ``VAWA.'' That is also something I strongly support. VAWA is very important for Colorado. Through last year, our state received almost $15 million in VAWA grants. That money has helped assist victims of domestic violence, but it has also done much more. In fact, according to a letter from our Attorney General, Ken Salazar, and his colleagues from other states, VAWA ``has enabled us to maximize the effectiveness of our state programs that have made a critical difference in the lives of women and children endangered by domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.'' VAWA is also important for our country. It has made a difference in the lives of millions of women by aiding in the prosecution of cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse, by increasing services for victims and resources for law enforcement personnel, and by establishing a National Domestic Violence Hotline. Partly as a result, crimes against women have decreased by 27 percent since VAWA's enactment. But more remains to be done. More women are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile accidents and cancer combined. More than one-third of all women using emergency rooms are victims of domestic violence. In 1997 more than 250,000 women and children sought refuge from domestic violence in women's shelters. More than 300,000 sexual assaults were perpetrated against women in 1998 alone. And every year more than one million women are targeted by stalkers. Because I strongly support renewing and strengthening this vital measure, I joined in cosponsoring H.R. 1248, the bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill that was also supported by the Administration. The House passed that bill last month, and by passing this conference report we will take the next step toward its enactment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference report--and I will do so as a strong supporter of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or ``CARA.'' I understand that other supporters of CARA may disagree. They are concerned that passage of this bill will mean that CARA is dead. But I do not think that is the case. Certainly I will continue working for CARA's enactment this year--and, if that does not occur, and if I am reelected, I will resume the effort next year. But in the meantime, by passing this conference report we will take an important step toward one of CARA's key goals--that is, toward fulfilling the promise of one of the wisest and most far-sighted conservation measures ever--the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. The promise of that Act was that as the federal government sold non- renewable resources, particularly the oil and gas from the outer continental shelf, it would invest a major part of the proceeds in conserving our lands and waters and in helping our local communities to make similar investments. Unfortunately, because of the budget problems of the past, for too long the Congress fell short of fulfilling that promise. But now the budget situation is different and we have a chance to make up for some of the shortfalls of the past and in fact to expand the benefits for our country. By passing this bill, we can help our communities respond to the problems of growth and sprawl and to provide much-needed places for sports and outdoor recreation. We can help preserve our open spaces by acquiring inholdings in our parks and forests from people who want to sell. We can help protest threatened and endangered species, and the fish and wildlife resources that are so important to Colorado and the rest of the nation. By greatly increasing the resources of the Historic preservation Fund we can help preserve the irreplaceable historic legacy of Colorado and our nation--saving historic landmarks, attracting private investment, and helping bring economic vitality to historic sites in Gilpin, Clear Creek, Adams, and Jefferson Counties and to neighborhoods in Boulder, Arvada, and countless other communities in Colorado and across the continent. And by bolstering the PILT program, we can help the counties and other local governments in areas where the federal government is a major landowner--and we can do it the right way, by providing funds that aren't tied to timber sales or other uses of the federal lands and so without making the local communities hostages to the debates over timber harvests or other extractive uses. Mr. Speaker, of course this is not a perfect bill--but, all too often we are reminded that there is no perfect legislation. But, when you consider all that this conference report would do for our country I am convinced that we should approve it today--and, after that, keep on working for the further improvements that will come from enactment of CARA.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. It is late in coming, but better a little late than too late. We all know Congress is falling behind in its work. Most of the annual appropriations bills have not been finished. Campaign finance reform remains stalled. We have not provided a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We have not done enough to help our schools or to help our communities cope with growth and sprawl. We have not resolved our differences over taxes. And until today the House has not acted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act--``VAWA''--which is set to expire at the end of this week. VAWA is very important for Colorado. Through last year, our state received almost $15 million in VAWA grants. That money has helped assist victims of domestic violence, but it has also done much more. In fact, according to a letter from our Attorney General, Ken Salazar, and his colleagues from other states, VAWA ``has enabled us to maximize the effectiveness of our state programs that have made a critical difference in the lives of women and children endangered by domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking,'' VAWA is also important for our country. It has made a difference in the lives of millions of women by aiding in the prosecution of cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse, by increasing services for victims and resources for law enforcement personnel, and by establishing a National Domestic Violence Hotline. Partly as a result, crimes against women have decreased by 27% since VAWA's enactment. But more remains to be done. More women are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile accidents and cancer combined. More than one-third of all women using emergency rooms are victims of domestic violence. In 1997 more than 250,000 women and children sought refuge from domestic violence in women's shelters. More than 300,000 sexual assaults were perpetrated against women in 1998 alone. And every year more than one million women are targeted by stalkers. Because I strongly support renewing and strengthening this vital measure, I have joined in cosponsoring H.R. 1248, the bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill that is now before the House. It is supported by the Administration and more than 200 Members of the House. The judiciary Committee approved the bill by a unanimous voice vote on June 27th--a full three months ago--and the bill is only now reaching the floor, even though many less important measures have been considered. But, at last, it is here and I urge all Members to join me in approving it. If it is approved, it then will be up to the members of the Senate to take the next vital step. They should promptly send this bill to the President for signing into law--because VAWA is too important to be allowed to die from neglect.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2392, the Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] Program Reauthorization, and urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, Colorado is home to many cutting-edge small businesses. 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. Along the Front Range of Colorado we have experienced tremendous growth in high-tech businesses during the last decade. I feel that the tremendous high-tech growth we have enjoyed can be directly traced to the hundreds of SBIR recipients working in our region. The Small Business Innovation Research Program has filed a real need for these companies over the years. Although the main purpose of the program remains meeting the Federal Government's research and development needs, small businesses have turned SBIR-inspired research into commercial products that have improved our economy and scientific advances that have helped to improve the health of people everywhere. Mr. Speaker, the SBIR program simply seeks to level the playing field for small businesses. Small businesses might not have the colossal R and D departments that some larger businesses have, but they do have the colossal ideas. SBIR makes sure those ideas are looked at and funded. In addition to SBIR, this bill reauthorizes funding for the Small Business Administration [SBA]. The SBA reauthorization contains funding for primary lending programs, such as the 7(a), 504 and microloan programs. It also includes provisions to authorize and fund disaster loan surety bond guarantees, Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), the Historically Underutilized Business Zone [HUBZone] program, the National Women's Business Council, the Service Corps of Retired Executives [SCORE] program, and the Drug Free Workplace program. These important programs have played a large role in creating and maintaining this country's unprecedented economic growth. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on extending these important programs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing 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 2000,'' was developed through a process of collaboration with Senator Allard, who is today introducing corresponding legislation in the Senate, and is cosponsored by Representatives DeGette, Tancredo, Schaffer, Hefley, and McInnis. In shaping this legislation, Senator Allard and I consulted 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 last year and discussion drafts that Senator Allard and I circulated earlier this year. Both Senator Allard and I recognize that introduction of legislation is only the beginning of 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: The bill--Provides that the Federally-owned lands at Rocky Flats site will remain in federal ownership; that the Lindsay Ranch homestead facilities will be preserved; that no part of Rocky Flats can be annexed by a local government; that no through roads can be built through the site; and that some portion of the site can be used for transportation improvements along Indiana Street along the eastern boundary. Requires DOE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding within 18 months after enactment to address administrative issues and make preparations regarding the future transfer of the site to the Fish and Wildlife Service and to divide responsibilities between the agencies until the transfer occurs; provides that the cleanup funds shall not be used for these activities. Specifies when the transfer from DOE to the Fish and Wildlife Service will occur--namely when the cleanup is completed and the site is closed as a DOE facility. Describes the land and facilities that will be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service (most of the site) and the facilities that will be excluded from transfer (any cleanup facilities or structures that the DOE must maintain and remain liable for); directs that the transfer will not result in any costs to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Directs that the DOE will continue to be required to clean up the site and that in the event of any conflicts, cleanup shall take priority; maintains DOE's continuing liability for cleanup. Requires the DOE to continue to clean up and close the site under all existing laws, regulations and agreements. Requires that establishment of the site as a National Wildlife Refuge shall not affect the level of cleanup required. Requires the DOE to clean up the site to levels that are established in the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement as the agreement is revised based on input from the public, the regulators and the Rocky Flats Soil Action Level Oversight Panel. Requires DOE to remain liable for any long-term cleanup obligations and requires DOE to pay for this long-term care. Establishes the Rocky Flats site as a National Wildlife Refuge 30 days after transfer of the site to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Provides that the refuge is to be managed in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Provides that the refuge's purposes are to be consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, with specific reference to preserving wildlife, enhancing wildlife habitat, conserving threatened and endangered species, providing opportunities for education, scientific research and recreation. Directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to convene a public process to develop management plans for the refuge; requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to consult with the local communities in the creation of this public process. Provides that the public involvement process shall make recommendations to the Fish and Wildlife Service on management issues-- specifically issues related to the operation of the refuge, any transportation improvements, leasing land to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, any perimeter fences, development of a Rocky Flats museum and visitors center; requires that a report is to be submitted to Congress outlining the recommendations resulting from the public involvement process. Recognizes the existence of other property rights on the Rocky Flats site, such as mineral rights, water rights and utility rights-of-way; preserves these rights and allows the rights holders access to their rights. Allows the DOE and the Fish and Wildlife Service to impose reasonable conditions on the access to private property rights for cleanup and refuge management purposes. Requires the federal government to seek to acquire the underlying mineral rights through agreement with the private owners. Allows the Public Service Company of Colorado to provide an extension from their high-tension line on the site to serve the area around Rocky Flats. Authorizes the establishment of a Rocky Flats museum to commemorate the history of the site, its operations and cleanup. Requires the DOE and the Fish and Wildlife Service to inform Congress on the costs associated with implementing this Act. Let me take a moment to address a few of the more important issues that were raised by the local communities 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. 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 boundary of Rocky Flats for this purpose, but that the bills should not specifically provide for a more far-reaching availability of Rocky Flats land for a beltway. So the bills we are introducing reflects that position. 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 acquire these rights from existing owners--but ensure that 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. Finally, cleanup levels. Over the last year, some concerns were 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 last year 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 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. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4945, the Small Business Competition Preservation Act of 2000 (SBCPA) and urge its adoption. H.R. 4945 is a response to the lack of empirical data available on the issue of bundling. This legislation will provide a number of different methods of collecting information on the how, what, when, where and why of contract bundling. For example, SBCPA requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to develop and maintain a database of these contracts within the federal government. This database not only will track agency bundled contracts but it will also maintains statistical information on the tangible effects of bundling on smaller companies and in particular industries of the small business community. SBCPA also calls for the SBA to analyze renewable bundled to contracts to determine whether they have achieved the savings and benefits used to justify consolidation in the first place. In addition, the SBA would then be required to evaluate whether those savings and benefits would continue if the contract remains bundled. Once this information is fully analyzed, the SBA Administrator would then be asked to put together an annual report. The numbers tell the whole story. The federal government awarded almost $200 billion in federal contracts in 1999, yet small businesses suffered a significant drop in the number of available contracts. Small businesses received only 4.9 million contracts which totaled $43 billion in total contract dollars. This represents almost a 23 percent drop in a three-year period (1997-1999). Minority and women-owned businesses have been particularly effected, with nearly every federal agency failing to meet their negotiated small business goals. In addition, some agencies have simply ignored these goals and declared them ``not legally binding.'' I believe this bill takes an important step towards protect contracting opportunities for small business in the federal marketplace. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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 Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for making it possible for the House to consider it today. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), my colleague, for his assistance with this legislation. I introduced the bill last year at the request of the commissioners of Clear Creek County. The bill amends section 5 of the Clear Creek Land 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, Representative David Skaggs. Its purpose was to clarify Federal land ownership questions in Clear Creek County while helping to complete consolidation of 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 could have sold all of these lands and the local governments could have applied for parcels under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Under current law, however, the BLM would first have had to complete detailed boundary surveys. Since lands in question included many small, d-shaped parcels, some measured literally in inches, the BLM estimated that boundary surveys would have taken at least another 15 years to complete and could have cost as much as $18 million. The estimated market value of these lands was only $3 million, and because the administrative costs were expected to be so much higher than the value of these lands, their disposal under existing law probably could never have been completed. And this would have been the worst of all outcomes because, after reaching the conclusion that the land should be transferred, the BLM in effect stopped managing them to the extent that they could have been managed at all. Until some means could be found to enable their transfer, these 14,000 acres were effectively abandoned property, potentially attracting all the problems which 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. About 3,200 acres of land 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 today deals only with those lands transferred to the county. The 1993 act provides that after it prepares a comprehensive land use plan, the county may resale 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 sales agent. It provides 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 10 years within which to resolve questions related to the rights of way, mining claims and trespass situations on the lands covered by that section of the act, and then to decide which parcels to transfer and which to retain. Among other things, the county is working with the Colorado Division of Wildlife on a proposal that will result in some 2,000 acres being transferred to the division of wildlife and management as big horn sheep habitat. While the county has completed the conveyance of some of these lands, they still have about 6,000 acres to dispose of. The county commissioners have informed me that the process is taking longer than they anticipated and that a 10-year extension of time would be helpful to them to complete the process. The bill that the House is considering today responds to that request by providing that extension. I urge its adoption, and I attach a letter from the commissioners of Clear Creek County explaining the request for this legislation. County of Clear Creek, Georgetown, CO, August 3, 1999. Re County of Clear Creek, Colorado Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993. Congressman Mark Udall, Westminister, CO. Dear Congressman Udall: I have been asked to provide information regarding the status of this project. As of this date, we have conveyed 118 parcels, consisting of 464 acres, of the former BLM land. This means we still have over 1,100 parcels, or 6,000 acres, to dispose of. A considerable amount of the time on this project has involved analysis and policy development to deal with broad issues that affect most of the parcels, such as rights of way and unpatented mining claims. We have developed suitable solutions for most of these issues. As for trespass situations on specific parcels, we have resolved six of them, and there are four more that we are aware of. It has also taken a great deal of time to develop policies and procedures for land conveyance that are equitable and cost effective. As you are aware, much of this land consists of hundreds of small fragments that are most appropriately conveyed to owners of contiguous properties, since they are too costly to manage in this configuration. Each parcel must go through the zoning process, and in many cases, the subdivision exemption process to divide them, before they be conveyed. Getting these fragments into private ownership is the biggest challenge of this project. There are some large tracts of consolidated acreage for which we need to determine disposition. If we retain any of the land (for Recreation (and Public Purpose, as stipulated by the Transfer Act), it would be these tracts, since they would be affordable to manage. However, this has not been decided yet, because we are also looking into conveyance of these tracts to land trusts or conservation groups. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has asked to purchase approximately 2,000 acres for Bighorn Sheep habitat. They are currently trying to put together funding for this purchase, and we are told that this could take several years. If you need more information or have any questions, please call me at (303) 679-2434. Sincerely, Mark Spargue, Project Manager, County Lands Department. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing another bill dealing with the pressing matter of providing compensation and care for current and former nuclear-weapons workers made sick as a result of their on-job exposure to radiation, beryllium, and other dangers. Let me explain why I am doing so at this time. Earlier this year, I joined in supporting the Whitfield amendment to the Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2001. That amendment, which was adopted by the House, clearly stated that Congress needs to act this year to make good on the promise of a fairer deal for these people who helped America win the Cold War. This is a very important matter for our country. It's particularly important for many Coloradans because our state is home to the Rocky Flats site, which for decades was a key part of the nuclear weapons complex. Now the site's old military mission has ended, and we are working hard to have Rocky Flats cleaned up and closed. But while we work to take care of the site, we need to work just as hard to take care of the people who worked there. The people who worked at Rocky Flats and the other nuclear weapons sites were part of our country's defense just as much as those who wore the uniform of an armed service. They may not have been exposed to hostile fire, but they were exposed to radiation and beryllium and other very hazardous substances--and because of that some have developed serious illnesses while others will develop such illnesses in the future. Unfortunately, they haven't been eligible for veterans' benefits and have been excluded from other federal programs because they technically worked for DOE's contractors--and for far too long the government was not on their side. That has changed, I'm glad to say-- the Department of Energy has reversed its decades-old policy of opposing workers claims. I strongly supported that amendment because, as Len Ackland, writing in the Denver Post, has correctly said, ``The shape of such legislation will determine whether or not this nation, through its political leadership, will finally accept responsibility for the physical harm to thousands of the 600,000 workers recruited to fight the cold war by producing nuclear weapons.'' So I was encouraged when the House adopted that amendment and went on record as saying that now is the time for the Congress to accept that responsibility. Adoption of the amendment signaled that the House recognized this to be a matter of high priority and that it was important for Congress to pass legislation this year to create an efficient, uniform, and adequate system of compensation for these civilian veterans of the cold war. But that amendment was only a very modest first step. Since its adoption, both the House and Senate have completed initial action on the defense authorization bill--and the bill as passed by the Senate includes a separate title, Title 35, that would set up a compensation system for these workers who played such a vital role in winning the Cold War. That title, and the other differences between the House and Senate versions of the defense authorization bill, are now being considered by a conference committee. I am sure that this Senate-passed legislation could be further refined. But we are rapidly nearing the end of this Congress, and time is of the essence. That is why, along with more than 100 of our colleagues, I have strongly urged the House's conferees to agree to this part of the Senate bill. I remain convinced that having the Senate-passed legislation included in the conference report on the defense authorization bill would be the very best way to take the essential first step toward the vital goal of doing justice to these workers. However, some questions have been raised about the details of that Senate-passed legislation--and, next week, there will be a Subcommittee hearing in the Judiciary Committee to examine the pending House legislation dealing with this subject. There already are a number of pending House bills. Most notably, there is H.R. 4398, introduced by our colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. I am a cosponsor of that bill and I think it would be highly desirable for that bill to be signed into law. However, until now the Senate-passed legislation technically has not been pending before the Judiciary Committee because it was passed as an amendment to the defense authorization bill rather than as a free- standing measure. So, along with a number of other Members who are joining as cosponsors, I today am introducing a bill that combines elements of the Whitfield amendment to the defense authorization bill--namely, the findings spelling out the background and the need for legislation--and the substantive provisions of Title 35 of the Senate amendment to that same defense authorization bill. I am doing this so that the Judiciary Committee will have the fullest possible opportunity to consider these provisions at next week's hearing. My hope is that as a result the Judiciary Committee members who are also conferees on the defense authorization bill will join the other House conferees in agreeing to inclusion of these provisions in the conference report. I think that will provide the best opportunity to achieve enactment this year of an essential first step toward providing a long-overdue measure of justice. I know that more will remain to be done, but it will lay a good foundation on which to build in the near future--something that I hope to be able to do beginning next year. Digest of Provisions of Bill Title: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000 (based on Title 35, Senate Defense Authorization Act, FY 2001). Background: After decades of denials, the Administration has conceded that workers who helped make nuclear weapons were exposed to radiation and chemicals that caused cancer and early death. Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson is leading the Administration's efforts to pass as comprehensive a bill as possible in this Congress. The Administration offered a preliminary bill in November 1999 (HR 3418) through Representative Paul Kanjorski. After releasing a National Economic Council Report in April 2000 which outlined the science and policy reasons for implementing a federal workers comp system for nuclear weapons workers, Representative Whitfield, and many cosponsors, introduced HR 4398, a comprehensive bill which covers radiation, beryllium silica, hazardous chemicals and heavy metals. New Bill/Senate Amendment: The Udall of Colorado bill incorporates the provisions of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000, which was adopted on the Senate floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001. It provides for payment by the Federal government of lost wages and/or medical costs for employees who died or whose health was damaged by exposure to beryllium, radiation or silica while working for the defense of the United States through defense nuclear programs of the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies. These health hazards were special to DOE and to nuclear weapons, which require both beryllium- containing components and radioactive materials and drilling of tunnels under the Nevada Test Site. The compensation in this bill is modeled on the coverage federal employees can receive in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Compensation decisions are to be based on science and expert judgment, and dose information is to be used where it is known or can be estimated. As with FECA, compensation under this bill would be mandatory spending and benefits are tax exempt. CBO has scored Title 35 of the Senate's Defense Authorization bill at $2.3 billion over 5 years and $3.7 billion over 10 years. Three federal agencies would be involved in the program. The Department of Labor, which already administers FECA, would handle the administrative processing of claims, appeals, and payments. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which currently oversees radiation and beryllium health effects research at DOE sites, would oversee the scientific decisions that must be made. The DOE, which has the detailed information on and access to workers, is to play an advocacy role in informing workers of the programs and facilitating information flow to the Department of Labor. Hazards and Coverage: Beryllium: Beryllium is a non- radioactive metal that can cause an allergic reaction that ,severely scars the lungs. Beryllium lung damage has unique characteristics and can be traced specifically to beryllium exposure. The first sign of the allergic reaction is beryllium sensitivity, which sometimes progresses to chronic beryllium disease. Beryllium sensitivity must be medically monitored, but is not disabling. Chronic beryllium disease can disable or kill. Under Title 35 and this bill: Workers who can show beryllium sensitivity (or who have chronic beryllium disease but are not disabled) would be eligible to have the medical costs of monitoring their condition paid by the Federal government. Workers who contract chronic beryllium disease and who die or are disabled could also receive lost wage benefits, in addition to medical costs. Radiation: Radiation in high doses has been linked to elevated rates of some types of cancer. Unlike beryllium illness, it is not possible to look at a tumor and know for sure that radiation in the workplace caused it. Scientists have determined the doses at which certain cancers in workers in certain age groups can be confidently be said to be radiation caused. These data on radiation dose and cancer form the basis in the bill for compensating workers who have adequate dose records, as follows. Workers who have a specified radiogenic cancer that is determined to be work-related under HHS guidelines, but who are not disabled, could have their medical costs of their cancer treatment paid by the Federal government. Workers who have a work related cancer, as established under the HHS guidelines, and who are disabled or dead, could also receive lost wage benefits, in addition to medical costs. Silicosis: Miners at the Nevada Test site drilled underground tunnels through hard rock for the placement of nuclear weapons devices that were subsequently tested. DOE failed to adequately control exposure to silica dust and 20 percent of the workers screened by a DOE medical screening program at the Nevada Test Site have found silicosis, a disease that causes irreparable scarring of the lungs. Workers with Non-Existent Radiation Records. Many worker dose records in DOE are flawed, but this amendment requires HHS to estimate dose, where records exist and it is feasible to do so. In some cases, though, it is not feasible to reconstruct what radiation dose a group of workers received, even though it is clear from their job types that their health may have been endangered by radiation. For these special exposure situations, the bill provides that workers can be placed by the HHS into a ``special exposure cohort'' that can be compensated for certain types of cancer enumerated in the amendment. Members of the ``special exposure cohort'' are eligible for the same compensation as workers in the previous section. Because of the unmeasured, probably large, internal radiation doses which they received, and the lack of monitoring, protection, or even warning given by DOE to them, certain employees at the DOE gaseous diffusion plants are placed in the ``special exposure cohort'' by law under the bill. It was the public outcry over the deliberate deception of these employees by the DOE and its contractors concerning workplace radiation risks that led the Administration to propose the bill on which Title 35 and this bill are patterned. Lump Sum Payment Option. All of the above classes of workers, if they are disabled, and their survivors, if the workers die before being compensated, would be able to choose a one-time $200,000 lump plus medical benefits in lieu of lost wages and ongoing medical benefits described above. This option is intended mostly for elderly, retired workers, or for survivors of deceased workers. Administrative Provisions. There are provisions in the bill against receiving lost wages or lump sum payments for more than one disability or cause of death. Benefits under other Federal or state worker compensation statutes for the same disability or death would be deducted from any benefits under the bill. Title 35 and the bill also contain language making payment under the amendment the exclusive remedy for all liability by DOE and its contractors. For vendors, acceptance of payment under this program would waive the right to sue, but employees who seek court relief would have to file within 180 days of the onset of a beryllium or radiation related disease. Other Toxic Substances: The bill does not provide federal compensation for health effects from exposure to other toxic substances in the DOE workplace, but does authorize DOE to work with States to get workers with these health effects into State worker compensation programs. DOE will maintain an office to review claims and advise contractors not challenge claims deemed meritorious by DOE.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it does not address concerns laid out clearly in a letter to Deputy Secretary Eizenstat I signed in April along with 31 of my colleagues. I am attaching a copy of that letter. In the wake of the WTO's adverse decision on Foreign Sales Corporations, we urged the Administration--as it fashioned its response to the WTO decision--to resist efforts to increase benefits for military arms sales. After all, if the U.S. is serious about leading the world into a peaceful future, we should be promoting arms control-- not increasing subsidies for defense contractors so that they can promote the conventional arms race. But this bill does just what we urged the Administration not to do--it would increase defense contractor subsidies. In addition, this bill continues export subsidies for tobacco, thus making it American policy to promote the sales of cigarettes all over the world. Mr. Speaker, these are serious issues deserving of serious debate. At a minimum, the bill should have been brought up under a rule for purposes of a thorough debate and consideration of amendments. This was especially necessary given the cost of the bill. At $1.5 billion over five years (in addition to the revenue that would be lost under FSC), this bill should have been more thoroughly discussed before being put to a vote. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 4986 as it has been brought before the House. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, April 19, 2000. Hon. Stuart E. Eizenstat, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Eizenstat: In your position as the lead Administration official charged with implementing an acceptable response to the adverse World Trade Organization (WTO) decision on Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC), we urge you to resist all efforts to increase benefits for military arms sales. Indeed, the existing benefits should actually be narrowed. The current limitation on this benefit, as contained in 26 USC Sec. 923(a)(5), provides that the normal FSC benefit is reduced by 50% for sales of certain military property, defined by Treasury as, ``an arm, ammunition, or implement of war.'' Specific covered military property is listed on the U.S. Munitions List (22 CFR 121), as provided for by the Arms Export Control Act (22 USC Sec. 2778). Firmly believing that our nation should be providing more leadership for effective arms control policies, we seek your help to avoid additional subsidies with federal taxpayer monies to promote the conventional arms races that plague our planet. We should be promoting arms control, not arms sales. The complicated legislative history of the FSC provision does show that it was intended to help U.S. companies to compete overseas. However, according to the Congressional Research Service, in 1997, the United States enjoyed a 44% share of the world market for arms while Great Britain, its nearest competitor, had 17%. In 1998, the United States led in new arms deals with $7.1 billion, followed by Germany at $5.5 billion. Even the Defense Department has touted the world market dominance by U.S. companies, writing in 1994: ``The forecasts support a continuing strong defense trade performance for U.S. defense products through the end of the decade and beyond. In a large number of cases, the U.S. is clearly the preferred provider, and there is little meaningful competition with suppliers from other countries. An increase in the level of support the U.S. government currently supplies is unlikely to shift the U.S. export market share outside a range of 53 to 59 percent of worldwide arms trade.'' In 1976, Congress decided to reduce the benefit for military sales in half, establishing a 50% limit on tax benefits. In fact, the Senate provision would have eliminated it altogether for military goods, ``unless it was determined that the property is competitive with foreign-manufactured property,'' and the House provision would have terminated benefits for military sales, ``except if the products are to be used solely for nonmilitary purposes.'' A report from the Joint Committee on Taxation at the time shows that Congress was very concerned with the revenue cost of this program. To increase this benefit now would cost federal taxpayers an additional $2 billion over the next 10 years. This subsidy is unnecessary. As Treasury's Office of Tax Policy wrote to the Department of Defense in December, 1998: ``[W]e analyzed whether the defense industry receives any benefits or subsidies from the U.S. government, particularly any benefits or subsidies that are not generally available to other industries. Our analysis indicates that the defense industry does benefit from its special relationship with the U.S. government, and the benefit is arguably greater now than in years past . . .'' On the question of doubling the FSC benefit to 100% for military sales, Treasury wrote in August, 1999: ``We have seen no evidence that granting full FSC benefits would significantly affect the level of defense exports, and, indeed, we are given to understand that other factors, such as the quality of the product and the quality and level of support services, tend to dominate a buyer's decision whether to buy a U.S. defense product.'' In criticizing some of the continued largesse the defense industry enjoys in our federal budget, the Congressional Budget Office wrote in 1997: ``U.S. defense industries have significant advantages over their foreign competitors and thus should not need additional subsidies to attract sales. Because the U.S. defense procurement budget is nearly twice that of all Western European countries combined, U.S. industries can realize economies of scale not available to their competitors. The U.S. defense research and development budget is five times that of all Western European countries combined, which ensures that U.S. weapon systems are and will remain technologically superior to those of other suppliers.'' More recently, William D. Hartung, President's Fellow at the World Policy Institute, wrote for the Cato Institute in August, 1999, ``If the government wanted to level the playing field between the weapons industry and other sectors, it would have to reduce weapons subsidies, not increase them.'' He continued, ``Considering those massive subsidies to weapons manufacturers, granting additional tax breaks to an industry that is being so pampered by the U.S. government makes no sense.'' Indeed, Mr. Secretary, it makes no sense. But what is much more persuasive than the fiscal fairness arguments, is the eloquent plea from advocates for peace, such as Oscar Arias, the former Costa Rican president and Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1987, who wrote last summer in the New York Times: ``By selling advanced weaponry throughout the world, wealthy military contractors not only weaken national security and squeeze taxpayers at home but also strengthen dictators and human misery abroad.'' By encouraging arms sales overseas, this subsidy actually elevates the dangers abroad, thus creating more challenges to the maintenance of our own ``military superiority;''--and of course more pressure to increase the defense budget. We urge you not to increase this unnecessary subsidy and to seek ways to reduce the cost to taxpayers of subsidizing weapons manufacturers. Sincerely, Lloyd Doggett, Lynn Wooolsey, George Miller, Pete DeFazio, Bob Filner, Barbara Lee, Barney Frank, Jan Schakowsky, John Tierney, Tammy Baldwin, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, Jerrold Nadler, John Olver, Bill Luther, Major Owens, Lynn Rivers, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Tom Barrett, Edward Markey, Bernard Sanders, John Moakley, Jim McGovern, Michael Capuano, Sherrod Brown, John Conyers, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ted Strickland, Pete Stark, Mark Udall, David Minge, Brian Baird.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we considered this bill the first time, I voted for it--although I was very reluctant to do so--in the hope that the Senate would improve it sufficiently to make it acceptable. However, that did not happen. So, I could not vote for the conference report on the bill and will not vote to override the President's veto. I support ending the ``marriage penalty,'' but my initial support for the Republican leadership's bill was reluctant because I though that bill was not the right way to achieve that goal. That was why I voted for the Democratic alternative, a measure that would not have been vetoed. In some areas the Republican leadership's bill did too little, and in others it did too much. It did too little by not adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax. That means it would have left many middle- income families unprotected from having most of the promised benefits of the bill taken away. The Democratic substitute would have adjusted the Alternative Minimum Tax. It did too much because it was not carefully targeted. It did not just apply to people who pay a penalty because they are married. Instead, a large part of the total benefits under the bill would have gone to married people whose taxes already are lower than they would be if they were single. In other words, a primary result would not be to lessen marriage ``penalties'' but to increase marriage ``bonuses.'' And, by going beyond what's needed to end marriage ``penalties'' the Republican leadership's bill as originally passed by the House would have gone too far in reducing the surplus funds that will be needed to bolster Social Security and Medicare. Those were the reasons for my reluctance to vote for this bill. They were strong reasons. In fact, as I did then, if voting for the bill would have meant that it immediately would have become law, I would have voted against it. But I reluctantly voted for it because at that point the Senate still had a chance to improve it. I was prepared to give the Republican leadership one last chance to correct the bill's deficiencies rather than simply to insist on sending it to the President for the promised veto. I hope that the Republican leadership would allow the bill to be improved to the point that it would merit becoming law--meaning that it would deserve the President's signature. Unfortunately, they did not take advantage of that opportunity. Instead, they insisted on sending to the President a bill falling short of being appropriate for signature into law. I cannot support that approach. The bill as sent to the President--the bill that is not before us again--is not identical to the original Republican bill as initially passed by the House. But it is still very poorly targeted. Half of this bill's tax relief would go to couples who are not affected by any marriage penalty at all--and overall the bill is still fatally flawed. It seems clear that back in July the Republican leadership decided to insist on sending the President a bill he would veto, on a timetable based on their national nominating convention. If that was their desire, they have achieved it. I greatly regret that the Republican leaders decided to insist on confrontation with the President instead of seeking a workable compromise that would lead to a bill that the President could sign into law. If the President's veto is upheld--and I think it will be--I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will work to develop a bill that will appropriately address the real problem of the ``marriage penalty'' and that can be signed into law this year. Certainly, I am ready to join in their efforts.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I originally voted for this bill, but only very reluctantly. I will not vote to override the President's veto. I am not voting to sustain the veto because I oppose estate-tax relief for family-owned ranches and farms or other small businesses. In fact, I definitely think we should act to make it easier for their owners to pass them on to future generations. This is important for the whole country, or course, but it is particularly important for Coloradans who want to help keep ranch lands in open, undeveloped condition by reducing the pressure to sell them to pay estate taxes. But there is a better way to do it than by enacting this Republican bill. That is why I voted for the Democratic alternative when the House originally considered this bill. That Democratic alternative bill would have provided real, effective relief without the excesses of the Republican bill. It would have raised the estate tax's special exclusion to $4 million for a couple owning a farm or small business. So, under that alternative, a married couple owning a family farm or ranch or a small business worth up to $4 million could pass it on intact with no estate tax whatsoever. Also, the Democratic alternative actually would have provided more immediate relief to small business and farm owners. Unlike the Republican bill--which is phased in over 10 years--the Democratic alternative would have taken effect immediately. That means a couple passing on their farm or small business in the near future would avoid more tax under the Democratic plan than under the Republican bill. They would not have to hope to live long enough to see the benefits. In addition, by increasing the general exclusion from $675,000 to $1.1 million next year, the Democratic alternative would have allowed parents to pass on ``millionaire'' status to their children without a penny of estate tax burden. And the Democratic alternative also would have lowered estate tax rates by 20% across the board. So, the Democratic alternative--which I voted for, which deserved adoption, and which would not have been vetoed--would have provided important relief from the estate tax and would have done so in a real, effective, and prompt way. Furthermore, the Democratic alternative would have provided this relief in a fiscally responsible way that would not jeopardize our ability to do what is needed to maintain and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors and pay down the public debt. By contrast, it is precisely the fiscal overkill of the Republican bill that made me most reluctant to vote for it and that leads me to vote to sustain the President's veto. As the Rocky Mountain News put it in a September 3rd editorial, ``the Republican tax cut is a gamble that the present economic boom isn't going to slow'' and is ``fiscally irresponsible.'' Once fully phased in, the Republican bill would forgo nearly $50 billion a year in revenue with no guarantee that this revenue loss will not harm Social Security and Medicare in future years. The bill's sponsors say it will cost $28.2 billion over 5 years and $104.5 billion over 10 years. But that is far from the whole story. Because of the way the bill is phased in, its true cost is cleverly hidden and does not show up until after the 10-year budget window. That means the full effects of the Republican bill will come just at the time when we will have to face budget pressures because my own ``baby boom'' generation is starting to retire. And if we feel we need to ``phase in'' H.R. 8 because we cannot afford the full repeal now, how are we ever going to afford it 10 years from now? We do not need to engage in this fiscal overkill. According to the Treasury Department, under current law only 2% of all decedents have enough wealth to be subject to the estate tax at all. To be more specific, the Treasury Department tells me that in 1997 estate-tax returns were filed for only 297 Coloradans. Furthermore, according to the Treasury Department, of those estates that are affected by the estate tax, only 3%--that is only 6 in 10,000 American estates--were comprised primarily of family-owned small businesses, ranches, or farms. Looking just at our state, that means that in 1997 fewer than a dozen estate-tax returns were comprised primarily of small businesses, ranches, or farms. Of course, those numbers only relate to the cases in which an estate tax was actually paid. Clearly, in many other cases families have taken actions to forstall the estate tax. I understand that, and do think that in appropriate cases we should lessen the pressure that prompted some of those actions. As I said, the Democratic alternative would have provided real, effective, and immediate estate-tax relief to the owners of small businesses, including farms and ranches, and would have done so in a fiscally responsible way. That is why I voted for it. In contrast, the biggest beneficiaries of the Republican legislation are not these middle-class families who own small ranches or farms or other small businesses, but instead are very wealthy families with very large assets. Over the past two decades, income and wealth disparities have increased. The Republican bill would increase those wealth disparities. I find this troubling, and it is another reason why I am not voting to override the President's veto. I greatly regret that on this issue the Republican leadership has rejected bipartisanship. They have opted for confrontation with the President instead of cooperation in crafting a bill that could be signed into law. That is not a course I can support. Mr. Speaker, if the President's veto is sustained--and I think it will be--we will have another chance to take a better path. I hope that the Republican leadership will decide to reach across the aisle and work to develop a better bill that can be signed before this Congress adjourns. If they do, they will find me ready to help.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, Colorado's forest lands are one of the things that makes our state a very special place to live. But as our population increases, so do the pressures on our forests and the potential damage that can result from intense wildfires in the areas where residential areas press against the forests. Today, I am introducing two bills that respond to at least some aspects of these two serious problems. One will provide protection for roadless areas in the Congressional District I represent. The other would put new emphasis on cooperative efforts to restore forest lands and prevent catastrophic forest fires in areas of high risk throughout Colorado.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, we've had a busy agenda this week. But one important bill has been missing--the bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, or ``VAWA.'' The House should take it up without delay. VAWA is very important for Colorado. Through last year, our state received almost $15 million in VAWA grants. That money has helped assist victims of domestic violence, but it has also done much more. In fact, according to a letter from our Attorney General, Ken Salazar, and his colleagues from other states, VAWA ``has enabled us to maximize the effectiveness of our state programs that have made a critical difference in the lives of women and children endangered by domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.'' The current authorization for VAWA expires this year. Because I know the importance of renewing and strengthening this vital measure, I have joined in cosponsoring H.R. 1248, the VAWA reauthorization bill. I was encouraged when the Judiciary Committee approved it for consideration by the full House. But that happened on June 27th--a full month ago--and still the bill has not reached the floor, even though many less important measures have been considered. I call on the leadership of both parties to bring the VAWA reauthorization bill to the floor without further delay. This is too important a matter to neglect.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 2348, I rise to urge its approval. This bill is an important one for Colorado and the other States within the upper basin of the Colorado River and the basin of the San Juan River. The recovery program for endangered fish in the upper basin of the Colorado river is a cooperative program involving the State of Colorado and our neighboring States of Utah and Wyoming; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Western Area Power Administration, environmental organizations, and water-development interests in all three states. The State of Colorado is also a participant in the recovery program for the San Juan program, along with New Mexico, the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes, USFWS and Bureau of Reclamation, the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, and water development interests. Both recovery programs are aimed at recovering the endangered fish in ways that meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act while minimizing conflicts and allowing continued utilization of the area's scarce water resources for this and other purposes in ways that are consistent with applicable state laws, interstate compacts, and Supreme Court decrees allocating water among the states. The purpose of the legislation is to provide a specific authorization for the funding that is necessary for implementation of these programs. Such funding has been consistently provided in recent years, but having such a specific authorization will provide greater certainty for all concerned. The bill is the product of a cooperative effort among the participants in the programs and other interested parties. It is a sound and balanced measure that merits strong support. I am glad to have the opportunity to join with Chairman Hansen and the other sponsors of this legislation in urging its passage by the House and hope that the Senate will act promptly to send it to the President for signature into law.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4923, the Community Renewal and New Markets Act. H.R. 4923 provides tax credits, regulatory assistance and access to capital aimed primarily at economically disadvantaged communities. Since joining the Small Business Committee, I have been committed to seeing the President's New Markets Initiative enacted into law. As we consider H.R. 4923 today, I would like to call my colleague's attention to a pair of provisions in this bill offered by the Small Business Committee. I am proud to have worked on these bi-partisan, commonsense Small Business Committee provisions, the New Markets Venture Capital Program and BusinessLINC. The New Markets Venture Capital Program (NMVC) creates a public private partnership to fund businesses located principally in low- income areas. The New Markets Initiative's primary objective is the establishment of a venture capital program with the specific mission of identifying and providing for the investment needs of small entrepreneurs in low-to-moderate income communities, including inner- city and rural areas. This program represents the heart and soul of the New Markets Initiative. NMVC takes the concept of venture capital, in a public-private partnership, and applies it directly to areas untouched by economic prosperity. The SBA is planning to name 10 NMVC's throughout the country. The NMVC's will receive a $15 million appropriation for loan guarantees that translates into $150 million in loans. BusinessLINC encourages large businesses to team with small businesses and entrepreneurs located in low income areas. This grant program helps promote business-to-business networking through local third-party entities such as Chambers of Commerce. In addition, the program provides funds to these local business organizations for technical assistance programs, such as marketing and business plans. Across this country, more than 34.5 million people live below the poverty line. In this time of unparalleled economic growth and prosperity, the Community Renewal and New Markets Act is truly needed to harness the entrepreneurial power that exists in these cities and towns, and to insure that our nation's economic growth touches all.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House today is considering H.R. 3817, the bill to address the lessons to be learned from the story of a young boy, Jaryd Atadero, who became separated from his family in the Comanche Peak wilderness area in Colorado last year and has never been found. I am a cosponsor of this bill, which would also remind us all of the need for vigilance for the safety of our children not only in the mountains but elsewhere as well. The Resources Committee revised the bill to address some concerns raised by the Administration, and as it comes before the House today it enjoys the support of both sides of the aisle in our committee. I want to commend my Colorado colleague, Mr. Tancredo, for working with the committee and with the Forest Service to resolve their concerns. I urge approval of the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

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 rise in support of H.R. 4275, which will designate the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area in Colorado and the Black Ridge Wilderness in both Colorado and Utah. As my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), has pointed out, enactment of this measure will provide for appropriate, protective management of some very special lands in western Colorado that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. It will also be, I think, by my count, the third bill passed in this Congress to designate additional wilderness in Colorado. The President has already signed the bill to designate wilderness in and adjacent to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park; and I am hopeful Congress will soon complete action, as I know my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), is as well, on the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Area in the San Isabel National Forest. We are continuing to make progress in Colorado, and I am proud to be a part of that. I wanted to take a moment to talk about a number of amendments that were proposed by myself and that were adopted in the Committee on Resources. Taken together, these amendments embody the compromise with regard to the water provisions of the bill and also include a number of technical and conforming changes to reflect the agreements that were worked out among my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the Department of Interior, and those of us on the committee. First, my amendments added provisions regarding the headwaters nature of the Black Ridge lands to make clear the rationale for following the approach of the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act by including an express disclaimer of a Federal reserved water right with respect to the wilderness area. Second, the amendments added language to make clear that the bill will not affect any existing water rights, including those of the United States. Third, the amendments revised the boundary of the NCA and the wilderness along the Colorado River which made it possible to omit language that had been proposed regarding issues that some felt might arise had the boundary been closer to the river itself. Fourth, my amendments added provisions to make clear that the boundary revision will not compromise the ability of the Secretary to properly manage recreational or other uses of public lands adjacent to the river. Finally, my amendments added a provision, similar to that included in the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, to prohibit new water projects in the wilderness area designated by this bill. These changes addressed most if not all the major concerns of the various Colorado groups, both the environmental groups and those representing other points of view regarding these aspects of the bill. At the same time they left intact the basic balance of the bill with regard to the lands covered by the bill that are now used for livestock grazing. I want to express my appreciation for the hard work and continued cooperation of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), as well as those of the Department of the Interior and both the majority and minority staff of the committee. Thanks to their efforts, I think the Committee on Resources has been able to achieve an acceptable bill that deserves the approval of the House even if it may not be everything that every party might have desired. I urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.