Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by thanking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their work on this important measure. I want to remember my friend Lou Entz from Colorado, who suggested in the spirit of this legislation that if you eat, you are involved in agriculture, and those of us that live in suburban districts need to remember that. But let me talk about title IV, the Biomass Research and Development Act. Last year the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) joined me in introducing the House version of this legislation. We were joined shortly thereafter by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), who introduced his own version of the legislation. The two bills had much in common. Both recognized the increased contribution that biobased industrial products can make to our economy, if and only if appropriate research was put into place. Both realized the increased need for cooperation among the Departments of Energy and Agriculture and the private sector in conducting the research and ensuring it leads to new product and new jobs. Both recognized the importance of the conversion of cellulosic biomass, which consists of any plant or plant product. Cellulosic conversion is particularly important to the State of Colorado because of the potential threat of wildfires. We have seen the effect of wildfires over the recent weeks in New Mexico, and there is much more we could do to make these materials available through commercial markets. In Colorado, the Colorado Forest Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service Laboratory, and the National Renewable Energy Lab began to study the possibility of developing ethanol or other bioproducts economically from this wood fiber. I am especially pleased to see that the version of the legislation before us incorporates important concepts from the Udall-Boehlert-Minge bill. Peer-reviewed research, sensitivity to the effects of increased bioproduction on the environment, and an emphasis on the economics of bioenergy and biobased industrial projects are all featured prominently in the legislation. The definition of biomass is limited to organic matter that is available on a renewing or recurring basis, and therefore would not include old growth forests or other environmentally sensitive ecosystems. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this important bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this bill. Deciding how to vote on this has not been easy, and I want to explain how I've arrived at my decision. I began by reviewing the developments that led to the decision we are asked to make today. In November 1999, after nearly 14 years of negotiations, the U.S. and China reached a bilateral agreement covering market access issues with China, taking the first step to China's admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO). For the U.S. to benefit from China's accession to the WTO, Congress must first grant unconditional and permanent NTR to China. This means we would no longer have the annual opportunity to review China's record on human and worker rights, which Congress has done since the passage of the Trade Act in 1974. The Trade Act includes an amendment that denies NTR for China, which congress has voted to waive since 1980. I think this has been an important exercise that has enabled Congress to regularly review China's progress in human and worker rights. Some argue that this ``sword of Damocles'' that we hang annually over the heads of the Chinese isn't putting a stop to human rights violations. But we should ask what might have happened if we hadn't exercised this leverage. Human rights organizations and dissidents tell me that as the vote approaches every year in Congress, the situation in China becomes a little less grim. To me, that indicates that the annual review of Congress continues to be important. The agreement negotiated last November would require China to open its markets widely and deeply, and would provide new trade and investment opportunities for U.S. businesses. But there remain unanswered questions about the economic consequences of the agreement and whether the immediate benefits to U.S. producers will be as great as some have claimed. For instance, it is unclear whether the agreement will improve our increasing trade imbalance with China, a deficit valued annually at $69 billion. It is unclear whether most of the benefits of the agreement will be realized by U.S. companies that invest directly in China and use China primarily as an export platform, or whether there will be an increase in imports of U.S.-made goods to China. It also remains unclear on what terms the U.S. and China would trade in the absence of the WTO agreement--some analysts maintain that the 1979 U.S.-bilateral treaty would allow the U.S. to benefit from some, if not all, of the provisions in the WTO agreement, even if the agreement itself doesn't go into effect. So, I have questions about the details and effects of the trade agreement. But my misgivings about granting permanent NTR status to China don't revolve around questions of the benefits of trade as much as about the question of who will benefit. We hear from free trade advocates that permanent NTR will be good for the people of China. There's an underlying assumption here that free trade invariably leads to development and democracy. Markets do produce change, but not necessarily ``development'' in a positive sense. Markets without law produce the kind of capitalism we see in Russia, and markets without democracy produce an Indonesian-style economic disaster. I agree that open markets and more porous borders have helped lift up the lives of people in many countries of the world. But I am also alarmed about the growing economic inequality within and between countries. Unless free trade is also fair trade, we risk lifting up the few to the detriment of the many. Economic openness accompanied by tighter restrictions on basic freedoms. Even now, China claims its action in arresting and imprisoning pro-democracy activists and Falun Gong followers are done in the name of the ``rule of law.'' Fortunately, the vote on permanent NTR is not a vote on whether to isolate China from the rest of the world. The forces of globalization have already changed China and connected it to the world in ways even China's leadership can't control. Even now, China receives far more foreign direct investment than any other developing country. Trade, investment, and reform will continue whether or not the U.S. grants China permanent NTR. And this doesn't mean that the U.S. would necessarily be left out of the mix. Despite threats to impose stiff tariffs on U.S. firms doing business in China if permanent NTR does not pass, China's paramount concern right now is its economy and finding ways to bring it into the 21st century. If China is determined to find this path, it is doubtful that it would choose to neglect the very country that consumes 40 percent of its exports. After careful consideration, I have decided I cannot support permanent NTR for China at this time. There are five main reasons why. First, if there is any constant in China's behavior, it is that China does not do what it says it will do, especially as regards trade. In my view, a WTO agreement can advance economic reform in China only if it is enforced. The WTO was founded on the assumption that its members respect international laws. But China has violated all four bilateral trade agreements that it has entered with the U.S. since 1992. Already, some of China's ministries have moved to protect themselves against the effect of WTO membership. It seems to me that if we can expect massive violations from China based on its record of noncompliance with existing trade agreements, we should be concerned that the WTO multilateral dispute mechanisms--already cumbersome--are not constructed to handle this kind of load. Second is the concern I touched on earlier about the importance of the leverage provided by the annual NTR review. China's record of violating its citizens' fundamental human rights of freedom of speech, religion and association will be harder, not easier, to challenge if Congress grants PNTR. Third, I have many concerns about labor the environmental standards that the November 1999 agreement does not take into account. If we don't insist now--before we grant permanent NTR--that China commit to making progress in these areas, what could be our best chance for these reforms will be closed off. Fourth, there is important symbolism to consider. Granting China permanent NTR would send a powerful message to Asia's genuine fledgling democracies--Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, and Indonesia, where workers have the right to organize--that they no longer have to abide by internationally recognized human and labor rights. Granting China permanent NTR would also send a troubling message that although we hold other countries accountable through sanctions for arms sales, threats to neighboring democracies, or human rights abuses, we are not willing to do the same for China. While I am not advocating sanctions for China, neither do I believe we should turn a blind eye to China's human rights abuses by granting permanent NTR. This leads me to my fifth reason, which to me is the most important. China has racked up a dismal human rights record year after year, despite signing two UN covenants on human rights prior to President Clinton's trip to Beijing in 1998. In fact, according to recent reports by the State Department, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations, the situation has deteriorated markedly since late 1998. Even now at the current meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, China is fighting a U.S. effort to censure Beijing for its worsening human rights record. In the name of ``social stability,'' China has effectively banned opposition political parties, further constrained free association and religious expression, sped up the pace of arrests and executions of activists, and interfered with the free flow of information through restrictions on the Internet. This is all in addition to extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, and denial of due process. Just recently, a constituent of mine in Westminster asked for help in getting his Chinese parents released from a jail in Hubei Province, where they are being detained for their Falun Gong practice. We've done what we can, but as far as I know, they're still there. Before we grant PNTR, we should insist that China ratify and live up to the two UN human rights treaties it has already signed. We should ask that it take steps to begin dismantling its ``reeducation through labor'' system, which allows officials to sentence citizens to labor camps for up to three years without judicial review. We should insist that China change its repressive policies regarding the Tibetan people and open Tibet to regular access by UN human rights and humanitarian agencies and foreign journalists. If we don't insist now--before we grant permanent NTR--that China live up to agreements it has signed and that it adhere to international standards of human rights, China will have no incentive to move in this direction. Some have suggested that the ``brave'' position to take is to vote to grant normal trade relations to China. I disagree. For me it is far more difficult to cast a vote that some might say would close the door on a developing country and its billion citizens, all of whom deserve the benefits that truly free trade can bring. On the contrary, I'll be the first to welcome China if--as it opens it markets--it also will open its prisons; lift restrictions on speech, association, and religious expression; protect the rights of its workers; and respect its environment. I don't believe we can or should ignore China. To do so would risk ignoring important economic opportunities and strategic and security considerations. I believe we should encourage China's economic modernization, but we should also encourage China to take the leap into the 21st century in more than just economic ways. The question is not whether to engage China, it is how and on whose terms. I was encouraged by the efforts of Representative Levin and Representative Bereuter to seek a way in which to maintain pressure on China to improve its record on human rights, compliance with core labor standards, and development of the rule of law. That is why I voted for the rule, which added the Levin-Bereuter provisions to the bill. These provisions still don't go far enough--given that they have no power of enforcement--to allow me to change my position. But I believe they reflect the right spirit, a spirit that is about trying actively to shape globalization, not passively closing our doors. Although I cannot support permanent NTR today, I remain committed to this activist course.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand here today with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of this important resolution. I want the listeners to know that I represent the Rocky Flats facility, which was a key part of the nuclear weapons complex in the great State of Colorado. We need to pass this resolution today and, as so many of my colleagues have called for, we need to put a bill together. In my opinion, we could do it by July 4. That would be fitting because these Americans were warriors in the Cold War, and they were no less deserving of support for the illnesses and injuries that occurred to them than those members of our society who were in the hot war that we fought in the Second World War. So let us get this done for these Americans. I am proud to stand here with my colleagues.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to give my strong support for this amendment. It represents an overall bipartisan effort that I believe must move forward in order to provide fair and just compensation for those who worked long and hard to win the Cold War: the Atomic Veterans. Many of these Atomic Veterans are ill or dying from diseases due to their exposures to hazardous materials at Department of Energy facilities. New Mexico has a long and valued tradition of service to our Nation. New Mexico's workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, have suffered from illness due to their exposures to radiation, beryllium, and other hazardous materials used in the production of nuclear weapons. It is right that we compensate the Atomic Veterans from all over this great nation who have sacrificed so courageously for their country. We spend billions of dollars on cleanup of nuclear waste sites; we now take responsibility for the human cost of the Cold War. Congress must act, first to support this amendment, and then to pass legislation that is just and fair. When I introduced legislation to compensate Atomic Veterans from Los Alamos National Laboratory, I urged my colleagues from around the country, Democrats and Republicans, who also have victims in their districts, to work together to craft a solution to this problem at the national level. This amendment is a step in that direction. Compensation is important because these workers are true patriots. They loved their country, they worked for their country, and now we need to do what is right and compensate them fairly for their illnesses.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have some serious concerns about aspects of this bill. But I will vote for it because it includes many provisions that are important for our country and for Colorado. For one thing, today the House adopted the amendment that added a strong statement of the need for the Congress to promptly pass legislation to provide compensation and fairer treatment for workers at DOE nuclear-weapons sites who were exposed to beryllium, radiation, and other hazards. I joined with colleagues from both sides of the aisle in proposing that amendment, which is very important for the nation and especially for the many Coloradans who have worked at Rocky Flats. Earlier, the House also approved my amendment to assist federal employees at Rocky Flats to make successful transitions to retirement or new careers as we move toward expedited cleanup and closure of the site. In addition, the House approved the amendment by Representative Kasich and others to condition further U.S. military involvement in Kosovo on more equitable burden-sharing by our NATO allies. I voted for that amendment because I believe our allies should keep their commitment to help us bear the load of peacekeeping in Kosovo. The United States is a great power, and as such must continue to play a leading role in global affairs. That doesn't mean, however, that we should have to carry the weight of the world on our own. I am also glad that the House adopted the amendment by Mr. Dreier and others to reduce the current six-month waiting period for new computer export controls to a more realistic time period. I believe this is an important step toward developing an effective export control policy that protects our national security at the same time that it ensures continued U.S. technological leadership and competitiveness. The bill would also make TRICARE's ``senior prime'' a permanent, nationwide program--a change of great importance to veterans. However, as I said earlier, I do have serious concerns about some provisions in the bill. First, the bill's authorized levels exceed last year's appropriated levels by $21 billion, and are $4.5 billion more than the Pentagon requested. I remain concerned that too much defense spending means not enough investment in education, health care, and the needs of our children. Second, the bill authorizes $2.2 billion for the initial phases of a national missile defense system. I am concerned that the authorization of these funds could encourage a premature decision on the deployment of a national missile defense system. I don't believe that it is an accurate statement to say--as the bill does--that the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 entails a commitment by the President to deploy such a system. In fact, this was conditional on feasibility and on whether we are able to deploy in the context of other arms agreements. I am convinced it would be irresponsible--as well as strategically disadvantageous--for us to make a unilateral move toward an inadequately tested defensive system. Earlier this year I wrote to the President urging that he not make a deployment decision based on politics instead of on diplomacy and technical feasibility, and without weighing considerations of cost. The same holds true for Congress. The House rejected a proposal to simply close the School of the Americas. Instead, the bill will replace it with a new military training institute that is not substantively different than the current one. I am deeply concerned that this cosmetic change is being viewed as the best we can do to clean up the School of the Americas. I was also disappointed that the amendment Ms. Sanchez proposed did not pass. The amendment would have ensured equal access to comprehensive reproductive health care for all U.S. servicewomen and military dependents. These are not trivial defects. They are real shortcomings. Nonetheless, on balance, I think the merits of this bill as it stands outweigh its shortcomings and I will vote for its passage. It is my hope that the bill can be further improved as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. As the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Rules know, the rule makes in order my amendment to provide the Department of Energy additional tools to manage the reduction of the overall number of Federal employees in the workforce at Rocky Flats and the other nuclear weapons facilities while also keeping those sites on track for expedited closure. In addition, the DOE would be able to provide assistance for employees to make successful transitions to retirement and new careers. I am here to say that I greatly appreciate the Committee on Rules for allowing this important matter to be considered. I also appreciate the cooperation and assistance of the leadership and staff of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Based on my discussions with them, I have agreed to some revisions in the amendment; and it is my understanding that the amendment, with those revisions, probably will be included as part the en bloc managers amendment. Here is a brief description of the revised amendment: The amendment deals with the DOE weapons sites that are scheduled for expedited cleanup and closure--(1) Rocky Flats in Colorado and (2) several sites in Ohio: Fernald, Columbus, Miamisburg, and Ashtabula. The amendment is based on an Administration request. It would give DOE additional tools to meet the challenge of downsizing the federal workforce in ways that will both facilitate accelerated closure of the site and also assist DOE's employees to make successful transitions to retirement or new careers. DOE wants this authority as a way to avoid reliance on the standard reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures by offering incentives for some employees to voluntarily separate and for others to remain. The goal is to manage the reduction in the overall number of federal employees at the site while still retaining the proper mix of people with needed skills despite the high attrition rates that can be expected as closure approaches--so, the amendment would allow DOE to offer incentives for some people to leave early and for others to remain. Similar--not identical--language has been incorporated as section 3155 of the Senate version of the bill. As modified, the amendment would allow DOE to authorize--additional accumulation of annual leave; payment of lump-sum retention allowances; and continuation of health- care benefits for employees who are separated (voluntarily or involuntarily) from Rocky Flats or one of the other sides covered by the amendment. The amendment would require inclusion of information about the use of these incentives in the required periodic reports on the closure.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join other Members in applauding the intention of Mr. Upton's bill as introduced. Avoiding per-minute charges for Internet access services is a very worthy goal. The use of per-minute access charges for the Internet has plagued the development of the Internet is no many other countries. We should do what is needed to continue a flat-rate charging mechanism. However, H.R. 1291 also includes a ``Rule of Construction'' that I find a little troubling. The provision says that nothing in the bill precludes the FCC from imposing access charges on Internet telephone providers. This refers to the charges long-distance telephone companies must pay to local telephone companies for connecting a long-distance call to local telephone networks--both where the call originates and where it terminates. I don't believe that this provision is intended to encourage the FCC to rush in and impose today's access charge regime on providers of Internet telephone services. Nor do I think the FCC has plans to impose any access charges at the present time. Still, given the wording of this provision, I think it's important to emphasize that an imposition of old-style access charges on Internet telephony would be short-sighted. Access charges are based on a distinction between local and long-distance that the Internet is rendering irrelevant. The FCC should carefully study the issue and reform today's current access charge regime before it rushes in to impose old regulation on new Internet applications.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill because on balance, it is a good bill. In particular, it provides necessary funds for National Guard projects in my State of Colorado. I would like to voice my concerns, however, about funding provided for the initial construction phase of a national missile defense system. I'm glad the committee didn't provide all the funds the President requested, and I'm glad the committee's report included language expressing concern that to date no site has been selected and a decision hasn't been made to go forward with this program. I hope that the appropriation of these funds does not encourage a premature decision on the deployment of a national missile defense system. As so many have said, the intercept technology is clearly not ready for operational application, and I am convinced it would be irresponsible--as well as strategically disadvantageous--for us to make a unilateral move toward an inadequately tested defense system. I continue to believe that a decision to deploy that ignores technological and diplomatic considerations cannot possibly yield the best outcome.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on behalf of my cousin and fellow Congressman Tom Udall. We have followed the story of the tragic fires in my cousin's district in New Mexico that have disrupted the lives of thousands of our citizens in New Mexico and we have shared the anguish of the families that have lost their homes and cherished possessions. There is, of course, no price that we can place on much of what has been lost. What we can do, though, is support the relief and recovery efforts for the people who are now faced with putting their lives back together. It is the right thing to do. The New Mexico congressional delegation has done just that. And on the delegations behalf he asks that you also provide your support for the delegation's efforts. Right now, Congressman Tom Udall is back in his district working to provide support to his constituents. He is making sure information about what assistance is available is getting to the people in the Third Congressional District who have been hit so hard by this fire. He is also walking through the fire-stricken parts of his district, talking with his constituents and listening to them in order to understand what they need to put their lives back together. What he has learned has made him grateful for the efforts of the New Mexicans in the surrounding communities the fire who they pulled together even as this tragedy unfolded. Opened their homes and their hearts to those less fortunate. And he is so grateful for the efforts of the countless organizations and firefighters who have helped bring some order to this shattered scene. And even from that distance he is advocating for his constituents by working with this Congress to keep the Federal efforts to help these citizens get back on track. This house resolution is one example. While in New Mexico, he has also been working here in Washington to ensure that the emergency funds that are needed for these efforts are available. He has asked for 100 million dollars in additional emergency aid for that purpose. And he remains in close contact with the Federal agencies that share the assistance and relief responsibilities for dealing with this disaster. He will make sure that the maximum effort is employed to meet our responsibilities. Colleagues, I am here to tell you that he asks for your support for his efforts and those of his colleague Heather Wilson to help Americans whose lives have been turned upside down.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this resolution. I am glad that the House is considering it today. For more than four decades, volunteers of the Arapahoe Rescue Patrol have assisted Colorado law enforcement agencies, fire departments and search and rescue missions. Founded in 1957 by Stan Bush, Director of the Emergency Planning Department for the city of Littleton, the Patrol is as a non-profit organization that with its headquarters in the Fire Station 12 in the city of Littleton. More than one thousand students have participated in the Rescue Patrol's program and been involved in more than 2,200 rescue missions. Each student works approximately ten hours a week assisting with emergencies, from fires and automobile accidents to searches for missing people. The Patrol's program benefits everyone--our communities, our law- enforcement agencies, and the young people who receive its training. I join my colleague, Representative Tancredo in urging the House to approve this resolution to acknowledge and highlight the efforts of the Arapahoe Rescue Patrol.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I want to express the same sorts of concerns that my colleague, the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) expressed. It seems that while this proposed amendment may be intended to prevent title III funds from being used for public outreach, species reintroduction, and other uses not currently authorized in the law, it actually could have the opposite effect, is what the gentleman is suggesting. By deleting all the definitions in the title, that being title III, but maintaining the rest of the title, it establishes a new wildlife conservation program for the States with a variety of terms of reference that are not defined, including wildlife conservation project, wildlife recreation project, wildlife education project. The way I see it, if the amendment was passed the administration could write new regulations interpreting these provisions in any way they want. Potentially, they could determine that these projects could include public outreach or species reintroduction, which I think are the very things that the sponsor is attempting to prevent. Mr. Chairman, again, I think this would be ill-advised. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume only to, I think, summarize what the gentleman said: We have to plant before we can harvest, and I continue looking forward to working with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young.) Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for working with me on this amendment. I urge support of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I would echo what the chairman has suggested, but again I emphasize that this amendment would eliminate the opportunity for the private sector to be involved. In fact, CARA is constructed in a way that the private sector is fully involved in the holding of conservation easements.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to prohibit nonprofit organizations from using funds under the bill to acquire conservation easements. This would be exactly the wrong thing to do. Let me talk a little bit about what is going on in Colorado. In Colorado, we have the Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust, which helps ranchers and other property owners to avoid the need to sell their lands to developers. In fact, if we look at their brochure that they put out, that gives a lot of great examples of easement purchases, and they specifically talk about the fact that cattlemen formed the trust so that easements could be held by private parties. They want private sector control. This amendment would eliminate that possibility. We also have organizations like the Continental Trails Alliance, which can acquire easements instead of having to purchase full fee interests in lands and that makes them able to make effective use of their limited funds. When we look throughout the country, we have soccer clubs and other nonprofit groups that are acquiring easements that makes it much more feasible for those communities to provide recreation areas for soccer and for open-space recreation and to help deal with the sprawl that is consuming so much of our precious open space. So this bill helps these groups carry out these vital activities. This amendment would make it much more difficult, if not impossible, for them to do that. For that reason, we should reject the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to the time remaining.

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