Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment not just on my own behalf, but on behalf of a number of other Members, including the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple. It would add authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to use funds under the bill for urban and community forestry, in addition to the authority the bill provides for funding the farmland protection and forest legacy programs. The amendment would not require a specific level of funding, it would merely require and allow the Secretary to have the discretion to provide the program with some of the funds available under Title VII of the bill. The urban and community forestry program helps communities protect their air and water, save energy, increase property values, and create healthy environments by enabling the Forest Service to provide technical and financial assistance to local governments and to nonprofit organizations in partnership with the State forestry agencies. The program helps urban communities with tree planting and urban planning. It helps suburban communities like mine respond to the problems of growth and sprawl, and it helps rural communities, as well. For example, in the last fiscal year, the program assisted more than 50 projects in Colorado. It helped dozens of communities of all sizes, from Lyons, Larkspur, and Leadville, to Dacono, Denver, and Dinosaur, and many others across our State. Besides local governments, such as Jefferson, Gunnison, and Eagle Counties, and many cities and towns, its partners included dozens of groups like Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado; Trees, Water, and People; the Denver Urban Resources Partnership; garden clubs, schools, and many others too numerous to list. The story is the same all across the country. In fact, nationally, more than 10,000 communities and some 7,000 volunteer organizations participate annually. The program operates on a partnership basis and Federal funds are heavily leveraged. In fact, $4 of private donations and in-kind contributions are involved for each dollar provided by the Federal government. We are still not meeting all of the needs out there. In fact, the Forest Service tells me that they have eight times more requests for assistance than they have resources to provide. So I think it just makes good sense to give the Department of Agriculture the ability to use some of these funds that would be made available by this bill to continue this important work. In short, I think adding this program would add a useful element to this good bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of this historic measure. I believe it deserves the favorable vote of every Member of the House. I want to also extend my gratitude to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for their leadership, creativity and persistence in shaping this bill. This bill is a reflection of the promise of one of the wisest and most farsighted conservation measures ever, the Land and Water Conservation Act. The promise of that Act was that the Federal government, as it sold Federal nonrenewable resources such as oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf, that a major portion of those proceeds would be invested in conserving our lands and waters, and helping our local communities make similar investments. Unfortunately, because of the problems over the last years with our budget deficits, we have been unable to meet those obligations. But now the budget situation is different, and we have a chance to make up for the shortfalls of the past and invest in our future. There is much that this bill will help us accomplish. It will help communities respond to the challenges of growth and sprawl. It will help Colorado's ranchers and farmers, and those of other States, to keep their lands and agriculture through conservation easements and similar measures. It will help provide more resources to historic preservation all throughout our great country. By bolstering the PILT program, we can help counties and local governments in areas where the Federal government is a major landowner, and we can do it the right way, by providing those funds are not tied to extractive or other uses of Federal lands. Mr. Chairman, when we consider all that this bill will do for this country, I am convinced, as many of the previous speakers are, that this is one of the most important measures that we can undertake, not only this year but in any year. I strongly urge its passage. It reflects the spirit of the old saying, that we do not inherit the Earth from our parents; in fact, we borrow the Earth from our children. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of this historic measure. It deserves the favorable vote of every Member of the House. All of us are indebted to our Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, and our ranking Member, Mr. George Miller of California. Thanks to their leadership, creativity, and persistence in shaping this bill, we today have an opportunity to take a giant step 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 feel short of fulfilling that promise. But now our 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 forest from people who want to sell. We can help protect threatened by endangered species, and can assist our state wildlife agencies to manage the fish and wildlife resources that are so important to Colorado and the rest of the nation. We can help Colorado's ranchers and farmers--and those of other states as well--to keep their lands in agriculture through conservation easements and similar measures that enable them to reap some of the benefits of increased land values without having to sell them to developers. 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 Gilpin, Clear Creek, Adams, and Jefferson Countries 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 without making the local communities hostages to the debates over timber harvests or other extractive uses. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that some Members have concerns about the bill. I am sure that we will hear more about that during the course of the debate on the bill and amendments that may be offered. And, after all, there is no perfect legislation. When you consider all that this bill would do for our country I am convinced that it is one of the most important measures not just of this year but of many years to come. I strongly urge its passage. It reflects through action the spirit of the saying we don't inherit the earth from our parents. we borrow it from our children and I attach letters of support from the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Chairman of the Colorado Wildlife Commission. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following documents: State of Colorado, Denver, CO, May 5, 2000. Hon. Mark Udall, House of Representatives, Cannon HOBT, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Udall: I want to thank you for prior support of HR 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), and I urge you to support its final passage. Enactment of CARA is the single most effective step Congress can take to minimize the need to list declining species under the Endangered Species Act. HR 701 offers the diverse interests of our states and communities the non-regulatory tools they need to collaboratively conserve fish and wildlife, and the habitat the species depend upon, before the restorations of the Act force desperate and far more costly attempts to reverse their decline. HR 701 invests in wildlife conservation; PILT payments; open space; farmland and historic preservation; recreation; federal, state and local parks; endangered species recovery; and landowner incentives. At the same time, HR 710 provides private property owners protection that do not now exit when Congress and federal agencies set priorities for the federal side of the Land was Water Conservation Fund, and brings balance to the federal and state side of the program. For the reasons, Governor Bill Owens has endorsed the passage of CARA. He and I would appreciate your continued support of this historic legislation. Sincerely, Greg Walcher, Executive Director.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would eliminate the bill's provisions for land acquisitions, eliminate the provisions for land acquisitions by Federal agencies, and instead, increase the emphasis on assisting the States and local governments. Do not get me wrong; I want to assist the States and local governments, but sometimes Federal acquisitions are appropriate and necessary. Three examples in Colorado that exist right now. We are trying to get a bill through this body that would authorize acquisition of lands next to the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, partly for addition to that unit of the national park and also to create a wildlife refuge. Secondly, there is a need to acquire inholdings in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park we just created in this body. Thirdly, right in my district, right in my district there are lands in the Beaver Brook watershed that the City of Golden wants to sell for addition to the Arapaho National Forest. This proposed acquisition has broad support and needs to go forward on a priority basis. These are just a few examples in Colorado. It is clear that this amendment is a poison pill. In Colorado, 35 percent of our lands are owned by the Federal Government. As a Coloradan, as a Rocky Mountain Westerner, as an American, we ought to pass this bill but defeat this amendment. This is nothing but a poison pill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am in support of H.R. 3709, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act. The bill we're voting on today addresses two main questions. One has to do with taxing Internet services. A consensus seems to be forming-- among a majority of the members of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce and many others--that there should be no new tariffs or taxes on Internet services. I agree. H.R. 3709 would prohibit such taxes for 5 years, an important step to reduce the price of and thus eliminate barriers to Internet access. The other question--whether or not State government should be allowed to collect sales taxes on e-commerce transactions made between residents and companies residing in other states--is more problematic. We hear it argued both ways. Supporters of a permanent moratorium say, for instance, that the imposition of any new taxes would likely result in the lowering of tax revenues from other sources because of the deadening effect such taxes would have on overall economic growth. Opponents of an indefinite extension point out that the more we deprive states and localities of revenues from sales taxes--which are often the primary source of revenue to fund education--the more we risk neglecting the very students who we hope will fill jobs in the high- tech economy in the future. I do share some of the concerns voiced by many Governors and State legislatures. I am concerned that an extended moratorium might indirectly weaken state and local funding that provides our communities with essential public services such as education, law enforcement and transportation. So I am concerned that an extension of 5 years may be too long because the definition of ``Internet access'' may change so much in the next half decades that the provisions in this bill may no longer fit an evolving economic context. It is clear that traditional businesses are disadvantaged by sales over the Internet. But it is also clear that many young, small e- commerce businesses could suffer if they are forced to negotiate the maze of more than 7,000 State and local taxes. An industry still in its infancy must be handled with care. But at some point, the gloves must come off. What we're doing today is deciding to put off this decision for another 5 years. I believe that we're not prepared to agree on how and when the gloves should come off, and that's why I support this bill, although I think it would be better if the extension were shorter. But I do believe we must use the years ahead productively to seek ways to streamline and simplify sales tax systems, a task that many states--including Colorado--are already undertaking. Mr. Chairman, we are living in a new era. A unique constellation of circumstances--a burgeoning technology sector, low unemployment, and low interest rates--has given way to the longest peacetime period of economic expansion this country has ever known. We need to ensure that we don't do anything hastily that will derail this revolution. At the same time, we mustn't ignore the people and businesses that for years have sustained our communities.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Congress to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With this act we have the opportunity to make significant progress towards repairing and modernizing schools, reducing class size, and ensuring that our classrooms are healthy and safe learning environments. Too many schools are stressed by population growth and crumbling infrastructure. Our average school is 42 years old. While money cannot solve problems in all of our schools, I believe matching our talk about the importance of education with an appropriate level of funding would go a long way towards improving classroom resources, reducing class size, and giving kids the space and tools they need to learn well. Yesterday, the House passed the IDEA Full Funding Act. This bill is an important step towards honoring the commitment that we have made at the Federal level to share an important part of the resources needed at the local level. Mr. Speaker, time is running short for Congress to complete its work. The stage is set for Congress to make meaningful improvements in the area of class size reduction and school facilities repair and modernization. We should not let this opportunity pass us by. We need to act soon.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to two important causes for celebration and reflection. First, today is Space Day. Here in Washington, Senator John Glenn, Sally Ride, NASA director Daniel Goldin, and others will gather to celebrate the achievements and opportunities that we have all realized through the exploration of space. The celebration also includes Space Day's third annual Webcast devoted to space, science, math, and technology, in which children all over the world will be able to participate. Space Day activities will also take place in Colorado and other states throughout the country. This week is also the tenth anniversary of the launch of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Although its early life was marked by controversy, the Hubble has become one of the most important astronomical study missions ever attempted. In 1993, shuttle astronauts installed lenses--made by Ball Aerospace, in my district in Colorado-- to correct the telescope's near-sighted vision. Since that time, Hubble's images have been nothing less than remarkable. Hubble itself has circled the Earth 58,000 times, made 271,000 observations, and generated 2,651 scientific papers. It has fulfilled its scientific missions to determine the age of the universe within a certain range, provide proof that massive black holes exist, and detect the farthest objects in the universe. Not only has the Hubble telescope made these extraordinary discoveries, but its images have also helped to broaden the appeal of space to all Americans. Pictures of exploding stars and a comet hitting Jupiter are just some that have engaged our imaginations and changed the way we think about the universe. I'm proud to note that Colorado and its 2d Congressional District in particular has played a significant role in this nation's space endeavor. But it has truly been a national endeavor, one that has benefited all Americans. I hope we will all take a moment today--Space Day--to reflect on how the advancement of science and space concerns us all.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I think few people know that the Second Congressional District of Colorado is home to over 1,200 spectacular butterflies from 50 different species, over 100 different species of tropical and sub-tropical plants, and a variety of exotic arthropods that are normally found only in faraway lands. This may seem impossible given our dry climate at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, but thanks to the Butterfly Pavilion & Insect Center located in Westminster, Coloradans have the opportunity to see these fascinating creatures and plants first hand. The Butterfly Pavilion & Insect Center is an educational facility for study of insects and other invertebrates. The facility exists to foster an appreciation of butterflies and other invertebrates while reminding the public about the need for conservation of threatened habitats in the tropics and around the world. The Butterfly Pavilion & Insect Center is the only stand-alone nonprofit insect zoo in the nation. Visitors to the facility find themselves surrounded by free-flying butterflies while walking through the lush, tropical conservatory. A chrysalis viewing area allows visitors to watch the amazing process of metamorphosis as adult butterflies emerge from their gemlike chrysalides. In the insect center, visitors can watch, touch or take a closer look at some of the world's most fascinating insects and their relatives. They can discover what it feels like to hold a rose-haired tarantula from Chile, a Madagascar Hissing Cockroach or a giant mealworm. The Butterfly Pavilion & Insect Center is a publicly supported scientific and educational facility and operates in collaboration with scientific advisors from zoos, universities and museums both locally and nationally. The facility is located at 6252 West 104th Avenue in Westminster, Colorado. It can also be found on the World Wide Web at www.butterflies.org. I encourage everyone to visit and learn more. I would like to commend this organization for their steadfast commitment in educating the public about these living treasures. I thank them for bringing this source of amazement and beauty to our great state.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I was encouraged to hear last year that the FCC was initiating efforts to bring back community radio. After engaging in a public process that took into account thousands of comments from citizens all over the country, and after conducting extensive technical tests, the FCC issued its rule to establish lower power FM radio, a rule that many see as conservative. The FCC scaled back its proposal significantly in order to protect existing stations from interference, while at the same time maximizing the ability of local groups to gain access to the public airwaves. The FCC's rule is meant to help bring community radio to millions around the country, and thereby to address a need that is not met by mainstream broadcasters. It is meant to bring the voices of community groups, churches, educational institutions, and local governments to radio. Many of these voices have been lost through media consolidation--figures I've seen show the number of radio station owners decreased by nearly 20 percent between 1995 and 1998. So at a time when even fewer voices are being heard, it is even more critical for us to be thinking about how to let more voices in, not keep them out. Although critics of the FCC claim the rule was made in haste, Chairman Kennard has said publicly that ``no service ever considered by the FCC has been as extensively studied as low power radio.'' He has said time and again that this was a ``responsible public interest decision that will not impact the existing radio service.'' I believe that if low power radio does end up having a negative impact on existing service, the FCC will step in to correct the situation. In the meantime, we should stop trying to legislate technical details. The FCC is charged with maximizing the public's use of the airwaves, encouraging the provision of new technologies and new services to the public, and providing new access to the airwaves for more people. We should let the FCC do its work, and oppose this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I've been trying to figure out just what this bill really is, and I've got it narrowed down to two choices. Either this is a belated April Fool's prank or it's the scariest thing since last Halloween. The idea that Congress would repeal all federal income, estate and gift and excise tax laws without a plan for how to replace them sounds like a joke. But for anybody who's trying to plan, it's not funny. How can a company decide whether to make a multi-year investment if it doesn't know what will be the basis for future tax laws? How can people decide how to invest for their retirement if they don't know what Congress might decide to do about the tax status of their investments? If the sponsors of this bill are serious--and they are asking us to assume that they are--then they are being remarkably careless. If they aren't serious--and it's tempting to treat this as a joke--then they seem pretty irresponsible. Either way, this is not the kind of legislation that we should be debating today or any day. But, here it is and we do have to vote. So, I will support the motion to recommit because it would at least fill in some of the blanks in the bill. It would spell out that any replacement for the income and excise tax laws has to be fiscally responsible and not endanger Social Security or Medicare. It would require that the replacement taxes emphasize simplicity and be fair to people at all income levels. And it would rule out any new federal sales taxes on prescription drugs and other health-care necessities or on home purchases and rentals. I think most Americans would agree that these are pretty basic principles that should be followed in shaping any new tax system. In short, Mr. Speaker, while I don't think the way to go about the hard work of reform is to burn down the house in hopes of putting up something better, we should at least define ``better'' before we start the fire.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the House has considered proposals like this several times in recent years. So I can see why the debate abut it sounds so rehearsed. I get the impression that many Members have heard all the arguments before, and I suspect that the debate will not change many minds about the proposal. But as a new Member I must say this resolution strikes me as one of the oddest pieces of legislation that I've encountered yet--and I think it's one of the worst. I'm not a lawyer, but it's clear that the language of the proposal is an invitation to litigation--in other words, to getting the courts involved even further in the law-making process. To say that Congress can define when a constitutional requirement would apply, provided that the Congressional decision is ``reasonable,'' is to ask for lawsuits challenging whatever definition might be adopted. Aren't there enough lawsuits already over the tax laws? Do we need to invite more? But more important than the technical aspects of this proposal, I think it is bad because it moves away from the basic principle of democracy--majority rule. Under this proposal, there would be another category of bills that would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. That's bad enough as it applies here in the House, but consider what that means in the Senate. There, if any 34 Senators are opposed to something that take a two-thirds vote, it cannot be passed. And, of course, each state has the same representation regardless of population. Consider what that means if the Senators in opposition are those from the 17 States with the fewest residents. We don't yet have this year's census numbers, of course, but the most recent estimates that I have seen show that the total population of the 17 least-populous states is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million people. That's a respectable number, but remember that the population of the country is 270 million or more. So, what this resolution would do would be to give Senators representing about 7 percent of the American people more power to block something even if it has sweeping support in the rest of the country. Right now, that kind of supermajority is needed under the constitution to ratify treaties, propose Constitutional amendments, and to do a few other things. But this resolution does not deal with things of that kind. It deals only with certain tax bills--bills that under the constitution have to originate here, in the House. Those are the bills that would be covered by this increase in the power of Senators who could represent a small minority of the American people. Why would we want to do that? Are the proponents of this constitutional amendment so afraid of majority rule on the subject of ``internal revenue''? Why else would they be so eager to reduce the stature of this body, the House of Representatives, as compared with our colleagues in the Senate. Remember, that's what this is all about--``internal revenue,'' however that term might be defined by Congress or by the courts. When Congress debates taxes, it is deciding what funds are to be raised under Congress's Constitutional authority to ``pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.'' Those are serious and important decisions, to be sure, but what is wrong with continuing to have them made under the principle of majority rule--meaning by the members of Congress who represent the majority of the American people? So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this proposed change in the Constitution. Our country has gotten along well without it for two centuries. It is not needed. It would not solve any problem--in fact, it probably would create new ones--and it would weaken the basic principle of democratic government, majority rule. It should not be approved.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for yielding me the 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion. Its adoption will remind the conferees that they have a job to do and call on them to get started. Each of us have been elected to debate and act on proposals to address the country's business. Of course, it is not always convenient, and sometimes it does mean foregoing other things that we would like to do. Mr. Speaker, for example, I would have liked to have accepted the invitation tomorrow to accompany the President when he travels to Colorado for a public appearance related to these very issues we are asking the conferees to consider, gun safety and steps to make it harder for criminals to obtain firearms. But even though I would have liked to have gone to Colorado, I have decided I am going to stay here in order to take part in the debates and votes on the matters that will come before the House. For me that is the priority, and I think that seeking to reach agreement on these important public safety issues should be a priority for the conferees, so I urge the House to agree to this motion.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill, but I am disappointed with the way it is being brought to the floor and with the bill itself. I am disappointed that the Republican leadership has brought the bill before the House under a procedure that prohibits any amendments and allows for only a minimal time for discussion. I also am disappointed with the way the bill has been drafted. Parts of it are too narrow, so that only a few states would qualify for the proposed law-enforcement assistance. Other parts are too broad, so that the funds that would be provided to the states would not necessarily be used for better enforcement of gun laws. Instead, it could go for almost anything related to law enforcement or corrections. I think the House can and should do better than this. We can and should take time to fully discuss this bill and to consider amendments that could strengthen it so that it would come closer to living up to its title of the ``Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhood Act of 2000.'' I strongly support the kind of increased enforcement that the bill's title tries to suggest would be the result of enacting this measure. In Colorado our United States Attorney, Tom Strickland, is working in cooperation with state and local law-enforcement officials, for that kind of increased enforcement. I want to do all I can to help that important initiative--so, while this bill is not everything that I think it could and should be, I will support it. The bill would at least take a small step toward better enforcement in Colorado and the five other states that now meet the bill's criteria for receiving assistance, and I urge its approval.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this measure. Passage of this bill is long overdue, and I urge all Members to join me in voting to send it to the President for signing into law. Since the House passed this bill last year, it has been the subject of intensive negotiations that have involved the administration and law enforcement organizations as well as Members of both the House and Senate. Those negotiations have resulted in the revised version of the bill now before the House. I am sure that it is not everything that some might want, but it is acceptable to all concerned, and I think it deserves approval. Enactment of this bill will correct serious imbalances in the law regarding civil forfeitures--cases in which the government seizes property allegedly connected to a violation of law. Under current law, seized property won't be returned unless the person whose property was seized can prove either that the property was not connected to the alleged crime or that the owner did not know about or consent to the allegedly illegal use of the property. This bill shifts the burden of proof to the government, where it belongs, so that it would be up to the government to show by preponderance of the evidence that an asset was sufficiently connected to a crime to be subject to civil forfeiture. While this is a somewhat less stringent requirement than in the bill as originally passed by the House, it is a great improvement over the current law. The bill also makes a number of other important improvements over the current law. It will require that seizures be made pursuant to a warrant. It will eliminate the need for people to post a bond in order to contest a civil-forfeiture case. It will create a uniform ``innocent owner'' defense for all civil-forfeiture cases. It will allow property to be released from government custody before final disposition of a case where continued custody would be a hardship to the owner outweighing any risk to the government. And it will allow people to seek to recover from the government if seized property is damaged while in custody. I congratulate all those whose hard work has made it possible for the bill to be on the floor today, and I urge its approval. Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1776, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act and urge its adoption. While the current homeownership rate is at a record high of 66%, the purchase of a first home remains out of reach for many young people and low- and moderate-income families. I believe H.R. 1776, through a number of unique programs, will enable more Americans to purchase their first home. A key provision in this bill would provide under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships programs, a targeted homeownership program for uniformed municipal employees (policemen, firemen, city maintenance workers, and teachers). Assistance could be in the form of downpayment assistance, help with closing costs, housing counseling, or subsidized mortgage rates. I applaud this innovative approach. I would like to call my colleagues' attention to a valuable pilot program in this bill, to encourage law enforcement agents to buy homes in locally designated high-crime areas by making them eligible for FHA mortgage loans with no downpayment. H.R. 1776 also authorizes HUD to distribute $25 million in competitive grants to local governments for homeownership programs in ``homeownership zones''. These zones will be locally designated residential areas where large-scale development projects are designed to provide housing for low- to moderate-income families. In addition, this bill increases the ability of senior citizens to use ``reverse mortgages'' for living expenses--particularly long-term care--by allowing them to refinance these mortgages. Environmental cleanup and economic development activities related to ``Brownfields'' stand to benefit as well, by being classified as a permanent eligible activity for CDBG funds under this bill. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1776 will make substantial strides towards insuring affordable housing is a reality in our country and the dream of first-time homeownership is attainable. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, while I support this bill, I do have some concerns about it, and at the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment that I think can set the stage for addressing those concerns. As the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and others have noted, this bill was prompted by information developed by the Committee on Resources through the oversight process. As a result of that oversight, it became clear that it would be desirable to revisit the underlying statutes at issue here; although, I think it is also clear, as my colleague from California suggests, that some of the charges about the actions of the current administration have been exaggerated, and that those folks making those charges have failed to point out similar actions that occurred during prior administrations. The programs of assistance to state and wildlife agencies addressed by this bill are very valuable for my home State of Colorado and, of course, for all the other States that make up our union. This bill deals with a very important subject that deserves careful scrutiny by the Committee on Resources and by the whole House itself. I do think that Congress does need to reconsider the degree of discretion that current law allows the Interior Department with regard to the administration of these programs. However, in responding to the ways the Interior Department has used its discretion in the past, I fear that the bill may go too far in the other direction. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the purpose of limiting the amount of money that can be spent on administration, because obviously, what is spent that way will not be available for the substantive purposes of the programs, but at the same time, we need to recognize the administration is necessary and adequate administration is essential to avoid the risk of misuse of taxpayer funds, either by the Department of Interior or by other parties. That is why I am concerned when the Interior Department says that limits set by the bill would likely require reduction in the number of people who would administer these programs because adequate staffing is necessary to administer any program. I am also concerned that the bill's provisions are too inflexible and too detailed and that even more specific requirements are suggested in parts of the committee's report on the bill. Accountability is essential, but excessive paperwork for its own sake can eat up resources that could be put to more productive uses. And I do not think we should make it impossible for the Interior Department to respond to new developments, such as the very significant and very desirable increase in the scope of these programs that would come from the enactment of H.R. 701, the CARA legislation which the Committee on Resources has already approved, and which I hope will come to the floor of the full House in the near future. As I said, I support the bill. I will do so not because I think it is perfect, but because I think it is desirable to make some progress on this subject. It is my hope that we can further refine the bill as we proceed through the legislative process with the other body and, if necessary, in conference. However, should that not occur, our committee and the House may be better advised to return to this subject next year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment has already been modified at the desk. We are on the same page.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to modify the amendment to change ``first'' to ``third.'' Whatever the chairman would like to do, I am with him.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will make a brief statement about the amendment. The amendment is very simple. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to inform the Committee on Resources and the corresponding committee of the other body about administrative changes required by this bill. In particular, it would require the Secretary to tell us about any reduction in the number of people assigned, to make sure that these important programs are being properly administered. As I mentioned when the Committee on Resources considered the bill, these programs are very important for Colorado and all the other 49 States and territories. The assistance they can provide can help us greatly as we work to respond to the pressures on our fish and wildlife populations and the habitat that are coming under increasingly rapid population stresses and the resulting growth and sprawl. The programs cannot be properly administered without adequate personnel and other resources, however. So I take seriously the concerns expressed by the Wildlife Management Institute, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and others who tell us that they fear that the bill's current limits threaten to undermine the ability of the Department of the Interior to properly manage the programs. This amendment itself would not revise the bill's limits on administrative expenses, but it would require the Department of the Interior to inform the committee and the Congress about how those limits affect the implementation of these important programs. With that information, the committee in the future can consider whether or not to propose changes to that part of the bill. I think the amendment does not detract from the purpose of the bill. It merely provides for our obtaining information for consideration as the committee carries out its future oversight and review responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it was not so long ago that I stood on the State Capitol steps in Denver, Colorado commemorating the 27th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade which guarantees a woman the constitutional right to determine her own reproductive destiny. On that day I joined Coloradans in urging them to protect this deeply personal right and urging them to continue the fight against increasing efforts to chip away at these rights for which we fought so hard. It strikes me that the House leadership today, if it was interested in good policy, not politics, would not have brought this bill to the floor. In just a few weeks, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the substantially similar Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban which makes the timing of H.R. 3660 a bit more than suspect. If the leadership were really serious about seeking bipartisan consensus in passing a law, the Committee on Rules should have permitted consideration of the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute, which has the strong backing of Members on both sides of the aisle, the promise of the President's signature, and the support of sensible policy leaders who recognize the vital importance of including health exception and a post-viability provision. Most importantly, the Hoyer-Greenwood alternative is what Americans want. In a recent poll, 88 percent, 88 percent of Americans supported the inclusion of a health exception for women. If the leadership were really serious about outlawing one particular abortion procedure, they would have agreed to consider an alternative to this vague and broadly- worded piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, if the leadership continues to ask Members of Congress to support bad public policy, we must continue to oppose it. For my part, I will do all I can to protect a woman's right to choose. Oppose this rule, oppose this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank my tireless colleague, the gentlewoman from the great State of New York (Mrs. Maloney), for her work on the census. Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement that I would like to share with my fellow Coloradans. I want to urge Coloradans to return their census forms. It is very important for our State and for the country. Just last week, our State demographer, Jim Westkott, was saying Colorado may have as many as 330,000 residents than the latest estimate by the Census Bureau, an 8 percent difference between the State's estimate and the Census Bureau's latest extrapolation from the 1990 census returns. Of course, it is the Census Bureau's numbers that are used for Federal purposes, for apportioning House seats amongst the States to allocating Federal funds for schools, transportation and other purposes. That is why it should concern everyone in our State, our State of Colorado, that the Census Bureau itself says its 1999 count of Coloradans missed some 66,000 people. That is why it is so important that this year's count be as accurate as possible, and that is why it is unfortunate that some members of the other body and other political figures have been making statements that could discourage people from being counted. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone in Colorado, from Arboles and Antonito in the south to Virginia Dale and Peetz in the north and from Dinosaur and Dove Creek in the west to Wray and Holly in the east, plus everybody in between, will send back the census form and help make this the most complete and most accurate census in the history of our State and our country. Mr. Speaker, as I conclude, on my plane ride today, I got out my census form and I know it was supposed to be in a few days ago but there is still time. Please, if you have the form, long or short, pull it out, take the short period of time it takes to fill it out. It is simple. It is well structured. Fill it out. Send it in so we can count every American so that we can proceed in the ways that we want to proceed in this next 10 years and continue to build on the great work that we are doing in this country. Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), for this time. Navy's Privatization Practice in Guam

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to this bill. There are good things in it that I support. The parts of the bill that truly concern ``emergencies''--funding to help low-income families cope with sharply rising home heating oil bills; funding to repair damaged roads and bridges and to develop affordable housing for those dislocated by recent floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters; disaster loans for small businesses, farm aid, and rural economic and community development grants to meet needs arising from natural disasters--these are all important and worthwhile and appropriate purposes for an ``emergency'' spending bill. Also important is funding that the bill provides for NASA's Space Shuttle upgrades, security at our nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories, and funds to accelerate environmental cleanup of DOE facilities. But these good things are far outweighed by what I consider to be some very problematic provisions in the bill. One of the most troublesome is the $1.7 billion package for Colombia. I don't doubt the magnitude of the problem that the proposal attempts to address. Indeed, there is much cause for alarm. Colombia produces 80 percent of the world's cocaine and about two-thirds of the heroin consumed in this country, and new estimates show that cocaine production in Colombia is up 126 percent in the last five years. That said, I am not convinced that a costly military approach is the best response to the problem. I believe we should be considering other ways to address the source of the problem--the U.S. demand for drugs--by funding additional treatment and education programs right here at home. There is very little about the Colombia package that has been shown to merit our support. Think for a moment about the dismal human rights record of the Colombian military. The military would itself be the recipient of the billions of dollars in U.S. aid. Human rights organizations have linked right-wing paramilitary groups to the Colombian military and to drug trafficking and atrocities against civilians. How can we be content to pass a bill that could well make this situation worse? We should also think about the lack of clear objectives for this program. There is no ``exit'' strategy spelled out. There is no way to ensure farmers won't resume cultivating drug crops once this billion- dollar assistance package dries up. None of these questions about the long-term goals for this program have been adequately answered. Still, we're being asked to support a program that could draw U.S. troops into a protracted counterinsurgency struggle--and one that may ultimately have little effect on the drug trade. On top of that, Mr. Chairman, was the adoption of the amendment yesterday that increases military spending levels by an additional $4 billion. That makes my opposition to this bill that much stronger. While I agree that defense health programs and recruitment and retention are areas of legitimate concern, I don't understand why we should make $4 billion exceptions for our military that we can't seem to make for prescription drugs or our children's education or shoring up Social Security. The military budget was increased substantially last year and well may be again this year through the regular appropriations process. This isn't the time or the place to prematurely commit to additional billions of dollars in military spending or to label it as an `'emergency'' item. Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that as we go forward with this year's appropriations process, we do so in a thoughtful and careful manner and that we try to come up with spending bills that deserve the full support of the entire House.