Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is frivolous. Its premise is that courts cannot or do not have the power to sanction wrongdoing by parties in discovery or that the system itself does not prosecute crimes when they occur in our court system. But, Mr. Chairman, the Democrats have talked today about Enron. They have talked about prescription drug benefits, they have talked about apple juice, tires and the environment. Our friend from Texas even raised my constituents in San Juan County, Utah. Yes, each of these cases presents terrible tragedies committed by one party against a group of others. But this debate is not about whether the plaintiffs in each of these cases is entitled to sue or even entitled to seek class action status. I have heard no one in this Chamber calling for doing away with class action lawsuits. This debate is about where the cases are heard, Federal or State court, and that is it. When our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about Enron, prescription drugs, truck tires, the environment, or my constituents in San Juan County, what they are doing is to change the subject. Make no mistake, they do not want to talk about multimillion dollar awards for trial lawyers while Americans get coupons in the mail. It is not often I agree with The Washington Post editorial page, but today I do. The current system is obscene. Trial lawyers take advantage, the little guys get taken to the cleaners, and consumers ultimately pay the price in the form of higher prices. This legislation deserves everyone's support. I encourage a vote against this amendment and for H.R. 2341.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for bringing a final version of this important enhanced border security bill to the floor today. This bill contains many important provisions that will increase the funding and training for those charged with securing our borders. It will upgrade technology and produce counterfeit-proof visa documents. It is a good step toward more effective enforcement; and to answer the gentleman's question who just spoke a moment ago, the extension of 245(i) is not going to allow people who are in sleeper cells to stay. The enforcement is going to be much better effected in the course we have proposed in this bill today. I want to address two particular criticisms of the temporary extension of section 245(i) contained in the bill today which are simply false. Opponents have attempted to characterize this provision as amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and, secondly, a threat to our national security. Neither allegation can be further from the truth. This is not amnesty. Section 245(i) benefits a limited pool of people that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has already determined should be able to become permanent legal residents based on their family or employment relationships. The issue is not whether these immigrants are eligible or not. The issue is not when they could become United States permanent residents, but rather, where they may apply to become permanent U.S. residents. Section 245(i) could be used only by certain prospective lawful permanent residents under close and careful scrutiny of Federal authorities. People using section 245(i) are required to be otherwise eligible to become permanent residents. The eligibility requirements for those applying under section 245(i) are identical to the screening process for those applying abroad. This is no threat to national security. Not a single one of the September 11 attackers was eligible for adjustment under 245(i), but some were issued valid documents by our overworked U.S. consulates overseas rather than being screened here in the United States by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which has the technology and the resources to do that screening. Mr. Speaker, seeing my time is about to expire, let me urge my colleagues to support this bill. I think it is a good bill and it advances our interests.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We might ask ourselves, why are Cannon and Conyers together on an amendment? Sort of an odd couple, if one follows this body. Let me point out that we have looked very carefully at this. It is exceedingly important to the future of the deployment of the Internet to have competition. There has been a lot of talk and a lot of obfuscation on this issue, but, in fact, without this amendment, if the bill becomes law, we will snuff out competition in America in the area that is going to give us the technological needed for the next century.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his work to correct the flawed Goldwasser antitrust decision. This horrible decision has been used by the Bell monopolies to shield themselves from over 100 years of antitrust law so that they can continue to act as monopolists, plain and simple. The inclusion of the Goldwasser position is a coup for the telecommunications community and reaffirms this body's decision back in 1934 and again in 1996 that the antitrust laws do, in fact, apply to the Bell monopolies. Hopefully now, the Bells will be held accountable for their anticompetitive behavior that the Bells are so famous for. I do not know how the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) was able to negotiate such a huge concession, one that will allow the Department of Justice to crack down on all three Bell monopolies, but I congratulate him for that. Unfortunately, while I acknowledge the success of the gentleman's work and his attempt to improve this bill, I remain convinced the Tauzin-Dingell bill is fatally flawed, and I oppose it strenuously. Mr. Chairman, this bill is touted by its supporters as a deregulation bill, and it does do exactly that. Tauzin-Dingell deregulates a monopoly that has the advantages of incumbency, advantages paid for by government- imposed monopoly dollars. This is what we fought with the 1996 Act when we imposed unbundling requirements on the Bell monopolies. Make no mistake that, if this bill passes, competition will be stomped out, and we will see unregulated remonopolization of the telecommunications industry. Not only will we be undoing the work of this body in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, we will be taking the telecom industry back to the pre-1984 AT&T divestiture days. Through the course of this debate, we will hear the supporters of this bill say the Bells need this in order to roll out DSL service. Let me assure my colleagues that DSL service is being rolled out now across America at an amazing rate, and it is being done without this bill. This chart explains that. In 2001, BellSouth increased its coverage from 45 percent to 70 percent of the households in the markets that BellSouth serves, nearly tripling the DSL customer base. BellSouth has the fastest growth of any DSL or cable provider. During the same period, as we can see from the chart, SBC became the industry's largest DSL provider, with 1,333,000 subscribers. Last year, Verizon also saw significant growth with an increase of over 122 percent, going from 454,000 customers to 1.2 million, with total revenues in excess of $7 billion. The roll-out of DSL is hardly stifled by the current regulatory structure. What the Bells are really after is the ability to freeze out the competition and increase their monopoly power and free themselves from the consumer protections put in place by State PUCs and the FCC. I assure my colleagues that this bill is not going to speed the roll- out of high-speed Internet service across the country. Rather, it will allow the Bell monopolies to have total control of the telecommunications industry.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the time. Competition, not remonopolization, is what is needed to ensure the roll-out of DSL at a price that is reasonable for consumers. The competitive industry is already deploying broadband, and competition is driving down the cost to residential consumers. As the second chart shows, the Bell monopolies had no interest in rolling out affordable high-speed access until they were forced by the competition. The Bells had DSL technology as far back as 1990, but instead of implementing it into their networks, they chose the more expensive T-1 technology. It was not until after passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act requiring interconnection that the DSL competitors, such as Covad, did DSL begin to roll out, forcing the monopolies to respond in kind. Today, DSL deployment is still being driven by competition. Unfortunately, the mere existence of this bill has a chilling effect on the telecom industry where it matters most, and that is Wall Street. It freezes out competition to the Bells. It will undermine consumer protections provided by State governments, and it will bring the level of customer service that the Bells are known for to the entire telecommunications industry, something I do not think we want. With campaign finance so fresh in our memory, I urge this body to put the hopes and desires of most Americans who believe in the promise of a free and competitive marketplace ahead of the domination of the Bell monopolies. America is and should remain a meritocracy where competition and entrepreneurship matter most. Please vote ``no'' on H.R. 1542.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman my understanding is that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) also has another 10 minutes?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers)

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time in my life in opposition to a Republican rule. Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure that it was one of the name sponsors of the bill before us, and the Dean of the House, who once said words to the effect of, ``If you control the substance but I control the process, I'll beat you every time.'' If I am not quoting or attributing it correctly, I apologize, but whoever said that, that is what is being borne out today. The rule before us has one simple purpose. It is designed to prevent a vote on any amendment not supported by the Bell monopolies. Granted, if one looks at the amendment list, they will see an amendment from me and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), but another hostile amendment is made in order as a second-degree amendment in an attempt to prevent a vote on ours. An elegant gag rule is still a gag rule, and that is exactly what this is. In a way, this rule is sort of a microcosm for the larger debate at hand. The Tauzin-Dingell bill and especially the Buyer-Towns amendment are designed to appear to give competitors fair access to monopoly facilities. It is only upon closer examination that one realizes that they are designed to shut competitors out. Similarly, this rule is designed to appear to give pro-competition Members a chance to offer an amendment, when in truth it does just the opposite. Supporters of this rule argue that it is necessary to do this to avoid a situation where two contradictory amendments to section 4 of the bill are adopted. This is simply not true. The two amendments speak to different issues in section 4 and would be complementary if adopted. So why is such a tortured rule necessary? The sponsors of this bill know that the vast majority of Members of this body are uncomfortable with the Tauzin-Dingell bill. Few Members understand it completely, but they have a sense that they may be giving away the store to the Bell monopolies. Given a chance, most Members would probably support some effort to preserve the investments people have made in competitive networks to avoid a complete remonopolization of America's telecommunications system. So, sensing concerns about the substance, the bill's supporters have decided to rig the process. They have come up with a fig leaf of an amendment that essentially restates Chairman Tauzin's position as of December, which in turn reflects a proposal put forward by a Verizon executive last fall. They stack that amendment on top of my amendment to prevent a vote and thus give Members no outlet for concerns about the monopoly effect of the underlying bill. This is a disservice to the legislative process, to the Members of this body, and ultimately to the consumers of telecommunications services, our constituents. Those who support a fair and open discussion of the significant issues at hand should oppose this rule; and, should it pass, those who support a fair and open telecommunications marketplace should vote down Buyer-Towns and support Cannon-Conyers.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by associating myself with the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, as regards the choice of flag that the American team proposes to carry and would also encourage the IOC to reconsider their decision. I rise in support of this small but vital technical correction to the trademark law. This legislation would fix a drafting error which would otherwise allow unauthorized use of the protected Olympic symbols. As Utah and America prepare to welcome the rest of the world this weekend to the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, we must close a loophole that would let counterfeiters of Olympic merchandise of the games go unpunished. Congress clearly intended to protect against the unauthorized use of Olympic-related symbols, logos, slogans and other marks without permission from the Olympic governing bodies. Such protected and familiar symbols include the Olympic rings and even the title ``Olympics.'' Revenues generated by the Olympic trademarks go to support the games and American athletes. Title 36, section 220501 of the U.S. Code provides these protections and makes available the remedies under the Lantham Act for trademark counterfeiting to criminally prosecute counterfeiters of Olympic marks. Unfortunately, the necessary cross-reference to the section entitled title 18, section 2320 of the U.S. Code, which sets forth the actual criminal penalties, mistakenly references another section of title 36. Rather than protecting Olympics trademarks, the erroneously cross- referenced section deals with the powers of a federally chartered, nonprofit veterans society of World War II submariners. This error must be corrected today. Section 2320 of title 18 is the primary basis for criminal prosecutions of those who traffic in counterfeit Olympic goods. The start of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics later this week is already producing a sharp spike in the amount of trafficking in phony Olympic goods and services. The Customs officers and other law enforcement officials who have been trained to intercept fake merchandise are currently relying upon a section of the U.S. Code that does not actually provide any criminal penalties for Olympic-related counterfeiting. They are, in effect, enforcing a law that does not exist because of a typographical error. The bill today simply corrects the cross-reference in title 18 to refer to the intended section of title 36 dealing with Olympic marks. S. 1888 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 20. House action today can ensure that this bill reaches the President for enactment prior to the start of the Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for recognizing the urgency of the problem and acting quickly to bring this bill to the floor. I want to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues for their steadfast support of the Salt Lake Olympic Games. The response from this body on nearly every Winter Olympic request, especially on increased Federal security measures, has been one of unqualified support. It is a direct result of that support that the Salt Lake Winter Olympics will be the most secure and successful in history. I hope all of the Members will get a chance to watch some of the Winter Olympic Games over the next few weeks. It will be a heck of a show and one that demonstrates the resilience of the American spirit.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, many of us have been dramatically affected by the tragic events of September 11th. As we have all learned to cope and express our feelings regarding this tragedy, there have been some shining stars that have risen beyond themselves in an effort to help others. One such group of people is the fifth and sixth grade students of Canyon Crest Elementary School in Provo, Utah. These wonderful students felt overcome by the events witnessed that day. As the heroes of New York's police and fire departments bravely sacrificed many of their own to save the lives of those trapped in the towers and while many others worked at the Pentagon, these children all wished they could help but felt only helplessness as they watched over 3, 100 miles away. As their determination grew to assist in the recovery effort, these children felt that the best way for them to assist was to express their appreciation for the sacrifices of the heroes and their desire to comfort the many who lost loved ones through writing. Their writings have been compiled in a book titled From the Mountains . . . These touching and heartfelt accounts relate many of the feelings that all of us experienced during the attacks as well as during the weeks following. Mr. Speaker, today I ask that you and our colleagues join me in honoring the students of Canyon Crest Elementary for their own heroic efforts to help us all to recover and rebuild in this great nation by showing us true patriotism and the meaning of freedom.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1389 was passed by the other body on November 16 of this year. This bill will facilitate the conveyance of the Homestake Mine in South Dakota for eventual use as a National Underground Science Laboratory. The gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) has introduced a companion bill, H.R. 3299, and the amendment proposed for S. 1389 reflects his improvements to the original legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for their cooperation in scheduling this bill so expeditiously. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1389) to provide for the conveyance of certain real property in South Dakota to the State of South Dakota with indemnification by the United States Government, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the author of the House companion bill.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. The rule provides for the continued availability of insurance against terrorism risks, and addresses multiple insurance and liability issues arising out of the September 11 attacks. This is a good rule that incorporates changes made by the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Judiciary to the original bill. I would like to speak about some of those important provisions that fell within the Committee on the Judiciary jurisdiction. First, by working with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), we were able to expand language in the original bill dealing with the use of frozen terrorist assets to compensate victims of terrorism. This change to language offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) brings the bill into line with an amendment I offered earlier, in earlier legislation, that was accepted by the Committee on the Judiciary this fall. It was also language that was approved by the House on suspension in the 106th Congress. The provision in the bill today will allow equal access to the frozen assets of terrorists, terrorist organizations, and terrorist sponsor- states for American victims of international terrorism who obtain judgments against those terrorist parties. In addition, the Committee on the Judiciary added important litigation management provisions to deal with the legal aftermath of a major terrorist attack. This is a commonsense recognition that major terrorist attacks are not garden variety tort cases, and that there is a compelling national interest in setting rules and limits for how lawsuits arising from such attacks proceed. Exposing American citizens and insurers to unlimited liability in multiple judicial forums for the terrible acts of madmen is a recipe for a financial crisis. This Congress overwhelmingly recognized the same principle when we limited airline liability for the September 11 attacks and set them back on a sound financial footing. We need to do the same today for insurers, and equally important, to the insured. I would like to thank again the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), for all their efforts on these issues. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill today. By providing partial Federal coverage for acts of terrorism, setting reasonable limits and procedures for lawsuits arising from such acts, and allowing victims to go directly after the frozen assets of terrorists and their sponsors, we can help our Nation and economy move forward.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Arizona for bringing forward this resolution, and I would also like to associate myself with his comments in respect to the trust funds and the problems in administering those that have existed for a very long period of time, and which I believe this administration is trying to resolve and we want to support them in doing that. I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 270. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that Americans should take time during the month of November to recognize the various accomplishments and contributions made by Native Americans. While many of my colleagues will take this opportunity to speak of the many accomplishments and contributions of Native Americans, I would like to mention one particular area in which Native Americans have made an important and often overlooked contribution to our country, and that is in their continued willingness to serve and sacrifice in the defense of our country. Native Americans have participated with distinction in the United States military actions for more than 200 years. From the Revolutionary War to the American Civil War, to Vietnam, to the Persian Gulf, Native Americans have showed a continued willingness to serve. In each of these conflicts, Native Americans have served with valor, patriotism, and courage. As a proportion of the population, Native Americans have sent more of their sons to war than any other ethnic group. One estimate is that over 12,000 American Indians fought in World War I. In World War II, more than 44,000 American Indians, out of a total Native American population at that time of less than 350,000, served with distinction in both Europe and the Pacific theaters of war. Today, there are nearly 190,000 Native American military veterans. Indeed, history shows that Native Americans have disproportionately shouldered the military burden of this country. At the bare minimum, this legacy of service and sacrifice deserves our utmost respect and honor. One of the most striking examples of Native American military service can be found in the history of the World War II Navajo code talkers. The Navajo Code Talkers Program was established in September, 1942. The idea came from Philip Johnston, the son of a missionary to the Navajos and one of the few non-Navajos who spoke their language fluently. Johnston, reared on the Navajo reservation, was a World War I veteran. He knew the military's search for a code that would withstand all attempts to decipher it. He believed the Navajo language answered the military requirement for an indecipherable code because Navajo is an unwritten language, it is complex, and has no alphabet or symbols. It is only spoken only on the Navaho lands of the American Southwest. One estimate is that less than 30 non-Navahos, none of them Japanese, could understand the language at the outbreak of World War II. During the 3 years the Navajo code talkers participated in the war, Japanese intelligence was able to break almost every U.S. Army code and Army Air Corps code, but not once was it able to break the Navajo code. Eventually, over 400 Navajo Marine code talkers served in World War II. These code talkers participated in every assault the Marines took part in from late 1942 to 1945. After the war, many military officials admitted battles such as Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa and Peleliu would have been lost without the Navajo code talkers. Long unrecognized because of the continued value of their language as a security classified code, the Navajo code talkers of World War II were recently honored for their contributions to our Nation's defense in Washington, D.C. Their patriotism, resourcefulness, and courage also have earned them the gratitude of all Americans. As a representative of Utah's Congressional Third District, I represent at least six Indian tribes. They include the Northwestern Shoshone, the Goshutes, the Paiutes, the Utes, the White Mesa or Southern Utes, and the Navajos. I feel that these tribes, as well as the descendents of the Navajo code talkers and all other Native American veterans, deserve our respect and appreciation. Mr. Speaker, I support House Concurrent Resolution 270.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of today's version of the anti-terrorism legislation. It represents a significant improvement over both the draft administration legislation and the Senate version passed last night. The bill strikes an appropriate current balance between civil liberties and providing the Government with the tools needed to protect our Nation to win this war on terrorism. The process used to craft the bill could have been better, and I am disappointed in some aspects of the final product. In fact, we did better with the Committee on the Judiciary bill reported unanimously. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and also the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who both, along with their staffs, worked very hard to keep key compromises in the legislation that is now before us. I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) fought tirelessly over the last few days to preserve our committee's consensus legislation, or many of the elements. Among the key elements, improvements which are made and preserved in today's bill, are a 5-year sunset for the bill's most difficult provisions; an explicit prohibition on capturing content information from electronic communications under pen register and trap-and-trace authorities; a no- technology mandate that ensures communication providers cooperating with law enforcement do not have to bear needless burdens; immigration provisions that should prevent indefinite detention of innocent parties and provide relief to immigrant victims of the September 11 attack. However, many important changes added by the Committee on the Judiciary to fight terrorism and compensate victims were left on the cutting room floor last night. In particular, I added an amendment at markup to allow access to frozen assets of terrorist sponsor states for American victims after they obtained judgments from U.S. courts. Unfortunately, today's views reflect the views of the State Department bureaucrats who insist on protecting the status quo, rather than helping the victims of state-sponsored terrorism. Justice for past, present, and future victims of state-sponsored terrorism may have to wait until another day. But this fight is not over. I intend to reintroduce that bill in the near future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, Hispanic Americans throughout our nation's history have significantly influenced our culture and strengthened our democratic society. The Hispanic community in the Southwest has particularly deep roots that have shaped our traditional way of life for centuries. But that community is also one of our most vibrant and dynamic elements today. During my term as the Congressman for the Third District of Utah, the number of residents claiming Hispanic or Latino decent or ethnicity has grown by 138 percent. Our economy is sustained and revitalized by the contributions of Hispanic Americans. These individuals tirelessly enhance our society by their examples of pride and their drive to succeed. Hispanic Americans routinely establish themselves as pillars of our communities and demonstrate unwavering determination to provide a better life for themselves and their families. I encourage all Americans to celebrate the cultural and ethnic diversity in our communities. Living among and associating with people from various backgrounds is the best opportunity for all of us to learn greater tolerance, acceptance and appreciation for the unique abilities of all individuals. On this occasion, I rise to specially recognize and commend the Hispanic Americans who live in the Third District of Utah and their many examples of hard work and dedication to family. On behalf of all my constituents, I wish to express my gratitude to these unique Americans whose contributions have helped to establish the blessed, prosperous, and thriving country we all enjoy today.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). The Buy Indian Act amendment will encourage the development of energy and energy by-products in Indian country. This will provide new economic opportunities for new development on Indian lands, development that does not involve gaming. The amendment would operate to add competitively priced energy products to the list of goods and services covered under the original Buy Indian Act. The Buy Indian Act amendment does not discriminate against any type of energy, and encourages all types of production. If the tribe wants to produce hydropower, they can take advantage of the amendment. If the tribe is able to mine coal, they can take advantage of the amendment. If a tribe is able to produce oil or gas, they can take advantage of the amendment. If a tribe can produce wind power, they can take advantage of the amendment. The amendment will encourage partnerships between the American Indian and Alaska native tribes and the private sector. The resources that Indian country can bring to the table, including a dedicated labor force, energy resources such as coal, oil, and gas combined with the expertise of the business community, is a win-win situation for tribes, the business community, and the Nation. It is important that Congress does what it can to encourage economic development in Indian country. Although this amendment is a small step, it is a step in the right direction to promote economic opportunities and self-sufficiency for the American Indian and Alaska native tribes. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in the coming weeks to further consult with tribes and explore additional measures we can take to achieve economic development and self- sufficiency in Indian country through energy development and production.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. We have some slightly different figures here. In Utah alone, we have enough energy in oil shale to serve America's energy needs for the next 1,000 years. Now, we have to get that oil out. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) seeks to authorize funding for research and utilization for both Eastern and Western oil shales. The amendment strengthens the SAFE Act by providing a new look at opportunities for developing shale oil as a future energy source. I urge the Secretary of Energy to engage the expertise of the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as others, in this effort. The USGS has scientists on staff who have a strong background in shale oil research. The USGS is the data repository for much of the existing information on Colorado and Utah oil shale deposits, as well as for the Eastern shales of northern Kentucky across into southern Ohio which also contain kerogen, the oil in shale oil. In light of the legislation I passed last year transferring the Naval Oil Shale Reserve No. 2 to the Ute Indian tribe, I am particularly pleased that we will be encouraging technology to make use of oil shale. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson). I understand, I say to the gentlewoman, that the language as drafted is intended to support the recovery of the U.S. uranium industry. The ability to process materials other than conventional mined ores, which are primarily materials from the U.S. Government, has allowed conventional uranium mills to provide a valuable recycling service. This has resulted in a significant savings for the Government over direct disposal costs, as well as the recapture of valuable energy resources. It has also resulted in an overall improvement in the environment, because the tailings from the conventional milling process are less radioactive, due to the extraction of the uranium, than they would have been if disposed of directly. I believe this problem could be resolved with a simple language change. Would the gentlewoman from New Mexico be amenable to working on that between now and conference?