Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, there are ecologically sound ways to do salvage logging. This amendment assures that the science is followed. All we are asking is that the Secretary, in approving one of these projects, certify it will not increase forest-fire risk, and will not decrease forest regeneration. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back any remaining time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to close at this point, so I reserve my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I yield our remaining time to a leader in our Resources Committee on forest issues and a champion on protecting our forests and watersheds, Representative Inslee.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who worked with the Biscuit fire and has great experience in these forestry issues.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Washington should know and understand that the Science Journal that this was published in is peer reviewed. It is one of the most solid scientific publications, and it came out and said that regeneration was hurt 71 percent, that 71 percent was hurt in that regeneration process.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Boehlert. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 4200. This unnecessary legislation waives critical conservation laws, compromises the public's proven commitment to protecting roadless areas, and ignores the body of peer-reviewed science on the harmful impacts of salvage logging. H.R. 4200 represents yet another attempt by the majority in this Congress to dismantle our Nation's most paramount conservation laws. As its core, H.R. 4200 allows for environmental exemptions to expedite the removal of timber after a catastrophic event on Federal lands. These unnecessary environmental exemptions, however, come at the expense of critical laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act. Should Congress approve H.R. 4200, the result would be weakening of existing laws meant to protect public participation and provide for environmental protections. Proponents of H.R. 4200 argue this legislation complies with conservation laws. This is simply not true. To be clear, H.R. 4200 waives the requirements of four very critical conservation laws. Mr. Chairman, in our discussion of H.R. 4200 on the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee, it has become apparent to me that the authorities granted under H.R. 4200 for timber salvage are unnecessary. The argument that there is an abundance of timber salvage going to waste on our public lands because of the length of the NEPA process is false. In reality, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have an abundance of existing authorities that allow for timber salvage to be completed on our public lands with the appropriate checks and balances. Salvage logging already accounts for 35 percent of timber harvested on our national forests. Also, one of the largest salvage logging projects in the history of the U.S. Forest Service, on the Forest Service lands impacted by Hurricane Katrina, is being completed quickly under the authorities from the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. Furthermore, H.R. 4200 is not scientifically sound. The underlying premise of H.R. 4200 that post-disturbance salvage logging must be completed to recover a forest and improve forest health is not supported by the abundance of peer-reviewed science on this issue to date. A study published by Donato and others in a January 2006 edition of the well-respected journal Science, found that post-fire logging in the wake of the 2002 Biscuit fire, reduced forest regeneration by 71 percent and increased short-term fire risk. This study adds to a substantial list of peer-reviewed science that concludes that salvage logging is contrary to the goal of improving forest health. 169 scientists from around the country submitted a letter to Congress opposing H.R. 4200 as salvage logging has been found to impede forest regeneration, damage riparian corridors, introduce or spread invasive species, cause erosion and degrade water quality. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4200 is unnecessary legislation with significant negative consequences. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on H.R. 4200. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we are here talking today about salvage logging. And let us first of all be clear that salvage logging is taking place on our public lands. And if you want a lot more salvage logging, this is the bill to be for. The CBO says 40 percent more salvage logging. Now, why is that a concern? Salvage logging has been found to impede forest regeneration. Now, that doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. When you have bulldozers and skidders and you are dragging trees that have been burned and you are dragging them through the forest, you are hurting the ability of that forest to regenerate. Seedlings that are on the ground are being destroyed. So salvage logging hurts the ability of the forest to regrow itself. It damages riparian areas. It damages riparian areas. So we are talking here about streams, where if you cut the forests and take these logs out that you will not then have the ability to then allow these streams to produce clean water. They silt up after this kind of salvage logging that occurs. Salvage logging also introduces and spreads invasive species, it causes erosion, and it degrades water quality. This is what our forests are all about. Our forests, we use them as watersheds. They supply us clean water. What this bill is all about is degrading those watersheds. That is what is going on here today, and they do not want to talk about it. They come and say, oh, no laws, no laws will be waived. Well, folks, let me tell you, this legislation exempts and waives the National Environmental Policy Act, one of the best planning laws that has been on the books for 30 years; the Endangered Species Act, which has been on the books for 30 years; the National Historic Preservation Act and the Clean Water Act. These are laws that say look before you leap. Let us let the public be involved, let us study what we are doing before we jump into these situations. Significant laws are being waived, and don't believe what they are telling you on the other side. Now, we have in place adequate laws and regulations to handle emergency situations. This bill actually has the word ``emergency'' in it, implying that there is some emergency. We had a big emergency in this country, folks. It was Katrina, and it created one of the biggest salvage situations. And guess what? Down in Louisiana and Mississippi, they are moving forward. They are doing the salvage. They do not need a new law. They have done it. And if there is a real emergency, the agencies can go to the Council on Environmental Quality and get a waiver. This has never been turned down by the Council on Environmental Quality. So what are we talking about here? We are talking about science. The majority of peer-reviewed science says that salvage logging is not good for our forests. And what do these scientists say? It increases the forest-fire risk and it decreases forest regeneration. I offered an amendment in the committee, and this amendment will be on the floor today. That amendment says, well, if we are going to go by the science, which you hear talk of science on the other side, then the Secretary has to certify on every project. The Secretary will certify the project would not increase the forest-fire risk or decrease forest regeneration, hurt the seedlings. And the chairman and all of the others here are going to vote that amendment down. So I think that tells you what is really going on. We are not supporting what science says we should be doing with our forests. The claims are made that we are under regular order. As the chairman knows, this is one of the most outrageous situations to date. A major bill is before our Committee on Resources, the fisheries bill, and here we get 20 minutes for the major committee on the floor and we are over, running back and forth to a markup in the committee, and having this debate on the floor. This is not the regular order. This is an outrage, what is going on here, and I would hope that the chairman would object to this.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the news reports released today that the National Security Agency has been collecting telephone data on tens of millions of Americans. With these news reports, we have discovered that the NSA, in conjunction with some of our country's largest telecommunications providers, now has a database with the phone records of millions of Americans. While the creation of this database does not involve the NSA listening to or recording our conversations, the agency now has detailed records of calls people have made to business associates, to maybe a family physician, to friends, to family. This program is a significant violation of the privacy of all Americans. Unfortunately, this is not the first time the administration has had the National Security Agency spy on Americans. We discovered just this past December that the President had authorized the NSA to spy domestically. While we still do not have much information on the domestic spying program, we know that hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans had their telephone conversations and e-mails monitored. President Bush asserts that he authorized the NSA only to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Yet we find out months later that during the same period of time, the NSA has been creating the largest database ever assembled, with information from millions of people. We can hardly say that millions of people here in the United States whose privacy has been invaded have suspected ties to terrorism. The President did this yet again without seeking warrants. This administration has long sought to extend its power and authority at every available opportunity, and this is no exception. If the administration truly needed these phone records, they could have, at the very least, obtained warrants from the FISA court. The fourth amendment clearly states: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.'' I strongly believe that gathering information on millions of American citizens without first obtaining warrants or any judicial oversight clearly violates this core principle of our Constitution. I have to ask, where is the oversight? A program of this magnitude must be considered by Congress. While the President has stated that appropriate Members of Congress have been briefed on intelligence activities, this does not constitute oversight. Congress should hold hearings, question witnesses about the program, and consider its legality. Congress needs to step up and exercise its proper oversight responsibility, something it has failed to do for 5 years. At a minimum, the oversight committees must make a determination on the legality of this program. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the administration will contend that questioning the existence of this database is undermining our Nation's security efforts. It is essential that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect our Nation, and he must be able to gather this intelligence. However, this has to be done in accordance with our Constitution, the bedrock of our Nation. Despite what this administration would have us believe, securing our Nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, can be achieved without violations of our constitutional freedoms.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Federal Payday Loan Consumer Protection Amendments of 2006. This legislation prohibits federally insured institutions from engaging in high-cost payday loans and expands protections for consumers in connection with making these loans by uninsured entities. It is well known that payday lending is a rapidly expanding form of high-cost, short-term credit. Studies indicate that the average annual percentage rate on payday loans ranges from 390 to 780 percent for a two-week loan. Let me repeat that: the average annual percentage rate on payday loans ranges from 390 to 780 percent. Additionally, typical payday loan customers take out between eight and twelve loans per year from a single lender. I believe lending that fails to assess a borrowers ability to repay, that requires consumers to write checks on insufficient funds and that encourages perpetual debt is unacceptable. However, many of the laws pertaining to payday lenders are dealt with at the State level. One area, however, where the Federal Government has an important role to play is with what are known as ``rent-a-banks.'' Rent-a-banks are banks that partner with payday lenders to make single-payment and installment loans. These arrangements are designed to allow payday lenders to evade small loan laws in their respective States. As such, my bill prohibits insured financial institutions from making payday loans, either directly or indirectly. It prohibits them from making loans to other lenders so that they can, in turn, make, refinance, or extend payday loans. In addition to prohibiting rent-a- banks, my legislation seeks to ensure that those individuals who choose to take out a loan with a high interest rate know that they are doing so. Consumers should be aware that they are borrowing with an unusually high interest rate. My legislation requires the Federal Reserve System to conduct a study to determine the most effective way to require all credit applications that have an annual percentage rate higher than thirty-six percent to include a high-interest warning label. Last year, despite my opposition, Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which only addressed the personal responsibility of debtors. While I fully concede that individuals must take greater responsibility for their debt, I also feel that the lending industry should be held accountable for targeting those individuals who are unable to pay off their debts. We must address both irresponsible borrowers and lenders to stop the cycle of debt that has enveloped many Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the ongoing debate of whether our port system can accommodate 100 percent screening of shipping containers headed through United States ports. The case for 100 percent screening is not hard to make. Approximately 95 percent of our nation's trade, worth nearly $1 trillion, enters or leaves through our seaports. Foreign vessels carry the bulk of the approximately 800 million tons of goods that come into our country. In fiscal year 2005 alone, more than 11 million containers arrived on American soil by sea, and this number is growing at a rate of over 10 percent a year. Given this enormous amount of traffic the need to ensure our nation's security is considerable. Any assertion that technology does not exist to screen 100 percent of the cargo coming to the United States is simply incorrect. For several years, innovative small businesses have been busy improving upon existing technology. Just this month in my district, TMC Services, a small company located in Los Alamos, unveiled a prototype of an advanced spectroscopic radiation detection system. This mobile platform is designed to provide for 100 percent screening without unduly affecting port operations. The mobile and versatile system provides drive-through or drive-over inspection of containers and is intended for integration into the global detection network connected to a centralized nuclear data analysis center which is being developed by the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) at the Department of Homeland Security. Mobile Point of Needs Detector System (MPONDS) is a unique systems engineered solution to the container screening problem and ahead of its time in terms of looking at all the pieces necessary to put together a coherent and effective port protection system. I saw first-hand a demonstration of the technology and believe this technology has the potential to contribute to our goal of detecting cargo which would harm the United States. I believe we should not be focusing on whether 100 percent screening is achievable, as it clearly is, but rather on how rapidly we can deploy this new, existing, advanced technology at all U.S. ports. I was greatly disappointed to learn that the restrictive rule for today's debate of H.R. 4954 did not make in order an amendment offered by Representative Nadler to require that every shipping container be scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the U.S. It is unfortunate that the majority leadership of the Rules Committee continues to ignore the strong need for debate and action on this issue, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to take the responsible step of insisting that the U.S. government protect its citizens by screening all of the cargo entering the United States ports.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the hardworking Member from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who works tirelessly for his district.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, we support passage of H.R. 3418. We commend Congressman Chet Edwards for his persistence and hard work to secure authorization for this important project. The city of Waco is keenly aware that additional sources of water will be required to meet future water demands. The city has decided to meet the expected water supply shortfall in part by implementing aggressive water conservation and water recycling and reclamation programs. The water recycling project identified in this bill will be eligible for limited financial assistance under the Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI water recycling program. Water recycling and desalinization projects are proven technologies that can help stretch limited water supplies in areas such as Texas and the West. I want to express our full support for this legislation. I offer my congratulations to Congressman Edwards for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we support passage of H.R. 3929. We need to do more, not less, to help communities that are working to apply new technologies to their water supply problems. This bill provides limited financial assistance for engineering and environmental studies. It does not authorize funds for construction. The project sponsors are exploring the feasibility of an ocean water desalinization plant using subsurface intake wells, which are protective of the marine environment. If this design is successful, it could encourage other coastal communities that are considering ocean desalinization as a way to stretch their limited water supplies without causing damage to marine life. It is unfortunate that the Bush administration opposes this bill. Their opposition to H.R. 3929 is short-sighted and ill advised. This administration appears to be on a crusade against the use of innovative technologies to help solve water supply problems. I hope the bill will be enacted despite their objections. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a hardworking member of the Agriculture Committee who has been a leader on invasive species issues, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar). (Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me congratulate my fellow New Mexican, Representative Steve Pearce, for his leadership on this issue. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of his legislation. H.R. 2720 creates a research program to control two invasive shrubs: the salt cedar and the Russian olive. Introduced in the 19th century, both the salt cedar and the Russian olive flourish in a variety of soil types and tolerate shade well. Unfortunately, these invasive plants have invaded many streams across the West, forcing out native cottonwoods. Because the salt cedar and Russian olive utilize more water than native plants, their presence along streams is disrupting to water flow and water availability. H.R. 2720 will create both research and pilot programs to study effective control and long-term management of these shrubs. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2720. I would also like to recognize my colleagues Representative Mark Udall, Representative John Salazar and Representative Stephanie Herseth, who are all cosponsors of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, we support H.R. 2720. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may control. (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, as the majority has stated, this noncontroversial bill makes technical amendments to a variety of laws relating to Native Americans and Alaska Natives. The House passed H.R. 3351 last year on the suspension calendar, and the legislation now before us reflects changes made by the Senate. I urge all of our colleagues to support passage of H.R. 3351. Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)