Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Maryland for his hard work and his leadership on this bill. H.R. 2584 is a noncontroversial piece of legislation previously passed by the House on November 21, 2003, that would convey a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, research vessel, to the local government of Utrok Atoll located in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The conveyance of this vessel will allow more convenient transportation for the residents of Utrok Atoll who have to make a 265-mile trip to the neighboring island of Majuro to receive testing and critical medical treatments as a result of the U.S. nuclear testing program we conducted in the Northern Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958. I commend the Delegate from American Samoa for introducing this legislation to help alleviate the burden shared by the residents of this very remote atoll in the Pacific Ocean. H.R. 2584 also contains an important provision to address procedural lapses in promotions and appointments within NOAA's commissioned officer corps. It is important not to disrupt the NOAA corps chain of command while our Nation is at war against terrorism. This provision should prevent any future operational or command dysfunctions from arising, and we should act expeditiously to pass it. This legislation as amended by the other body also contains provisions passed last year by the House in H.R. 2408 to reauthorize the Fishermen's Protective Act and the Yukon River Salmon Act, and two amendments to reauthorize and clarify fisheries management agreements concerning tuna in the Pacific Ocean. None of these are controversial. I urge Members on both sides to support this legislation. 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. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about the process by which H. Res. 557 has been considered in the House. Once again, a small group in the House--the majority party on the Rules Committee--has prevented a full and fair debate. Last night, I submitted an amendment to the Committee for consideration. The first part of my amendment would have struck the language in the resolution claiming that the Iraq war has made the world safer, replacing it with language about the deplorable and brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. The second part would have added a fifth clause to the resolution, commending the members of the Reserve and National Guard and their families for their dedication and sacrifice, given the extraordinary number of such members called to active duty and their length of deployment in Iraq. Unfortunately, not only was my amendment not made in order, but no amendments at all were made in order. In fact, the minority does not even have the right to recommit this resolution with instructions. Let me be clear that there is no doubt that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and his horrible regime. But to put forth a resolution stating that the world is safer because of the U.S. invasion into Iraq, while claiming it ``should be'' bipartisan, is purely partisan politics. I am shocked at the audacity of the Republican leadership to force an up or down vote on a resolution with a clause justifying the war in Iraq, bundled with provisions that every member of this House supports--commending the Iraqis for their courage, commending the adoption of an interim constitution, and supporting U.S. and Coalition forces for their bravery. My amendment would have truly made this resolution something members on both sides of the aisle could support. I also share the concerns of many of my colleagues that this resolution does not acknowledge many of the questions surrounding the justification that the Administration used for going to war in Iraq. First, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Second, CIA Director Tenet has stated that he never said the threat coming from Iraq was imminent, a claim that President Bush repeatedly made to the American people. Third, the Administration's alleged ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime have yet to be proven. In my view, these discrepancies are the reason why the Republican leadership has decided to take up this resolution. I think that they believe if they can get the House to agree that the world is safer because of the U.S. invasion into Iraq, the war is justified. But I disagree wholeheartedly with this flawed logic. We should be spending our time talking about how to make our country and world safer. We should be talking about the security of our borders, of cargo, of our critical infrastructure. We should be talking about truly supporting our troops by making sure they are taken care of when they return to the U.S.--ensuring that they don't have to wait for six months to get an appointment at the VA; ensuring that the veterans who fought before them get the benefits they were promised; ensuring that their loved ones will be taken care of when they pass on. We should be talking about how to help the Reservists and members of the National Guard who have been called to serve longer then they ever envisioned, whose families need help paying the bills while the soldiers are gone. I have been moved by the bravery of the troops that have been deployed from my district in New Mexico. They include the 52nd Engineer Combat Battalion's Charlie Battery, the New Mexico National Guard's 1115th Transportation Company, a group of soldiers from the New Mexico National Guard 3631st Maintenance Company, thousands of reservists, and countless active duty. I will continue working in Congress to help their families while they are gone and to help them with the transition when they return. Let's pass a resolution commending the bravery of our troops and coalition forces, thanking their families, commending the Iraqis for their courage in the face of a brutal regime and war, commending the adoption of an interim constitution in Iraq--but let's allow for a full debate and do it in a way that does not divide us. A resolution on the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the war should not be used for political purposes. Our armed forces, including the Reservists and National Guard members I sought to commend, as well as the Iraqi people, deserve better.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Peanut Month--a time to celebrate one of America's favorite snacks and an important sector of our agricultural economy. Roasted in the shell for a ballpark snack, ground into peanut butter or tossed in a salad or stir-fry, peanuts find their way into everything from breakfast to dessert. National Peanut Month had its beginnings as National Peanut Week in 1941. It was expanded to a month-long celebration in 1974. It is believed that peanuts originated as a food source in Brazil or Peru in about 950 B.C. The demand for peanuts increased in the United States during the Civil War, when soldiers used them as food. Today, Americans eat 2.4 billion pounds of peanuts each year. Because peanuts are not nuts but legumes, they grow in the ground and not on trees. The peanut plant grows above the ground, but the actual peanuts grow below the ground. Depending on the variety, peanuts can be ready to harvest in about 4 to 5 months after planting. George Washington Carver is considered by many to be the father of the peanut industry. He began his peanut research in 1903. He suggested to farmers that they rotate their cotton plants and cultivate peanuts. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nine states produce peanuts: New Mexico, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Valencia peanuts are an economic mainstay of the High Plains. Peanuts arrived in New Mexico in the early 1900s. The first Valencia peanut grown in the state was the Tennessee Red, named for its red seed coat. Valencias may derive their name from a connection to Valencia, Spain. Today, the primary varieties grown in New Mexico include Valencia A and Valencia C. Until last year, my home state of New Mexico grew more than 80 percent of the Nation's Valencia peanuts. Valencias, sometimes called ballpark nuts, account for less than 1 percent of U.S. peanut production, but they have been a financial mainstay for many farmers in New Mexico for more than five decades. Known for their sweetness, Valencias usually have three or more kernels per pod. Well suited to the eastern New Mexico region, the red- skinned peanuts have a shorter growing season than the three other market types: runner, Virginia and Spanish peanuts. Valencia peanuts have been an almost perfect crop for eastern New Mexico, particularly Roosevelt, Curry and Lea counties. Valencias do so well in the Clovis-Portales area because they face much less disease pressure than in other states. Valencias also thrive in the area's sandy soils. Many of our peanut farmers in New Mexico have struggled in recent years with a devastating drought. Nonetheless, in 2002, New Mexico's peanut producers still farmed 18,000 acres of peanuts valued at more than $10 million. Because of the importance of the peanut sector to my state's economy and traditions, I have worked to see that our interests have a place at the table. The 2002 farm bill established an 18-member board to provide consultation to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on implementing the peanut provisions contained in that law. I wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to appoint Wayne Hardin and Jimmie Shearer to the board. I made this recommendation after both gentlemen were recommended to me by the New Mexico Peanut Growers Association and the New Mexico Peanut Research Board. I was delighted when the President accepted my counsel. Wayne and Jimmie are to be commended for their service. Coincidentally, March is also National Nutrition Month--a great time to recognize the nutritional value of peanuts. Peanuts contain mainly unsaturated fat and are low in saturated fat. They contain fiber and magnesium. Peanuts have more plant protein than any other nut. They are also rich in vitamin E, folate, potassium, zinc, phyosterols and antioxidants. Additionally, diets high in nut consumption have also been shown to have a beneficial effect on lowering cholesterol. With the embrace of low-carbohydrate dieting, peanuts are enjoying an amazing revival. As my colleagues well know, I am very interested in preventive health care. I was pleased by a 2002 study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health that concluded women who eat peanuts or peanut butter five times a week can reduce their risk of developing type 2 diabetes by almost 20 percent. Of course, peanuts alone are not a panacea for good health. Physical activity, losing weight and changing dietary habits are key to helping stay healthy. Mr. Speaker, National Peanut Month provides us the opportunity to recognize the benefits of peanuts as well as the hard work of all the people in the peanut industry. I ask my colleagues to join with me in this celebration.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to exempt my home state of New Mexico from the Comparative Cost Adjustment (CCA), or ``premium support'' provisions included in the recently passed Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. I am pleased to introduce this bill as companion legislation to a bill that Senator Jeff Bingaman is introducing in the other chamber today. Mr. Speaker, when the House passed H.R. 1 at the end of November, I strongly opposed this legislation and voted accordingly. Today, I stand here still as strongly opposed to the newly implemented law as I did when we passed the bill the first two times it came to the floor last year. One of my strongest objections to the legislation was the inclusion of the CCA program, which requires the Medicare fee-for- service program to compete against the new Medicare Advantage program. This CCA program will last for 6 years and will be applied in a limited number of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). This provision is one of the worst in what was an extremely disappointing piece of legislation. Not only does this provision undercut the Medicare program, it outright threatens it by taking it down the road toward privatization. Rather than defined benefits beginning in 2010, seniors would receive a set premium payment--like a voucher--from the government, based on a combination of the process private plans charged and the cost of Medicare fee-for-service in their area. Seniors would enroll in either a private plan or fee-for-service, but those who picked a plan that was more expensive than the defined premium contribution would need to pay the difference out of their own pocket. This is not the way the Medicare program has been run in the past and its not the way it should run in the future. In order to ensure that New Mexico's seniors keep their defined benefit plans when the time comes for the CCA to go into effect, I am introducing this legislation today. This legislation will exempt regions of New Mexico from being one of the MSA's used as part of the CCA program. Many studies have shown that a likely outcome of these privatization provisions in the new law is that seniors will have to pay more than they do now to stay in fee-for-service. Mr. Speaker, these demonstration plans will dramatically alter the Medicare landscape for our seniors. For the first time in the history of Medicare, seniors would end up paying different premiums for the exact same fee-for-service benefit. I don't want New Mexico's seniors, or our nation's seniors facing the end of the safety and security they have come to know under the Medicare program. Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Bingaman and I are not the only members in our respective chamber's who feel this way. Several other Senators and Members have either introduced or are preparing to introduce similar legislation. I hope the leadership of each chamber recognizes the danger of the CCA program and takes action to protect New Mexico and our nation's seniors.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2696, the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003. This is extremely important legislation, and I applaud the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his work on this issue. I also thank the gentleman from American Samoa for his leadership on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, in my home State of New Mexico, we are experiencing a very serious and prolonged drought. Not only does this further exacerbate our water shortage as well as the difficulties faced by agriculture and livestock communities, but it also makes for very dangerous fire conditions as we approach spring and summer. Unfortunately, the issue of fire prevention and suppression is extremely controversial. That is why I believe it is important that our country establish a science-based common-sense fire policy. This bipartisan legislation before us today lays the groundwork for a science-based strategy to combat wildfire in the West. H.R. 2696 directs the Forest Service, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, to establish institutes to promote the use of adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of wildfires and restore the health of fire-adapted woodland in the West. The Agency would be required to provide the institutes with financial and technical assistance. Creating these institutions will create a solid foundation for scientific knowledge and the ability to rapidly convert new insights into technology and tools. These institutes will also create common ground for environmental, recreational, commercial, and governmental interests to work together and end the gridlock that has often paralyzed forest management initiatives. Mr. Speaker, I am also extremely pleased the Forest Management Institute in New Mexico will be centered at New Mexico Highlands University, located in my congressional district. While being centered at Highlands, however, the institute will engage the full resources of the consortium of universities represented in the Institute of Natural Resource Analysis and Management, INRAM. This includes the other New Mexico education institutions of higher learning, such as New Mexico State University, University of New Mexico, New Mexico Tech, New Mexico Highlands, Eastern New Mexico University, and Western New Mexico University. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) as well as the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for their work on this provision in the bill. It truly was a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, by passing this legislation and creating these institutions we will provide much-needed assistance to land managers in their ongoing efforts to decrease the severity of fires in our forests and restore woodland ecosystems. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Black Eagle, the winner of the 2004 Grammy for Best Native American Music Album. This drum group from Jemez Pueblo draws upon the rich history of the Native American Powwow for musical inspiration. Their fifteen years of performing has developed a deep and broad following across the country. It is my great honor to congratulate them for this win. Black Eagle formed in 1989 after group leader Malcolm Yepa attended a powwow in Lame Deer, Montana. He became enamored with the singing and drum playing being performed and upon returning to Jemez Pueblo, Malcolm and his brother David Yepa Jr. formed Black Eagle. Cousins who had heard of Malcolm's experience were eager to join and the group soon consisted of twenty-one members. After learning popular songs by listening to the recordings from other drum groups, Black Eagle began performing at local powwows. Their music coalesced into a definitive sound as they gained experience and soon the group was drawing wide recognition. Touring across the country during the next few years brought encounters with several others in the same musical vein, including fellow drum group, Black Lodge of White Swan, Washington. It was at this time, after speaking with Black Lodge, that Black Eagle began writing and performing original music written by members of the group. Making the music even more exceptional was the fact that it was written, and performed, in the Towa language, the dialect of the Jemez Pueblo. Such a project had never been done before, and release of their freshman album, titled, ``Volume I,'' brought wide praise. The production of music by Black Eagle continued unabated. ``Vol. II,'' the group's second album, was quickly followed by, ``Soaring High'' and ``Star Child.'' By 2001, when they released their fifth album, ``Life Goes On,'' Black Eagle had gained a wide following through extensive touring and word-of-mouth. This fifth work however, would be the work that gave Black Eagle national prominence and critical acclaim. A collection of round dance and hand drum songs, ``Life Goes On,'' garnered a Grammy nomination under the ``Best Native American Music Album'' category. While the 2002 awards ceremony did not bring a win for the group, Black Eagle was bolstered by the nomination and in March of 2003, they released, ``Flying Free.'' This sixth work utilized new technology to create a ``live'' recording sound in the studio and also bridged Native American music history when bells used on legendary group XIT's albums were played by Black Eagle. ``Flying Free'' was nominated, and won, the 2004 Grammy for ``Best Native American Music Album.'' Black Eagle's roots, which reside deep within the Jemez culture, are reflected on the album. Jemez Pueblo has a very long history in the great State of New Mexico, and continues to this day to preserve its cultural, spiritual and traditional customs. Events at the Pueblo, including feast days, dances, and arts and crafts shows, are still the primary responsibility of several members of the group. Going from a single teenager captivated by the music of his people to a familial, rooted award-winning group, Malcolm Yepa and Black Eagle are to be applauded for their musical achievements, commended for their loyalty to the history of the powwow, and wished the very best in their future aspirations.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 2707, I am extremely pleased that this bill is on the floor of the House today. I would like to thank my colleague from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for introducing this important legislation and for his leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank the gentleman from American Samoa for his hard work and his leadership in bringing this to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, those of us from the West are all too familiar with the water troubles that our communities are facing. Many of us are trying to find commonsense approaches to sustainable water management. This legislation is an important step in that direction. H.R. 2707 authorizes funds for demonstration projects on the Pecos and Rio Grande rivers to find the most efficient way to eliminate the invasive Salt Cedar species. The legislation authorizes up to $7 million per trial for the Army Corps of Engineers to begin examining the most effective methods to remove the Salt Cedar. The invasive Salt Cedar species is very damaging to water efficiency, has no natural enemies such as insects and diseases, and has a ravenous thirst. A large tree can soak up as much as 200 gallons of water per day. Removing the Salt Cedar alone will not be a panacea for our water troubles, but will certainly go a long way towards improving our water efficiency. Because of the importance of this task, support of efforts to eradicate non-native plants in New Mexico are widely supported by a diverse number of groups. The Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage and the Northern New Mexico Sierra Club have supported efforts by the New Mexico legislature to eliminate Salt Cedar and other phreatophytes along the State's riverbanks. Farmers and conservationists agree that everything possible must be done to remove Salt Cedars and other invasive species. Addressing a problem of this magnitude will require significant resources; and it is, therefore, imperative that we develop the most effective approaches. Passing this legislation will allow the Federal Government to make a significant contribution to helping communities throughout the Nation eradicate the Salt Cedar. Mr. Speaker, the water problems facing the West are complex and politically charged. However, we all stand here today committed to taking an important step in the fight against water shortages by passing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank, once again, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also would just like to congratulate Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell on this legislation and all of the staff members that worked on it, and especially Marie Howard. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for their hard work on this bill. I am pleased to rise in support of Senate 523, the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2003. This bipartisan legislation, which reflects the work product of a number of Members, contains a variety of provisions that would benefit Indian tribes and Alaskan Natives. One provision of the bill extends the authorization through 2008 for the Four Corners Interpretive Center. This Center focuses on Native American culture through a cooperative agreement between the area's Indian tribes and my State of New Mexico as well as Colorado, Utah and Arizona. Another provision of the bill clarifies the authority of the Secretary of Interior to issue bidding or royalty credits as a form of payment to acquire land and subsurface rights on the Acoma Indian Reservation for that tribe. This will permit the Pueblo to gain more control over lands within its reservation. This is related to legislation that the former Member from New Mexico, Joe Skeen, was involved with in the last session. In addition, this bill authorizes the transfer of surplus lands from the Bureau of Land Management to the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso to be used for traditional purposes only. Some Members may recall we passed similar legislation just last year. In an effort to get the other provisions of this bill signed into law without having to return to the other body, we have agreed to allow this provision pertaining to San Ildefonso and Santa Clara to remain in the bill knowing that it will not impede the transfer already under way. In short, this bill makes minor changes to several laws by extending authorizations, clarifying congressional intent, and generally addressing some needs of various Indian tribes. From the distribution of judgment funds to the Quinault Indian Nation in Washington State to the reauthorization of the Navaho-Hopi Land Settlement Act, passage of this legislation is important to each Indian tribe named in the bill. Furthermore, this legislation is noncontroversial, and I urge Members to support S. 523. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the finest and most respected news anchors in New Mexico--Craig Nigrelli. Craig is departing KOAT television of Albuquerque, New Mexico, after a strong four-year run. He will soon be leaving for KSTP- TV in Minnesota. Before he departs, I would like to reflect on his career. Craig is one of New Mexico's most highly respected broadcast journalists. He joined the Action 7 News anchor desk in February 2000. As a popular morning and noontime anchor, he has commanded high ratings against some tough competition and is often credited with making a major contribution toward building KOAT's solid reputation. In 1989, Craig received his B.A. degree in Communications/Economics from Rutgers University. He began his broadcasting career in radio as an anchor/reporter for radio station WJJL-AM in Niagara Falls, New York, and then as anchor/reporter for WBEN-AM in Buffalo, New York, from May 1991 until June 1993. In April 1993, Craig made the move to television as a general assignment reporter for WIVB-TV in Buffalo, and became the station's anchor/co-anchor from October 1995 until January 2000. During this time, he was praised for his reports on the crash of TWA Flight 800, the one-year anniversary of the federal-building bombing in Oklahoma, and the FBI raid on Timothy McVeigh's childhood home near Buffalo. This extensive experience prepared him well for his successful tenure at KOAT. Throughout his years at KOAT, Craig has developed a reputation in the New Mexico political community for being one of the few TV reporters to whom the moniker ``political reporter'' is applied. He has been a major presence on KOAT election coverage, and his departure will leave a void in this busy year. After being interviewed dozens of times by Craig, I can honestly say that I do not know his political affiliation or leanings. He has asked me, and countless other elected officials and candidates, the tough questions that New Mexico viewers want to know. I do not think there can be a higher compliment than that for a journalist. On February 16, I will travel to the KOAT studio in Albuquerque for what will probably be my last interview with Craig on the noon news. I have no doubt that he will be missed by his colleagues and viewers alike for his judgment, experience, toughness under pressure, and his wonderful sense of humor. He will be gone, but not forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in wishing Craig the best of luck in all his future endeavors. His dedication to quality journalism cannot be understated, and I am pleased to have been able to honor him here today. While Craig and his lovely wife, Carol, embark on a new chapter in their life, I want them to know they will always have friends in New Mexico.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the gentleman from American Samoa for those very warm comments. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his sponsorship of this bill. There is no doubt that as a cochair of the International Conservation Caucus he has been a real leader in these international forestry issues. His leadership and hard work, I think, are appreciated by all. As we can see, he feels very passionately about these issues as does the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce). I think this is just a great example of how we can work together as Democrats and Republicans to help the rest of the world to move along to a good, solid path of economic development while at the same time sustaining their resources. That is the reason I rise today in support of the Congo Basin Forest Partnership Act. This is an outstanding new initiative that was spawned from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. This program, which includes individuals and organizations across the board--governments, international advocacy groups, NGOs and industries--uses public-private partnerships to enhance the welfare of the Congo Basin Forest. There is no doubt that the Congo Basin Forest has a significant impact on the global community. Its rich wildlife population contributes significantly to the economic and environmental health in the region. The value of wilderness and biologically diverse areas such as the Congo Basin is immeasurable. The Congo Basin Forest Partnership works to enhance sustainable development in the region, improve ecotourism practices and prevent harmful activities such as illegal poaching and logging which the sponsor has so eloquently spoken about. The model offered by the Congo Basin Forest Partnership is one which I believe we can all learn from. The lessons that will come out of this intricate collaboration will serve as a model for local conservation and sustainability issues here in the U.S. I am pleased that the U.S. State Department has made conservation of the Congo Basin Forest a priority. A recent trip with the International Conservation Caucus has highlighted for me the need to take additional bold actions around the world and especially in Africa to preserve the globe's natural resources. As a cochairman of the House International Conservation Caucus, I would like to thank those in the international community who have spent significant time promoting sustainable development. I would also like to thank my cochairs, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), for their diligent work in the Congress on these conservation issues. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of my bill, House Resolution 157, which calls on China to release its Tibetan prisoners of conscience. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for moving this bill to the House floor today. Around 100 political prisoners remain behind bars in the Drapchi prison in Lhasa, the most notorious Chinese prison in Tibet. I was lucky enough last fall to meet one of Drapchi's most recently released political prisoners. Ngawang Sangdrol was her name. This humble remarkable young woman survived 11 years of torture and deprivation in prison before she reached her 21st birthday. She was released from prison in 2002 and was allowed to travel to the United States for medical treatment in March of 2003. Despite the horrific treatment she suffered in prison, her spirit was never broken and her dedication to the cause of Tibetan freedom never flagged. The horrific treatment that Ngawang Sangdrol experienced in prison is unimaginable to most of us. She recalls being made to stare at the sun while holding newspapers under her arms and between her knees. If the newspapers fell, she would be beaten. She was electrocuted with a baton and was made to run with her arms behind her while stones were thrown at her. When I asked this young woman, who had been through so much, what the worst day of her imprisonment was, she responded she had no answer; ``they were all the worst day of my life,'' she said. Many of the Tibetan nuns and monks who suffered along with Ngawang Sangdrol remain in Drapchi prison today. Mentioned explicitly in this resolution is a nun by the name of Phuntsog Nyidron. This 34-year-old Tibetan nun is the longest serving female political prisoner in Tibet. She was only 20 years old when she was arrested in 1989 for taking part in a peaceful protest. Her sentence was extended in 1993 when she and 13 other nuns recorded and smuggled out of prison songs about their love for their country, their people, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Tibetans are a peace loving and resilient people, and even under the Chinese occupation they have been able to retain their culture outside Tibet's borders. In my district in New Mexico I enjoy having a significant group of Tibetan refugees as constituents. It is these Tibetans and the people who care about them who led to this resolution's introduction and its eventual passage. This resolution also comes at a crucial time in the treatment of Tibetan refugees elsewhere. After the Nepalese government handed over 18 Tibetan refugees to the Chinese Government last summer, the U.S. Congress put significant pressure on them to issue an official policy stating that it would not happen again. We now know definitively that at least two of the Tibetans who were given to the Chinese authorities were thrown in prison, whereupon they were tortured. However, even after the Nepalese government issued its new policy, reports continue to surface that they are handing over Tibetan refugees to the Chinese. This is unacceptable. I take this opportunity not only to call on the Chinese Government to release its political prisoners but also to tell the Nepalese government that the United States takes very seriously the welfare of Tibetan refugees everywhere. With the passage of this resolution today, we send a message to the Chinese Government that we have not turned a blind eye to Tibet. Quite the contrary. We closely monitor what occurs in Tibet and will continue to do so. And with that we call on the Chinese to release its political prisoners out of good will and responsibility. There is a poem by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama that ends: ``Work for peace in your heart and in the world work for peace. And I say again never give up. No matter what is going on, never give up.'' It is with this sentiment that I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. There is credible evidence that international action on behalf of prisoners in China improves their situation. Since 2002, nine political prisoners have been released from prison as a result of international pressure. On behalf of Phuntsog Nyidron and her fellow prisoners who are being so unjustly treated, please join me in voting in favor of House Resolution 157. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for his assistance in this matter and all the other Members the bipartisan group of Members that are a part of this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, both my wife, Jill, and I were saddened to learn about Joe's death. Joe Skeen served New Mexico with distinction and dedication. During the 4 years we served together in Congress, I found Joe to be a true gentleman and statesman. One of the stories that I like to tell about Joe Skeen was how he got here. He was only the third Member of the House in the history of this House to be elected by a write-in vote. My wife was the Deputy Attorney General, and she was assigned to represent the State of New Mexico and the Secretary of State in the legal case that determined that he had to be a write-in. There was only a Democrat on the ballot. He was beloved by New Mexicans, and my wife and I were in the court that day when there was a ruling. Representative Skeen understood that she had a job to do. He respected that. He never held it against us. He was always a gentleman. He had a great sense of humor; and he knew, because he was so loved in the State, that whether he got on the ballot or not, he was going to get elected, which in fact he did. One of the things I respected about him the most was his bipartisanship; and I think every Member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, every Member of this House, loved him for that. He loved this institution. He had a great sense of humor. He did not take this place where we do the serious business of the country too seriously, and he would always have a good story or a quip. I just want to say to Mary, the children and the rest of the family that all of us in the House of Representatives that served with him loved him very much, and we send Mary and his family our heart-felt condolences. Jill and I were saddened to learn about Joe's death. Joe Skeen served New Mexico with distinction and dedication. During the 4 years we served together in Congress, I found Joe to be a true gentleman and statesman. It is difficult to capture with words the impact and significance that Joe has meant, not only to New Mexicans, but to the citizens of the United States and the institution of the Congress as well. During his tenure as New Mexico's longest serving U.S. House Member, he built a dedicated and talented staff on Capitol Hill. He was renowned for his tireless work on behalf of agrarian interests. Although he didn't get the credit he deserved, he also helped steer millions of Federal dollars to our State. I was proud to work with Joe on legislation that helped return mineral rights to Acoma Pueblo. That bill, now Federal law, was easily steered through Congress by Joe's knowledge of the legislative process. While we were ultimately not as successful as we would have liked, we also fought together to change the dairy sections of the 2002 farm bill that were unfair to our State's strong milk and cheese industry. Through it all, I enjoyed working with him every step of the way. Throughout his years of service, he was a model of integrity and truth. The way he approached his job is the way every elected official should--as a highly principled individual who stuck to his beliefs. He walked his talk. While we didn't agree on everything, he always did what he believed in his heart to be true, and he always worked in a bipartisan way to accomplish important work. His good will and sense of humor will be missed by all who knew him. We send our sympathy to his family and friends.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have the opportunity to express my heartfelt appreciation and congratulations to Doc Stewart, one of the treasures of Eastern New Mexico. Considering all that Doc has done for Clovis and the surrounding communities, how very appropriate it is that November 21, 2003, has been designated ``Doc Stewart Day.'' I salute Doc with great honor and respect. It would be very difficult to mention all that Doc Stewart has done to further the success of Clovis and the smaller communities that depend on the services this eastside hub provides. In addition to the vital importance of such as the excellent public schools, the business community and the agriculture industry, of great significance is Cannon Air Force Base. Doc has worked tirelessly for many, many years to ensure the continuation of this military presence on the eastside of New Mexico. In addition, he has always been extremely aware of how critical a congenial and productive relationship is between the air base personnel and the local residents. Doc's business acumen, keen insight, delightful personality and affable manner always served the community well in this effort. Doc knew early on that Cannon was a key player in the economic health of Clovis. His exceptional efforts as a member of the Committee of Fifty have clearly demonstrated Doc's sincere interest and concern for the betterment of his fellow residents. Even though managing his own successful business required much of his time, he always made himself available to be involved in activities that were critical in retaining the presence of Cannon Air Force Base, whether those be local, state or national. Doc Stewart is an outstanding member of his community and our state. Not only has he been dedicated to the efforts of the Committee of Fifty, his additional involvement in community service has been invaluable. I invite my colleagues to join me in extending best wishes for a job well done and continued success in all Doc's future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2297, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, contains myriad benefits for our nation's veterans, many of which are long overdue. The bill builds on education benefits by expanding the Montgomery GI Bill program, a successful program that will now include educational assistance for on the job training in certain self-employment programs. It also increases monthly educational benefits for spouses and dependent children of veterans with permanent total disabilities, or who have died as a result of combat. Among the housing benefits in the bill is a provision allowing remarried surviving spouses of veterans to be buried next to the veteran in a national cemetery, based on the original marriage. A prohibition on remarried spouses burial eligibility is unfair to many of the dedicated spouses who have faithfully supported their veterans for years. I was a cosponsor of the original bill for this measure and support its passage. The section of the bill relating to benefits for former Prisoners of War contains a provision that will add cirrhosis of the liver to the list of presumed service-connected disabilities for former POWs. It also eliminates the unfair requirement that a POW must be held for at least 30 days to qualify for presumption of service-connection for certain disabilities, such as psychoses and states of anxiety. We owe it to our former POWs to repay them for what they have been through as much as we possibly can, and this provision is a step in that direction. Yet another beneficial provision in this bill is the extension for six years of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. As a representative in a state with over 9,000 Native American veterans, and with over 17,200 Hispanic veterans in my district alone, I fully support this provision and believe it is a necessary step to the continued service to all minority veterans. Another provision in the bill provides federal contracting officials the discretionary authority to award sole source contracts to small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. I am pleased that the Senate took out the ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' phrase that was in the original version of H.R. 1460, from which the language for this provision of H.R. 2297 was taken. The language included in the original version of H.R. 1460 was very harmful to the 8(a) small business contract program, a program that benefits minority- owned small businesses all across this country. As a member of both the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and House Small Business Committee I worked to forge a suitable compromise that would ensure increased contracting opportunities for veteran-owned small businesses, while not harming the 8(a) program that has helped provide economic opportunity for minority entrepreneurs. With the help of the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both committees, we were able to unanimously pass an amended version of H.R. 1460. Unfortunately the unanimously passed version of H.R. 1460 is not what is included in H.R. 2297 today, but neither is the originally damaging language of H.R. 1460 included in this bill. I do have remaining concerns about the effect of the included contracting provision on the 8(a) and other small business programs, but considering the numerous important provisions for our nation's veterans contained in this bill, I will vote in favor. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I strongly support increased opportunities for veteran entrepreneurs. In fact, with the support of Congresswoman Sue Kelly, I recently introduced H.R. 3483, the Seeds for Soldiers Act, to establish a loan program and a vocational rehabilitation program for veterans. As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I strongly support strengthening benefits for our Nation's veterans, who have fought so bravely to protect our country. I support the passage of H.R. 2297 and look forward to continuing work in the House Veterans' Affairs Committee to support our Nation's heroes.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great disappointment in the conference agreement that has been brought to the floor. I sincerely hoped that the bill that passed the House in July would have been moderated with provisions included in the other chamber's bill. Unfortunately, instead of considering legislation today that would have modernized the Medicare program to provide prescription drug cost relief and coverage for seniors throughout this great nation, we have this agreement that is geared toward dismantling one of the most successful government programs ever implemented. Instead of considering legislation to modernize the Medicare formulas to fix the inequities between rural and urban areas, we are considering an agreement that wraps these crucial fixes in with a prescription drug benefit that is designed to achieve the ideologically extreme goal of privatizing Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I will certainly admit that the provider package included in this agreement is excellent. For years doctors, hospital administrators, and other health care providers have suffered under the unfair Medicare formulas that severely hampered their ability to provide care to Medicare beneficiaries. The labor share revision, the geographic physician payment adjustment, increasing home health services furnished in rural areas, critical access hospital improvements--these are all incredibly important provisions that I strongly support in order to help strengthen the health care system in rural areas. I also support fixing the inequitable disproportionate share formula, which is done to a degree in this agreement. Unfortunately, however, the conference agreement removes language that would have given New Mexico a larger increase of DSH payments to $45 million. The physician fee formula update is another provision that is incredibly important. Without this fix, physicians will have no other choice but to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries, which will lead to the total breakdown of a system that is already badly strained to its limits. I recognize the importance of these provisions. I understand the difficulties that those in the health care industry are facing. I understand the difficulties seniors are facing in trying to purchase and pay for their medications. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to fix the disproportionate share provisions, I have cosponsored legislation to fix the Medicare physician payment updates, I have written letters supporting these provisions and urging Chairman Thomas to include these rural fixes in the legislation, I have written a letter to conferees asking them to retain this provisions, and, when this bill passed in July, I voted in favor of the Democratic alternative that not only included stronger rural provisions than those included in the Majority's bill, but also contained a real prescription drug benefit--not a benefit engineered to bring about the demise of the Medicare program. Mr. Speaker, lets be clear about what our goal was supposed to be. We were supposed to create a new prescription drug benefit in Medicare. That's what we were supposed to be doing with this important legislation. Unfortunately, we are doing much more than that, and a lot of it is terrible. We were supposed to be reducing the costs of drugs for seniors. Yet this plan prohibits the federal government from using its clout to force down the price of medicine. We were supposed to help seniors keep their current drug coverage if they are fortunate enough to have it. Yet this plan may force up to three million seniors out of their current employer-based plans. We were supposed to be strengthening the Medicare program by adding a voluntary benefit for prescription drug coverage. Yet this plan, under the guise of a premium support demonstration, weakens the Medicare program by forcing beneficiaries to pay more for Medicare if they don't give up their doctor and join an HMO. We were supposed to help low-income seniors who get additional assistance from Medicaid afford their prescriptions. Yet this plan not only forces 6 million low-income seniors to pay more for their medications, but also imposes an unfair assets test that disqualifies seniors if they have modest savings. We were supposed to be providing a prescription drug benefit that would ease the cost and emotional burden seniors face in dealing with medication purchases. Yet this plan leaves millions of seniors without drug coverage for part of the year due to the $2800 gap in coverage. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with this agreement. I am disappointed because what should have been a straightforward approach took a wrong-turn along the way. I think this is a terrible way to spend $400 million dollars on a supposed prescription drug benefit, and I will be forced to vote against this measure. I urge my colleagues to reject this shameless assault on Medicare.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his management of this bill. Let me just talk a little bit about the judicial review test here, because I think that we are embarking on new ground. When we put in a test that talks about short-term and long-term, really what we are ending up doing is saying that if you cut down the whole forest and it is okay in 100 years, then that is all right. I mean, that is the kind of test that we are putting into this piece of legislation. We do not know what that means. And so we are encroaching into the judicial arena, trying to tell the courts what to do. This is a new test. It is a new standard. It has never been used before. And what is going to happen? We hear all the talk about lawsuits and litigation from this side of the aisle. Guess what, folks? This is going to be a lawyers employment bill. If there is anything that is going to come out of this, it is going to be more litigation, it is going to be more billable time, it is going to be more lawyers involved in this process. And I think what is going to happen further, if we allow this to happen, if we allow this to happen, we are going to see this appear across the board in other areas, workers' rights, OSHA, any place where Federal agency decision-making is going on, this is going to be imposed on the Federal courts. And I think that is why the committees that supervise in the Congress judicial review have such a hard time with this provision. With that, I would just urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. The recent firestorm in Southern California acted to once again remind us of the gravity of rampant wildfires in the west. However, this issue is of such great importance that I am extremely concerned about, and strongly object to, the manner that this legislation was brought before us today. You may recall that the Committee Print of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act was released to the members of the Resources Committee during a recess period, on the Friday afternoon before it was scheduled to be marked up in Resources committee, a few days later. Similarly, we are called upon today to vote on the Healthy Forests Conference Committee report. This report was just released yesterday. It is my understanding that the rules for the House call for a minimum of 3 days of review of a conference report before it is voted upon. So, in what now seems to be standard operating procedure of the House, we have barely had twenty-four hours, if that, to read and digest its contents. One day is hardly sufficient to allow all Members to carefully and thoughtfully consider this vital legislation. I would like to point out that H.R. 1904 was not the sole option available for our protection from wildfire devastation. Mr. Udall of Colorado and I introduced H.R. 1042, the Forest Restoration and Fire Risk Reduction Act. Had we had an opportunity to hold hearings on our bill, Mr. Udall and I would have been able to formally raise some of the issues that I view are not adequately addressed in H.R. 1904 or the conference report, but that are critically important to wildlife prevention and protection. Our bill would place greater emphasis on protection of the ``wildland/urban interface'' without imposing the unprecedented deadlines and standards for injunctive relief on the Federal judiciary, and without emasculating our environmental laws that are present in both H.R. 1904 and the Report. While the results of the conference are better than the version passed by the House, the provisions that I view to be most controversial remain in the text. The agreement places a greater emphasis on thinning forests very close to communities, but, like the House bill, it significantly limits environmental reviews of forest thinning projects and insect infestation field research projects. I reemphasize that I believe that we must conduct thinning projects to help reduce the likelihood of unusually severe fires. However, I do not support the contention that to facilitate such projects we need to expunge our environmental laws and procedures for public comment and participation. The limits placed on fire-risk reduction projects from environmental review and administrative appeals, especially in the wildland urban interface, in effect constrain the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Furthermore, denying the public the full and fair opportunity to have viable alternatives to agency action considered circumvents established policy of public participation. Such participation is an important aspect of our democratic process for making decisions affecting public lands. Limiting public comment and ignoring the provisions of NEPA and other laws designed to protect our environment does not assist in developing sound forest management. I believe, however, that the conference report is a better bill than the version passed by the House. The Report contains specific provisions to protect the wildland urban interface. Furthermore, the report authorizes tribal watershed management programs for Indian tribes, an issue that I have strongly advocated for since we began working on this legislation in the 107th Congress. Nonetheless, I am afraid that this legislation is just another assault by the Bush Administration on our Nation's forests. Most of the attacks over the last year have been below the radar--in arcane rules, stealth riders and misnamed legislation. In this many-fronted assault, big timber is the winner. Under the guise of buzz words such as forest health, catastrophic- wildfire prevention and streamlining, the Administration's initiatives transform forest policy in ways that are staggering in their scope as well as in their implications for democracy. The changes revamp laws fundamental to sound forest management, including the National Forest Management Act, the Appeals Reform Act and NEPA. The cumulative effect of these changes is to undermine or eliminate open decisionmaking, agency accountability, resource protection and recourse in the courts. It began in December 2002, when the Administration proposed a forest- planning regulation that renders public involvement virtually meaningless. The rule ignores scientific involvement, eliminates fish and wildlife protection, and fails to protect roadless areas. It skews the planning process to favor logging, mining and off-road vehicle use. It renders plan standards more discretionary, further reducing agency accountability. Most shocking, the final rule, due out imminently, exempts forest plans from environmental analysis and eliminates the opportunity for the public to appeal the final plan. The Forest Service assured critics that it would undertake in-depth environmental studies when specific logging projects were proposed. Not so. In June 2003, the Administration abolished environmental review of logging done in the name of ``hazardous fuels reduction'' on up to 1,000 acres of land as well as post-fire rehabilitation projects on up to 4,200 acres. One month later, the Administration carved out more loopholes for National Environmental Policy Act exemptions for commercial logging by setting acreage limits of 70 acres for timber sales and 250 acres for salvage sales. These projects have few, if any, meaningful constraints. For example, the projects must be ``consistent'' with local forest plans. Yet, under the soon-to-be final planning regulations, forest plans can be amended simply by changing the plan on an interim basis with no public notice. Under the banner of hazardous fuels reductions, large-scale, intensive commercial logging projects may take place virtually anywhere in our forests, regardless of forest type or tree size. In effect, the conference report allows logging and associated road building with limited environmental analysis, administrative appeals, judicial review and public involvement. The Appeals Reform Act of 1992 gave citizens a statutory right of appeal after the Forest Service tried to eliminate appeals on timber sales. Although billed as part of the ``Healthy Forests Initiative,'' changes to these regulations significantly curtail rights to appeal a broad range of timber sales and land management decisions--not just those pertaining to fire risk. H.R. 1904 sets no time frames for appeal, no required stay of action provision during the appeal, and no guaranteed right to appeal. Instead, the Forest Service would have 30 days after enactment of this legislation to develop the new administrative appeals process. This legislation also pushes citizens out of the picture. In addition to altering the intentions of the Appeals Reform Act, H.R. 1904 reduces environmental review on logging projects not already given a wholesale exemption and severely restricts opportunities for public involvement. Furthermore, it encroaches upon the courts' ability to review the legality of logging projects almost anywhere on our publicly owned forests, including roadless areas and old growth. If bug and disease- control are the purported reasons for logging, projects up to 1,000 acres will bypass all environmental review and appeals. With millions of dollars authorized in the act for any hazardous fuels project on public lands, logging without laws can proceed throughout the backcountry. The synergistic effects of these radical rollbacks are breathtaking. I predict that the assault will only foment more controversy and stimulate more distrust of the Forest Service for years to come. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his leadership on this motion to instruct, and it is badly needed because we can see from the other side how the deceptions flow out. We are hearing over and over here again about a bipartisan conference. The fact of the matter is, and they know it, that we were locked out of the conference. Absolutely unprecedented. Democrats locked out and a secret agreement crafted, which we most of us have not even seen yet. We have not seen it. But it is going to be rammed through despite the fact it is supposed to sit on the table here for 3 days at a minimum for us to study. But this is a bad bill. It is a bad bill for seniors, and it is a bad bill for the future of Medicare. The key thing that a prescription drug bill should do is get control of the cost. This bill does not get control of costs in any respect. In fact, it has a prohibition in the bill that specifically says the Department of Health and Social Services, the agency that runs Medicare, cannot negotiate with the drug companies. I will bet the drug companies love that provision. Also the House of Representatives passed a reimportation provision. Reimportation allows us in the United States to bring in the cheaper drugs where they are safely manufactured. But they did not want that in the bill; so they junked that also. So there is nothing in this bill to control costs, and we are headed down a road of creating a program which is going to bankrupt our grandchildren. The only way, the only way we are going to get control of costs is allow the government, allow the government to negotiate. With that, let me urge all my colleagues to support the very wise motion of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great disappointment in the conference agreement that has been brought to the floor. I sincerely hoped that the bill that passed the House in July would have been moderated with provisions included in the other Chamber's bill. Unfortunately, instead of considering legislation today that would have modernized the Medicare program to provide prescription drug cost relief and coverage for seniors throughout this great Nation, we have this agreement that is geared toward dismantling one of the most successful government programs ever implemented. Instead of considering legislation to modernize the Medicare formulas to fix the inequities between rural and urban areas, we are considering an agreement that wraps these crucial fixes in with a prescription drug benefit that is designed to achieve the ideologically extreme goal of privatizing Medicare. I will certainly admit that the provider package included in this agreement is excellent. For years doctors, hospital administrators, and other health care providers have suffered under the unfair Medicare formulas that severely hampered their ability to provide care to Medicare beneficiaries. The labor share revision, the geographic physician payment adjustment, equalizing the Medicare disproportionate share payments, increasing home health services furnished in rural areas, critical access hospital improvements--these are all incredibly important provisions that I strongly support in order to help strengthen the health care system in rural areas. The physician fee formula update is another provision that is incredibly important. Without this fix, physicians will have no other choice but to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries, which will lead to the total breakdown of a system that is already badly strained to its limits. I recognize the importance of these provisions. I understand the difficulties that those in the health care industry are facing. I understand the difficulties seniors are facing in trying to purchase and pay for their medications. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to fix the disproportionate share provisions, I have cosponsored legislation to fix the Medicare physician payment updates, I have written letters supporting these provisions and urging Chairman Thomas to include these rural fixes in the legislation, I have written a letter to conferees asking them to retain these provisions, and, when this bill passed in July, I voted in favor of the Democratic alternative that not only included stronger rural provisions than those included in the Majority's bill, but also contained a real prescription drug benefit--not a benefit engineered to bring about the demise of the Medicare program. Let's be clear about what our goal was supposed to be. We were supposed to create a new prescription drug benefit in Medicare. That's what we were supposed to be doing with this important legislation. Unfortunately, we are doing much more than that, and a lot of it is terrible. We were supposed to be reducing the costs of drugs for seniors. Yet this plan prohibits the federal government from using its clout to force down the price of medicine. We were supposed to help seniors keep their current drug coverage if they are fortunate enough to have it. Yet this plan may force up to three million seniors out of their current employer-based plans. We were supposed to be strengthening the Medicare program by adding a voluntary benefit for prescription drug coverage. Yet this plan, under the guise of a premium support demonstration, weakens the Medicare program by forcing beneficiaries to pay more for Medicare if they don't give up their doctor and join an HMO. We were supposed to help low-income seniors who get additional assistance from Medicaid afford their prescriptions. Yet this plan not only forces 6 million low-income seniors to pay more for their medications, but also imposes an unfair assets test that disqualifies seniors if they have modest savings. We were supposed to be providing a prescription drug benefit that would ease the cost and emotional burden seniors face in dealing with medication purchases. Yet this plan leaves millions of seniors without drug coverage for part of the year due to the $2800 gap in coverage. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with this agreement. I am disappointed because what should have been a straightforward approach took a wrong-turn along the way. I think this is a terrible way to spend $400 billion dollars on a supposed prescription drug benefit, and I will be forced to vote against this measure. I urge my colleagues to reject this shameless assault on Medicare.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, without doubt, I am sympathetic to the purpose behind this motion. I am a staunch supporter of smart environmental regulations, and I oppose the approach that the Bush Administration has taken toward stripping regulations on clean air and water. However, after speaking with people on both sides of this issue, I have concluded that this motion is not the right approach. In New Mexico, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, with Governor Bill Richardson as the state's representative, is currently working toward model regulations for management of stormwater pollution in the state. In the meantime, the local oil and gas companies continue to follow general guidelines. I am encouraged by the work being done at the state level to address this issue, as I believe it is important to work with all interests to generate a collaborative solution. Although I will vote in opposition to this non-binding motion, I continue to be disturbed by many of the provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Unfortunately, the way this bill has been crafted echoes the practice of the Administration to put corporations before the environment, before public opinion, and before logic that tells us we need to gear our energy policy toward future needs--not toward the profit of industry. The exclusion of Democrats from the entire conference is reason to believe the bill is not as balanced as its authors claim. I hope that my many concerns are addressed in the final conference report and I look forward to a vote on the final bill.