Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Dr. Nat Cobb of Corrales, New Mexico. I want to congratulate Nat on his participation in the Lance Armstrong Tour of Hope which concluded this past weekend here in the Nation's capital. Nat Cobb was chosen to ride across the country with 25 other riders and cycling champion Lance Armstrong. This amazing team of riders rode for 7 days from Los Angeles to Washington, DC, covering 120 miles per day per rider. They rode during the day and during the night. The Tour of Hope team climbed mountains and crossed rivers and reached communities across America to inspire millions and share the importance of cancer research. They used this ride to share their personal stories to help raise awareness about the need for cancer patients to participate in clinical trials so that we might achieve cures more quickly. Participation is of crucial importance to finding a cure. If clinical trials are not performed on new drugs, these drugs will not be available to those afflicted with cancer. Nat's personal story is especially important to New Mexico and all Native Americans. Nat Cobb is actively engaged in making cancer screenings and clinical trials available to Indian populations all over the country. He has worked with a number of hospitals and clinics to enroll patients in trials and to educate people about preventing cancer through programs on tobacco control and life-style changes. He was an excellent choice to ride in the Tour of Hope. I also want to say how proud I was to ride alongside Nat and Lance Armstrong this past weekend as the Tour of Hope concluded in Washington, DC. I was honored to join them along the final stretches of the journey and am pleased to have lent my support to their efforts which are so important to Native Americans suffering from cancer. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help them spread the word that we can do more here in Congress to help them as well. For one, we can fund research programs to help increase awareness about clinical trials so that more adults participate in clinical drug trials. Nearly 85 percent of children participate in some type of drug trial, but less than 10 percent of adults do. I am hopeful that by raising awareness through the Tour of Hope, Lance Armstrong, Nat Cobb, and other team members and Bristol Meyers Squibb and others can achieve this important goal of finding cures more quickly for all types of cancer.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the supplemental and support the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. While I support the funds allotted for our courageous troops, I cannot support the bill in its current form. The lack of information we have received from the Administration on operations in Iraq and future costs is embarrassing, especially as we hear daily about new casualties on the ground. We have seen no timeline estimating when elections will be held to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government. We have heard no estimated date from this Administration for sending our troops home. We still have seen no estimate of the total cost of operations in Iraq. While we must work toward quelling the attacks and stabilizing Iraq, passing this bill is not the answer. If Congress approves this request, the amount spent on Iraq will exceed $150 billion. But we still don't know how the Administration spent the first $70 billion the Congress approved for Iraq and Afghanistan, a funding request I supported. American taxpayers deserve some accountability. American taxpayers deserve to know how their hard-earned money is being spent, and they deserve to know how much will be spent in the future. When someone puts a down payment on a house, that person does so knowing not just the amount of the first payment, but also the full cost of the mortgage. We need to know what the mortgage on Iraq is--we deserve that, and the President has a responsibility to tell us. Its that simple. It is unfortunate that the Majority would not allow us to consider the funds for the troops separately from the reconstruction funds. I don't know of one colleague in this House that does not support the troops, and to say that a no vote on this bill is a vote against them is offensive. This past August, I was able to visit troops in my district in New Mexico who had recently returned from Iraq. In fact, just this week, I met with veterans in my district, and the overwhelming majority do not support this effort. I also visited troops on active duty in Germany and closer to home in Bethesda Medical Center during the war. I heard their stories, all of them heroic, and expressed my gratitude for their service to our country. I voted in favor of the resolution to support the troops in this war, and I am proud of that vote. What I am not proud of, however, is the process we have seen in considering this funding bill. I submitted an amendment to pay for this funding bill by modifying the President's irresponsible tax cut so that the rate of the top one percent of the taxpayers would change to 38.2 percent--still less than the percentage before the tax cuts--for 2005 through 2010. Unfortunately I was not permitted to offer the amendment, so we will not have a vote. A similar provision was also included in Mr. Obey's amendment which was also not allowed a vote on the floor. The new cost of the war--$150 million--if fifty percent more than Administration officials estimated a few months ago. This year the Federal Government has the largest deficit in its history--over $400 billion--and this does not include this new request. Because of poor decisionmaking, poor planning, and plain old bad math, our grandchildren will be paying for this war. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strongest possible support for H.R. 2998, and urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation. I am extremely pleased that the leadership has brought this bill to the floor today, but I am thoroughly confused as to why the Department of Defense has even made this legislation necessary. It is absolutely mind-boggling that they charge military personnel for meals while they are hospitalized with injuries suffered while in combat or training. Mr. Speaker, on September 24 we passed the conference report for the FY04 Defense Appropriations bill, which provided appropriations for the DoD totaling $368 billion dollars. This figure marked an increase of approximately $13 billion for the DoD. I voted in support of this conference report because I felt that it provided important funding for our troops and for the war on terrorism, but I cannot believe that the DoD, with around $355 billion in funds for FY03, could possibly charge these men and women for the meals they eat while they recover from injuries. This is unconscionable, and I thank Mr. Young for introducing his legislation to remedy this outrage. I am a cosponsor of this legislation and I will most certainly be voting in support of its passage. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of our troops and to correct this ridiculous situation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2297, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003. This bill contains a number of measures for our Nation's veterans. Among those is a provision that will expand the Montgomery G.I. Bill program, a tried and true program that helps our veterans achieve their education goals. H.R. 2297 strengthens the program by authorizing educational assistance for on- job training in certain self-employment training programs. Another provision in this bill allows a re-married surviving spouse of a veteran to be buried next to the veteran in a national cemetery, based on the original marriage. An across-the-board prohibition on remarried spouses of veterans' burial eligibility is unfair to many of the dedicated women and men who spent years supporting their veteran spouse. A change in this policy is only fair. Finally, this bill eliminates the requirement that a prisoner of war be held for 30 days or more to qualify for presumptions of service- connection for psychoses, anxiety disorders, frostbite residuals, and other diseases. Some of our bravest veterans are plagued by these life- changing sicknesses, and they deserve fair and just compensation. 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 am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2297 and urge my colleagues to support its passage today.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion. The Department of Energy may believe that simply reclassifying waste is a quick and clever way to solve a nasty problem but I, along with many of my colleagues, disagree. Millions of gallons of high-level radioactive waste lie in corroding storage tanks in Idaho, Washington, and South Carolina with the potential of invading the nearby rivers. DOE doesn't want to clean it up because there's an easier way to go--it wants to reclassify some of that waste as ``incidental'' rather than high-level radioactive, and keep it in place. Simply reclassifying waste does nothing for the health and safety of the people who live near these sites. In fact, it could be extremely detrimental to their well-being. However, DOE does not seem to be concerned with those citizens. Instead, they want to take the easy path--just reclassify waste using unsound science and call it a day. If it's not enough that harmful waste around the country would be kept in its current dangerous state under this proposal, another effect is that waste now deemed high-level radioactive waste could be shipped to New Mexico to be stored at the Waste Isolation Pilot Program (WIPP). The fact is that this waste is currently prohibited by law from being stored in WIPP. In addition, we've been told for years that high-level waste would not be brought to WIPP. To top it off, we do not even know if WIPP is ready to handle waste with such high levels of radioactivity. That is why we need to pass this motion. During my tenure as New Mexico's Attorney General, I fought long and hard to make sure that what happens at WIPP would be decided by the people who are affected by it--the citizens of New Mexico. Decisions with such a large impact should be discussed openly and not in backroom deals. This arbitrary decision by the DOE, made without public comment by the people it would affect, boils down to clear abuse of a loophole. Codification of the proposal would be disastrous. I urge my colleagues to support this motion. Doing so is crucial for the health and safety of our communities in New Mexico and across the country.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express regret that the majority has chosen to play partisan politics and exclude a health exception in this Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 conference report that is before us today. In years past when this bill has come before the floor of the House, its major flaw has been the absence of a health exception for the mother. When this bill was originally considered in the House in June, I supported a motion to recommit that would have sent the bill back to Committee with directions to add that exception. Without that component, this bill is unconstitutional. In 2000, the Supreme Court found in Carhart v. Stenberg that Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban was unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision. The grounds for that decision included the fact that there was no constitutionally required exception to protect women's health. I am disappointed that the authors of this bill made no effort to remedy this flaw.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 159 and thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) for bringing this matter for consideration. All of us on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs appreciate the gentleman's hard work on this important committee. Every November at Arlington National Cemetery and across the Nation we commemorate Veterans Day at the 11th hour of the 11th day, originally Armistice Day. While it is appropriate for the Nation to honor the contributions of our World War I veterans, it became increasingly important to include veterans from all eras of service who have preserved our freedom. I am pleased to support this important tribute to Mr. Alvin King and to Emporia, Kansas. This is an important recognition of their work, to make certain the immeasurable contributions and sacrifices of the Nation's veterans are annually remembered. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to introduce the ``Ojito Wilderness Act.'' This bill designates the Ojito Wilderness Study Area in New Mexico as Wilderness, and takes specific federal public land in New Mexico into trust for the Pueblo of Zia. This bill establishes the Ojito Wilderness Study Area, an area totaling approximately 12,500 acres, as a permanent wilderness area to be protected pursuant to the 1964 Wilderness Act. The bill also provides for the purchase and transfer of adjacent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, contiguous to the established boundaries of the Pueblo of Zia, by the Pueblo. This land, an area totaling approximately 13,000, will then be taken into trust and held for the benefit of the Pueblo by the Secretary of Interior, and would subsequently be managed by the Pueblo in perpetuity as wilderness. This proposal has been under consideration for many years, and I am pleased to have the opportunity today to take an important step toward making it law. The proposal has the explicit support of the Governor of New Mexico, the counties of Sandoval and Bernalillo, individual members of State government, the Pueblo of Zia and its members, numerous environmental groups, including the New Mexico Wilderness Coalition, the Wilderness Alliance, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club, and business owners, private citizens, and landowners located nearby. Furthermore, the BLM has evaluated this area and found it to have sufficient land area and natural characteristics to qualify for full wilderness status and protection. The Ojito Wilderness Study Area is characterized by pristine and dramatic landforms and rock structures, and by several rare plant populations that are indigenous to the area. This area is also recognized for its high density of cultural and archeological sites, including sites that have religious significance to Pueblo Indians. Many paleontological specimens have been found in the area, and large areas of exposed dinosaur bones are currently visible on the surface of the land. As such, the area is a veritable outdoor classroom for people of all ages. This legislation has special significance to the Pueblo of Zia. The Pueblo's reservation lands currently lie in 2 noncontiguous sections. Zia has made a concerted effort over many years to adjoin its reservation lands by acquiring adjacent parcels of land. This legislation will help make this longstanding goal a reality. To facilitate the acquisition of this land, the Pueblo has worked in cooperation with other interested parties and the environmental community to reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement for protection of these important wildlands and to assure that the lands will be open to the general public. As part of the agreement, the Pueblo has developed a series of proposed conservation measures for the acquired lands including a requirement to manage the land as open space; a guarantee of continued public access to the lands for scientific, recreational, and educational purposes; a strict limitation on road vehicle use; and a ban on commercial development within the designated area. It is important to stress that all lands acquired by the Pueblo of Zia will be preserved as undeveloped open space with continued public access. Members of the public will have access to the acquired land for recreational, scientific, and educational uses, and for access to the Wilderness Area over existing roads. The legislation would prohibit new roads, buildings, mineral and oil and gas extraction, and ATV use. Therefore, the combined Zia acquisition and establishment of the Ojito Wilderness will enable approximately twice as much land to be protected than the establishment of the Wilderness Area alone. The Pueblo of Zia has waited many years to link the portions of its reservation lands that are separated by the Ojito Wilderness Study Area. The proposed land acquisition is the result of collaborative effort of many to assure that these important lands are protected forever. And, in an additional gesture of good faith, the Pueblo has waived its sovereign immunity from suit for matters arising under the provisions of this bill. Considering the above, I believe it is time to ensure the preservation, protection, and public access to this special area of New Mexico for future generations of Americans to enjoy forever. It is my pleasure to help facilitate this process, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about reports that some US authorities may have used methods on prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq that may be illegal under accepted definitions of torture. As a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I am especially concerned about the treatment of prisoners of war. From its foundation, our country has been clear in its condemnation of torture and in proscription of its use, both at home and abroad. Our position on human rights has been affirmed repeatedly, in our ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Third Geneva Convention (1949), the UN Convention against Torture (ratified by the U.S. in 1994), and other international treaties. These treaties have forbidden torture and inhumane and degrading punishment in all circumstances and for any purpose. This prohibition is binding on all countries and cannot be overruled by any other law or declaration. It also forbids the extradition of a person to another country ``where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' This policy was adopted officially by Congress on October 21, 1998, and applies ``regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.'' Our policy with respect to torture inflicted by U.S. nationals, whether at home or abroad, is clear. I am concerned, however, of reports that our practice does not always match our principles. Accounts in the media have described ``stress and duress'' tactics used on terrorism suspects. One U.S. official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists was quoted as saying, ``If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job.'' More recently, on March 4, the New York Times described the death of two prisoners while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul and the mistreatment of others. Some claim that these alleged actions are necessary for our national security, and therefore should not preoccupy us. However, once torture on a small scale is accepted, it corrupts those who inflict it, and it inevitably expands. For the nation as a whole, it undermines the legal and moral principles on which our society is founded. The U.S. repeatedly has criticized countries that have used inhumane techniques. If we use torture, our efforts against torture in other countries will carry little weight. International human rights organizations have documented torture and ill treatment in more than 150 countries, including the United States. The torture is widespread in more than seventy countries, and in eighty countries people have been tortured to death. The elimination of the use of torture is a prerequisite for the achievement of a more just and safe world. The laws of the U.S. are unambiguous with respect to the use of torture, and we must adhere to that high standard. We must not lower that standard by asserting special circumstances and inventing new categories of detainees. It is my hope that our military forces, the most powerful in the world, set an example of the highest integrity.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, today, as we consider the FY04 appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, I find myself facing a familiar dilemma. So often during consideration of appropriations bills, I, as I'm sure many of my colleagues do as well, face difficult choices when voting on final passage. Because appropriations bills often include so many provisions, there are always positives and negatives. It is the nature of appropriations bills that we are forced to determine whether or not the good outweighs the bad. As we prepare to vote on final passage of this bill, a similar assessment has to be made. I am deeply disappointed in many parts of this bill, most notably the less than minimal funding for Amtrak. However, because the bill also has very important funding for New Mexico and the Nation, I will be voting in favor of passage. I cannot let the perfect--which this bill clearly is not--be the enemy of the good--which this bill is. Before I do cast my vote, I would like to voice my displeasure with both the funding provided for Amtrak, and also for the flawed process. Not surprisingly, the Rules Committee has once again stifled debate by not allowing Mr. Olver to offer his amendment to increase Amtrak funding by $500 million. The $900 million included in the bill is insufficient to ensure the solvency of an essential element of our national transportation network. Should Amtrak be unable to continue its important service, not only would our transportation system be severely weakened, but many communities that heavily rely on Amtrak and its passengers for economic sustainability would be devastated. Many communities in New Mexico are heavily reliant on Amtrak for their economic well-being, and they would badly struggle without it. However, as I said earlier, there are often many positives along with the negatives in an appropriations bill, and this bill is no exception. Overall, the FY04 Appropriations bill before us provides a 3 percent increase over last years bill, and provides 4 percent more funding than the administration proposed. In addition, the bill provides $34.6 billion in total highway funding, 7 percent more than current funding and 14 percent more than requested. The bill also provides $7.2 billion for mass transit programs and $500 million for election reform activities authorized by the 2002 Federal election standards overhaul law. I strongly support these provisions and recognize how important the funding provided in this bill is for investment in the Nation's highway, transit and aviation programs, which are all so critical to our safety and homeland security efforts, as well as to economic development. Therefore, I support this legislation. However, I will vote in support of this bill with the strong hope that the insufficient Amtrak funding will be addressed in conference.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this bill, I rise today to offer my strong support for the restoration of the Native American housing loan program. In the past, this program has benefited many of my constituents. Restoring it today will ensure that many more will benefit in the future. Traditionally, veterans living on tribal land, including allotted land, were not eligible for the VA home loan guarantees. However, this program has allowed many Native American veterans who might otherwise have been unable to obtain suitable housing or acquire direct home loans to do just that. In the 107th Congress, I introduced a bill to extend this program through fiscal year 2005. That bill was included in a bill that became Public Law 107-103. Language in the omnibus appropriations bill passed earlier this year caps the program at $5 million. The loans of many Native American veterans have been cut off. As I speak, there are homes that were begun under this program that remain half constructed. All over the Nation, Native American veterans trying to refinance their homes cannot do so because of this provision. Additionally, those veterans who have had their loans approved for construction cannot get the money they were promised. By restoring this program, we are providing an opportunity for Native American veterans with existing loans, as well as additional deserving Native American veterans to get home loans. Poverty, lack of economic opportunity, and a shortage of financing for decent affordable housing have created housing conditions on Native American lands that may only be described as deplorable. Almost one in three Native Americans living on a reservation is poor. Many Native Americans have honorably served our country in the Armed Forces. In fact, historically Native Americans have the highest record of service per capita of any ethnic group. Let us continue to help them by restoring this much-needed program. In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Evans, and the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for their speedy work on this bill. This is an important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great disappointment in what occurred in the House today with regard to the veterans' budget. Last spring, the original budget resolution passed in the House by a narrow vote reduced funding for veterans medical care by a total of $28 billion over ten years, a far cry from what is needed for the health of our veterans today. After much debate about the veterans' budget, many members of this body--including every member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee--fought to increase the amount of funding for veterans in the budget resolution to at least the amount promised by the Senate. Thankfully, after a hard fight, the budget resolution that eventually came out of conference increased mandatory funding, but left discretionary programs, such as medical care, subject to cuts in future years. When the joint budget resolution came out of conference, those of us in the House who had been fighting against cuts for veterans health care were encouraged that by engaging in constructive dialogue with leaders of the House, we could come to a resolution that would not leave veterans out in the cold. Today, that sense of encouragement is gone. Today, the House Rules Committee refused to even consider amendments that would have added veterans' health care funding to a seriously deficient VA-HUD Appropriations bill. I am baffled as to why the Committee would not even allow consideration of an amendment that would have brought funding to the previously promised amount. The amendment, offered by the Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee with the support of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee's Health Subcommittee, was clearly bipartisan and would have added $1.8 billion to veterans health care--the amount agreed to in our final budget resolution. The President and some of the leaders of this House defend their poor records of veterans health care by claiming that they increased the funding, so that should be good enough. It doesn't take a professional policy degree to figure out that our veterans who served, and continue to serve our country so honorably, are aging. They need clinics. They need doctors. They need appointments to see those doctors soon, not in six months. The need is increasing, but the funding is not keeping up with it. We promised we would help them, and today, this grossly inadequate appropriations bill breaks that promise. My vote against the VA-HUD Appropriations bill is not only a protest against this harmful cut in health care for our nation's bravest, but also a statement against the promises broken by this body. As my colleague, Representative Robert Simmons, on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee stated earlier, ``an officer's word is his bond.'' It is a meaningful phrase to many veterans, and one that I hope the House of Representatives can live up to in the future when considering funding for the well being of our veterans.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I rise today to introduce the ``Middle Rio Grande Emergency Water Supply Stabilization Act of 2003,'' a bill amending the Flood Control Act of 1948 with respect to the Middle Rio Grande Project to authorize programs for water conservation and control of phreatic vegetation, and for other purposes. On June 12, 2003, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Federal District Court's opinion determining that the Bureau of Reclamation ``has the discretion to reduce deliveries of water . . . comply with the Endangered Species Act.'' This lawsuit affirmation rekindled the passionate debate about how we use our water resources, about the sustainability of our current water practices, and whether we are using our water wisely. This is a very difficult situation for everyone involved. Some have painted the situation as a crisis, as a people versus fish issue. Others state that this ``crisis'' should be taken as an indication that it is time to recognize the bottomline of the matter: water is a scarce commodity in New Mexico and should be treated accordingly. In an effort to find a common-sense approach to sustainable water management in New Mexico and the west, I engaged in extensive discussions with the major stakeholders in the San Juan/Chama water dispute, and shared my concerns directly with United States Department of Interior Secretary Gale Norton, the person ultimately responsible for enforcing the 10th Circuit ruling. As a result of these conversations, I am introducing legislation today that will address our outmoded water principles and practices. First, the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to contribute to a long-term solution for the Middle Rio Grande River in the State of New Mexico by preventing, reducing, or eliminating wasteful depletion of waters. This would entail the establishment of a water supply stabilization program at the local level. Under this program, the Secretary would provide financial and technical assistance to promote and encourage the adoption and implementation of water conservation measures within the Rio Grande Basin in New Mexico. To accomplish this, the Secretary would enter into cost sharing and other agreements with the State and other entities including organizations, municipalities, Indian Tribes and Pueblos, and individuals, who use agricultural or municipal and industrial water from the Rio Grande River and its tributaries in New Mexico, including water supplied directly or indirectly from the Middle Rio Grande Project or the San Juan-Chama Project. These collaborative agreements will result in localized decisions regarding sustainable water management along the Rio Grande. Second, the bill encourages the implementation of water conservation measures that will improve water quantity and water quality conditions needed to support a sustainable, living river environment within the Middle Rio Grande Basin, and will result in conservation, recreation, and other public benefits. Third, the bill sets a goal to achieve, within three years of the date of enactment of this legislation, quantifiable improvements in irrigation efficiencies through the incorporation of measures such as lining canals and ditches, and the use of low-flow or drip irrigation systems and other modern hydrological technologies. Fourth, the bill directs the Secretary to cooperate with the State of New Mexico, water use organizations, and affected landowners to develop and implement a comprehensive program to identify, remove, and control salt cedar vegetation in the flood plain of the Rio Grande River and its tributaries, and to replant and reestablish native vegetation if appropriate. Fifth, the bill authorizes grants for basic research on technological solutions for accessing new sources of water including, but not limited to, desalinization, and the purification of brackish and other types of unpalatable water. Furthermore, the bill authorizes grants for basic research to increase water efficiency. For example, Los Alamos National Labs, located in my district, is working to improve technology so that less water will be required in manufacturing computer microchips. And, the bill authorizes funds to conduct studies to quantify the water needs, requirements and rights of tribes and pueblos in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Finally, the bill confirms the original intentions of Congress as set forth in the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, and the San Juan-Chama Project Act 1962. These Acts set forth the principle purposes underlying the furnishing of federal water supplies in New Mexico, including water for municipal, domestic, and industrial uses, and for the conservation of, and I quote from the original authorizing legislation, ``the scenery, the natural, historic, and archaeologic objects, and the wildlife'' on lands affected by the project, and ``to mitigate losses of, and improve conditions for, the propagation of fish and wildlife.'' We are in the midst of a very serious drought, and in New Mexico and across the west. Our water resources are over-allocated, and an exploding growth in population is stretching these resources to the limits. This situation is compounded by a water infrastructure that is inefficient, outdated, and insufficient to meet our current needs. My bill deals with these realities and many other crucial issues. It sets up incentives to conserve our water resources and develop collaborative solutions at the local level. It restores and protects the Rio Grande River and the surrounding Bosque, and encourages technological solutions for new sources of water and methods to harness such technology to increase water efficiency. Considering the above, if we do not focus collaboratively and make every effort possible to conserve our water, I believe that New Mexico, and similarly situated western states, will continue to confront similar, if not worse, water scarcity problems indefinitely. We need greater and more conscientious efforts on the part of water users to conserve this precious commodity. And, these users must become more accountable for water waste. My bill provides the incentives to conserve our water resources to ensure that all New Mexicans will have water to use in the future. Mr. Speaker, I introduce this legislation as a first step to solve a critical problem. We need to act now to ensure sustainable water management and conservation in New Mexico. I invite and welcome the support of my colleagues in the New Mexico Congressional Delegation as we continue to confront this problem together.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the Taos Pueblo and Native Americans across the country are mourning the loss of an elder, statesman, and military veteran. I rise today to pay tribute to this extraordinary man, whose death is a great loss not only for all Indian Nations but also for the entire country. Paul Bernal, a Taos Pueblo leader in the fight for religious freedom, died this month at the age of 92. Also known as ``Pa chal ma,'' or Deer Catcher, Paul was an activist who devoted his life to returning control of the Sacred Blue Lake to his Pueblo. In creating the Carson National Forest in 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt carved away thousands of acres of Taos Pueblo land. This land, viewed as sacred by the Indians, surrounded and included Blue Lake, a vital religious shrine in Pueblo religion. Sixty-four years passed before the United States returned the land to the Indians. According to Pueblo tradition, the Taos tribe was created out of the sacred waters of Blue Lake. The lake, a place of ritual worship and historical importance, was under U.S. Forest Service control beginning in 1906. Instrumental in the fight for the return of Blue Lake and the surrounding wilderness, Paul, served as the key interpreter for news reporters and government officials. Returning the lake to the tribe was strenuously opposed by some powerful opponents: U.S. Senator Clinton Anderson, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Forest Service. Under the Anderson proposal, jurisdiction would have remained with the U.S. Forest Service, which the Pueblo considered insensitive to their religious beliefs. In 1966, Taos Pueblo turned down $10 million and land concessions from the federal government to settle the dispute. My father, Stewart Udall, former Secretary of the Interior, championed the cause of returning Blue Lake to the Taos Pueblo. He met many times in the 1960's with Paul Bernal and other members of the Pueblo. My father has said many times that Paul Bernal was the ``most effective leader in the fight to win back Blue Lake.'' As Secretary of Interior in the 1960's, my father testified every two years before House and Senate committees to advocate for the return of Blue Lake. In 1970, when Senator Anderson was ill and ailing but still in the Senate, an extraordinary bipartisan group of senators--Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Fred Harris (D-Okla), and George McGovern (D-S.D.)--came together to pass the Blue Lake legislation. President Nixon signed the legislation into law on December 15, 1970. Reflecting on his career, Richard Nixon later said that making the bill law was, ``one of the most significant achievements of my administration.'' Paul was a respected tribal elder, an icon whose knowledge and experience carried the native-rights movement forward for many decades. He served as Taos Pueblo tribal secretary for 24 years. He was also humble and gracious in sharing credit for restoring tribal control of the lake. During a celebration in August 1971, Paul was asked about being the leader of such a monumental struggle. His reply, ``No one man. All together. The governor, the council, all the people.'' I was honored to have known this distinguished man, and his death is a great loss for all of us. However, I am certain Paul would not have wanted his death to create a void where his work is concerned. We can all learn from this accomplished man and continue his work for Native American sovereignty and spiritual integrity of the land. There could be no better tribute to such a man as Paul Bernal.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. If you're looking for a way to dismantle a proven, beneficial, effective program, then this bill is for you. The Head Start program has been a success for nearly 40 years. During that time, it has served over 20 million children. In fact, there are members in this House that were Head Start children who attest to the program's success. Instead of passing this bill, which could potentially increase class size, cut off services to 3-year-olds, and eliminate crucial health services, we should be improving Head Start by fully funding it. Thousands of children in my district attend the Head Start program. To be exact 3,023 children in Northern New Mexico could be affected by this bill. Of those children, 86 percent live in families that have incomes below the federal poverty line. Ninety percent receive basic health care and are twice as likely as other low-income children to receive basic medical care. We have 60 Head Start centers in my district, and 162 classrooms. Passage of this bill means an unknown future for these children. Will the quality of their education be put in jeopardy? Will they continue to receive medical care? Will their teachers be hired on a discriminatory basis? We must not ignore the successful history of the Head Start program. If we really want to improve the program, we should fully fund the program to expand access to all eligible preschoolers, improve access to Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, improve teacher quality by requiring that more teachers get bachelor's degrees, and enhance Head Start's focus on pre-literacy, language, and pre-math skills. Groups in my district that oppose passage of this bill include the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Pueblo of Isleta, and the Pueblo of Acoma. National groups opposing this bill include the NAACP, the National Education Foundation, the ACLU, the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, the National League of Cities, and Catholic Charities USA, among many others. This long and diverse list is proof of the many problems with this bill. I cannot conclude my statement without expressing my concern that this is a disturbing pattern for the Majority on education. Numerous programs--Head Start, college aid, public school education--are in danger of being dismantled. I will continue to defend programs that are proven to work, fight to fully fund those programs, and oppose efforts to dismantle them. This bill is no exception and I urge a no vote.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I rise today to introduce the Native American Veterans Cemetery Act of 2003. This bill would make all Native American tribes eligible to apply for state cemetery grants. Under the current law, only states are eligible for veteran's cemetery grants. Supported by the Navajo Nation, the largest federally recognized tribe, this bill would not give preference or special exceptions to Native American tribes that apply for the state cemetery grants. It would simply allow tribes to apply for grants to establish, expand or improve tribal veterans cemeteries. In addition to a resolution adopted by the Navajo Nation Council, the New Mexico and Arizona state legislatures have both passed memorials urging Congress to adopt this measure. New Mexico is home to almost 9,800 Native American Veterans, making it one of the top five states in the country with regard to its Native American veteran population. I believe it is time that Native American veterans who have served our country so honorably are allowed to pursue a decent, dignified resting place on their tribal lands.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, the U.S.-Chile FTA Implementation Act and the U.S.-Singapore FTA Implementation Act, respectively. It is unfortunate that I find myself in this position because I want to support trade agreements because I believe they can have a positive effect on our economy. However, they only can have a positive effect if they are negotiated properly. They only can have a positive effect if they have strong labor, environmental, and consumer protections. Unfortunately, these two bills before us, and the underlying Free Trade Agreements, are woefully inadequate in these regards. Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which passed unanimously in the 107th Congress, these FTAs--the first signed by the Administration since passage of Trade Promotion Authority--will set a dangerous precedent for future agreements, including the Central American FTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which provided workers with enforceable protections based on the core International Labor Organizations workers' rights--freedom of associations; the right to bargain collectively; prohibitions on child labor, forced labor and employment discrimination, these FTAs give scant attention to these important issues. The ONLY reference to workers' rights is a provision stating that each party ``shall not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws,'' no matter how inadequate they may be. There is no parity between our strong labor laws here in the United States and the weak protections in Singapore or Chile. As predicted during the TPA debate during the 107th Congress, these trade agreements are bad environmental policy--and now, we have no change to amend them. Contrary to the claims of the FTA supporters, the provisions on investment in the Chile and Singapore FTAs do not meet the requirements of the Trade Act of 2002 that foreign investors should receive ``no greater substantive rights'' than U.S. citizens under U.S. law. What this means is that foreign investors will be granted broad rights under international law that do not exist under U.S. law. For example, many companies have aggressively used NAFTA's Chapter 11 authority to undermine our strong environmental protections. This continues with the Chile and Singapore FTAs where foreign investors can bring suit against our laws to prevent pollution because they may claim a right to be compensated. This is just one example. Applied broadly, these two FTAs have investment language that could cause serious harm to the environment and the public interest. The Chile and Singapore FTAs also undermine U.S. immigration policy. Specifically, they loosen policies regarding temporary entry to workers. Some claim the H1-B visa issue has been addressed. However, this is far from true. While the implementing legislation claims to ``fix'' the problem by limiting the damage by applying SOME elements of the H1-B, these provisions are NOT legally binding because the agreements in the actual trade agreement has been violated by these ``fixes'' and will be eliminated in the pacts' dispute resolution systems. Furthermore, the Chile FTA has an unprecedented requirement that the U.S. provide ``written justification'' to any person denied a visa. The Singapore FTA contains Integrated Sourcing Initiative (ISI)/ Transshipment permissions. Last year's Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority contained no authority to negotiate such deals. Yet, the U.S. Trade Representative has this deal in the FTA, and the so-called ``fix'' largely replicates existing terms in the World Trade Organization Information Technology Agreement, for which even the Clinton Administration--as pro-free trade as any--never sought congressional approval. Also, these FTAs could have very negative affects on the health care system. They will impede the access to life-saving medicines by extending patents beyond the 20-year limit required by the Trade- Related Aspects of Intellection Property Rights (TRIPS); they will require a 5-year waiting period before governments can provide generic drug producers test data, thereby delaying affordable medicines; they also will permit major pharmaceutical companies to block the production of generic medicines. Also, the Singapore FTA reduces tobacco tariffs to ZERO, which actually will encourage more dumping of U.S. tobacco products in Singapore. Finally, these FTAs will open the door to further privatization and deregulation of vital human services including health care professionals, and the provisions for public control of water and sanitation services. Amazingly, these FTAs will leave the U.S. open to challenges from foreign private corporations and the subsidiaries to compete for these public sector services. This is just plain wrong. Finally, some have claimed to have ``fixed'' this legislation with a ``mock mark-up'' in the Ways & Means Committee. I'm not quite certain what a ``mock'' mark-up is, but most believe it hasn't done anything. Specifically, some who support this implementing legislation say we have two choices: one, we can block this legislation to send a message to the Administration that they need to do a better job of negotiating FTAs that have real environmental and labor protections. Or, two, we can approve this implementing legislation, and then send a message to the White House to do a better job the next time. I, for one, am not willing to take that risk--the risk that this White House and this USTR will actually listen to Congress. That is one of the reasons I voted against TPA in the first place. Sadly, many of my concerns and reason for voting no have come to fruition in these first two negotiations. I want to support free trade because I know it has the potential to help American workers and consumers. In fact, I have supported trade agreements previously, including the U.S.-Jordan FTA. Unfortunately, however, I cannot find many positive developments in either the U.S.- Chile Free Trade Agreement or the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, I will vote NO on H.R. 2738 and on H.R. 2739. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, the U.S.-Chile FTA Implementation Act and the U.S.-Singapore FTA Implementation Act, respectively. It is unfortunate that I find myself in this position because I want to support trade agreements because I believe they can have a positive effect on our economy. However, they only can have a positive effect if they are negotiated properly. They only can have a positive effect if they have strong labor, environmental, and consumer protections. Unfortunately, these two bills before us, and the underlying Free Trade Agreements, are woefully inadequate in these regards. Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which passed unanimously in the 107th Congress, these FTAs--the first signed by the Administration since passage of Trade Promotion Authority--will set a dangerous precedent for future agreements, including the Central American FTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which provided workers with enforceable protections based on the core International Labor Organizations workers' rights--freedom of association; the right to bargain collectively; prohibitions on child labor, forced labor and employment discrimination, these FTAs give scant attention to these important issues. The only reference to workers' rights is a provision stating that each party ``shall not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws,'' not matter how inadequate they may be. There is no parity between our strong labor laws here in the United States and the weak protections in Singapore or Chile. As predicted during the TPA debate during the 107th Congress, these trade agreements are bad environmental policy--and now, we have no change to amend them. Contrary to the claims of the FTA supporters, the provisions on investment in the Chile and Singapore FTAs do not meet the requirements of the Trade Act of 2002 that foreign investors should receive ``no greater substantive rights'' than U.S. citizens under U.S. law. What this means is that foreign investors will be granted broad rights under international law that do not exist under U.S. law. For example, many companies have aggressively used NAFTA's Chapter 11 authority to undermine our strong environmental protections. This continues with the Chile and Singapore FTAs where foreign investors can bring suit against our laws to prevent pollution because they may claim a right to be compensated. This is just one example. Applied broadly, these two FTAs have investment language that could cause serious harm to the environment and the public interest. The Chile and Singapore FTAs also undermine U.S. immigration policy. Specifically, they loosen policies regarding temporary entry to workers. Some claim the H1-B visa issue has been addressed. However, this is far from true. While the implementing legislation claims to ``fix'' the problem by limiting the damage by applying some elements of the H1-B, these provisions are not legally binding because the agreements in the actual trade agreement have been violated by these ``fixes'' and will be eliminated in the pacts' dispute resolution systems. Furthermore, the Chile FTA has an unprecedented requirement that the U.S. provide ``written justification'' to any person denied a visa. The Singapore FTA contains Integrated Sourcing Initiative (ISI)/ Transshipment permissions. Last year's Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority contained no authority to negotiate such deals. Yet, the U.S. Trade Representative has this deal in the FTA, and the so-called ``fix'' largely replicates existing terms in the World Trade Organization Information Technology Agreement, for which even the Clinton Administration--as pro-free trade as any--never sought congressional approval. Also, these FTAs could have very negative affects on the health care system. They will impede the access to life-saving medicines by extending patents beyond the 20-year limit required by the Trade- Related Aspects of Intellection Property Rights (TRIPS); they will require a 5-year waiting period before governments can provide generic drug producers test data, thereby delaying affordable medicines; they also will permit major pharmaceutical companies to block the production of generic medicines. Also, the Singapore FTA reduces tobacco tariffs to zero, which actually will encourage more dumping of U.S. tobacco products in Singapore. Finally, these FTAs will open the door to further privatization and deregulation of vital human services including health care professionals, and the provisions for public control of water and sanitation services. Amazingly, these FTAs will leave the U.S. open to challenges from foreign private corporations and the subsidiaries to compete for these public sector services. This is just plain wrong. Finally, some have claimed to have ``fixed'' this legislation with a ``mock mark-up'' in the Ways and Means Committee. I'm not quite certain what a ``mock mark-up'' is, but most believe it hasn't done anything. Specifically, some who support this implementing legislation say we have two choices: one, we can block this legislation to send a message to the administration that they need to do a better job of negotiating FTAs that have real environmental and labor protections. Or, two, we can approve this implementing legislation, and then send a message to the White House to do a better job the next time. I, for one, am not willing to take that risk--the risk that this White House and this USTR will actually listen to Congress. That is one of the reasons I voted against TPA in the first place. Sadly, many of my concerns and reason for voting no have come to fruition in these first two negotiations. I want to support free trade because I know it has the potential to help American workers and consumers. In fact, I have supported trade agreements previously, including the U.S.-Jordan FTA. Unfortunately, however, I cannot find many positive developments in either the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement or the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no''on H.R. 2738 and on H.R. 2739. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, last month our country lost a pioneer in women's sports. Gladys Heldman was an instrumental figure in the formation of women's professional tennis, responsible for the creation of a professional women's tennis tour. Gladys died on June 22 at her home in Santa Fe, New Mexico. She was 81. At the age of 25, Gladys began playing amateur tennis, and found her passion. Gladys earned a reputation as a tough and tenacious competitor. At one point she was ranked number one in Texas. She competed in the United States National Championships four times, which are now known as the US open, and once at Wimbledon. Not just an exceptional athlete, Gladys was a towering mind. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Stanford University. She applied her intelligence and drive to her passion of tennis. In 1953, Gladys founded World Tennis magazine. In the early years of the magazines publication, Gladys functioned in all the capacities of a magazine staff, from editor-in-chief to publisher. Using this magazine, Gladys became an indomitable force as an advocate for women's tennis. In 1970, she single-handedly formed the first women's professional tour, which included the likes of such star female tennis players as Billie Jean King. She asked the top female players to sign $1 contracts with her magazine, making them professional players, and arranged a tournament at the Houston Racquet club. Her close friend, Joseph Cullman, donated prize money, and sponsored 5 further tournaments. Despite obstacles and opposition, this tour evolved into the Virginia Slims Tour, known today as the W.T.A. Tour. Gladys was a pioneer in professional women's sports. Without Gladys, women's tennis would not be what it is today. In 1979, Gladys was recognized for her personal accomplishments and achievements for the field of women's professional tennis when she was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. Gladys was a remarkable person whose compassion, respect, and talent for her work have served as a model for others. Though she is gone, she will never be forgotten. My wife and I were honored to be personal friends of the Heldmans and celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary with them. Her passing leaves a void in our lives. Gladys is survived by her husband, Julius, her daughters Carrie and Julia, her three grandchildren, and her two great- grandchildren. I extend my deep condolences to the Heldman family and all who knew her. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment sponsor has good intentions. She wants to protect the cities and protect the water supply for the cities of Albuquerque and Santa Fe. I also share her concerns and wish it was just as easy as offering an amendment to protect the water supply for our cities. I am sad to say that this amendment does not solve the problems we face in New Mexico and across the West on water. It is a Band-Aid. Representatives for the six tribes in the Middle Rio Grande have told me this amendment will force them into a lawsuit. If the San Juan Chama and Middle Rio Grande water is off the table, then tribal water is some of the only water left in the river. The Department of Interior has said they will take tribal waters to satisfy the ESA. Is the gentlewoman prepared to settle the tribe's lawsuit in her amendment? Settling one's lawsuit and creating another lawsuit does not seem to me to be much of a solution. Legislatively distinguishing one lawsuit, but creating another one does not seem like it is getting us to the point we want to be at. This amendment does not deal with the realities we face in the West in terms of water. Our water resources are overallocated. The amendment does not deal with that. We have an exploding population growth in New Mexico, 20 percent over the last 10 years. Population is stretching our water resources to the limits. We are in the midst of a serious drought. Our water infrastructure is outmoded for current needs. This amendment fails to deal with these realities and many other crucial issues. I am working on legislation which addresses these realities, and I hope that the gentlewoman and other members of the New Mexico House delegation will join me in this effort. We need legislation that sets up incentives to conserve our water resources and develop collaborative solutions at the local level. We need legislation which restores and protects the Rio Grande River and the surrounding Bosque. We need to encourage technological solutions for new sources of water, and we need to harness technology to increase water efficiency. This amendment accomplishes none of these important objectives, nor does this amendment move us toward sustainable water practices.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my point was that if we had been doing the planning for 100 years and if we had had science, we would not be where we are today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member on the Committee on Resources. He knows these forest issues very well, and I appreciate his help on this.

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to protect our national forests and ensure that they continue to be managed using long-standing scientific principles and practices. My amendment will stop a radical rewrite of 27 years of bipartisan forest management policy. It will prohibit the use of funds provided in this bill for the finalization or implementation of the Bush administration's proposed changes to the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The proposed regulations constitute a radical departure from current forest management policy, first adopted and implemented by Congress and the Reagan administration over 20 years ago. The proposed changes will greatly reduce the amount of environmental analysis, wildlife protection and public involvement currently required in the development and revision of forest management plans. Many of these changes reflect the so-called timber industry wish list. In at least eight specific instances, the proposed regulations closely mirror policies favored by the timber industry. To name a few of these, the proposed recommendations eliminate ecological sustainability as the priority of the Forest Service; eliminate protections for wildlife; eliminate scientific oversight of agency actions; and eliminate most mandatory standards for forest management. These measures were designed to strengthen Forest Service accountability. The National Forest Management Act established new duties to conserve biological diversity, to ground management decisions in sound science, and to ensure extensive public participation opportunities in the forest planning process. The proposed regulations depart in a number of ways from sound forest management policy that has existed for the past 6 administration. First, the Bush administration's regulations would effectively exempt forest management plans from the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, the Magna Carta of environmental law. Second, the administration's proposed rules would eliminate the requirements to maintain viable populations of native wildlife. Third, the changes would increase the likelihood of harmful logging projects based on multiple use values. Fourth, the administration's proposal would also reduce overall environmental standards and accountability by allowing management plans to be revised to accommodate individual projects. Finally, I believe that these changes would drastically limit public involvement. The opportunity to request an administrative review or file an appeal would be severely curtailed. These changes would eliminate sound science as a basis for forest management. The proposed regulations were developed without a Committee of Scientists, a statutorily-authorized body that has informed the development of every other change in NFMA regulations since their inception. The administration's dismissal of the principles of sound science and NEPA highlights its contempt for public involvement and scientific input. The recommendations of the independent Committee of Scientists have guided every rewrite of the NFMA regulations since 1979. Ronald Reagan used a team of scientists to write the original regulations. Three years ago, Bill Clinton revised the regulations with significant input from scientists. If it was good enough for President Reagan and good enough for President Clinton, why does President Bush insist on throwing science out the window? Because the scientists will not give him the answers his timber industry friends want. These proposed regulations were developed with maximum input from the timber industry and minimum input from the American public and the scientific community. The proposed regulations have received widespread editorial opposition from newspapers around the Nation. These regulations were also strongly opposed by the environmental community, sportsmen's groups, Republicans for Environmental Protections, and members of the Committee of Scientists. In the public comment process, 325 scientist from across the Nation are urging the Forest Service to withdraw the proposed regulations, and over 100,000 citizens have submitted comments urging withdrawal of these regulations. Given the administration's refusal to adequately consult the scientific community, let alone listen to its comments, Congress must intervene and stop this flawed and environmentally damaging rulemaking. I strongly urge all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting and maintaining sound principles of forest management. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), one of our key members on the Committee on Resources, who has been here for the period of time while these regulations have evolved and I am sure has some real insight on this.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a long-standing member of the Committee on the Resources.