Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that the gentleman from Washington has incredible experience with forest issues; and I believe he was right on when he said do not cut the scientists out of the process or we are not going to have very good forest planning. That is what we are about here today, these regulations cutting scientists out of the process. Members talk about sound science, but when it comes to this administration, the science was thrown out of the window.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman from California uses an example of a forest plan where he says it took 9 years to plan to put together a 15-year plan. We are not in any way trying to protect an inefficient, ineffective process. The bureaucrats have to get their act together. For the most part, for the most part, forest planning saves the taxpayer money. It saves time and it allows the public input, and what we are objecting to here is the public is being cut out of the process with these regulations. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a valuable member of the Committee on Resources, a leader on these important forest management issues.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington, and first let me say that the ranking member from Washington, and my good friend, has shown very strong support for this amendment. He has given me guidance on getting this amendment through the appropriations process, and his leadership on this important environmental issue is very much appreciated. The point he makes with regard to science and what he is talking about is making sure that there is scientific input, that there is public input in this process; and what we are talking about today with these proposed regulations is they have swept the public out of the system. They have swept the scientists out of the system. As the gentleman from Washington knows, the planning process includes everybody; and if we sweep these people aside, we are then going to have inefficient forest plans. We are going to have forest plans where people are going to sue under them, and we are going to waste a lot of time and money. So I think the gentleman makes a very good, solid point.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield just a moment on that point, as the gentleman from Washington knows, one of the things that has happened here, this is not an amendment we have moved quickly on. We have given notice to this administration. The gentleman and I have signed a letter, over 100 Members of Congress have signed a letter to the President, Members from the other side of the aisle have signed a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture, calling for exactly what the gentleman is calling for, scientific input on these regulations. When they ignored these letters, when they ignored the request, our only avenue was to work with the gentleman and his appropriations bill to stop this process so that we could get scientific review.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas. I think it is fair to say that the forest management plans that we have today, supplemented by sound science, if we moved in that direction, and we had been moving in that direction over the next 100 years, we would not have the problems with the forest fires if we had gone through this process, this management process. That is why I think it is so offensive to us that support this amendment and are working on this that the scientists are cut out. That is why I would disagree with the gentleman when he says, let the regulations go into effect. If you let the regulations go into effect, we are going to find ourselves in court, we are going find ourselves in a bollixed-up situation. We are going to hurt the forest management process. So that is why over 300 scientists have written to the administration and said, stop here. That is why over 100 Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis have said, involve the scientists before you finalize these regulations. And, really, what we are trying to do is say, stop, put in place good regulations based on sound science, and then you will not run into problems.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Texas if he would like to respond.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Section 335, which this amendment would strike, is a calm and measured response to a problem that is jeopardizing the ability of the Department of Interior and related agencies to safeguard America's natural treasures. This is about taking measures to make sure our national treasures are not put at unneeded risk by brash privatization with unclear results. The section would not halt the many outsourcing studies currently ongoing, nor would it stop new outsourcing studies from being commissioned before this bill is enacted. It would simply suspend privatization efforts in 2004 to allow the House Appropriations Committee to review an ``in-depth'' report on the results of pending privatization efforts. Section 335 is crucial because Interior and related agencies are currently under extraordinary pressure to privatize critical programs because of an onerous quota imposed upon all agencies by OMB to review for privatization 15 percent of their ``commercial'' activities by the end of fiscal year 2003. This quota is being applied regardless of the impact on the mission of Interior and related agencies or the needs of all Americans who depend on those agencies for efficient and reliable service. In fact, OMB has refused to supply any research or analysis to justify the privatization quota, despite a report requirement in the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The Forest Service expects to spend $10 million during FY 2003 to meet the competitive sourcing mandate from the OMB. Instead of concentrating on bolstering emergency fire fighting, the Forest Service's contracting officers will be carrying out OMB's privatization quota. Instead of using funding to hire seasonal employees to handle the crush of summer visitors and making much-needed repairs to bridges, cabins, and historic buildings, the National Park Service will be paying high-priced privatization consultants. As the Committee report states, ``this massive initiative appears to be on such a fast track that Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor understand the costs and implications of the decisions being made.'' That is reason enough to temporarily pause the funding of new outsourcing studies. In addition to the devastating impacts this arbitrary outsourcing quota could have on the visitor services and seasonal operations of our National Parks and Forest Service, this plan will significantly undermine the diversity in the National Parks Service and Forest Service workforce. According to one Administration official, the current plan to outsourcing more than 1,700 jobs by the end of Fiscal Year 2004 will disproportionately affect minorities. This comes at a time when the Park Service has explicitly stated its mission to improve diversity in its rank and file. The fact is, we don't know what the full impacts of the OMB's privatization plan will be. That's why this language was put in the bill, and why it should stay in the bill. Section 335 is bipartisan. Section 335 would not prevent Interior from continuing privatization reviews already underway. Section 335 simply says, ``proceed with caution'' when it comes to our national treasures. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. A ``no'' vote is a vote to protect our National Parks and Forest Service.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the McLoughlin House National Historic Site in Oregon honors the achievements of John McLoughlin, commonly referred to as the ``Father of Oregon.'' The site has been preserved and managed by the McLoughlin Memorial Association since its designation as a national historic site in 1941. Unfortunately, the association is no longer in a position to be the primary management entity for this nationally significant site and is therefore seeking Federal acquisition of the site. Once acquired, the site will be managed as part of the nearby Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) has worked tirelessly on behalf of this legislation and is to be commended for her diligence, including her efforts to have the House concur in the amendments made to this legislation in the Senate. We urge the House to approve these amendments so this legislation may finally be sent to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The McLoughlin House national historic site in Oregon City, Oregon, was once home to Dr. John McLoughlin. Dr. McLoughlin was the chief factor of the British Hudson Bay Company based in Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River. He crossed the Rockies in 1824 and established Fort Vancouver in 1825. Dr. McLoughlin supplied American pioneers with goods they needed to settle and survive at their new home in Oregon. He was a fur trader, developer, doctor and mayor; and Dr. McLoughlin became known as the Father of Oregon, and the McLoughlin House was restored to honor his life and accomplishments. The McLoughlin Memorial Association was formed in 1909. In 1910, the association opened the house as a museum. Since that time, the house has been visited by thousands of individuals each year. In 1941, Congress designated the McLoughlin House a national historic site, and it continued to operate under the direction of the association. When Fort Vancouver National Historic Site was established in 1948, the National Park Service entered into a formal agreement with the association to work cooperatively together. In 2000, the association approached the National Park Service concerning the possibility of the agency assuming administration of the site. The association lacks appropriate funds to maintain the historic house and has asked the National Park Service to acquire the site and assume responsibility to ensure the future care of the historic site, with the association remaining active in an advisory capacity. H.R. 3434 was introduced on December 6, 2001, by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources and within the committee to the subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands. On July 16, 2002, the subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On July 18, 2002, the subcommittee met to mark up the bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to authorize the acquisition of the property but to include it within the boundaries of the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, rather than create a new unit of the National Park System. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as may be consumed to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). (Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 74 directs the Secretary to convey without consideration approximately 24 acres of lakefront property in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada. The land to be conveyed was part of the Washoe Tribe's 5,000-square-mile ancestral home in the vicinity of Lake Tahoe. The tribe has historically gathered along the shore of Lake Tahoe for traditional and cultural purposes. H.R. 74 requires the tribe to limit its use of the land to traditional and customary uses and to prohibit development and commercial use of the site. The tribe must also comply with environmental regulations that are no less protective than those of the Tahoe Regional Plan. Finally, the bill provides for an easement to the United States and a reciprocal easement to the tribe over a forest road and has a reversionary clause. In past Congresses, the same bill has passed both Houses but failed to become law. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. I congratulate the gentleman from Nevada for his hard work and leadership on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in strong support of S. 246, a bill declaring that the United States hold certain Bureau of Land Management land in trust for the pueblos of San Ildefonso and Santa Clara in New Mexico. I originally introduced a similar bill in the 107th Congress and introduced H.R. 507, companion legislation to S. 246, at the beginning of the 108th Congress. Last Congress, Senators Domenici and Jeff Bingaman sponsored the Senate companion and were successful in incorporating it into S. 2711, the Indian Programs Reauthorization and Technical Amendments Act of 2002, during the closing days of the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, the House was unable to take up this legislation prior to its adjournment. Accordingly, I am delighted today that the House will finally have the opportunity to vote on this important legislation. S. 246 will formally restore control and tribal authority of nearly 4,500 acres of remote surplus Federal property to the two Pueblos. This land is culturally significant to San Ildefonso and Santa Clara. The bill will transfer roughly 2,000 acres of land located within its aboriginal domain to the San Ildefonso Pueblo and approximately 2,484 acres to Santa Clara's Pueblo aboriginal lands will also be transferred to that Pueblo. This transfer is the result of years of negotiations between the two Pueblos and between the Pueblos and the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management. The Pueblos intend to maintain the natural quality of the land and restore the health of the ecosystem of their traditional ancestral lands. In addition, the lands will be used for ceremonial and other traditional purposes. Finally, the acquisition and transfer of these remote, surplus Federal lands has the support of the surrounding communities and other groups. Specifically, this includes the Counties of Santa Fe, Rio Arriba and Los Alamos. It also has the support of the National Congress of American Indians, the National Audubon Society's New Mexico State office, the Quivira Coalition and the Santa Fe Group of the Sierra Club. Once again, I am very pleased that we have the opportunity to pass this important legislation. I ask all of my colleagues today to support the return of this culturally significant land to the people of the San Ildefonso and Santa Clara Pueblos, and I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for his participation on this issue. Mr. Speaker, having no additional speakers, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been well described by the gentleman from Nevada. Essentially, we are turning over Federal land that is currently being utilized by two counties in Nevada. Normally, Mr. Speaker, anytime anyone, be it an individual or a State or a county government, receives Federal land, they should be required to pay the American people the fair market value of the land. In this instance, however, based on the location of these two parcels of land and the fact that they are both being used as cemeteries by the counties, we do not oppose these conveyances. As introduced, there were several technical issues with this legislation. However, an amendment adopted in committee addressed those concerns. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 272. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Nevada for his hard work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the very important FY04 Department of Defense appropriations bill. In my opinion, some of the most important provisions in this bill are the pay increases for our men and women in uniform. H.R. 2658 provides an average pay increase of 4.1 percent for military personnel in FY 2004 and provides targeted pay hikes of up to 6.3 percent for a variety of other personnel. Another issue of great importance also included in this appropriations bill is funding for the BRAC process. From 1995 to 2000 Congress intentionally refused to authorize another round of BRAC. Only in late 2001 did the Senate add the controversial provision to the FY02 Defense Authorization Act, authorizing the fifth BRAC for 2005. The House-passed authorization bill did not include any such BRAC provision, but in December 2001, the House finally approved the Conference Report to the FY02 Defense Authorization bill with the Senate's BRAC provision included. The first significant steps in implementing the new 2005 base closure law were formally announced by Secretary Rumsfeld on November 15, 2002. These included development of a force structure plan, conducting a comprehensive inventory of military installations, and establishing criteria for selecting bases for closure or realignment. Secretary Rumsfeld further stated that he felt another round of base closures would be necessary in light of his efforts to undergo a military transformation to a quicker, sleeker fighting force. Although I have not found much common ground recently with the President and Secretary Rumsfeld, in this case I do. As such, I plan to vote against Mr. Hostettler's amendment to preclude the use of funds provided by this bill to proceed with the BRAC process. In addition, the veto threat issued by the President if this amendment passes should be heeded considering the importance of the funding for the DOD. With that said, I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong support for Cannon Air Force Base, located in my district. Not only do I strongly support Cannon remaining open through the 2005 round of closings, but I have every confidence that it will, in fact, remain open. Cannon Air Force Base and the men and women who serve there are an integral part of New Mexico, the Clovis community immediately surrounding it, and an integral component of our national defense. In addition, Cannon's pilots have an excellent training space, the Melrose Bombing Range, very close by. Cannon has no encroachment, and is surrounded by open space. In the past, I have worked very hard to ensure that Cannon's facilities are worthy of the high-caliber personnel who use them. I have worked with my colleagues in the New Mexico delegation to secure funding through the Military Construction Appropriations bill for several worthy projects at the base. I have every intention of continuing to work to secure funding for the facilities there that are currently substandard to further shield this important component of our national defense from being closed. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have outlined above, I will vote against Mr. Hostettler's amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. However, I do support passage of the underlying bill, as it provides important funding for our brave men and women in the Armed Forces.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill designed for an important purpose--ensuring that the FEHBP continues to provide retired employees, who are eligible for Medicare, with the same prescription drug benefit that current, non-retired employees receive. There are thousands of Federal Employees in my district who have earned, and deserve, the prescription drug coverage they get under the FEHBP. In addition, this is an important example to set for the private sector to ensure that they do not begin reducing and eliminating their prescription drug coverage for Medicare eligible employees once Congress passes a Medicare prescription drug benefit. As such, I will vote in support for this bill. However, the fact that the majority is bringing this bill up today highlights both the inadequacy of the prescription drug bill they passed last month, as well as undercuts their claim that they believe our nation's seniors deserve the same prescription drug coverage that Members of Congress and other employees covered under FEHBP receive. Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation was brought to the floor today. I am glad that we can support good prescription drug coverage for federal retirees and I am glad that we can set an example for the private sector. I am also glad that the majority is willing to show just how truly disingenuous their rhetoric is about seniors deserving options similar to those of Members of Congress. If H.R. 1 truly provided a real prescription drug benefit, this legislation would not be necessary, and in that, Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the majority for proving to the Nation how insufficient the prescription drug bill is that they passed two weeks ago.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, as I traveled around the state of New Mexico, seniors have told me their heartbreaking stories of being forced to choose between purchasing their medicine and purchasing groceries as a result of the exploding costs of prescription drugs. Today we have an excellent opportunity to address this tragic situation by providing a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and put an end to the outrageous dilemma facing our seniors throughout the country. In addition, we have an historic opportunity to modernize the incredibly important Medicare program, including updating formulas for our health care providers in rural areas--an issue that is of particular importance to my constituents and me. Thankfully, H.R. 1 does address the latter concern, but unfortunately falls far short on the critically important issue of prescription drug coverage. The prescription drug benefit provided under H.R. 1 would be the first step toward privatizing one of the most successful government programs in history, leaves seniors at the mercy of insurance companies, forces seniors into HMOs, has an incredible gap in coverage, and does nothing to control the exploding costs of prescription drugs. As such, I am forced to vote against H.R. 1. Under this bill, seniors and disabled Medicare beneficiaries can obtain their prescription drug coverage only from HMOs and private insurance companies. Given the history of HMOs and other private health plans in rural areas, I have serious concerns about this approach. In fact, in 1997 in the state of New Mexico, HMOs dropped approximately 18,000 individuals because of rising costs. These individuals were left with nowhere to turn. H.R. 1 would put beneficiaries at a similar risk by relying on untested private drug-only plans, which can decide whether or not to serve rural areas, and they can decide to leave every 12 months. Further contributing to the risk of this provision is the fact that there is no fallback option to allow traditional Medicare to provide prescription drug coverage if private plans decline to provide coverage in rural areas. Because much of my district is rural, this legislation would put the seniors in my district at particular risk. I cannot support this. This is greatly disappointing to me given the several major rural healthcare provisions that are including in this legislation. 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. I cannot, however, vote in support of H.R. 1 with the extremely flawed prescription drug benefit included with these strong rural health provisions. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support adding a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare. I strongly believe that we must take action to provide relief for our nation's seniors. I simply do not believe, however, that H.R. 1 is the most effective way to do so. Tonight I will be voting in support of the substitute being offered by Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell. In addition to including stronger rural provisions than those included in the Majority's bill, the substitute includes a guaranteed benefit of a $25 premium, a $100 deductible, 20% co-insurance, and a $2,000 catastrophic protection. The substitute also allows for lower drug prices by granting the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to use the collective purchasing power of Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices. Also, the substitute grants access to generic drugs, and allows the safe re- importation of pharmaceuticals, providing further tools to seniors for gaining access to cheaper prescription drugs. Perhaps most importantly, the substitute will not force seniors to leave traditional Medicare to get drug coverage. Nor will they be forced to join a private insurance plan that will restrict access to needed drugs, deny coverage for the medicine their doctor prescribes, or force them to change pharmacies. Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve a real prescription drug benefit, not the flawed benefit included in H.R. 1. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1 and support the substitute. Our seniors should not be forced into the unconscionable position of being forced to choose between medications and groceries any longer, and, unfortunately, H.R. 1 will not adequately address this situation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today, we are once again debating a tax bill that hopefully will never see the light of day in the other body. Here in the House, we have repeatedly cut taxes for the wealthiest few, while our deficit has exploded and we have ignored the countless priorities that our nation currently faces. That's what this debate is really about. It's about priorities. Their priority is to help the wealthiest few. I am proud to say that I do not share the Majority's priorities. My priorities include our disabled veterans. If we didn't pass this bill, we could possibly pass the concurrent receipt legislation. My priorities include a fair Child Tax Credit to help the working poor who make between $10,000 and $27,000. My priorities include providing decent housing and a quality education for our military families. My priorities include a fiscally sound economic growth plan that creates more jobs by building more roads, bridges and updating our crumbling schools. Unfortunately, by passing H.R. 8, we cannot begin to address the nation's real priorities. Mr. Speaker, while I support reducing the tax burden on working families whenever possible, I believe H.R. 8 badly misses the mark. As written, H.R. 8 would add $80 billion per year to the ever-growing federal deficit. While we are permanently eliminating the tax paid on the largest 2 percent of estates, we are contributing yet again to the exploding national debt--a debt our children and grandchildren must pay. In essence, H.R. 8 is a stealth tax on future generations. The federal estate tax should be reformed, not repealed. I support the plan offered by Mr. Pomeroy of North Dakota that would have provided immediate estate tax relief in a responsible manner. I support Mr. Pomeroy's attempt to exempt estates up to $3 million (and $6 million for couples) from all federal estate taxes. This plan would exempt 99.6 percent of all estates in the country. In fact, only 400 estates nationwide would pay the estate tax under the Pomeroy plan. Not only is this plan fairer, it would be fully paid for by eliminating unnecessary corporate tax shelters. Although supporters of H.R. 8 use family farmers and small business owners as the rationale for the bill, this claim is just a myth. There already are special provisions in the tax code to ease the burden on small businesses and family farms. In 1998, only 1.4 percent of all returns that paid the estate tax had farm assets that were taxed. Even with the changes made to the estate tax during the 107th Congress, the Congressional Research Service has estimated that less than one percent of small businesses and farms would be forced to liquidate assets to pay the tax. Our plan would have helped these families. Sadly, H.R. 8 will not. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Pomeroy substitute and no on final passage.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker. I cannot say that I'm surprised by the actions of the Majority today. I cannot say that I'm surprised that instead of voting on the Senate-passed Child Tax Credit legislation, we're voting on something else. I cannot say that I'm surprised that once again, the GOP leadership is cynically manipulating the process to ensure that we pass even more tax cuts that will drive up the federal deficit and continue to expand our national debt. Once again, they're playing politics when what we need is tax relief for working families. Let's review what we're talking about here. First, the President tried to convince us that the tax bill would help every working American. Sadly, though, the House Leadership gutted one of the few provisions that helped those most in need--the refundable Child Tax Credit--from the previous tax package at the last minute. Yes, in a bill that was supposed to be an effort to stimulate the economy, we didn't do anything for those taxpayers most likely to spend the money. Amazingly, workers who earn between $10,500 and $26,625 were left behind in a backroom deal. I cannot think of anyone who is more likely to spend that money than these working families struggling to make ends meet. What this sneaky deal means to New Mexico is that nearly 90,000 families and 157,000 children aren't going to benefit under current law. The Republican plan also left behind many in our military, who would have benefited from this break. Once the secret was out, though, the outcry from across the country was clear. Nearly everyone realized how bad a deal this really was, and nearly everyone knew a quick fix was needed. However, it seems like the House Leadership are the only ones in the country who don't get it. The Senate voted nearly unanimously to pass a simple clean bill to give this benefit to the most needy. And, most importantly, the Senate bill won't increase the national debt by one penny. It's totally paid for. Even President Bush realizes how unfair this situation is, and has called on the House to pass a clean bill and let him sign it. Not surprisingly, though, the House Leadership insists on passing a bill that cannot make it through the other chamber. The saddest part of this entire charade is that this bill--just like all the tax cuts this House has passed--will actually hurt American children much more than it helps them. In the long run, this $82 billion tax-cut plan will further saddle our children and grandchildren with even more debt. So, we're giving them a small check now, but it pales in comparison to the huge bill they're going to see later in life. It's not only unfair; it's irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I urge my colleagues to demand that we vote on the Senate-passed bill immediately. We shouldn't delay another minute. It's too important to play these cynical political games.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. This bill is the third piece of legislation in a succession of tort reform vehicles offered by the majority this Congress. In offering H.R. 1115 today, the majority again seeks to manipulate our judicial system for the benefit of corporate America. The Administration also strongly supports this bill. Yet, while both the Administration and the majority espouse the virtues of federalism and states' rights, this bill would severely limit, if not automatically remove, state court jurisdiction in the majority of class action cases. The anticipated result of this reduction caused Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, long-time a devout Federalist, and the Judicial Conference of the United States, to openly denounce this bill because it would increase the caseload of the already overcrowded federal courts. And, because federal courts must expedite criminal matters over civil matters, this bill would make a plaintiff's remedy more costly due to the increased amount of time their case is kept pending on the federal docket. Furthermore, besides giving jurisdiction over most class action lawsuits to federal district courts, this bill would also be applied retroactively so that pending cases would be subjected to its provisions. This would effectively include cases pending against Enron Corp., Worldcom Inc., and Tyco International Ltd. At a time of heightened concern over corporate wrongdoing, now is not the time for Congress to make it more difficult for injured consumers to bring class-action lawsuits. Considering the above, this legislation further illuminates the majority's willingness to erode an individual's protections from corporate wrongdoing through the manipulation of our judiciary systems. As a result, I oppose passage of this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize AliceMarie Slaven-Emond, who was recently honored as one of only ten people in the entire nation to be selected as a 2003 Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leader. This prestigious award includes a grant of over $100,000 to enhance AliceMarie's work. AliceMarie is cofounder, primary health care provider and volunteer executive director of the Northeast San Juan County Health and Wellness Center in Aztec, NM. The center is a community owned, nonprofit clinic, where patients receive primary care services, preventive screenings, immunizations, pre- and post-natal care and free medications. Services are offered on a sliding-fee scale, depending on income. Working as a school nurse in the Aztec school district, AliceMarie was uniquely aware of children who were suffering medically because their families were uninsured or could not afford a doctor. To address these demands, AliceMarie, along with other concerned citizens, launched the planning process for a clinic in 1992 and opened its doors in 2000. The early stages were very difficult, but because of the steadfast commitment, determination, enthusiasm, tenacity and hard work, AliceMarie and her cofounders achieved a ``miracle.'' But AliceMarie is always quick to acknowledge the ``incredible graciousness'' of San Juan County. She reports that without the donations of cash, supplies, labor and many other services by local businesses, medical professionals and private benefactors, success could not have been possible. The San Juan County Health and Wellness Center is an example of how one person can make a difference. Because of AliceMarie's unending determination, the quality of life for hundreds of people has been improved. The clinic began serving about 35 patients a month and now provides medical attention to 185 to 200 children and adults monthly, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or financial means. In addition, AliceMarie is proud of the fact that the center is also a resource facility that provides valuable health care education and information to the community. AliceMarie Slaven-Emond is not only an extremely caring and dedicated nurse practitioner, but an extraordinary visionary and leader. Having visited the clinic myself, I have experienced first hand the incredible work that is being accomplished. I am proud to recognize AliceMarie today before my colleagues as a model of commitment to the betterment of the human condition. I also extend my deep appreciation to her cofounders, staff and San Juan County citizens for helping to make a dream a reality. As uninsured families continue to increase at the rate of 13 percent this year alone, AliceMarie and the San Juan County Health and Wellness Center are helping to fill the gap and are heroes in the truest sense. A great need existed, and caring and giving citizens rose to the occasion, with AliceMarie as the catalyst. I salute this very great lady.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I support the Senate bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 222, The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003. This legislation puts to rest long-standing water rights disputes between water users in the Little Colorado River basin in Arizona. More importantly, this legislation would also provide the Zuni tribe with the financial resources to acquire water rights in the Little Colorado River basin and to restore the riparian environment that existed previously at Zuni Heaven Reservation. Recently, a delegation of Zuni tribal leaders and members visited my office here in Washington. They told me that Zuni Heaven, a riparian area along the Little Colorado River, is central to the Zuni religious and cultural traditions and is the place where Zuni deities and ancestors have resided from time immemorial. This sacred riparian area is the home of the Kachina, one of the highest religious orders in Zuni culture, and was in historical times, a very lush riparian area with willow, cottonwood, cattails, turtles, and waterfowl. Ever since the 1877 Presidential order diminished the Zuni cultural homelands and established the current Zuni Reservation in New Mexico, the Zuni people have maintained the practice of making a pilgrimage to Zuni Heaven. Every four years, Zunis from western New Mexico trek over 50 miles to Zuni Heaven, located in northeast Arizona, to perform religious ceremonies during the summer solstice period. This pilgrimage is very important because it helps sustain and rejuvenate Zunis' cultural and religious traditions. The Zuni Water Rights Settlement will help the Zuni people restore their sacred Zuni Heaven to the way it was as described in ancient traditional historical accounts. Furthermore, it will help them develop wetlands for water plants, birds and other animals so important and necessary in carrying on the Zuni Kachina religion. Considering the above, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me today and support this very important legislation.