Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 222, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003. This is a unique water rights settlement, carefully designed to protect the Zuni's most sacred site while at the same time preserving access to water supplies for upstream users. The Zunis are counting on this legislation, as my colleague from Arizona knows, to finally settle critical water questions. I urge my colleagues to support Senate S. 222. I would congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) on his leadership. This is a unique water rights settlement, carefully designed to protect the Zuni's most sacred site while at the same time preserving access to water supplies for upstream water users. Recently, a delegation of Zuni tribal leaders and members visited my office here in Washington. They told me 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 lust riparian area with willow, cottonwood, cattails, turtles, and waterfowl. Ever since the 1877 Presidential order reduced 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 4 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. This pilgrimage is very important because it helps sustain and rejuvenate Zuni cultural and religious traditions. The Zuni Water Rights Settlements will help the Zuni people restore their sacred Zuni Heaven to the way it was as described in ancient 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. I extend my compliments to the Zuni people, the State of Arizona, and the non-Indian organizations who participated in the negotiations that resulted in this historic water settlement. It is unfortunate that we were not able to pass this bill when it first came before the House earlier this week. The Zuni are counting on this legislation to finally settle critical questions about their water rights. We are now able to pass this bill and send it to the President for his signature, and I urge my colleagues to support S. 222. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 4, the proposed amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag. I respect our flag, what it stands for, and personally deplore acts of desecration against the flag. However, I believe that our commitment to respecting our flag while preserving our fundamental freedoms, as symbolized by our flag and embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, can be met without amending the Constitution. Many Members of Congress see continued tension between ``free speech'' decisions of the Supreme Court, which protect flag desecration as an expression of first amendment speech, and the symbolic significance of the United States flag. Consequently, every Congress that has convened since those decisions were issued has considered possible measures to permit the punishment of those who engage in flag desecration. However, the amendment offered today by the majority would diminish the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression, one of our most fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Amending the U.S. Constitution is necessarily and understandably a rigorous task. To become the law of the land, the flag desecration amendment would have to get the approval of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and then be ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures. The fact that only 27 amendments, including the Bill of Rights, the civil rights amendments, and women's suffrage, have been made to the Constitution in the past 200 years illuminates the infrequency of such legislative initiatives. Moreover, since its ratification in 1791, the Bill of Rights has not been altered in any manner. Consequently, I believe that passage of such an amendment would set a dangerous precedent for further erosion of our constitutional rights and freedoms. Not only is amending the Constitution a task that must not be taken lightly, we must be absolutely sure that it is necessary. In this case, I am not convinced that the requisite level of necessity has been met. For example, flag burning is an exceedingly rare occurrence--since the Supreme Court's free speech, flag desecration decisions, fewer than 10 flag burning incidents have been reported each year. Considering this, I believe that amending the Constitution to address the shameful conduct of such a minute portion of our general populace is simply unnecessary. This conviction is generally supported by a letter sent to Senator Patrick Leahy in May 1999, in which General Colin Powell, now Secretary of State, wrote that ``The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.'' Secretary Powell, one of our most noted patriots and war heroes, obviously believes that diminishing our First Amendment rights is not the solution to the perceived problem at hand. Taking into account the infrequency of flag desecration, as noted by Secretary of State Powell, I question today what it is that we are trying to regulate: is it the act of physical desecration itself or rather the sentiment behind the action? I believe that H.J. Res. 4 would affectively and severely abridge our rights of free expression. As such, I will oppose passage of this proposed constitutional amendment.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does not say is that what this piece of legislation on the floor today does is take away a woman's right to choose, take away a woman's right to reproductive freedom, and it is part of a concerted effort on behalf of the Republican Party to pack the courts with judges who would repeal Roe v. Wade. That is what the real issue is when it comes to this piece of legislation the gentleman from Texas just talked about. Mr. Speaker, last month, President Bush visited my home State of New Mexico. He came to sell his tax cut. The President said, and what many of his minions have been saying over the last couple of months, is that every taxpayer was going to be helped by this tax cut. He emphasized how the child tax credit would help all taxpayers. Well, now the bill has been signed and we have read the fine print, and guess what? New Mexico, in fact, is going to get very little in the way of a tax cut for working families. Virtually nothing. Zero. Nada. When I was Attorney General and we used to work on cases called consumer scams, we used to call this tactic bait and switch: tell them one thing to sell them the idea and complete the sale, and give them something completely different and hope they will never find out. Bait and switch. One of the oldest consumer scams. That is what this tax cut was all about. The Republican National Committee is also in on this scam. The committee, on its Web site, asks the question: Who benefits under the President's plan? And I read from the Web site: ``Everyone who pays taxes, especially middle income Americans.'' Why bait and switch? Because they do not want you to know who gets the lion's share of benefits from this tax cut: millionaires. In 2005, 200,000 taxpayers making $1 million or more will get 44 percent of the benefits. Eight million, mostly low- and middle-income taxpayers will not receive any benefit, not a penny from the law. Forty times as many taxpayers who get no benefit from the cuts as there are millionaires who get 44 percent of the law's benefits. Let me repeat: 40 times as many taxpayers who get no benefit from the cuts as there are millionaires who get 44 percent of the law's benefits. What can we say about a tax cut and a fiscal policy which rewards the rich at the expense of the middle income? What can we say about a tax cut which will force us to cut health care, education, and homeland security? What can we say about a tax cut and fiscal policy which deprives the government of revenue it needs to make the United States a strong and vital Nation? The normally staid Financial Times of Britain answered the question this way: the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is of great importance, perhaps today more than ever. Even as we debate this legislation today, our brave men and women are serving in harm's way. That is why I strongly support many provisions of this legislation; particularly the 4.1 percent across-the-board pay increase for military personnel, as well as the vital readiness, modernization, and infrastructure improvements, which will keep our forces the best- trained and best-equipped in the world. As we are all painfully aware, there are many security challenges that face our great nation. As such, it is critical that we provide the necessary investments in our national defense. However, because of several highly controversial provisions in what is traditionally a bipartisan bill, I have strong reservations about supporting H.R. 1588 as it is currently written. One of my primary concerns pertains to the environmental provisions in this legislation that weaken environmental protections. Although I fully support maintaining the highest possible level of military training and readiness, I believe such readiness must also be balanced against our duty to protect at-risk species, especially in light of existing Department of Defense exemptions in current environmental laws. H.R. 1588 does not adequately address this concern. The Department of Defense contends that military training on the approximately 25 million acres of land at the more than 425 installations nationwide is greatly constrained by environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. However, a GAO report issued in June 2002 found that training readiness remains high and that the ESA and the MMP are not hampering military readiness. In addition, existing environmental laws already have national security exemptions, yet DoD has never bothered to apply for them. Although I support Chairman Hunter's attempt to temper this extreme anti-environmental provision, I am dismayed that Democrats were denied the right to offer the Rahall/Dingell amendment, which would have addressed these environmental exemptions in a much more comprehensive manner. Another provision that is of great concern to me pertains to the DoD's civilian personnel. H.R. 1588 contains broad, sweeping provisions that grant the Secretary of Defense authority to create an entirely new civilian employee system for DoD's 700,000 civilian workers, which strips these employees of some of their basic rights, such as the right to notice before they are fired and the right to join a union. Representatives Cooper, Davis, and Van Hollen offered an important amendment before the Rules Committee to make major modifications to these provisions, in order to protect fundamental employee rights in any new National Security Personnel System designed by the DoD. Disturbingly, the Republicans disallowed this important amendment from being considered on the floor today. I wish I could say I was shocked at this action, but unfortunately it has become standard fare for the Majority to stifle debate and discussion on the important issues of the day. Last, and certainly not least, is my concern over the nuclear weapons provisions in H.R. 1588. This legislation authorizes previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons and also authorizes $21 million to study the feasibility of developing a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Our military needs improved capabilities to hold at risk hardened, and deeply buried targets in rogue nations that might contain prohibited weapons of mass destruction programs. However, instead of building new nuclear weapons and sending the signal to our allies and enemies alike that it's okay to build nuclear weapons, I believe we should fund weapons that have just as strong a deterrent capability, but do not encourage new uses for nuclear weapons or encourage a new nuclear arms race. The military has not even asked for nuclear weapons to do the job because there are already several conventional programs underway that would allow us to get at the same targets. A recent article quotes Adm. James Ellis, head of U.S. strategic command, as saying he wants to ``reduce the country's dependence on nuclear weapons by using conventional, precision-guided bombs and missiles.'' Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate, I strongly support a strong national defense to address the many national security challenges we face in this uncertain world. Excluding these extraneous, highly controversial provisions, H.R. 1588 contains many important provisions to improve our nation's defenses. I support the important provisions that provide good pay, housing and training for the men and women in uniform and fund important modernization priorities that will ensure that we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. I am very hopeful that the environmental, civil service, and nuclear weapons provisions are addressed in conference in order to make this a more acceptable and bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the facts are startling. In just over 2 years, this administration has taken a vibrant economy and turned it into a total mess. Once we saw projected federal surpluses for years, but now we see unprecedented deficits as far as the eye can see. Once we saw Americans working in good paying jobs, but now we see over two million jobs lost and families needing help to make ends meet. Once we saw states thriving and providing much needed benefits to the most needy, but now we see massive state deficits that require federal assistance to close. Something needs to be done to fix these problems. The question is what's the best way to do it? When we began the debate earlier this year about how to turn around our struggling economy, I was looking for a plan that passed three simple tests. Was the plan fair? Was the plan fast-acting? Was the plan fiscally sound? Tonight, the House is voting on the President's proposal. The answer to all three of these simple questions is a resounding ``no.'' Is it fair? The other side likes to point out that the average family will receive about $1,000 in tax breaks. What they don't tell you is that 53 percent of all taxpayers--yes, 53 percent of all taxpayers--will see less than $100 in their pockets. However, if you make over $1 million a year, you get a tax cut of $93,500. This clearly is not fair. Is it fast acting? Well, it's going to take effect this year. Yes, that much is true. Unfortunately, the President's plan gives the break this year and next, then it takes it away again in 2005. So, the average middle class taxpayer will actually see their taxes go up 2 years from now. And this trickle-down tax policy will not stimulate the economy now. In fact, it totally depends on those who benefit--the few--to reinvest their windfall down the road. In fact, there is no guarantee that any of this will happen, so there is no guarantee that this tax cut will generate any jobs, let alone the one million promised by the President. Is it fiscally sound? The answer is a resounding no. The dividend tax reduction and the cut in the capital gains rate will give us little bang for our buck. Many leading economists argue that the dividend cut especially is one of the least effective options to grow the economy. This bill is a cruel hoax on New Mexico families. The overwhelming majority of hardworking New Mexicans will reap minimal benefits from these tax cuts. Although the final agreement hammered out by the House and Senate is much better than President Bush's original proposal, it still will not deliver much of a boost to the economy and instead increase the federal debt to be paid for by future generations. With passage of this tax cut, Congress and the president are demonstrating their economic arrogance. Over 400 economists, 10 Nobel prize-winning economists, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and a host of other credible experts have told us that this is not the way to go. It is not good economic policy, it is not good tax policy, it is not good fiscal policy, and it is going to put us in a deeper and deeper deficit hole. Eventually interest rates will rise because of the federal debt and that's going to hit middle-income families harder than the wealthy individuals who benefit the most from this misguided bill. Two years ago, President Bush told us that we could enact his policies and virtually eliminate the debt held by the public by 2008. Now, the Bush Administration is asking Congress to raise the debt limit by almost $1 trillion. It is an unprecedented turn of events. Those in the White House and their allies who want to eventually end the role of the federal government as we know it today--in education, homeland security, health care, Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits and other basic services--are well on their way. The only beneficial provisions included here are the ones that we included in our alternative plan: raising the refundable child tax credit, speeding up tax relief for married couples, preventing more individuals from being hit by the alternative minimum tax, small business expensing, and the financial aid to the states. Unfortunately, these redeemable items will be strangled by the capital gains and dividends tax breaks for the few. In 2001, I voted against the Bush tax cut bill because it was too skewed toward the wealthiest Americans and too fiscally irresponsible. Since then, we have gone from record surpluses to record deficits, and the economy is still floundering. Passing another enormous tax cut this year will only continue this trend and increase the economic problems that our children and grandchildren will inherit. Tonight, I will do so again. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, people in New Mexico are hurting. Since January 2001, the unemployment rate in my state has risen to 5.9 percent. While every single person on unemployment would rather have a job, until the economy reverses, we in Congress have a moral obligation to help the jobless make ends meet. The extension will help nearly 5,000 New Mexicans who still have not found jobs, and were scheduled to exhaust their Federal benefits at the end of this month. We have been calling for this type of legislation for weeks, and I applaud the Majority for finally doing what is right. Unfortunately, although they have done what's right, they haven't done enough in this bill to help all Americans who are out of work. Last year, because of the failed economic policies of this administration, Congress was forced to enact the Temporary Extension of Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) bill. Sadly, though, the need has only increased since then. The economy has actually gotten worse since Congress passed TEUC in March 2002. The number of unemployed (8.79 million) is at the highest level in nearly a decade. The unemployment rate rose to 6.0 percent in April, compared to 5.7 percent when TEUC was enacted in March 2003 and when the program was extended in January of this year. The number of payroll jobs fell for the third straight month in April; unemployment is now 2.1 million below its level when the recession began. Long-term unemployment also continues to get worse. Unemployment benefits provide an economic lifeline for families struggling to find work and boost an ailing economy. People are losing their jobs, looking for work, and finding none. It is unfortunate that the House leadership waited so long to bring up this bill. It is also unfortunate that the House leadership has refused us a vote on the Democratic alternative--yet again. While I will vote for this bill because it is critical to the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the last two years, we should be doing more. This plan leaves over one million unemployed behind, and fails to provide them the benefits they need to put food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their heads. We also should be extending this benefit for 26 weeks, not just 13. Although the bill provides that in high unemployment states jobless workers would be eligible for 13 more weeks--in addition to the 13 extra weeks available to all jobless workers who have exhausted their 26 weeks of regular benefits--the entire country is in need of this assistance. Because of the strict requirements for a state to qualify as a high unemployment state under this program, only six states currently qualify--Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. We should pass the full Democratic package immediately to help everyone seeking work, not just the few. Research shows that during previous recessions, the stimulative power of unemployment benefits saved an average of 131,000 jobs and slowed the drop in the Gross Domestic Product by 15 percent. National studies have shown that $1 in unemployment insurance leads to $2.15 worth of economic growth. Every week without unemployment insurance benefits, states lose $200 million in cash--cash that in all likelihood would be spent at the local grocery store and the local gas station. Indeed, a recent study by Economy.com, an independent financial research group, found that the single most effective stimulus measure would be further extension of emergency Federal unemployment insurance benefits. Mr. Speaker, this legislation unfortunately is long overdue, and very necessary. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2158, and quickly send this legislation to the Senate to ensure these benefits continue uninterrupted.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. I cannot overstate the importance of the nature of this legislation. As a Member of Congress from the west, I take very seriously the need to find a balanced approach to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. The Cerro Grande fire, which occurred within my district in 2000, scorched over 40,000 acres and consumed over 400 homes and businesses in Los Alamos, NM. This tragic example highlights the importance of this issue in New Mexico. Wildfire prevention and protection is of such grave importance that I am extremely concerned about, and strongly object to, the manner that this legislation was brought before us today. A Committee Print of this bill was received in my office, during a recess period, five days before it was scheduled for Resources Committee markup. Not only did we, nor the public, have time to analyze and digest its content, but the importance and depth of this issue was further undermined by the fact that this committee did not even hold any hearings on the bill before proceeding straight to mark-up. In the past, I have worked with Mr. McInnis on fire issues and had hoped to be able to do so again this Congress. I believe that by working together on a bill in a bipartisan manner, we could have crafted legislation that protects our communities from catastrophic fires without the perceived need to impose unprecedented deadlines and standards for injunctive relief on the federal judiciary, and without emasculating our environmental laws. However, due to the manner in which this bill was presented to us, the opportunity to work together, or at least consider any viable alternatives to H.R. 1904, did not arise. Considering this, I would like to point out that H.R. 1904 was not the sole option available to Congress for the protection of our at-risk communities from wildfire devastation. Similar to H.R. 1904's Section 104, which essentially eliminates any public alternatives to agency action as set out in NEPA, the majority did not allow us to consider any alternatives to H.R. 1904, aside from the Miller/Defazio Substitute offered here today. For example, in February Mr. Udall of Colorado and I introduced H.R. 1042, the Forest Restoration and Fire Risk Reduction Act. Had we had an opportunity to hold hearings on our bill, Mr. Udall and I would have been able to formally raise some of the issues not addressed in H.R. 1904, but that are critically important to wildfire prevention and protection. H.R. 1042 refocuses the implementation of the National Fire Plan (NFP) to areas designated as ``wildland/urban interface,'' the critical zones that are of the highest risk to people, property and water supplies, by redirecting NFP funding and hazardous fuels reduction projects through state selection panels. H.R. 1042 would accomplish this through the collaboration between state and federal land managers, and local and tribal communities in both decision and implementation activities. Through their individual contributions, we could develop cost-effective restoration activities, and empower these diverse organizations to implement activities that value local and traditional knowledge, build ownership and civic pride, and ensure healthy, diverse, and productive forests and watersheds. Such collaboration would result in the efficient restoration of areas distressed by wildfires and help protect our homeowners and businesses from future losses. While I agree with the general consensus that thinning our forests-- by controlled burns or mechanical means--will lessen the likelihood of unusually severe fires, I cannot support the contention of the Bush Administration and the majority that to facilitate such projects we need to expunge our environmental laws and procedures for public comment and participation. The exemption of fire-risk reduction projects from environmental review and administrative appeals, and to deny the public the full and fair opportunity to have viable alternatives to agency action considered, circumvents established policy of public participation, an important aspect of our democratic process for making decisions affecting public lands. Excluding public comment does not assist in developing sound forest management. H.R. 1042 makes some relatively innocuous procedural concessions that can expedite the process of resolving appeals, but, unlike H.R. 1904, it maintains these sound principles of law and public policy, and does not affect the traditional judicial review process and standards of equity inherent in our legal system. H.R. 1904 contains unwarranted judicial review standards. Not only does it impose unreasonable time limits for filing cases in federal court after final agency action, H.R. 1904 contains an unprecedented provision that changes the fundamental legal standard of equitable relief. H.R. 1904 directs the court, when considering a motion for injunctive relief, to determine whether there would be harm to the defendant and whether the injunction would be in the public interest. In effect, these provisions tip the scales of justice in favor of the administrative agency. The equitable balancing of competing claims has historically been part of the court's province. Injunctions are intrinsic to our federal judiciary's ability to remedy wrongs. Consequently, H.R. 1904's judicial review provisions serve to diminish the court's ability to balance competing interests, and blur the line separating the legislative role and the role of our courts. In conclusion, I believe, as all of us from the western United States would likely agree, that it is imperative to support proactive programs that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires and aid in the restoration of lands that have met the same unfortunate fate as the Cerro Grande. However, such programs should be community-based and should not gut our environmental protection laws, nor affect existing standards of judicial review. H.R. 1024 had the capacity to meet these important objectives. However, we were not offered the opportunity to consider that alternative. For this reason, and those reasons stated above, I must oppose H.R. 1904.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize an outstanding jurist, an honorable man, and a leading Hispanic in the field of law by introducing legislation to name the Federal Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM, after Judge Santiago Campos. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by my colleagues, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Solis, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Pastor. Judge Santiago Campos was the first Hispanic appointed to the Federal bench in New Mexico, serving from 1978 until his death in 2001, including as chief judge from 1987 through 1989. Judge Campos' career of public service only culminated with his service as a U.S. District Court Judge, as he also served in the U.S. Navy as a Seaman First Class from 1944 to 1946, as the Assistant and First Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico from 1954 to 1957, and as a District Court Judge from 1971 to 1978 in the First Judicial District in the State of New Mexico. Judge Campos served with distinction on the bench and displayed both firmness and compassion with those who entered his courtroom. He was a life long resident of New Mexico and graduated first in his law school class at the University of New Mexico. Judge Campos was very active in his courtroom, often exercising his right to question witnesses in the middle of cross-examinations. Many agree that he became more involved in a case than other judges, but still let a lawyer try his own case. One of his most memorable cases ordered the Gannett Co. to return The New Mexican, Santa Fe's daily newspaper, to its former owner, Robert McKinney due to a breach of contract. During his career, Campos was an honorary member of the Order of the Coif. He also received the Distinguished Achievement Award of the State Bar of New Mexico in 1993, and in the same year the University of New Mexico honored him with a Distinguished Achievement Award. Sadly, Judge Campos passed away on January 20th, 2001. Following his passing, the New Mexico State Legislature passed a joint memorial requesting Congress to name the Federal Courthouse in Santa Fe, New Mexico, after Judge Campos who had his chambers in the courthouse for over 22 years. In addition, the judges of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals who reside in New Mexico and the district judges of the District of New Mexico unanimously requested and support Congressional action to name the Federal Courthouse after Judge Campos. I am pleased to take up this effort. Last Congress I introduced this legislation and was able to work to get it passed by the House. Unfortunately the Senate did not act on this legislation. This year, however, I am hopeful that we will be able to get this legislation signed into law and honor this great man with a small token of appreciation for the remarkable life that he lived.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and grant the Secretary of Agriculture the power to order the recall of meat and poultry that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by Carolyn McCarthy (NY), Earl Blumenauer (OR), Tim Ryan (OH) and George Miller (CA). The announcement of the discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, also known as ``mad cow disease,'' in Canada this week, further highlights the importance of this legislation. Let me be clear that there is no evidence that our domestic meat products are compromised in any way. However, if they were ever found to be tainted, the Secretary currently has no authority to mandate the recall of these products. This is unacceptable today, more than ever. I cannot overstate the importance of the nature of this legislation. It is imperative to the health and welfare of the American public that we bolster the regulation of the meat and poultry industry. The number of people affected annually from ingesting tainted meat and poultry products illuminates this proposition: 5,000 people die from food-borne illnesses each year. Furthermore, nearly 76 million people get sick annually from eating tainted food, of which 325,000 require hospitalization. The Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak of 1993 prompted the imposition of a new regulatory system on the meat and poultry industry designed to help eliminate future deadly food-borne illness outbreaks. The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) program shifted the responsibility for ensuring meat safety from USDA inspectors to the meat companies themselves and instituted microbial tests for harmful bacteria. Since the implementation of the HACCP regulations, however, controversy has erupted over whether the new rules place too much power in the hands of the meat industry to regulate itself. Due to the huge political clout of the meatpacking industry, USDA does not have, nor seem to want, the power to issue mandatory recalls of tainted meat and poultry products. Complying with agency recalls, therefore, is at the industry's discretion. The meat industry says that it has never failed to cooperate with a recall request from the USDA, thus mandatory recalls of tainted meat are not needed. I disagree. Whenever there is a recall, press releases issued by these companies make very clear that the recall is voluntary. However, when USDA asks for a recall, a negotiation process ensues between the agency and the industry. Meanwhile, thousands of people would continue to eat potentially harmful meat. This is not a trivial matter. This is meat that is potentially contaminated and could result in death. This is a question of accountability. Somebody must be held responsible for the quality and safety of the meat we consume. The government must ensure that the meatpacking industry produces only safe meat products. My bill will facilitate this need by amending the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. My bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to order the recall of meat and poultry that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe or tainted from the market. The time has come for this necessary step.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I honor a very great lady today upon reaching her 100th birthday. Mary Louis Akers, a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico, is commemorating, with a host of family and friends, a century of life upon this earth. I salute and applaud her on this remarkable event. Mrs. Akers was born on May 20, 1903, in Sherman, Texas, to Margaret Crumley Melton and James Henderson Melton. Growing up during the first part of the 20th century was quite different than it is today. Mary Louise Melton's father delivered mail on horseback, and the family traveled by horse and buggy most everywhere they went, not owning a car until Mary Louise was a teenager. The train was used for long trips. The family always had an ``icebox,'' the forerunner of the refrigerator, and ice was delivered to their home every few days. Laundry was always done by hand. Entertainment was very different when Mary Louise was young. Her primary entertainment was reading. The family did not own a radio until Mary Louise was a teenager, and the first ``silent'' movie she saw was a series that only ran on Saturday afternoons. Many years later, in the 1950's and after she was married, a television was purchased. Mary Louise suffered infantile paralysis, now known as polio, when she was nine months old. The disease paralyzed her left side. Remarkably, however, she recovered from the disease and, fortunately, was left with little residual, and unnoticed, effects. Mary Louise attended Kidd Key College in Sherman, where she studied voice. Her first job was as a teacher in Rockfort, Texas, eighteen miles from Sherman, where she taught the first four grades. It was during those years that she met her future husband, Homer Akers, who was training to be a Presbyterian minister. They married on June 19, 1930, at the First Baptist Church in Sherman, and their first home was the Presbyterian manse in Natalia, Texas. Homer and Mary Louise Akers spent the next 47 joyous years together until his death in 1977. During their marriage, Rev. Akers served as a minister in seven Texas communities, each about four years each, and in Portales, New Mexico, from 1947 until 1968, a location that will always be considered home. A daughter, Margaret Louise, was born in 1931, but only lived a few days past her third birthday. A second daughter, Kathryn Ann, was born in 1936, and Mary Louise currently lives with her in Santa Fe. In her 100 years upon this earth, Mary Louise Akers is known and deeply loved and admired by hundreds, if not thousands, of those whose lives she has touched during her extraordinary 100-year journey. She loved serving as the primary greeter in all the churches her husband served and was the voice most heard when hymns were sung. She has always been a famous ``jokester,'' constantly teasing her family and friends with her delightful, bubbly personality and infectious laughter. Having a perfect memory, Mary Louise can readily recall wonderful, enduring and entertaining stories about all those whom she has known. Mary Louise Akers has abundantly enjoyed her 100 years. She has always been extremely active and enjoys attending community events and traveling with her daughter. A few of her passions are having tea parties with family and friends, attending an Aker family reunion every July, receiving cards and letters and writing many herself, going to the beauty shop every Friday, and eating lots of strawberry jam every morning and drinking a Coke every afternoon, which she considers her ``tickets'' to a long life. Her very favorite ``supper'' food is a chocolate sundae with ``lots'' of syrup! Mary Louis Akers is a very grand lady, and the world has been, and continues to be, a better place because of her presence in it. Driving a car up until her 80's, Mary Louise's CB ``handle'' was ``Sunshine Mary'', I can think of no more accurate way to describe this delightful lady. I invite all my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representative to join me in wishing Mary Louise Akers a very happy and healthy 100th birthday, may she enjoy many more to come!

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me rise today on behalf of the Miller-DeFazio substitute because I believe it is the much better bill before this body today, and let me tell Members why. We are talking here about trying to deal with forests that are overgrown, a situation that has grown over 100 years; and we are trying to find out a way to get those forests healthy. The approaches that are before us here are pretty radical. The bill that has been offered by the majority in this case does some unprecedented things in terms of judicial review. It really in fact guts some of the injunctive relief provisions and slants the whole process towards the Federal Government. I hear on their side of the aisle talk all the time, limited government, we want limited government. What they are voting for is giving the Federal Government the balance of the power when you get into court on injunctive relief. And so they are tipping the scales in behalf of the Federal Government. And who else is in court? The citizen. That is who is in court. The citizen is in court with the Federal Government. And so this majority bill is basically saying, when you get into court and you start looking at these tough issues, citizens raise good concerns, well, it doesn't matter that they have raised good, proper concerns, let's rig the court system, let's rig the court system so it comes out in behalf of the Federal agencies. I hear talk all the time in the Committee on Resources, oh, we have got to limit the Federal Government, we have got to watch these Federal agencies, we have got to keep an eye on them. You are not doing that in this bill. This bill is just opening the gates wide open for Federal agencies to abuse that power. The Miller-DeFazio substitute does not have a judicial review section. It does not have that egregious section. So it is better by far just on that account. But what Miller- DeFazio does is actually focus the Federal Government on thinning in the areas where it is needed most. The base bill is completely unfocused. You do not have a clue where they are thinning. Miller- DeFazio focuses in and says, let's look at urban-wildland interface, let's look at municipal watersheds, let's spend our time and resources in those areas. That is a significant difference here. Another significant difference is in the NEPA process. I beg to differ with the gentleman from Oregon who says that our bill does some unfair things in terms of NEPA. We allow the citizens to participate with their forests, participate in the process. The underlying bill, the base bill, does everything it can to cut the citizens out of the process, shorten the deadlines, weight the judicial system against them. When it comes to allowing citizens to participate in their forests, these, after all, are the forests of the United States of America. The public owns these forests. What we are doing in this base bill is gutting the ability of the citizens to actually participate in the process. And so the better bill today is Miller-DeFazio. I would urge everyone to vote for that. And if that is not adopted, to vote down the base bill, the bill that is before us, because it is unbalanced, it is unfair, and it hurts citizens' ability to comment on their forests.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Yes, I am opposed to it in its present form.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the motion to recommit, and I first want to say that this is not a motion to kill the bill. This is a motion to recommit that will make the bill fairer and will make it more balanced. The motion to recommit would merely strike the most egregious provisions of this bill, sections 106 and 107, which are known as the judicial review provisions of this bill. In the first instance, Members should be appalled at how this bill came to the floor and how the judicial provisions that are in it got here. We had very short notice to the committees. There was no bill actually introduced. There was a committee print. That means it was never introduced as a bill in the Committee on Resources. Apparently, the majority did not want to expose their bill to public light. Therefore, it being a committee print, there is no legislative history; and this is, in the annals of the Committee on Resources, absolutely unprecedented action. Let me tell my colleagues what the judicial review sections do in this bill. First of all, when a court hears an action, you have before that court in these hazardous fuels actions citizens and Federal agencies and others. This section, adopted in this bill which had no hearings, adopts a standard where the Federal agency decides what is in the public interest. When the issue comes before the court and you have citizens and Federal agencies and others that are before the court, the section that is adopted, the judicial review section, does something which is unprecedented and I do not think has been done in Federal court before. It says that the Federal agency that is acting in the public interest should be given great weight in terms of what they decide. So it tips the scale in favor of the Federal Government, and it basically rigs the system in favor of the Federal agencies. Throughout the debate here today, I have been asking the majority why: Why would you, who favor limited government, who favor smaller government, who are always talking in our committee about the Federal powers being too broad, why would you want to give a Federal agency not only the power to determine the public interest, but when it gets in the court, you say to the Federal Court that this Federal Court has to decide in favor of the agency? Well, the only answer I could get from the other side is that some Senator from the other body introduced an amendment, which never made it out of the Senate, and because she happens to be in our particular party, that that is why this language is good language. Well, she may not be right all of the time. Make no mistake about it, the majority may talk a lot about limited government, but they have a very specific purpose here. They want to give the Federal agencies, which my understanding is the President has requested this authority, unprecedented power in the Federal courts at the expense of citizens. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just urge a vote for the motion to recommit. It makes the bill a more balanced bill, it makes it a fairer bill, and it protects the rights of citizens.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for that introduction. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the issue of how this bill was legislated, because I think it is very important that we understand the process that we went through. The process we used here is an abomination. When we were hearing this bill in the Committee on Resources, we did not even have a bill. It was a committee print is what we are talking about. So we didn't have a bill. We were given very short notice. It was only a matter of days. That committee print was not even heard in committee. It was directly marked up. So we have completely cut out any legislative history for the Committee on Resources. This is something that has been unprecedented. It is something on this floor of the House we should not stand for. That alone, that alone, the violation of the Committee on Rules of ramming through a committee print which is not even a bill, that alone should get Members of Congress mad about voting against this bill, and it should be a bipartisan vote against this rule that is before us today. The thing that I do not understand is why. Why are our friends on the other side of the aisle so worried about letting the public be heard? They have short-changed the public. They have not had a hearing that has allowed the public in. This is something that I think goes to the heart of the democratic process. The other two good, solid reasons to vote against this rule are that amendments in committee, very, very important amendments in this committee, were voted on in committee and yet denied here on the floor in the rule, in this closed rule process. The first one was an amendment that I offered in the Subcommittee on Judicial Review, which was also offered in the Committee on the Judiciary by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Those amendments have been denied in this rule, even though there were close votes, so there is no attention to this on the floor. Judicial review, why is that important? The judicial review provisions in this bill rig the system in favor of the Federal Government. The Federal agencies are favored over citizens. Basically, there are provisions telling the Federal judiciary, telling the judiciary, if there is any doubt here, if there is any ambiguity, decide on behalf of the Federal government. We have never worked the system that way. This is an issue that should be debated on the floor. We have been denied the ability to debate this issue on the floor, and that alone I think, Native Americans were also shut out on an amendment. That is very important. There is a tradition of working in a bipartisan way. The second amendment, in addition to judicial review, the second amendment which was offered in committee on this, apparently there was agreement by the bill's sponsor and by others in the room, saying, yes, we forgot Native Americans, we forgot Native Americans. But I have worked all day today to try to get, and since the committee hearing, a Native American amendment in there. Native Americans lost some of the biggest forests, as members from Arizona know. They lost some of the most largest forests in this devastation, and they should have an amendment, they should be included. We should be able to go forward with a Native American amendment. But, once again, it has been denied. The democratic process has not been followed. Two crucial amendments have been denied on the floor. I would ask that all Members vote to defeat this rule.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor those police officers who devotedly and selflessly work to protect and serve the public on a daily basis. I also pay special tribute to those men and women who have given their lives in the line of duty. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation data, 152 law enforcement officers lost their lives while protecting our communities across America in 2002. Of those 72 died by criminal acts, including 54 officers shot, two stabbed, four fatally injured in assaults, and 12 who were killed when somebody drove a vehicle into them. The other officers died as a result of accidents. During this week of poignant ceremonies, New Mexico remembers three police officers from our State who died last year. We honor Officer Jeffrey Cole Russell of the Albuquerque Police Department, Police Officer Kevin William Schultz of the Pojoaque Pueblo Tribal Police Department, and Deputy Sheriff Damacio Montano of the Valencia County Sheriff's Department. We will never forget these men who made the ultimate sacrifice. All Americans should keep alive the memory of these three brave and heroic men, and recognize the contributions of the countless other law enforcement officers who have either been slain or disabled while performing their duties. For these reasons I am a proud member of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus. Throughout my public career, I have done everything that I can to provide for law enforcement. Whether it is fighting for the COPS program or working to see the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program be reauthorized, I am eternally grateful for the service of our men and women in blue. Sadly, in our society today, unless we are personally affected by violence or disorder, we often do not realize the dedication of our law enforcement officers, and the sacrifices they make to keep our communities safe. ``National Police Week'' is an important time for all Americans to recognize the role law enforcement officers play in safeguarding the rights and freedoms we all enjoy daily and give thanks for their countless hours of service. Mr. Speaker, we owe a debt of gratitude not only to the slain officers who served their communities so courageously by preserving law and order, but also to their families, who have lost a spouse, parent or child. Our law enforcement officers are heroes and we must never forget their contributions and sacrifices--during ``National Police Week,'' they are well remembered.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 100, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. Considering the hundreds of thousands of people serving our country around the world and the many active duty servicemembers currently returning from the Middle East, this is a very timely bill. As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I support strengthening legal protections for those on active duty in the armed forces. Just as we depend on them to defend our country, they depend on us to provide fair and updated benefits and services. This bill updates laws in place to protect servicemembers from being harmed in civil, financial, or legal proceedings. All too often I hear stories of deployed soldiers receiving calls from family that they cannot afford to pay rent and will face eviction, or that debt is piling up, or that the family cannot break a lease in order to move to a more affordable home. This bill, which has the support of many veterans groups and military organizations, as well as the legal community, would help fix those dire situations for those serving in active duty and their families. I am pleased to vote in favor of providing these overdue protections revisions. The passage of H.R. 100 will be a testament to our men and women in uniform--and their families--that their country supports and applauds their courageous service.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, as the national data continue to show how bad this Bush recession really is hurting the American people, the GOP majority has once again missed a golden opportunity to pass an economic growth plan that really helps working men and women, the very people who have suffered the most under this administration's unsound policies. Today, we have before us an irresponsible $550 billion Republican tax bill that is based on the President's goal of eliminating taxes on dividend income and continues the Republican mismanagement of our Nation's economy by recklessly borrowing from future generations to reward the wealthy. I support an alternative economic growth plan that creates over 1 million jobs, provides assistance to individuals, small businesses and States through a fair distribution of benefits without gimmicks, and makes investments in homeland security, infrastructure, and health care. I support a plan that provides for greater economic stability by committing to fiscal responsibility, preserving Social Security, and ensuring minimal long-term debt. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently has reiterated his position that the Nation is best served when the cost of any new tax cuts are offset, something the Rangel plan does. The cost of the Rangel plan is offset by suspending scheduled future tax cuts for the top two income tax brackets-- taxpayers with incomes about $151,300. The plan I support, offered by Mr. Rangel, provides a stark contrast to the Bush administration's indifference to the growing unemployment crisis. Over 2 million job shave been lost since 2001. It is therefore critical that we extend emergency unemployment benefits for another 6 months and also increase benefits by 13 weeks to 26 weeks total. The Rangel plan does exactly that. But again, just like last year, the majority is not addressing these real needs to help the unemployed-- those who are, in fact, most likely to actually spent money and get our economy back on track. We cannot wait for unemployment benefits to expire before we act. Another stark contrast between the Rangel plan and the Bush plan is the assistance provided for State and local governments. With collective State and local deficits of $200 billion from fiscal year 2002-2004, the Federal Government has a major responsibility to help our State and local governments in many key areas such as health care, homeland security and infrastructure. We should provide assistance to State and local governments. This will bolster national security and create job by temporarily expanding the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP). We should target money to Homeland Security and infrastructure projects that are ready to go. The Rangel plan would also expand the child tax credit, thereby covering nearly 2 million additional children and boosting the level of the child tax credit from $600 to $800 per child. The income threshold would be dropped from $10,000 to $7,500 and the percentage of the credit that would be refundable for lower-income taxpayers would be increased from 10 to 15 percent. In addition, I would accelerate the start of marriage penalty relief, boosting current law standard deduction and EITC provisions. I also believe that we should accelerate the 10 percent income bracket and immediately expand the 10 percent marginal income tax rate to 2008 levels, from $6,000 to $7,000 for single individuals and from $12,000 to $14,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Providing the targeted tax relief to this bracket and marginal income tax rate will have a much stronger stimulating effect on the economy instead of targeting the wealthiest in America who will end up saving instead of spending anyway. Furthermore, I believe Congress and the President must focus on job creation for small businesses and foster U.S.-based production by including business investment incentives to create and retain jobs in the United States. This can be done by allowing greater small business expensing and bonus depreciation and by closing the most egregious tax shelter loopholes and corporate expatriation techniques. Under the Rangel plan, small businesses would be allowed to expense up to $75,000 of new investment costs, a $50,000 increase from the current $25,000 that businesses are allowed to expense. Additionally, all companies would benefit from bonus depreciation that is revised to provide for 50 percent bonus depreciation over the next 12 months and a 30 percent bonus for the last half of 2004. Also, the Rangel plan would repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC)/Extraterritorial Income (ETI) Tax Program and replace it with a corporate rate deduction for domestic manufacturers. This would provide American companies with a strong incentive to maintain and expand their operations in the United States, protect and create jobs and allow U.S. manufacturers to remain competitive in the global marketplace. Our country needs responsible tax policies that do not further increase the deficit already built up under this administration's watch. Apparently the majority believes the only way to create jobs is by borrowing more money, ignoring the current deficit, and increasing the national debt. I disagree with this strategy. I disagree with their plan. And I strongly oppose passage of this misnamed jobs and growth plan. Unfortunately, the Rangel plan will not be given the vote it deserves on the House floor today. I am confident that if the American people really knew what was in the Thomas plan, every Member of Congress would hear the outcry from their constituents to vote no on it. Apparently the majority is concerned about the same. How else can one explain the all-too-familiar blow they strike at the Democratic process by not allowing a substitute to come to the floor? I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Thomas plan, vote yes on the motion to recommit and support a responsible and effective stimulus plan.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1350. When Congress made the leap to dramatically change the way the nation treats the education of disabled students in 1975 when it created IDEA, it made a commitment to providing a free, quality education to children who previously had been neglected by the system. This commitment to fund 40 percent of the excess cost of education for children with disabilities was unprecedented. Six million children who had once been forced to seek private education or forego education altogether were given the opportunity that so many children take for granted. At least, that was the idea. Unfortunately, this body has continued to neglect these children by refusing to fully fund the program. Today we had the opportunity to show these children, their parents, and their educators how serious we are about their education--but passing H.R. 1350 will be a failure to do that. Not only does the bill fail to fund IDEA above the 18 percent we currently give to the 40 percent Congress promised, but it actually sets back the education of children with disabilities. In fact, this bill weakens the civil rights protections that were initially established with IDEA, undermines parental involvement and even creates the potential for disabled students to be punished for actions related to their disabilities. When the Majority promises to leave no child behind, does it make an exception for children with disabilities? Many groups, including the PTA, the National Mental Health Association, and the Children's Defense Fund oppose this bill because it falls short of improving education for children with disabilities. It has become clear that this bill favors school administrators--not children, parents, and the teachers who work so hard to give disabled children an equitable education. I strongly support a good public education for all children and I believe that every child is entitled to the same. Those who passed IDEA in 1975 shared that view, and they set a goal to give students with disabilities the treatment and education they deserve. Unfortunately, this bill fails to live up to what the original authors of IDEA intended, and I must vote against it. However, I am committed to special education and I will continue to work to pass a bill that accomplishes the intended goals set out under the original Act.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the previous gentlemen spoke and said that the Democrats have no plan and have no alternative. The gentleman knows that is false. The Democrats have a solid plan for economic growth, tax cuts to the middle class, not to the wealthy, targeting people who are going to spend it rather than those who are going to keep it, tax incentives for small business, which are a solid part of our plan, extending unemployment benefits and helping States with Medicaid funding. The difference is that our plan is fiscally responsible and fast acting and will prime the pump and get the economy going again. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the threats to our constitutional freedoms. On September 11, we saw two planes kill thousands of people in New York. Our country has been in two conflicts overseas since then. There is insecurity in the land. Historically at times like these, Presidents and Congresses have run rough-shod over our constitutional freedoms and taken away individual rights. A few examples in history: When we were about to go to war with the French, the Congress passed and John Adams signed the Alien & Sedition Act which made it illegal to talk against the government and people were thrown in jail for doing so. Abe Lincoln during the Civil War suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. During World War I, we again threw people in jail for speaking against the government. During World War II, we rounded up over 100,000 Japanese-American citizens and put them in internment camps. Fifty years later we realized we had done them wrong, and we apologized and paid them a meager sum. During the McCarthy era in the Cold War, 160 secret hearings were held and lives were ruined if you exercised your constitutional rights. So in sum, war and fear and insecurity can make us lose our moorings. After September 11, we rushed to pass the PATRIOT Act in 6 weeks. The PATRIOT Act has some good provisions which update old laws; but it also seriously undermines the Bill of Rights and many other provisions. Take one, the fourth amendment, which says there shall not be any searches of a person's home without a court issuing a warrant. One of the worst examples of a fourth amendment violation in the PATRIOT Act is a new provision called sneak and peek. That means you can have a secret search of your house. The government can come into your house, they can search it, take things, and you may never learn. Sounds like the fourth amendment out the door. Under the current regime President Bush can label somebody an enemy combatant, and they are thrown into a military brig even if they are an American citizen. There is no contact with the outside world, no attorney, no charges, no trial, and the person may be detained indefinitely. That does not sound like American justice to me. And then just last week over in the United States Senate as the New York Times reports, we had a secret hearing in the Senate Intelligence Committee. The White House and the CIA proposed that the CIA and the military be given authority to collect intelligence on American citizens. Not even during the Cold War did we go this far. We have always kept separate the FBI, which does domestic law enforcement, and the CIA and the military, which deal with threats outside the country. There are many more examples of our rights being eroded today. The President must be held to account for these violations. The Congress must get a grip on these abuses. The Congress should step forward, step up to the plate and review these policies and review these laws. The Congress needs to conduct real oversight in public, not behind closed doors, and needs to protect our constitutional freedoms. Ben Franklin said it best 200 years ago when he said, ``If we surrender our liberty in the name of security, then we shall have neither.''

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. We should be using this opportunity today to pass an effective and balanced energy bill that will help conserve our nation's resources and lessen our dependence on energy sources that are detrimental to our environment and even our national security. Instead, the bill being debated today harms the environment, threatens public health, endangers wildlife, and hurts consumers. I believe a balanced national energy policy would be one that helps consumers by increasing energy production and reducing energy demand. Further, I feel that America's current and future energy needs should be met through a balanced approach that supports our fundamental environmental values. We must focus on becoming more energy efficient, investing in innovative technologies, and ensuring that energy markets are fair and competitive. We must also focus on reducing America's dependence on international oil suppliers and developing clean and renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, this bill accomplishes none of these goals. Before consideration of the bill, I testified before the Rules Committee and requested that I be allowed to offer three amendments. The first would have required retail electricity suppliers to obtain 15% of their power production from a portfolio of renewable energy resources by 2020 and within 5 years add an additional 5%. This would allow us to enhance our nation's energy independence and national security while lowering prices for consumers by mitigating the effects of energy shortages and natural gas spikes. In addition, I believe including a Renewable Portfolio Standard in our nation's energy policy would create jobs and expand economic development, while simultaneously reducing air pollution and the threat of global warming. The second amendment I hoped to bring to the floor was in support of the thousands of farmers, ranchers and homeowners across the west that are directly impacted by oil, gas and coal bed methane development activities on their lands. This amendment would have required surface use agreements between landowners and the oil and gas industry prior to any development of subsurface mineral rights owned by the federal government. Many farmers and ranchers own split estate interests, meaning that they own the surface resources and the federal government owns the subsurface mineral rights that it leases to the oil and gas industry. Currently, it is not required that the oil and gas companies repair and clean up a project site during or after its completion. Instead, the surface use agreements are only voluntary. Oftentimes as a result, many surface owners suffer loss of income, impairment of water quality, erosion and contamination of soil, harm to livestock and wildlife species, and they have no recourse because they did not have surface use agreements with the oil and gas companies. My amendment would have given these landowners the legal recourse they deserve. Unfortunately, neither of these amendments was accepted by the Rules Committee. However, I was able to offer before the full House an important amendment that would strike an unnecessary and potentially dangerous subsidy included in H.R. 6 pertaining to uranium in situ leach mining. As written, the subsidy allots $30 million to the domestic uranium industry. The in situ leach mining procedure could cause radioactive uranium and other toxic chemicals to leach into groundwater. The area where this mining could potentially be undertaken in my district is near a high-quality aquifer, which is the sole source of scarce drinking water for over 10,000 people of the Navajo Nation in New Mexico. This subsidy compounds past disasters by promoting mining that could have dangerous health and environmental implications. Although my amendment was defeated, the roll call made it clear that there is bipartisan backing for striking this unfair and unwise subsidy. As this bill is negotiated in conference, I will continue to work to protect my constituents in New Mexico who have suffered so much from uranium related activities near their homes. As we move into the future, we must act responsibly in ways that take into account the changing landscape of the world's energy situation instead of exacerbating the already dire energy dependence problem our nation faces. Conservation--getting the maximum value out of every bit of energy we use--must become a central feature of our nation's energy philosophy. We praise those who maximize the value of every dollar they spend; we should do the same with our energy. America should prize efficient and productive use of all our important resources, including energy. Conservation is real, achievable, and crucial. Again, in those areas, this energy bill falls short. H.R. 6 weakens consumers protections, allows companies to contaminate water, allots over $18 billion in unnecessary subsidies to big oil and gas corporations, and takes one more step toward drilling in the untouched wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This will not enhance conservation or provide for the security of the energy supply for the American people as proponents of this bill claim. What it will do is reward the energy companies and leave the responsibility of keeping secure the nation's energy supply to yet another generation. It is my hope that a conference committee will help produce a more sound compromise energy bill that does not threaten the future of either the environment or the country's energy needs. I will continue to work to see that our nation implements an energy plan that is balanced and addresses environmental concerns in a way that also provides for our continued economic success.