Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. As a former federal prosecutor and the Attorney General of New Mexico, I have seen first hand that crimes committed with guns are among the most heinous, and should be prosecuted as quickly and forcefully as possible. That is what concerns me most about H.R. 1036. Unfortunately, regardless of the criminal actions taken, it provides the gun industry with unprecedented immunity against civil liability prosecutions arising from such actions. Furthermore, in many cases it exempts manufacturers and dealers from product liability and provides disincentives to the industry to ensure that their products are safe. This legislation radically rewrites well-accepted principles of liability law by depriving gun violence victims of their legal rights in cases involving industry misconduct and negligence. If this bill is enacted, citizen lawsuits will no longer provide the primary mechanism to hold the gun industry accountable for its actions. The bill only holds the gun industry accountable for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product ``when used as intended.'' Furthermore, it only provides a remedy for gun transactions that cause injury if the dealer had knowledge prior to the transaction that the firearm would be used to commit a violent crime or to traffic drugs. This bill diminishes and limits a victim's recourse against intentional and unintentional conduct. Amazingly, this bill is retroactive. It would provide for the dismissal of all pending litigation that falls outside of its limited exceptions. A case that is familiar to us all demonstrates the ramifications of this bill. The legal counsel for the families of the recent sniper shootings in the DC area alleges that a west coast arms dealer ``intentionally and willfully'' chose to sell and distribute firearms in a grossly negligent manner, ignoring state and federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous persons. Furthermore, the families claim that if the dealer had acted responsibly in the sale of its guns, the sniper suspects would not have been able to obtain the assault rifle they used to carry out their shootings. Regardless of the veracity of these allegations, this case would be dismissed under the provisions of H.R. 1036 unless the sniper suspects clearly indicated to the dealer that they intended to carry out their recent shooting spree. I think that goes too far. The bottom line is this legislation is bad public policy. This bill illuminates the majority's willingness to erode an individual's protections from corporate wrongdoing. 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. Chairman, in his State of the Union address to the Nation in January, President Bush acknowledged that the country faces many challenges and rightly said that ``(w)e will not deny, will not ignore, we will not pass on our problems to other Congresses and future generations.'' These were noble words that spoke to the true spirit of America. Unfortunately, the budget conference report denies or ignores many of the challenges we face and passes them along to our children and to our future leaders. By insisting on new tax cuts for the wealthiest that we simply cannot afford, the budget blueprint will explode Federal deficits and debt for years to come. These piles of debt will be passed on to future generations and will severely weaken our ability to meet the funding challenges facing Social Security and Medicare because of the retirement of the baby boom generation. This budget projects record deficits while paving the way for up to $550 billion in new tax cuts. This budget agreement marks the worst deficits in our Nation's history. This historic achievement is at the same time that Republicans control both the Congress and the White House. What a sad legacy that is. The result of this budget will be higher interest rates, the crowding out of private sector investment, and a reduction in long-tern economic growth. Amazingly, in just two and a half years the $5.6 trillion surplus that was projected when President Bush took office has been eliminated. And not surprisingly, to make room for the latest round of non- stimulative tax cuts, the budget conference agreement again proposes cutbacks in domestic priorities like education, health care, transportation, and law enforcement--cuts that would have a significant negative impact on the vast majority of Americans. I am not here just to condemn the Republican plan. In fact, I voted for an alternative, as did a few Republicans who objected to the Speaker's budget plan. The Democratic resolution would have adequately provided for education, would have provided $528 billion for Medicare prescription drug benefit, and would have provided some tax cuts. We wanted to put some money in the pockets of American consumers likely to spend it to give this economy a boost, a jump. We wanted to give some money to businesses to encourage them to invest, some tax cuts to businesses to encourage them to invest. We had tax cuts too, just not as massive as those included in the president's proposal. Our proposal would have been balanced in the year 2010. We accumulated a trillion dollars less debt than the Republicans. We had a budget that was commendable. It was rejected. Mr. Speaker, the sad truth is that this budget takes us further down the wrong path. This policy threatens the long-term fiscal health of our nation. I am proud to vote against this flawed policy.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my distinguished friend, the chairman from Louisiana, makes the point that this is solely a responsible way to help the uranium mining industry. I would point out to the gentleman that the uranium industry, since its beginning, has received $60 billion in subsidies from the Federal Government. We have a serious glut in uranium right now, one, because of governmental policies, and, secondly, because our companies that operate here in the United States cannot compete internationally, and we have this huge glut of uranium on the market right now. So the solution that the gentleman and this bill come up with is to throw more money at an industry and prop it up and encourage that industry to go out and mine in situ in people's groundwater. This is not the way to move. I do not think this is the kind of solution that would help my constituents, it does not help anybody's constituents who live near uranium mining, and I believe we ought to focus on what is going on here. First of all, we are propping up an industry; secondly, we are damaging the groundwater of many people; thirdly, this just is not sound fiscal policy for our Nation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments on this issue. I consider him a good friend. But on this issue I think we have to disagree. They say the uranium market is hurt because of governmental policies. The real facts are that the uranium industry cannot compete internationally. Other countries, namely Canada, are able to produce at far lower prices than the United States. What we are doing here by including this subsidy is propping up a dying industry. Yes, there is a glut in the current uranium market, also created by governmental policies; but why are we giving away taxpayer money to increase the supply even more? What happened to competition? My friends from the other side always talk about competition. This is not competition; this is growing more and more and more supply. This is a very unwise section of this bill, and it should be stricken. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her willingness to come to the floor and clarify the intent of the legislation. I appreciate her efforts on this issue. However, even if the language in the bill were in line with the intent, I still believe my amendment is necessary. This subsidy has dangerous implications for the entire Nation, not just my district. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close debate on my side. Mr. Chairman, this amendment can prevent potential damage from this provision that inflicts enormous, enormous, damage on the health of thousands of Native Americans. But this provision has implications far wider than just my district. It has implications in any district that has uranium and where uranium is mined. The potential long-term damage this section could inflict on the environment is immeasurable. I ask my colleagues to take a close look at this and consider whether or not they might want this dangerous type of mining occurring in neighborhoods of their constituents. I would also ask that they take a look at the fiscal responsibility here. This is an industry which has received $60 billion in subsidies. This is an industry right now where there is a huge glut on the market of uranium, and we are talking once again about throwing $30 million at the industry and propping it up. It does not make a lot of sense, especially in this competitive environment. I would urge my colleagues to look at the groups that are supporting my amendment. We have the Taxpayers for Common Sense, who believe that this is a very serious corporate giveaway. That is one end of the spectrum. And we have most major environmental groups that are supporting this amendment. The leaders of the Navajo Nation for the last two terms have supported this amendment and are against this type of mining on the Navajo Reservation. The Navajos are the largest tribe in the Nation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists is against this amendment. So with that, I would ask all of my colleagues to vote for the Udall amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee on Rules for making this amendment in order. This amendment is a simple amendment with a simple objective: striking section 14209 of the Energy Bill and to protect the health of thousands of residents of the and Navajo Nation. Section 14209 provides a $10 million subsidy over 3 years to promote a highly experimental technology where uranium is mined from groundwater. The problem is, the groundwater is a pure source of drinking water for a community of over 10,000 Navajo Indians. The Navajo community has suffered enough from the effects of uranium mining. Hundreds of families have lost their loved ones and breadwinners to the scourge of uranium mining. During the 1940s through the 1970s, Navajo men mined uranium in dirty mines with high levels of radon. As a result, many contracted lung cancer. The Navajo Nation has seen an epidemic of lung cancer caused by uranium mining. The people of the Navajo Nation and the residents of Crownpoint and Church Rock, do not want this mining to occur in their groundwater. They have suffered enough. They are fighting now against a company in court that is attempting to mine, and they are in court right now. Some of my colleagues have approached me and asked me to withdraw my amendment because they believe that New Mexico was excluded. This is not the case. If it were, I would be pleased that the drinking water and aquifer of my constituents would not be threatened. As written, section 14029 does not preclude uranium mining in New Mexico or anywhere else for that matter. The Congressional Research Service has advised me that, as written, 14029 would permit in situ leach mining in New Mexico. Specifically, if a domestic uranium producer has produced uranium in any of the States listed, Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Utah or Wyoming, and produced uranium in any other State, then that company is eligible for the grants created by this section. Then they are not precluded from doing this procedure anywhere that uranium is located. More importantly though, this is not just about New Mexico. In my opinion, we should not be experimenting in communities' water anywhere. I am trying to protect everyone near uranium mines from having their water supplies polluted. Mr. Chairman, my first and foremost concern in offering this amendment is protecting the health of thousands of Navajos who would be severely impacted by this mining. There are, however, other concerns. This proposed subsidy would also lead to even further unsound fiscal policy. At a time of skyrocketing Federal deficits and an uncertain economic future, we should not be giving away $30 million to the uranium industry. We have too many domestic priorities that are not being met because of policies like this subsidy. Taxpayers for Common Sense views this as an unfair and unwise corporate giveaway. This is also about fairness. It is sadly ironic that we cannot find the financial resources required to fully fund the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, which was intended to clean up the mess left by the uranium industry; but we can find the resources for this $30 million subsidy to pollute more water and potentially ruin the health of more citizens. We do not need more of this type of uranium development. Promoting this type of development does not safely provide new energy sources. Instead, it increases the potential for drastically harming the environment and causing potential harm to thousands. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana says that this is an amendment against the nuclear industry. I am not offering this with that motivation. This is an amendment to protect the environment, and it is to protect the taxpayers' pocketbook.

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the largest supplemental appropriations bill ever brought before the U.S. Congress--a bill totaling $77.9 billion. We live in extraordinary times, Mr. Speaker, so it is no surprise that we are considering a bill requesting an extraordinary amount of supplemental spending. What is extraordinary, however, is that in light of the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the simultaneous obstacles we face in ensuring the security of our citizens here at home, this supplemental bill includes only $4.2 billion for homeland security. Mr. Speaker, our first responders are already under great pressure ensuring the safety of our citizens and I am sure we would all applaud them for their hard work and effort. But our applause is not enough. Our applause does not help them effectively protect our nation. Our applause does not help our first responders become any more prepared for a chemical or biological attack than they, and our nation, already are. Further exacerbating the problem for our first responders is the fact that many men and women who are now overseas either in Iraq, or in support of the military action in Iraq, are reservists or members of the National Guard who are police officers and firefighters when not on active duty. As a result, many of our local police and fire departments are experiencing shortages in the personnel they have available. We must provide more funding for these men and women. For that reason, I opposed the Rule for the debate on the supplemental spending bill. This rule prohibits Mr. Obey from allowing his important amendment that would increase funding by $2.5 billion for Homeland Security programs. Programs that are critical to our nation's security. The Obey amendment would provide critically needed funds for military facilities, nuclear security facilities, port and infrastructure security, and much-needed funds in the amount of $1.2 billion for state and local first responders. It is a shame that Mr. Obey is not allowed to offer his amendment, but it is an even bigger shame that this bill shortchanges our needs for security here at home. That being said, I do believe this is an important bill. I believe that it provides the critical resources to support our men and women currently fighting in the field. Just as we must support our first responders, so too must we support the men and women courageously fighting overseas right now, and we must do so by providing additional funding that will help them conduct their missions. I am hopeful that these funds for those currently in harm's way will help bring a speedier resolution to the operations in which they are participating, and will help contribute to their safety and the speed with which they are able to return to their loved ones back here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I know that my thoughts, and the thoughts of my colleagues are, and should be, with the soldiers fighting overseas. But as we continue to keep them in our thoughts, we must not neglect the security of our nation at home. I hope that Members will work across party lines to provide more funding for our security at home as this bill returns from the conference committee. After all, don't we want to provide the best security possible for our soldiers when they return home? I, for one, certainly do. And I believe my colleagues should as well.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much and thank the gentleman from Oregon for that very kind introduction. Let me also say about our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who has been a real champion on environmental issues in California, she served in the California legislature and I think has been at one point written up as a Profile in Courage on environmental issues because she took on an environmental racism issue in her community and fought it for a number of years and passed a significant piece of environmental legislation. So what the gentlewoman says about these issues, I think she has lived and walked the walk. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has also been a key environmental leader on many, many issues here in the Congress, including energy, which we are talking about tonight. The gentleman has pushed for livable communities. The gentleman has tried to make sure that the Federal Government does everything it can to be a good partner in communities. One of the things we see is the Federal Government owns a lot of the landscape; and because of one of the gentleman's pieces of legislation, we are trying to make sure that the Federal Government in fact is a good neighbor, and when they locate buildings or relocate buildings, that they visit with the locals in addition to going through the normal planning processes. The gentleman has been to my community. I know many of the people very much appreciate the gentleman's efforts in terms of transportation and trying to make sure that we develop sensible transportation alternatives in our communities: allow people to bike to work, have mass transit, have alternatives that make sense from the perspective of energy, which is one of our big topics tonight. I know that the gentleman mentioned earlier the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Rather than go directly into my comments, I wanted to say a few things about what the gentleman was talking about, because the gentleman said he has been there. I have also been there. I just wanted to talk a little bit about how that is a very special place, and I think anybody that is going to vote in this body on this issue ought to take the opportunity to try to go up and visit it. When I say go up and visit it, I do not mean go to Kaktovik, the little village up on the very upper end, which is a community that has a lot of problems but does not represent at all the environment in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. What I did was I spent a week in this whole area, floating on a river by the name of the Hula Hula River, named after the whalers that came in the area hunting down whales, Hawaiian whalers; and they called the river the Hula Hula. In the course of floating out of this river, it floats out of the Brooks Range. It is probably one of the clearest, most pristine streams you have ever seen. We took the opportunity to stop and fish in the Hula Hula River for Arctic char. We saw a variety of wildlife. We saw grizzly bears, musk oxen, herds of caribou. Coming back from that trip, and after experiencing that and camping in this area, I cannot think of any area that is more deserving of being a wilderness area than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The argument is that we need to raid the oil that is there. In fact, what the situation is on the whole coastal area in Alaska is that 97 percent, 97 percent of that coast is open to exploration, is open to oil production, and just a little part of it we are trying to preserve as a wildlife refuge. It has been a wildlife refuge, it was put in many years ago under a Republican President, and we do not see that bipartisanship today on the environment, by the way. So I think the gentleman's remarks are right on point when it comes to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I also would like to say a few words about the energy bill that we are going to start debating this week, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. During the last Congress, the House spent countless hours debating a similar bill. Unfortunately, one of the major provisions in the last energy bill on which Members could not agree was renewable energy. As my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon, has said earlier, the Republicans are putting off dealing with our Nation's energy dependence problem and leaving it to legislators of a future generation. Their theme seems to be, ``Why do today what we can leave for the next generation to deal with in the future?'' Last month I introduced legislation that establishes a Federal renewable energy portfolio and establishes standards in that area for certain retail electric utilities. There are some who say that a long- term sustainable energy plan is impossible, or that renewable energy and energy efficiency are just dreams and that the U.S. will never be able to break its reliance on traditional energy sources, like oil and coal. I disagree, and I know the gentleman from Oregon disagrees; and now, in the post-September 11 world, as we are in the midst of a war with Iraq, the renewed conflict in the Middle East shows us that we cannot continue to rely on imported oil from that region. When my father, Stewart Udall, was Secretary of the Interior, and this shows the dramatic change in our society, what happened in the last generation, the U.S. imported when he was Secretary of the Interior in the 60s 20 percent of its oil. My father argued that we should not import more than 20 percent because this was a national security issue if we were relying too much on one area of the world. Our people may not know it, but today we import 53 percent of our oil, 47 percent which comes from the OPEC countries; and by 2020, the United States will import 62 percent of its oil unless we change the way we are doing business here in the United States. Even more concerning, world oil production is expected to peak sometime in the next few decades, even some say as early as 2007. That means as energy demand increases more and more rapidly, the world's oil supply will be proportionately diminished. Energy production has brought tremendous prosperity and allowed us to grow our economy at unprecedented rates. However, nonrenewable forms of energy are responsible for many of the greatest environmental threats to America's well-being. For these reasons, I am particularly interested in a renewable portfolio standard. I believe that an RPS paves the road for development and investment in clean energy technologies and local economic development. RPS, in my mind, clearly serves as a model for tomorrow's small and medium businesses to draw a profit from their own environmental responsibility. As a Nation of what I call ``petroholics,'' we claim only 2 percent of our electricity is generated by nontraditional sources of power, such as wind, solar and geothermal energy. Instead of pushing for the exploration of oil development and contributing to this country's addiction to oil, we should be pushing for the exploration of renewable energy development. I believe this bill goes a long way to develop a strategy for putting renewable energy into place. With that, let me just say to the gentleman from Oregon that I think we need to focus as a country on renewable energy. We obviously need a strong domestic industry, the production of oil. But as many of us know, that peaked in the 1970s; and we are headed down. The rest of the country and the rest of the world, in particular the rest of the world, are going to be going after more and more limited supplies of oil. So the further we can get ahead of that curve, the better off we are going to be. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for providing leadership on this, for being on the floor and fighting for these issues; and I hope that on some of these battles we can be victorious in the coming weeks.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. This legislation provides financial relief to the Postal Service in a time of great need. By enacting this legislation, we will help the Postal Service carry out its stated mission of providing universal service--the idea that mail service in our rural areas should be as speedy, efficient, and inexpensive as mail service in our largest cities. In my district in New Mexico where there are numerous rural communities, this mission is especially important. Additionally, by providing relief for the Postal Service, we can keep postal rates stable until 2006. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the steps this Congress has taken toward helping the Postal Service to carry out their vital services. I thank my colleagues for showing their support not only for the Postal Service and its many employees, but for all communities throughout the country.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the gentleman from South Carolina's motion to instruct conferees on the budget resolution. This common sense, non-binding motion will restore some sanity to this budget. Put simply, Mr. Spratt's resolution rejects cuts to education, health care, and veterans' programs by urging the House and Senate conferees, on a deficit-neutral basis, to restore these cuts. The House budget is so extreme that these cuts are not included in the Senate-passed budget or even the Bush distraction's budget blueprint. It is sadly ironic that at the same time we send our young people abroad to fight a war, the majority is advancing a budget that will force those same young people to pay the bill for their recklessness. By showering the most privileged among us with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks and running up more than a trillion dollars in debt, this budget poses a serious threat to the long-term economic well-being of the nation. Month after month, more American families are suffering from the failure of this Administration's irresponsible economic strategy. With the economy hemorrhaging jobs for every sector, an increasing number of Americans are losing faith that they will ever find a job. With this budget, the majority has turned their backs on the problems of American families. Instead of offering new ideas and fresh solutions, the Administration continues to push a tired ideology that has turned our once-robust economy into a job-destroying machine. I believe we are obligated to help our States, counties and cities meet the every-increasing burdens of skyrocketing programs. I believe we are obligated to reject the drastic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. I believe we are obligated to reject the cuts to education funding, including school lunches and student loans. I believe we are obligated to reject the majority's cuts to the critical programs that benefit our veterans. I believe we are obligated to reject the cuts to assistance programs for the working poor--especially important during this economic downturn. Most important though, this budget will hang more than a trillion dollars of debt around the necks of our children and grandchildren. They will be paying for this mistake for decades to come. The President's own chief economist, in his academic writings, agrees that the chronic deficits perpetuated by this budget will raise interest rates, and cut off economic growth for the future. I will continue to fight for a budget that contains a fiscally responsible stimulus plan that cuts taxes today, while meeting our obligation to prepare for the future. this is not a time to shrink from our responsibilities to one another. We need to meet the test of this demanding movement in our history. I thank Ranking Member Spratt, for offering this reasonable motion to instruct and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo), chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for their work and commitment to expanding small business opportunities for all Americans and for working to bring this bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank the staff members of the committee for their hard work on this legislation and my colleagues who supported this bill by joining me as cosponsors. The important legislation before us today, H.R. 1166, allows Small Business Development Centers to apply for an additional Small Business Administration grant to provide specified services to assist with outreach, development, and enhancement on Indian lands of small business start-ups and expansions that are owned by Indian tribal members, Alaskan Natives, or Native Hawaiians. This legislation ensures participation of governing bodies of Indian tribes, Alaska Native entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations. Under H.R. 1166, States receiving a Small Business Development Center program grant are required to request advice from the appropriate governmental organization on how best to provide assistance to such members and where to locate satellite centers to provide such assistance. Our intent is to ensure these business development tools are provided in a culturally sensitive way. Mr. Speaker, small businesses create 75 percent of all new employment opportunities, make up 99 percent of all employers, and provide almost half of all sales in this country. As many of us have said before and will say again, small businesses are the fuel for the engine of economic development. That is why it is so imperative that we take steps to help ensure that small business development reaches the places in this country where economic prosperity has yet to be realized. The current economic situation on Native American lands is very grave. However, it does hold promise for the future. The average unemployment rate of these lands is over 10 times the national average. At the same time, small business creation is at an all-time high. Native American and Native Alaskan-owned small businesses grew by 84 percent from 1992 to 1997, and their gross receipts grew by 179 percent in that same time period. Compare those figures to an overall small business growth rate of 7 percent and to the gross receipt growth of 40 percent, and we can see why there is reason to be optimistic about the future of small business development on tribal lands. It is with these facts in mind and the desire to help Native American, Native Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs capitalize on these positive developments that I introduce this legislation. My bill ensures that Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians seeking to create, develop, and expand small businesses have full access to the counseling and technical assistance available through the SBA's SBDC program. The business development tools offered by the SBDCs can assist Native Americans with the information and opportunity to build sustainable businesses in their communities. In an effort to ensure the quality and success of the program, the proposal requires the SBA to include several items in the grant application. In addition to the obvious requirements like requiring the applicant's goals and objectives, we also must see the applicant's experience in conducting programs on ongoing efforts designed to assist the business skills of small business owners. Also the capability of such applicant to provide training and services to a representative number of Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians is also important to this process. I have the great honor of representing 14 Pueblos, the Hickory Apache Nation, and a portion of the Navajo Nation. These communities are in great need of economic development, and it is clear we can do more to aid Native American entrepreneurs not only in my district but throughout the country as well. Not enough has been done to assist Native Americans in building their businesses. I hope to change this situation with the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo).

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance). He is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Rural Enterprises, Agriculture, and Technology. (Mr. BALLANCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentlewoman for her service on the Committee on Small Business. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) who also serves on the Committee on Small Business and is a hardworking member on that committee. (Mr. CASE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his management of this bill and for his hard work here on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Small Business and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for their commitment to passing this important legislation. I have high hopes for the impact of this legislation and the impact it will have on small business and economic development on tribal lands. As some of my colleagues have mentioned today, the average unemployment rate of Native American communities, particularly on reservations, is around 45 percent, while one-third of Native Americans currently live below the Nation's poverty level. Mr. Speaker, this situation is unacceptable. The persistent poverty that is prevalent on tribal lands must come to an end, and I believe that passing H.R. 1166 is an important step towards achieving this goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. And just one moment before I yield back, let me also thank the committee staff, my former legislative director, Tony Martinez; my legislative assistant, Mike Collins; and Michael Day, the minority staff director of the Committee on Small Business. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has no further speakers, I am prepared to close.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Small Pox Vaccination Compensation Fund Act. We should give pause about voting for a smallpox bill that does not safeguard the health, safety and livelihood of workers asked to volunteer for the smallpox vaccination. This bill is opposed is by a number of groups, including the International Association of Fire Fighters and the American Nurses Association. There has been a great reluctance among health care workers and first responders to risk the loss of health and income without an adequate safety net for themselves and their families. While the legislation is promised on the assumption that workers will be eligible for workers' compensation in the event of an injury, the reality is that, in most states, workers cannot depend on this. In fact, there are only 14 states where it appears certain that claims for benefits will be honored by the state workers' compensation system. Therefore, workers who are permanently and totally disabled will be eligible only for this bill's maximum benefit of $262,100. This represents about five years' wages for the average nurse. For a worker who becomes partially disabled either temporarily or for life, the maximum benefit payable is only $50,000. If the aim of the legislation is to encourage workers to be vaccinated, this bill will not do the job. Workers will continue to be reluctant to be vaccinated in the absence of assurances that the economic security of their families will not be jeopardized. I also object to the bill's requirement that workers receive the vaccination within 120 days of the date regulations are issued. Any worker who is vaccinated under the Secretary's declaration must be eligible for federal compensation. It is punitive to deny compensation to a worker who participates at a late date. The legislation fails to ensure that the smallpox program will be carried out safely, in stark contrast to the program in place for military personnel. The bill does not establish any standards for ensuring that workers are properly educated and medically screened prior to volunteering for the vaccination. A careful program to screen out workers with contraindications will not only save lives, it will reduce the amount of federal money needed for compensation. The legislation also fails to include requirements for monitoring those who are vaccinated to catch adverse reactions before they develop into life threatening complications. There is also no funding for state and local public health departments to carry out the program safely. Another significant flaw in the bill is that funding for the compensation program is not mandatory. Workers who have lost their health and livelihood should not have to wage a fight for compensation each year during the appropriations process. The legislation also fails to include a table of injuries that ensures that workers will be awarded compensation quickly. After years of experience with the smallpox vaccine, there are injuries, that occur within specific timeframes, that are known to be caused by the vaccine. This schedule of injuries must be included to ensure that compensation will be quick and certain. Otherwise, workers cannot be certain before receiving the vaccine that the most likely serious injuries will qualify for compensation. Unfortuantely, but not surprisingly, the House Rules Committee has denied an opportunity for an alternative measure to be on the floor. Had the Capps-Waxman substitute been allowed, I would have supported it. In contrast to the proposal designed by the Bush administration and introduced by Representative Burr, the Capps-Waxman substitute includes measures to safeguard the health and safety of workers asked to volunteer for the smallpox vaccination program. Moreover, the Capps- Waxman substitute better addresses the concerns of workers who fear that a serious injury or death from the smallpox vaccine would lead to economic catastrophe for themselves and their families. As a result, the Capps-Waxman substitute will provide for a safer and more effective smallpox vaccination program. The Burr legislation is deeply flawed and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the seventieth anniversary of the Civilian Conservation Corps, and to pay tribute to the commendable service its members offered our nation. Created by President Franklin Roosevelt on March 31, 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps had a profound impact on this nation, helping to sustain the United States through the depths of the Depression, and setting a precedent for other federal agencies to carry on the diverse missions of the Civilian Conservation Corps. Within days after his presidential inauguration, Franklin Roosevelt initiated plans for the Civilian Conservation Corps, citing the need for an organization that would provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of unemployed young men aged 18 to 25. President Roosevelt declared that the Civilian Conservation Corps would ``conserve our precious natural resources and pay dividends to the present and future generations. More important, we can take a vast army of the unemployed out into healthful surroundings.'' The Civilian Conservation Corps' intention was not only to provide services to the United States but also to give the unemployed an opportunity to live in healthful surroundings with steady pay, room, board, and clothing. During the nine years the Civilian Conservation Corps was in operation, more than 3 million men were involved in the program nationally, working on projects like dam improvement, tree planting, laying telephone lines, and creating trails. Almost 55,000 men served on projects throughout New Mexico. More than 32,000 of them were residents of New Mexico. By July 1, 1933, a quarter of a million enrollees had enlisted in the Civilian Conservation Corps, making it the fastest large-scale mobilization of men in U.S. history. The enrollees enlisted for six months with the option to re-enroll for another six months or a maximum of two years. They worked forty-hour weeks and received thirty dollars a month. Each month, they required the men to send twenty-five dollars to their families to help them through the difficulties of the Depression. The Civilian Conservation Corps provided members with the opportunity to learn a new skill and allowed them to attend classes to further their education. More than 100,000 men were taught to read and write with the aid of the Civilian Conservation Corps's education classes. The accomplishments the Civilian Conservation Corps achieved in its nine-year existence are impressive. Historical areas in Jamestown, Williamsburg, Yorktown, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania were restored and developed by the Corps members. At the program's peak, there were over 500 Civilian Conservation Corps camps in national, state, and local parks. Civilian Conservation Corps workers cleared trails, built buildings and shelters, fought forest fires, planted trees, and made other improvements to parks in all the states, territories, and possessions. The three million men planted a total of 2.3 billion trees, spent 6.4 million days fighting forest fires and eradicated diseases and pests. These accomplishments contributed to the Civilian Conservation Corps' lasting environmental legacy. Today, agencies such as Americorps, the Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service are continuing the tradition of the Civilian Conservation Corps by instilling a sense of value for our natural environment as well as for national service. Because of its major presence in New Mexico, the Civilian Conservation Corps worked on several projects throughout the state, including Rattlesnake Springs and Bandelier National Monument, aimed at benefiting both its members and residents of New Mexico. The men of the Civilian Conservation Corps also developed Hyde, Elephant Butte, Conchas, Bottomless Lake, and Santa Fe River Parks, among others. Communities across the country benefited from the hard toil of the Civilian Conservation Corps. The camps helped local economies, bringing large numbers of consumers to the towns' stores and industries. More importantly, they aided the communities in times of crisis, searching for missing persons, fighting fires, and offering assistance to residents during snow and ice storms. Today, the legacy of the Civilian Conservation Corps lives on in the New Mexico Youth Conservation Corps Act, which was adopted by the state Legislature in 1992. YCC provides employment for young people in projects that conserve the state's natural resources. The YCC provides a $1,000 tuition voucher as additional compensation for those who serve. The voucher may be used at any institution of higher education in the state of New Mexico. Besides offering the members an opportunity to work, the Civilian Conservation Corps provided long-lasting friendships and ties that have endured over the seventy years since the Corps' inception. This sense of loyalty and pride extended to an unquestionable sense of pride for our country that is almost unparalleled. The work of the Civilian Conservation Corps remains as a monument to the young men who dedicated their lives to mending and preserving our natural resources. These men have earned the respect and honor of our nation. I offer my heartfelt thanks to the members of the Civilian Conservation Corps and congratulations on their seventieth anniversary.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong disappointment in the House Leadership's politics-as-usual tactics that effectively continue to hold the AMBER bill hostage, a word I do not use lightly considering the gravity of this important legislation. Yesterday, the House had yet another opportunity to expedite the enactment of a national AMBER Alert System. The AMBER bill has had strong bipartisan support for several months now. The national alert system would be law today but for Leadership's permitting Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner to hinder passage of a widely supported stands alone AMBER bill. Instead of a simple House bill narrowly tailored to address the abduction of missing children in the United States, the Chairman instead presented for a vote a broader and more complicated bill riddled with controversial provisions. Yet as a result of yesterday's vote on the rule for the Sensenbrenner bill, the national AMBER Alert System faces further delay and an uncertain outcome due to the impending conference with the Senate. The Senate first passed a clean AMBER bill six months ago, and did so again this past January, both times by unanimous consent. H.R. 412, the popular bipartisan bill that I proudly and fervently cosponsored in the House that same month, contains the same language as the uncontroversial Senate bill. However, Chairman Sensenbrenner has refused to allow his committee to consider H.R. 412 as a freestanding bill and instead insists on pushing his version containing unrelated provisions that the Senate has previously contested. As such, the debate of what should be a simple, common sense proposal must continue. Prolonging the debate on this important legislation is outrageous and unnecessary. The AMBER Alert System is a proven and invaluable tool for aiding the recovery of abducted children. Sadly though, children continue to go missing in this country every day. How many of these will be affected by the failure to enact a national AMBER Alert bill in a timely manner? The Congress needed to enact this critically important legislation sooner rather than later. Accordingly, I reiterate my disappointment in the political wrangling that continues to prolong this bill's eventual presentation to the President.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we are at war in Iraq. In the past, when our President has made the decision to commit to the use of force, the Congress has always come together to speak with one voice, for one purpose: to support the efforts of our troops, and to pray for their courage, their success, and their safe and quick return home. While I have stated my own opposition in the past to military intervention without our allies in the United Nations, and I have heard from thousands of constituents who shared those reservations about unilateral action, I today stand solidly behind our men and women in uniform. As the debate over whether or not to go to war with Iraq has been in the forefront in the minds of many Americans, there is one segment of our society that has been relatively overshadowed. Military families. For the past seven months, as we debated our policy in Iraq, I have heard from mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, cousins and friends, who have been concerned about a loved one being sent overseas to fight this war. They asked me, ``Congressman, when we go to war, will you and the others support our troops when they are over there?'' I pledged to do exactly that, and I honor that promise today as their loved one enters the dangerous phase of the war. More than anything, these young Americans need to know they have the backing of their fellow countrymen as they carry out their missions. As a member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, I have heard from many that recall their service who have recalled there was no greater asset to company morale than the knowledge that their citizens in the United States stood behind them. New Mexico has many young people that are currently involved in the Iraqi effort. Our three Air Force Bases--Cannon, Holloman, and Kirtland--have deployed over 1,000 personnel to the Middle East. These are not faceless, nameless machines. These are people that have left loved ones behind. New Mexicans are proud of these men and women, along with other Americans from all fifty states that are participating in the endeavor. Our prayers are with them, and we look forward to their speedy success and return home. I have tremendous confidence in the men and women of our armed services to bring this conflict to a successful conclusion. Yet, this support for the effort is accompanied by a deep sense of anxiety and concern. Mr. Speaker, nobody wants war. The death, destruction and misery of war are things that we should never ignore and we cannot forget. When our troops are called to defend our nation and international peace, we do so with a heavy heart but strong confidence that we will prevail. While I remain unequivocal in my support of these men and women, I am deeply disappointed that the House Republican leadership has chosen to bring forward such a divisive resolution to the floor. Unlike our colleagues in the Senate, who passed a noncontroversial and bipartisan resolution in their chamber earlier this evening, the House Republican leadership has chosen to craft a resolution with some provisions that are troubling. It is clear that even during a war, the Speaker and his team will continue to play political games. It is obvious that Republican leaders are hoping that by including contentious language they can break apart the unity that I believe the House has for our troops. Despite some of my concerns over some of this maneuvering, my support of our New Mexico men and women and the ones they have left behind far outweighs that. My thoughts and prayers are with our armed forces personnel and their families. At this time of national crisis, our troops and their families must know that their nation is behind them, they are forever our heroes, and they have our full support. I also want to reassure our future veterans that I will continue to work throughout my tenure in Congress to maintain and expand the benefits that they and their families have earned. The beneflts these men and women earn are but a small gesture of repayment for sacrifices and courage that can never be quantified. Mr. Speaker, I hope this conflict is over as quickly as possible, with the least number of casualties on both sides. I yearn for nothing more than a peaceful and prosperous future for America, Iraq, and the entire world.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Majority's fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution because this resolution is unrealistic in reflecting the spending realities that our nation will face. Never in the history of our country has a Congress or a President dared to reward the wealthiest at a time of recession and war while asking the rest of America for painful sacrifice. If you believe seniors, veterans, and children are the problem, then the Majority has a budget solution for you. This shameful plan cuts funding for nearly every federal program, while at the same time making way for excessive tax cuts that will explode the deficit further and do nothing to help our economy. This Budget Resolution contains deep and widespread cuts in every basic domestic program except Social Security and military retirement. The budget would require congressional committees to cut mandatory programs by $470 billion over the next ten years. The cuts are reminiscent of those proposed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995 and included in the Contract with America budget legislation that former President Clinton vetoed that year. While requiring deep cuts in domestic programs, the budget makes room for most for the President's large tax-cut package, including $1.4 trillion in tax cuts through 2013. The tax cuts in the ``growth'' package alone would cost $725 billion over ten years and would, according to the Tax Policy Center, result in tax reductions averaging $90,000 each in 2003 for those Americans who have incomes of more than $1 million. Unfortunately, 35 percent of New Mexico taxpayers would get no tax cut at all under the Bush plan, and 53 percent of New Mexico taxpayers would get a cut of less than $100. Mr. Chairman, according to official projections by the Congressional Budget Office, budget deficits will turn to surpluses by 2008 if Congress refrains from enacting any further tax cuts or program increases, with the budget running a net surplus of $0.6 trillion over the period from 2003 through 2013. As is widely recognized, however, these projections are too optimistic: they do not include the large and inevitable cost of providing relief from the exploding scope of the Alternative Minimum Tax; they include no allowance for a war with Iraq; and they assume that various ``temporary'' tax credits will expire on schedule even though Congress nearly always extends them. Reflecting the cost of these three omitted items adds approximately $1 trillion in deficits over ten years. The most reprehensible component of the House budget, as with its Senate counterpart, is that as the United States has begun ``Operation Iraqi Freedom'' neither measure sets aside one penny for this war with Iraq. The Bush administration has resolutely refused to offer cost estimates of war or early reconstruction despite requests from those on both sides of the aisle. Leaders in both parties have expressed increasing frustration that the potential bill for war and rebuilding Iraq still remain a mystery. Mr. Chairman, with nearly a quarter of a million young Americans crossing the Iraqi border this House is on the verge of approving a nightmare budget that sets aside no money for this effort. Instead of sticking our heads in the budgetary sand and ignoring the war's price tag, we need to be honest with American taxpayers and ourselves. To pass a budget plan including large tax cuts without attempting even to estimate the war and postwar reconstruction costs is breathtakingly irresponsible. I oppose the Majority's Budget Resolution because: It Fails to Promote Economic Growth--Instead of Creating Both Short-Term & Long- Term Economic Growth. It Fails to Provide a Meaningful Prescription Drug Plan--Instead of Investing in An Affordable Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Available to All Seniors. It Embraces Fiscally Irresponsible Tax Cuts Totaling $1.35 Trillion-- Instead of Embracing Responsible Budgeting. It Makes Substantial Cuts to National Priorities--like Education and Health Care--Instead of Funding Key National Priorities like the ``Leave No Child Behind Act''. It Cuts Veterans' Benefits and Freezes Homeland Security Funding-- Instead of Providing For Our Veterans and Giving Our First Responders the Tools they Need to Protect Our Homeland. In closing, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier we should be honest with the American taxpayers and with ourselves that the responsible thing to do is not pass this budget until we have the war supplemental figures before us and can reach consensus on other key federal programs.