Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the House is engaged in a great and serious debate on an issue of incredible importance; and, given the strong arguments on both sides, we may have missed the fact that we actually agree on many points. We all agree with the President that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. We all agree with the President that both Iraq and the world would be better off without him. We all agree with the President that Iraq must be rid of its weapons of mass destruction. So, as the President said on Monday night, we all agree on the goal. The issue is how best to achieve it. Right now, we have two choices. We can vote for the resolution before us, or we can vote against it. If we vote for it we are, in effect, granting the President unprecedented authority to launch a unilateral, preemptive strike against Iraq. Much has been made of the fact that the resolution is not the blank check originally submitted by the President, that concessions have been made, that under the current resolution the President is required to exhaust all diplomatic measures before launching an attack on Iraq, that the President is required to give Congress prior notice of such an attack. Rhetoric and semantics aside, this is still a blank check. The President alone makes the final determination of exhaustion of diplomatic remedies. This resolution simply adds a step to the process. It will not have an impact on the final decision. It will not give Congress a greater role in the decision making. Notice to Congress is a mere formality. Sadly, proper deference has not been given to the authority vested in the Congress by the Constitution to exercise the power to declare war. The Founders must have believed, as I do now, that the power to wage war is too awesome a power to vest in the executive. War is too dangerous and too important a matter to be left to the discretion of one man or woman. This war would be especially dangerous. We would be acting alone, not only without allies but also with the hostile condemnation of the rest of the Arab world. We would undermine the war against terrorism and, indeed, increase the risk of future terrorist attacks against our own country. We would undermine the authority and mission of the United Nations, our best hope for a peaceful solution. It is dangerous to go forward without knowing how long this war will take; without knowing how many lives will be lost, military and civilian; how much it will cost; how much of a drain it will be on our already dangerously weak economy; how long it will take to rebuild a devastated Iraq; and whether Iraq will ever be a viable democracy. So, before we vote, we must ask, why now? Why the rush? There is too much danger lurking in the unknown and the untried. With the election only weeks away, there is too much of the taint of political expediency to gain the trust of our international friends. I cannot support this resolution. I will support the United Nations leading an international coalition to disarm Iraq. At the very least, we should give the U.N. a chance before we embark on the dangerous path this resolution takes us. I will vote against H.J. Res. 114.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the distinguished gentleman from Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 5083, a bill which I introduced which will name the United States Courthouse in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young); the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and the committee for favorably reporting this bill to the floor. I would also like to thank the eight members of the Hispanic Caucus who lent their names as original cosponsors of this bill. Born on Christmas of 1926 in Santa Rosa, New Mexico, Santiago Campos served in the United States Navy and eventually received his law degree from the University of New Mexico in 1953, graduating first in his class. From 1954 to 1957, Santiago worked as the Assistant and First Assistant Attorney General for the State of New Mexico. In 1978, Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal Bench by President Jimmy Carter. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from February 5, 1987, to December 31, 1989, and took senior status December 26, 1992. Judge Campos stood as a pillar, both in the community and on the bench, and was the moving force in reviving the Federal Courthouse in Santa Fe. Judge Campos worked closely with the General Services Administration in Fort Worth, Texas, and with the Santa Fe Historical Preservation Office to transform the Santa Fe U.S. Courthouse into the beautiful, active place it is today. Judge Campos' dedication and fairness were widely recognized throughout the State of New Mexico. As the first Hispanic in New Mexico to be appointed to the Federal bench, Judge Campos broke barriers and became a role model to aspiring lawyers, especially Hispanic lawyers, throughout the State. His colleagues remember him as a supportive friend, a cheerful mentor and a first class judge. As a Federal prosecutor I argued cases before Judge Campos on a number of occasions. He was very active in his courtroom and often became more involved in his cases than other judges, while still allowing a lawyer to try his own case. Just as he balanced the scales of justice, he balanced the scales of life, never void of humor, courage, humility and respect. Even when Judge Campos was diagnosed with cancer, he continued to fight. He fought with reason and he fought with laughter. He remained resolute until his death in January 2001. To Judge Campos' daughters, Teresa, Tina, Miquela and Rebecca, I would like to say that your father's name will never be forgotten. To his wife, Patsy, your husband's legacy will live on through this courthouse bearing his name. To his grandchildren and great- grandchildren, it is my hope that your generation will continue to uphold the ideals, standards and compassion of Judge Campos. Mr. Speaker, it was a great privilege and honor for me to introduce this legislation which received the unanimous endorsement of the Judges of the Tenth Circuit Court, District Judges of the District Court of New Mexico, and a bipartisan group of New Mexico State legislators. Like the clerks who served with him, the lawyers who argued cases in front of him, and his friends and family, I look forward to seeing the name of Judge Santiago E. Campos inscribed in the stone of the U.S. Courthouse in Santa Fe. I urge my friends and colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the passage of H.R. 4085, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2002. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this very important legislation. Throughout the history of our great nation, the members of the U.S. Armed Forces have risen to the challenge of defending our democracy and freedom. However, in retirement and in periods of disability, these brave men, women, or their surviving spouses, frequently face a new challenge--the monthly struggle to make ends meet. H.R. 4085 will help alleviate these monetary concerns through a cost of living increase in all veterans' benefits, and will provide a greater sense of financial security to spouses that survive the veteran into their older years. I believe that we must continue to show our well-deserved respect and gratitude to the retired and disabled members of our military forces, and appropriately compensate them and their loved ones for their sacrifices. Accordingly, I would like to reiterate my support for the passage of this important bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3731, to increase funding for State Approving Agencies (SSA's). I am a cosponsor of this important legislation and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. SAA's promote and safeguard quality education and training programs for all veterans and for other eligible persons. They protect the GI Bill resources available for those programs, programs proving beneficial to veterans in a wide variety of ways. They assure greater educational opportunities and more opportunities to meet the changing needs of our veterans. The need to increase funding for SAA's primarily reflects the new SAA duties in occupational licensing and credentialing and veteran, servicemember and employer outreach in each State. In recent years, Congress has increased SAA responsibilities, most recently through enactment of P.L. 107-103, the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001. This landmark legislation increased the basic GI Bill benefit by 19 percent in January 2002 and will further increase the benefit by 30 percent in October 2003 and 39 percent in October 2004. However, SAA funding was capped at $13 million without an annual increase from FY95 to FY2000. Congress did increase SAA funding to $14 million, but only for FY01 and 02. If Congress does not act to increase funding for FY03, the SAA budget reverts back to the $13 million level, which, when combined with the growth in workload for SAA's under new laws, leaves the SAA's lacking the necessary resources to fulfill their responsibilities. H.R. 3731 increases SAA annual funding from $14 million to $18 million, with a three percent increase the following two years. Furthermore, under H.R. 3731, New Mexico's funding levels for SAA's is estimated to rise to a level of $147,612, an increase of $5,677. If action is not taken on this bill, funding for this program will decrease by one million dollars nationwide, which will result in a loss of jobs nationwide. If we do not act, veterans will lose important services. Therefore I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3731. You will be supporting veterans' educational rights; service members who will be returning to civilian life ready to contribute to this great nation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor and privilege to have the opportunity to speak today in support of H.R. 5427, the Joe Skeen Federal Building Designation Act. The honor of speaking in support of this bill, however, pales in comparison to the honor of having the opportunity to serve as a Member of Congress with Joe. It is difficult to capture with words the impact and significance that Joe has meant, not only to New Mexicans, but to the citizens of the United States and the institution of the U.S. Congress as well. It is no secret that he has been an incredibly effective legislator on behalf of his constituents and that he has been an incredible asset to his party and the entire Congress. No doubt my colleagues will list many of his legislative accomplishments and accolades he has earned during his remarkable life. The list is impressive. But these are but a small part of the fabric of Joe's character. Throughout his years of service, he has been a model of integrity and truth. He always done what he believed in his heart to be true, and he has always worked in a bipartisan way to accomplish important work. During a time of increasing cynicism towards politics and politicians by the media and the electorate, Joe Skeen is a man who exemplifies what is good and what is right in our political system. Joe, thank you for your service to New Mexico and to our country, but, most of all, thank you for your friendship. You will be sorely missed by all.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support of Ms. Carson's resolution and my even stronger support of Amtrak. As Ms. Carson's resolution recognizes, Amtrak provided a vital transportation alternative during the weeks and months following the attacks of September 11th. The importance of Amtrak, however, goes far beyond simply providing an alternative mode of transportation in times of crisis. Amtrak serves more than 500 stations in 46 states, provides employment to thousands of workers, and provides a significant economic impact to small communities throughout the country. Specifically, in my state of New Mexico the most recent figures show that New Mexico Amtrak ridership totaled 95,278 passengers. Amtrak also employed 63 New Mexicans totaling wages of $3.62 million. Three Amtrak routes run through New Mexico; the Southwest Chief route, the Texas Eagle route, and the Sunset Limited route. All three of these lines are of vital importance to the number of small communities through which they run. Communities such as Raton, Las Vegas, and Gallup, all three of which are in the 3d Congressional District, which I represent, depend heavily on the Amtrak passengers to bring their dollars to these local economies. Without Amtrak, these communities would experience devastating economic hits that would threaten the very existence of these wonderful places. That is why it is so important that we provide Amtrak with the level of funding they have requested--the level of funding they deem necessary to maintain and improve their existing services. The President's request of $521 million will result in a severe cutback of Amtrak's services, which will, in turn, result in a devastating impact on the communities that Amtrak currently serves. I urge my colleagues to not only support Ms. Carson's resolution, but also support an increase to $1.2 billion of funding for Amtrak.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the world watched with horror the terrorist attack on the United States. Congress acted by granting President Bush authority to mount a strong response. Congress appropriated money to rebuild New York and the Pentagon and roused popular support for the President as we took each step against terror. Congress and the President jointly exercised their constitutional responsibilities. Our efforts required and received the support from the community of responsible nations. The strong backing of our allies was a reassuring sign that our international partners stood beside us as we faced this new danger. The President now wants to reposition our efforts from fighting a war on terrorism to fighting a war against Saddam Hussein, to reposition our longstanding national policy of containment and deterrence to a policy of unilateral preemption. Over the last few weeks Members of Congress have questioned the President on this change of focus. Sadly, some in his party have said that to question the President is unpatriotic. I disagree. To question the President sends an unequivocal message to those who would attack America that our democratic system is alive and well. Like many of my colleagues, I held a series of town hall meetings in August across my district. Virtually without dissent I heard New Mexicans express their strong concerns about a possible war with Iraq. From Gallup to Santa Fe to Clovis, it was clear that the overwhelming majority were opposed to a unilateral invasion by the United States. Some told me they believed the President should involve the Congress in a decision to go to war. Others were concerned about getting support from our allies around the world. Others were concerned about the rush. Not surprisingly, I have continued to hear from my constituents, and their questions need to be answered. I am pleased that President Bush has taken the initial steps to seek the approval of both the Congress and the United Nations before engaging in preemptive strikes on Iraq. I firmly believe that Congress has a vital role to play and a constitutional responsibility to act on matters of national security. However, I also believe there are several questions that must be answered before we rush into war. Was Iraq involved in the September 11 attack on the United States? I have seen no evidence that it was. A tough and strong war against terrorism in response to September 11 does not reasonably extend to launching a war against Iraq. Indeed, attacking Iraq may be a distraction from the war against terrorism, not a continuation. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are natural enemies, not allies. The al Qaeda terrorist movement is based on the belief that secular regimes in the Arab world are antithetical to the fundamental teachings of Islam. Does Iraq pose an immediate and independent threat to the United States and our allies? The President has identified the key threat from Iraq as its development of weapons of mass destruction and the potential for Iraq to transfer these weapons to the terrorist groups it sponsors. I agree with this concern. However, what weapons of mass destruction does Iraq now have at its disposal? Does Iraq now have the capability to deliver and use these weapons against the United States? The answer is we do not know. Without reinserting the U.N. weapons inspectors, we may never know. Why do we not allow the inspections process to take place? Why do we not allow the United Nations to work its will? The first resolution the President sent to Congress would allow him to use all means he determines to be appropriate, including force. Giving the President a blank check to act alone will increase the danger of unilateral military action by others in the future. It will undermine our broader foreign policy goals. It will divert much-needed resources from our pressing domestic needs. The President has submitted a second draft resolution. Although it is an improvement, I still have serious reservations. While I am confident that the leadership of both parties can work together to draft a more balanced resolution, we need more diplomacy, we need more information, and we need more international allies. I have no doubt that our military can defeat Saddam Hussein in a war. My doubts lie in what happens after we remove Saddam from power. Without the backing of the international community and, most importantly, the Arab world, the aftermath will be uncertain and precarious. Other questions must be answered before we vote. How much will the war cost? How many American soldiers will be seriously wounded or lose their lives? How many innocent Iraqi civilians will perish? I am disheartened that we appear to be following this course. If we take politics out of this decision, our voice will be stronger. I believe that we should not vote on this before this election. We should take politics out of it, and I think if we do that, our message to the world will be clearer. The decision is ours.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 561, recognizing the contributions of Hispanic-serving institutions. It is important that Congress credit the institutions' commitment to academic excellence through high-quality education. These institutions have worked with students from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds to successfully help them achieve their academic ambitions and continue to strive for loftier goals upon graduation. Hispanic students are at greater risk of not enrolling or graduating from college. This disparity continues to increase. Without the continued efforts of Hispanic-serving institutions towards recruitment and retention in postsecondary schools, these students would have missed the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and insight to our evolving technological work force. In my district, 10 Hispanic-serving institutions reach out to students throughout rural northern New Mexico. They present students with opportunities for higher education through universities, community colleges, vocational and technical institutes in a traditional and/or long-distance learning setting. The degree and certificate programs give students the tools they need to move beyond their history of disadvantages and towards a future of successful endeavors. I urge my colleagues to support Hispanic-serving institutions and recognize the valuable academic support these centers have given to the recruitment and retention of our Nation's youngest and fastest-growing population.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Section 312 of the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2215, as well as to support passage of this important legislation. On the 21st of May this year, I wrote to Congressman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers to express my concern for the dire shortages of federal judges in the State of New Mexico, and to request that the Committee authorize an additional judgeship for the District of New Mexico in the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. Today, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Conyers and the members of the Conference Committee for including appropriations for an additional temporary judgeship for the State of New Mexico in Section 312 of the Report. New Mexico is the 3rd busiest judicial district in the nation behind southern California and western Texas. In 1996, the Judiciary Council recommended that New Mexico receive one new permanent judgeship and one temporary judgeship. Two years later, the council reiterated that recommendation. Then, in 2000, the Judicial Conference recommended that New Mexico receive two permanent judgeships and one temporary judgeship. Since the Conference's first recommendation six years ago, the caseload in the federal courts in New York has been on the rise, seemingly growing exponentially each year. Accordingly, the judgeship appropriated in Section 312 will help alleviate the pressure felt within this increasingly overloaded judiciary system, and provide the people of New Mexico more efficient accessibly to federal courts. Once again, I think my collegues for considering my request.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen), for all of their hard work and leadership on this bill. I rise today to speak to title III of H.R. 4708, which contains the Jicarilla Apache Rural Water System Act which I introduced on November 1, 2001, and which the Committee on Resources reported to the House on September 4, 2002. I would like to thank the 12 bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation, and I am thankful to the committee for including these provisions in this overall bill. The Jicarilla Apache Rural Water System Act will greatly improve the quality of safe and reliable drinking water to the reservation. It will also support an adequate wastewater treatment system. This legislation addresses critical public health issues for the tribe and for North- Central New Mexico. For over 2 decades, the current system, the Dulce municipal water system, has deteriorated due to a lack of funds and capital improvements made by the Federal trustee. The Jicarilla Nation has invested $14 million in their efforts to improve the quality of its municipal water and waste water system. The Jicarilla's investment of over $14 million is roughly 25 percent of the total project cost. The lack of investment and rehabilitation in the municipal water system constructed by the BIA in the 1920s and expanded in the 1960s has led to the delivery of inadequate water to the residents of the reservation and surrounding communities. The completion of this project will allow tribal development, such as building additional housing, schools, medical facilities and elderly care facilities, just to name a few. This legislation will enable the Jicarilla Apache Nation to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to plan, design and construct the water supply, delivery and waste water collection system. These improvements would bring the water quality up to Federal water quality standards. In addition, the legislation will allow for continued development in the area of expanding the quantity of potable water. The Bureau of Reclamation will be responsible for the construction costs of this project, while the Jicarilla Apache Nation will assume the annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs of the project. I would also like to thank Lori Sonken, Steve Lanich and Marie Howard of the Committee on Resources minority staff, as well as Josh Johnson and Doug Yoder of the Committee on Resources majority staff for working closely with my office on this important legislation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, a year has passed since 3,000 innocent men, women and children tragically lost their lives in a brutal and cowardly attack on our country. While we have had a year to come to terms with the enormous tragedy of September 11, the sense of loss remains overwhelming. On that somber day, we all watched in disbelief as terrorists hijacked planes to attack buildings that symbolized our strength and power. We will never forget that day or the people whose lives were unexpectedly taken from them. New Mexico's families felt the pain of losing friends and loved ones. No one who knew Alamogordo's Alfred Marchand can ever forget this man who proudly served his community in the Alamogordo Department of Public Safety. After a stellar 21-year career, he followed his heart and became a flight attendant. While living his dream, he perished on United Airlines Flight 175 fighting against the terrorists. We must also remember Senior Airman Jason Cunningham, who grew up in Carlsbad. Jason died on a mission in Afghanistan while trying to save another serviceman. Albuquerque's Sgt. First Class Christopher James Speer also died in an Afghanistan firefight with suspected terrorists. He made the absolute sacrifice to protect us from terror. Remembering the 3,000 lives taken from us reminds us that, though we continue to move forward with our own lives, we do so in a world that has been profoundly affected by the events of September 11. As we search for ways to deal with the unspeakable horror of this tragedy, we can take guidance from the words of Robert F. Kennedy. Amid the grief and rage that followed the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., RFK said, ``In this difficult time for the United States, it is perhaps well to ask what kind of nation we are and what direction [do] we want to move in.'' These questions are still appropriate today. What kind of nation are we? What direction do we want to move in? I would answer that America remains a great nation and I would challenge us all to move in a direction that even more closely embraces the virtues and values that make us great. September 11 has tested--and will continue to test--the resolve and the resilience of all Americans. It will test our commitment to the virtues and values on which this Nation is built: democracy, diversity, liberty and justice for all. Our response to September 11 must be to become even more passionate in our commitment to these virtues and values: to embrace and support democracy around the world; to celebrate our national mosaic of races and religions; and to shine the light of liberty even more brightly into every corner of the earth. America is involved. We give of ourselves--as servicemembers, teachers, law enforcement officials, emergency workers, and volunteers for causes great and small. Today, public service is more important than ever. Tragedy reminds us we must come together to create an America that is even more just, more democratic and more secure. America is a great nation. Let us look back on September 11, 2001, with sadness and respect, grieve for those we lost, and honor those who showed the courage that makes us all proud. Let us emerge from this tragedy a stronger and wiser great nation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, for the past two days, the House of Representatives has debated legislation establishing a Department of Homeland Security. The need for this important federal department resulted from the cruel and unprovoked surprise attack on America that occurred in the morning hours of September 11, 2001. Let me begin by saying that I strongly support protecting our borders; I strongly support protecting our citizens in their daily lives; I strongly support the President, in the authority which Congress gave him to battle terrorism at home and abroad to protect the American way of life. However, I cannot support these protections if we weaken individual civil liberties, limit the ability of citizens to know what our government is doing in their name, and gut worker rights to accomplish these objectives. I was very encouraged by the initial steps taken by the various House Committees as we began crafting the legislation to implement the President's proposal for the new department. Unfortunately, the final product of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security bypassed much of the early outstanding bipartisan work of the House. Mr. Speaker, the bill considered and passed by the Select Committee that we consider today does not include many sound and sensible provisions passed by the committees with expertise. In addition, the Select Committee added a number of flawed and controversial provisions, which were neither proposed by the President nor considered by the committees of jurisdiction. Creating a brand new cabinet level Department of Homeland Security is something that should require months and months of research, committee work, and understanding to properly ensure initiatives are in place to reduce risk and respond to terrorists' attacks. These last two days have been very frustrating. Although a bipartisan group has tried to correct many of H.R. 5005's shortcomings, the leadership has decided not to improve this bill. We repeatedly tried to fix this bill so that a nearly unanimous majority could support final passage. Unfortunately, that will not be the case. Mr. Speaker, there are several troublesome provisions in this bill, H.R. 5005, which raise questions as to its ability to secure the homeland, its ability to keep Congress and the American people adequately apprised of governmental activities, and its ability to protect the rights of the department's new employees. The House defeated an amendment to protect the civil service rights of the nearly 170,000 federal employees who will move to the new department. H.R. 5005 also failed to protect federal whistle-blowers that might uncover problems or inadequacies in the new department. We also have reduced access to government documents for average Americans by restricting Freedom of Information Act requests, which are critical to our open form of government. We also failed to approve a provision to strike an extension of the airline baggage-screening deadline. I believe we in Congress must do everything in our power to strengthen our borders and take the necessary steps to ensure that the events of September 11th never occur again. However, the bill before us takes many unnecessary steps in the name of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, for these and other reasons, I cannot support final passage of this legislation. Our efforts during these last two days were not done in vain. What we were able to do, Mr. Speaker, is highlight many areas of this legislation that must be improved during Conference. We tried to protect our tradition of open and accountable government. We opposed efforts to gratuitously protect irresponsible corporations, including those that incorporate offshore to avoid paying their share of the war on terrorism and those who knowingly make faulty products. We opposed efforts to retain the President's plan to dismantle civil service protections and guaranteeing that the new department will not have the best possible workforce. We opposed efforts to create a huge, costly, and inefficient 1950s style government bureaucracy that will likely take years before it functions properly. The attempts to strengthen this legislation were undertaken to make the American people safer and ensure that those Americans who work each day in this new Department have the tools, securities, and worker protections in place, as other federal workers, to battle terrorism and keep the homeland safe. I am hopeful that when Congress reconvenes in September that the Conference Committee will return to both chambers a Homeland Security bill that is the product of strong bipartisan effort. I believe we can and we must create an effective Department of Homeland Security that simultaneously protects the homeland, protects workers, and protects our basic freedoms and civil liberties.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference Report on H.R. 3763. I would like to commend the hard work of the conferees on this critically important legislation. The recent string of accounting scandals has badly damaged the confidence of many Americans in our nation's corporations and markets. This legislation is a strong step toward restoring their confidence and stabilizing our nation's economy. It seems like every day we hear a new story of executives who misled their investors and their workers and stole millions of dollars. These executives are called irresponsible; they are accused of mismanagement or unorthodox business practices. But these corporate leaders aren't unorthodox; they are criminals, plain and simple. They have stolen more money than any thieves I've ever heard of, and their crimes have real victims. The victims of these corporate crimes are workers, like the workers at Enron who just wanted an honest job with a fair expectation of job security. For all their hard work, these workers got 10 minutes to clear out their desks. In some cases they were even denied their severance packages if they refused to sign documents giving up the right to sue Enron for defrauding them. Defrauding workers and forcing them to give up their legal rights isn't irresponsibility; it is a crime. Even workers who never had anything to do with Enron were hurt by the collapse of that company. As Enron declared bankruptcy, public employees in 30 states lost anywhere from $1.5 billion to $10 billion from their pension plans. Stealing money from public employee pension plans is not irresponsibility; it is a crime. Even those of us who had absolutely nothing to do with the Enrons or Worldcoms of the world are hurt by corporate crime. The unethical behavior of the executives at Worldcom, which was recently forced to admit it had invented $3.8 billion in earnings, has had a devastating effect on that company's stock price. But the stock market as a whole has also suffered from the lack of confidence created by widespread corporate abuse. Less than 3 percent of all publicly traded companies misstate their earnings, but this small group casts doubt on the statements of other, more ethical businesses. A free-market system cannot function if investors do not trust executives, and therefore the crimes of Worldcom and Enron are crimes not only against their stockholders, but against the very system that allowed these companies to flourish. Even after the collapse of Enron and the exposure of billions in fake earnings at Worldcom, many in Congress were working to protect their corporate patrons from any real accountability. The initial House- passed version of this legislation, sponsored by Mr. Oxley, did nothing to protect against corporate abuse and bring back public confidence in corporate governance. In some cases, the bill even would have made it more difficult to enforce auditing regulations. In its most glaring failure, Mr. Oxley's legislation left the wolf in charge of the henhouse by ensuring that no independent agency had the power to effectively police the internal auditing industry to prevent conflicts of interest and protect investors. The Senate version of this legislation, however, responded much more effectively than the House leadership to corporate crime. A proposal introduced by Senator Paul Sarbanes for auditing the auditing industry goes much farther than either the sham House bill or the June 20 proposal for revamping the SEC. The Sarbanes bill would create an independent board to oversee accounting practices. It would prohibit accounting firms from destroying documents. Most importantly, the Sarbanes bill would prevent conflicts of interest by preventing auditors from selling other services to the companies they are supposed to be regulating. I wish this House were able to vote up or down on Senator Sarbanes' bill. Fortunately, the House-Senate conference report adopts several key elements of the Senate proposal. The conference agreement, in addition to including the provisions mentioned above, also bars auditors from performing most other services to the same companies they audit, requires corporate officers to reimburse their companies for any bonuses or profits made from stock sales if their misconduct resulted in the firm issuing a revised financial statement. It also generally bars corporations from providing loans to any of its executive officers, just to name a few of the provisions included in the agreement. While it is not a perfect bill, it is far stronger than the original House bill. The American people want to feel confidence in the market system that has brought so much prosperity. It is our responsibility to fix the system so we can move forward to a time when workers and investors are secure, and corporate crime is a thing of the past. Voting yes on this conference agreement is a step in that direction. I urge my colleague to support this agreement.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Texico, New Mexico, as its citizens celebrate their centennial anniversary this month. Texico is a small community on the New Mexico- Texas border. It is known for its rich history and abounding sense of community, which has, over the years, sustained the town's traditional values, superb educational standards, intellectual strengths and high quality of life in Curry County. I want to offer my sincere congratulations to Mayor Jerry Cunningham and all the residents of Texico on this happy occasion. On Saturday, July 27th, 2002, Texico, New Mexico, will celebrate its 100th anniversary. A parade beginning in Texico and ending in Farwell, Texas, its twin city, will lead citizens to Farwell Park, where craft shows, food booths, and class reunions will commemorate ``Border Town Days.'' I know how excited everyone is about this special event. Texico is located in what has been described as the ``Golden Spread.'' This southwestern edge of the Great Plains is filled with the spirit of pioneers, who faced excitement, adventure, hardship, hope, fulfillment, disappointment, sadness and happiness as they moved West. Those that chose to found Texico gave the town the distinction of being the oldest community in Curry County. In 1902, settlers moved into the area after railroad officials were considering Texico as a possible site for a railroad cutoff to Belen. The federal government and the New Mexico territorial government passed homestead laws in an effort to settle the eastern region of New Mexico. Soon settlers swarmed the area, and on either side of a muddy street, buildings soon formed a line of merchant shops and pioneer stops. Rooms for over-night visitors were quite reasonable--only twenty-five cents per night or $1.40 per week. Harry's Cafe offered the best steaks, lamb-chops, fresh oysters, and eggs in town, and after dinner the dancing hall offered entertainment. The bank ranked as the most important institution, but close behind was the Cozy Cottage Hotel. The hotel served as Texico's only two-story building, which was very distinct. A church was later built, along with a one-room schoolhouse, to which students would ride their mules every morning. By 1925, the graduating class had increased to nine students. Today, Mayor Jerry Cunningham governs a total of about 1,065 citizens. The true charm of Texico is the fact that not much has changed in its 100-year existence. People have come and gone and businesses have opened and closed; but the warmth, friendliness and character have remained intact. Agriculture and its support services have always been the backbone of the community, and the wholesome rural nature has been preserved. The citizens of Texico, and Curry County in general, should be very proud of that status. Mr. Speaker, in closing, with all the historical grandeur Texico boasts, we have great reason to celebrate today. Accordingly, I extend my warmest congratulations to my friends in Texico on its 100th Anniversary. Texico most certainly has distinguished itself through its historical and social presence, and I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding 100 years of excellence.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, tonight we have before us the Conference Report on Trade Promotion Authority--or Fast Track. I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful protections for America's working men and women. I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful safeguards for our environment. I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful protections of Congressional prerogative to change U.S. trade laws. I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful instructions regarding international accounting rules. I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful protections for U.S. taxpayers against unfair suits against domestic public-interest laws. However, and not surprisingly, H.R. 3009 has none of these important components. Therefore, I will vote ``no'', and I urge my colleagues to do the same. While I was hopeful that H.R. 3009 would have real and meaningful protections for working families, it amazingly takes a great step backwards on workers' rights. As written, this bill effectively rules out any enforcement of workers' rights in future trade agreements. How can American workers compete with foreign companies who pay their workers slave wages? How can American workers compete with foreign companies who crush union representation? How can American workers compete with foreign companies that employ children? Put simply, they cannot. While I was hopeful that H.R. 3009 would have real and meaningful safeguards for the environment, this bill actually reduces the role of this Congress to enforce environmental standards. We should be encouraging our international competitors to protect the environment. We should be providing assistance to other nations to achieve real environmental protections. However, this bill fails to ensure parity between the environment and commercial considerations in future trade agreements. While I was hopeful that H.R. 3009 would have real and meaningful protections of Congressional prerogative to change U.S. trade laws, this bill is a major step backwards. Why was the Dayton-Craig language from the Senate bill stripped from the Conference Report? This bill actually diminishes the already minimal oversight Congress has over U.S. trade laws. This bill actually prevents Congress from withdrawing from a trade agreement, even if the trade agreement is found to undermine our trade laws. I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Amazingly, this Conference reduces the Senate-passed TAA proposal to cover only 65 percent tax credit to cover health care costs. During these times of economic uncertainty, this is another slap in the face to laid-off workers. Worst of all, this 65 percent figure is below what most employers offer, so these struggling workers will actually pay more for their health coverage at a time when they've lost their jobs. While I was hopeful that H.R. 3009 would have real and meaningful instructions regarding international accounting rules, this bill does not address the issue. At a time when we are passing long-overdue changes to our domestic accounting industry, this bill does nothing to prevent many of the shortcomings on the international front. We've just taken some great steps to improve what we do here in the U.S., but this bill could limit congressional changes to accounting regulations that are deemed ``more trade restrictive than necessary.'' I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful protections for U.S. taxpayers against unfair suits against domestic public-interest laws. As a former State Attorney General, I am particularly sensitive to the unintended consequences of federal laws. As 35 current State Attorneys General wrote to Chairman Thomas and Chairman Baucus, they had grave concerns that the investment provisions . . . [and] to the independence of our judicial system.'' As we already have seen in California, foreign companies have used the NAFTA investor rules to sue U.S. taxpayers for $1.7 billion over a California clean-water law and a Mississippi jury award in a fraud case. We should not allow our own state laws to be used against us in the name of free trade. While I cannot support this bill, I have taken many pro-trade votes in this Congress. I will continue to support trade agreements that protect the environment. I will continue to support trade agreements that provide important safeguards to protect the rights of American working families as well as the rights of our trading partners' workers. I will continue to support trade agreements that protect our ability to exercise our Constitutional duty to provide oversight of the executive branch. As I've stated previously, this legislation does none of these things. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Fast Track Conference Report.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor to serve New Mexico as Attorney General. As Attorney General, I had the unfortunate task to prosecute elected officials for their violation of the law and the public's trust. Although, I accepted this duty, this was not an easy task to perform but one that had to be done. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has been asked to take on a difficult charge to examine whether Representative Traficant violated the Code of Official Conduct while serving as a Member of Congress. And if so, whether those violations warrant his expulsion from the U.S. House of Representatives. I thank them for their service on this difficult matter. This great body has expelled only four Members (three Members and one Member-elect) in its history--Three of whom were expelled during the Civil War period in 1861 for disloyalty to the Union and the fourth occurred in 1980 following a bribery conviction. There have been other Members who were subject to expulsion for offenses such as bribery, illegal gratuities and obstruction of justice--but rather than force the hand of the House to expel them, they took the noble way out and resigned their office. I had hoped that Representative Traficant would have done the same thing, and resign his office rather than force the House to remove him. However, the current situation is before us, and we must act. On April 11, 2002 the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct gave notice that the federal jury returned a guilty verdict in the criminal trial of Representative Traficant. Six days later the Committee voted to establish an Investigative Subcommittee to conduct a formal inquiry regarding Representative Traficant. On June 27, 2002 the Investigative Subcommittee transmitted to the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct a 10 count Statement of Alleged Violations and set the stage for a public adjudicatory hearing to determine whether any counts in the Statement of Alleged Violations have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. I would like to read from the statement issued by the Committee: ``The Statement of Alleged Violations charge that Representative Traficant violated the Code of Official Conduct of the House of Representatives and the Code of Ethics for Government Service through a number of means, including: Agreeing to perform, and performing, official acts on behalf of individuals and/or businesses for which those individuals and/or businesses agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things of value; Agreeing to employ a member of his congressional district staff in exchange for $2,500 per month in salary kickbacks from the employee; Endeavoring to persuade this same employee to destroy evidence and to give false testimony to a federal grand jury; Defrauding the United States of money and property by a variety of means; Filing false income tax returns; Engaging in a continuing pattern and practice of official misconduct through which he misused his office for personal gain''. From July 15 through July 18 the adjudicatory House subcommittee heard from Representative Traficant where he argued that he broke no laws and contended that the government was out to get him--the same argument he made during his criminal trial. He argued against each of the points that the Subcommittee Counsel raised and was unable to make a clear argument against the evidence raised. The Subcommittee eventually determined that he was guilty of several ethics violations and that nine of the ten counts were proven by clear and convincing evidence. Representative Traficant misused his office for personnel gain; he misused the public trust; he misused the public's money, through his conduct in receiving congressional salary kickbacks from employees and receiving personal labor and services from congressional staff while they were on congressional work time; and he misused his powerful position to persuade individuals to destroy evidence and provide false testimony to a federal jury to conceal his abuse of office. Mr. Speaker prior to entering office we each made the following declaration: I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take his obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. While the power of removal is a strong measure and one that should never be taken lightly, it is one tool afforded to us by the Constitution to use on those who have violated their public trust as Members of Congress. Besides violating the public trust Representative Traficant broke his solemn oath of office. He did not faithfully discharge the duties of the office, which he now serves, and because of this and the clear evidence before us he should be expelled from the House of Representatives.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Leach of Iowa, for organizing this fitting tribute to a true American legend. I am proud to rise today to add my voice in paying tribute to one of the visionary leaders of the people's House. John Anderson never lost sight of who he represented in Congress and his approach to his duties is something we all can learn from. John Anderson has been a lot of things. He has been a Republican. He has been an Independent. He has been a distinguished member of this body for 20 years, a Presidential candidate, and a respected law professor. He has fought for electoral reform, U.N. reform and human rights. He has been a friend: to my uncle, Mo Udall, to many other former and current Members of Congress, and to the people of Illinois and the entire United States. But there are some things John Anderson has never been. He has never been one to blindly accept the status quo. He has never been a man who got stuck in the rigidity of party politics. Perhaps most importantly, he has never been a man to give up; and today, John Anderson is still fighting for what he believes in and teaching a new generation of leaders to do the same. I remember John Anderson as the man who stood with my uncle to put millions of acres of pristine Alaskan wilderness under federal protection. It's a sad irony that as we celebrate his 80th birthday, many in this Congress want to open up this national treasure to oil exploration. I'm quite certain that had John Anderson's voice been heard here in Congress we might have had a different result. I remember him as the brave fighter for campaign finance reform who could not reconcile the tremendous power of wealthy special interests with his vision of this republic. I am happy that we have finally passed meaningful campaign finance reform legislation this year, and that John Anderson was able to celebrate with us. Even when he was in the House, John always put principle ahead of party. He did so when he supported partial public financing of elections; he did so when be became one of the first Congressmen to call for a balanced national energy policy; and he did so again when he publicly questioned the Nixon Administration's illegal expansion of the war in Southeast Asia. I particularly want to draw attention to John's strong support of campaign finance reform. For me, that's the issue where John showed real courage and leadership. Not only was John's work on this issue a break from party politics, it laid the groundwork for later, more successful efforts to try to get money out of politics. The important work done in this Congress to reform the Nation's election laws was made possible in large party by the brave stand taken by John Anderson and those like him decades ago. John once said that when big money rules, ordinary voters get left in the cold. And he saw the fight against money in politics as no less than a crusade to purify and strengthen the institution of government so that ordinary people could once again have their voices heard by those who represent them. But John didn't just talk about reform; John crossed party lines to support the Mo Udall Public Financing bill and other reform proposals during this tenure in the House. Today, John is still working to reform our system of elections. While he is now calling for more dramatic changes in the way we elect our officials, he has never lost sight of the need to free our system of the pernicious influence of money. Again, I am proud to be here to honor John Anderson. He was--and still is today--a true American leader. All of us here in this body owe him our admiration and gratitude for his years of public service--both in elected politics and in his private life. Thank you John Anderson.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment on this. I have spoken with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel); and first of all, I want to congratulate him on his leadership and his looking out for forest service lands. I know that he cares a lot about these lands and has worked on them and worked on these issues; and I think that the $5 million additional in these accounts is really going to make a difference in terms of moving us along. It is a win-win situation for both of us, and so I look forward to supporting the amendment and urge all of my colleagues to do so; and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) on this and for their leadership.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-Morella amendment to the fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriations bill. This amendment will give $10 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and $5 million to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Funding from the NEA and NEH leverage millions of dollars each year in private support for arts projects all across the country. We also know that arts education has been proven to increase skills in math, reading, language development and writing. While New Mexico proudly proclaims itself as the State of many cultures--some call it a melting pot, others a mosaic--we all have at least one thing in common, and that is keeping together our strong connection to the history and traditions of our State through the arts. Funding through the NEA and NEH have showcased numerous Native American, Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo cultures by artists young and old. Mr. Chairman, the NEA has approved thousands of dollars in federal funding for several arts organizations located in my Congressional District and throughout New Mexico. I would like to highlight a few of those organizations: Santa Fe Opera--$50,000. Funding will support the American premiere of the opera L'amore de loin by Finnish composer Kaija Saariaho with libretto by French-Lebanese author Amin Maalouf. Approximately 6,000 persons are expected to attend three performances of the opera at the Santa Fe Opera Theater. New Mexico CultureNet, Santa Fe--$30,000. Funding will support a project called InterLAC which links local arts councils throughout New Mexico via web-based services, workshops, and an annual conference. Taos Talking Pictures--$7,500. Funding will be used to support the Taos Talking Picture Film Festival. The spring event showcases films by independent filmmakers working in all genres. Pueblo of Zuni--$20,000. Zuni Fish and Wildlife Department. Funding will support an architectural design for an eagle aviary compound. In this second phase of the project an eagle breeding ground, visitor facilities, orchards, and landscape features will be added to the existing facility. When it comes to private partnerships between private, state and federal funding of the arts by requiring that these grant recipients match federal monies dollar for dollar, the NEA set an outstanding example. According to the NEA, one federal dollar attracts $12 or more from state and regional arts agencies as well as corporations, businesses and individuals. These are just a few of the many projects that funding through the NEA and NEH go to support. I'm sure that every member of this chamber could share similar project successes in their respective districts. I would like to remind my colleagues that a similar amendment passed the House on June 21, 2001 by a bipartisan margin of 221-193 in last year's Interior bill. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and let me just first thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his leadership on this bill. The chairman is from my home State of New Mexico. He has always served New Mexico very well, many years of distinguished service, and so I just want to say to him, I know this is going to be the last bill he manages on the floor, that we are all going to miss him very much, and he has been somebody I think that has always been there for New Mexico. So I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). I want to rise in support of this amendment, the Kildee-Hayworth amendment. This is a bipartisan amendment; and I think the important thing, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) said, is that Native American issues should not be partisan issues. This Congress should address these issues in a bipartisan way, and that is what we are trying to do on the Committee on Resources. We have two senior Members that have offered this amendment. It is a good, solid amendment, and basically what it does is take out these provisions that hurt Native Americans. What specifically it does is when we talk about a court case, we are talking about the current court case of Cobell v. Norton. That court case is a case which arose from major officials violating their trust responsibilities to Native Americans. The court has said in the strongest of terms and condemned the actions of Federal officials and how they have dealt with these accounts. So there is absolutely no doubt that there has been a violation by the Federal Government, and the provisions in this bill cut off Native American rights. There are very specific deadlines in there, and all of those need to be taken out; and the important thing here is this bill language comes at a time when the Nation is focused on accounting responsibility. The President and the Congress have made it clear that accounting must be marked by transparency and high moral standards. We expect the same standards to be applied to the Federal Government accounting for Indian trust funds and not to allow the Federal Government to absolve itself of accounting responsibility. So these provisions would throw the Native Americans out of court, and I do not think that is the way we want to go. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) raises, I think, a very good point when he says we need to move this case toward settlement. I do not think there is any doubt that we need to move this case toward settlement. We should be working on the settlement issue, and we should let all of the attorneys know we want to move towards settlement. The key issue here, the committee that should be working on this is the Committee on Resources. We have had hearings on this issue. We have had Secretary Norton in the Committee on Resources as recently as February 6, 2002; and unfortunately, she will not admit that she does not have the records. Very pointedly, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, specifically asked her, Do you have the records? Can you do this accounting? She would not admit that she could not do the accounting. So part of the responsibility for prolonging this comes from the Department, which is not willing to admit that they do not have the records. They should step forward, say they cannot do this, and that would lead to some kind of settlement. The last issue I want to raise is this issue of attorneys' fees, and the issue has come up that attorneys are getting rich on this. The lead plaintiffs in this case are the Native American Rights Fund. It is a nonprofit. It is a law firm that is dedicated to protecting Native American rights. They are only allowed to get their attorneys' fees. No attorneys are getting rich in the Native American Rights Fund, and so I would just say that that attorneys' fee issue, we ought to move that to the side, and as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) says, in terms of the committee, let us get on with settlement and move in that direction.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, during the Independence Day work period, I had the opportunity, like many of my colleagues, to visit constituents and groups in my home state. There was one visit that was especially gratifying that I would like to relate to my colleagues. Talking Talons Youth Leadership, located in the mountains East of Albuquerque, is a non-profit youth development organization. This program works in several different ways to evaluate youth to be effective advocates and ethical stewards of themselves, wildlife, and the environment. I went into this program believing that it was a basic rehabilitation program for wild animals. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Talking Talons is so much more. I want to give a brief history of this program. In 1988, Wendy C. Aeschliman, a nurse at Roosevelt Middle School, in Tijeras, New Mexico, with a side practice as a licensed animal rehabiltor, observed that her young patients suffered less from physical ailments and more from a downcast spirit and low self-esteem. The youth did seem, however, extremely curious and excited about her animal patients. With a small Burrowing Owl named ``Bo'' who had been declared non-releasable, she set forth to combine the natural love of animals she observed in youth, with the goal of increasing their self- esteem. She implemented, on a small scale at the middle school, a curriculum which trained students to perform public presentations about injured wildlife and their conservation. Thirteen years later, Talking Talons' basic approach to instill healthy lifestyles and attitudes in young people has grown and taken off. Today, the program thrives in New Mexico. Through a dedication team of staff, volunteers, contributors, and state and federal government, Talking Talons is realizing its vision of the future. Through experiences in public speaking, team-building activities, and conservation projects, the youth of our communities and our environmental advocates of tomorrow are developing a commitment towards conservation of natural resources. We owe Talking Talons our gratitude for ensuring that such valuable opportunities exist. Mr. Speaker, it seems that every time we open a newspaper or watch the news, we hear of another devastating scandal involving corporate America. From Enron to WorldCom, the news of recent months has been disheartening and unbelievable. It is nice to know, however, that there are some businesses out there that want to do the right thing. They want to become community partners. In that spirit, I want to commend Campbell Corporation and its President and CEO Robert Gately for recently donating land where students can implement reparian restoration practices, and for pledging to assist in the development of a new Talking Talons Leadership Center and Museum, along New Mexico's historic Turquoise Trail. At this new facility, Talking Talons will engage the community in conservation-based projects, including education wildlife programs designed to connect children and teens with nature. Campbell Corporation is also working with Talking Talons to support a private-match funding source that will enable the program to qualify and compete for grants available from various foundations and agencies. I am so pleased that the East Mountains has a community partner like Campbell Corporation to help quality non-profits expand their operations. During my visit, I had the opportunity to see firsthand the restoration project that Talking Talons has been conducted at the San Pedro Creek since spring this year. This ongoing restoration of the fragile environment involves the young preservationists working to identify native and non-native plant species and restoring the creek to its original state. When I visited Talking Talons, I met a number of the students that are involved in the program. These young adults were clearly inspired, intelligent, and friendly. Some of the students gave me presentations on different projects that they were undertaking. Just meeting the students was positive proof that the mission of Talking Talons is soaring and succeeding. Many of the students work directly with animals that can never be released again, either due to permanent injury or their unnatural contact with humans. These animals, however, will be taken care of and used in a positive way. I was especially pleased to learn that Talking Talon, in conjunction with the New Mexico Department of Health's Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Program, is working to warn other students about the deadly realities of tobacco. The students use the animals as metaphors for the strength and courage it takes to resist the peer pressure of tobacco and other negative influences. Seeing the animals used this way is truly novel. It is just another example of the creative approach that the staff of Talking Talons has taken to address the various challenges that are facing New Mexico's youth. Another important element of this program is its location. Talking Talons is located in what is called the Tri-County area. So named because in about a ten-minute drive you will go through the counties of Bernalilo, Sandoval and Santa Fe. This particular area of the state is rural in nature and surrounded by beautiful forests. As is the case with most rural areas, finding things for youths to do--whether it be working or volunteering--is often difficult. Without positive outlets, our children often end up in negative and unhealthy situations. The genius of Talking Talons is that because of its location young people in the East Mountains have a wonderful and productive alternative way to spend their time. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to building a relationship with Talking Talons Youth Leadership. I am very proud to be able to share with you the story of these terrific students and the wonderful gift they are giving to their community and to themselves. They are demonstrating what life really is--being a leader, a good student, and living a healthy lifestyle.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my distinguished colleague Mr. Honda for organizing this special order to raise awareness of the former POW's who were used as slave laborers in Japan during World War II. This is a particularly important veteran's issue to me and my constituents because of the significant role that New Mexicans played in the South Pacific during World War II. I am very glad to have this opportunity to come here tonight to honor those brave soldiers who battled in Bataan. Shortly after the United States formally declared their entry into World War II, American forces stationed in Bataan, Luzon, and Corregidor on the southern coast of the Philippines began their valiant six-month defensive struggle against overwhelming Japanese military forces. Included in these American and Philippine forces were New Mexico's 200th and 515th Anti-Aircraft Coast Artillery units. In fact, when the Japanese bombed Clark Field and Fort Stotsenberg, Philippine Islands on December 8, 1941, eight hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the 200th Coast Artillery was the first to fire on the enemy. The superior numbers of Japanese forces, however, compelled these brave American and Philippine forces to surrender on April 9th, 1942, and then forced them to commence the horrifying 85-mile Death March to the now infamous Japanese prison camps north of Manila. It is estimated that during the march over 10,000 American and Filipino soldiers died as a result of malnutrition and torture. Following the march, the thousands of men fortunate enough to survive were subsequently placed on ``hell ships'' and transferred to Japan, Taiwan, Manchuria, and Korea to perform slave labor in support of the Japanese war industry. The American soldiers captured on Bataan, Luzon, and Corregidor endured a longer captivity--over three and a half years--than any other POW's in World War II. Of the approximately 36,000 U.S. soldiers who were captured by the Japanese during World War II, only 21,000 survived to return to the U.S. at the end of the war. Of the 1,800 men deployed in New Mexico's 200th and 515th Coast Artillery Regiments, fewer than 900 returned to the United States after the three and a half years of captivity. Today, the men forced to perform slave labor in the Japanese corporations still await their just and overdue compensation and recognition for the labor performed. Recently, however, a California law was enacted that enables these men to seek damages up to the year 2010 against responsible Japanese companies. Seventeen lawsuits have been filed on behalf of former POWs, but their claims are currently pending in the California State court system and have been since they were filed in 1999. Over the past few years, the U.S. government has helped facilitate the resolution of claims for thousands of individuals who were forced to perform slave labor for German companies during World War II. However, the U.S. State Department and the Department of Justice have been opposing, rather than supporting, the claims of the U.S. POW's who were forced to perform slave labor in Japan. I am a cosponsor and strongly support the important legislation introduced by several Members present at this special order today, H.R. 1198. ``The Justice for U.S. POWs Act of 2001,'' will allow POW suits against Japanese companies to go forward without interference from the Department of State. This legislation has broad bipartisan support and I am hopeful that we can soon bring this legislation before the full House for consideration to help bring compensation and recognition for the hardship these POW's endured at the hands of their captors. Finally, I would like to invite my colleagues here as well as anyone else to visit the recently dedicated Bataan Memorial Park in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This touching memorial is a poignant reminder of the sacrifices made by both the living and the dead for the freedoms we enjoy today. Again, thank you Mr. Honda for organizing this special order. I look forward to working with you further to bring H.R. 1198 to the floor for passage.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it seems like every day we hear a new story of executives who misled their investors and their workers and stole millions of dollars. These executives are called irresponsible. They are accused of mismanagement or unorthodox business practices. But these corporate leaders are not unorthodox. They are criminals, plain and simple. They have stolen more money than any thieves I have ever heard of, and their crimes have real victims. The victims of these corporate crimes are workers like the workers at Enron who just wanted an honest job with a fair expectation of job security. For all their hard work, these workers got 10 minutes to clear out their desks. In some cases they were even denied their severance packages if they refused to sign documents giving up the right to sue Enron for defrauding them. Defrauding workers and forcing them to give up their legal rights is not irresponsibility; it is a crime. Even workers who never had anything to do with Enron were hurt by the collapse of that company. As Enron declared bankruptcy, public employees in 30 States lost anywhere from $1.5 billion to $10 billion from their pension plans. Stealing money from public employee pension plans is not irresponsibility; it is a crime. Even those of us who had absolutely nothing to do with the Enrons or WorldComs of the world are hurt by corporate crime. The unethical behavior of executives at WorldCom, which was recently forced to admit it had invented $3.8 billion in earnings, has had a devastating effect on the company's stock price. But the stock market as a whole has also suffered from the lack of confidence created by widespread corporate abuse. Less than 3 percent of all publicly traded companies misstate their earnings, but this small group casts doubt on the statements of other more ethical businesses. A free market system cannot function if investors do not trust executives; and, therefore, the crimes of WorldCom and Enron are crimes not only against stockholders but against the very system that allowed these companies to flourish. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, corporate America, it tolls for thee. But this talk of corporate crime obscures the real crime that has taken place in this country. The crime of Enron, like so many other corrupt corporations, is not that they broke the rules; it is that they wrote the rules. On everything from energy regulation to tax policy, Enron and its fellow energy companies got the best laws money can buy. Enron received a $254 million check, courtesy of the American taxpayer, when the Bush administration changed the rules governing the corporate alternative minimum tax. Because with this deficit-laden budget, corporate tax cuts come directly from the Social Security trust fund, this was the legal equivalent to picking the pockets of senior citizens in order to pad the pockets of corporate executives. Enron also was allowed to vet candidates for the chairmanship of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nation's number one energy watchdog. Furthermore, companies like Enron and Haliburton are the intended beneficiaries of policies from the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the annihilation of the Superfund trust fund, which was supposed to ensure that corporate polluters paid some share of the cost of cleaning up their mess. The Superfund example gives us an especially revealing look at how corporate campaign contributors are treated by their friends in government. If I poisoned hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens in order to enrich myself and my friends, I would probably go to jail for the rest of my life. If, however, Haliburton spills oil all over a pristine area, ruining the land and making local residents sick, they do not even have to pay to clean it up. The taxpayer gets the bill. Even after the collapse of Enron and the exposure of billions in fake earnings at WorldCom, this administration and many in Congress are working to protect their corporate patrons from any real accountability. The Oxley accounting bill, which the House passed on April 24, does nothing to protect against corporate abuse and bring back public confidence in corporate governance. In some cases, the bill even makes it more difficult to enforce auditing regulations. In its most glaring failure, this bill leaves the wolf in charge of the henhouse by ensuring that no independent agency has any power to effectively police. I have full confidence this Congress and this administration can work together to prevent future Enrons and future WorldComs, and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we have corporate ethical governance in this country.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez who has been serving in the capacity of Interim Vice Provost of Research at New Mexico State University. Dr. Gonzalez will be leaving NMSU after an impressive record as an administrator, an academic, and public servant to the community of Las Cruces, the state of New Mexico and our Nation. Dr. Gonzalez rejoined the university in 2001 after nearly four years as U.S. Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics. Before accepting former President Clinton's appointment to the Department of Agriculture in 1997, he served as assistant dean and deputy director of the Cooperative Extension Service from 1994 to 1996, head of the agricultural and extension education department from 1991 to 1994, and director of the college's international programs from 1992 to 1994. He began his professional career as a high school vocational agriculture teacher in 1970. Prior to Dr. Gonzalez joining the faculty at New Mexico State University he served as a State 4-H Specialist at Pennsylvania State University and participated in Extension Program activities. He taught numerous undergraduate and graduate courses including guest lectures in Spanish. He is a member of several academic and professional organizations, and has published journal articles and instructional materials in Spanish and English. Dr. Gonzalez received a B.S. and an M.S. from the University of Arizona and a Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State University in Agricultural and Extension Education. In 1999 Dr. Gonzalez was one of six people to receive the Outstanding Alumni awards from Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences. The award recognizes outstanding graduates and provides opportunities for interaction among the college's alumni, students and faculty. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Gonzalez has had a prosperous career while at NMSU. During his tenure Dr. Gonzalez was always known for taking time to meet with any student who needed to talk with him. It is often said that if our children are our future, the quality of our schools and their teachers will largely determine the quality of the future that our children will or will not enjoy. Dr. Gonzalez's interest in the well being of his students can be found in the communities throughout New Mexico, the country, as well as in the halls of Congress. Several of those former students, who worked with Dr. Gonzalez in either the academic or extra-curricular environment, have worked or are currently working in my office or in the offices of Representative Skeen, Senator Bingaman, Senator Dominici, or members of the President's Cabinet. He has also been named as one of the top 100 Hispanic Leaders in the country. While serving as Under Secretary of Agriculture, Dr. Gonzalez was known for his strong efforts to forging a closer, more personal link between land-grant and research institutions and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an agency that we all know provides funding for innovative research into the production of food and fiber, and the preservation of the environment. The Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics provides centralized organization and management of the research, education, and economic programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In his role Dr. Gonzalez oversaw the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Economic Research Service and the National Statistics Service. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my best wishes to Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez in his future endeavors. The community of Las Cruces and New Mexico State University will greatly miss Dr. Gonzalez's presence--but the product of his work can be found in the faces of our current and future leaders. I ask that my colleagues in the House join me in honoring the achievements and contributions of this outstanding educator, administrator, public servant and New Mexican.