Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1384, the Long Walk National Historic Trail Study Act. New Mexico's Third Congressional District is one of the most majestic regions in this country. It is a scenic land with a unique civilization that is part Native American, part Spanish and part Anglo. As such, the history of the region speaks to some of the most proud moments in American history. However, we have also seen some of our Nation's most tragic events. One of the most tragic is the Long Walk of the Navajo people and Mescalero Apaches. In 1863, the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced by gunpoint from their ancestral lands to walk roughly 350 miles from northeastern Arizona and northwest New Mexico to the Bosque Redondo in eastern New Mexico. More than 150 years ago, the United States engaged in a military campaign against the Navajo and Mescalero Apache people. This campaign was an extension of U.S. policy to remove the Navajo and Mescalero Apaches from their homeland. This was an attempt to quash their rebellion against what was an unwelcome intrusion from the U.S. Government. Colonel Kit Carson then ordered his men to ``round up'' and remove the Navajo from their native area. The campaign was a brutal one and the Navajo and Mescalero Apaches were forced to surrender themselves to Carson's forces in 1863. The U.S. chose the Bosque Redondo, a very remote and desolate site near Fort Sumner, New Mexico, as the place where the Navajo and Mescalero Apaches would be confined and forced to live. More than 8,000 Navajo and 500 Mescalero Apaches were then forced to trek over 350 miles under military escort from portions of Canyon de Chelley, Albuquerque, Canyon Blanco, Anton Chico and Canyon Piedra Pintado, New Mexico, to Bosque Redondo, New Mexico. Once imprisoned at Fort Sumner, the Navajo and Mescalero Apaches faced starvation, malnutrition due to inadequate and poor quality food rations, disease caused by unclean water, and exposure to harsh weather conditions because of inadequate clothing and unsuitable shelter. Thousands perished under these deplorable conditions. After roughly 4 years of imprisonment, President Ulysses S. Grant issued an executive order terminating the military's role and entered into treaty negotiations with the Navajo and Mescalero Apaches. When an agreement was made, the Navajo and Mescalero Apaches were allowed to return home in the same way as they had arrived, on foot. Thus, the Navajo and Mescalero Apaches had spent nearly 4 years total as prisoners from their own land. Mr. Speaker, this period in our Nation's history is a sad one. Our relationship with the tribes has come a long way since that time, but there is still more that can be done to strengthen the relationship. For this reason, I am hopeful that the National Park Service, in conducting this feasibility study, will engage in a proper amount of collaboration and consultation with the Navajo nation and the Mescalero Apaches. I am grateful that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) have allowed this bill to come to the floor for a vote today. I hope that once the feasibility study is conducted, we can enter into the next step of designating the Long Walk as a national historic trail. The Long Walk remains one of the most tragic events in our Nation's history, yet today very few Americans realize the atrocities that were committed against native peoples. By taking these necessary steps to declare this area a national historic trail, we will commemorate the people who made the treacherous Long Walk and were interned at Bosque Redondo. The 8,000 Navajo and 500 Mescalero Apaches who made the Long Walk, and especially the 3,000 who perished, should be remembered. I am hopeful that designating the Long Walk a national historic trail will prove to be a significant step in recognizing and learning from this tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), a leader in this Congress on Native American issues.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I, like you, have been watching in disbelief and sadness the reports from New York City and Washington, D.C. in the aftermath of the terrible attacks launched against the United States. Never before in our history have Americans borne witness to such an egregious, savage, violent, and cowardly attack on American soil. The situation defies belief and embodies much of what had once been our greatest fear. I join with every American in support of our great country and am confident that our nation will overcome this challenge just as we have conquered past challenges. When I swore my oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, I never imagined that this country or I would be where we are today. Each member of Congress swears our allegiance to our constituents, to one another and to the country, yet the magnitude of our oath only is truly understood when we face situations like we face today. During trying times such as these, the American Spirit shines most brightly, and we find within ourselves the ability to overcome challenges once thought unthinkable and unimaginable. Tuesday, September 11, 2001 is a date so packed with tragedy and meaning, we have tremendous difficulty fully understanding the implications of what has been done to our country and our people. Not since the time of my father Stewart Udall's service in the Cabinets of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, have we faced such difficult and trying issues. From the fear and terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis to the national horror following the assassination of our President to the anguish of the Vietnam War, our nation was confronted with innumerable and difficult challenges. The strength of citizens overcame all these challenges, and it will once again overcome what lies before us today. As we see images of the devastation in New York City and at the Pentagon, we are flooded by emotions ranging from profound sorrow to unbridled anger. Yet we are also called upon to defend ourselves from unknown threats and invisible enemies. Ours is a responsibility to put our raw feeling and emotions aside and focus on the grim work at hand of responding to the attacks against us and doing everything in our power to ensure that such attacks will not be perpetrated against us in the future. The question now arises how we may best fulfill our duty to protect the citizens of the United States and, indeed, the citizens of countries around the globe. The scourge of terrorism affects more than just the United States homeland. For years our friends and allies in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa have suffered the horrors of terrorism. While offering our support and solidarity, we always believed and hoped that America would be spared from the type of tragedy which befell us last Tuesday. We hoped against hope that New York, Washington, or any American city would not be added to the infamous list which includes London, Paris, Belfast, Beirut, Johannesburg, and Tokyo. Now the fight has been brought to us, and we will respond. We must respond. The question is how we respond. We will be quick to act, or will we be thorough, careful, deliberate, and patient? We first responded by granting to President Bush the authority needed to prosecute this effort with the strength the task requires. The Congress will appropriate money, grant authority, and rouse popular support for the President as we take each step against terror together and jointly exercise the Constitutional responsibilities invested by our Founders in both branches of the government. Our efforts require and are receiving the support of the international community of responsible nations. The support is a crucial component of any action which our government may take in defense of the American People. The world must not be seen as tolerant in the least of terrorists or those who support terrorists. The strong backing of our allies is a reassuring sign that our international partners stand beside us as we jointly face this danger. As we embark, we recognize that the Congress and the President are equal partners in the effort. We are making decisions and taking action only after tremendous consideration and deliberation. We have a profound understanding of the gravity of the situation which lies before us. We understand that the Constitutional principles upon which this great country is founded must be respected at every turn. As we defend the safety of Americans, we must also defend their liberties. To defeat terror in a way that robs us of our most cherished freedoms must be avoided. I believe that it is possible for America to be safe and free. As we continue to contemplate further actions and investigate those that have taken place, we must be vigilant in the defense of both our safety and our freedom. As we respond to the attacks, Americans will continue to unite as we have over the past several days and in ways that we have not seen for years. We draw strength from our tremendous diversity as a nation and from our myriad experiences and abilities. We defeat terror by embracing each other in the face of those who would terrorize us and rising above the petty differences that might once have separated us. Our unity will be our strength as we confront this new challenge. The American House in which we all live will not, as President Lincoln said, be divided against itself. We will continue on, stronger and more united than ever. The United States will meet this challenge as we have met previous challenges before. Our great nation will unite more strongly than ever, and we will prevail. My faith in our country is exceeded only by my admiration for those who place their own safety in jeopardy so that others will be free. America is great. God bless America.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers H.R. 1583, I would like to rise in recognition of Representative Lee Hamilton for whom H.R. 1583 names the Federal building and United States courthouse in New Albany, Indiana after. Over the years, I have had the honor and privilege of forming a relationship and friendship with Lee. He is a man for whom I hold in the highest regard and am proud to call him a friend. As a United States representative from January 1965 until his retirement in 1999, Lee served his constituents of the Ninth District of Indiana with the same honor, integrity, dignity with which he has lived his entire life. Lee has received many awards throughout his distinguished career, including the Knight Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Paul H. Nitze Award for Distinguished Authority on National Security Affairs, and the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, and the Central Intelligence Agency Medallion, just to name a few. Lee Hamilton recently served on a national commission dealing with terrorism and related subjects. A week ago I attended a congressional briefing by Lee Hamilton on terrorism, and as usual, he came forward with significant insights on this very timely topic. On a personal note, he served with my uncle, Congressman Morris Udall of Arizona, and Mo always used to tell me, listen to Lee Hamilton, he is one of the wisest Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, during his 34 years as a Member of Congress, Lee Hamilton was an exceptional legislator who forged partnerships on both sides of the aisle in order to get the American people's business done. Over the last couple of weeks, we as a Congress have had the opportunity to follow Lee's example. Today, we continue to follow that example by honoring him and the city of New Albany, Indiana, by designating the Federal building and United States courthouse as the Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building and United States Courthouse. I encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 1583.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the small business technology transfer program has been a valuable tool to promote useful technological innovation since it was first authorized in 1992. Today, we take the final step toward extending and expanding STTR for the future. I hope that, if we see the same kind of development in the next 10 years as we have seen in the past decade, many more wonders will follow to change our lives and bolster our economy, which clearly needs it at this time. The Subcommittee on Rural Enterprises, Agriculture, and Technology, on which I serve, held a hearing on this program on June 20, 2001. The STTR program is designed to address the lack of capital that small business research and development firms experience when getting started. Another unique aspect of the program is that small businesses can partner for research projects with research institutions, federally funded research and development centers, or nonprofit organizations. By supporting this legislation, we are taking a big step to strengthen and improve the STTR program and its delivery program to women-owned, minority-owned and those companies located in low-income communities. This program is a valuable tool to assist small business owners who focus on research and development initiatives. We have expanded the STTR in a number of ways. We raised the percentage of Federal agencies' research budgets reserved for STTR from 1.5 percent to 3 percent. We also increased the amount of phase two awards from $500,000 to $750,000 to help more innovations get to market. To help small businesses and institutions deal with a blizzard of different standardized agreements, we are asking the Small Business Administration to develop a single, standardized model agreement. And we are asking SBA to make a concerted effort to reach out to underserved areas of the country with grants for those communities. We will see how well the agency does by tracking where and to whom STTR and SBIR grants are awarded. Technology can be the great economic equalizer, but the digital divide must be bridged first. In my district in New Mexico, I have a large rural area. Issues of the digital divide are profound. In fact, one young student recently won a computer in a school contest but did not have a telephone line to hook up the computer. We need an aggressive effort at digital inclusion. The small business technology transfer program will help bridge this gap through a grant program. I would like to thank all my colleagues on the Committee on Small Business for their support and hard work on this bill, which has been 9 years in the making and is needed now more than ever. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). I know that he brings to this committee a bipartisan approach. We have been very successful at working together. I congratulate him for all his hard work and leadership on this bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stay here and address these issues: the worker employment issues and the safety issues and security issues we have talked about. There is no doubt that the airline industry is in need of assistance. This industry is vital to our nation's economic strength, and its current struggles have far-reaching implications for all segments of American society. Therefore, at this time of national emergency, I agree that we should help stabilize this important cog in the American economic wheel. However, I do not believe that we should simply provide a ``bailout'' bill for airline companies at the expense of American taxpayers. As we consider the amount of assistance we are providing, we also need to ensure that there are sufficient provisions to assist everyone who has been affected by this tragedy. First, we must compensate the victims of the September 11th attack. Second, we need to take steps to prevent future tragedies. Third, we need to help the airline industry, but we also must remember those hard working airline employees who have lost their jobs. Finally, we need to provide support for smaller airports throughout the country. In providing assistance to the beleaguered industry, we must be mindful of these objectives. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have reservations about whether or not this bill is mindful of those objectives. I have serious concerns about the lack of employee assistance provisions in this legislation and believe that we, the United States Congress, should be working through the weekend to ensure that those airline employees who need our help receive assistance as soon as possible. I am hopeful that the majority will keep its commitment to move additional legislation to help working families next week. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, despite my reservations about this legislation, I do recognize that it is an important start in a time of great national crisis and will therefore support its passage. I believe that we should provide assistance to the airline industry, but believe it should be done responsibly. The American people demand it, and the American people deserve it.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 344, I was unable to record my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when I swore my oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, I never imagined that this country or I would be where we are today. We each swear our allegiance to one another and to our country, yet the magnitude of our oath is only understood when we face situations like we face today. During trying times such as these, the American spirit shines most brightly and we find within ourselves the ability to overcome challenges once thought unthinkable and unimaginable. The cowardly terrorists perpetrating these unspeakable acts may think they have won, but they better think again, because they have united us. A united America will overcome this evil. A united America will continue to be a beacon for freedom-loving people, and a united America will prevail in the end. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, December 7, 1941. September 17, 1862. November 22, 1963. Pearl Harbor--The Day which Lives in Infamy. The Battle of Antietam--America's Bloodiest Day. The Assassination of President Kennedy--The Loss of America's Innocence. These dates have profound meaning in the Nation's eternal memory. They had an immeasurable impact on the American way of life, and the effects remain with us today. Transcending tragedy, the horrific events of these dates reach to a level that changes everything we know and ever will know about our world, our country, and ourselves. Hoping against hope, we prayed that this terrible list would not grow, but we must now add Tuesday, September 11, 2001 to the grim list. Mr. Speaker, yesterday our great Nation suffered the most violent and costly attack on American soil in our nation's history, and our lives will never be the same. The attack was aimed at the heart of our country, and the attackers hoped to break the spirit of our citizens. The cowards who attacked us clearly misunderstood the strength of character and resolve of the American people. We do not back down in the face of hardship, and we will prevail over our enemies, no matter how long it takes. Terrorists may shatter our buildings, but they cannot shatter our commitment to the values we hold most dear: freedom, democracy, liberty, opportunity. We must commit ourselves today not only to defend ourselves and punish those who attacked us, we must also commit to rebuild the lives and the innocence that have been shattered. As the scope of the devastation becomes clearer, our task will only grow more serious and important, but I know that we will rebuild our world. As we move forward to rebuild what has been shattered, we must put our world back together in a way that is mindful of not only our profoundly rich history and traditions but is also mindful of that which connects all of humanity. We are blessed by the assistance and efforts of countless rescue workers who are risking their lives to rescue victims; I commend their courageous work and believe that their efforts should be examples to us all as we each make our own contributions to the recovery efforts. Finally, we must not let feelings of anger and frustration rob us of the very things that make our country great. Make no mistake, we will find those responsible for these terrible attacks, and hold them responsible. In doing so, however, we must be thoughtful, careful, and deliberate. We must and will remain vigilant in the defense of the liberties of our citizens. America can be safe and free, and our best days remain before us. God bless America.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1628, the El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail Act of 2001. I want to commend my colleague, Representative Ciro Rodriguez of Texas for introducing this bill. H.R. 1628, the El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail Act of 2001, is a good bill because it provides for the protection and conservation of our cultural heritage. The enactment of H.R. 1628 will serve to continue recognizing the cultural heritage and preservation of the Southwest United States. The measure will also go a long way in strengthening the many common ties between the United States and Mexico that are symbolized by and embodied in the Camino Reales of the Southwest. The El Camino Real de los Tejas has connected the people of Mexico and the United States in transportation and commerce. This bill would help recognize and designate this network of trade routes, post routes, cattle trails and military highways used by Native Americans, Spanish, French and English explorers. Moreover, this bill illustrates the historical importance of these corridors and will contribute to the enhancement of tourism and economic development throughout the region. Designating El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National Historic Trail will, undoubtedly reconnect our citizens even more closely to the ties of historical and cultural heritage with Mexico and Spain. Revitalizing the Camino Real de los Tejas will also allow the larger family of Americans to participate in and benefit from that effort. It will lead to a more rounded, more holistic view of the history of our continent, one that will enable us to continue to discover and explore the commonalities that bond the U.S. with Mexico and Spain. Last year, Representative Sylvestre Reyes and I sponsored similar legislation that was signed by President Clinton. That measure designated El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, which ran from El Paso, Texas to San Juan Pueblo in New Mexico as a National Historic Trail. H.R. 1628 is equally important to the preservation of our cultural resources. Again, I commend Mr. Rodriguez for introducing this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it. I hope that together through efforts like this, we can continue to expand cultural heritage preservation and tourism initiatives throughout the Southwest. In doing so, we celebrate our rich cultural history while expanding economic opportunities.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman. The overwhelming majority of Americans view patients' rights legislation as a priority and strongly support meaningful patient protection legislation. This issue has been debated for many years now and the time for Congress to act is long overdue. Today, however, we have the opportunity to make up for lost time and provide sound, responsible managed care reforms and meaningful protections for patients and their doctors. We can do this by passing the Ganske-Dingell Patients Protection bill. This legislation ensures that physicians, not HMO bureaucrats, are making the medical decisions that affect patient's lives. This legislation provides for strong and effective internal and independent external review of claim denials. This legislation allows patients to hold their insurance companies and HMO's accountable for harm as a result of bureaucratic negligence, malfeasance, or incompetence. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, has my strong support for all of these reasons that I just mentioned. However, should this House pass the Norwood amendment or any of the other amendments later today, this legislation will be turned from the Patients Protection Act to the HMO Protection Act and will lose my support. The Norwood Amendment carves out special protection for HMO's, rolls back patient protections and tramples states rights. I cannot support such an amendment, nor any bill that contains such an amendment. The time for a meaningful patient's protection act is long overdue. Let's not waste the opportunity we have today by passing a bill that protects HMO's instead of patients. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2563, and oppose any amendments that would weaken critically important patient protections. The time for meaningful patient protection is now. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2563 and against weakening amendments.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the rule on H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001. I appreciate the opportunity to share my concerns with one section of H.R. 4 as it stands in its current form. Section 306 authorizes the appropriation of $10 million payment, or subsidies, for three years to domestic uranium producers ``to identify, test, and develop improved in situ leaching mining technologies, including low-cost environmental restoration technologies.'' This legislation is not needed for research and development purposes. In fact, this in-situ leaching process causes radioactive uranium and other toxic chemicals to leach into groundwater, threatening the public health of communities surrounding the mines. The impact of this legislation could be severe on the Southwest's environment and on the public health of the Native American communities I represent. Specifically, section 306 of the SAFE Act of 2001 could directly prop up with millions of taxpayer dollars a uranium mining company that proposes in-situ leach uranium mining in the Crownpoint and Church Rock areas of New Mexico. In the case of the proposed uranium mines in Crownpoint and Church Rock, the mining process would pollute the high-quality aquifer that is the sole source of scarce drinking water for over 10,000 Navajos. This proposed subsidy for the uranium industry also would lead to unsound fiscal policy. In fact, in addition to a host of environmental and Native American groups--both nationally and in New Mexico--this amendment is supported by the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, which views this as an unfair corporate give-away. Most importantly to me, however, are the residents in my District in New Mexico. The local Navajo communities have suffered tremendously over this government's past practices and policies regarding uranium mining. My constituents, as well as those in Arizona, Colorado and Utah continue to be negatively affected by the long-term impacts of past uranium development. We as a nation cannot find the financial resources necessary to fully fund the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, to compensate the victims of past uranium development, but we may put our stamp of approval on this $30 million subsidy for the uranium industry. I oppose this effort. It is sadly ironic that just last week we as a Congress paid a long overdue tribute to the contribution that the Navajo Nation made to our country, in the ceremony to grant Congressional Gold Medals to the Navajo Code Talkers of World War II. I was honored to be a part of that effort and shared the stage with President Bush. However, this week, we are about to ignore them and their pleas for environmental justice again. Section 306 is a slap in the face to the Native Americans in my district that continue to seek justice for the past errors of our energy production policy. For the record, I'd like to read the organizations that support this effort to amend H.R. 4 and eliminate this uranium industry subsidy. Eastern Navajo Dine Against Uranium Mining, Southwest Research and Information Center, Physicians Resisting In-Situ Mining, New Mexico Environmental Law Center, U.S. and New Mexico Public Interest Research Groups, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Mineral Policy Center, Nuclear Information Resource Service, Public Citizen, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on July 10, 2001, four of Washington State's young firefighters died battling a forest fire on the Okanagan National Forest. As I have had time to reflect on this tragic event, I have come to realize that wildland fire suppression continues to be a dangerous and risky operation. As in previous tragedies such as the Mann Gulch fire in Montana and the Storm King Mountain fire in Colorado, our hearts pour out to the families, friends, and colleagues of those who perished fighting wildland fires. The deaths of Tom L. Craven, Jessica L. Johnson, Karen L. Fitzpatrick, and Devin A. Weaver is a disturbing reminder of Mother Nature's powerful forces and unrelenting risks faced by our dedicated firefighters. Although seventeen firefighters lived, as did two campers caught in the explosive fire, I am grieved by the deaths of these four young people and I do not want this to happen again. Their tragic deaths raise significant questions--questions that may likely go unasked in the Forest Service investigation: Could these deaths have been prevented through a different systemic response to fire? Should the Forest Service have been expending hundreds of thousands of dollars and risking the lives of dozens of firefighters to fight a fire in a remote canyon that threatened no houses or resources? Would a fire management plan have ensured that the fire would have been handled differently? The Okanagan fire started in remote backcountry adjacent to a Wilderness Area. The nearest house was at least ten miles away, the nearest town twenty miles away. While the cause of the fire is not yet known, we do know that the fire began in a designated roadless area. If the forest had a fire management plan in place--as is required by countless agency directives--it is likely that such a plan for the area would have provided alternative strategy options for the Forest Service. The Okanagan fire underscores the need to re-examine our nation's approach to forest fire and to reframe the terms of debate. In the wake of this fire will come calls to reduce fire risks through aggressive thinning and full funding for fire preparedness. However, this approach merely perpetuates the culture of fire suppression that operates with few fiscal or social constraints. It also serves to exacerbate the risks of fire through fire exclusion. It perpetuates the illusion that we can and should control all fire, regardless of location and ecosystem. These suppression efforts make little sense fiscally or environmentally. A different approach would have the agency stop putting out fires in remote backcountry. Last year, Congress allocated $1.6 billion to the Forest Service for implementation of its national fire plan. In addition to working with homeowners to reduce vegetation around their homes, these dollars should be spent on returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem. We can do this through targeting thinning, prescribed burns, and fire- use policies. We also should be spending Putting out all fires regardless of location and ecosystem simply puts off the inevitable. The West's forests have burned for thousands of years and will continue to do so. We must learn to live with fire, rather than stepping up the assault on what is still perceived by many as ``the enemy.'' We must stop sacrificing our young people in this futile effort. I would like to enter into the record the following op ed from the Portland Oregonian that highlights these issues: [From the Portland Oregonian, July 17, 2001] Dead firefighters were sent where they didn't belong (By Andy Stahl) I write this not long after four young men and women died battling the Thirty Mile fire in the remote Chewuch River canyon of the Okanogan National Forest. Tom Craven, Karen Fitzpatrick, Devin Weaver and Jessica Johnson were sent by the Forest Service to do a job. They died in the performance of that duty. But was the job they were doing worth their lives? Did this fire, in a steep, remote canyon that threatened no houses or valuable resources, need to be battled? During its investigation into these tragic deaths, the U.S. Forest Service had better answer these questions. The Thirty Mile fire started in roadless, backcountry land immediately adjacent to the remote Pasayten wilderness. Perhaps the fire started from an unattended campfire; the investigation has yet to pin down the cause. The fire began in a designated Research Natural Area, at 6,000 acres, one of the largest RNAs in the nation. This is important in what happened next: It appears fire managers did not even know the fire was in a Research Natural Area. Had they known, they would not have aggressively attacked the fire with aerial retardants and firelines, which are banned in RNAS. Instead, they would have held back and taken a more cautious approach to fighting this fire--an approach that sought to allow the fire to mimic natural processes within this fire-dependent ecosystem. Admittedly, hindsight can be 20-20, but it is worth considering that a more cautious approach to fighting this fire might also have saved lives. The Thirty Mile fire exemplifies the need to take a hard look at our nation's approach to wildland fires. A century of aggressive fire suppression, combined with logging of the biggest and most fire-resistant trees, has damaged ecosystems throughout the West. Continuing to put out every fire in the remote backcountry makes little sense economically or environmentally. We must carefully restore fire to its prominent role as nature's cleansing agent in our public forests. Last year the Congress allocated a record amount, $1.6 billion, to the Forest Service for its national fire plan. The first priority should be to help private homeowners who live near fire-prone national forests to manage the vegetation within several hundred feet of their houses. That's where the biggest difference is made between a home burning up in a forest fire and a home surviving. The next priority should be to return fire to its natural role in the environment. Putting out all fires simply puts off the day of reckoning. Burn today or burn tomorrow, the West's forests have burned for thousands of years and will continue to do so. We must learn to live with fire just as we live with the weather. And we must stop sacrificing our best and brightest young people in this futile war against an implacable enemy.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1140, the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvements Act of 2001. This critical legislation makes important improvements in the benefit structure for retired railroad workers, especially for widows and widowers. After many railroad bankruptcies during the Depression, the government assumed responsibility for workers' pensions, financed with a special payroll tax paid by both rail concerns and their employees. The system is now $40 billion short of what would be required to pay benefits to all the workers who have yet to retire and their survivors. Congress has a responsibility to provide railroad retirees and their survivors with increased benefits, as well as making necessary changes to update and modernize the railroad employee benefit system. To that end, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1140. More than 670,000 retirees and dependents and 245,000 active rail employees will benefit from the improvements made by the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. Please support our nation's railroad workers, rail retirees and spouses by supporting this critical reform package. Vote yes on H.R. 1140.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2540, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2001. This legislation provides an important annual cost-of-living adjustment for disabled veterans, as well as surviving spouses of veteran's who receive dependency and indemnity compensation. H.R. 2540 also makes a number of important changes to improve insurance, compensation, and housing programs for our nation's veterans. I want to thank Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Evans, and my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for supporting the inclusion of provisions from H.R. 1929, the Native American Veterans Home Loan Act of 2001, in H.R. 2540. Ranking Member Evans, fourteen other Members and I introduced H.R. 1929 on May 21st of this year to extend the Native American Veterans Home Loan Pilot Program for another four years, and expedite the process of obtaining VA home loans for Native American Veterans living on tribal and trust lands. This program helps many Native Americans Veterans who might otherwise be unable to obtain suitable housing. Including the important provisions of H.R. 1929 in H.R. 2540 will allow other Native American Veterans to take advantage of this important program. The Native American Veterans Home Loan Pilot Program, however, is just one of many VA benefits improved through H.R. 2540. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of these important benefit enhancements for the men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of liberty and democracy.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today and recognize Katie Henio, a 73-year-old sheepherder and weaver from the Navajo Reservation, who is receiving a national community volunter award this week. Katie is receiving the Yoneo Ono award from the Rural Community Assistance Corporation for her work with the Ramah Navajo Weavers Cooperative, a grassroots group made up of over forty traditional weavers who live on the Ramah Navajo Reservation in the pinon pine country of west central New Mexico. Founded by seventeen women in 1984, the non-profit group is working toward two broad goals: to increase family self-reliance on indigenous resources, and to strengthen important and distinctive land-based traditions, values, and spirituality for future generations of Ramah Navajos. The Ramah Navajo weavers offer high quality traditionally handspun, hand-woven Navajo weavings. Colors are from natural wools or native plants found on or near the Ramah Navajo Reservation, giving a wide range of reds, blues, grays, yellows, tans, and browns. Each weaver raises her own sheep, creates her own designs--many of which have been passed on through generations by family members--spins her own yarns, hand-dyes the yarns using vegetal dyes from local plants, and weaves on the traditional Navajo upright loom. Katie has been the President of the association since 1985 and serves on the planning committee to develop Navajo language and culture curriculum at Pine Hill schools. Katie has also had a children's book written about her, ``Katie Henio, Navajo Sheepherder.'' That book has taught children around the country--far from the Navajo reservation-- about the ways of her people and celebrates their lifestyle. The Yoneo Ono award is given each year to a volunteer who has made a contribution to improving the quality of life in his or her community. It is named in honor of one of the founders of the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, a nonprofit group dedicated to improving the lives of rural citizens in 12 western states. In this day and age, one is hard pressed to find someone so selfless in caring for her community and fellow citizens. Katie epitomizes the values that all of us should strive for: leadership, commitment, dedication, compassion, and self sacrifice. Mother, grandmother, great- grandmother and pillar of her community, Katie's devotion to those around her has rightfully earned her he respect and admiration of those she has served and will continue to serve. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are aware, I serve as the ranking member on the Small Business Subcommittee on Rural Enterprise, Agriculture and Technology. As someone who has dedicated himself to raising awareness of the unique challenges that face rural America, I believe that Katie Henio is an example of a volunteer in a rural community pulling people together and thriving. She has demonstrated that individuals working together make a difference. I wish to extend my best wishes and congratulations to Katie on a job well done, and encourage this wonderful organization to keep up the good work.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for their hard work on this amendment, which I rise in support of. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support the Velazquez-Kelly Amendment that attempts to restore funding to the 7(a) Loan Program, BusinessLINC and PRIME programs. As a member of the Small Business Committee I fear that a reduction in those programs that assist numerous small businesses especially in rural and low-income areas--will greatly hinder their success. Key programs such as PRIME, the 7(a) Loan Program, and Business Link which are critical to business growth have been inadequately funded or zeroed out completely in this bill. In an economy with more questions than answers, we should be increasing opportunities to access capital and technical assistance-- not eliminating them when they are most needed. Point out--many of these programs were designed to assist small businesses in low income areas and in minority communities. My district is one which needs this assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will restore funding to these vital programs used by small businessmen and women.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a special husband-and-wife team from my home state of New Mexico. Pat and Bill Bennett of Placitas have spent the past decade strengthening and enhancing the Placitas Volunteer Fire Brigade. To recognize their dedicated service and commitment, this past Sunday the Brigade was renamed in their honor. Volunteer firefighters provide one of the most valuable services imaginable to this country and its people--that of saving lives and safeguarding our precious lands. Firefighters preserve the integrity of the safety in the communities they serve. Every year, volunteer firefighters are injured, and even die, in the service of their esteemed duty. Volunteer firefighting is one of the hardest jobs imaginable, and it is frequently rewarded only by the knowledge that the service it provides is vital to its community. In this unique case, Bill and Pat both made enormous contributions to the Placitas Volunteer Fire Brigade. Bill, who began as a volunteer firefighter and was later named Chief of the department, helped establish the standards the department uses to fight structural and wildland fires. Although he retired from the department last year, Bill is still active the in planning and training of new firefighters. Pat, a registered nurse and an emergency-medical technician, is currently the brigade's medical Captain, and was a major contributor to the development of the department's medical procedures and standards. It is also important to note that in 1999, the New Mexico Injury Prevention and EMS Bureau named Pat the state's Emergency Medical Technician-Basic of the Year. Mr. Speaker, it is often said that nothing is bigger than the heart of a volunteer. I think that is especially true for Pat and Bill and all the volunteer firefighters in New Mexico and across the country. For all their courage, their strength, their selflessness, and their dedication, I salute each and every one of them.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think this is an excellent motion to instruct, and one of the things this motion does is seek to remedy a long overdue injustice. U.S. Citizens who went to work in uranium mines and downwinders who lived below atomic bomb explosions have suffered severely at the hands of the United States Government. Government doctors knew they were in danger. The Atomic Energy Commission knew they were in danger. But nobody told them, when they were working in the mines, the mines were dirty and they were going to get lung cancer. Nobody told the people living downwind that they were in danger. These victims had to go to court to try to seek justice. And they lost in the courts, and the courts came back and said, this situation cries out for justice. Finally, in 1990, the U.S. Congress acted and corrected that injustice and said compensation should be paid and a national apology be given to these individuals. Very few occasions in our Nation's industry has that occurred. Many of these victims are Navajo Indians who live in the remotest part of the country. They knew nothing of the dangers, and they are entitled to this compensation. But guess what, my colleagues, the government is out of money. The government account is empty, and we are issuing IOUs to those people. We are issuing IOUs to elderly Navajo widows who have large families. We are issuing IOUs to people that are living and have lung cancer and are waiting for this payment, many waiting for 25 years. There are 438 IOUs totaling $31 million. This is a national outrage, and this motion to instruct will tell the House conferees to accede to the Senate number and put the money in there and do justice.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership on this issue and caring about our children in this country. Mr. Speaker, I will say as we wrap up here that these are important issues to the American people.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, there are two important points here. Number one, get a new negotiator. There are plenty of former Attorneys General, there are State attorneys general, there are people in the government. The President should have another negotiator in place. Secondly, how do you give credibility to this whole process? The process right now has a big cloud over it. There are serious questions that have arisen. I think involving the States attorneys general, a group of attorneys general that can come in and say, we are headed towards a settlement now, is this a good settlement. Then they can visit privately with the administration. Also in the end they should be able to make public pronouncements about the validity of the lawsuit, the size of the settlement, what was extracted in the settlement. There is no group in this country that knows more about what should be in a settlement than State attorneys general. I would hope that not only would he remove Attorney General Ashcroft from this, but he would also focus on some independent oversight by State attorneys general. I certainly believe that with the combination of those two items, that we would be able to have a good outcome here.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. And what we were trying to do in recommending some kind of trust fund was to say these issues are not going away. The tobacco companies are advertising, and they are still out there. We prevented them from targeting kids, but they are still out there selling cigarettes. We know how many kids; 3,000 kids are starting smoking every day. The idea is get a trust fund, have those monies, the principal on your trust fund, work toward preventing that. One of the most effective things that can be done is counteradvertising, and that is one of the recommendations that we were making. Go on television, go out with billboards, and any information you can give to the public about the dangers of smoking and try to target it to specific audiences and have it be relevant to those audiences. After somebody gets addicted, they start when they are young, one of the next issues is how do you get them off. There are cessation programs. There are a variety of programs to help people wean themselves from cigarettes; and those could also be funded. Give people a chance to get themselves off of tobacco. The thing that is deplorable to me is that many of the States have not taken this approach, have not headed down this road. New Mexico is not completely down this road either. They have taken the money and just let it flow into the general fund and spent on whatever comes up. Some States have taken the money and built roads. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It is pretty rare that a State has a huge lump sum of money, anywhere from 5 to 6 to 1.2 or $10 billion flowing into the State over 25 years. And if you are creative, inventive, you can really do, I think, some good things as far as public health and as far as our children.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his comments. The State of New Mexico is planning to get about $1.2 billion under the master settlement. That is the largest civil settlement in the State of New Mexico. The way that this settlement was worked out, it will flow in over 25 years. We do not have all $1.2 billion at this time. We are getting smaller amounts, and they balloon up over time. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about some of the proposals that were out there and then what they are actually doing now, and maybe we can get into a discussion on that. First of all, the public health community came forward, many of these cancer doctors, the oncologists came forward, and the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Society, all of them came forward and said, we need to work on specifically how we spend these dollars. They came up with what I thought were some very good recommendations. First of all, we could start a trust fund. One of the best recommendations, and I was very supportive of this and worked with my legislature, set up a trust fund and try to get the trust fund to the level that it was way up there in dollars so we could then use the principal rather than using the capital. If you took a lot of this money and put it into a trust fund, then there could be a perpetual flow of money to deal with the tobacco issues.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank my colleague very much for those comments. And let me follow on one of the thoughts that came out of what the gentleman just said and this New York Times editorial I just talked about. There was a paragraph in there that I thought was particularly interesting that should be illuminated on a little bit. People may wonder why the Times said this. They said in the editorial, ``the interests of industrial campaign backers before its duty to protect the public health.'' They were accusing the Bush administration of showing a troubling propensity to put the interests of industrial campaign backers before the duty of public health. So what are they talking about there? And I have been following this very closely, because we all know when we run in campaigns and we are active and we are out there and doing fund-raising the, fund-raising can tell us a lot about actions and agenda and those kinds of things. We have just finished here tonight a discussion of campaign finance reform, and so if we look at the Center for Responsive Politics and what they have researched on money in the last election, 83 percent, 83 percent of the tobacco contributions went to the Republican Party. So when they talk about following contributors, I think that is what they are talking about there. If we look at individual contributions, $90,000 went specifically to the Bush campaign, only $8,000 to the Gore campaign. So we are talking about another large amount in terms of differences. A large disparity. So the bottom line here is that President Bush has got to get a new negotiator. I wrote what I considered a very congenial letter. The gentleman mentioned it in his comments, a congenial letter to the President saying this is a problem, this is a conflict, this has an appearance, a serious appearance problem. This gentleman has come to the job with a bias and you have to get a new negotiator to protect the public interest. Now, I do not have anybody in mind, and I would not be presumptuous to tell the President who to pick as his negotiator. He clearly needs someone he can trust, and he ought to replace the current Attorney General and just have him step aside on this. But the other way, it seems to me, with this whole cloud that is out there over this settlement, to take care of this, is to involve the State attorneys general. There is nobody in the Nation with more credibility on this issue than the State attorneys general. They sued the tobacco companies. They were the first ones to bring them to the table. They were the very first ones to get a settlement out of the tobacco companies. No other lawyers had ever done this before. The tobacco companies always used to wave their fingers at us and say, we fight to the end. If you file against us, we are going to fight it to the end and we have never paid a penny. Well, they paid $240 billion. So that is a pretty penny there, I will tell you.