Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and other cosponsors, I introduce a bill that will put at least one Federal prosecutor in every State. There is no question that our Nation is facing a growing scourge of gun violence that is holding an increasing number of our communities under siege. Crimes committed with firearms are among the most heinous and should be prosecuted as quickly and forcefully as possible. While the Federal government has in the past approached the problem of gun violence by passing new Federal laws and putting more cops on the beat, there is nothing that can be done to attack the problem if our prosecutors do not have the resources they need to enforce existing laws. Simply put, we must give them the resources they need to fully enforce existing gun laws. That is why we have introduced the Gun Crime Prosecution Act of 1999. This legislation will give every United States Attorney for each judicial district an additional Assistant U.S. Attorney position whose sole purpose would be the prosecution of crimes committed with a firearm. Specifically, each new prosecutor position would give priority to violent crimes and crimes committed by felons by committing a full- time position within the United States Attorney's office to prosecuting gun crimes. We will be giving our prosecutors the tools they need to enforce the laws that already exist in the statute. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation to provide for the protection of various historical sites in the Galisteo Basin of New Mexico. The Galisteo Basin has a rich cultural history dating back to 1598 when Spanish Conquistadors arrived in the area and found thriving Pueblo Indian communities. These communities, dating back to prehistoric times, had their own unique traditions of religion, architecture and art. The interaction of the Spanish and Pueblo Indian cultures witnessed periods of coexistence and conflict which has contributed significantly to present day ``New Mexican`` culture. Protecting what remains of the early pueblo communities is important to New Mexicans and to those who seek an understanding of early Southwestern history. These sites include examples of stone and adobe pueblo architectural styles, typical of Native American pueblo communities, both prior to and during early Spanish colonization periods; Native American petroglyph art, and historic missions constructed by the Spaniards as they sought to convert the native populace to Catholicism. Unfortunately, many of these sites may be lost through weathering, erosion, vandalism, and amateur excavations. This legislation however, creates a program under the Department of the Interior to preserve twenty-six archeological sites in the Galisteo Basin, conduct additional archeological research in the area, and provide for public interpretation of the sites. Although many of the sites are on federal public lands, other sites are on either state trust lands or on private property. Under this legislation, site preservation, research and public interpretation would be conducted on federal public lands and could be augmented with voluntary cooperative agreements with state agencies and private land owners. These agreements would provide state and private landowners technical and financial assistance to preserve sites located on their property. This legislation also provides for the purchase or exchange of property where the parties deem it appropriate. Mr. Speaker, this is a companion bill to a bill introduced in the other chamber by Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. By preserving these sites, we should be able to preserve the history and culture embodied in these sites for future generations. I am confident that this chamber realizes the importance of this bill in preserving New Mexican history for current and future generations. Therefore, I ask immediate consideration and passage of this bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I think the gentleman has been out there on the front and he has really demonstrated why we need to do something about this cause. I rise today to talk about the problem of prescription drug costs. I have held a series of town hall meetings around my district in New Mexico and I ask senior citizens in these town hall meetings about health care and what their problems are. It became apparent to me very early on that one of the most frequently mentioned problems was how to deal with rising prescription drug costs. As one woman put it, she said, on a fixed income, I have to make a tough choice between my prescriptions and food and other essentials. So imagine having to make a choice between food and one's prescription drugs. There could not be a tougher choice. Well, basically we have heard some discussion here about what the problem is, and I would like to identify a little bit further where I think it is coming from. First of all, I think it is absolutely clear that we have an increasing drug cost situation going on. Clearly, Medicare does not cover the cost of prescription drugs. When I ask in my district, people said they got insurance, supplemental insurance, but found out that it did not even cover most of the cost of prescription drugs. The HMOs, although many of them say they cover the cost of prescription drugs, there are problems getting drugs there. So we have seniors paying out of their own pocket in order to cover those prescription drug costs, and we have big drug companies who are making record profits, and yet they discriminate between preferred customers and senior citizens. So this is an issue that Congress can really do something about. First, we can attack it with the gentleman's piece of legislation, which I think goes a long way toward trying to sort out this discrimination issue. We can require that the large, big drug companies sell at that preferred customer cost to the small pharmacies who, in my district, have said they would just pass that on to senior citizens, pass on that savings. Second, we can pass a real tough patient Bill of Rights. That patient Bill of Rights would say that if a doctor prescribes a drug, then it is going to be required that it be paid for, and we have such a proposal, a Democratic proposal that is circulating that I have signed on to and I am sure many others have signed on to here. Third, when we get into the whole issue of Medicare and making sure that Medicare is solvent, we can at least say that part or all of prescription drugs should be covered under that program which has helped so many since it was put in place in the 1960's. So let me just finish by saying, it is time we do something now; it is time that we move forward. I appreciate so much having the opportunity to speak and to have all of my other colleagues here that are working on this issue. I want to once again thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. Over the past few decades the contribution of women-owned businesses to our economy has grown exponentially. Today, the 8 million women- owned firms in this country contribute more than $2.3 trillion annually to the U.S. economy and offer jobs to one out of every five U.S. workers. Moreover, women-owned businesses are now starting at twice the rate of all other businesses in the United States, and, by the year 2000, it is expected that nearly one out of every two businesses will be owned by a woman. In my home state of New Mexico, in particular, women-owned firms account for 41 percent of all businesses, provide employment for over 35 percent of the state's workforce, and generate 21 percent of all sales. This success is even more remarkable in that it ranks New Mexico third of all the states in women-owned business incorporations--a statistic that identifies women-owned firms as an important part of New Mexico's efforts to improve the lives of all its residents. One of the efforts responsible for the success of women-owned businesses is the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Center program. Currently, there are 59 centers in 36 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. These centers provide technical assistance, business information and counseling, and other specialized assistance to socially and economically disadvantaged women entrepreneurs. The services provided by women's business centers include assistance in gaining access to capital, procuring government contracts, and helping women to work their way off public assistance. In New Mexico alone, the six women's business centers run by the Women's Economic Self-Sufficiency Team (WESST Corp.), facilitated the start-up and growth of over 600 small businesses, provided technical assistance to over 3,500 client firms, and conducted business-training activities for over 6,000 individuals. Most importantly, 81 percent of the clientele of these women's business centers have been low-income individuals and 47 percent have been women of color. The impact of women's business centers in New Mexico is illustrated through a number of success stories that were told by Agnes Noonan, Executive Director of the WESST Corp., during a recent hearing on women's business centers: Heidi Monotya's desire to run her own firm grew out of the frustrations of working for years as a draftsperson for a company which offered few benefits and no retirement opportunities. In 1989, Heidi took the leap, opening Builders Hardware of New Mexico, which sells commercial grade doors and frames and finish hardware. Heidi and WESST Corp. joined forces when Heidi attended an orientation meeting, and WESST Corp. granted Heidi a loan for a computer that enabled her to create a presence on the Internet and market more effectively to government agencies. Since 1993, Builders Hardware's gross sales have increased by 129 percent. A single mother, Heidi maintains a second office at home for after-school hours. Two years ago, Diane Barrett was receiving food stamps, sleeping on a friend's floor and struggling to provide for her son. But she also had a background as a chef. In 1996, Diane approached WESST Corp.'s regional office in Las Cruces, which helped her create a business plan and receive a $5,000 loan to open a bakery and cafe. Since then, Diane has expanded the seating area, added a dinner menu, and is currently employing 19 people. In 1998, Diane's Bakery and Cafe was selected as the Mainstreet Business of the Year in Silver City, New Mexico. Recently interviewed by the Travel Section of the New York Times, Diane is a great example of how hard work and commitment to a business pays off. Norma Gomez, a native of Mexico, came to the United States in the 1980s. On welfare, with three children and limited proficiency with English, Norma had difficulty being taken seriously when the opportunity arose to open her own business. With her small savings, she opened her shop in a strip mall in Farmington, only to find the overhead exceeded her income. She came to WESST Corp. for help with planning, marketing and financing assistance. With technical assistance from WESST Corp., Norma relocated, adopted an inventory tracking system, and developed a long-term business plan. WESST Corp. also convinced suppliers to provide Norma with accounts and better terms. The result of these efforts was a 300% increase in profits in the first year. Agnes Cordova, of Taos, New Mexico, has combined her cultural heritage with business acumen to create ``Sube!''--a multimedia, bilingual educational program designed to teach Spanish to preschool and early elementary children. The set of flashcards, board game, videotapes with original music, and computer software have all been well received in the local area and plans are being hatched for broader marketing efforts. Each component is offered separately so that parents can afford the educational supplies that can supplement formal language education. Agnes is now planning to develop materials for older kids as well. By matching her heritage with business opportunity, Agnes is creating economic opportunity for herself and helping to preserve the unique culture of northern New Mexico. Nevertheless, in spite of their demonstrated contributions to the national economy and to individual women--recent surveys and testimonials have highlighted that many women's business centers have been forced to cut back on services or prematurely close their doors when they lose the support of the Small Business Administration's Office of Women's Business Ownership. Today, 25 percent of the women's business centers initially funded by the SBA are closed--and of this 25 percent, many are only partly operational. In fact, while several of the WESST Corp. sites in New Mexico have already lost SBA funding and have been able to continue providing programs, others have suffered considerably in their work due to the loss of support. To address this problem, I am introducing the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. This legislation will allow re-competition for Federal funding by Women's Business Centers which have completed a funding term, and will raise the authorization of appropriations for FY 2000 and FY 2001 Women Business Center funding from $11 million to $12 million per year. Additionally, the legislation will reserve 60 percent of these appropriations for grants to new centers--to continue to promote women's business centers in more communities throughout the nation as well as to ensure adequate, continuing support for established, effective centers. The Women's Business Center program has helped countless women start and expand their own businesses. It is vital that we continue to support this valuable program. I invite and encourage all of my fellow Members of Congress to join me in supporting this program.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about reforming HMOs. Last year I met a young mother in my hometown of Santa Fe. She was a single mother in her late twenties who was trying to raise a 7 year-old son while working full-time and attending school full-time as well. Now, as anyone will tell you, any young mother in this position would have her hands full. But what made this young woman unique was that her son had a serious medical condition that required access to very specific medical equipment and medication. She met with a family doctor who told them that her child could not lead a normal life without this very specific care. But when she went to her HMO to help pay for it, she received a letter saying her request had been denied. For months she tried to appeal, but it was to no avail. It was not until she threatened to wage a public relations campaign against the HMO and the local press that they reluctantly agreed to pay for the treatment. In the end it worked out for her and her young son, but for many, many more it does not. Far too often, Mr. Speaker, we hear stories of patients who are left seriously ill or injured as a result of medical negligence by HMOs. These people find their lives in upheaval, not because of a medical mishap on an operating table, but rather because a profit-driven insurance company bureaucrat was more concerned with the bottom line than their well-being. This must stop. We have got to put our partisan bickering aside and work towards a true bipartisan Patient Bill of Rights. The Patient Bill of Rights must allow doctors and patients to make the medical decisions. We must make sure that doctors and patients are once again allowed to make the medical decisions rather than insurance company bureaucrats. Provide the doctors, not the HMOs deciding the appropriate drugs for patients in their care. We must ensure that patients who have drug benefits can get the prescription drug their doctor judges they need even if the drug is not on the HMOs' approved list. Access to specialists; we must allow patients, when necessary, to receive referrals to specialists outside their health plan at no extra cost to them. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that children have access to pediatric specialists. Holding HMOs accountable, we must provide patients with the ability to appeal treatment decisions through both internal and external grievance procedures, and we must give patients the right to hold insurance companies legally accountable when their treatment decisions result in injury or death to a patient. Pass a comprehensive Patient Bill of Rights. It is the only way we will ever be able to once again put patients before profits.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. One of the parts, and I think the gentleman touched on it, that I believe is a particularly valuable part of this bill, is the setting up of a blue ribbon panel to study the entire campaign finance system. Those of us here in the House that have worked on this issue realize that we probably need some people to take a big comprehensive look at the whole system, spend 18 months and come back to us with some of the issues that we are not addressing here. The gentleman and I both know that in a campaign today 80-85 percent of our money is spent on television. Well, these are airwaves that are owned by the public. The broadcasters and media people get these licenses. In Britain they have great debates when they enter into an election. They are all publicly televised at no cost. I think there are parts of this bill where we could make the bill stronger, but I believe the way to do it is to have this big broad commission go out and do their very best to find out how we can get back to work in this body, how we can lessen the impact of special interests, how we can do everything we can to make sure that the people's voices are heard in our democracy. I think this commission idea, although it is not mentioned that much, I think is a good one, of getting citizens to go out and report back to us.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Baird, you mention the point of the responsible broadcasters that are out there, and I really believe that many of us have seen in our congressional districts many responsible broadcasters. And I think over the 8 to 9 years that I have been in public service, I have seen broadcasters step forward with free time and say right near an election, ``we are going to give you 5 minutes completely unrestricted and you can say whatever you want.'' Now, that is a very I think commendable effort on their part. And there is another proposal they have come up with, this idea of banking credits for television time and involving the political process and the electoral process in that. So I would like to hear their ideas as to how is the best way to do this. When I spent 5 weeks in England during one of their elections, all of it was on television. The entire public was engaged. And it was not on in 30-second ads. It was on real debates, where men and women were discussing the direction of the country, they were discussing what are their values and what direction do they want to move in. And it was a very stimulating debate. And as somebody that was not even allowed to vote, they would walk into one of their establishments and they would be right in the middle of a big political debate to where Britain should go. So we need to try to get to the point where we bring our elections back to really this idea of a marketplace of ideas, a true discussion, involving the public, bringing them in. And we are not doing that right now. The 30-second commercials I think are turning people off. They are saying this is not a part, this is not a part of me; this is some other debate taking place over there.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) in terms of leveling the playing field. I very much believe that the imbalance that is there with the fund-raising, with the ability of an incumbent to buy incredible numbers of 30-second ads, it perverts the whole system. And we need to try for a system where when there are two candidates or three candidates, or however many there are in a particular primary or general election, that they do have equal time and that they have the ability to get their ideas across. The 30-second spot, although it may be a good medium to convey an idea, is so restricting in terms of allowing an individual to really articulate their vision for the country, where they want to take the country. And so in structuring this, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) put together a bill that I think is going to level the playing field, create a commission where they can come back and tell us other ways that we can try to make sure the challengers have a true opportunity to get their ideas out. And I think that is what we are all about here in terms of our freshman class, and members of our freshman class that have signed on, is saying, we have been through it, we know how it works, we need to reform it and we need to reform it right now.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Baird, the idea that people do not care about this, the idea that somehow the electorate is not concerned about the issue of how our campaigns are financed is one that when people throw that idea out I just instinctively believe that they have not been around, they have not heard what people have said. Because when I ask people, ``what would you do to change the system?'' they say, ``no gifts at all, no corporate giving, very small amounts of money.'' They do not even like how high the amount is now. ``Get the money completely out of politics.'' Those are the kinds of comments I hear. And that is clearly where they are coming from, and they want us to reform. Mr. Speaker, we have here the gentlewoman from the great State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). She would like to join our debate I believe, and I yield to her.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the gentlewoman very much for those excellent comments. Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that either one of my colleagues may want to engage me in, is an important issue. There were people in the past that have shone the light. The gentlewoman mentioned Paul Simon from her great State. I know two individuals, one, Senator Proxmire from Wisconsin who took the attitude that he was not going to take any money, and he sent money back, actually. What he would do is every time he would go out to Wisconsin, he would get out at the professional football games, stand in line and shake 40,000 hands. He figured that was the way to get reelected. Back in those days, he did a good job of it and people loved him. And Representative Pat Williams, I think, was asked when he left Congress what he was going to miss, and he said that the one thing he had never gotten into was making telephone calls for fund-raising. He said, ``Somebody else can do that.'' Clearly we are in a different time because of the mistrust and because of all of the issue ads and everything else that is out there, but we need to try and move back, I think, to the point where there is more of that. Their real purpose in doing that was saying, ``I want to focus on my job. I don't want to take one minute away from my job.''

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The issue of the individuals, the Members of Congress, that are here and how they relate to this system, I do not think there is any doubt that we have people that are here that are well-intentioned, they care about their constituencies, they care very much about their congressional districts, and they are caught in a bad system. They are caught in a bad system. That is why I am so proud of our freshman class for stepping up to the plate. The freshman class that preceded us did the same thing. Members from both sides of the aisle last August, in 1998, 252 Members, voted for this bill that all of us want to see passed today. I think that sends a very strong message that we want change, we want people to be heard, we want truly to open up the system and get back to ideas rather than money. If there are no additional comments from either the gentleman from Washington or the gentlewoman from Illinois, let me at this point just close by saying that I am very, very proud of our freshman class for stepping up to the plate on this issue. I am very proud of the gentleman from Washington for his leadership on this issue as the president of our freshman class, and the gentlewoman from Illinois. I know that she has also become a leader on this issue and I compliment her on that and say that I think with all of us working together and reaching across the aisle, I really and truly think we are going to get this done, we are going to get it done early and get it over to the other body. I think we are going to see progress on this issue this year. I thank both my colleagues for their participation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) very much. One of the issues that the gentleman mentioned, and I hope we can carry on a little discussion about some of these issues that the gentleman has raised here, the first one is this issue of people being discouraged from going into elective politics. I have traveled throughout my Congressional District and gone into high schools and taught high school classes and tried to talk about what it means to be a public servant and why we need good public servants. And, in fact, I have heard people say if we do not have the best and the brightest going into our governmental arena, then we relegate ourselves to second class leadership. I think that is really the thrust of what the gentleman is saying there. The gentleman, in a very powerful way, is saying if we change the system, we may open it up to a whole new group of leaders out there that will say, look, this is a cleaner system, this is a better system, this is a system that I believe I can stand up and be a part of. I was wondering, does the gentleman see those kinds of things in Washington, in his district, where he thinks there would be a lot more interest in terms of individuals?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Washington (Mr. Baird), who is also the President of our freshman class.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the issue ads, it seems to me, are something that, I do not know in the State of Colorado, but I know in New Mexico that the issue ads are a completely different thing when one gets to the Federal level. I mean I ran 2 years, two times, two terms as State Attorney General. I never saw an issue add. I never had an independent group come in and attack me or speak up for my opponent. They did not clutter the debate that was going on, the very serious debate about the issues. But one gets in the Federal race, and it is remarkable the change that takes place. Big national groups raising soft money, raising hard money, come into one's district, they label themselves with the most innocuous sounding labels, Responsible Citizens For Good Government, and then they get in there and slash and burn against one's opponent or for you or however it comes out. It generally is very, very negative stuff. They are dumping things that candidates would not ever touch. They are getting into issues that candidates would be editorialized against, would be criticized bringing up the issues. They have changed the whole tenor of the campaign. I really believe that those issue ads with these changes we make will go a long way, will go a long way towards reforming the system, because if one has to disclose who is supporting them, if one has to have it in hard dollars, it is going to make a big difference. I do not know what the gentleman's thoughts are on that, but I am sure that he has seen the same thing in his elections in Colorado, that maybe he does not see these issue ads at the State level. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for those comments. The gentleman from Colorado mentioned the issue of spending time and how it takes away from the job. It seems to me, as I have been here for this short period of time, and I am sure that it impresses upon him that the number of issues that the United States Congress deals with and that the House deals with, whether it is international issues in Kosovo, whether it is education and health care, Social Security, Medicare, I mean, every day, there is so much for us to learn. We could be much better at legislating if we had the time to spend on those issues, studying the issues, meeting with people that have concerns, trying to do everything we can to educate ourselves. I think all of us know that, when we are out there fund-raising, we are taking time away from something that we should be spending time on. Yet we know that we have to be prepared to deal with these sham issue ads and attack ads that come from other sides. So we are caught in a rough place. I know the gentleman from Colorado has been through a campaign where he has had something like that happen. The gentleman from Colorado may want to talk a little bit about that.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his excellent comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), my cousin.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that is absolutely crucial to our democracy, and that issue is the issue of reforming our campaign finance system. America is built, I say to my colleagues, on a system of a marketplace of ideas where we enter into elections, we debate ideas, we are out front, trying to figure out where we should move as a country, what direction we should go in as a country. That marketplace of ideas is being interfered with today, because what is happening is the biggest checkbook is determining what goes on in America, rather than the people's voices. As one person said, ``The poor man's soap box does not equal the rich man's checkbook.'' So we need to return to those basic democratic principles, and if we reform our campaign finance system, we can do that. This is an issue that calls for bipartisanship. We have got to see the kind of bipartisanship that we have seen on this issue in the past. The Shays-Meehan bill, which is the bill I have signed on to and many Members of my freshman class and many Members from both sides of the aisle have signed on to, last year passed the House of Representatives 252 to 179 in August of 1998. This year, we have seen even more support than last year. We have more cosponsors at this point. Mr. Speaker, we have 110 cosponsors at this point, with 27 Republicans. When we take the new Members, we have more support than we did last year, and it is bipartisan support, it is encouraging to see friends from both sides of the aisle rising and joining on an issue that is so important to our democracy. People say that there is no support. I have heard the comment over and over again. People say there is no support for campaign finance reform. We cannot limit in any way the system. People do not want it. Well, I say to my colleagues, the voters are disenchanted and part of the reason they are disenchanted is because they view the system as one that is being controlled by money. They view the system as one that is controlled by special interests, and they do not believe that their voices are being heard. The undue influence of money is an absolutely crucial issue. This bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, would ban soft money. It would take soft money completely out of the system. Some people have described soft money as the cancer on our democracy, I think a very apt description. Let us talk a little bit about the disenchantment of citizens. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago in this Nation, 75 percent of the people, 75 percent of the people when they were asked the question said, they trusted government to do the right thing, trusted elected officials to do the right thing most of the time, and 25 percent said they did not. Now, a generation later, we have 75 percent of the people saying they do not trust elected officials to do the right thing most of the time. Not a very tough test, but that is what they say. So in a generation, we have eroded the trust, the credibility in our electoral system. Well, this campaign finance system that we have now is what is undermining that credibility. It is what is getting to the people, saying that it is actually convincing people that they should not participate in our democracy, that they should not be a part of our democracy. Let me say to my colleagues, this bill, this bill is not all that should be done. I support this bill. We are going to push this bill through the House. But more can be done, and that is what is so hopeful about this bill. Because one of the things we are going to see is a commission. Mr. Speaker, a 12-member commission, after this law is passed, is going to meet 180 days after the adjournment of the session and is going to report on other major reforms that should be taken in this area. They are going to study issues and bring back to us major reforms, and those reforms will have to be voted up or down along the same lines as the Base Closing Commission operates. The other fact that I think needs to be noted is that the Federal Government is far, far behind the States on this issue. The States are making huge changes in their campaign finance system. The State of Maine had a ballot initiative in 1996, over 2 years ago, where 56 percent of the voters said we do not like the current system. Let us change it. They passed a $3 checkoff, and 80,000 have already signed up for that checkoff. They have a financing system that cuts government in order to get the revenues to finance their campaign finance system. They have taken a big step to clean up the system. In Arizona, taxpayers have done the same thing. They have increased lobbyist fees from $25 to $100 to try to do everything they can to raise the money to operate a decent system. They have created voluntary tax checkoff on their tax forms, and they have imposed a 20 percent surcharge on civil and criminal fines in order to raise money to operate the system better. Massachusetts has also taken major reforms at the State level. So I say to Members now is the time to return democracy to the people. In order to do that, a big step would be made by endorsing campaign finance reform legislation in the form of the Shays-Meehan bill. We have to do it early. We have to do it now. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his statements on this issue.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for yielding. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. There is a companion bill in the other body authored by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. This bill seeks to compensate uranium miner victims for their losses. It also seeks to compensate the millers and transportation workers who received radiation exposure. The Federal Government was aware of the dangers and yet it allowed thousands of men to be exposed to high levels of radiation, causing death and serious injuries. The Congress has acted once before on this issue, but we did not go far enough. The bill moves us in the right direction. It moves us in a just direction. Mr. Speaker, for more than 50 years, the U.S. Government has ignored a group of its citizens who are most in need of its attention. For years, our government asked its citizens in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and new Mexico--many of whom lived on the Navajo Reservation-- to serve their country by mining, milling, and transporting uranium. For 50 years, these citizens did what was asked of them. But slowly, Mr. Speaker, over the years they began to realize that their lives were changing. More and more of them were becoming sick. They were developing respiratory problems. They were developing cancer. Although the Federal Government had adequate knowledge of the hazards involved in uranium mining, miners were sent into inadequatly ventilated mines with little or no knowledge of the dangers they were being exposed to. In 1990, Congress realized that something had to be done. So it passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) to compensate underground miners in several of the states where uranium mining occurred. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we did not go far enough. Over the past 9 years, we have learned much more about the effects of radiation on our health and communities. We know now that exposure to radiation was not limited solely to miners, but to those who milled and transported the ore. We know now that exposure to uranium is responsible for more medical conditions than originally thought. And we know now that the devastating effects of exposure to uranium extends far beyond the few states included in the original law. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to make things right. That is why today I introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. This bill has bipartisan support and is co- sponsored by my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Skeen. The credit for this bill belongs to those activists who have dedicated their lives to correcting this injustice. This is a companion bill to legislation introduced in the other body by Mr. Bingaman of New Mexico, and co-sponsored by the Democratic leader in that body, Mr. Daschle. First, our legislation expands the geographic area eligible for compensation to include the Navajo Reservation. According to a recent study by the National Cancer Institute, Navajo children in the 1950s found themselves exposed to extremely high levels of radiation during the period of heaviest fallout from the Nevada Test Site. There are several differences between this legislation and similar legislation introduced in this body during the last Congress. (1) We include transport workers who may have been exposed to radiation while transporting the uranium away from the mines. (2) The compensation we provide for the so-called ``downwinders'' includes diseases that were not previously attributed to radiation exposure, and are not included in the House bill. These include salivary, urinary, colon, brain, ovarian and male breast cancer. The RECA improvement bill needs to keep pace with medical knowledge. (3) We direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to report on the known health effects to communities where there were uranium mines and mills. A report on the status and outcomes of reclamation of uranium mines, mills, and mill tailings is required along with recommendations for further action. (4) Finally, we ask the Secretary of HHS to evaluate access to and quality of diagnostic health services for all affected populations. Mr. Speaker, this issue belongs to the people. We would not be as far along without the help of many people from throughout the affected areas. I would like to recognize some of those individuals. J.C. Begay, Delegate to the Navajo Nation Council Herbert Benally, Churchrock Chapter President Timothy H. Benally, Sr. Uranium Education Office Roxanna Bristow, Colorado Uranium Workers Council Doug Brugge, Ph.D. Cibola County, New Mexico County Commissioners Suzan Dawson, Ph.D., University of Utah Carole Dewey Leroy Esplain, Office of Navajo Uranium Workers Anna Frazier, Dine CARE Curtis Freeman, Utah Uranium Workers Council John Fowler, Navajo Uranium Millers Radiation Victims Tom Gregory, Albuquerque Miners and Millers Phil Harrison, Jr., Navajo Uranium Radiation Victims Committee Paul Hicks, New Mexico Uranium Workers Council Al Waconda, Laguna-Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment Alexander Thorne, Northern AZ Navajo Downwinders/Radiation Victims Hazel Merritt, Utah Navajo DownWinders Committee Tommy Reed, Jr., Post '71 Uranium Miners The Navajo Nation Council Melton Martinez, Eastern Navajo Agency & Western States RECA Coalition Bill Redmond, Former Member of Congress Liz Lopez-Rall, Mayor of Milan, New Mexico Paul Robinson, Ph.D., Southwest Research and Information Center Lloyd Totalita, Governor of Acoma Pueblo Ron Ortiz, City Councilman, Grants, New Mexico Gary Madson, Ph.D., University of Utah Alice May Yazzie, Community Organizer Ben Shelly, McKinley County, New Mexico County Commissioner Kevin Martinez, Esq. Ken Martinez, New Mexico State Legislator ``Mag'' Martinez, Vice President of New Mexico Uranium Workers Council Bill Snodgrass, Mayor of Grants, New Mexico Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the 1990 RECA is the beginning of a long process to remedy these injustices. It corrects omissions in the current law and makes the law consistent with current medical knowledge. The time for us to act is now. The people of the affected areas deserve no less.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about school modernization. There is absolutely no doubt that our schools are in a state of despair. I have traveled New Mexico and talked to students and teachers in the schools and seen the problems firsthand, from buildings being shut down because of health and safety violations, temporary classrooms put on the campus for 1 year and used for 10 years, and the list could go on and on. Mr. Speaker, one in three New Mexico schools need repair and need to be refurbished. The cost is staggering: $2 billion. No one entity can do it. So what we need, Mr. Speaker, is a partnership of the States, local school boards, the Federal Government, to make sure that we build 21st century learning institutions for our children.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation, which is being cosponsored by my colleague from New Mexico, Heather Wilson, that provides for the transfer of an unwanted facility and federal land to the people of Rio Arriba County, NM. Mr. Speaker, this is a companion bill to a bill that has already been reintroduced in the other chamber on January 21, 1999, by Senator Domenici and cosponsored by Senator Bingaman, both of New Mexico. This bill was originally introduced by Senator Domenici as the Rio Arriba, New Mexico Land Conveyance Act of 1998. With the administration's support, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported the bill unanimously in May 1998. On July 17, 1998, the Senate passed this legislation as S. 1510. Unfortunately, the bill died in this chamber at the end of the last session. This legislation provides for a transfer by the Secretary of Interior of real property and improvements at an abandoned and surplus ranger station in the Carson National Forest to Rio Arriba County. This site is known locally as the ``Old Coyote Administration Site'' and is located near the town of Coyote, NM. The site will continue to be used for public purposes and may be used as a community center, fire substation, storage facilities, or space to repair road maintenance equipment and other county vehicles. Mr. Speaker, the Forest Service has moved its operations to a new facility and has determined that this site is of no further use. Furthermore, the Forest Service has notified the General Services Administration that improvements to this site are considered surplus and the sites are available for disposal. In addition, the land on which the facility is built, is withdrawn public domain land, and falls under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. Since neither the Bureau of Land Management nor the Forest Service have a future plan to utilize this site, the transfer of the land and facilities to Rio Arriba County would create a benefit to a community that would make productive use of it. In summary, this legislation creates a situation in which the federal government, the State of New Mexico, and the people of Rio Arriba County all benefit. With the bipartisan support of the New Mexico delegation, I am confident that this chamber realizes that this bill is good for New Mexico. For these reasons, I ask immediate consideration and passage of the bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation, which is being co-sponsored by my colleague from New Mexico, Heather Wilson, that will transfer a parcel of federal property to San Juan College. This transfer will benefit the people of San Juan County, New Mexico--specifically the students and faculty of San Juan College. This legislation creates a situation in which all benefit by allowing the transfer of an unwanted federal land to an educational institution which can use it. Mr. Speaker, this is a companion bill to a bill that has already been introduced in the other chamber on January 21, 1999. The other bill was introduced by Senator Domenici and is also co- sponsored by Senator Bingaman, both of New Mexico. This legislation provides for the transfer by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior of real property and improvements at an abandoned and surplus ranger station for the Carson National Forest to San Juan College. This site is located in the Carson National Forest near the town of Gobernador, New Mexico. The site will continue to be used for public purposes, including educational and recreation purposes by San Juan College. Mr. Speaker, the Forest Service has determined that this site is of no further use because the Forest Service has moved its operations to a new administrative facility in Bloomfield, New Mexico several years ago. Transferring this site to San Juan College would protect it from further deterioration. In summary, this bill creates a situation in which all benefit: the federal government, the State of New Mexico, the people of San Juan County, and most importantly, the students and faculty of San Juan College. Since this legislation enjoys bipartisan support from the New Mexico delegation, I look forward to prompt consideration and passage of this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to right long-standing injustices. One hundred fifty-one years ago the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed by the United States of America and the Republic of Mexico. In that the government, our government, promised to respect and protect the culture, property rights and language of the residents who would later become United States citizens. These promises by our government were broken. Many land grant communities no longer exist. Many individuals have lost their land. This bill starts the long process to resolve these disputes and to bring our government in line with its treaty obligations. Exactly 151 years ago today, the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, officially ending the Mexican-American war. Under the treaty, signed February 2, 1848, Mexico ceded to the United States more than 525,000 square miles of land, including all of what is now California, Nevada and Utah, as well as parts of four other states including my state of New Mexico. As part of the treaty, the United States also agreed to honor the land holdings of the existing residents of its vast new territory. In many cases, however, the government ignored that pledge and the protections provided by the Constitution as more and more new settlers moved into this land covered by numerous Mexican and Spanish land grants. Mr. Speaker, for 151 years, the United States government has turned its back on this issue. For 151 years, land grant heirs of New Mexico have cried out for justice. Robert Kennedy once said that ``Justice delayed is democracy denied.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop denying the full blessings of democracy to the land grant heirs. It's time to start hearing their cries. In 1997, then-Representative Bill Richardson of New Mexico introduced legislation that would create a Presidential Commission to study the claims of the land grant heirs. Last year, my predecessor, Mr. Redmond, introduced similar legislation in this body. With tremendous bipartisan support, the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Act of 1998 passed overwhelmingly. Its supporters and co-sponsors included not only the current Speaker of the House, but former Speaker Gingrich and members of the leadership of both parties. With the passage of this bill, the House of Representatives sent a clear message that it was time to undo 151 years of injustice. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the legislation never made it through the Senate. And so I stand here today urging my colleagues to once again take a stand for justice. The bill I introduce today is substantively the one passed by this body last year. The bill will: (1) Create a five person Presidential Commission, called the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Commission, to review the claims of the land grant heirs. (2) This commission will examine land claims, made by three or more eligible descendants of the same community land grant. (3) The members of the commission will be appointed by the President by and with the advice of the Senate. (4) The bill also creates a Community Land Grant Study Center at the Onate Center in Alcalde, New Mexico. The center will provide the means by which to conduct research, study and investigate the land grant claims. (5) The bill authorizes a total of $8 million over the next eight years to pay for this. This bill is a beginning, Mr. Speaker. It is my hope that this bill will be the conduit to continue to focus on this issue. I am confident that this body, and specifically members of the New Mexico delegation, can work together on this important matter. Mr. Speaker, this bill rights a wrong. It creates a Presidential Commission to study the claims of the land grant heirs whose land was improperly taken over the past 151 years in the absence of protection by the U.S. government over the past 151 years. It is time for our government to stop turning its back on the people of New Mexico. It is time for our government to stop turning its back on the Constitution. Simply, Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to do the right thing. This bill creates a commission that will evaluate each individual claim and make recommendations to Congress for final consideration. It provides a fair solution. It provides a reasonable solution. And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it provides a just solution.