Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my two colleagues, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), for introducing this resolution and the dean of our delegation (Mr. Cannon), for working with the majority leadership for the timing and the scheduling of this particular resolution.

I do not intend to pretend that I was a close personal friend of the Stocktons, but I did have several occasions to be with them, usually on public occasions. The one that I remember the clearest was sharing the owner's box at the opening game of the new triple A baseball stadium that we have in Salt Lake City. At that time, Mr. Stockton was there with his wife and his young family. One of the reporters from the Salt Lake paper came up and begged for a picture of the entire family to use on the society page for the beginning of this baseball season. John Stockton refused. He refused to have a picture of his family, his wife and his little kids there, because he did not want to expose his family to the kind of publicity that goes along with professional

sports and professional athletes. I was impressed with that.

The second thing about that entire evening that I was impressed with, that even though I thought it was a wonderful baseball game, as all baseball games are, even though it was fascinating, when it hit a certain time, even though there were still three innings to go, he insisted on leaving because it was bedtime for his three kids, and the most important thing for him was not his public persona, but that his family had a commitment. I was impressed with that.

It is difficult or unusual at any time to have any kind of honor for John Stockton without mentioning Karl Malone along with it, but in this case I think we will have to wait until Mr. Malone retires until that honor continues on, and then we will probably have to share that with most of the California delegation at the same time.

But on the retirement of John Stockton, I am proud of him because he established those old-fashioned values of hard work and commitment to family ahead of himself, a commitment to others ahead of himself, which is why he is the all-time assist leader. And it shows the personality that this gentleman has, and what he has done as a symbol and also as somebody we can emulate in the State of Utah. We appreciate his efforts on behalf of the Utah Jazz, especially what he has done as a symbol of a sports figure who does everything right, and his commitment to bringing standards of personal integrity to the world of athletics. I appreciate this opportunity to just voice my support of this particular resolution for a fine gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, often times we do things that are popular in America, but wrong. Today, we are going to do something that is popular with the majority of Americans, but very right.

H.R. 760 does not overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, but it eliminates a heinous process that was never intended to be protected in the original judgment. When the Supreme Court bypassed the legislative process to make abortions legal 30 years ago, the legislative voice opposing abortion, was never heard. Thus the ruling laid the foundation for the outrage and protest we have today. The people were not allowed to be heard through their elected Representatives.

Many judges who today uphold the Roe v. Wade ruling today, oppose the procedure by which it became reality. By approving the conference report on the partial-birth abortion ban today, we will be enacting legislation the correct way. Both Chambers of Congress will have debated and spoken on this bill, and now the President will have the same opportunity.

The partial-birth abortion ban will be a good law, a righteous law, and it will be enacted the right way. I support this legislation because it protects the most important minority in America: those who cannot speak for themselves. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 278) to make certain adjustments to the boundaries of the Mount Naomi Wilderness Area, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mount Naomi is located in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah and borders the eastern boundary of the city of Logan in my State. At over 44,000 acres, it is clearly one of the largest wilderness areas in the State of Utah and was designated in the Wilderness Act of 1984. Unfortunately, mysteriously, some utility poles have grown up in this wilderness area.

In reality, when it was created, by an oversight of Congress it encompassed an area which has utility corridors, both water and electricity. In addition to that utility corridor, there is a section of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail system that runs through this wilderness area. This is a trail system that connects northern and southern Utah.

It is extremely popular with bikers, hikers, equestrian traffic; and it is the only section of that trail system which actually happens to be in a wilderness area.

Seeing that problem, maintaining that utility corridor as well as maintaining that trail system in a wilderness area, the Forest Service and the local community have found a solution, which is in this particular bill. By taking 31 acres, which is the smallest footprint possible, on the western side of this wilderness area, which abuts the city of Logan, and transferring that out of the wilderness area and then finding on the eastern side of the wilderness area a section by the Forest Service 31 other acres which fits the contour of Mount Naomi and also has all the characteristics that are required for a wilderness area, we have been able to make an exchange which will allow the city of Logan to maintain their utility corridor, the State to maintain their trail system and also maintain the same acreage of wilderness in the State of Utah.

This has passed this particular House before. I hope to do it a second time and then solve this problem for the city of Logan as well as for the Forest Service, which has the support of the Forest Service and the local community and all other entities that I am aware that have an interest in this particular area. It is a good piece of legislation.

I definitely thank my colleagues on the committee for expediting its consideration, and I urge adoption of Senate bill 278.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation were

driven and slaughtered by their own government in 1863. They are not a federally recognized tribe and are scattered throughout Northern Utah and Southern Idaho. The following article depicts their sorrows and triumphs over the last 140 years. It details how recently they were able to acquire the land where the 1863 massacre occurred. This site will serve as a reminder for time immemorial of the sacrifice and hardship endured by this people since those fateful days of 1863. I respectfully submit it to the Congressional Record on behalf of the Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation and the American West Heritage Center, the sole repository of their artifacts and history.

[From the Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 25, 2003]

Shoshones Finally Get Massacre Land

(By Kristen Moulten)

Preston, Idaho.--The Northwestern Shoshones have been

invisible among Utah's Indian tribes, almost an afterthought

on any list.

But that era is over, according to Forrest Cuch, Utah's

head of American Indian affairs and one of a dozen speakers

at a ceremony Monday celebrating a new chapter for the tribe.

The Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation at last took

ownership of land in southern Idaho along the Bear River

where hundreds of their ancestors were slaughtered by U.S.

soldiers in 1863.

``All my life I've watched the Shoshone suffer in this

area,'' Cuch told the 75 Shoshones and 125 of their friends

gathered at the massacre site Monday two miles west of

Preston. ``It's your turn to be first now. You've been last

for so long.''

Tribal Chairwoman Gwen Davis of Brigham City agreed.

``We've waited many years for this day to happen,'' she said.

``Our dreams have become reality today.''

The tribe plans a small interpretive center to tell the

story of the massacre.

A larger interpretive center is planned farther south near

Logan. The American West Heritage Center at Wellsville is

raising $30 million for a center that will have a multimedia

re-creation of the massacre and tell the tribe's story in

full. The tribe's library and cultural artifacts also will be

kept at the heritage center, said Bruce Parry, executive

director of the tribe.

Back on Jan. 29, 1863, the Shoshones were in their winter

camp at the northern end of Cache Valley in Idaho when

soldiers under the command of Col. Patrick Connor attacked.

The first hour was a battle between the soldiers and

Shoshone braves, but it soon turned into a massacre. Men,

women and children were shot and clubbed to death; tepees and

food supplies were torched. Between 250 and 380 Shoshones

were killed, while a few dozen hid in brush and under the

riverbanks.

Mormon pioneers had asked the soldiers to intercede because

Shoshones--who had lost their game and other food sources to

pioneer and wagon train encroachment--had become an irritant,

depending on the pioneers for food. Shoshone braves also were

suspected of raiding supply wagons en route to Montana gold-

mining camps.

In a benedictory prayer at the end of Monday's ceremony,

Elder Monte Brough of the LDS Church's First Quorum of the

Seventy alluded to the role played by early Mormons in

inciting the massacre.

``There is a history of persecution and discrimination

here, and we ask that this can be a token gesture to remedy

that . . . a token of those things that are solidly in the

past.''

Brough prayed that all who visit the site will consider it

sacred ground.

Paul Campbell, chairman of the Franklin (Idaho) County

Commission, said he learned just recently that his great-

great grandfather had watched the massacre from a bluff above

the river.

Many Preston area residents are ignorant of the massacre,

he said. Early historic markers labeled the Shoshone women

and children ``combatants.''

The 26 acres turned over to the tribe Monday have been

grazed for decades and have a crumbling homestead in one

corner.

Campbell said the shift to tribal ownership should get the

Idaho congressional delegation's attention and help win the

place designation as a national historic site.

The land was purchased this past weekend by the Trust for

Public Land, a national land-conservation organization. The

$55,000 purchase price for two parcels comprising the 26

acres was raised from the Flamekeeper Foundation (formerly

the William F. and Anna Smith Foundation) of Salt Lake City;

Katherine and Zeke Dumke Jr.; historian Brigham Madsen and

several anonymous donors. The American West Heritage Center

helped with fund raising.

``This is a story that must be heard, not just locally, but

regionally and nationally,'' said Alina Bokde, a New Mexico-

based project manager for the trust. The organization has a

program to help tribes regain ancestral lands.

Allie Hansen of Preston was jubilant Monday. The history

buff has shown the massacre site and told the story to

thousands of visitors for two decades and successfully

lobbied the National Park Service to get it listed on the

National Historic Register in 1990.

When one gets immersed in a historical subject, it starts

to seem like a fairy tale, she said. ``This makes reality out

of it.''

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado attempts to attack an Interior Department rule which allows memorandums of understanding on issues of roads which have been a source of contention and litigation since 1976. Utah is so far the only State to have taken advantage of this memorandum of understanding.

Some people have said we are trying to change cow trails and foot paths in pristine wilderness into roads. These are pictures of the actual roads in which we are dealing in the State of Utah. These are not cow trails. These are the kinds of roads which we have.

In the memo of understanding, it can only deal with a maintained, documented, continuously used road that is not in a national park, wilderness, wilderness study area, national refuge, et cetera, et cetera.

The issue that was brought up by the gentleman from Oregon is one that was a misunderstanding. They objected to a 2477 that was supposedly on private property, but it was actually a county easement to which they were objecting. It had nothing to do with 2477 because 2477 roads cannot by definition be on private property.

When I was Speaker of the House 10 years ago in the State of Utah, we started this process. I was fortunate enough to appropriate money so that every county could research their 2477 claims. Today, the State of Utah is ready to give documented history photo, hard evidence of continuous use on every single one of these roads. The State of Utah has put in work, effort, and money to end the contention of 30 years and provide a process study, my colleagues know what it is, a process study that just took 30 seconds off my time for me not to get the words out.

The bottom line is the Taylor amendment allows this work to continue. So these roads which cross rural Utah and provide access to national parks and recreation, and jobs, and for emergency vehicles in rural Utah, will continue on. The Udall amendment, unintentionally or not, brings this to a screeching halt with the mere promise that the gentleman from Colorado can help us find a better methodology than the one we are presently going through right now.

The Taylor amendment would allow us to study the rule to which the gentleman from Colorado objects while the work is still continuing on to see if this actually works for the benefit of a standard for every other State in this Nation, whereas the Udall amendment would frustrate the time and effort. Perhaps that is why the counties in Colorado and in the State of Utah are asking you, please, to support the Taylor perfecting amendment, because it allows us to continue on.

If the Taylor amendment is defeated and the Udall amendment is passed, the only thing left for the counties in the State of Utah is to go to court and continue to waste taxpayer money on expensive litigation when we have a process, not perfect, but we are still working on it, a process in mind to go at these types of roads which are clearly roads, which can solve the problem in the future.

We beg of you to let the process that we have started go to fruition. We can look at it. We can evaluate it. But to capriciously simply say the man-hours and the public input and the dollars have been in vain to this day is unfair to the State of Utah. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) clearly understands that and has given us a process so that we can evaluate this rule and, at the same time, doing no harm to the State of Utah.

I beg of my colleagues to help support this particular provision. It moves us forward towards solving a very contentious problem without having to go to the courts.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to honor Major General Scott C. Bergren upon. his retirement after 33 years of dedicated service to the United States. His contributions to our Nation's security, his years of sacrifice on behalf of others, and his superior leadership have paved the way for excellence and innovation for generations to come.

Scott Bergren was commissioned in 1970, and has had a distinguished career in the United States Air Force, including combat time in Southeast Asia as an F-4 Weapon Systems Operator, and command assignments at the squadron, group, wing, and now center levels.

General Bergren's leadership has been, tested and thoroughly proven during his time as Commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Center. During a period when the Center has been heavily tasked for warfighter support, his superb application of financial, human, and materiel resources has delivered results far beyond expectations.

Recently, General Bergren created an atmosphere at the base of total focus on winning the war on terrorism. As a result, Ogden ALC shipped over 8,500 tons of munitions to support deployed air operations, and our Nation's pilots were safer and more effective in mission performance. An emphasis on innovative approaches led to expedited aircraft modifications that gave aircrews the edge they needed for victory.

General Bergren has led Ogden ALC to numerous awards in many areas including safety, environmental restoration, and efficiency.

I, along with the great men and women of Team Hill, congratulate General Scott C. Bergren on reaching this significant milestone, and wish him and his wife, Pam, the very best as they transition to new challenges and opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, headquartered in my hometown of Brigham City, Utah, and located throughout northern Utah and southern Idaho, and specifically to pay tribute to this tribe as it enters a new chapter in its history.

For more than 1,500 years, the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation has cared for much of the land that consumes my district as well as the districts of my colleagues in Idaho and Nevada. Last month, the Shoshones took ownership of a portion of the land along the Bear River in Idaho where as many as 380 of their ancestors were killed by the U.S. Cavalry on January 29, 1863. The Bear River Massacre, as it is called, was the worst slaughter of Native Americans west of the Mississippi, with an estimate of double the number of deaths of those at Wounded Knee. Now, for the first time in its history, 26 acres where so many Shoshones perished will be treated as the sacred burial ground that it is. In a solemn and very moving ceremony, the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation was able to perform burial rites for the men, women and children who died on that site 140 years ago. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor those members of this tribe who gave their lives on that day in 1863.

I also want to commend the efforts of the tribe, the American West Heritage Center, and the Trust for Public Lands for working together to bring closure to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, headquartered in my hometown of Brigham City, Utah, and located throughout Northern Utah and Southern Idaho, and to pay tribute to this tribe as it celebrates a new chapter in its history.

For more than 1,500 years, the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation has cared for much of the land that makes up my district--and the districts of my colleagues from Idaho and Nevada. Last month, the Northwestern Shoshones took ownership of a portion of the land along the Bear River in Idaho where as many as 380 of their ancestors were killed by the U.S. Cavalry on January 29, 1863. The Bear River Massacre, as it

is called, was the worst slaughter west of the Mississippi of Native Americans, with estimates of the dead nearly double those of Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Now, for the first time in its history, 26 acres where so many Shoshones perished will be treated as the sacred burial ground that it is. In a solemn and moving ceremony, the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation was able to perform burial rites for the men, women, and children who died on that site over 140 years ago. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor those members of the tribe who gave their lives on that day in 1863.

I want to commend the efforts of the tribe, the American West Heritage Center, and the Trust for Public Lands for working together to bring closure to this episode in our nation's history. Their goal is to obtain a total of 150 acres so that the Bear River Massacre site can be turned into a memorial. This story, along with the tribe's history and culture, will be preserved and shared with the public at the nearby American West Heritage Center in Wellsville, Utah, which is also located in my district.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of our colleagues, I am also submitting an article for the Record from a Salt Lake newspaper, which details the history of this site. I commend the past and current Shoshone leadership for their vision and efforts.

[From the Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 4, 2003]

This Hallowed Ground

It never made any sense to call what happened at Idaho's

Bear River 140 years ago a ``battle.'' When soldiers based in

Salt Lake City went on a mad rampage and killed at least 250

men, women and children of the Northwestern Shoshone tribe on

Jan. 29, 1863, it was a massacre.

And it still makes no sense that the site of that blot on

our shared history is not officially designated as a national

historic site.

Descendants of the Northwestern Shoshone see the historic

significance of the place, and so does the National Park

Service. But, while the site near Preston in southeastern

Idaho drew a small crowd of devoted friends to mark

Wednesday's anniversary of the horrible event, what happened

there remains something that has been largely air-brushed,

Stalin-like, from our official memory.

The stumbling block, apparently, is that Idaho Sen. Larry

Craig has for eight years been bottling up a resolution to

create a $14 million Bear River National Historic Site and

Visitors Center. Craig says the park service has more

immediate needs and, given the constant scuffle within all

federal agencies for adequate funding, it is true that not

every idea for a new national historic site can be fulfilled.

But the Bear River massacre is important enough that it

needs to be burned into our collective memory. It was one of

the earliest and one of the bloodiest encounters between

Native Americans and European settlers in the Far West. Its

memory has been kept alive by the tireless efforts of a few

Shoshone, most notably Utah's Mae Timbimboo Parry, efforts

that themselves deserve to be chronicled at an official

historic site.

As the United States gears up to mark the 200th anniversary

of Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery, with proper notice

given to their Shoshone guide Sacagawea, now would be the

proper time to note this terribly sad bit of fallout from

that courageous expedition. The extra amount of attention

that will be focused on Lewis and Clark should be used to

earn support from historians, Congress, foundations and the

general public to properly mark the site of the Bear River

Massacre and formally mourn those who died there.

The place of the Bear River Massacre is a national historic

site, whether we say so or not.

We should say so.

Mr. Speaker, many years ago, when I was in high school, I got my first car. It was new and it was sleek and it was fun to drive, and more than anything I would like to have that car back today. There

is only one problem with having that car back today. It is broken. It does not run. For it to do anything at all, it would require a major overhaul.

That car is the same age as our Nation's Medicare system. And nostalgia for the good old days, which is why I want to have that car back, nostalgia may have warped some of our memories of what Medicare did or did not do or what it promised or did not promise to do; but nonetheless, our Medicare system today has the same problem. It is broken. It does not run. It needs some kind of major overhaul.

Shortly after my election, Henry Kafton, who is a neighbor who used to live around the corner from me in Brigham City, talked to me about Medicare. And I asked him to put his thoughts down on paper. He wrote me a very simple two-page letter, and he delivered it to me the day after Christmas of last year. I still have that letter with me. In fact, I have it with me here this evening, because Henry suggested some good commonsense approaches to solving the problem with Medicare.

However, in the third sentence of his letter, he put a perspective on the debate when he wrote, ``As much as we do not like to think of it, when you turn 65, in many ways you become a third class citizen.'' No American, Mr. Speaker, should ever have to feel less of a citizen because of their age. And, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report the Republican leadership of this body will be presenting a bill to reform and modernize our Medicare which addresses many of the comments my good neighbor Henry talked about in his particular letter.

This bill may not be a panacea for our system, but we should also not be arrogant or critical enough to dismiss it out of hand, for it is attempting to adjust a program stuck in the 1960s mode of medical mismanagement for the past 40 years. I am encouraged that it will present a program that will have three important principles.

First, there will be a prescription drug policy which will apply to the neediest of our citizens as well as those, especially those, who have catastrophic pressing needs. Secondly, it would be based on the concept of choice and competition. The Medicare+Choice program will always be open for bid. And President Bush has been very consistent from the beginning in his emphasis that any kind of medical program we have in this country must be based on the concept of choice and competition. And, number three, it will be providing information to our seniors so that they can make informed choices.

I also have the opportunity of serving as a voluntary noncompensated board member of my local hospital. And though I am certainly not an expert in health care, my experience has taught me that all of those kinds of principles in developing a health care system has to be based on the idea of choice and information if it is going to be successful.

I also realize that we have a different delivery system than when Medicare was first established. We have changed how we care for people and where the emphasis is. Doctors and hospitals have made that change. Our Medicare system has not kept up with that change and therefore must be reformed in major, major ways.

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare plan that will be coming before this body will encapsulate those principles, and I am encouraged that it will include benefits for rural health care through the disproportionate share rates, and that physicians and hospitals as a goal will not endure reimbursement cuts.

Mr. Speaker, there are 185,603 senior citizens in my State anxiously awaiting this Congress to enact Medicaid reform and Medicare reform and prescription drug access, including my good friend Mr. Kafton. In the last line of his letter he wrote, ``I realize there is probably not much that can be done about this due to politics.'' Well, I am confident that the leadership of this Congress will break the political logjam of the past and make that statement simply inaccurate.

This will be the first step, the first step of many, to reform a Medicare delivery system and a medical delivery system for the seniors of our Nation, and I look forward to proceeding in that particular direction.

Only if you make it easy on me.

The gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct. We did not get into this situation overnight. It took 40 years to find us in the predicament that we are in right now. We will not solve this problem overnight. This will be the first step of many. But I am positive if we base it on the good common principles of choice, of information, of competition, that indeed we will move forward in the near future to improving our system and, hopefully, moving to that panacea that we are all looking for.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to honor a tremendous individual and important representative of all who have worked so hard to preserve historic sites across the State of Utah. Delone Bradford- Glover has devoted a remarkable amount of time, energy and heart to the noble cause of preserving the Golden Spike National Historic Site. I wish to commend her unselfish devotion and dedication.

Delone began working with Bernice Gibbs Anderson over 50 years ago. Together they were the champions of the preservation of the Golden Spike. Delone was instrumental in assuring that the Last Spike Site at Promontory Summit received national recognition through its inclusion in the National Park System. Delone was President of the Golden Spike Association for more than 25 years. In that time Delone had the tremendous responsibility of planning every anniversary celebration and event, including recruiting re-enactment participants and ceremony guests, until retiring as active President two years ago. Specifically admirable was her work on the Centennial Celebration in 1969 when she lobbied for the anniversary celebration to take place and worked so hard to make it such a success. In 1994, Delone set out to save the Brigham City Depot and it was her work that encouraged the Union Pacific Railroad to deed that land to the Golden Spike Association on the 125th Anniversary year.

I take great pleasure in honoring this amazing citizen for her service to the Golden Spike. Her selfless devotion has impacted and will continue to effect countless generations of those in her community and the State of Utah as a whole. I would like to thank Delone Bradford-Glover for truly being the ``Heart of the Golden Spike.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mountain Crest High School's Advanced Placement American Government and Law class, in Hyrum Utah, for their achievement in the ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' competition. The class won their state competition in February and is currently preparing to participate on the National level soon.

In order to compete, the students had to establish a base knowledge of the Constitution and the workings of our government. They then prepared speeches concerning different aspects of the Constitution, the amendments, and significant Supreme Court cases. The topics range from the founding ideals of the young nation, to the values and principles embodied in the Constitution, Civil Rights, and the evolution of our current republican democracy.

In addition to acknowledging the hard work and dedication of these students, I would also like to recognize the work of their teacher Margaret Obray. She is an exemplary teacher who is devoted to educating all of her students. Together they represent Utah well.

As I believe the Constitution is a divinely inspired document I feel it is important for all Americans to know and defend its principles. The ``We the People'' program is an excellent way to get students involved in the Constitution and compete with others from around the country. Again, congratulations to the students of Mountain Crest.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my senior colleague from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, when we entered this body a couple of months ago I was a high school teacher. And I have to admit it is somewhat difficult trying to raise 5 kids on a high school teacher's salary. One of the things that was most significant, most difficult, was always dealing with those essential energy costs that were coming to us, the higher utility rates, increased gas, always seeming at the whim of foreign changes that took place, and always without a comprehensive energy policy that this country vitally needs.

Those costs were ever escalating. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out, if you would just look at the chart we have here and follow the green line which is simply gasoline prices or gasoline production versus the red line which is prices. And you simply know as the green line goes down, prices go up. Now the inverse would also be true. If we could increase the supply, the cost would also go down.

There are those who claim that there is no way we can possibly increase our energy source without totally destroying our environment. Mr. Speaker, I have to reject that failed philosophy of the past. It is possible for us to secure our environment. We all want to drink clean water, to breathe clean air, to secure the land. But we can secure our environment by relying on modern technology to also provide us with the energy source we need and a domestic energy source that we desperately need. And we can do so not by dealing with foreign powers, but on land that we presently own and control.

In a minute, Mr. Speaker, I think one of my colleagues will go into detail about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which has potential that is there on land that was put aside for that very purpose. A common sense approach for providing for our energy needs could be easily accomplished.

If we do nothing as a country, my bill worsens, my situation becomes more desperate. We can easily balance our political policy needs for energy with good environmentalism both for today and for tomorrow by simply putting politics aside and simply doing what is right to provide for my family, as well as for millions of people on a fixed income who need a stable and predictable domestic energy source, and if we reject what modern technology can do to provide that and provide for our environmental needs, we are moving this country's policy back 20 years.

Of course, I would.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah is absolutely correct, and it clearly illustrates the potential we have to make life better for Americans if we just use what we have in a common- sense approach to a domestic energy policy.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), once again, is absolutely correct. It has a huge impact, and that small fraction is estimated somewhere in the neighborhood between 5 and 16 billion, with a B, barrels of recoverable oil.

It would be exactly right. It would make a major impact on the domestic future and stability of energy sources in America.

As I said, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that is the way of protecting the future economic and energy needs of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed on the chart there that the gentleman has the current Alaskan pipeline that is there. How far is that from the area we would be moving into to provide this new domestic security?

Mr. Speaker, I ask this one final question. With the risk of being somewhat of a leading question, I think the gentleman very eloquently stated the position of the people who are there. I guess I would, once again, want to try and somehow if the gentleman could reiterate in his own mind that one of the problems we have had with our failed philosophy in the past that has produced so many problems is trying to have a Washington solution, one size fitting all.

Is the gentleman comfortable that the locals who know and understand the land, who know and love that environment, is the gentleman comfortable that they are positive that this is the appropriate thing that they want in their particular area and they know how to control it?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the neighboring State of Arizona for his insight into what the people of that particular region actually feel and think about this area they know and love so well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman one more time, and if I could reiterate what the gentleman from Arizona started by just pointing out that this entire refuge is about the size of South Carolina. The only area we are talking about is the area in green, which from the beginning was set aside for the purpose of oil exploration. That was part of the common sense approach we had when we preserved this land.

The only part we are talking about, as he so brilliantly put it, and the closeness of the original pipeline, is this small little red dot. That is the entire area. If we view the second shot, we can see that that small dot is only about 2,000 acres. That is the footprint, which is smaller than Dulles Airport, which services Washington, D.C. The amount of area we are talking about is less than what is Dulles Airport compared to the size of the State of South Carolina.

And as the gentleman from Arizona said, this could be a significant find in giving us domestic security with the domestic source of energy we need. And as we see by this particular chart, the amount of oil that is recoverable in the ANWR area is second only to what we receive from Saudi Arabia. If we want to eventually solve problems in the future and have some kind of independence with a domestic source of energy, this is a significant piece of the puzzle.

The gentleman is correct. Iraq plays almost an insignificant role in the energy sources for the United States. But the other countries that we have here, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and especially Venezuela, they are key elements in our foreign policy dependency. When changes take place there, when problems develop in those countries, we receive the brunt of it with higher costs for utilities, higher costs for gasoline.

The gentleman is correct. And these are once again what we assume to be the average daily oil productions in these areas.

The gentleman is correct in pointing out how much we receive from Canada. If my colleagues would simply note what the Canadians are doing in providing that oil is simply the area on the other side of this region that we want. That is the production lines that they are having. They understand the purpose of it. And the Canadians are able to use modern technology to produce the oil and not to spoil the environment. It does not have to be one

or the other, where we either have the energy source or we have the environment. We can have them both. We have the technology to make it possible to protect our environment and protect a domestic energy source at the same time.

That is ANWR, yes.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, in reading the letter of the mayor, it clearly illustrated what we sadly lack here in Congress, a common sense solution balancing the needs of the future and today with the heritage that is already there. They know it, they understand it. Using technology, they are ready to move forward if we just allow them the tools to do it, and they all can win. It does not have to be a lose/ lose situation. It is a win/win. They understand that, and we need to gain that same insight.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we need obviously a comprehensive energy policy. Fortunately, we are going to have the opportunity very soon on this floor to vote on a common sense approach that provides balance by using local ideas and technology to provide for our energy needs as well as protect our environment.

But the question I have, especially if you go back to the chart that you just placed down there on the ground which shows where the future is, if we turn our back on this comprehensive energy policy, if we do not provide this kind of balance, looking at how homes are being heated right now, what is the future for my kids? What is going to be their future as they go out and try to develop their own homes, if we do not do something with the comprehensive energy policy now?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my senior colleague from my home State of Utah for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have been here 3 months. In that time, I have found nothing more exciting than what I wish to speak about today, the potential of an Energy Security Act of 2003.

This country has been for far too long without a comprehensive energy program. With energy prices rising and our dependence on foreign oil, we need to find a domestic source of our potential future energy. What this Congress needs to do to solve this problem and also to eliminate a future crisis is to look to the lands that are already controlled by the Federal Government.

In the coming days, Congress will have the opportunity to debate the Energy Security Act of 2003. Within this critical bill is the authorization allowing drilling in Section 1002 of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

Now, contrary to popular belief, this is not the pristine cathedral of the wilderness or the last great unexplored frontier; it is thousands of acres of frozen tundra, uninhabitable, with its greatest summer crop being mosquitoes.

More importantly, when Congress created this ANWR, we realized that within that there was the great potential for oil. We specifically put a portion of it, the portion in green on this map, aside for future oil exploration for the needs of this particular country.

This section, known as 1002, it is noted, is not all to be used for oil development, only 2,000 acres within it. Let me try and explain what that means.

ANWR is approximately the size of the State of South Carolina, yet, within the northern portion of that, the area in red is the only portion we are talking about, a grand total of 2,000 acres, about the size of the footprint left by the airport in this city.

If we did another analogy, if we can consider a large conference table, we are talking about drilling in an area the size of a postage stamp. That is not, that is not an area that is going to despoil the future. Its disturbance is negligible.

This area does not have, as some critics have said, only 6 months' worth of oil. We are looking at an area that has between 5.7 billion and 16 billion, B, with a B, billion barrels of recoverable oil within ANWR. If Members consider that within every day we import 10 million barrels, we can recognize that clearly this would go a long way as we compare the potential of ANWR to our other sources of foreign oil in providing the kind of natural domestic security that we desperately need.

This cannot be minimized, it cannot be brushed aside. This is a crucial element of the puzzle. It is a crucial element for the long- term viability of our Nation and our energy.

One last point, very quickly. In addition to oil for the future energy needs of this country, we are producing spinoff jobs in almost every State of this Nation. These statistics are somewhat old, I have seen them elevated by as much as 20 percent, but we could produce between 500,000 and 700,000 jobs in this country. Can Members imagine what 500,000 to 700,000 jobs would do to spur this economy, well-paying jobs, in addition to the energy independence?

There are two elements we need, stability and predictability of our source of energy. That is what will spur the future. That is what will give us our independence, our independence from foreign oil and our security at home.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 86, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, the President made a courageous decision to impose a temporary trade remedy against dumped and subsidized steel imports that were causing serious injury to our U.S. steel industry and its workers. This action was taken under Section 201 of the Trade Act, and the international rules of the World Trade Organization Safeguards Agreement. One year later, it is clear that his steel initiative has begun to produce an important consolidation and restructuring of the U.S. steel industry that will benefit our national economic security and our domestic steel customer base long-term.

Since the President's decision, prices are recovering, steel supply is generally robust, and the industry has begun dramatic consolidation and restructuring. This recovery is important news for Nucor Steel Utah, located in my district, and for steel producers in other similar communities all across America. The result at the end of the three-year period will be top quality steel, produced in high technology mills in America, which will become an even better value for our nation's steel consumers.

The President is also addressing the root cause of the import problems, by negotiating with our trading partners to eliminate global excess capacity and foreign government subsidies. As a result, the world's steel producing nations are for the first time talking meaningfully about reducing unneeded capacity and eliminating subsidies.

I thank the President for upholding our trade laws, despite intense opposition from abroad. His decision was the correct one. Thank you, Mr. President, stay the course. Your plan is benefiting my district and the nation's steel industry.