Floor Statements

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

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as my friend and colleague the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) has stated, H.R. 2362 would reauthorize the Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.

The U.S. Geological Survey and the State geological authorities carry out the geologic mapping program jointly. Under this program, Federal and State geologists develop comprehensive geological maps of the United States and a related database of environmental and scientific information.

The mapping program contributes significantly to our understanding of geologic information such as the distribution of mineral energy and groundwater resources.

Mr. Speaker, we should support H.R. 2362 and I urge its passage.

I would also at this time like to thank the entire Resources staff, including especially Debra Lanzone.

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

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

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 38 designates the main stem of the Upper White Salmon River and Cascade Creek, totaling 20 miles, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Congress added the lower White Salmon River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1986.

The White Salmon River originates in the glaciers of Mt. Adams and flows through south central Washington to the Columbia River. The river is known for its remarkable scenery and abundant wildlife and is popular with white water enthusiasts.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) should be recognized for his leadership on H.R. 38. My good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), is one of our strong conservation leaders in the Northwest and has worked very hard in showing strong leadership in getting this bill to the point that it is today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the entire Committee on Resources staff and especially Meghan Conklin for her work on this bill.

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

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

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the Taunton area to be included in the study authorized by H.R. 1512 is rich in cultural and historic resources. A comprehensive study of these resources will help determine if inclusion within the National Park System is appropriate.

The sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), is to be commended for his tenacity and resolve in pursuing this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the entire staff of the Committee on Resources, especially Dave Watkins, for their work on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of Pancakes on the Plaza, an annual fundraising event hosted by the United Way of Santa Fe County in my home state of New Mexico. Pancakes on the Plaza not only raises money but brings people together as New Mexicans from all walks of life volunteer side-by-side to make a difference in Santa Fe County.

Each July 4 on the historic Santa Fe Plaza, hundreds of volunteers prepare and serve pancakes to thousands of attendees whose contributions to United Way directly benefit residents of Santa Fe County.

Pancakes on the Plaza has been held in Santa Fe each Fourth of July since 1975, building on traditional annual festivities that date back to the 1920's. The Santa Fe Plaza is an appropriate location for this event as it has historically been a multi-cultural gathering place highlighting the unique diversity within the Northern New Mexico community. Pancakes on the Plaza is a celebration of the American spirit of generosity, volunteerism and community-building that raises money to help foster independence for underserved individuals and families of Santa Fe County.

To pull off an event of this scale takes an enormous amount of collaboration: Three 15 by 60 foot tents for cooking and serving pancakes; twelve pancakes cooks per tent, flipping cakes on 12 stoves per tent; two batter transporters per tent, per shift; two tent captains per tent, per shift; six Army Reservists taking batter from refrigerated trucks to cook tents; twelve batter mixers; two ham and vegetarian sausage cooks per tent, per shift; four fruit, butter and syrup servers per tent, per shift; four beverage servers per tent, per shift to pour milk, juice and coffee; two milk and juice runners per tent, per shift to rush cold beverages from the trucks to the tents; three refrigerated truck workers per shift to relay ham, vegetarian sausage, juice, milk, butter and batter transporters; two ticket takers per tent, per shift; six stage crewmembers; twelve Girl Scouts to keep the Plaza and table neat and clean; eighteen crew members to set up and break down tents and stoves.

And, of course, a massive amount of goods comes together to serve 10,000 breakfasts: 2,500 pounds of pancake batter; 4,000 pints of milk (regular and chocolate); 300 gallons of fresh-squeezed juice; 100 pounds of locally-roasted gourmet coffee; 600 pounds of fruit; 300 pounds of butter; 3,000 pieces of vegetarian sausages; 1,000 pounds of ham; 14,000 place settings; 12,000 cups; 20,000 packets of sugar and artificial sweetener; 20,000 packets of syrup.

The United Way of Santa Fe County fulfills the mission of ``creating lasting change in chronic community conditions'' with events such as Pancakes on the Plaza which fund specific programs that target health, learning and self-sufficiency. Yet Pancakes on the Plaza is more than just a fundraiser, this event also features the diverse music, art and crafts unique to Northern New Mexico with many activities for children and families. Locals and visitors alike enjoy the annual July 4th United Way of Santa Fe County Pancakes on the Plaza.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that I have participated in Pancakes on the Plaza for several years now. This United Way event raises much needed money for social programs while building community, enhancing lives and creating opportunities in Santa Fe County. Northern New Mexico is a place rich in history and steeped in tradition and I am fortunate to be a part of such wonderful programs as Pancakes on the Plaza.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to introduce legislation to provide assistance to Native American entrepreneurs throughout the country. This bill authorizes grants that Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) can apply for to provide assistance with outreach, development, and enhancement on Indian lands of small business startups and expansions that are owned by Indian tribe members, Alaska Natives, or Native Hawaiians.

I introduced this legislation during the 107th and 108th Congresses and it passed the House overwhelmingly both times but it did not pass the Senate. I am pleased to reintroduce this legislation today and wish to thank Small Business Committee Chairman Manzullo, Ranking Member Velazquez, as well as Representatives Oberstar, Case, Grijalva, Abercrombie, McDermott, Reyes, Honda, Hastings, Pallone, Young, Towns, Matheson, Herseth, Cubin, McCollum, and Moran for their support.

While economic data shows much uncertainty for our national economy, the effects from our struggling economy are desperate on our Native American lands. The unemployment rate is over 10 times the national average on Native American lands and Native Americans and Native Alaskans have almost double the poverty rate than the national average.

There is, however, a bright spot. Small business creation has drastically increased on tribal lands, which has lead to job growth in these areas. In fact, in recent decades, Native American business growth and gross receipts have dwarfed overall small business growth rates and total gross receipts. You can see why there is a reason to be optimistic. As we all know, small businesses are the fuel for the engine of economic growth. That is why it is so imperative that we take steps to help ensure that small business development reaches the places in this country where economic prosperity has yet to be realized.

My bill ensures that Native Americans, Native Alaskans and Native Hawaiians seeking to create, develop and expand small businesses, have full access to the counseling and technical assistance available through the SBA's SBDC program. The business development tools offered by the SBDCs can assist Native Americans with the information and opportunity to build sustainable businesses in their communities.

Additionally, this legislation requires a state receiving a small business development center program grant to request the advice of the governing bodies of Indian tribes, corporations organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and other Alaska Native entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations, as appropriate, on how best to provide assistance to such members, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians and where to locate satellite centers to provide--such assistance. This ensures assistance from the SBDC that is culturally sensitive and appropriate.

It is clear we can do more to aid Native American entrepreneurs. Not enough has been done to assist Native Americans in building their businesses, which in turn helps benefit their communities. I hope to change that with my proposal.

I look forward to passage of this bill, and to the day it is signed into law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, and which would help restore the privacy and First Amendment rights of library and bookstore patrons.

On the day that the PATRIOT Act passed this body, few Americans were aware of some of the harmful provisions contained within it. Over the course of the past few years, however, our constituents have learned about some of its harmful provisions, and they are justifiably concerned. Over 365 cities, towns, and counties in 43 States have passed resolutions expressing concern about the PATRIOT Act or an extension of it. In my home State of New Mexico alone, ten cities and four counties have passed resolutions.

Section 215 granted authorities unprecedented powers to search, or order the search of library and bookstore records without probable cause or the need for search warrants. Because these surveillance powers were cast so broadly and the law prohibits them from revealing to the subject that an investigation is occurring, librarians, storeowners and operators are left in an impossible position. As a former State attorney general, I fully understand the need, and support swift justice for criminals and terrorists. Every member of this body does. But I also believe that we can be both safe and free.

This common sense amendment before us would prohibit the expenditure of funds for the implementation of these questionable searches. It would protect our citizens' rights to read, learn and purchase books without undue government influence. At the same time, it would maintain established formal procedures that allow law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants and receive records from libraries and bookstores for terrorist-related or criminal investigations. And it is important to note that this amendment does not exclude funding for library internet records.

The opponents of this amendment argue that those of us who are concerned about it are making up far-fetched scenarios to drum up opposition. But it doesn't take fiction to do that. Take this example: When a patron at a public library in Whatcom County, Washington discovered a handwritten note quoting Osama bin Laden in the margin of a biography of Osama bin Laden, the patron contacted the FBI. Citing powers given by the PATRIOT Act, the FBI confiscated the original book and served the library with a grand jury subpoena, and demanded the names and addresses of everyone who had checked out the book. The library refused, filing a motion to deny the subpoena. The FBI withdrew, but reserved the right to issue the subpoena in the future. If the library had told anyone that they had been subpoenaed, they would have been violating the PATRIOT Act's gag order.

Our concerns are not make believe. Our founders understood the value of open access to knowledge. I think we would all agree that one of the measures of a great democracy is the ability of ordinary citizens to explore ideas without government interference. I believe that this amendment is a positive step towards restoring some of our personal freedoms.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you to allow a full and fair vote on this amendment. My colleagues will recall that during a vote on this same amendment during consideration of the fiscal year 2005 CJS Appropriations bill, the majority held open the vote on the Sanders amendment twice as long as scheduled to ensure its demise. This, despite the strong and audible support of Americans to pass this common sense amendment.

I thank my colleague from Vermont for offering this important amendment, as well as the amendment's other cosponsors, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss climate change, one of the most important issues facing our planet today. Thankfully, the issue of climate change has been getting more coverage in the national media. While I know that there are many Members in Congress who are committed to taking action, the level of attention paid to climate change in Congress does not match either the urgency of the issue or the concern of the American public. Given the enormous implications for our economy and our environment, this must change. Climate change is real, and we must act.

The steps we must take to address the issue are a matter of great debate. There is a consensus that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but how we do that is not as simple. I applaud my colleagues in the House as well as the Senate who have introduced or supported legislation to address climate change. I have, however, great concern that their proposals, while extremely well-intentioned and well- crafted, do not have sufficient support in the Congress and do not adequately address the economic challenges our country will face as we move toward a less-carbon-intensive economy.

It is my belief that we must take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we must do so in a way that would minimize the impact to our economy. We must implement an economy-wide, upstream, all greenhouse gas cap-and-trade emissions reduction program that provides some flexibility and a measure of certainty to those industries and businesses affected.

The National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of top experts from energy, government, labor, academia and environmental and consumer groups, developed a set of sensible policy recommendations for addressing oil security, climate change, natural gas supply, and other long-term energy supply challenges. They advocate for a modest, certain and efficient proposal. Their recommendations have been endorsed by major U.S. businesses and labor groups.

One of the key components of their proposal is the concept of a safety valve for the cap-and-trade program. The safety valve essentially puts a price on carbon but provides for an unlimited number of allowances to be sold by the government. Since no one would pay more than what the government charges for allowances, this mechanism effectively controls the price of allowances.

When set at the right price, the safety valve would start the country down the path of slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions without causing economic disruption. While there may be less emissions reduction with a safety valve than without one, today we are doing nothing. And the safety valve creates a potential buy-in from those affected by the legislation.

Another component that I believe is important to integrate into any climate change policy is setting a prospective baseline on greenhouse gas emissions. A sound greenhouse gas emissions reduction policy must recognize that the buildup of greenhouse gas has been taking place over the last century. Since greenhouse gas concentrations are a cumulative measure, sharply reducing a particular year's emissions is substantially less important than the alternative, which is to start down the long-term path of gradually slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. This will also allow businesses to plan for a carbon- constrained world.

Mr. Speaker, I believe any climate change policy we implement must also tie our country's efforts to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to those efforts of the major developing countries. We must ensure that they make a similar commitment to our environment and that the United States is not unfairly burdened. It is a major concern of American business and labor that the developing countries participate in slowing the growth of greenhouse gases to a degree comparable to ours. Any program that does not link our emissions reductions to those of the major developing countries would not only be fundamentally unfair but could also reduce America's competitiveness, resulting in the loss of businesses and jobs in the United States.

And, lastly, Mr. Speaker, a climate change policy must also encourage the development of new greenhouse gas emissions reduction technologies.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record two documents to supplement what I have said here today, an editorial and a letter.

The long-term resolution of the greenhouse gas emissions issues lies in the research and development of new technology.

Mr. Speaker, there is irrefutable scientific evidence to justify taking action on climate change. The long-term consequences of failing to act are sufficiently well documented, providing us with every incentive we need to act. I know many of my colleagues believe that the United States can and should adopt a greenhouse gas emissions reduction policy, but I believe that such a policy will only garner support if it is modest, efficient, and fair. Most importantly Mr. Speaker, we must begin the process. We must act and we must do so now. Otherwise, we are simply putting the future of our planet at risk.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2005]

A Warming Climate

For the past four years members of the Bush administration

have cast doubt on the scientific community's consensus on

climate change. But even if they don't like the science,

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of their closest

allies in Iraq and elsewhere, has given the administration

another, more realpolitik, reason to rejoin the climate

change debate: ``If America wants the rest of the world to be

part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their

agenda, too,'' the prime minister said this week.

Mr. Blair's speech came at an interesting moment, both for

the administration's energy and climate change policies and

for the administration's diplomatic agenda. In the next few

weeks, the House will almost certainly vote once again on

last year's energy bill, a mishmash of subsidies and tax

breaks that finally proved too expensive even for a

Republican Senate to stomach. After a House vote, there may

be an attempt to trim the cost of the bill and add measures

to make it acceptable to more senators--including the growing

number of Republicans who have, sometimes behind the scenes,

indicated an interest in climate change legislation.

Indeed, any new discussion of energy policy could allow

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.)

to seek another vote on their climate change bill, which

would establish a domestic ``cap and trade'' system or

controlling the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to

global warming.

If domestic politics could prompt the president to look

again at the subject, international politics certainly

should. Administration officials assert that mending fences

with Europe is a primary goal for this year; if so, the

relaunching of a climate change policy--almost any climate

change policy--would be widely interpreted as a sign of

goodwill, as Mr. Blair made clear. Beyond the problematic

Kyoto Protocol, there are ways for the United States to join

the global discussion, not least by setting limits for

domestic carbon emissions.

Although environmentalists and the business lobby sometimes

make it sound as if no climate change compromise is feasible,

several informal coalitions in Washington suggest the

opposite. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change got a

number of large energy companies and consumers--including

Shell, Alcoa, DuPont and American Electric Power--to help

design the McCain-Lieberman legislation. A number of security

hawks have recently joined forces with environmentalists to

promote fuel efficiency as a means of reducing U.S.

dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Most substantively, the

National Commission on Energy Policy, a group that

deliberately brought industry, environmental and government

experts together to hash out a compromise, recently published

its conclusions after two years of debate.

Among other things, it proposed more flexible means of

promoting automobile fuel efficiency and suggested

determining in advance exactly how high the ``price'' for

carbon emissions should be allowed to go, thereby giving

industry some way to predict the ultimate cost of a cap-and-

trade system.

They also point out that legislation limiting carbon

emissions would immediately create incentives for industry to

invent new fuel-efficient technologies, to build new nuclear

power plants (nuclear power produces no carbon) and to find

cleaner ways to burn coal. Technologies to reduce carbon

emissions as well as fossil fuel consumption around the world

are within reach, in other words--if only the United States

government wants them.

President Bush, your Justice Department legal team is failing you, and failing you miserably. Tobacco companies have bilked the consumer for hundreds of billions of dollars. I am proud to say that State attorneys general recovered $215 billion for their States. We find out today in The Washington Post the Justice Department has given away the ranch. The headline says it all: ``Tobacco Escapes Huge Penalty.'' Even the tobacco attorneys are mystified.

They said, ``They've gone down from $130 billion to $10 billion with absolutely no explanation. It's clear the government has not thought through what it's doing.''

President Bush, there is still time. Call your Attorney General and tell him to put on a real case. Otherwise, you are throwing in the towel to Big Tobacco.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for his hard work on this important issue and support the amendment today.

This amendment simply postpones the implementation of the Pentagon's BRAC recommendations until we have a more thorough inventory of our military assets and priorities. This is entirely appropriate and necessary, considering the number of operations our Armed Forces are currently engaged in around the world.

As we have heard, we are at war. I have great concern about the Pentagon's ability to adequately assess our needs and assets while there are so many soldiers abroad and while the Pentagon awaits recommendations and reviews pertaining to almost all of its branches of service.

My concern about the Pentagon's ability to adequately assess their needs is further heightened by their recommendation to close Cannon Air Force Base. This recommendation demonstrates to me that they have failed to adequately collect and interpret the facts. Cannon Air Force Base is the home of the 27th Fighter Wing and offers the Air Force and its pilots unrestricted air space and bombing ranges in which to train just off the runways. This is a rarity in today's Air Force as more and more bases experience increasing encroachment. Cannon has zero encroachment.

In addition, the Pentagon did not take into account the New Mexico Training Initiative, which is expected to be approved soon. This initiative would make Cannon's air space wider and taller and allow for training at supersonic speeds, another rarity today.

If we lose this air space, we lose it forever. I urge my colleagues to support the Bradley-Herseth amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I am pleased that the House leadership brought this important legislation to the floor and am proud to be a part of the important debate occurring today.

Mr. Speaker, embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into virtually any cell in the body, and many believe they may have the potential to treat many illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, blindness, sickle cell anemia and many other medical conditions, including spinal cord injuries. Like many other issues facing us today, however, stem cell research forces us to confront the challenge of balancing long-standing ethical questions with the possibilities presented by scientific and technological advancements. The remarks made on the floor today by my colleagues have reflected the difficulty in dealing with this issue, as many members wrestle with their beliefs and emotions.

Most familiar with this issue know that in August 2001, President Bush announced that federal funds for the first time would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells. However, the funding would be limited to ``existing stem cell lines.'' The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has established the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry, which lists stem cell lines that are eligible for use in federally funded research. Although 78 cell lines are listed, 22 embryonic stem cell lines are currently available. Scientists are concerned about the quality, longevity, and availability of the eligible stem cell lines.

That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 810, and strongly support its passage. This important legislation increases the number of lines of stem cells that would be eligible to be used in federally funded research. It does so, however, by requiring that the stem cells meet certain requirements. Specifically, the stem cells must be derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics. They also must have been created for the purpose of fertility treatment, but were in excess of the clinical need. The embryos must also not have been intended for use in fertility treatment, and would otherwise be discarded. Finally, under H.R. 810, the embryos must have been donated by individuals seeking fertility treatment with informed written consent and without any financial payment or other inducement to make the donation.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened as member after member has come to the floor to tell a personal tale of a loved one suffering from a disease that, with additional research, stem cells could help cure. We all have our stories Mr. Speaker. My uncle, Morris K. Udall, who served in this body for decades, suffered from Parkinson's disease. There are too many people across the world suffering from devastating diseases for which stem cells hold great hope and promise. We need to foster additional research that is conducted in an ethically responsible way. H.R. 810 does just that.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about a matter of great concern to me and many of my constituents.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory in my district, and is one of the largest employers in the State. Two years ago the Secretary of Energy determined that after more than 60 years of management by the University of California, the contract for the management and operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory would be open to competition.

We are all aware that there have been problems concerning the security of classified materials handled at the lab and questions about safety practices. It is important to note, however, that statistically the incidences of injury and illness at Los Alamos are well within the range of comparable DOE facilities and major chemical and manufacturing industrial complexes.

Still, I have consistently supported the competition in the hopes that the best management team wins so that the scientists and employees at Los Alamos can continue to contribute to our national security and conduct world-class, strategic science.

Last Thursday, the National Nuclear Security Administration released the final request for proposals, or RFP, for the management and operating contract of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In December, the NNSA released a draft of this RFP. What concerns me is that these documents were substantially different in two very fundamental ways.

First, the draft RFP did not indicate a requirement for the establishment of a separate, dedicated corporate entity. The final RFP does, but this requirement was not included in the draft RFP. The public was never given the opportunity to comment on it.

While that structure may have emerged from the competition as the best design for the management of LANL, we will never know. By mandating a specific corporate structure from the outset, the NNSA has eliminated the proposition of an entirely different and perhaps more creative and effective management structure. That appears, to me, to severely constrain rather than promote true competition.

Secondly, the NNSA has taken the surprising step of dictating that the new management entity must establish a stand-alone pension plan, one that would serve the employees of Los Alamos only. Again, that requirement was not included in the draft RFP, so the public never had the opportunity to comment on it. The potential changes to the pension plan, under a change of management, have been of utmost concern for the vast majority of lab employees who have contacted me concerning the competition.

Currently, the employees of Los Alamos benefit greatly from being included in the University of California retirement plan, which covers more

than 170,000 employees. The major organizations that have expressed the intent to bid for the Los Alamos contract already employ in excess of 100,000 people. Obviously, a pension plan designed to cover that many employees generates significant leveraging power.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory alone currently employs only 8,000 people directly. There is no way that a stand-alone pension plan designed to serve only 8,000 employees could offer benefits as great as the one that serves 5, 10, or in the case of the University of California retirement plan, 17 times that many. Should not the decision for how to best manage a financial matter as significant as that of a pension plan be left to the discretion of the new managing entity?

Furthermore, approximately 60 days ago, the NNSA completed the competition for the management of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The University of California, which has managed Lawrence Berkeley for 74 years, was awarded the contract. As such, Lawrence Berkeley will continue to be managed as a nonprofit entity and its 3,800 employees will continue to be included in the generous pension plan offered by the University of California.

The design of the final RFP for the management of Los Alamos National Laboratory ensures that a noncorporate management structure cannot even be considered in the competition. That is the type of management structure that has very successfully served Lawrence Berkeley for 74 years and Los Alamos for 62 years, and it is not even on the table.

In conclusion, while I strongly support this competition, I do not see how it is in the best interest of this country that a competition for the management and operation of a national security complex as important as Los Alamos has been so greatly narrowed.

And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the lifetime achievements of Southwestern golf legend Gene Torres, a resident of the Las Vegas community in my home state of New Mexico. Gene spearheaded the golf program at New Mexico Highlands University while simultaneously winning over 80 professional tournaments and raising a family.

Born in Colorado, Gene was fascinated with golf since he was a youngster and qualified for major tournaments in high school. Early in his career he set the course record of 16 under par for 52 holes at the University of New Mexico-North golf course. Gene interrupted his golf career in 1957 to join the Navy and serve his country aboard the USS Shangri-La. After his tour of duty with the Navy concluded, Gene returned home to become the premier amateur golfer in Southern Colorado and Northern New Mexico in the early Sixties.

A pillar of the Las Vegas community, Gene has called New Mexico his home since 1962. Well-known and respected, Gene served 42 years as a Professor of Physical Education and manager of the New Mexico Highlands University golf course, which he helped design. Gene instructed thousands of Northern New Mexico students and started the golfteam at Highlands University. In the absence of golf scholarships, Gene often used his own money to pay the team's tournament expenses. Despite financial challenges, Gene's golf teams won over 60% of their matches.

In 1970, Gene joined the PGA where he earned the title ``The Rock'', for his solid performance. He is said to have consistently hit one of the longest and straightest balls in golf. Gene won the New Mexico Open four years in a row, a feat no one else has accomplished to date, and the PGA Life Time Achievement Award. He was named the Southwest Section

Player of the Year and streets have been named after him in both California and Texas. In addition to his tremendous professional success, Gene made time to be a teacher, husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather.

Throughout his professional career Gene was diligent in promoting the University Golf Program at every opportunity. Wherever you saw the name ``Gene Torres'', you would see New Mexico Highlands University right beside it. As a result, the New Mexico Highlands University golf course has been aptly named after Gene in a ceremony attended by more than 200 people, a testament to his involvement in the Las Vegas community and his contribution to New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, Gene Torres is a model athlete and educator. He exemplifies the qualities that make New Mexico great: dedication to education, devotion to family and commitment to community. Gene Torres has become a legend for not only his golf ability but his selfless giving in the Las Vegas community. I welcome this opportunity to honor his lifetime achievements and am proud that he calls New Mexico his home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Lance Corporal Jonathan Walter Grant.

Jonathan lived his life by always putting others first. Last Wednesday, he made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in Iraq.

Lance Corporal Grant was among the six Marines killed during combat in Operation Matador when their troop transporter rolled over a road- side bomb in the Al Anbar Province.

Just 23 years old, Jonathan lived life always showing courage and maturity beyond his years. He was born in the Pojoaque Valley of New Mexico and raised by his grandmother, Margie Warner, whom he loved dearly. He received his General Equivalency Diploma in the year 2000 and joined the Marines in the year 2002, working the entire time to support his family and build his future.

Our heartfelt prayers and sympathies are with Jonathan's family and friends during their time of great loss. We will always remember his bravery and the sacrifice he made while serving our great Nation.

Madam Chairman, I also would stand in support of the Slaughter/Shays/Dicks/Leach/Price amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter Shays-Dicks-Price-Leach Amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

In my district in New Mexico, arts and humanities are a significant part of daily life--the

name ``Sante Fe'' conjures up images of Georgia O'Keefe's beautiful flowers and Ansel Adams' breathtaking photographs. But arts and humanities programs are also a major employer. New Mexico's third congressional district has over 1,700 arts-related businesses that employ over 5,300 people. This includes the famed Santa Fe Opera, the budding film industry, numerous respected museums, hundreds of art galleries, mariachi bands, arts schools, and more.

Many of these artists make use of grants through the NEA and NEH. Unfortunately, NEA and NEH programs remain seriously underfunded due to past budget cuts. This modest amendment seeks to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities' ``We the People,'' initiative by $5 million, and the National Endowment for the Arts' ``Challenge America'' program by $10 million. In congressional terms, these amounts are a blip on the budget screen. But in terms of what they mean to these programs and the constituents who benefit from them, such increases are incredibly helpful, and can mean the survival of numerous arts and humanities programs around the country.

I often hear from New Mexicans who attest to the effectiveness of the We the People initiative in strengthening youth understanding and appreciation of American history and culture. We the People helps all of us become more aware of our past, our values, and our institutions. I believe this effort is crucial for the progress of our country.

In addition to economic benefits of the arts, recent studies have shown the significant impact that arts education can have on at-risk youth. The YouthARTS Development Project recently conducted a study showing that students who are exposed to arts education show an increased ability to express emotions appropriately, communicate effectively with adults and peers, and to work cooperatively with others. They also show decreased frequency of delinquent behavior, improvement in attitudes toward school, higher self-esteem, and much lower dropout rates. These programs are working, and we must make sure we continue to fund them.

I thank my colleagues for offering this amendment and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, Friday the 13th unfortunately lived up to its ominous reputation when this administration and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of the Department of Defense announced that they were closing Cannon Air Force Base in Eastern New Mexico. They announced that Cannon was closing and all 2,800 employees would be moved to other areas.

I can tell you one thing; our Congressional delegation, all the Democrats and all the Republicans, along with our Governor, Governor Richardson, are united to fight this, because we believe this is an ill-advised decision, an ill-considered decision and a wrongheaded move. I just want to talk today about a couple of the reasons why this is ill-considered.

First of all, there is the issue of encroachment. When you have an Air Force base, you do not want residential areas nor industrial areas nearby. Of the 56 Air Force bases in this country, this is one of the best in terms of the encroachment issue. The local communities have worked very closely and formed a committee to try to make sure that this Air Force base was not encroached upon. There has been a robust buffer around this base for years and years.

Secondly, there is the issue for our airmen and women of practicing and training in supersonic air space. We have initiated in New Mexico something called the New Mexico Training

Range Initiative. It will be approved in October by the FAA and the Air Force. What that training initiative is going to do is make sure that as those pilots get off the ground, within a matter of minutes, they can train in supersonic air space. This is not true anyplace else in the country. For many, many pilots, they must fly 2 to 3 hours in order to get to a training area.

At Cannon Air Force Base, there are nearby bombing ranges, there is training, there is going to be this access to supersonic air space, which is enormously important, and they will be able to train immediately and not have to travel those long distances. That fact was not even considered by the Department of Defense because their cut-off date was December of 2004, so we are going to put that fact before the commission.

The third issue is what is called the military value and mission of this particular base. This is a top-notch base. It is an exceptional base. We have spent as a country $53 million over the last 6 or 7 years improving the towers, improving the runways, improving and enhancing the fire-fighting capability on the base and increasing base housing so that the base is in the kind of shape to make sure that our airmen and women that train there are ready to go into battle.

To close, this is a bad decision. Our Congressional delegation and Governor are united. We are going to persuade that base closing commission that this was not the right decision for the country.

Madam Speaker, Friday the 13th was a day that unfortunately lived up to its ominous reputation when the Department of Defense (DoD) released its Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations. In what I and the entire New Mexico Congressional Delegation believe is an enormous mistake, the Secretary of Defense included Cannon Air Force Base on its list of bases recommended for closure.

The BRAC process was established over a decade ago following the collapse of the Soviet Union as a means to realign or close military installations that are believed to be no longer needed for our Nation's defense. There have been BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. This year's BRAC round, however, was expected to be one of the largest as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld pledged to shrink the number of military installations in the United States by as much as 25 percent. Although Secretary Rumsfeld recently acknowledged that the BRAC round would be less extensive than earlier thought, DoD still recommended closing 33 bases, including Cannon.

This is just the beginning of our fight to save Cannon. The list of recommendations submitted by the DoD to the BRAC Commission is only the first stage of a lengthy process. The next step is the Commission must submit its list of recommendations to President Bush on September 8th. The President will then either approve or disapprove the recommendations made by the BRAC Commission and submit to Congress. Congress will then have an up-or-down vote on the recommendations. Until September 8th, however, I will work with the entire Congressional Delegation, Governor Richardson, and the Clovis and Portales Communities to fight to get Cannon off the list of recommended closures.

A central argument we will make to the commissioners is the issue of ``range encroachment.'' It is the process whereby a military base is progressively hemmed in by urban growth, competition for air space, and other factors. Such a development can detract from a base's desirability, and thus make it a target for future closure and realignment in the BRAC round. Cannon has two long runways, excellent airspace, and bombing ranges with no encroachment issues.

Additionally, the Department of Defense did not take into account the New Mexico Training Range Initiative as part of its analysis of Cannon's military value. Although the Initiative has yet to be fully approved, it is expected to be by October of this year. The Training Range Initiative will allow training at supersonic speeds, only further adding to the exceptional capabilities offered by Cannon Air Force Base. It is further evidence of the DoD's shortsightedness that they failed to take into account this valuable initiative.

Cannon Air Force Base is a critical component of our Nation's defense. It is also equally, if not more, important to the communities of Clovis and Portales and the entire State of New Mexico. There are several months to fight the DoD's recommendation and I plan to do so vigilantly side-by-side with you, the other members of the Congressional Delegation, and Governor Richardson to show the BRAC Commissioners just how valuable Cannon, Clovis, and Portales are to our Nation.