Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to protect our national forests and ensure that they continue to be managed using long-standing scientific principles. My amendment will stop a radical rewrite of 27 years of bipartisan forest management policy. It will prohibit the use of funds provided in this bill for the finalization of the Bush administration's proposed changes to the National Forest Management Act of 1976. It will allow the Forest Service to spend another year developing these regulations so that new regulations follow more closely the directives of the National Forest Management Act.

The proposed regulations constitute a radical departure from the United States' history of sustainable forestry and from the current forest management policy first adopted and implemented by Congress and the Reagan administration over 20 years ago.

The proposed changes will greatly reduce the amount of environmental analysis, wildlife protection, and public involvement currently required in the development and revision of forest management plans. Many of these changes reflect the timber industry's so-called wish list. In at least eight specific instances, the proposed regulations closely mirror policies favored by the timber industry. To name just a few, the proposed recommendations eliminate ecological sustainability as a priority of the Forest Service, reduce protections for wildlife, constrict the public appeals process, ignore scientific opinions, and render meaningless most mandatory standards for forest management.

The National Forest Management Act established new duties to conserve biological diversity, to ground management decisions in sound science, and to ensure extensive public participation opportunities in the forest planning process. These measures were designed to strengthen Forest Service accountability.

The proposed regulations depart in a number of ways from sound forest management policy that has existed since Ronald Reagan's administration.

First, the proposed regulations would effectively exempt forest management plans from the National Environmental Policy Act. Second, the administration's proposed rules would eliminate the requirements to maintain viable populations of native wildlife. Third, the changes would increase the likelihood of harmful logging projects based on multiple use values. Fourth, the administration's proposal would also reduce overall environmental standards and accountability by allowing management plans to be revised to accommodate individual projects.

Finally, these changes would drastically limit public involvement and eliminate sound science as a basis for forest management. The current 90-day time period in which a citizen can request an administrative review or file an appeal would be confined to a 30-day objection-only period during which a citizen would have to convince the Forest Service that the plan is illegal.

The proposed regulations were developed without a Committee of Scientists, a statutorily authorized body that has informed the development of every other change in NFMA regulations since their inception.

The administration's dismissal of the principles of sound science and NEPA highlights its contempt for public involvement and scientific input. The recommendations of the independent Committee of Scientists have guided the rewrite of every NFMA regulation since 1979. Ronald Reagan used a team of scientists to write the original regulations. Four years ago, Bill Clinton revised the regulations with significant input from scientists. If it was good enough for President Reagan and good enough for President Clinton, why does President Bush insist on throwing science out the window? Because the scientists will not give him the answers his timber industry friends want.

These proposed regulations were developed with maximum input from the timber industry and minimum input from the American public and the scientific community. The proposed regulations received nearly 200,000 public comments, almost all in opposition. A near-final draft leaked by the Forest Service in September 2003 showed that practically none of these comments were incorporated. These regulations were also strongly opposed by the environmental community, sportsmen's clubs, Republicans for Environmental Protections and members of the Committee of Scientists.

In public comment, 325 scientists from across the Nation are urging the Forest Service to withdraw the proposed regulations. Given the administration's refusal to adequately consult the scientific community, let alone listen to its comments, Congress must intervene and stop this flawed and environmentally damaging rulemaking.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the key issue here is independent science in good forest management. President Reagan used a committee of scientists, independent scientists, to promulgate his regulations. President Clinton did the same thing, through a 3-year period, to develop them.

When the Bush administration got in, they swept aside that 3 years of effort, did not use any independent scientists, had a 2-day workshop with internal scientists, and that is it. And that is what the key here is, is they do not care about the science. They have an agenda and they are moving it down the road.

Forest planning can be preventive in terms of fire, can be preventive if you let it work. But, as we know, many of these forest plans where speakers have talked, where they have been delayed, it has been because Congress has put in amendments delaying forest planning. So you cannot attribute all of that delay necessarily to the Executive Branch.

But the key here today is President Bush, through his administration and his Forest Service chief, now seeking to promote forest planning rules without independent scientific review. That is really what we are talking about here today.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the upcoming 50th anniversary of the legislation that created Fort Union National Monument in my home state of

New Mexico. At Fort Union National Monument, visitors can learn about life at this frontier outpost during the early days of the American settlement of the West. As a key stopover point for travelers along the Old Santa Fe Trail, Fort Union was witness to countless expeditions, Indian raids, and commercial gatherings during its short but storied existence. Today, the venerable post is a shadow of its former grandeur, but even in ruins, it stands as an impressive memorial to the countless soldiers of the frontier army who passed through.

On June 28, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law legislation authorizing the U.S. Department of Interior to acquire the site and remaining structures of Fort Union for national monument purposes. With strong backing from the New Mexico State Legislature and Governor Edwin Mechem, U.S. Representative John Dempsey and U.S. Senator Clinton P. Anderson introduced the bills that ultimately created the present day Fort Union National Monument. Their foresight and hard work all those decades ago are worth remembering today.

Few places today inspire imagination about the American frontier experience as does Fort Union National Monument. Located in the Mora Valley in northeastern New Mexico, the 720-acre National Park Service domain contains an array of cultural and natural resources. Its principal features--the ruts of the Santa Fe Trail, the ruins of the Fort Union military post, and the dazzling prairie scenery--daily attract travelers from around the world.

Fort Union was established in 1851 by Lieutenant Colonel Edwin V. Sumner as a guardian and protector of the Santa Fe Trail. During its forty-year history, three different forts were constructed close together. The third and final Fort Union was the largest in the American Southwest, and functioned as a military garrison, territorial arsenal, and military supply depot for the Southwest.

As a military post to protect travel and settlement for forty years, Fort Union played a key role in shaping the destiny of the Southwest. During the first decade of its existence, the fort stood as the guardian of the Santa Fe Trail. The fort acted as a federal presence in the Territory of New Mexico. The Civil War added to the fort's fame at the battle of Glorieta Pass, where Union soldiers stopped the invading Southern columns. Historian Robert Utley noted, ``The ruins of Fort Union graphically commemorate the achievements of the men who won the West.''

On February 21, 1891, singing ``There's a Land that is Fairer than This,'' the Army marched out of Fort Union for good. The post lapsed into ruins in the following decades. Roofs collapsed, walls of buildings slowly crumbled under the onslaught of the elements, and grass grew high on the vast parade ground.

After World War II, people in New Mexico revived an earlier campaign to create the Fort Union National Monument. New Mexicans had learned that the previous efforts failed because of the lack of local interest in the project. This time local citizens and interest groups decided to lead the movement to ultimate success. Fort Union, now in private hands, was scheduled to be demolished. With a strong will to save the historic site, local citizens took the issue to the Las Vegas-San Miguel Chamber of Commerce. On June 20, 1949, board members of the Chamber voted to seek aid from the federal government and the State of New Mexico to preserve Fort Union for all time. The Chamber's action was instrumental in creating the present-day Fort Union National Monument. We continue to be grateful for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, Fort Union National Monument is open to the public throughout the year. Interpretive programs are offered with living history talks and demonstrations on summer weekends, giving visitors the flavor of life in a frontier fort. The visitor center has displays of military equipment and clothing, a bookstore, Santa Fe Trail information and films. Using this abandoned military post, the National Park Service has established a dialogue between the past and the present. The place has been serving society as a museum of the past, a classroom of the present, and a model for the future, and it deserves the honor of a national treasure.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, who has, I think, done an excellent job at raising the serious questions that need to be raised here, for yielding me this time. I also rise in opposition to this bill. As a representative of the Third District in New Mexico, I am a strong supporter of renewable energy projects. New Mexico has become home to many renewable energy projects and in our State renewable energy policy is very progressive. Just last year, the State legislature enacted a renewable portfolio standard that would require utilities to generate 10 percent of power from renewable energy sources by 2011. Our Governor and members of our congressional delegation have worked to make New Mexico a showcase for renewable energy. This can be done.

I think most if not all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are great proponents of renewable energy. In fact, many of them are cosponsors of my bill to create a Federal renewable portfolio standard. Last night I tried to offer that bill as an amendment to the larger energy bill, but it was rejected by the Committee on Rules in favor of a closed rule, denying the amendment. That amendment would require electric utilities, except co-ops, to obtain 15 percent of their power from renewable energy resources by 2020 and an additional 5 percent by 2025 so that by 2025, 20 percent of retail electricity suppliers' power production would be derived from a portfolio of renewable energy resources.

If the author of this bill being debated today is serious about renewable energy, why is he so hesitant to support real reform of our energy policy? Why will he gladly strike regulations requiring environmental impact statements while refusing to enact a Federal renewable portfolio standard or even to debate it?

If Members think that H.R. 4513 is going to encourage and increase renewable energy projects, they are sorely mistaken. This bill will only serve to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act and to slash the current safeguards we have in place to ensure that new projects do not seriously harm our environment. I urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed bill.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

It strikes the alternatives.

So the gentleman is saying that this does not impact NEPA at all? I do not think that is a correct reading. I believe that the NEPA requirements, the NEPA alternatives, are seriously impacted by this piece of legislation. And why are we cutting out the public when it comes to renewable energy?

Reclaiming my time, why are we cutting out the public when it comes to renewable energy? Why has this side of the aisle refused to debate the issues that are the real issues here, getting our power companies to participate and go forward with renewable energy? It seems to me that there is a lack of wanting an open debate. They want a closed system. They want a closed rule. They do not want any amendments. I do not understand it, but I guess they just do not want an open debate on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California knows we have lively debate in our committee.

The gentleman should be credited for that. But we are not being allowed alternatives on this bill. That is exactly what they have done in this bill on NEPA. They have an up-or-down NEPA process with no alternatives. That, I submit, is a sham process.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, we are voting ``no'' on a matter of principle.

Is the gentleman going to yield to me or not?

We are voting ``no'' because you have made a sham of the NEPA process by saying vote up or down. You know very well that what NEPA is all about is looking at alternatives. If you do not have any alternatives, you make it into a sham.

Offered By: Mr. Udall of New Mexico

Amendment No. 3: Add at the end (before the short title)

the following new title:

Mr. Speaker, this week our Nation mourns the death of Ronald Wilson Reagan, our 40th President of the United States. It has been stated in many of the newspaper and television commentaries that he was one of the more complex figures of the 20th century. As with all our major political leaders, he had his share of triumphs and failures.

Ronald Reagan's irrepressible spirit and his conception of America as a ``shining city on the hill'' engendered a sense of renewal in America. Indeed, his optimism in our Nation

and her people was as genuine as the man himself. Simply put, Ronald Reagan was a great American and a President who honored the office and considered it a privilege to serve.

Without question, President Reagan represented the best of civility in American politics and the finest traditions of standing up for what you believe in. Even during the most intense political showdowns, he and former House Speaker Tip O'Neill could always sit down together after the day was done, as friends and fellow Americans. It was an era of bipartisan cooperation that seems, unfortunately, to have waned in recent years.

President Reagan's legacy will forever be his vision which played a role in bringing about an ultimate end to the Cold War, as well as his drive to foster liberty and democracy where previously only tyranny had thrived. Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev says he believes his dialogue with President Reagan ``kick-started the process which ultimately put an end to the Cold War.''

President Reagan also understood the art of political compromise. He followed his 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime President raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: The lesson of those increases tells you a lot about what was just with President Reagan's leadership. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. His actions in this area contrast dramatically with today's Washington.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, one of Ronald Reagan's greatest legacies is focusing attention on the disease that took his life--Alzheimer's. People are now receiving earlier diagnoses and better treatments for the incurable brain-wasting disease partly because he supported Alzheimer's research as President, and more importantly, because he went public with his diagnosis in 1994, increasing awareness of the need for more research.

As her husband's health declined, former First Lady Nancy Reagan spearheaded public awareness campaigns and described what it was like to be a caretaker for an Alzheimer's patient, which she referred to as ``the long goodbye.'' She continued to publicly advocate for stem cell research as a way to help others with the disease.

Doctors now are better able to diagnose the disease early, and provide patients with drugs and other measures to delay its progression. I pledge to do everything possible to help fight the plight of Alzheimer's disease. I challenge every member of this body to respond to Mrs. Reagan's plea to do more for life-saving research.

Ronald Reagan was of a kind and gracious mind, and at the same time, a man of grit, determination and leadership. He served his country the way he lived his life.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his extraordinary wife Nancy and his children, Patti Davis, Ron Prescott Reagan, and Michael Reagan. I hope it is a consolation to the entire Reagan family that so many people grieve their loss and are thinking of them during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, every year on the last Monday in the month of May, our Nation gathers together to remember and honor those who have so honorably served our country. We memorialize those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and for the values we cherish so deeply.

The sacrifice a soldier makes is always in our hearts and minds, but this Memorial Day we have a special remembrance. This year, in addition to all of those brave men and women who have perished in wars past, we honor the 120 soldiers in Operation Enduring Freedom and nearly 800 soldiers in Operation Iraqi Freedom who have lost their lives. Let us pay special tribute to these soldiers, who served their country with valor, and whose sacrifices we will never forget.

On this day, we also commemorate two important anniversaries nearly upon us. June 6th with mark the 60th anniversary of the D-Day forces landing on the beaches of Normandy. As a result of the bravery, skill, and determination of the heroic Americans who served in World War II, the invasion was successful and led to the eventual destruction of a totalitarian Nazi regime and the liberation of millions of enslaved peoples in Europe. It is fitting that today many of the ``Greatest Generation'' gather in Washington, D.C. to dedicated the new World War II Memorial on the grounds of the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

And June 22nd will mark the 60th anniversary of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944--what we now know as the GI Bill of Rights. We are reminded this year, by those currently returning from operations abroad and by the anniversary of this celebrated bill, of the importance of caring for our veterans as they return home. The GI Bill of Rights was one of many promises we have made to those serving our country, and one of many we must keep. We must not falter in our promise to provide veterans with quality healthcare upon their return. We must ensure that when veterans pass, their widows--who also sacrifice so much as spouses of our soldiers--receive the benefits they we've promised them. And we must provide the foundation for our veterans to continue leading healthy and productive lives upon their return, in the form of home loans, vocational rehabilitation, educational benefits, and more.

I want to also take time to honor our troops from New Mexico that have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan: Senior Airman Jason Cunningham of Carlsbad; Army Specialist James Pirtle of Carlsbad; Air Force Special Operations pilot Captain Tamara Archuleta of Albuquerque; Marine Private First Class Christopher Ramos of Albuquerque; and Marine Corporal Aaron Austin of Lovington. I want to acknowledge these soldiers on their bravery and for representing not only our country, but also the state of New Mexico. They have truly made their families, their state, and their Nation proud.

Throughout our Nation's history, our armed forces have been on the front lines fighting for our lives with their own. We must never take for granted the freedoms for which they fought, and we will never forget the meaning of the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Tennessee who is proposing this amendment has been very involved in Energy Employees Compensation issues and I thank him for that. Surely, in proposing this amendment, he has good intentions.

However, because the amendment fails to accomplish real reform of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, I must rise in opposition to the amendment.

It has been almost 3\1/2\ years since Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. This bill was passed in an attempt to bring justice to the thousands of energy workers who incurred illnesses--in many cases deadly--as a result of their work at Department of Energy facilities. In my state of New Mexico, there are over 1,200 workers who have filed such claims.

Yet after 3\1/2\ years, less than 3 percent of the cases filed with the Department of Energy have been processed. This means that the vast majority of the men and women who have filed claims through this program--many of whom will die before they ever see a compensation check--are being denied justice.

Conversely, the Department of Labor has processed over 95 percent of the claims in its area of responsibility. DOE recognizes that it has failed yet now it wants more money. Surely I am not the only member on this floor who shudders at the prospect of throwing millions more at a department that has failed this program and these people for almost 4 years.

Unfortunately, this amendment does not include crucial components that are necessary for real reform. By real reform, I mean identifying a willing payer for all claims submitted by energy employees, taking a hard look at how DOE has spent money on the program so far with so few results, and addressing the reasons for the stark difference in progress on claims between the Department of Energy and the Department of Labor.

If this amendment were part of a larger reform package, I may have looked upon it more favorably. I joined Representatives Strickland of Ohio, Udall of Colorado, Tauscher of California, and Cooper of Tennessee, in submitting an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have called upon the President to send legislation to Congress proposing a willing payer. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order.

Because this amendment falls so far short to real reform, I cannot vote for it. Passing this amendment without other crucial reform components rewards the Department of Energy for its failure. The 1,200 people in New Mexico who have filed claims simply cannot afford the status quo.

I recommend a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Special Exposure Cohort Fairness Act of 2004.

On October 30, 2000, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) was enacted into law. The purpose of this law was to provide for timely, uniform, and adequate compensation of covered employees suffering from illnesses incurred as a result of their work at Department of Energy facilities. While this law's enactment was welcome and past due, serious flaws in the program have been apparent during the years since its passage, and delays in getting compensation to workers have been numerous.

The language in Subtitle B of the EEOICPA clearly states that where it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose of a class of workers, and if there is a reasonable likelihood that the radiation dose may have endangered the health of the members of the group, that class of workers may petition to be included in a Special Exposure Cohort. Special Exposure Cohort status provides an automatic presumption of causation for 22 radiation-related cancers. When the law was passed, Special Exposure Cohorts were designated by Congress at four facilities.

The men and women who were exposed to harmful doses of radiation while working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have waited years for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a rule designating the process for classes of workers to petition to be in a Special Exposure Cohort. As a result of this unfair delay, workers have been unable to file petitions to become members of a Cohort. Four years after the bill was passed in Congress, a Special Exposure Cohort rule was finally issued last night. But workers cannot wait any longer for their compensation--it is simply unfair to ask them to do so. Moreover, a report issued on May 5, 2004 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the CDC stated that some facilities are not consistently providing adequate responses to data requests for dose reconstruction. The report details the Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL) lack of full compliance. Data issued in the report shows that of the 548 dose reconstruction cases pending with LANL on January 15 of this year, 499 had been pending for over 150 days.

The bill I am introducing today is a step in the right direction to help many of my constituents who have suffered because of their having worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory. I continue to hear from constituents who were exposed to harmful doses of radiation and who are wondering why they have had to wait years to receive their compensation. Workers cannot wait any longer for a flawed bureaucratic process to start working.

My bill allows energy employees who were employed for at least 250 days between 1945 and 2000 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Area G, linear accelerator, or who were security guards or construction workers, to be considered as members of a Special Exposure Cohort. In addition, the bill will allow employees who worked anywhere at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and whose records have not been received by NIOSH from the Lab within 200 days of receipt, to qualify under the Special Cohort. It is worth noting that the enactment of the legislation would not preclude additional groups of workers in New Mexico from seeking to become part of the Special Exposure Cohort.

Subtitle B is unfortunately only one component of the original EEOICPA law that needs amending. There are many outstanding issues that I will continue to work on with my colleagues, including fixing physicians panels, speeding up dose reconstructions, and locating a willing payer for all meritorious claims. This bill represents just one step in the larger fight to ensure that energy workers get the compensation they deserve.

Since enactment of the EEOICPA in 2000, the New Mexico legislature has passed two House Joint Memorials calling for the creation of a Special Exposure Cohort for the facilities listed in this bill. Hearings have been conducted; reports have been issued. Meanwhile, many of the claimants in this program are so ill that they may never see the compensation check that they deserve--a small source of comfort for them and their families in return for the harmful exposures they suffered. It is time for action.

Mr. Speaker, May has been designated as Hepatitis Awareness month. In light of that, I rise today to highlight one type of Hepatitis that is an important health issue facing our country--the Hepatitis C virus. Hepatitis C is now the most common bloodborne infection in the United States infecting an estimated 2.7 million Americans and more than 32,000 in my home State of New Mexico alone. Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that it is estimated that less than 5 percent of individuals with Hepatitis C are receiving treatment. These statistics alone underscore the critical need to increase education and awareness about this virus. Today I am introducing a resolution that calls for exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the figures I mentioned above, it is also worth noting that approximately 80 percent of those infected with Hepatitis C develop chronic liver disease with an increased risk for development of cirrhosis and liver cancer. In fact, in the United States Hepatitis C is estimated to be the cause of 40 percent to 60 percent of cases of chronic liver disease and 8,000 to 10,000 deaths annually.

One population in our society for whom Hepatitis C is a particular concern is our veterans. A study released in July 2003 measured the prevalence of Hepatitis C in a sample of veterans treated in a homeless veterans program in Massachusetts over a five-year period. The study found an overall prevalence rate of HCV infection of 44 percent, a rate more than 10 times higher than the national rate for men age 20-59. According to the study, adjusting for age, significant risk factors in the sample included a history of substance abuse and service during the Vietnam era. However, this is by no means the only at-risk population.

Native Americans are another segment of our population who are experiencing the destructive effects of the Hepatitis C virus. Although Native Americans experience infection rates on average with other populations, because of other obstacles to accessing care and accessing quality care, they are experiencing much higher death rates and years of life lost as a result of chronic liver disease.

Mr. Speaker, these are but two examples of specific demographic groups dealing with the realities of the Hepatitis C virus. But as indicated by the number of Americans infected with this virus it is clearly a much more widespread concern. As a nation we must begin confronting the rising human and economic costs of this virus. And we in Congress must begin confronting the policy choices we need to make to stem these costs. Passing this resolution will be an important step in this process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an historic and outstanding community--Taos, New Mexico--and to congratulate the residents on the celebration of the town's 70th anniversary.

On May 7, 2004, the Town of Taos will commemorate the 70th anniversary of its incorporation as a general law municipality in the State of New Mexico. This event will also mark 389 years since the King of Spain colonized the Taos area in 1615--five years before the Pilgrims landed in New England.

Further, this will be the 209th anniversary since the Don Fernando de Taos land grant was declared an Ayuntamiento under the laws of the Spanish government in 1795. Finally, this will also mark 156 years since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed by the United States and Mexico in 1848.

It is the traditions of the long-established cultures that make Taos a proud community, a desirable place to live, and a wonderful place to visit. Although the Town of Taos celebrates its 70th birthday this month, we must not forget that it is an area that has been home to American Indians for nearly 1,000 years. The arrival of the Spanish Conquistadores, led by Capitan Hernan Alvarado on August 29, 1540, marked the beginning of the three cultures that would eventually dominate the area.

Yet other newcomers emerged in the 18th century with the arrival of French and American traders. Taos, no more than a tiny mountain village, was transformed into a bustling trade center as wagon trains, frontier scouts and mountain men gathered. Taos was also the home of famous frontier scout Kit Carson, who is commemorated in a state park and museum.

The once geographically-isolated village became more accessible when the Atcheson, Topeka and the Santa Fe Railroad reached Santa Fe. The era of America's love affair with the West had begun. As tales of the region's beauty spread, tourists, writers and artists from the east discovered northern New Mexico's uniqueness. Some settled permanently.

By the end of the Roaring Twenties, Taos had an established reputation as a thriving art colony. Writer D.H. Lawrence is credited with saying, ``I think the skyline of Taos is the most beautiful I have ever seen. . .'' Perhaps the most prominent resident of the 20th century was none other than artist Georgia O'Keeffe.

The incorporation of the Town of Taos began as a community-wide initiative after several large structure fires destroyed most of the plaza buildings in existence at the time.

Community volunteers undertook an effort to organize a volunteer fire department, a community water supply system and a municipal form of government to ensure stability over the long term.

Taos, sometimes described as ``The Soul of the Southwest,'' is a flourishing community today in New Mexico. A hundred galleries showcase the works of artists past and present, local and international. Scattered within walking distance around the plaza and along side streets lined with bright hollyhocks and geraniums, the galleries invite thousands of tourists each year. World-class contemporary fine art, southwestern art, sculpture, ceramic, crafts, jewelry, and weavings are longtime economic staples of the town.

Wheeler Peak at over 13,000 feet looks down on the world-class Taos Ski Basin. During the warmer months, the area provides a scenic chair lift and trails for hiking, biking, horseback trips, llama treks and fishing.

Today, as in the past, Taos is a mecca for a wide range of people who are attracted by its mystique, unique heritage, historical significance, and beauty.

Mr. Speaker, I could speak for hours on the rich history of Taos. Let me finish by saying that this special occasion is a time for all Taosenos to honor 70 years of proud and noble history. While we are grateful for the past seven decades, I know that the best is yet to come. I ask that my colleagues join me as we honor all the contributions Taos has made to New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell my colleagues about an amazing act of selflessness that has recently earned national press coverage for a small town in my congressional district.

In February, the Portales News Tribune reported that students in Dora, New Mexico had donated $3,000 they raised for their prom to the family of sixteen-year-old Clayton Stokes, who was killed in a pickup truck crash. Motivated by this, other students in the school helped raise another $4,000 for the family.

Dora High School Principal Bill Stockton said that the 11th grade students who attend the school decided to donate their prom money after a memorial assembly for their late classmate. These students had diligently been saving for their prom for 3 years.

Clayton, a resident of Causey, was a bright young man with a promising future before him. He was born on March 21, 1987, in Carlsbad, to Jim and Cathy Stokes. He was active in both varsity basketball and baseball at Dora High School. He enjoyed riding horses and snowboarding and was a member of the Dora FFA. Family members said he enjoyed working in construction with his father and two brothers and spending time with family and friends.

As Principal Stockton noted, losing a student in a small school is like losing a family member. The students' gesture alone deserves our deep praise and admiration, however, there is more to this story.

Rooney Moon Broadcasting was so touched by the students' generosity that the station asked radio listeners to help replace the money so the students could have their prom after all. Within hours, the station helped raise nearly $17,000. Incredibly, the money has continued coming in and the station places the latest total around $22,000. A memorial scholarship in Clayton's name is planned.

This money poured in from residents all across eastern New Mexico, primarily from residents in Curry and Roosevelt counties. It is clear to me that the spirit of ``paying it forward'' is alive and well in this area of New Mexico.

The first donation came from Mike Knight, owner of Rib Crib in Clovis, who volunteered to cater the Dora prom. McDonalds of Portales pledged $1,000 for the scholarship fund. The Bank of America in Clovis and Tankersley's arranged for all the boys to have rental tuxedos.

The May 3, 2004, issue of People magazine has an article about this wonderful deed. The magazine has a section entitled ``Local Heroes'' for people in the country that are making a difference. This act is certainly worthy of this recognition. On a personal note, I am pleased that millions of Americans will learn of the honorable and heroic deeds of my eastern New Mexico constituents through this article in one of the largest publications in the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for affording me the opportunity to brief my colleagues regarding this inspiring story. In a time of bleak news in our world, it is indeed refreshing to be reminded of the kindheartedness of our friends and neighbors. I am attaching the article and request that it be reprinted in its entirety in the Congressional Record so that we may be reminded of this account throughout the ages.

[From People, May 3, 2004]

The Prom Must Go on

For three years, the 11th graders of Dora High in remote

Dora, N. Mex., had scraped their pennies together from bake

sales and fund-raisers for their prom. Then, suddenly, a prom

didn't seem so important. Around midnight on Feb. 15,

classmate Clayton Stokes was driving home after hanging out

with friends when he dozed at the wheel. His truck flipped

over, and Stokes, 16, an athlete and jokester, died

instantly.

Tragic as it was, Stokes's death set off an avalanche of

goodwill that has left residents of Dora (pop. 500) feeling

pretty good about their town. The day after his death,

Clayton's classmates piled into vans and drove to the

Stokeses' home. There, they handed a $3,000 check--their

entire prom fund--to his devastated parents, Jim, 48, and

Cathi, 45, so they could bury their youngest boy. ``We never

thought twice about it,'' says Kassandra Clark, 16. The rest

of the school chipped in, raising another $4,000. ``They

floored us,'' says Jim, a construction worker. ``For them to

love my boy so much to give up their prom,'' adds Cathi. ``It

didn't take the pain away, but it eased it.''

That was only the beginning. Local radio host Steve Rooney

and his cohost got wind of the gesture, and on the day

Clayton was laid to rest, they asked listeners for donations

so the kids could have their prom. ``We couldn't answer the

phones fast enough,'' he says. The juniors, who had held a

sleepover at classmate Ashlet Carter's house, tuned in while

dressing for the memorial. ``We had to redo our makeup,''

says Carter. ``We all kept crying.''

The money kept coming--$22,000 so far, some of it to create

a scholarship fund in Clayton's name. And on April 24, Dora

High will have a prom. What would Clayton think

of it all? ``He'd go, `Dang, golly,''' says Travis Belcher,

his best friend. ``He wouldn't believe it, but he'd be pretty

proud.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oregon for yielding, and I thank him for leading this Special Order. I would like to say that his leadership in this Congress has been exceptional when it comes not only to sustainable communities and making sure we build up the quality of life in our communities but it is also, as we see by the bicycle on his lapel, a good solid balanced approach to transportation and transportation systems and realizing that bicycles and modes of transportation other than automobile traffic are very important to our communities. I thank him for that and thank him for his leadership.

In hopes of keeping our public lands as beautiful and as productive as possible, I would like to offer a few thoughts concerning recent changes to our National Forest Management policies. National Forest Management plans were first conceived by Gifford Pinchot, the first United States chief of the Forest Service. He was a Republican like the President at the time, Teddy Roosevelt, who thought that we should organize the country's forests into a National Forest System that we now know today as our vast system of national forests.

Pinchot was initially led by the utilitarian philosophy as of ``the greatest good for the greatest number.'' In guiding the management of the national forests, he later appended to that statement ``in the long run'': ``The greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.'' Because he recognized that forest management consists of long-term decisions in protecting the resources.

By the end of 1910, at the end of Pinchot's term, there were 150 national forests covering 170 million acres of land. And he wrote about the U.S. Forest Service and what he was trying to do, and he said ``not a single acre of the government, State, or private timberland was under systematic forest management anywhere on this most richly timbered of all continents . . . When the Gay Nineties began, the common word for our forests was `inexhaustible.' To waste timber was a virtue, not a crime. There would always be plenty of timber . . . The lumbermen . . . regarded forest devastation as normal and second growth as the delusion of fools . . . And as for sustained yield, no such idea had ever entered their heads.''

He went on to say: ``Without natural resources,'' and this was when he was really talking about his idea of conservation and good stewardship, ``life itself is impossible. From birth to death, natural resources, transformed for human use, feed, clothe, shelter, and transport us. Upon them we depend for every material necessity, comfort,

convenience, and protection in our lives. Without abundant resources prosperity is out of reach.''

Such was the philosophy that guided the management of our national forests at the beginning of the 20th century.

The beginning of the 21st century is a far different story altogether. Republicans are still in control, but they have abandoned bipartisanship, wise stewardship. Under the warm and fuzzy name ``The Healthy Forests Initiative,'' the Bush administration is proposing an agenda that includes sweeping changes to the management of our National Forests, cutting people out of the process of participating and commenting on forest plans. The first assault came only weeks after the Bush administration took office when they chose to put on hold all the proposed regulations that had been developed by the previous administration. Those regulations were the results of years of efforts by an independent committee of scientists. Those new regulations were science- and ecosystem-based. They reflected the state-of-the-art knowledge concerning the management of natural resources.

One of the first things President Bush's new Assistant Secretary for Forests, Mark Rey, did was scrap all of these science-based, commonsense regulations. And in place of the science-based regulations encouraging conservation and protections, the new administration proposed regulations that reflect a wish list of the timber industry. Instead of ``the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run,'' the philosophy of this administration appears to be ``the greatest good for the special interests in the quickest time,'' using our forests for a few wealthy individuals.

We have been expecting these new regulations for a while, but now it seems the administration might be holding back, afraid to show their cards in an election year. They know the American people will not stand for a President who time and again sells off our public lands, our public trust, to the highest bidder.

The administration has succeeded in passing a law, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which has begun to codify some of their plans to sell, no, let me make that give away, our National Forests to the timber industry.

Other sections of the act give timber companies the right to log big trees from the backcountry. Taxpayer dollars are going to be used to build roads that will take these timber industries into the backcountry, to take trees that pose no fire risk to people, all under the umbrella of this reckless piece of legislation.

Healthy forests under this administration means healthy bank accounts for a fortunate few and barren hillsides for Americans and for the plants and animals and human beings that depend on truly healthy forests.

On Earth Day we would do ourselves the biggest favor by looking back 100 years and remembering the guiding philosophy of our country's first forester, ``the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.''

And I would suggest that Gifford Pinchot, our first forester, and Teddy Roosevelt would say to the Republicans, Why have you abandoned the time-tested bipartisan solutions?

And with that I say once again to the gentleman from Oregon that he has been a great leader on these environmental issues, and I hope that we can continue to carry on these discussions and let the American people know that there are very important issues at stake on this Earth Day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). And let me first of all say that it is a real pleasure to be here with him this evening and have the opportunity to carry on a debate with him about this important issue. I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this.

I had a series of town hall meetings in my district recently. And maybe my colleague could help me with some of the questions that people have. I thought I would just begin with a question and then with a statement, and maybe we can just carry a little bit of a discussion on about this one question.

I have talked to machine manufacturers. I have talked to elected officials that supervise these elections. They tell me we have a lot of touch machines in New Mexico, and they say things to me like, we do not have to worry because we have three levels of redundancy in the computers. We do not have to worry because there is backup in the computers.

And I think my colleague has explained it somewhat in his opening remarks, but I would like to kick that back to him at this point and have my colleague, because I know he has called many of these computer experts over the course of developing this legislation, when they say three levels of redundancy in the computer, is that a level of protection my colleague is satisfied with, and does it, in fact, in this piece of legislation give security to the ballot itself?

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I hope that that is very clear to everyone out there. It was very clear to me the way that was explained. And I want to say that the reason we are here today on the floor is because we believe in the improved use of technology. Computerized voting systems will soon become the primary method for voting across the country, and with this new technology comes a potentially serious problem: The fact that these systems will not have a verifiable paper trail of how a citizen actually voted.

Without this component, voters and election officials have no certainty that votes have been properly recorded, because computer voting machines are not currently required to produce a voter-verified paper trail. Any errors or irregularities they cause are difficult or even impossible to discover.

Voters would never know and election officials could never determine whether a faulty machine erroneously recorded the voter's intent. A growing host of nationally and internationally renowned computer scientists consider a voter-verified paper trail to be a critical safeguard for the accuracy, integrity, and security of computer assisted elections.

Thankfully my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has introduced H.R. 2239 to address this problem. H.R. 2239 requires the electronic voting systems to provide a mechanism for voter verification of results. H.R. 2239 would require that voters be able to verify the actual paper record after it is printed.

Requiring a voter-verified paper trail is both easily solved and immediately necessary. Localities are making purchasing decisions right now. If Congress acts now, we can ensure that every election is voter- verified and auditable, and localities can move forward with confidence. The technology is there to make this happen.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2239 and hope that this Congress will take action on this legislation immediately. There is broad-based support for voter-verified paper trails. In fact, more than 70 organizations, including Common Cause, the National Organization For Women, the National Federation of Republican Women, as well as the editorial boards of more than 20 newspapers have endorsed voter- verified paper trails.

With a critical election looming, it makes it that much more important that we address this situation now.

Mr. Speaker, I would once again like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him, with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and all the other fine sponsors of this legislation to help ensure and improve the integrity of our electoral process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and thank my friend again.

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, let me thank the gentleman from Maryland for his hard work and his leadership on this bill.

H.R. 2584 is a noncontroversial piece of legislation previously passed by the House on November 21, 2003, that would convey a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, research vessel, to the local government of Utrok Atoll located in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The conveyance of this vessel will allow more convenient transportation for the residents of Utrok Atoll who have to make a 265-mile trip to the neighboring island of Majuro to receive testing and critical medical treatments as a result of the U.S. nuclear testing program we conducted in the Northern Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958.

I commend the Delegate from American Samoa for introducing this legislation to help alleviate the burden shared by the residents of this very remote atoll in the Pacific Ocean.

H.R. 2584 also contains an important provision to address procedural lapses in promotions and appointments within NOAA's commissioned officer corps. It is important not to disrupt the NOAA corps chain of command while our Nation is at war against terrorism. This provision should prevent any future operational or command dysfunctions from arising, and we should act expeditiously to pass it.

This legislation as amended by the other body also contains provisions passed last year by the House in H.R. 2408 to reauthorize the Fishermen's Protective Act and the Yukon River Salmon Act, and two amendments to reauthorize and clarify fisheries management agreements concerning tuna in the Pacific Ocean. None of these are controversial.

I urge Members on both sides to support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about the process by which H. Res. 557 has been considered in the House.

Once again, a small group in the House--the majority party on the Rules Committee--has prevented a full and fair debate. Last night, I submitted an amendment to the Committee for consideration. The first part of my amendment would have struck the language in the resolution claiming that the Iraq war has made the world safer, replacing it with language about the deplorable and brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. The second part would have added a fifth clause to the resolution, commending the members of the Reserve and National Guard and their families for their dedication and sacrifice, given the extraordinary number of such members called to active duty and their length of deployment in Iraq. Unfortunately, not only was my amendment not made in order, but no amendments at all were made in order. In fact, the minority does not even have the right to recommit this resolution with instructions.

Let me be clear that there is no doubt that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and his horrible regime. But to put forth a resolution stating that the world is safer because of the U.S. invasion into Iraq, while claiming it ``should be'' bipartisan, is purely partisan politics. I am shocked at the audacity of the Republican leadership to force an up or down vote on a resolution with a clause justifying the war in Iraq, bundled with provisions that every member of this House supports--commending the Iraqis for their courage, commending the adoption of an interim constitution, and supporting U.S. and Coalition forces for their bravery. My amendment would have truly made this resolution something members on both sides of the aisle could support.

I also share the concerns of many of my colleagues that this resolution does not acknowledge many of the questions surrounding the justification that the Administration used for going to war in Iraq. First, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Second, CIA Director Tenet has stated that he never said the threat coming from Iraq was imminent, a claim that President Bush repeatedly made to the American people. Third, the Administration's alleged ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime have yet to be proven. In my view, these discrepancies are the reason why the Republican leadership has decided to take up this resolution. I think that they believe if they can get the House to agree that the world is safer because of the U.S. invasion into Iraq, the war is justified. But I disagree wholeheartedly with this flawed logic.

We should be spending our time talking about how to make our country and world safer. We should be talking about the security of our borders, of cargo, of our critical infrastructure. We should be talking about truly supporting our troops by making sure they are taken care of when they return to the U.S.--ensuring that they don't have to wait for six months to get an appointment at the VA; ensuring that the veterans who fought before them get the benefits they were promised; ensuring that their loved ones will be taken care of when they pass on. We should be talking about how to help the Reservists and members of the National Guard who have been called to serve longer then they ever envisioned, whose families need help paying the bills while the soldiers are gone.

I have been moved by the bravery of the troops that have been deployed from my district in New Mexico. They include the 52nd Engineer Combat Battalion's Charlie Battery, the New Mexico National Guard's 1115th Transportation Company, a group of soldiers from the New Mexico National Guard 3631st Maintenance Company, thousands of reservists, and countless active duty. I will continue working in Congress to help their families while they are gone and to help them with the transition when they return.

Let's pass a resolution commending the bravery of our troops and coalition forces, thanking their families, commending the Iraqis for their courage in the face of a brutal regime and war, commending the adoption of an interim constitution in Iraq--but let's allow for a full debate and do it in a way that does not divide us. A resolution on the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the war should not be used for political purposes. Our armed forces, including the Reservists and National Guard members I sought to commend, as well as the Iraqi people, deserve better.