Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great disappointment in the conference agreement that has been brought to the floor. I sincerely hoped that the bill that passed the House in July would have been moderated with provisions included in the other chamber's bill.

Unfortunately, instead of considering legislation today that would have modernized the

Medicare program to provide prescription drug cost relief and coverage for seniors throughout this great nation, we have this agreement that is geared toward dismantling one of the most successful government programs ever implemented. Instead of considering legislation to modernize the Medicare formulas to fix the inequities between rural and urban areas, we are considering an agreement that wraps these crucial fixes in with a prescription drug benefit that is designed to achieve the ideologically extreme goal of privatizing Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly admit that the provider package included in this agreement is excellent. For years doctors, hospital administrators, and other health care providers have suffered under the unfair Medicare formulas that severely hampered their ability to provide care to Medicare beneficiaries. The labor share revision, the geographic physician payment adjustment, increasing home health services furnished in rural areas, critical access hospital improvements--these are all incredibly important provisions that I strongly support in order to help strengthen the health care system in rural areas. I also support fixing the inequitable disproportionate share formula, which is done to a degree in this agreement. Unfortunately, however, the conference agreement removes language that would have given New Mexico a larger increase of DSH payments to $45 million. The physician fee formula update is another provision that is incredibly important. Without this fix, physicians will have no other choice but to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries, which will lead to the total breakdown of a system that is already badly strained to its limits.

I recognize the importance of these provisions. I understand the difficulties that those in the health care industry are facing. I understand the difficulties seniors are facing in trying to purchase and pay for their medications. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to fix the disproportionate share provisions, I have cosponsored legislation to fix the Medicare physician payment updates, I have written letters supporting these provisions and urging Chairman Thomas to include these rural fixes in the legislation, I have written a letter to conferees asking them to retain this provisions, and, when this bill passed in July, I voted in favor of the Democratic alternative that not only included stronger rural provisions than those included in the Majority's bill, but also contained a real prescription drug benefit--not a benefit engineered to bring about the demise of the Medicare program.

Mr. Speaker, lets be clear about what our goal was supposed to be. We were supposed to create a new prescription drug benefit in Medicare. That's what we were supposed to be doing with this important legislation.

Unfortunately, we are doing much more than that, and a lot of it is terrible. We were supposed to be reducing the costs of drugs for seniors. Yet this plan prohibits the federal government from using its clout to force down the price of medicine.

We were supposed to help seniors keep their current drug coverage if they are fortunate enough to have it. Yet this plan may force up to three million seniors out of their current employer-based plans.

We were supposed to be strengthening the Medicare program by adding a voluntary benefit for prescription drug coverage. Yet this plan, under the guise of a premium support demonstration, weakens the Medicare program by forcing beneficiaries to pay more for Medicare if they don't give up their doctor and join an HMO.

We were supposed to help low-income seniors who get additional assistance from Medicaid afford their prescriptions. Yet this plan not only forces 6 million low-income seniors to pay more for their medications, but also imposes an unfair assets test that disqualifies seniors if they have modest savings.

We were supposed to be providing a prescription drug benefit that would ease the cost and emotional burden seniors face in dealing with medication purchases. Yet this plan leaves millions of seniors without drug coverage for part of the year due to the $2800 gap in coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with this agreement. I am disappointed because what should have been a straightforward approach took a wrong-turn along the way. I think this is a terrible way to spend $400 million dollars on a supposed prescription drug benefit, and I will be forced to vote against this measure. I urge my colleagues to reject this shameless assault on Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his leadership on this motion to instruct, and it is badly needed because we can see from the other side how the deceptions flow out. We are hearing over and over here again about a bipartisan conference. The fact of the matter is, and they know it, that we were locked out of the conference. Absolutely unprecedented. Democrats locked out and a secret agreement crafted, which we most of us have not even seen yet. We have not seen it. But it is going to be rammed through despite the fact it is supposed to sit on the table here for 3 days at a minimum for us to study.

But this is a bad bill. It is a bad bill for seniors, and it is a bad bill for the future of Medicare. The key thing that a prescription drug bill should do is get control of the cost. This bill does not get control of costs in any respect. In fact, it has a prohibition in the bill that specifically says the Department of Health and Social Services, the agency that runs Medicare, cannot negotiate with the drug companies. I will bet the drug companies love that provision.

Also the House of Representatives passed a reimportation provision. Reimportation allows us in the United States to bring in the cheaper drugs where they are safely manufactured. But they did not want that in the bill; so they junked that also. So there is nothing in this bill to control costs, and we are headed down a road of creating a program which is going to bankrupt our grandchildren.

The only way, the only way we are going to get control of costs is allow the government, allow the government to negotiate. With that, let me urge all my colleagues to support the very wise motion of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great disappointment in the conference agreement that has been brought to the floor. I sincerely hoped that the bill that passed the House in July would have been moderated with provisions included in the other Chamber's bill.

Unfortunately, instead of considering legislation today that would have modernized the Medicare program to provide prescription drug cost relief and coverage for seniors throughout this great Nation, we have this agreement that is geared toward dismantling one of the most successful government programs ever implemented. Instead of considering legislation to modernize the Medicare formulas to fix the inequities between rural and urban areas, we are considering an agreement that wraps these crucial fixes in with a prescription drug benefit that is designed to achieve the ideologically extreme goal of privatizing Medicare.

I will certainly admit that the provider package included in this agreement is excellent. For years doctors, hospital administrators, and other health care providers have suffered under the unfair Medicare formulas that severely hampered their ability to provide care to Medicare beneficiaries. The labor share revision, the geographic physician payment adjustment, equalizing the Medicare disproportionate share payments, increasing home health services furnished in rural areas, critical access hospital improvements--these are all incredibly important provisions that I strongly support in order to help strengthen the health care system in rural areas. The physician fee formula update is another provision that is incredibly important. Without this fix, physicians will have no other choice but to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries, which will lead to the total breakdown of a system that is already badly strained to its limits.

I recognize the importance of these provisions. I understand the difficulties that those in the health care industry are facing. I understand the difficulties seniors are facing in trying to purchase and pay for their medications. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to fix the disproportionate share provisions, I have cosponsored legislation to fix the Medicare physician payment updates, I have written letters supporting these provisions and urging Chairman Thomas to include these rural fixes in the legislation, I have written a letter to conferees asking them to retain these provisions, and, when this bill passed in July, I voted in favor of the Democratic alternative that not only included stronger rural provisions than those included in the Majority's bill, but also contained a real prescription drug benefit--not a benefit engineered to bring about the demise of the Medicare program.

Let's be clear about what our goal was supposed to be. We were supposed to create a new prescription drug benefit in Medicare. That's what we were supposed to be doing with this important legislation.

Unfortunately, we are doing much more than that, and a lot of it is terrible. We were supposed to be reducing the costs of drugs for seniors. Yet this plan prohibits the federal government from using its clout to force down the price of medicine.

We were supposed to help seniors keep their current drug coverage if they are fortunate enough to have it. Yet this plan may force up to three million seniors out of their current employer-based plans.

We were supposed to be strengthening the Medicare program by adding a voluntary benefit for prescription drug coverage. Yet this plan, under the guise of a premium support demonstration, weakens the Medicare program by forcing beneficiaries to pay more for Medicare if they don't give up their doctor and join an HMO.

We were supposed to help low-income seniors who get additional assistance from Medicaid afford their prescriptions. Yet this plan not only forces 6 million low-income seniors to pay more for their medications, but also imposes an unfair assets test that disqualifies seniors if they have modest savings.

We were supposed to be providing a prescription drug benefit that would ease the cost and emotional burden seniors face in dealing with medication purchases. Yet this plan leaves millions of seniors without drug coverage for part of the year due to the $2800 gap in coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with this agreement. I am disappointed because what should have been a straightforward approach took a wrong-turn along the way. I think this is a terrible way to spend $400 billion dollars on a supposed prescription drug benefit, and I will be forced to vote against this measure. I urge my colleagues to reject this shameless assault on Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, without doubt, I am sympathetic to the purpose behind this motion. I am a staunch supporter of smart environmental regulations, and

I oppose the approach that the Bush Administration has taken toward stripping regulations on clean air and water. However, after speaking with people on both sides of this issue, I have concluded that this motion is not the right approach.

In New Mexico, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, with Governor Bill Richardson as the state's representative, is currently working toward model regulations for management of stormwater pollution in the state. In the meantime, the local oil and gas companies continue to follow general guidelines. I am encouraged by the work being done at the state level to address this issue, as I believe it is important to work with all interests to generate a collaborative solution.

Although I will vote in opposition to this non-binding motion, I continue to be disturbed by many of the provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Unfortunately, the way this bill has been crafted echoes the practice of the Administration to put corporations before the environment, before public opinion, and before logic that tells us we need to gear our energy policy toward future needs--not toward the profit of industry. The exclusion of Democrats from the entire conference is reason to believe the bill is not as balanced as its authors claim.

I hope that my many concerns are addressed in the final conference report and I look forward to a vote on the final bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003. As a Ranking Member of one of the Small Business Committee's Subcommittees, I take very seriously the importance of small businesses in our economy, as well as the impact of our policies in small businesses.

As we have said time and time again, small businesses are the driving force in our economic recovery. They are the lifeblood of the American economy, creating three out of four new jobs, and representing 99 percent of all employers. This is why we must ensure that small businesses receive the tools that they need to compete in today's competitive marketplace and we must make the playing field as level as possible.

Today, we look at a form of unfair competition for small businesses coming from the federal prison industry. The idea behind FPI is to use work as a means of rehabilitation and to teach inmates a skill, which can be used to put them back on the right track. I strongly support this goal. I'm sure all of my colleagues support this goal, as well. Unfortunately it is not that simple. I believe that this commendable idea of giving individuals a means for a second chance has turned into an industry who's sole focus is not rehabilitation, but turning a profit.

As of fiscal year 2002, FPI brought in $678.7 million in revenue and this would have placed them at 34 out of the top 100 federal contractors for the year. FPI increased their revenue from FY 2001 by more than $95 million. This level of involvement might seem justified. Yet, as FPI becomes a ``Mega'' contractor, it benefits only 15 percent of all federal inmates. Something is not right with this picture.

Over past years, FPI has been able to grow through the use of preferential contracting treatment, exemption from such labor laws as OSHA, minimum wage rates and an endless line of credit from the U.S. Treasury Department. This industry is government owned and operated, and has used these competitive advantages to expand its market share, yet they are competing against private sector companies.

Adding on to these advantages is that FPI are not held to basic standards of product quality or requirements to meet deadlines. This is especially concerning because many of the products that come from FPI are used by the troops in our military, and agencies like FAA that ensure safe transportation. These are areas that cannot afford to be taken lightly. We have an obligation to ensure that the public is safeguarded.

I do believe that we can have the principle of using the federal marketplace as a tool in the rehabilitation process of inmates, but it must be balanced and it must be fair. The current practice is weighted too far in favor of FPI with very little demonstrated benefit, while clearly costing our nation's small businesses jobs and opportunities.

As the main driver of our economy, small businesses deserve a level playing field. In today's competitive market--we cannot overlook an industry that continues to expand while at the same time causing our nation's small businesses to lose valuable opportunities.

It is for these reasons that I support passage of H.R. 1829, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, today, with our soldiers in harm's way around the globe, and as seemingly constant reports come on the television of brave men and women either killed or wounded, I rise in support of the FY04 National Defense Authorization Act conference report. This important legislation provides much-needed pay increases for our troops, as well as authorizes funding for important construction projects at New Mexico's military bases. This is, however, far from perfect legislation and I have very serious concerns about several provisions included in this year's bill. This legislation has traditionally been free of highly controversial issues, which, unfortunately, have found their way into this year's authorization.

I would first like to touch on the exemptions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) that were included in this legislation. I was a conferee on this section of the bill and believe that the exemptions included in the conference report do not strike an adequate balance between maintaining a level of high military readiness, which I strongly support, and protecting at-risk species.

The DOD argues that the existing national security exemptions in our environmental laws are not good enough for the military, even though the GAO found that claim was without basis. The DOD Authorization Conference Report creates a far weaker and unwarranted regulatory process for the Navy. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should have rejected the exemptions to the ESA and MMPA. As Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged in Qatar, we have the ``best trained, best equipped and finest troops on the face of the earth.'' Considering this, the military exemptions this legislation creates are unnecessary and should have been struck from the Report.

Another issue that I believe is inadequately addressed in the report before us today has to do with the Disabled Veterans Tax, also known as concurrent receipt. This conference report includes a Republican proposal that would only partially end the tax, thereby leaving out two-thirds of military retirees affected by the tax and forcing those covered to wait 10 years for full benefits. Mr. Speaker, since I have been in Congress, I have cosponsored H.R. 303, to provide full concurrent receipt for all veterans eligible for both retirement and disability pay; I have signed the discharge petition to get H.R. 303 on the floor; I have signed numerous letters on this topic; and I strongly support ending this inequitable situation. For that reason, since I support a total fix to this unfair tax, today I will be supporting the Democratic motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to report it back with the complete elimination of the Disabled Veterans Tax.

The conference agreement also contains a number of dangerous provisions relating to the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. The agreement authorizes the administration's request of $15 million for research on the nuclear ``bunker buster,'' the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, plus $6 million for ``advanced concept initiatives.'' I strongly oppose these provisions. Instead of building new nuclear weapons, I believe we should fund weapons that have just as strong a deterrent capability, but do not encourage new uses for nuclear weapons or encourage a new nuclear arms race.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 1588 when it first passed the House because of many of the provisions I just discussed. However, even during its first time through the House, I supported the across-the- board 4.15 percent pay increase for military personnel, and I strongly support these provisions again as it is included in the conference agreement.

However, there are a few provisions in particular that I strongly support which were not included in the initial House version of the Defense Authorization legislation. Now that they are included in the conference report, I will be voting in support of this conference agreement today.

One provision not included in the House version, but one that I have been working hard to ensure it is included in the conference report, is authorization of $9 million for Cannon Air Force Base located in my district in Clovis, New Mexico. $7.7 million of this $9 million would be used to construct a much-needed new Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Complex and $1.3 million would be used to install a permanent Simplified Short Approach Lighting System (SSALS) with sequenced flashers on a runway at the air force base. These are both very important upgrades that will improve the safety of our troops stationed at Cannon Air Force Base and, in turn, help improve the safety of our nation.

One other provision that has helped sway me to support passage of this authorization is making an additional 12,000 legal permanent reservists who serve in the military eligible to apply to become U.S. citizens after a year of service for citizenship in the United States. I believe that if immigrants are willing to serve in war, then a grateful nation should give them what they are fighting for, American citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, clearly there provisions that are both good and bad. In a bill this size, it is inevitable that this is the case. As such, because I believe the conference agreement includes important provisions that were not included in the House version of the bill, I will be voting in support of passage of this important legislation. With our men and women overseas in harms way, supporting this bill with its important pay raises for them and their families is a fitting way to show our support for them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this conference report. In this bill, the most significant energy legislation in 10 years, we had the chance to craft a smart, forward-looking, efficient energy policy. Unfortunately, the 1700-page bill, which costs $140 billion and includes over $23 billion in giveaways, repeals crucial consumer protections, and fails to address global warming and our nation's dependence on foreign oil, is not what I envision as twenty-first century energy policy.

I regret that Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard provision was deleted by the conferees. Everyone in my state of New Mexico knows that expanding clean, renewable energy has amazing economic potential for our State, and the country. 1.4 million jobs could be created with a sound renewable energy plan, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Moreover, the lack of a renewable energy plan does nothing to address our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and the national security implications are astounding. I will continue to push my renewable portfolio standard legislation as a stand-alone bill next year.

I am also disappointed that the dangerous uranium provision that may be harmful to my constituents in northwest New Mexico, including many members of the Navajo Nation, stayed in the final bill. Don't let the red herring exemption for New Mexico fool you--since corporate funds are fungible, any monies a corporation may receive to conduct this type of mining will release other funds to conduct this dangerous technique anywhere. I will work with others to minimize the harm caused by this needless subsidy.

Adding to the list of bad provisions, this bill lets polluters off the hook for contaminating groundwater with MTBE, and allows other companies to produce more smog pollution that the Clean Air Act authorizes. It also dramatically increases the potential for global warming by offering huge incentives for burning coal, oil, and gas. In essence the bill reverses ``polluter pays.''

I am thankful for the few provisions in this bill that will be beneficial to my constituents and for our environment and economy. The electricity title does contain some provisions that are beneficial to the rural electric cooperatives in my district. In addition, I am pleased with efforts in the bill to advance the Federal government toward increased energy efficiency, such as the goal of a 20 percent reduction in Federal building energy use by 2013, and funds directed to solar programs with the goal of installing 20,000 solar roof-top systems in federal buildings by 2010. However, weighing the few good provisions with the many bad provisions, I am unable to support the final bill.

Most of all, I am disappointed by the process by which this bill was negotiated. The saying is that no one wants to see the process of making laws or sausage. Unfortunately, Democrats weren't even given the choice. We were repeatedly ignored as Republicans met behind closed doors. The expertise and input of Democrats could have made this a better bill. I hope as we move forward on other conference reports the majority will allow other voices to be heard.

I oppose this conference report and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the headlines shout out: ``Healthcare crisis looms.'' ``Diabetes epidemic.'' ``Increase in childhood obesity.'' Solutions abound, but the one which could make a real difference, prevention, is only paid lip service. We say ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,'' but then we fail to reinvent our health policy to make prevention a cornerstone.

The facts are ominous, unrelenting and tell it all:

An obesity epidemic started in the early 1980s and equally impacts all age groups. Nearly one in four Americans are obese. Obesity is highly predictive of diabetes.

One in three children now being born in the United States ultimately will become diabetic.

Diabetes incidence increased 61 percent in the last decade; 76 percent for people in their thirties.

An alarming British study reported one-third of 5-year-old girls were overweight and showing signs of developing Type II diabetes, formerly called adult onset diabetes.

The Surgeon General in his December 2001 report left no doubt where we are headed. ``Left unabated, overweight and obesity may soon cause as much preventable disease and death as cigarette smoking.''

The healthcare costs to deal with these trends are overwhelming and unaffordable. The National Institutes of Health has estimated that diabetes costs the United States close to $138 billion each year in direct and indirect costs. Let me repeat, $138 billion. We cannot afford to double, triple and quadruple these costs. Even if we could find the resources, would this be a wise expenditure of our finite healthcare dollars?

Today we spend 95 percent of our healthcare dollars on treating chronic and acute illnesses, many of which could be prevented in the first place. In other cases we could at least delay the onset of disease for a number of years and provide a higher quality of life. The dollars we spend on prevention are minuscule, and we do not track the outcomes in a meaningful way.

This Nation needs a new approach to healthcare, which puts prevention front and center. The key to prevention is personal responsibility and personal action. If people are given the facts and alternatives, they can take charge of their health.

We are facing an epidemic of diabetes in New Mexico due to obesity and unhealthy lifestyles. Minority communities are disproportionately impacted. But there is hope in many of our communities, where individuals are taking charge of their health and their future.

I was in the Navajo community of Thoreau recently and saw some dynamic seniors reshaping the health of their community. These Navajo seniors knew that decades ago, when the Navajo people were leading an active life and herding their sheep and livestock and eating traditional food, there was very little disease. They remember diabetes and other modern ailments were also unheard of in the Navajo population. So with the help of the Centers for Disease Control and the University of New Mexico Preventive Health Center, they designed a menu of healthy traditional foods.

They call the regimen of regular exercise and healthier eating ``The Healthy Path.'' The seniors are teaching younger parents and their grandchildren the benefits of these healthier foods and how to begin The Healthy Path. Word has spread, and there are now a dozen healthy path initiatives ongoing in Navajo chapter houses.

This is not rocket science. We know prevention works. We have the tests and screening to know when someone is pre-diabetic, on a path to diabetes. Doctors have known for years that regular exercise, weight loss and healthy diet will virtually eliminate Type II diabetes. Let us put this knowledge to work and create healthier individuals and communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Seeds for Soldiers Act, a bill intended to help our veterans jumpstart new small businesses.

This bill contains two main components. First, it creates a specialized loan program for veterans through the Small Business Administration. This program provides veterans with loans up to $3 million, allows for debt refinancing, and permits borrowers to defer payments for up to one year without any accumulation of interest. To encourage lenders to provide capital, the program will carry reduced costs and a higher government loan guarantee

Second, the bill establishes a vocational rehabilitation program for veterans specifically designed to assist in the transition out of service to become entrepreneurs. The program will be established within the existing Small Business Development Centers and will provide both technical and vocational assistance to assist veterans in transforming their skills learned in military training to areas where there is market demand. In addition, the program will provide the entrepreneurial assistance for veterans to set up their own business. It will provide these veterans the tools to move from the workplace to the marketplace. The program will authorize $25 million with minimum grants of $500,000.

As a member of both the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Small Business Committee, I strongly support assisting our Nation's veterans in establishing their own businesses. As a Nation currently welcoming home our newest veterans, we must act in every way possible to assist those heroes in their success upon return. This bill provides the seeds for veteran-owned businesses, so that they may grow into sustainable entities.

I thank Representative Sue Kelly for her support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting both our veterans, and the benefits that small businesses contribute to our economy, by cosponsoring this bill.

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, I rise today to honor Rick Lupe, White Mountain Apache, expert firefighter, loving husband, devoted father and true hero. Lately, we hear the word ``hero'' tossed around often, too often; but I am here to tell you that Mr. Lupe deserves this term being used alongside his name forever.

In his capacity as lead forestry technician and firefighter for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, he saved lives and even towns from death and destruction. Sadly, he paid the ultimate price, but not before leaving a legacy we should all admire.

Richard Glenn Lupe worked his way up the BIA forestry organization through hard work, dependability, and by earning the respect of his coworkers and bosses alike. In June of 2000, two wildfires which began on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona merged into one massive fire which destroyed more than 450 homes and burned over 460,000 acres of forestlands.

This fire was the largest wildfire ever in the history of the Southwest. However, even more homes and property would have been lost had it not been for the tenacity and courage of Rick Lupe and his firefighting team. Rick's team set a dozer line strategically placed to foil the coming flames, and it worked. His actions saved the towns of Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside, Hondah Homesites, and McNary from certain destruction.

To Evelyn, Rick's wife and life companion of 21 years, and to their sons Sean, Daniel, and Brent, I extend my heartfelt sympathies. I hope that in some small way the knowledge that we honor the life and work of your husband and father here today will comfort you in the months and years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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. 2766 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to consummate a land exchange in Colorado. The values of the lands would be appraised in accordance with the Federal appraisal standards.

The city of Golden, Colorado would benefit from the transaction. This bill is not controversial. I congratulate the sponsor of this legislation and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for their hard bipartisan work on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a hardworking member of the House Committee on Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 677 authorizes several additions to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area through a combination of exchanges and acquisitions of both land and conservation easements.

If enacted, the legislation would add more than 2,700 acres of land to the boundary of the National Park and more than 7,000 acres to the boundary of the National Conservation Area while making other technical changes to the management of these areas.

The changes being made in this legislation are supported by the administration, and I am unaware of any controversy regarding this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

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

Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, I yield back all remaining 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, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 924. This legislation would ratify a land exchange negotiated between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Newtok Native Corporation.

The negotiation and resulting land exchange agreement was motivated by the current state of the Newtok village site. The village is rapidly eroding and is threatened by flooding. The 300 residents of the Yupik Eskimo village of Newtok live a largely subsistence lifestyle, which is heavily dependent upon fish and wildlife resources of the Yukon delta area of western Alaska.

Under S. 924, the Fish and Wildlife Service would convey about 11,000 acres to the Newtok Native Corporation, which would allow the village to relocate to safer ground. It is my understanding that the Newtok Native Corporation intends to donate the lands received under the exchange to the community.

In return, the Fish and Wildlife Service will receive over 12,000 acres of corporation lands which will be managed in the future as part of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. In addition to the clear public interest in allowing the village to move to a safer location, the Fish and Wildlife Service will acquire high-priority lands for the refuge and, overall, considers this to be a fair exchange.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we thank the Alaska delegation for this worthy legislation.

Mr. Speaker, having no additional speakers, 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, I am pleased that the House has the opportunity today to consider this important legislation. H.R. 506 is a companion bill to S. 210 introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman. S. 210 passed in March of this year and a similar version passed in the Senate in the 107th Congress.

Although I also introduced a similar version of this bill in the 106th and 107th Congresses, it has never been discharged by the House Committee on Resources or been taken up by the full House.

The Galisteo Basin, located in northern New Mexico, possesses a rich cultural heritage and is considered one of the Nation's most beautiful natural settings. The area is comprised of 24 archaeological sites containing artifacts and ruins of 17th century Spanish missions and impressive examples of Native American rock art and pueblo architecture.

H.R. 506 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative

agreements with willing private and State landowners who are interested in protecting, preserving, and maintaining these important archaeological sites. It also authorizes the Secretary to purchase such lands from willing sellers.

Each cooperative agreement or land acquisition would be strictly voluntary and would be negotiated by each landowner to contain only the terms and conditions that are agreed to by both parties.

H.R. 506 has been carefully crafted to protect private landowners. Numerous safeguards prevent the Secretary from forcing cooperative agreements on the private property owner or forcing a landowner to sell the rights to the land to the Federal Government. Under H.R. 506, any action affecting the disposition of a private landowner's rights is purely in the discretion of that private party.

H.R. 506 strikes an exacting balance between protecting and preserving these delicate archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin and protecting the rights of the State and private landowners with property interests in these sites.

Considering this, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support the preservation of the natural beauty and cultural significance of the Galisteo Basin.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a fellow member of the House Committee on Resources.

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

Let me congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) and the other Members of the House Committee on Resources and the staff for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, having no additional speakers, I yield back all remaining 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. 982, sponsored by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), is intended to remove a barrier to economic development in the U.S. Territory of American Samoa.

In essence, H.R. 982 provides American Samoa parity with other U.S. Territories whose bonds are not taxed by the State or local governments. I congratulate the gentleman from American Samoa for his work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) on all his hard work in the Committee on Resources, his tenacity, and his persistence. I know he has worked hard and long on this very important issue to American Samoa. I just want to recognize that here today.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to an exceptional young woman from my district. Vanessa Lucero of Las Vegas, New Mexico has made quite a name for herself this month.

Vanessa is a member of the West Las Vegas High School football team. On October 12, the 5-foot-1-inch, 103-pound freshman made history in New Mexico.

Vanessa--a tailback--scored a touchdown running in for the score from the 1-yard line. She is believed to be New Mexico's first high school female player to score a touchdown in a game. Her contribution to the team has already improved the West Las Vegas Dons' record to 5-2. Amazingly, Vanessa is also on the wrestling team.

As if this accomplishment were not enough, during half-time of the same game, Vanessa was crowned Freshman Princess for homecoming, still wearing her No. 11 jersey. The gown she wore to the dance that night was green and yellow--the Dons' colors.

Since this wonderful achievement, Vanessa has received enormous attention from the New Mexico and national media. In addition to news stories chronicling her actions, she has been the subject of glowing newspaper editorials. She was also invited on NBC's Today Show and interviewed by Matt Lauer. This media interest has not only made Vanessa's family and friends proud of her, it has brought favorable attention to our great state.

What has happened in Las Vegas is larger than just an athletic accomplishment. With Vanessa's dual victories, she is helping to break down stereotypes that, unfortunately, are still common in our country. We should be happy with all of the progress we have made providing girls and women with opportunities previously denied them. However, we must continue our efforts to promote gender equality. As Vanessa is fond of saying, ``It's only a guy's sport until a girl joins.'' Indeed.

At a time when far too many American children have sedentary lives where they do not move off the couch, and many are obese, we must support programs that lead to improved fitness and health. Adolescent female athletes are more apt than nonathletes to develop a positive body image, less likely to become pregnant, and are less at risk for developing women's diseases such as osteoporosis and breast cancer.

In addition, sports provide a safe and healthy alternative to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, and to antisocial behavior.

Vanessa, unknowingly, has become a role model for girls everywhere. I am very proud that she and her family hail from my congressional district. Both of her accomplishments have made us so proud.

Mr. Speaker, Vanessa Lucero is a special young woman and a valued citizen of San Miguel County and the state of New Mexico. I am honored to join with my colleagues in congratulating her for all of her successes.