Floor Statements

I rise today to introduce the Native American Veterans Cemetery Act of 2003. This bill would make all Native American tribes eligible to apply for state cemetery grants. Under the current law, only states are eligible for veteran's cemetery grants. Supported by the Navajo Nation, the largest federally recognized tribe, this bill would not give preference or special exceptions to Native American tribes that apply for the state cemetery grants. It would simply allow tribes to apply for grants to establish, expand or improve tribal veterans cemeteries.

In addition to a resolution adopted by the Navajo Nation Council, the New Mexico and Arizona state legislatures have both passed memorials urging Congress to adopt this measure. New Mexico is home to almost 9,800 Native American Veterans, making it one of the top five states in the country with regard to its Native American veteran population. I believe it is time that Native American veterans who have served our country so honorably are allowed to pursue a decent, dignified resting place on their tribal lands.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. If you're looking for a way to dismantle a proven, beneficial, effective program, then this bill is for you.

The Head Start program has been a success for nearly 40 years. During that time, it has served over 20 million children. In fact, there are members in this House that were Head Start children who attest to the program's success. Instead of passing this bill, which could potentially increase class size, cut off services to 3-year-olds, and eliminate crucial health services, we should be improving Head Start by fully funding it.

Thousands of children in my district attend the Head Start program. To be exact 3,023 children in Northern New Mexico could be affected by this bill. Of those children, 86 percent live in families that have incomes below the federal poverty line. Ninety percent receive basic health care and are twice as likely as other low-income children to receive basic medical care. We have 60 Head Start centers in my district, and 162 classrooms. Passage of this bill means an unknown future for these children. Will the quality of their education be put in jeopardy? Will they continue to receive medical care? Will their teachers be hired on a discriminatory basis?

We must not ignore the successful history of the Head Start program. If we really want to improve the program, we should fully fund the program to expand access to all eligible preschoolers, improve access to Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, improve teacher quality by requiring that more teachers get bachelor's degrees, and enhance Head Start's focus on pre-literacy, language, and pre-math skills.

Groups in my district that oppose passage of this bill include the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Pueblo of Isleta, and the Pueblo of Acoma. National groups opposing this bill include the NAACP, the National Education Foundation, the ACLU, the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, the National League of Cities, and Catholic Charities USA, among many others. This long and diverse list is proof of the many problems with this bill.

I cannot conclude my statement without expressing my concern that this is a disturbing pattern for the Majority on education. Numerous programs--Head Start, college aid, public school education--are in danger of being dismantled. I will continue to defend programs that are proven to work, fight to fully fund those programs, and oppose efforts to dismantle them. This bill is no exception and I urge a no vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, the U.S.-Chile FTA Implementation Act and the U.S.-Singapore FTA Implementation Act, respectively. It is unfortunate that I find myself in this position because I want to support trade agreements because I believe they can have a positive effect on our economy. However, they only can have a positive effect if they are negotiated properly. They only can have a positive effect if they have strong labor, environmental, and consumer protections. Unfortunately, these two bills before us, and the underlying Free Trade Agreements, are woefully inadequate in these regards.

Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which passed unanimously in the 107th Congress, these FTAs--the first signed by the Administration since passage of Trade Promotion Authority--will set a dangerous precedent for future agreements, including the Central American FTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which provided workers with enforceable protections based on the core International Labor Organizations workers' rights--freedom of association; the right to bargain collectively; prohibitions on child labor, forced labor and employment discrimination, these FTAs give scant attention to these important issues. The only reference to workers' rights is a provision stating that each party ``shall not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws,'' not matter how inadequate they may be. There is no parity between our strong labor laws here in the United States and the weak protections in Singapore or Chile.

As predicted during the TPA debate during the 107th Congress, these trade agreements are bad environmental policy--and now, we have no change to amend them. Contrary to the claims of the FTA supporters, the provisions on investment in the Chile and Singapore FTAs do not meet the requirements of the Trade Act of 2002 that foreign investors should receive ``no greater substantive rights'' than U.S. citizens under U.S. law. What this means is that foreign investors will be granted broad rights under international law that do not exist under U.S. law. For example, many companies have aggressively used NAFTA's Chapter 11 authority to undermine our strong environmental protections. This continues with the Chile and Singapore FTAs where foreign investors can bring suit against our laws to prevent pollution because they may claim a right to be compensated. This is just one example. Applied broadly, these two FTAs have investment language that could cause serious harm to the environment and the public interest.

The Chile and Singapore FTAs also undermine U.S. immigration policy. Specifically, they loosen policies regarding temporary entry to workers. Some claim the H1-B visa issue has been addressed. However, this is far from true. While the implementing legislation claims to ``fix'' the problem by limiting the damage by applying some elements of the H1-B, these provisions are not legally binding because the agreements in the actual trade agreement have been violated by these ``fixes'' and will be eliminated in the pacts' dispute resolution systems. Furthermore, the Chile FTA has an unprecedented requirement that the U.S. provide ``written justification'' to any person denied a visa.

The Singapore FTA contains Integrated Sourcing Initiative (ISI)/ Transshipment permissions. Last year's Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority contained no authority to negotiate such deals. Yet, the U.S. Trade Representative has this deal in the FTA, and the so-called ``fix'' largely replicates existing terms in the World Trade Organization Information Technology Agreement, for which even the Clinton Administration--as pro-free trade as any--never sought congressional approval.

Also, these FTAs could have very negative affects on the health care system. They will impede the access to life-saving medicines by extending patents beyond the 20-year limit required by the Trade- Related Aspects of Intellection Property Rights (TRIPS); they will require a 5-year waiting period before governments can provide generic drug producers test data, thereby delaying affordable medicines; they also will permit major pharmaceutical companies to block the production of generic medicines. Also, the Singapore FTA reduces tobacco tariffs to zero, which actually will encourage more dumping of U.S. tobacco products in Singapore. Finally, these FTAs will open the door to further privatization and deregulation of vital human services including health care professionals, and the provisions for public control of water and sanitation services. Amazingly, these FTAs will leave the U.S. open to challenges from foreign private corporations and the subsidiaries to compete for these public sector services. This is just plain wrong.

Finally, some have claimed to have ``fixed'' this legislation with a ``mock mark-up'' in the Ways and Means Committee. I'm not quite certain what a ``mock mark-up'' is, but most believe it hasn't done anything. Specifically, some who support this implementing legislation say we have two choices: one, we can block this legislation to send a message to the administration that they need to do a better job of negotiating FTAs that have real environmental and labor protections. Or, two, we can approve this implementing legislation, and then send a message to the White House to do a better job the next time. I, for one, am not willing to take that risk--the risk that this White House and this USTR will actually listen to Congress. That is one of the reasons I voted against TPA in the first place. Sadly, many of my concerns and reason for voting no have come to fruition in these first two negotiations.

I want to support free trade because I know it has the potential to help American workers

and consumers. In fact, I have supported trade agreements previously, including the U.S.-Jordan FTA. Unfortunately, however, I cannot find many positive developments in either the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement or the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no''on H.R. 2738 and on H.R. 2739. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, the U.S.-Chile FTA Implementation Act and the U.S.-Singapore FTA Implementation Act, respectively. It is unfortunate that I find myself in this position because I want to support trade agreements because I believe they can have a positive effect on our economy. However, they only can have a positive effect if they are negotiated properly. They only can have a positive effect if they have strong labor, environmental, and consumer protections. Unfortunately, these two bills before us, and the underlying Free Trade Agreements, are woefully inadequate in these regards.

Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which passed unanimously in the 107th Congress, these FTAs--the first signed by the Administration since passage of Trade Promotion Authority--will set a dangerous precedent for future agreements, including the Central American FTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Unlike the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which provided workers with enforceable protections based on the core International Labor Organizations workers' rights--freedom of associations; the right to bargain collectively; prohibitions on child labor, forced labor and employment discrimination, these FTAs give scant attention to these important issues. The ONLY reference to workers' rights is a provision stating that each party ``shall not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws,'' no matter how inadequate they may be. There is no parity between our strong labor laws here in the United States and the weak protections in Singapore or Chile.

As predicted during the TPA debate during the 107th Congress, these trade agreements are bad environmental policy--and now, we have no change to amend them. Contrary to the claims of the FTA supporters, the provisions on investment in the Chile and Singapore FTAs do not meet the requirements of the Trade Act of 2002 that foreign investors should receive ``no greater substantive rights'' than U.S. citizens under U.S. law. What this means is that foreign investors will be granted broad rights under international law that do not exist under U.S. law. For example, many companies have aggressively used NAFTA's Chapter 11 authority to undermine our strong environmental protections. This continues with the Chile and Singapore FTAs where foreign investors can bring suit against our laws to prevent pollution because they may claim a right to be compensated. This is just one example. Applied broadly, these two FTAs have investment language that could cause serious harm to the environment and the public interest.

The Chile and Singapore FTAs also undermine U.S. immigration policy. Specifically, they loosen policies regarding temporary entry to workers. Some claim the H1-B visa issue has been addressed. However, this is far from true. While the implementing legislation claims to ``fix'' the problem by limiting the damage by applying SOME elements of the H1-B, these provisions are NOT legally binding because the agreements in the actual trade agreement has been violated by these ``fixes'' and will be eliminated in the pacts' dispute resolution systems. Furthermore, the Chile FTA has an unprecedented requirement that the U.S. provide ``written justification'' to any person denied a visa.

The Singapore FTA contains Integrated Sourcing Initiative (ISI)/ Transshipment permissions. Last year's Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority contained no authority to negotiate such deals. Yet, the U.S. Trade Representative has this deal in the FTA, and the so-called ``fix'' largely replicates existing terms in the World Trade Organization Information Technology Agreement, for which even the Clinton Administration--as pro-free trade as any--never sought congressional approval.

Also, these FTAs could have very negative affects on the health care system. They will impede the access to life-saving medicines by extending patents beyond the 20-year limit required by the Trade- Related Aspects of Intellection Property Rights (TRIPS); they will require a 5-year waiting period before governments can provide generic drug producers test data, thereby delaying affordable medicines; they also will permit major pharmaceutical companies to block the production of generic medicines. Also, the Singapore FTA reduces tobacco tariffs to ZERO, which actually will encourage more dumping of U.S. tobacco products in Singapore. Finally, these FTAs will open the door to further privatization and deregulation of vital human services including health care professionals, and the provisions for public control of water and sanitation services. Amazingly, these FTAs will leave the U.S. open to challenges from foreign private corporations and the subsidiaries to compete for these public sector services. This is just plain wrong.

Finally, some have claimed to have ``fixed'' this legislation with a ``mock mark-up'' in the Ways & Means Committee. I'm not quite certain what a ``mock'' mark-up is, but most believe it hasn't done anything. Specifically, some who support this implementing legislation say we have two choices: one, we can block this legislation to send a message to the Administration that they need to do a better job of negotiating FTAs that have real environmental and labor protections. Or, two, we can approve this implementing legislation, and then send a message to the White House to do a better job the next time. I, for one, am not willing to take that risk--the risk that this White House and this USTR will actually listen to Congress. That is one of the reasons I voted against TPA in the first place. Sadly, many of my concerns and reason for voting no have come to fruition in these first two negotiations.

I want to support free trade because I know it has the potential to help American workers and consumers. In fact, I have supported trade agreements previously, including the U.S.-Jordan FTA. Unfortunately, however, I cannot find many positive developments in either the U.S.- Chile Free Trade Agreement or the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, I will vote NO on H.R. 2738 and on H.R. 2739. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, last month our country lost a pioneer in women's sports. Gladys Heldman was an instrumental figure in the formation of women's professional tennis, responsible for the creation of a professional women's tennis tour. Gladys died on June 22 at her home in Santa Fe, New Mexico. She was 81.

At the age of 25, Gladys began playing amateur tennis, and found her passion. Gladys earned a reputation as a tough and tenacious competitor. At one point she was ranked number one in Texas. She competed in the United States National Championships four times, which are now known as the US open, and once at Wimbledon.

Not just an exceptional athlete, Gladys was a towering mind. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Stanford University. She applied her intelligence and drive to her passion of tennis.

In 1953, Gladys founded World Tennis magazine. In the early years of the magazines publication, Gladys functioned in all the capacities of a magazine staff, from editor-in-chief to publisher. Using this magazine, Gladys became an indomitable force as an advocate for women's tennis. In 1970, she single-handedly formed the first women's professional tour, which included the likes of such star female tennis players as Billie Jean King. She asked the top female players to sign $1 contracts with her magazine, making them professional players, and arranged a tournament at the Houston Racquet club. Her close friend, Joseph Cullman, donated prize money, and sponsored 5 further tournaments. Despite obstacles and opposition, this tour evolved into the Virginia Slims Tour, known today as the W.T.A. Tour.

Gladys was a pioneer in professional women's sports. Without Gladys, women's tennis would not be what it is today. In 1979, Gladys was recognized for her personal accomplishments and achievements for the field of women's professional tennis when she was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. Gladys was a remarkable person whose compassion, respect, and talent for her work have served as a model for others. Though she is gone, she will never be forgotten.

My wife and I were honored to be personal friends of the Heldmans and celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary with them. Her passing leaves a void in our lives. Gladys is survived by her husband, Julius, her daughters Carrie and Julia, her three grandchildren, and her two great- grandchildren. I extend my deep condolences to the Heldman family and all who knew her. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment sponsor has good intentions. She wants to protect the cities and protect the water supply for the cities of Albuquerque and Santa Fe. I also share her concerns and wish it was just as easy as offering an amendment to protect the water supply for our cities. I am sad to say that this amendment does not solve the problems we face in New Mexico and across the West on water. It is a Band-Aid.

Representatives for the six tribes in the Middle Rio Grande have told me this amendment will force them into a lawsuit. If the San Juan Chama and Middle Rio Grande water is off the table, then tribal water is some of the only water left in the river. The Department of Interior has said they will take tribal waters to satisfy the ESA. Is the gentlewoman prepared to settle the tribe's lawsuit in her amendment?

Settling one's lawsuit and creating another lawsuit does not seem to me to be much of a solution. Legislatively distinguishing one lawsuit, but creating another one does not seem like it is getting us to the point we want to be at.

This amendment does not deal with the realities we face in the West in terms of water. Our water resources are overallocated. The amendment does not deal with that. We have an exploding population growth in New Mexico, 20 percent over the last 10 years. Population is stretching our water resources to the limits. We are in the

midst of a serious drought. Our water infrastructure is outmoded for current needs. This amendment fails to deal with these realities and many other crucial issues.

I am working on legislation which addresses these realities, and I hope that the gentlewoman and other members of the New Mexico House delegation will join me in this effort. We need legislation that sets up incentives to conserve our water resources and develop collaborative solutions at the local level. We need legislation which restores and protects the Rio Grande River and the surrounding Bosque. We need to encourage technological solutions for new sources of water, and we need to harness technology to increase water efficiency.

This amendment accomplishes none of these important objectives, nor does this amendment move us toward sustainable water practices.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Section 335, which this amendment would strike, is a calm and measured response to a problem that is jeopardizing the ability of the Department of Interior and related agencies to safeguard America's natural treasures.

This is about taking measures to make sure our national treasures are not put at unneeded risk by brash privatization with unclear results. The section would not halt the many outsourcing studies currently ongoing, nor would it stop new outsourcing studies from being commissioned before this bill is enacted. It would simply suspend privatization efforts in 2004 to allow the House Appropriations Committee to review an ``in-depth'' report on the results of pending privatization efforts.

Section 335 is crucial because Interior and related agencies are currently under extraordinary pressure to privatize critical programs because of an onerous quota imposed upon all agencies by OMB to review for privatization 15 percent of their ``commercial'' activities by the end of fiscal year 2003.

This quota is being applied regardless of the impact on the mission of Interior and related agencies or the needs of all Americans who depend on those agencies for efficient and reliable service. In fact, OMB has refused to supply any research or analysis to justify the privatization quota, despite a report requirement in the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

The Forest Service expects to spend $10 million during FY 2003 to meet the competitive sourcing mandate from the OMB. Instead of concentrating on bolstering emergency fire fighting, the Forest Service's contracting officers will be carrying out OMB's privatization quota. Instead of using funding to hire seasonal employees to handle the crush of summer visitors and making much-needed repairs to bridges, cabins, and historic buildings, the National Park Service will be paying high-priced privatization consultants. As the Committee report states, ``this massive initiative appears to be on such a fast track that Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor understand the costs and implications of the decisions being made.''

That is reason enough to temporarily pause the funding of new outsourcing studies.

In addition to the devastating impacts this arbitrary outsourcing quota could have on the visitor services and seasonal operations of our National Parks and Forest Service, this plan will significantly undermine the diversity in the National Parks Service and Forest Service workforce. According to one Administration official, the current plan to outsourcing more than 1,700 jobs by the end of Fiscal Year 2004 will disproportionately affect minorities.

This comes at a time when the Park Service has explicitly stated its mission to improve diversity in its rank and file.

The fact is, we don't know what the full impacts of the OMB's privatization plan will be. That's why this language was put in the bill, and why it should stay in the bill.

Section 335 is bipartisan.

Section 335 would not prevent Interior from continuing privatization reviews already underway.

Section 335 simply says, ``proceed with caution'' when it comes to our national treasures.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. A ``no'' vote is a vote to protect our National Parks and Forest Service.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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 and practices. 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 or implementation of the Bush administration's proposed changes to the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

The proposed regulations constitute a radical departure from 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 so-called timber industry wish list.

In at least eight specific instances, the proposed regulations closely mirror policies favored by the timber industry. To name a few of these, the proposed recommendations eliminate ecological sustainability as the priority of the Forest Service; eliminate protections for wildlife; eliminate scientific oversight of agency actions; and eliminate most mandatory standards for forest management.

These measures were designed to strengthen Forest Service accountability. 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. The proposed regulations depart in a number of ways from sound forest management policy that has existed for the past 6 administration.

First, the Bush administration's regulations would effectively exempt forest management plans from the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, the Magna Carta of environmental law.

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, I believe that these changes would drastically limit public involvement. The opportunity to request an administrative review or file an appeal would be severely curtailed. These changes would eliminate sound science as a basis for forest management.

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 every rewrite of the NFMA regulations since 1979.

Ronald Reagan used a team of scientists to write the original regulations. Three 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 have received widespread editorial opposition from newspapers around the Nation. These regulations were also strongly opposed by the environmental community, sportsmen's groups, Republicans for Environmental Protections, and members of the Committee of Scientists.

In the public comment process, 325 scientist from across the Nation are urging the Forest Service to withdraw the proposed regulations, and over 100,000 citizens have submitted comments urging withdrawal of these 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 strongly urge all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting and maintaining sound principles of forest management.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from California uses an example of a forest plan where he says it took 9 years to plan to put together a 15-year plan. We are not in any way trying to protect an inefficient, ineffective process. The bureaucrats have to get their act together. For the most part, for the most part, forest planning saves the taxpayer money. It saves time and it allows the public input, and what we are objecting to here is the public is being cut out of the process with these regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a valuable member of the Committee on Resources, a leader on these important forest management issues.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington, and first let me say that the ranking member from Washington, and my good friend, has shown very strong support for this amendment. He has given me guidance on getting this amendment through the appropriations process, and his leadership on this important environmental issue is very much appreciated.

The point he makes with regard to science and what he is talking about is making sure that there is scientific input, that there is public input in this process; and what we are talking about today with these proposed regulations is they have swept the public out of the system. They have swept the scientists out of the system.

As the gentleman from Washington knows, the planning process includes everybody; and if we sweep these people aside, we are then going to have inefficient forest plans. We are going to have forest plans where people are going to sue under them, and we are going to waste a lot of time and money.

So I think the gentleman makes a very good, solid point.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield just a moment on that point, as the gentleman from Washington knows, one of the things that has happened here, this is not an amendment we have moved quickly on. We have given notice to this administration. The gentleman and I have signed a letter, over 100 Members of Congress have signed a letter to the President, Members from the other side of the aisle have signed a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture, calling for exactly what the gentleman is calling for, scientific input on these regulations. When they ignored these letters, when they ignored the request, our only avenue was to work with the gentleman and his appropriations bill to stop this process so that we could get scientific review.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), one of our key members on the Committee on Resources, who has been here for the period of time while these regulations have evolved and I am sure has some real insight on this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas.

I think it is fair to say that the forest management plans that we have today, supplemented by sound science, if we moved in that direction, and we had been moving in that direction over the next 100 years, we would not have the problems with the forest fires if we had gone through this process, this management process. That is why I think it is so offensive to us that support this amendment and are working on this that the scientists are cut out.

That is why I would disagree with the gentleman when he says, let the regulations go into effect. If you let the regulations go into effect, we are going to find ourselves in court, we are going find ourselves in a bollixed-up situation. We are going to hurt the forest management process.

So that is why over 300 scientists have written to the administration and said, stop here. That is why over 100 Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis have said, involve the scientists before you finalize these regulations. And, really, what we are trying to do is say, stop, put in place good regulations based on sound science, and then you will not run into problems.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas if he would like to respond.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my point was that if we had been doing the planning for 100 years and if we had had science, we would not be where we are today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member on the Committee on Resources. He knows these forest issues very well, and I appreciate his help on this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a long-standing member of the Committee on the Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that the gentleman from Washington has incredible experience with forest issues; and I believe he was right on when he said do not cut the scientists out of the process or we are not going to have very good forest planning. That is what we are about here today, these regulations cutting scientists out of the process.

Members talk about sound science, but when it comes to this administration, the science was thrown out of the window.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

H.R. 74 directs the Secretary to convey without consideration approximately 24 acres of lakefront property in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada. The land to be conveyed was part of the Washoe Tribe's 5,000-square-mile ancestral home in the vicinity of Lake Tahoe. The tribe has historically gathered along the shore of Lake Tahoe for traditional and cultural purposes. H.R. 74 requires the tribe to limit its use of the land to traditional and customary uses and to prohibit development and commercial use of the site. The tribe must also comply with environmental regulations that are no less protective than those of the Tahoe Regional Plan.

Finally, the bill provides for an easement to the United States and a reciprocal easement to the tribe over a forest road and has a reversionary clause.

In past Congresses, the same bill has passed both Houses but failed to become law. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. I congratulate the gentleman from Nevada for his hard work and leadership on this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been well described by the gentleman from Nevada. Essentially, we are turning over Federal land that is currently being utilized by two counties in Nevada. Normally, Mr. Speaker, anytime anyone, be it an individual or a State or a county government, receives Federal land, they should be required to pay the American people the fair market value of the land. In this instance,

however, based on the location of these two parcels of land and the fact that they are both being used as cemeteries by the counties, we do not oppose these conveyances. As introduced, there were several technical issues with this legislation. However, an amendment adopted in committee addressed those concerns.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 272. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Nevada for his hard work on this issue.

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, the McLoughlin House National Historic Site in Oregon honors the achievements of John McLoughlin, commonly referred to as the ``Father of Oregon.'' The site has been preserved and managed by the McLoughlin Memorial Association since its designation as a national historic site in 1941. Unfortunately, the association is no longer in a position to be the primary management entity for this nationally significant site and is therefore seeking Federal acquisition of the site. Once acquired, the site will be managed as part of the nearby Fort Vancouver National Historic Site.

The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) has worked tirelessly on behalf of this legislation and is to be commended for her diligence, including her efforts to have the House concur in the amendments made to this legislation in the Senate. We urge the House to approve these amendments so this legislation may finally be sent to the President for his signature.

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

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

The McLoughlin House national historic site in Oregon City, Oregon, was once home to Dr. John McLoughlin. Dr. McLoughlin was the chief factor of the British Hudson Bay Company based in Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River. He crossed the Rockies in 1824 and established Fort Vancouver in 1825. Dr. McLoughlin supplied American pioneers with goods they needed to settle and survive at their new home in Oregon. He was a fur trader, developer, doctor and mayor; and Dr. McLoughlin became known as the Father of Oregon, and the McLoughlin House was restored to honor his life and accomplishments.

The McLoughlin Memorial Association was formed in 1909. In 1910, the association opened the house as a museum. Since that time, the house has been visited by thousands of individuals each year. In 1941, Congress designated the McLoughlin House a national historic site, and it continued to operate under the direction of the association. When Fort Vancouver National Historic Site was established in 1948, the National Park Service entered into a formal agreement with the association to work cooperatively together.

In 2000, the association approached the National Park Service concerning the possibility of the agency assuming administration of the site. The association lacks appropriate funds to maintain the historic house and has asked the National Park Service to acquire the site and assume responsibility to

ensure the future care of the historic site, with the association remaining active in an advisory capacity.

H.R. 3434 was introduced on December 6, 2001, by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources and within the committee to the subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands. On July 16, 2002, the subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On July 18, 2002, the subcommittee met to mark up the bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to authorize the acquisition of the property but to include it within the boundaries of the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, rather than create a new unit of the National Park System.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as may be consumed to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

(Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 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, I am pleased to rise today in strong support of S. 246, a bill declaring that the United States hold certain Bureau of Land Management land in trust for the pueblos of San Ildefonso and Santa Clara in New Mexico. I originally introduced a similar bill in the 107th Congress and introduced H.R. 507, companion legislation to S. 246, at the beginning of the 108th Congress. Last Congress, Senators Domenici and Jeff Bingaman sponsored the Senate companion and were successful in incorporating it into S. 2711, the Indian Programs Reauthorization and Technical Amendments Act of 2002, during the closing days of the 107th Congress.

Unfortunately, the House was unable to take up this legislation prior to its adjournment. Accordingly, I am delighted today that the House will finally have the opportunity to vote on this important legislation.

S. 246 will formally restore control and tribal authority of nearly 4,500 acres of remote surplus Federal property to the two Pueblos. This land is culturally significant to San Ildefonso and Santa Clara. The bill will transfer roughly 2,000 acres of land located within its aboriginal domain to the San Ildefonso Pueblo and approximately 2,484 acres to Santa Clara's Pueblo aboriginal lands will also be transferred to that Pueblo.

This transfer is the result of years of negotiations between the two Pueblos and between the Pueblos and the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management.

The Pueblos intend to maintain the natural quality of the land and restore the health of the ecosystem of their traditional ancestral lands. In addition, the lands will be used for ceremonial and other traditional purposes.

Finally, the acquisition and transfer of these remote, surplus Federal lands has the support of the surrounding communities and other groups. Specifically, this includes the Counties of Santa Fe, Rio Arriba and Los Alamos. It also has the support of the National Congress of American Indians, the National Audubon Society's New Mexico State office, the Quivira Coalition and the Santa Fe Group of the Sierra Club.

Once again, I am very pleased that we have the opportunity to pass this important legislation. I ask all of my colleagues today to support the return of this culturally significant land to the people of the San Ildefonso and Santa Clara Pueblos, and I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for his participation on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, having no additional speakers, we yield back the balance of our time.

Offered By: Mr. Udall of New Mexico

Amendment No. 9: Add at the end (before the short title)

the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill designed for an important purpose--ensuring that the FEHBP continues to provide retired employees, who are eligible for Medicare, with the same prescription drug benefit that current, non-retired employees receive. There are thousands of Federal Employees in my district who have earned, and deserve, the prescription drug coverage they get under the FEHBP. In addition, this is an important example to set for the private sector to ensure that they do not begin reducing and eliminating their prescription drug coverage for Medicare eligible employees once Congress passes a Medicare prescription drug benefit. As such, I will vote in support for this bill.

However, the fact that the majority is bringing this bill up today highlights both the inadequacy of the prescription drug bill they passed last month, as well as undercuts their claim that they believe our nation's seniors deserve the same prescription drug coverage that Members of Congress and other employees covered under FEHBP receive.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation was brought to the floor today. I am glad that we can support good prescription drug coverage for federal retirees and I am glad that we can set an example for the private sector. I am also glad that the majority is willing to show just how truly disingenuous their rhetoric is about seniors deserving options similar to those of Members of Congress. If H.R. 1 truly provided a real prescription drug benefit, this legislation would not be necessary, and in that, Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the majority for proving to the Nation how insufficient the prescription drug bill is that they passed two weeks ago.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the very important FY04 Department of Defense appropriations bill. In my opinion, some of the most important provisions in this bill are the pay increases for our men and women in uniform. H.R. 2658 provides an average pay increase of 4.1 percent for military personnel in FY 2004 and provides targeted pay hikes of up to 6.3 percent for a variety of other personnel.

Another issue of great importance also included in this appropriations bill is funding for the BRAC process. From 1995 to 2000 Congress intentionally refused to authorize another round of BRAC. Only in late 2001 did the Senate add the controversial provision to the FY02 Defense Authorization Act, authorizing the fifth BRAC for 2005. The House-passed authorization bill did not include any such BRAC provision, but in December 2001, the House finally approved the Conference Report to the FY02 Defense Authorization bill with the Senate's BRAC provision included.

The first significant steps in implementing the new 2005 base closure law were formally announced by Secretary Rumsfeld on November 15, 2002. These included development of a force structure plan, conducting a comprehensive inventory of military installations, and establishing criteria for selecting bases for closure or realignment. Secretary Rumsfeld further stated that he felt another round of base closures would be necessary in light of his efforts to undergo a military transformation to a quicker, sleeker fighting force.

Although I have not found much common ground recently with the President and Secretary Rumsfeld, in this case I do. As such, I plan to vote against Mr. Hostettler's amendment to preclude the use of funds provided by this bill to proceed with the BRAC process. In addition, the veto threat issued by the President if this amendment passes should be heeded considering the importance of the funding for the DOD.

With that said, I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong support for Cannon Air Force Base, located in my district. Not only do I strongly support Cannon remaining open through the 2005 round of closings, but I have every confidence that it will, in fact, remain open.

Cannon Air Force Base and the men and women who serve there are an integral part of New Mexico, the Clovis community immediately surrounding it, and an integral component of our national defense. In addition, Cannon's pilots have an excellent training space, the Melrose Bombing Range, very close by. Cannon has no encroachment, and is surrounded by open space.

In the past, I have worked very hard to ensure that Cannon's facilities are worthy of the high-caliber personnel who use them. I have worked with my colleagues in the New Mexico delegation to secure funding through the Military Construction Appropriations bill for several worthy projects at the base. I have every intention of continuing to work to secure funding for the facilities there that are currently substandard to further shield this important component of our national defense from being closed.

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have outlined above, I will vote against Mr. Hostettler's amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. However, I do support passage of the underlying bill, as it provides important funding for our brave men and women in the Armed Forces.