Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much and thank the gentleman from Oregon for that very kind introduction.

Let me also say about our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who has been a real champion on environmental issues in California, she served in the California legislature and I think has been at one point written up as a Profile in Courage on environmental issues because she took on an environmental racism issue in her community and fought it for a number of years and passed a significant piece of environmental legislation. So what the gentlewoman says about these issues, I think she has lived and walked the walk.

The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has also been a key environmental leader on many, many issues here in the Congress, including energy, which we are talking about tonight. The gentleman has pushed for livable communities. The gentleman has tried to make sure that the Federal Government does everything it can to be a good partner in communities.

One of the things we see is the Federal Government owns a lot of the landscape; and because of one of the gentleman's pieces of legislation, we are trying to make sure that the Federal Government in fact is a good neighbor, and when they locate buildings or relocate buildings, that they visit with the locals in addition to going through the normal planning processes.

The gentleman has been to my community. I know many of the people very much appreciate the gentleman's efforts in terms of transportation and trying to make sure that we develop sensible transportation alternatives in our communities: allow people to bike to work, have mass transit, have alternatives that make sense from the perspective of energy, which is one of our big topics tonight.

I know that the gentleman mentioned earlier the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Rather than go directly into my comments, I wanted to say a few things about what the gentleman was talking about, because the gentleman said he has been there.

I have also been there. I just wanted to talk a little bit about how that is a very special place, and I think anybody that is going to vote in this body on this issue ought to take the opportunity to try to go up and visit it. When I say go up and visit it, I do not mean go to Kaktovik, the little village up on the very upper end, which is a community that has a lot of problems but does not represent at all the environment in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

What I did was I spent a week in this whole area, floating on a river by the name of the Hula Hula River, named after the whalers that came in the area hunting down whales, Hawaiian whalers; and they called the river the Hula Hula. In the course of floating out of this river, it floats out of the Brooks Range. It is probably one of the clearest, most pristine streams you have ever seen. We took the opportunity to stop and fish in the Hula Hula River for Arctic char. We saw a variety of wildlife. We saw grizzly bears, musk oxen, herds of caribou.

Coming back from that trip, and after experiencing that and camping in this area, I cannot think of any area that is more deserving of being a wilderness area than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The argument is that we need to raid the oil that is there. In fact, what the situation is on the whole coastal area in Alaska is that 97 percent, 97 percent of that coast is open to exploration, is open to oil production, and just a little part of it we are trying to preserve as a wildlife refuge.

It has been a wildlife refuge, it was put in many years ago under a Republican President, and we do not see that bipartisanship today on the environment, by the way. So I think the gentleman's remarks are right on point when it comes to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I also would like to say a few words about the energy bill that we are going to start debating this week, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. During the last Congress, the House spent countless hours debating a similar bill.

Unfortunately, one of the major provisions in the last energy bill on which Members could not agree was renewable energy. As my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon, has said earlier, the Republicans are putting off dealing with our Nation's energy dependence problem and leaving it to legislators of a future generation. Their theme seems to be, ``Why do today what we can leave for the next generation to deal with in the future?''

Last month I introduced legislation that establishes a Federal renewable energy portfolio and establishes standards in that area for certain retail electric utilities. There are some who say that a long- term sustainable energy plan is impossible, or that renewable energy and energy efficiency are just dreams and that the U.S. will never be able to break its reliance on traditional energy sources, like oil and coal.

I disagree, and I know the gentleman from Oregon disagrees; and now, in the post-September 11 world, as we are in the midst of a war with Iraq, the renewed conflict in the Middle East shows us that we cannot continue to rely on imported oil from that region.

When my father, Stewart Udall, was Secretary of the Interior, and this shows the dramatic change in our society, what happened in the last generation, the U.S. imported when he was Secretary of the Interior in the 60s 20 percent of its oil. My father argued that we should not import more than 20 percent because this was a national security issue if we were relying too much on one area of the world.

Our people may not know it, but today we import 53 percent of our oil, 47 percent which comes from the OPEC countries; and by 2020, the United States will import 62 percent of its oil unless we change the way we are doing business here in the United States.

Even more concerning, world oil production is expected to peak sometime in the next few decades, even some say as early as 2007. That means as energy demand increases more and more rapidly, the world's oil supply will be proportionately diminished.

Energy production has brought tremendous prosperity and allowed us to grow our economy at unprecedented rates. However, nonrenewable forms of energy are responsible for many of the greatest environmental threats to America's well-being.

For these reasons, I am particularly interested in a renewable portfolio standard. I believe that an RPS paves the road for development and investment in clean energy technologies and local economic development. RPS, in my mind, clearly serves as a model for tomorrow's small and medium businesses to draw a profit from their own environmental responsibility.

As a Nation of what I call ``petroholics,'' we claim only 2 percent of our electricity is generated by nontraditional sources of power, such as wind, solar and geothermal energy. Instead of pushing for the exploration of oil development and contributing to this country's addiction to oil, we should be pushing for the exploration of renewable energy development. I believe this bill goes a long way to develop a strategy for putting renewable energy into place.

With that, let me just say to the gentleman from Oregon that I think we need to focus as a country on renewable energy. We obviously need a strong domestic industry, the production of oil. But as many of us know, that peaked in the 1970s; and we are headed down. The rest of the country and the rest of the world, in particular the rest of the world, are going to be going after more and more limited supplies of oil. So the further we can get ahead of that curve, the better off we are going to be.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for providing leadership on this, for being on the floor and fighting for these issues; and I hope that on some of these battles we can be victorious in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the gentleman from South Carolina's motion to instruct conferees on the budget resolution. This common sense, non-binding motion will restore some sanity to this budget.

Put simply, Mr. Spratt's resolution rejects cuts to education, health care, and veterans' programs by urging the House and Senate conferees, on a deficit-neutral basis, to restore these cuts. The House budget is so extreme that these cuts are not included in the Senate-passed budget or even the Bush distraction's budget blueprint.

It is sadly ironic that at the same time we send our young people abroad to fight a war, the majority is advancing a budget that will force those same young people to pay the bill for their recklessness. By showering the most privileged among us with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks and running up more than a trillion dollars in debt, this budget poses a serious threat to the long-term economic well-being of the nation.

Month after month, more American families are suffering from the failure of this Administration's irresponsible economic strategy. With the economy hemorrhaging jobs for every sector, an increasing number of Americans are losing faith that they will ever find a job. With this budget, the majority has turned their backs on the problems of American families. Instead of offering new ideas and fresh solutions, the Administration continues to push a tired ideology that has turned our once-robust economy into a job-destroying machine.

I believe we are obligated to help our States, counties and cities meet the every-increasing burdens of skyrocketing programs. I believe we are obligated to reject the drastic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. I believe we are obligated to reject the cuts to education funding, including school lunches and student loans. I believe we are obligated to reject the majority's cuts to the critical programs that benefit our veterans. I believe we are obligated to reject the cuts to assistance programs for the working poor--especially important during this economic downturn.

Most important though, this budget will hang more than a trillion dollars of debt around the necks of our children and grandchildren. They will be paying for this mistake for decades to come. The President's own chief economist, in his academic writings, agrees that the chronic deficits perpetuated by this budget will raise interest rates, and cut off economic growth for the future.

I will continue to fight for a budget that contains a fiscally responsible stimulus plan that cuts taxes today, while meeting our obligation to prepare for the future. this is not a time to shrink from our responsibilities to one another. We need to meet the test of this demanding movement in our history.

I thank Ranking Member Spratt, for offering this reasonable motion to instruct and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the seventieth anniversary of the Civilian Conservation Corps, and to pay tribute to the commendable service its members offered our nation. Created by President Franklin Roosevelt on March 31, 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps had a profound impact on this nation, helping to sustain the United States through the depths of the Depression, and setting a precedent for other federal agencies to carry on the diverse missions of the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Within days after his presidential inauguration, Franklin Roosevelt initiated plans for the Civilian Conservation Corps, citing the need for an organization that would provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of unemployed young men aged 18 to 25. President Roosevelt declared that the Civilian Conservation Corps would ``conserve our precious natural resources and pay dividends to the present and future generations. More important, we can take a vast army of the unemployed out into healthful surroundings.'' The Civilian Conservation Corps' intention was not only to provide services to the United States but also to give the unemployed an opportunity to live in healthful surroundings with steady pay, room, board, and clothing.

During the nine years the Civilian Conservation Corps was in operation, more than 3 million men were involved in the program nationally, working on projects like dam improvement, tree planting, laying telephone lines, and creating trails. Almost 55,000 men served on projects throughout New Mexico. More than 32,000 of them were residents of New Mexico.

By July 1, 1933, a quarter of a million enrollees had enlisted in the Civilian Conservation Corps, making it the fastest large-scale mobilization of men in U.S. history. The enrollees enlisted for six months with the option to re-enroll for another six months or a maximum of two years. They worked forty-hour weeks and received thirty dollars a month. Each month, they required the men to send twenty-five dollars to their families to help them through the difficulties of the Depression. The Civilian Conservation Corps provided members with the opportunity to learn a new skill and allowed them to attend classes to further their education. More than 100,000 men were taught to read and write with the aid of the Civilian Conservation Corps's education classes.

The accomplishments the Civilian Conservation Corps achieved in its nine-year existence are impressive. Historical areas in Jamestown, Williamsburg, Yorktown, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania were restored and developed by the Corps members. At the program's peak, there were over 500 Civilian Conservation Corps camps in national, state, and local parks. Civilian Conservation Corps workers cleared trails, built buildings and shelters, fought forest fires, planted trees, and made other improvements to parks in all the states, territories, and possessions. The three million men planted a total of 2.3 billion trees, spent 6.4 million days fighting forest fires and eradicated diseases and pests. These accomplishments contributed to the Civilian Conservation Corps' lasting environmental legacy. Today, agencies such as Americorps, the Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service are continuing the tradition of the Civilian Conservation Corps by instilling a sense of value for our natural environment as well as for national service.

Because of its major presence in New Mexico, the Civilian Conservation Corps worked on several projects throughout the state, including Rattlesnake Springs and Bandelier National Monument, aimed at benefiting both its members and residents of New Mexico. The men of the Civilian Conservation Corps also developed Hyde, Elephant Butte, Conchas, Bottomless Lake, and Santa Fe River Parks, among others.

Communities across the country benefited from the hard toil of the Civilian Conservation Corps. The camps helped local economies,

bringing large numbers of consumers to the towns' stores and industries. More importantly, they aided the communities in times of crisis, searching for missing persons, fighting fires, and offering assistance to residents during snow and ice storms.

Today, the legacy of the Civilian Conservation Corps lives on in the New Mexico Youth Conservation Corps Act, which was adopted by the state Legislature in 1992. YCC provides employment for young people in projects that conserve the state's natural resources. The YCC provides a $1,000 tuition voucher as additional compensation for those who serve. The voucher may be used at any institution of higher education in the state of New Mexico.

Besides offering the members an opportunity to work, the Civilian Conservation Corps provided long-lasting friendships and ties that have endured over the seventy years since the Corps' inception. This sense of loyalty and pride extended to an unquestionable sense of pride for our country that is almost unparalleled. The work of the Civilian Conservation Corps remains as a monument to the young men who dedicated their lives to mending and preserving our natural resources. These men have earned the respect and honor of our nation. I offer my heartfelt thanks to the members of the Civilian Conservation Corps and congratulations on their seventieth anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Small Pox Vaccination Compensation Fund Act.

We should give pause about voting for a smallpox bill that does not safeguard the health, safety and livelihood of workers asked to volunteer for the smallpox vaccination. This bill is opposed is by a number of groups, including the International Association of Fire Fighters and the American Nurses Association.

There has been a great reluctance among health care workers and first responders to risk the loss of health and income without an adequate safety net for themselves and their families. While the legislation is promised on the assumption that workers will be eligible for workers' compensation in the event of an injury, the reality is that, in most states, workers cannot depend on this. In fact, there are only 14 states where it appears certain that claims for benefits will be honored by the state workers' compensation system.

Therefore, workers who are permanently and totally disabled will be eligible only for this bill's maximum benefit of $262,100. This represents about five years' wages for the average nurse. For a worker who becomes partially disabled either temporarily or for life, the maximum benefit payable is only $50,000. If the aim of the legislation is to encourage workers to be vaccinated, this bill will not do the job. Workers will continue to be reluctant to be vaccinated in the absence of assurances that the economic security of their families will not be jeopardized.

I also object to the bill's requirement that workers receive the vaccination within 120 days of the date regulations are issued. Any worker who is vaccinated under the Secretary's declaration must be eligible for federal

compensation. It is punitive to deny compensation to a worker who participates at a late date.

The legislation fails to ensure that the smallpox program will be carried out safely, in stark contrast to the program in place for military personnel. The bill does not establish any standards for ensuring that workers are properly educated and medically screened prior to volunteering for the vaccination. A careful program to screen out workers with contraindications will not only save lives, it will reduce the amount of federal money needed for compensation. The legislation also fails to include requirements for monitoring those who are vaccinated to catch adverse reactions before they develop into life threatening complications. There is also no funding for state and local public health departments to carry out the program safely.

Another significant flaw in the bill is that funding for the compensation program is not mandatory. Workers who have lost their health and livelihood should not have to wage a fight for compensation each year during the appropriations process.

The legislation also fails to include a table of injuries that ensures that workers will be awarded compensation quickly. After years of experience with the smallpox vaccine, there are injuries, that occur within specific timeframes, that are known to be caused by the vaccine. This schedule of injuries must be included to ensure that compensation will be quick and certain. Otherwise, workers cannot be certain before receiving the vaccine that the most likely serious injuries will qualify for compensation.

Unfortuantely, but not surprisingly, the House Rules Committee has denied an opportunity for an alternative measure to be on the floor. Had the Capps-Waxman substitute been allowed, I would have supported it. In contrast to the proposal designed by the Bush administration and introduced by Representative Burr, the Capps-Waxman substitute includes measures to safeguard the health and safety of workers asked to volunteer for the smallpox vaccination program. Moreover, the Capps- Waxman substitute better addresses the concerns of workers who fear that a serious injury or death from the smallpox vaccine would lead to economic catastrophe for themselves and their families. As a result, the Capps-Waxman substitute will provide for a safer and more effective smallpox vaccination program.

The Burr legislation is deeply flawed and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo), chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for their work and commitment to expanding small business opportunities for all Americans and for working to bring this bill to the floor today.

I would also like to thank the staff members of the committee for their hard work on this legislation and my colleagues who supported this bill by joining me as cosponsors.

The important legislation before us today, H.R. 1166, allows Small Business Development Centers to apply for an additional Small Business Administration grant to provide specified services to assist with outreach, development, and enhancement on Indian lands of small business start-ups and expansions that are owned by Indian tribal members, Alaskan Natives, or Native Hawaiians.

This legislation ensures participation of governing bodies of Indian tribes, Alaska Native entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations. Under H.R. 1166, States receiving a Small Business Development Center program grant are required to request advice from the appropriate governmental organization on how best to provide assistance to such members and where to locate satellite centers to provide such assistance. Our intent is to ensure these business development tools are provided in a culturally sensitive way.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses create 75 percent of all new employment opportunities, make up 99 percent of all employers, and provide almost half of all sales in this country. As many of us have said before and will say again, small businesses are the fuel for the engine of economic development. That is why it is so imperative that we take steps to help ensure that small business development reaches the places in this country where economic prosperity has yet to be realized.

The current economic situation on Native American lands is very grave. However, it does hold promise for the future. The average unemployment rate of these lands is over 10 times the national average. At the same time, small business creation is at an all-time high. Native American and Native Alaskan-owned small businesses grew by 84 percent from 1992 to 1997, and their gross receipts grew by 179 percent in that same time period.

Compare those figures to an overall small business growth rate of 7 percent and to the gross receipt growth of 40 percent, and we can see why there is reason to be optimistic about the future of small business development on tribal lands.

It is with these facts in mind and the desire to help Native American, Native Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs capitalize on these positive developments that I introduce this legislation. My bill ensures that Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians seeking to create, develop, and expand small businesses have full access to the counseling and technical assistance available through the SBA's SBDC program. The business development tools offered by the SBDCs can assist Native Americans with the information and opportunity to build sustainable businesses in their communities.

In an effort to ensure the quality and success of the program, the proposal requires the SBA to include several items in the grant application.

In addition to the obvious requirements like requiring the applicant's goals and objectives, we also must see the applicant's experience in conducting programs on ongoing efforts designed to assist the business skills of small business owners. Also the capability of such applicant to provide training and services to a representative number of Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians is also important to this process.

I have the great honor of representing 14 Pueblos, the Hickory Apache Nation, and a portion of the Navajo Nation. These communities are in great need of economic development, and it is clear we can do more to aid Native American entrepreneurs not only in my district but throughout the country as well. Not enough has been done to assist Native Americans in building their businesses. I hope to change this situation with the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentlewoman for her service on the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) who also serves on the Committee on Small Business and is a hardworking member on that committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance). He is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Rural Enterprises, Agriculture, and Technology.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has no further speakers, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his management of this bill and for his hard work here on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Small Business and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for their commitment to passing this important legislation. I have high hopes for the impact of this legislation and the impact it will have on small business and economic development on tribal lands.

As some of my colleagues have mentioned today, the average unemployment rate of Native American communities, particularly on reservations, is around 45 percent, while one-third of Native Americans currently live below the Nation's poverty level. Mr. Speaker, this situation is unacceptable.

The persistent poverty that is prevalent on tribal lands must come to an end, and I believe that passing H.R. 1166 is an important step towards achieving this goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

And just one moment before I yield back, let me also thank the committee staff, my former legislative director, Tony Martinez; my legislative assistant, Mike Collins; and Michael Day, the minority staff director of the Committee on Small Business.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong disappointment in the House Leadership's politics-as-usual tactics that effectively continue to hold the AMBER bill hostage, a word I do not use lightly considering the gravity of this important legislation.

Yesterday, the House had yet another opportunity to expedite the enactment of a national AMBER Alert System. The AMBER bill has had strong bipartisan support for several months now. The national alert system would be law today but for Leadership's permitting Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner to hinder passage of a widely supported stands alone AMBER bill. Instead of a simple House bill narrowly tailored to address the abduction of missing children in the United States, the Chairman instead presented for a vote a broader and more complicated bill riddled with controversial provisions. Yet as a result of yesterday's vote on the rule for the Sensenbrenner bill, the national AMBER Alert System faces further delay and an uncertain outcome due to the impending conference with the Senate.

The Senate first passed a clean AMBER bill six months ago, and did so again this past January, both times by unanimous consent. H.R. 412, the popular bipartisan bill that I proudly and fervently cosponsored in the House that same month, contains the same language as the uncontroversial Senate bill. However, Chairman Sensenbrenner has refused to allow his committee to consider H.R. 412 as a freestanding bill and instead insists on pushing his version containing unrelated provisions that the Senate has previously contested. As such, the debate of what should be a simple, common sense proposal must continue.

Prolonging the debate on this important legislation is outrageous and unnecessary. The AMBER Alert System is a proven and invaluable tool for aiding the recovery of abducted children. Sadly though, children continue to go missing in this country every day. How many of these will be affected by the failure to enact a national AMBER Alert bill in a timely manner?

The Congress needed to enact this critically important legislation sooner rather than later. Accordingly, I reiterate my disappointment in the political wrangling that continues to prolong this bill's eventual presentation to the President.

Mr. Speaker, we are at war in Iraq. In the past, when our President has made the decision to commit to the use of force, the Congress has always come together to speak with one voice, for one purpose: to support the efforts of our troops, and to pray for their courage, their success, and their safe and quick return home.

While I have stated my own opposition in the past to military intervention without our allies in the United Nations, and I have heard from thousands of constituents who shared those reservations about unilateral action, I today stand solidly behind our men and women in uniform.

As the debate over whether or not to go to war with Iraq has been in the forefront in the minds of many Americans, there is one segment of our society that has been relatively overshadowed. Military families. For the past seven months, as we debated our policy in Iraq, I have heard from mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, cousins and friends, who have been concerned about a loved one being sent overseas to fight this war. They asked me, ``Congressman, when we go to war, will you and the others support our troops when they are over there?'' I pledged to do exactly that, and I honor that promise today as their loved one enters the dangerous phase of the war.

More than anything, these young Americans need to know they have the backing of their fellow countrymen as they carry out their missions. As a member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, I have heard from many that recall their service who have recalled there was no greater asset to company morale than the knowledge that their citizens in the United States stood behind them.

New Mexico has many young people that are currently involved in the Iraqi effort. Our three Air Force Bases--Cannon, Holloman, and Kirtland--have deployed over 1,000 personnel to the Middle East. These are not faceless, nameless machines. These are people that have left loved ones behind. New Mexicans are proud of these men and women, along with other Americans from all fifty states that are participating in the endeavor.

Our prayers are with them, and we look forward to their speedy success and return home. I have tremendous confidence in the men and women of our armed services to bring this conflict to a successful conclusion.

Yet, this support for the effort is accompanied by a deep sense of anxiety and concern. Mr. Speaker, nobody wants war.

The death, destruction and misery of war are things that we should never ignore and we cannot forget. When our troops are called to defend our nation and international peace, we do so with a heavy heart but strong confidence that we will prevail.

While I remain unequivocal in my support of these men and women, I am deeply disappointed that the House Republican leadership has chosen to bring forward such a divisive resolution to the floor. Unlike our colleagues in the Senate, who passed a noncontroversial and bipartisan resolution in their chamber earlier this evening, the House Republican leadership has chosen to craft a resolution with some provisions that are troubling. It is clear that even during a war, the Speaker and his team will continue to play political games.

It is obvious that Republican leaders are hoping that by including contentious language they can break apart the unity that I believe the House has for our troops. Despite some of my concerns over some of this maneuvering, my support of our New Mexico men and women and the ones they have left behind far outweighs that.

My thoughts and prayers are with our armed forces personnel and their families. At this time of national crisis, our troops and their families must know that their nation is behind them, they are forever our heroes, and they have our full support.

I also want to reassure our future veterans that I will continue to work throughout my tenure in Congress to maintain and expand the benefits that they and their families have earned. The beneflts these men and women earn are but a small gesture of repayment for sacrifices and courage that can never be quantified.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this conflict is over as quickly as possible, with the least number of casualties on both sides. I yearn for nothing more than a peaceful and prosperous future for America, Iraq, and the entire world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Majority's fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution because this resolution is unrealistic in reflecting the spending realities that our nation will face. Never in the history of our country has a Congress or a President dared to reward the wealthiest at a time of recession and war while asking the rest of America for painful sacrifice. If you believe seniors, veterans, and children are the problem, then the Majority has a budget solution for you. This shameful plan cuts funding for nearly every federal program, while at the same time making way for excessive tax cuts that will explode the deficit further and do nothing to help our economy.

This Budget Resolution contains deep and widespread cuts in every basic domestic program except Social Security and military retirement. The budget would require congressional committees to cut mandatory programs by $470 billion over the next ten years. The cuts are reminiscent of those proposed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995 and included in the Contract with America budget legislation that former President Clinton vetoed that year.

While requiring deep cuts in domestic programs, the budget makes room for most for the President's large tax-cut package, including $1.4 trillion in tax cuts through 2013. The tax cuts in the ``growth'' package alone would cost $725 billion over ten years and would, according to the Tax Policy Center, result in tax reductions averaging $90,000 each in 2003 for those Americans who have incomes of more than $1 million. Unfortunately, 35 percent of New Mexico taxpayers would get no tax cut at all under the Bush plan, and 53 percent of New Mexico taxpayers would get a cut of less than $100.

Mr. Chairman, according to official projections by the Congressional Budget Office, budget deficits will turn to surpluses by 2008 if Congress refrains from enacting any further tax cuts or program increases, with the budget running a net surplus of $0.6 trillion over the period from 2003 through 2013. As is widely recognized, however, these projections are too optimistic: they do not include the large and inevitable cost of providing relief from the exploding scope of the Alternative Minimum Tax; they include no allowance for a war with Iraq; and they assume that various ``temporary'' tax credits will expire on schedule even though Congress nearly always extends them. Reflecting the cost of these three omitted items adds approximately $1 trillion in deficits over ten years.

The most reprehensible component of the House budget, as with its Senate counterpart, is that as the United States has begun ``Operation Iraqi Freedom'' neither measure sets aside one penny for this war with Iraq. The Bush administration has resolutely refused to offer cost estimates of war or early reconstruction despite requests from those on both sides of the aisle. Leaders in both parties have expressed increasing frustration that the potential bill for war and rebuilding Iraq still remain a mystery.

Mr. Chairman, with nearly a quarter of a million young Americans crossing the Iraqi border this House is on the verge of approving a nightmare budget that sets aside no money for this effort. Instead of sticking our heads in the budgetary sand and ignoring the war's price tag, we need to be honest with American taxpayers and ourselves. To pass a budget plan including large tax cuts without attempting even to estimate the war and postwar reconstruction costs is breathtakingly irresponsible.

I oppose the Majority's Budget Resolution because: It Fails to Promote Economic Growth--Instead of Creating Both Short-Term & Long- Term Economic Growth.

It Fails to Provide a Meaningful Prescription Drug Plan--Instead of Investing in An Affordable Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Available to All Seniors.

It Embraces Fiscally Irresponsible Tax Cuts Totaling $1.35 Trillion-- Instead of Embracing Responsible Budgeting.

It Makes Substantial Cuts to National Priorities--like Education and Health Care--Instead of Funding Key National Priorities like the ``Leave No Child Behind Act''.

It Cuts Veterans' Benefits and Freezes Homeland Security Funding-- Instead of Providing For Our Veterans and Giving Our First Responders the Tools they Need to Protect Our Homeland.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier we should be honest with the American taxpayers and with ourselves that the responsible thing to do is not pass this budget until we have the war supplemental figures before us and can reach consensus on other key federal programs.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to offer my remarks today regarding H.R. 975, the so-called ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003.'' The issue of bankruptcy reform is extremely important and it is critical that we pass a measure that will both ensure greater personal responsibility of debtors, as well as ensure that credit card companies and other creditors take responsibility for their reckless lending. Unfortunately, this bill does neither. In fact, the bill before us today overly penalizes working families. In fact, the bill before us today takes no action against reckless and predatory lending.

Equally frustrating is the process. In what is becoming a familiar refrain on the House floor when vitally important legislation comes before us, I strongly object to the rule under which this bill is being debated. Once again the majority has passed a rule stifling debate and blocking serious and substantive amendments. While they have made in order a substitute amendment to be offered by Mr. Conyers, which I will be supporting, as well as amendments offered by Mr. Sherman and Mr. Gutierrez, there were an additional 6 amendments worthy of consideration by the entire body of the House of Representatives. This continued smothering of the democratic process by the majority is shameful and needs to stop immediately.

As to the substance of the legislation, it is no secret that the number of bankruptcies has risen dramatically over the past twenty years. In 1980, there were 330,000 bankruptcies in the United States. In 2001, the number of personal bankruptcies had risen to 1.28 million. Last year 1.45 million filings, up 19 percent from the year 2000, marked a record in the number of bankruptcies filed. In my home state of New Mexico, there was a 7.1 percent increase over 2001 filings, which marked the second consecutive year in which the state set a record in the number of bankruptcies filed. With those facts in mind, I strongly support the principle of increased personal responsibility of debt. However, I do not believe that H.R. 975 is the correct way to achieve this goal.

While there are many problems with H.R. 975, I'll name just a few of the more egregious provisions to which I strongly object. H.R. 975 imposes a rigid means test, endangers child support, and allows millionaires to continue to shelter their assets in mansions. These provisions result in an unbalanced and punitive measure that will have a devastating effect on the unemployed, women, Hispanic homeowners, and the elderly. Reform in this bill is skewed towards restricting the consumer's access to relief from overwhelming debt, while making it easier on those creditors who encourage additional unwise borrowing.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there have been, and likely continue to be, abuses of the bankruptcy law, which was designed to be a safety net. As I've said before, I strongly support increased personal responsibility for debt accrued. However, this should coincide with greater responsibility on the part of the creditors. It is the creditors who often shamelessly target college students and low-income individuals with their credit card applications. It is the creditors who subsequently grant these individuals higher levels of credit at high interest rates. It is the creditors who saddle these individuals with insurmountable levels of debt. In fact, it is estimated that the credit card industry mails out five billion unsolicited credit card offers a year. Taking the 2000 Census figure of 209,128,094 individuals in the United States over the age of 18, that breaks down to 24 unsolicited credit card offers per person per year! I wish this legislation would help break this vicious cycle, but unfortunately it does not.

Mr. Speaker, it is well known that bankruptcies are driven by economic difficulties and I think we would all agree that we find ourselves facing economic difficulties today. Unemployment is higher than it has been in over eight years and we stand on the verge of a war. Today is not the time to pass an extremely harmful bill that will have devastating affects on the most vulnerable individuals in our country.

I would like to reiterate that I strongly support increased responsibility by debtors, but this legislation does more harm than good. I believe we would be better served if we could fully debate the merits of this legislation, as well as substantive amendments that were disallowed from consideration by the full House. Sadly, once again, we cannot, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, along with my cousin and colleague, Representative Mark Udall of Colorado, I am today introducing legislation that amends title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish Federal renewable energy portfolio standard, RPS, for certain retail electric utilities.

I would like to thank Representatives Berman, Cardin, Hinchey, Leach, George Miller, Owens, Pallone, Tierney, and especially Representative Henry Waxman who share the vision that we in Congress can develop a national energy policy that is founded on two key principles: renewable energy and energy efficiency. I am especially proud that this is a bipartisan effort.

Mr. Speaker there are some who say that a long-term sustainable energy plan is impossible. Or that renewable energy and energy efficiency are pipe dreams, and that the U.S. will never be able to break its reliance on traditional energy sources like oil and coal. I disagree.

Now, in the post-September 11th world, and as we are on the brink of war with Iraq, the renewed conflict in the Middle East shows us that we cannot continue to rely on imported oil from that region. When my father, Stewart Udall, was Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. imported 20 percent of its oil. My father argued that we shouldn't import more than 20 percent of our oil on national security grounds. Today, we import 53 percent of our oil, 47 percent of which comes from OPEC countries; by 2020, the United States will import 62 percent of its oil unless we act to change the way we produce energy.

Even more frightening, world production is expected to peak some time in the next few decades; some even say as early as 2007. That means that as energy demand increases more and more rapidly, the world's oil supply will be proportionally diminished.

While energy production has brought tremendous prosperity and allowed us to grow our economy at unprecedented rates, nonrenewable forms of energy are responsible for many of the greatest environmental threats to America's well-being.

Consider this, less than 2 percent of this nation's electricity is generated by non-traditional sources of power such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. During the period from 1973-1991, smart investments were made to develop new technologies that made our energy use more efficient without affecting economic output. These investments curbed the projected growth rates of energy use in the United States by 18 percent from what they would have been without the investments.

Unfortunately, the U.S. spends only one half of 1 percent of its energy bill on research and development. 60 percent of that money is wasted on the country's failed experiment in nuclear energy. Less than \1/3\ of the nation's tiny research and development budget is spent on renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly interested in Renewable Portfolio Standards, RPS, which I believe paves the road for the development and investment in clean energy technologies and local economic development. RPS, in my mind, clearly serves as model for tomorrow's small and medium businesses to draw a profit from their own environmental responsibility.

During the 107th Congress, in the Senate version of H.R. 4, there was a provision, which proposed that retail electricity suppliers--except for municipal and cooperative utilities--be required to obtain a minimum percentage of their power production from a portfolio of new renewable energy resources. The minimum energy target or ``standard'' would start at 1 percent in 2005, rise at a rate of about 1.2 percent every two years, and peak at 10 percent in 2019.

I applaud the Senate for including an RPS provision in the Energy bill, which the House failed to include in our energy package. However, I believe that we are capable of going further than the 10 percent peak in 2020 and believe we should set the standard higher to around 20 percent. As I mentioned earlier, less than 2 percent of this nation's electricity is generated by non-traditional sources of power such as wind, solar, geothermal, etc.

Why is this legislation so important now Mr. Speaker? It's important because the Department of Energy's total energy efficiency and renewable energy budget would remain essentially unchanged at $1.3 billion for fiscal 2004. For example, Biomass and biorefinery systems would see the biggest cut, down 19

percent, to $70 million. Solar is flat at $79.6 million; wind is down 6 percent, to $41.6 million; hydropower is unchanged at $7.4 million; and geothermal is down 4 percent, to $25.5 million.

It's important because yesterday Secretary Gale Norton came before the House Resources Committee, of which I am a member, to make the case for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's important because the House will pass an energy bill, thanks to the help of the Rules Committee, to open the 1.5-million-acre ANWR coastal plain to oil development.

Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of ``petroholics.'' Instead of pushing for the exploration of oil development and contributing to this country's addiction to oil, we should be pushing for the exploration of renewable energy development. This is what this legislation does, Mr. Speaker. And I have no doubt that whatever energy bill the majority brings before the House that it will not contain language to promote and expand renewable energy development in this county.

Our legislation is the first step toward encouraging greater use of our country's clean and domestic renewable energy resources. Our legislation would:

Encourage the use of renewable energy by establishing a nationwide, market-based program that would set fair, achievable and affordable clean energy goals for each state;

Give states flexibility to achieve renewable energy goals;

Benefit farmers and save consumers money; and

Reduce air pollution and the threat of global warming.

Our legislation would require that retail electricity suppliers-- except for municipal and cooperative utilities--be required to obtain 15 percent of their power production from a portfolio of new renewable energy resources by 2020 and within 5 years add an additional 5 percent, so by 2025, 20 percent of retail electricity suppliers' power production would be derived from a portfolio of new renewable energy resources.

Mr. Speaker consider the following:

Wind farms in the Pacific Northwest are producing energy at a price of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is less than the current price of power from natural gas. With a little encouragement, wind energy could become economically viable around the country, and this means a tremendous level of energy self-sufficiency for the U.S. Using wind as an energy source, twelve Midwest states alone could generate three times the total U.S. electricity consumption.

Solar power, one of the most well known forms of renewable energy, also has potential for the future. The cost of solar energy has dropped by 90 percent since the early 1970s, and scientists and industry groups predict the price will drop another 66 percent by 2020. Solar energy, if properly developed, could go a long way towards freeing the U.S. from its dependence on coal. Just 10,000 square miles of solar panels would supply all of the nation's electricity needs.

And several months ago, the Public Service Company of New Mexico and FPL Energy LLC, based in Florida, signed an agreement to build one of the nation's largest wind generation fields in my congressional district near Fort Sumner in eastern New Mexico. Harnessed by 136 twirling turbines, wind will be used to create electricity in the first large-scale renewable energy operation in the state.

Wind will make up less than 4 percent of the power generated by PNM, and this project has the hope of becoming the first of many wind farms in the state and an example of using and developing new technologies for renewable energy use.

A strong RPS makes good economic sense to help states diversify their energy market, increase their work force, and help revitalize communities who have little to no economic development.

Even the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission is working on passing a Renewable Portfolio Standard for New Mexico that would require electric utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2007.

Mr. Speaker, our dependence on coal, oil and other traditional energy sources is unsustainable. To protect our environment and our economy, we must turn off the dead end street that our energy non-policy has been leading us down, and start down a path of energy productivity and sustainable, environmentally sound production.

I encourage my colleagues in the House to support this legislation and support building solid renewable energy provisions within whatever energy bill comes before the House.

Mr. Speaker, New Mexico lost a legend recently. Ernie Mills, the dean of New Mexico's political reporters, died from pneumonia on Wednesday, February 26 in Santa Fe. Ernie's career and New Mexico politics were synonymous. There was probably no one else in Santa Fe who knew more about how New Mexico politics worked. Governors, senators, and representatives and a host of elected officials from across the state knew that Ernie and his ``little birdies'' had the scoop on what was really happening in the state's political arena.

Ernie first came to New Mexico in 1957 when he became editor of the Gallup Independent. He had started his journalism career in New York where he worked for New York Herald Tribune. In 1958, he became the Capitol Bureau Chief for the Albuquerque Journal. He later opened his own public relations consulting firm in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, and was president of the New Mexico Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America.

In 1968-69, Ernie covered the activities of New Mexico servicemen in Vietnam during two tours of duty. During his tours of Vietnam, he also handed television coverage of the fighting there, first for KOB-TV and later for KOAT-TV.

Ernie was probably best known for his participation in one of New Mexico's largest news stories: the 1980 prison riot in Santa Fe. Rioting inmates requested that Ernie--and no one else--be allowed into the prison to negotiate a settlement with them. Fifteen hostages were released after his participation, all unharmed. Thirty-three inmates died in the bloody confrontation.

Ernie's career was devoted to his syndicated newspaper columns and radio and television shows. He produced a daily radio commentary Dateline New Mexico that was carried by more than 20 radio stations statewide. He also had a weekly television show entitled Report from Santa Fe that had been produced by KENW-TV in Portales, and that had aired for more than 27 years.

He received numerous awards during his career, including Broadcaster of the Year in 1995 from the New Mexico Broadcasters Association. The same organization also honored him for Special Reporting, Best News Coverage, Best Editorial Writing and Radio Newsman of the Year.

Ernie Mills is gone, but his impact on New Mexico will be with us forever. He will be remembered for his sense of fair play, his balanced reporting, his unwillingness to report in something without first making sure of his facts, even if it meant that he was not the first to break the news. He always said it right.

Yes, he will be remembered for his ``little birdies,'' his ``gatos flacos,'' his ``wall-leaners,'' and his interviews that kept his guests struggling to keep up with him. And we won't forget the ``train wrecks,'' even if we don't remember what they were about. We will remember the man who gave his heart to all New Mexico. There was never a time that Ernie did not put people first. It was their hearts that he was about. When asked about running for office, Ernie was fond of saying, ``I'd like to run for office, but I wouldn't want to serve.'' It was Ernie's way of saying how much he loved being close to the people.

A memorial service for Ernie will be held on St. Patrick's Day in the State Capitol. He would have loved this. He was proud of his Irish heritage and it is fitting that he be remembered in the center of New Mexico's political world in Santa Fe.

Mr. Speaker, no one can ever replace Ernie Mills. His brand of journalism was unique and exclusively his own. More importantly, Ernie took people under his wing, to love, guide and protect. His heart was bigger than all New Mexico. On behalf of all who knew him, I can confidently say that we will sincerely miss him. I feel as though I have lost a real friend, and I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife Lorene and his children, Joy, Ken, Eddie, and Margaret.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the ``Medical Malpractice and Insurance Reform Act of 2003.'' Furthermore, I fervently object to the House Rules Committee's prohibition of amendments to this controversial measure, a decision that does not allow for open objective debate or consideration of any worthy alternatives. The rule governing this measure smacks of partisan politics, favors the corporate insurance industry over the health and well-being of the American population, and effectively subverts our great nation's democratic process. Denying us the opportunity to discuss this openly is absolutely unacceptable and exposes what this legislation is all about.

H.R. 5 is purportedly designed to lower the high costs of physicians' medical malpractice insurance rates. We all agree that skyrocketing insurance premiums for medical malpractice are spiraling out of control and demand immediate attention. This bill, however, will not guarantee lower rates for doctors. Instead, it will severely limit victims' ability to recover compensation for damages caused by medical negligence, defective products and irresponsible insurance providers. In other words, H.R. 5 does not fix the problems plaguing the nation's health care system: it rewards insurance companies for bad investment decisions, offers minimal deterrence to doctors practicing bad medicine, and seriously restricts the rights of injured patients to be compensated for their injuries caused by such practices.

It is clear that the House leadership is not really trying to help doctors, but rather their friends in the insurance industry. H.R. 5 would usurp the role of the jury by empowering the Congress to determine the rate of compensation due to malpractice victims. The insurance industry often ridicules the rare million-dollar ``windfall'' jury awards given, asserting that the victim must feel like they have won the lottery. Do you suppose the parents of the 17-year-old transplant patient who died after being given the wrong blood type, or the Wisconsin woman who had a double mastectomy, only to discover after the operation that the lab had made a mistake and she did not have cancer after all, feel as if the jury-awarded compensation has enriched their lives? I think not. It is doubtful that any person or family that loses a loved one, or suffers years of pain and suffering because of a medicinal mistake or oversight, feels like celebrating, especially after fighting their way through the court system and finally receiving compensation.

The insurance industry continually asserts that recent hikes in malpractice premiums are caused by excessive jury awards, and that the only remedy is to cap damage awards in malpractice lawsuits at $250,000--no matter how egregious or irresponsible the case. Capping damage awards will not lower insurance rates nor address the real problems in the medical liability system primarily for two reasons-- First, the cyclical nature of the insurance industry, that is, raising premiums to recoup losses due to bad investments in the stock market, and second, the number of medical errors made by the medical profession.

Instead of enabling insurers, we should reject the one-size-fits-all cap that will restrict the ability of those most severely affected by a medical mistake--Americans who struggle daily to make ends meet--to be properly compensated.

I am sympathetic to those good doctors and care givers who must pay soaring insurance bills or be forced to shut down their practices because of the exorbitant cost of liability insurance. Currently, malpractice premiums in my state of New Mexico are relatively low in comparison to those in some other states. However, due to increased concern over other economic and health related issues, we are already feeling the effect of our best physicians leaving the area to work elsewhere. Accordingly, I am extremely sensitive to the impact that increased premiums would present to this already delicate situation.

The vast majority of doctors serve the public well. Instead of a real solution for these reputable doctors, the Leadership's plan punishes the innocent victims of medical malpractice, and does not reduce the premiums for good doctors. To reduce the malpractice premiums physicians pay, reforming the insurance industry and implementing programs to reduce medical errors and cracking down on negligent doctors would be a better solution than the liability caps and tort reform initiatives the Leadership supports today, legislation that directly and adversely affects the victims of medical malpractice and their loved ones.

As our nation's lawmakers, I firmly believe that we must pledge to continue to work with doctors and patients to find equitable solutions for the numerous problems that plague access to quality health care in this country. We must act now to ensure that our good doctors are not unjustly punished for the malfeasance of others, and that everyone who deserves just compensation for wrongful acts or omissions receives adequate remedy.

Regrettably, the Leadership denies us today the opportunity to openly debate the issue or offer alternatives to H.R. 5 on the House floor. Accordingly, I reiterate my opposition to H.R. 5, and state my intent to support a motion to recommit the issue for further consideration.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to introduce legislation which amends the Small Business Act to authorize a Small Business Development Center in an eligible State to apply for an additional Small Business Administration grant to be used solely to provide specified services to assist with outreach, development, and enhancement on Indian lands of small business startups and expansions that are owned by Indian tribe members, Alaska Natives, or Native Hawaiians.

I introduced this legislation during the 107th Congress where it passed the House and unfortunately was not considered in the Senate. I am pleased to reintroduce this legislation today and wish to thank Chairman Manzullo and Ranking Member Velazquez for their support of this legislation as well as Representatives Graves, Franks, Renzi, Matheson, Kildee, Hayworth, Mark Udall, Millender-

McDonald, Ballance, Christian-Christensen, Gonzalez, Acevedo-Vila, Case, Michaud, Tubbs Jones, Carson, Faleomavega, Bordallo, Napolitano, and Davis for their support.

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

Today we have demonstrated how important small business enterprise is to the health of our economy. But there are still places in this country where economic prosperity has often failed to reach. These areas deserve our attention and assistance.

Consider this, nowhere in America has poverty persisted longer than on and near Native American reservations, which suffer an average unemployment rate of 45 percent. However, the number of businesses owned by Indian tribe members and Native Alaskans grew by 84 percent from 1992 to 1997, and their gross receipts grew by 179 percent in that period. This is compared to all businesses, which grew by 7 percent, and their total gross receipts grew by 40 percent, in that period.

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

In an effort to ensure the quality and success of the program, the proposal requires SBA to include in the application, at a minimum, information requests regarding the applicant's goals and objectives, including the experience of the applicant in conducting programs or ongoing efforts designed to assist the business skills of small business owners and the capability of such applicant to provide training and services to a representative number of Native Americans, Native Alaskans and Native Hawaiians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to introduce companion legislation to a bill being introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman in the Senate today. I am extremely pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation, the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003, by Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah and Congressman Rick Renzi of Arizona, both of whom represent portions of the Navajo Nation in their Congressional districts.

This legislation is of great importance to our three states-- specifically to the children and residents of the Navajo Nation, and the counties into which the Navajo Nation's boundaries extend. In New Mexico these counties are McKinley and San Juan Counties, and prior to 1998 they were responsible for maintaining the roads used by county school buses that stretch into the reservation to transport the children of the Navajo Nation to and from the county schools. Although there is nothing unique about counties funding and maintaining the roads in their jurisdiction, this particular case of the counties being responsible for the upkeep of the roads that ran into the Navajo Nation was extremely rare, and seems to be the only situation of this kind throughout the United States. This put an enormous burden on McKinley and San Juan County officials, and oftentimes resulted in impassable roads, which, in turn, resulted in children missing school because the buses were unable to pick them up.

In 1998, however, Senator Bingaman was successful in acquiring funds through the Indian School Bus Route Safety Act for the counties in New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona to assist them in facing this particularly burdensome responsibility. Today, we are proud to introduce the reauthorization of this legislation, which is set to expire very soon, to provide further assistance to the counties and children of the Navajo Nation. This bill authorizes funds totaling $24 million for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009 to be split equally among New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona. The breakdown of the total amount of funding is $3 million each year for FY2004 and 2005, $4 million each year for FY2006 and 2007, and $5 million each year for FY2008 and 2009.

These critical funds will provide much-needed assistance to the counties, and will help put an end to the shameful situation of children missing school simply because of impassable roads due to lack of maintenance. I am extremely hopeful that we can either pass this measure, or include it as part of the TEA-21 reauthorization bill and provide further assistance to the children of the Navajo Nation and our respective states. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 100th anniversary of Roosevelt County, New Mexico, which was formed on February 28, 1903. The citizens of Roosevelt County this year are celebrating the many virtues of their wonderful community. Roosevelt County is a good place to call home. It has outstanding schools, safe streets, family oriented neighborhoods, civic volunteerism and community values that make it an exceptional place to live and raise a family. We have much to celebrate on this centennial.

Roosevelt County was named for the twenty-sixth President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, who enlisted New Mexican Rough Riders when he climbed San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American War. The city of Portales is the county seat. Other communities in the county include: Elida, Floyd, Dora, Causey, Arch, Kenna, Lingo, Milnesand, Pep, and Rogers. Roosevelt County is located on the high plains of eastern New Mexico in the heart of cattle country, with ranching, farming, the dairy industry, and the Burlington Northern/ Santa Fe Railway comprising important components of the community's economic base. Located 11 miles to the northeast of Portales is Cannon Air Force Base, which adds a very important dimension to the character of the area.

Roosevelt County was cultivated by ranching, farming, the railroad and related businesses over a hundred years ago. In 1902 a few homesteaders settled in; a year later, the homesteaders were arriving more increasingly in the area around Portales. Settlers were drawn to Roosevelt County due to the access of the railroad and the availability of shallow water. A homesteader could take a pick and shovel and dig a well of about 15 feet deep and would have plenty of water for domestic use. Most other settlers outside the Portales Valley had to haul drinking water from a few wells made by ranchers, until they could afford to drill their own. It is hard to imagine the availability of that much water now, which Roosevelt County considers its most precious natural resource.

The name ``Portales'' fits this charming university town even more today than when it was coined in the 1800s. Named for a nearby campsite where spring waters gushed from a series of cave-like porches across pueblo-style houses, Portales, or ``Porches'' in Spanish, is an entryway into New Mexico on the eastern border. Portales Springs is the most famous watering hole on the Old Fort Sumner Trail and often welcomed Billy the Kid and his partners during the infamous Lincoln County War.

Agriculture is the major industry of Roosevelt County. The leading crops are Valencia peanuts, alfalfa, cotton, wheat, corn, milo, hay, and potatoes. Valencia peanuts, noted for their sweet taste, are exported all across the United States as well as to several countries around the world. Roosevelt County is home to the only peanut butter manufacturing facility in New Mexico. Additionally, its peanut butter is currently ranked the fifth highest quality peanut butter on the market today by Consumer Reports.

Livestock feeding and dairy farming are also important to the local economy. Other industries include soft drink canners, an ethanol production facility, grain storage and shipping, trucking and milk processing. The dairy industry is the second largest agricultural industry in New Mexico, and our state is the nation's seventh largest producer of milk.

Portales is the proud home to Eastern New Mexico University, the third largest university in the Land of Enchantment, offering over 50 undergraduate and 15 graduate majors. The university offers a broad curriculum of vocational, technical and academic disciplines and is the center of the region's cultural life. The school has brought many opportunities to graduates since 1934. In conjunction with the city, the university sponsors an annual Peanut Valley Festival that provides excitement and entertainment for the community and attracts hundreds of visitors each year. I had the opportunity earlier this week to meet with the president of the university, Dr. Steven Gamble, to receive an update on the progress the institution is making. The residents of eastern New Mexico are fortunate to have such a fine place of higher learning in their midst.

On this grand occasion, I want to express my best wishes to Portales Mayor Orlando Ortega and all the local elected officials throughout Roosevelt County that are determined to make this area an even better place to live and raise families. The elected county officials are as follows: Dennis Lopez, District 1 Commissioner; Charles Davis, District 2 Commissioner; Thomas Clark, District 3 Commissioner; Gene Creighton, District 4 Commissioner; Paul Grider, District 5 Commissioner; Nancy Gentry, Probate Judge; Tom Gossett, County Sheriff; Nancy Belcher, Treasurer; Royene Tivis, Assessor; and Joyce Lee Fraze, County Clerk. I pledge to continue to work with these leaders to promote an atmosphere in which economic development can flourish.

The signs of Roosevelt County's progress are evident. President Bush recently approved the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill containing $250,000 to continue the development of the Ute Reservoir Pipeline, which is critical for the sustained growth and water needs of this area. We have a long way to go on this project, but this funding is a crucial step forward.

Citizens have also seen fit to finance the construction of the Roosevelt General Hospital. Costing nearly nine million dollars, this facility is serving the health needs of local residents. The new Portales Junior High School was recently built to replace a decaying 75th year-old facility. A new Communications Center is being built at Eastern New Mexico University, and the local library in Portales has recently been upgraded with new technology and a more modern, usable facility. Finally, there is the new Portales Recreation Center, which will serve scores of local youth and give them a safe environment to have fun and learn. All of these improvements were financed by voters through local elections and other contributions from local neighbors.

The people of Roosevelt County have a past to be proud of, and a future that continues to unveil promising opportunities. The pull of the future is only as good as the past that empowers it, and in Roosevelt County a fine and solid history lays a well-lit path for the future.

Mr. Speaker, Roosevelt County is one of the finest regions in the State of New Mexico. This area is symbolic of traditional American values. The residents work hard, are dedicated to their families, support their schools and volunteer to help their neighbors. I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing all its residents continued success as their community enters its second century.