Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the great State of Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wanted to echo the comments of my colleague from Colorado and also acknowledge that I am eager to work with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and the rest of the Colorado delegation as we continue to decide with the input of the local people that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has spoken so eloquently about how we might preserve and protect these lands for the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we considered this bill earlier, I voted for it, although I was very reluctant to do so. But I cannot vote for this conference report. My support for the bill was reluctant because while I support ending the ``marriage penalty,'' I thought the House bill was not the right way to achieve that goal. In some areas it did too little, and in others it did too much. It did too little because it did not adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax. That means it would have left many middle-income families unprotected from having most of the promised benefits of the bill taken away. The Democratic substitute would have adjusted the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is one of the reasons I voted for that better bill. The Republican leadership's bill did too much in another area. Because it was not carefully targeted, it did not just apply to people who pay a penalty because they are married. Instead, a large part of the total benefits under the bill would have gone to married people whose taxes already are lower than they would be if they were single. In other words, a primary result would not be to lessen marriage ``penalties'' but to increase marriage ``bonuses.'' And, by going beyond what's needed to end marriage ``penalties'' the House bill would have gone too far in reducting the surplus funds that will be needed to bolster Social Security and Medicare. Those were the reasons for my reluctance to vote for this bill. They were strong reasons. In fact, as I said then, if voting for the bill would have meant that it immediately would have become law, I would have voted against it. But, I reluctantly voted for it because at that point the Senate still had a chance to improve it. I was prepared to give the Republican leadership one last chance to correct the bill's deficiencies rather than simply to insist on sending it to the President for the promised veto. I hope that the Republican leadership would allow the bill to be improved to the point that it would merit becoming law--meaning that it would deserve the President's signature. Unfortunately, they did not take advantage of that opportunity. Instead, today they are insisting on sending to the President a bill that falls short of being appropriate for signature into law. I cannot support that approach, and I cannot support this conference report. The conference report is not identical to the House bill, but it is still very poorly targeted. Half of the tax relief would go to couples who are not affected by any marriage penalty at all--and overall the bill is still fatally flawed. It seems clear that the Republican leadership has decided to insist on trying to force the President to veto this bill, on a timetable based on their national nominating convention. I greatly regret that the Republican leaders have decided to insist on confrontation with the President instead of seeking a workable compromise that would lead to a bill that the President could sign into law. The President has said that he will veto this conference report, and I expect that to occur. I hope that after that veto members on both sides of the aisle will work to develop a bill that will appropriately address the real problem of the ``marriage penalty'' and that can be signed into law this year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill. This bill is more than 10 percent below the President's request overall, and it severely underfunds programs that are critical to our national security and continuing global leadership. The bill does include some very necessary funding. The $2.82 billion in aid to Israel included in this year's bill is even more important today, as it demonstrates our enduring support for Israeli and Palestinian efforts to seek an end to their bitter conflict--efforts that are even now under way at Camp David. I strongly support the peace process, and my lack of support for this bill does not reflect anything to the contrary. I believe that U.S. aid to Israel is critically important to push this process forward and to ensure that Israel remains strong in the face of regional military threats. But as much as I value the prospect of peace, I cannot support a bill that falls short of our commitments in so many crucial areas. I heard one of my colleagues say on the floor yesterday that he didn't understand why the debate focused so much on the needs of people all around the world, and not about the needs of people in this country. After all, he said, we were elected by citizens of this country to represent them--not to represent the citizens of Mozambique or India or Kosovo. First of all, to those who think--as many Americans do--that we spend too much on foreign aid, bear this in mind: Foreign assistance makes up only .6 percent of all federal expenditures in the fiscal 2001 budget. That is only .11 percent of the total U.S. economy, a level tied for the lowest percentage on record. It's true that the funds in this bill are intended to help those in need around the world. I think this is good. In fact, public opinion shows that there has been no decline in support for international engagement in the wake of the Cold War. Just the opposite--the public strongly supports foreign aid, supports a stronger United Nations, and supports contributing our fair share to peacekeeping missions. I say we have an unprecedented opportunity--and indeed, a responsibility, as the richest country in the world--to provide global leadership through the spread of democracy and the promise of economic growth. But foreign assistance isn't just about helping our global neighbors--it is also about guaranteeing our own security. Development assistance helps level the playing field by reducing economic instability, poverty, and disease--all of which contributes to a healthier and safer planet. In our increasingly interconnected world, we cannot afford to pretend that adverse events in other countries and regions have no bearing on the United States. They do. Devoting adequate resources to foreign assistance is a proactive investment that will pay off in preventing more expensive crises in the future. I say to my colleagues who question the importance of foreign aid, this bill doesn't reflect the best of what America can and should offer to the rest of the world, and in fact, doesn't even reflect some priorities Congress has already set. Last year Congress authorized and fully funded bilateral debt cancellation, and authorized the IMF to revalue part of its gold reserves to write off its debts. Last year Congress also pledged to work toward a new process for debt relief and lending at the World Bank and IMF that includes greater transparency, participation, and poverty reduction. This year we were supposed to finish the job by canceling more bilateral debt and funding a contribution to help write off additional multilateral debt--which is necessary to leverage contributions from other countries. Fulfilling our commitment to last year's debt relief agreement would provide incentive to poor indebted countries to take the steps necessary to qualify for debt relief programs. Instead, today we were going to vote on a bill that provided just $82 million for debt relief for some of the poorest countries in the world--only 16 percent of the total amount the President requested for debt relief. I recognize the bill has been improved slightly. The House did approve an amendment to boost funds for debt relief that will help to keep us on track with our commitment to easing the plight of so many nations. I am hopeful that these funds will remain intact as the bill moves forward. This is good, but we should have done more. In addition, there was some improvement regarding funding for AIDS. Before it was amended today, the bill would have cut the request for funding to fight the global AIDS pandemic by almost 20 percent. This would have been a devastating cut at a time when the spread of HIV/AIDS poses a serious threat to nations around the world, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa. By 2010, at least 44 million children will have lost one or both parents in the 34 countries most severely affected by HIV/AIDS. Coming less than a week after the global AIDS conference in South Africa, this shortcoming in the bill appeared all the most glaring. The passage today of an amendment to boost funding for HIV/AIDS programs is good news, and I am hopeful that these funds will remain intact as the bill moves forward. But again, we should have done more. For example, the bill cuts by 30 percent the request for funding for international family planning programs, and contains the ``global gag rule,'' despite valiant efforts to strike the language on the part of my colleagues Ms. Lowey and Mr. Greenwood and many others. The ``gag rule'' provision prohibits private organizations in foreign countries to which we provide aid from participating in the political process of their own country using their own funds. This policy restricts the free speech of international non-governmental organizations. Furthermore, it undermines our own foreign policy objective of democracy promotion by placing restrictions on these organizations that would be unconstitutional in the United States. International family planning programs save the lives of women and children worldwide, reduce the incidence of abortion, and raise the social and economic well-being of women all over the globe. The ``global gag rule'' is simply wrong, and--I believe--it is an embarrassment to us as a country. I am also concerned about the bill's 40 percent cut in the Administration's request for contributions to multilateral development banks, which would result in substantial reductions in lending for health, clean water supplies, education programs, and infrastructure needed to reduce poverty in the world's poorest countries. Specifically, the bill cuts funding by 32 percent for the International Development Association, a main source of resources to battle AIDS, and additional cuts are made in funding for the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, and the Asian Development Fund. Further, the bill doesn't provide sufficient funds to battle the global threat of tuberculosis, a disease that is endangering the health and lives of people all over the globe as deadly strains of multiple- drug resistant TB emerge. Tuberculosis kills two million people each year and is the greatest killer of people with HIV/AIDS worldwide, accounting for 40 percent of AIDS death in Asian and Africa. Especially as the HIV pandemic is exacerbating the rise of TB, I believe that the $55 million provided in this bill for international TB control is insufficient. Finally, I had hoped to vote to support an amendment for an additional $15 million for the microcredit program, which provides small loans to the very poor for the start-up or expansion of small business ventures. These loans have helped to promote economic growth in some of the most poverty-stricken regions in the world. Unfortunately, this amendment was withdrawn, and I remain concerned that this bill doesn't provide sufficient funds of this important program. In sum, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the overall levels and in the priorities reflected in this legislation. We can and should do better, and because we haven't, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we considered a basically identical bill in February, I voted for it, although I was very reluctant to do so. I was reluctant because that was not the best time for this bill, and that was not the best bill for the job. It wasn't the right time because we had not yet adopted a budget resolution and so a tax bill--or a spending bill, for that matter-- should not have been considered then. Now, of course, we have a budget resolution in place. So, today at least the time is right. But this still is not the best bill for the job because in some areas it does too little, and in others it does too much. It does too little because it does not adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax. That means it leaves many middle-income families unprotected from having most of the promised benefits of the bill taken away. The Democratic substitute would have adjusted the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is one of the reasons I voted for that better bill. The Republican leadership's bill does too much in another area. Because it is not carefully targeted, it does not just apply to people who pay a penalty because they are married. Instead, a large part of the total benefits under the bill would go to married people whose taxes already are lower than they would be if they were single. In other words, if this bill were to become law as it now stands a primary result would not be to lessen marriage ``penalties'' but to increase marriage ``bonuses.'' And, by going beyond what's needed to end marriage ``penalties'' the bill--if it were to become law--would go too far in reducing the surplus funds that will be needed to bolster Social Security and Medicare. Those were and remain the reasons for my reluctance to vote for this bill. They are strong reasons then and they are strong reasons today. In fact, if voting for the bill today would mean that it would be law tomorrow, I would vote against it. But that isn't the case, fortunately. The Senate still has a chance to improve this bill. So, I will reluctantly vote for the bill because I favor eliminating the marriage penalty. I am prepared to give the Republican leadership one last chance to correct the bill's deficiencies rather than simply to insist on sending it to the President for the promised veto. I hope that the Republican leadership will allow the bill to be improved to the point that it merits becoming law--meaning that it will deserve the President's signature. But if they miss that opportunity, and insist on sending to the President a bill that falls short of being appropriate for signature into law, I will vote to sustain a veto.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the DeFazio-Bass-Morella amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill. While I know the Wildlife Services engage in a number of valuable programs to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts, such as the bird control program at Denver International Airport, I am troubled by the reckless and seemingly inhumane procedures undertaken by this agency. The most disturbing, not to mention dangerous, Wildlife Services endeavor is the Aerial Hunting Campaign. Over the past 10 years, 31 people have been injured, 7 of them fatally, in Wildlife Services aircraft accidents. Low altitude, low speed flying in remote areas is invariably high risk. To me this seems like a hazardous and costly way to go about predator control. As if that was not enough, Aerial Gunning does not help reduce livestock losses because it does not target offending animals, predators that we know are feeding on livestock. For my colleagues who are not swayed by the disturbing, twisted excesses of the Wildlife Services program, I encourage you to look at the flawed economics behind this program. For every dollar of reported livestock damage, the Wildlife Services spends three dollars in the West to fix the problem. The DeFazio-Bass amendment offered today is less punitive than amendments offered in previous years. It allows the agency to retain adequate funding, but compels the program to use tax dollars to kill the public's wildlife through a subsidy for private ranchers. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4680, The Medicare Rx 2000 Act. Today, instead of helping seniors with their prescription drug bills, the Republicans sold seniors a bill of goods. Their bill is a multi-billion dollar giveaway to insurance companies and fails to guarantee that seniors will be able to afford the medicines their doctors tell them they need to take to stay healthy. For the past year, seniors in my district have been telling me about how much they spend on their monthly prescription bills. I released a study in April 1999 which shows that seniors in my district who have no prescription drug coverage pay twice as much as those who have coverage. Some seniors are faced with the decision of paying for food or paying for medicine. This is an outrage. No senior should be faced with that kind of decision. On the other hand, the Republican leadership in the House recently became interested in this issue because their pollster told them that they needed to pass a drug plan--any plan--no matter how flawed it is. And they won't let the Democrats offer a substitute plan on the floor because they know it is a good plan and could pass. We need a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is voluntary, that provides coverage to all seniors who need it, and that secures the financial future of Medicare. I will continue to work for a plan that helps seniors fill their cabinets with life-saving medications, not one that lines the pockets of the drug companies.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to this conference report. I cannot approve of the process that has brought us to this point or of the result. A good bill was hijacked to produce what I think is a problematic package. This is called a conference report on the military construction bill. But in reality it is much more, and includes both money for many other purposes and provisions dealing with other subjects. And we are considering it without anyone except the conferees having even had a chance to review its contents. I supported the Military Construction Appropriations bill when we considered it on the floor in May. I supported it because it funds military construction projects, family housing, base realignment, environmental cleanup, and other programs. I supported it in particular because it funds a number of important projects for Colorado, namely funds for a training site at Fort Carson, for a munitions storage and maintenance site at Buckley Air National Guard Air Force Base, and for upgrading facilities at Peterson Air Force Base. If that were all that was in this conference report, I could support it as well. However, this conference report also includes many items that were originally part of a separate measure, a supplemental appropriations bill for the current fiscal year. As I noted when the House originally considered that bill, there are other good things in it that I support. For example, some parts of the bill truly concern ``emergencies''--funding to help low-income families cope with sharply rising home heating oil bills; funding to repair damaged roads and bridges and to develop affordable housing for those dislocated by recent floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters; disaster loans for small businesses, farm aid, and rural economic and community development grants to meet needs arising from natural disasters. These are all important and worthwhile and appropriate purposes for an ``emergency'' spending bill. Also important is funding that the bill provides for NASA's Space Shuttle upgrades, security at our nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories, and funds to accelerate environmental cleanup of DOE facilities. But these good things are far outweighed by what I consider to be some very problematic provisions. One of the most troublesome is the ``anti-drug'' package for Colombia. I don't doubt the magnitude of the problem that the proposal attempts to address. Indeed, there is much cause for alarm. Colombia produces 80 percent of the world's cocaine and about two-thirds of the heroin consumed in this country, and new estimates show that cocaine production in Colombia is up 126 percent in the last five years. That said, I am not convinced that a costly military approach is the best response to the problem. I believe we should be considering other ways to address the source of the problem--the U.S. demand for drugs--by funding additional treatment and education programs right here at home. There is very little about the Colombia package that has been shown to merit our support. Think for a moment about the dismal human rights record of the Colombian military. The military would itself be the recipient of the billions of dollars in U.S. aid. Human rights organizations have linked right-wing paramilitary groups to the Colombian military and to drug trafficking and atrocities against civilians. How can we be content to pass a bill that could well make this situation worse? We should also think about the lack of clear objectives for this program. There is no ``exit'' strategy spelled out. There is no way to ensure farmers won't resume cultivating drug crops once this billion- dollar assistance package dries up. None of these questions about the long-term goals for this program have been adequately answered. Still, we're being asked to support a program that could draw U.S. troops into a protracted counterinsurgency struggle--and one that may ultimately have little effect on the drug trade. In addition, the conference report reportedly includes at least one anti-environmental rider that would block EPA from taking certain actions to enforce the Clean Water Act--and there may be more. I would have problems with that even if we had had a chance to review the language before voting. Since we can't even do that, I have no choice but to oppose the conference report for that reason as well.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill for the country and for Colorado. I would like to be able to support it. However, I cannot vote for it as it stands now, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I am very concerned about the bill's funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA operates six of its twelve Environmental Research Laboratories in Colorado, and my own hometown of Boulder has the largest concentration of NOAA research Federal staff in one area--300--as well as the largest concentration of university staff funded by NOAA research. So, NOAA is very important for Colorado. Funding for NOAA in this bill is $113 million below this year's levels, and fully $530 million below the levels of the request. These cuts will have a devastating effect on NOAA's ability to maintain a top quality scientific workforce and to conduct crucial research into climate change and weather phenomenon. In particular, the Committee has recommended a cut of $34 million to NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) from this year's levels. OAR's dedicated scientists forecast solar storms and conduct research activities into diverse atmospheric phenomenon such as air pollution, climate change, hurricanes and tornadoes. A cut of $34 million would result in layoffs of 10 percent of OAR's workforce, and the elimination of 41 university positions that NOAA currently supports through research grants. In addition to these workforce reductions, the vital research projects that these staff are engaged in will be delayed or terminated while other nations move forward with these important scientific endeavors. The Appropriations Committee also failed to provide funding for several key research initiatives that are important to this country's future. For example, NOAA had requested $28 million for a Climate Observations and Services Initiative to make the transition from climate research to climate forecasting. Improving our forecasts of the future climate, including seasonal predictions and even into future decades, would result in billions of dollars in economic benefits to the agriculture and transportation industries. A shortfall that directly impacts researchers in my district is in rent and related costs for the new NOAA research facility in Boulder. This facility, which became fully occupied in May of 1999, consolidates all of the six NOAA laboratories and two NOAA data centers in the Boulder area. The $1.5 million increase is needed to fund the incremental I am also concerned about funding for the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), a program that will replace two aging environmental satellite systems currently operated by NOAA and DOD. The Committee cut NPOESS by $6.6 million from the request, but did include favorable language in its report, noting that ``the NPOESS program should be the first priority for any reprogramming of funds.'' A failure to provide adequate funding for NPOESS would greatly jeopardize the U.S. ability to provide reliable meteorological support to NOAA for weather forecasting, to NASA for its science mission, and to support the Department of Defense's combat forces. This cut would also result in a loss of as many as 70 jobs in my district, where Ball Aerospace is deeply engaged in the NPOESS program. I am hopeful that NPOESS will be fully funded in the course of the appropriations process. I am also concerned about the bill's provisions for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST also has a laboratory in Boulder, where a staff of about 530 scientists, engineers, technicians, and visiting researchers conduct research in a wide range of chemical, physical, materials, and information sciences and engineering. Their worthwhile contributions to NIST's work cannot continue at funding levels that are 34 percent below the numbers for fiscal 2000. NIST's laboratories in Boulder have a backlog of critically needed repairs and maintenance, approaching $70 million. As technology advances, the measurement and standards requirements become more and more demanding, requiring measurement laboratories that are clean, have reliable electric power, are free from vibrations, and maintain constant temperature and humidity. Most of the NIST Boulder labs are 45 years old, many have deteriorated so much that they can't be used for the most demanding measurements needed by industry, and the rest are deteriorating rapidly. Every day these problems go unaddressed means added costs, program delays, and inefficient use of staff time, but the bill eliminates the very modest fiscal 2001 request to begin to address the maintenance and construction needs. The bill also insufficiently funds NIST initiatives for eCommerce, nanotechnologies, computer security, and assistance to small manufacturers in the area of eCommerce. It also completely eliminates funding for NIST's Advanced Technology Program, which has helped develop high-risk technologies with significant commercial potential through cost-shared projects. These funding decreases--at a time when we have all acknowledged the important role that technology has played in driving our current prosperity--make no to sense. The bill also has other serious shortcomings. It does not provide adequate funding for the Legal Service Corporation, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. It does not do enough for community-based crime prevention. It also fails to provide enough for coastal protection or for management of fishery resources. Finally, the bill cuts $240 million from international peacekeeping efforts, denying funding for UN missions in Africa, including Sierra Leone, Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Angola, and Western Sahara. In supporting funding for peacekeeping, I am not necessarily endorsing any single peacekeeping mission. However, we have a responsibility to pay our fair share to the troop-contributing countries, and we shouldn't abrogate that responsibility. In addition, I find it unfathomable that the Committee would ask us to place an upper limit on this funding even though we can't know a year in advance whether hostilities in different parts of the world will result in peace agreements requiring UN peacekeepers. For all these reasons, I cannot support the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in general support of the bill. The rule appropriately provides an opportunity for the House to consider germane amendments to this important appropriations measure. On the bill, I am sure each of us might want it to be different one way or another. For example, I do not think it does enough for solar and renewable energy programs. That is why I will be joining many others in trying to improve that part of the bill. Overall, I think the committee has done a good job, especially considering the limits imposed by the budget resolution. In particular, I want to express my appreciation for the fact the committee has included all the money that was requested for the nuclear facilities closure projects, an increase of more than $21.8 million over this year's amount for that purpose. This is crucial for my district because the Rocky Flats facility, located in my congressional district, is just a few miles from the center of our State's major population areas. Safe, effective, and timely clean-up and closure of the flats is a matter of highest priority for all Coloradans. I greatly appreciate the committee's inclusion of the requested funding for this purpose. I also want to join the committee in urging the DOE to ensure that the complex-wide funding issues are addressed as they relate to closure for Rocky Flats. As the committee has correctly noted, if DOE is to keep on its timetable for closing Rocky Flats, important tasks must be completed at other sites, as well. I urge support for the rule so the House can begin to consider this very important measure.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) who chairs the House Caucus on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, and with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I especially want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for working with me on this amendment. This is our second joint effort in the last 2 years. I join with many of my colleagues in saying we will miss the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) on this issue. We look forward to working with him from his home State of Arizona, and who knows what the future may hold. I do also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking member, for agreeing to accept this amendment. The amendment will add $40 million to solar and renewable energy programs in fiscal 2001 and will offset this sum with Department of Energy contractor funds. While this increase is not even close to the levels of the request, it is a good start, and I hope it can begin a trend toward increased funding for these programs in future years. After all the rhetoric we have been hearing in the last few weeks in the newspapers, on the talk shows, and on the floor about our lack of an energy policy, I am glad to have this opportunity today to rise above recrimination to get to the heart of the problem. I want to talk about the importance of agreeing on a long-term energy policy, one that requires us to think beyond today's gasoline prices and beyond the elections in November. I want to talk about the real crisis that will develop in 10 or 20 years from now when oil prices will probably go up permanently as a result of increasing global demand and of passing the peak in global petroleum production. We have not done enough to prepare for this eventuality. But we might have the opportunity to do so now. If there is a silver lining to the current crisis in oil prices, it is that we are being forced to consider alternative energy sources. The Department of Energy has been looking into these alternatives for years. Twenty years after research on clean energy technologies began, these technologies are becoming a part of the solution to concerns about the quality of our water and air and changes in our climate. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests, helping to provide strategies and tools to address the environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades. By reducing air pollution and other environmental impacts from energy production and use, these programs also constitute the single largest and most effective Federal pollution prevention program. Investments in sustainable energy technologies meet multiple other public policy objectives. Far from decreasing, U.S. dependence on imported oil has actually increased to record levels over the past 25 years. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and I are old enough to remember the gas lines and the early crisis of the early 1970s. These programs are helping us to reduce our reliance on oil imports, thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds of new domestic businesses, supporting thousands of American jobs, and opening new international markets for American goods and services. It is estimated that the world market for energy supply and construction over the next 30 years will be in the range of several hundred billion dollars per year. America currently leads the world technologically in developing advanced renewable instruments and products; and we cannot, I say cannot, afford to surrender this lead to our foreign competitors. Past Federal support for sustainable energy programs has been key to the rapid growth of these emerging renewable technologies. Solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass technologies have together more than tripled their contribution to the Nation's energy mix of our Nation over the last two decades. Including hydropower renewables, renewables now account for over 10 percent of domestic energy production, and approximately 13 percent of domestic electricity generation. While these technologies have become increasingly cost-competitive, the pace of their penetration into the market will be determined largely by government support for future research and development as well as by assistance in catalyzing public-private partnerships, leading to full commercialization. Not only economic independence, but also environmental health and lower energy costs are advanced by our investment in renewable energy. But for our investment in these technologies to pay off, efforts must be sustained over the long term. It is time for us to recognize the value of clean energy research and development to our communities and to our world and to commit to sustaining our investment in clean energy in the years to come. Our amendment does not quite do all that should be done, but it does greatly improve the bill. I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to just close and thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), for all his terrific work in this regard over the last couple of years. I do look forward to working with him in the future. I might leave the discussion with a couple of additional thoughts. I was reminded that just 100 years ago humans depended on three sources of energy: their own muscle power, that of animals, and wood. And over the last hundred years we have created an immensely powerful supply of energy that is based on petroleum and fossil fuels. When that potential energy source became apparent, the Federal Government was very involved in the research and development that occurred that determined and explored and discovered all these terrific uses for petroleum. Now we are on the cusp of a new age, and I think it is very appropriate that we continue this kind of involvement as we move into a new energy century and we explore all the great possibilities of clean energy that involves biomass, solar, hydrogen, and the like. This is something that will be exciting, that will be great for our economy and great for our environment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before yielding to my colleague from Ohio, to speak to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and tell him that I was very interested to hear his remarks and I look forward to working together with him on this exciting potential that hydrogen does offer to us. As the gentleman points out, it may well be the fuel economy of the future, and it has very clean by-products and has applications across all the energy needs we now have in our society. So I look forward to working with the gentleman to promote the use of hydrogen for the long term. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my colleague from Florida that I agree with him; that this is an issue of national security at its core. It is also an issue of great economic opportunity. And in an interesting way, it is an issue that could provide more freedom to every American. If we think about it, we bring our oil from all over the world, and we have to centralize the production of it and the distribution of it. If we move in the direction that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) are providing leadership in, we can be producing these fuels in our home areas and in ways that provide maximum freedom to all our citizens. It is an interesting thought and an exciting one, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to increase funding for NASA's Science, Aeronautics, and Technology account to the level of the President's request. When adequate funding for NASA was threatened in last year's VA-HUD appropriations bill, I received hundreds of letters and calls from my constituents in the 2nd Congressional district in Colorado expressing their concerns about the proposed budget cuts to federal science and NASA programs. Many of these calls and letters were from students, researchers, and employees who would have seen their work directly affected by cuts in NASA's budget. But many of the letters I received were from citizens with no direct involvement in NASA's programs. To me, their voices were especially significant because they point to a common understanding of the importance of continuing our investment in science, technology, research, and learning. This past February, I hosted a ``space weekend'' for constituents in my district. I told them at that time that I was encouraged by the President's proposed budget number for fiscal 2001 in the areas of research and development programs in general, and in NASA funding in particular. I told them I was hopeful that Congress would make the wise decision to make these needed investments--investments that will allow us to build on the foundation we've already laid. Unfortunately, those hopes have not been fulfilled. Today, the bill before us leaves NASA programs $322 million below the budget request. It eliminates almost all of the funding for the Small Aircraft Transportation System and the Aviation Capacity programs, both of which are intended to make use of NASA's technological capabilities to reduce air traffic congestion. It eliminates all of the funding for NASA's Space Launch Initiative, a program to help maintain American leadership in space transportation. And it eliminates all the money for NASA's effort to better forecast ``solar storms'' that, if undetected, can damage the nation's communications and national security satellites. This ``Living with a Star'' program is especially important to the University of Colorado at Boulder and federal laboratories in my district. Investing in NASA is a wise decision. The advancement of science and space should concern us all. We only have to look at some examples of the successful transfer and commercialization of NASA-sponsored research and technology to see why. From advances in breast tumor imaging and fetal heart monitoring to innovative ice removal systems for aircraft, NASA technology continues to benefit U.S. enterprises, economic growth and competitiveness, and quality of life. NASA's Science, Aeronautics, and Technology programs comprise the bulk of NASA's research and development activities. Two of these programs that are of great importance to my district are NASA's Offices of Space Science and Earth Science, which focus on increasing human understanding of space and the planet through the use of satellites, space probes, and robotic spacecraft to gather and transmit data. There are still so many unanswered questions about the origins of the universe, the stars and the planets, as well as about how we can use the vantage point of space to develop models to help us predict natural disasters, weather, and climate. But NASA can't answer these questions if we don't provide it with adequate resources. This bill does not make these much needed investments in our future, which is one reason I cannot support it. Point of Order

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill simply does not do enough. The Majority has delivered a bill that shortchanges valuable programs. Not only is the core bill itself underfunded, but today's amendment process has forced Members to vote on amendments that simply shift already-limited resources from one important program to another. This ``robbing Peter to pay Paul'' approach doesn't satisfy the real needs of these programs or the needs of the citizens of this country. This bill does not make adequate strides to ensure that affordable housing can be a reality in our country and the dream of first-time homeownership is attainable. This bill fails to fund the Administration's request for 120,000 incremental rental assistance vouchers, including 10,000 vouchers for housing production of the first new affordable housing for families since 1996. The bill slashes HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program by $395 million from the President's request. This cut in funding restricts communities' abilities to redevelop downtown areas, open after-school recreation programs, and shelter the homeless. In recent weeks, President Clinton and Speaker Hastert announced that they had reached a bipartisan agreement on the New Markets and Community Renewal legislative initiative. This agreement would increase funding for ``brownfields'' redevelopment and for housing and economic development in rural communities, key provisions of the New Markets Initiative. But the bill before us today doesn't adhere to the spirit or the letter of this agreement. I am troubled by the Republican Majority's decision to cut many of the elements of this rare bipartisan agreement reached by the President and the Speaker. The bill falls also far short of providing the level of funding needed for the Environmental Protection Agency's basic environmental, public health, and other programs. I am particularly concerned about the bill's cuts to EPA's Climate Change Technology Initiative, which is made up of voluntary programs designed to mitigate global climate change, improve energy efficiency, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and save consumers money. In addition, the bill still includes language that unduly limits EPA's activities relative to climate change. In the realm of science, this bill will jeopardize our investment in the future by cutting NSF funding for science and engineering research and education by over $500 million, or 11% below the requested level. This reduction will seriously undermine priority investments in cutting-edge research, and eliminate funding for almost 18,000 researchers and science and mathematics educators--so many of whom live and work in my district in Colorado. The bill before us also leaves NASA programs $322 million below the budget request. It eliminates almost all of the funding for the Small Aircraft Transportation System and the Aviation Capacity programs, both of which are intended to make use of NASA's technological capabilities to reduce air traffic congestion. It eliminates all of the funding for NASA's Space Launch Initiative, a program to help maintain American leadership in space transportation. And it eliminates all the money for NASA's effort to better forecast ``solar storms'' that, if undetected, can damage the nation's communications and national security satellites. This ``Living with a Star'' program is especially important to the University of Colorado at Boulder and federal laboratories in my district. Investing in NASA is a wise decision. The advancement of science and space should concern us all. Yet this bill doesn't fund science and space programs at levels that would indicate this concern. On the countrary--many Members were forced to seek offsets in NASA programs in order to increase funding for other worthwhile programs. For example, cutting funds for the International Space Station--a traditional target for offsets--makes even less sense this year, as we're finally in a position to reap the return on our past investments in that program. NASA estimates that the U.S. portion of the Space Station development program is over 90 percent complete. The first segments of the Space Station are already in orbit and operational, and additional elements of the Space Station are awaiting launch from Cape Kennedy. Under the current schedule, crews will start the permanent occupation of the Space Station this fall, and the U.S. Laboratory will be fully functional early next year. Members who would cut Space Station funding argue that this funding should be redirected to all of the other underfunded accounts in this bill. Their argument is borne out of the justifiable frustration with the Majority's Budget Resolution, which set unrealistic--and ultimately untenable--caps on the various appropriations accounts. The solution is not to ask Members to make false choices among programs--it is to seek to increase the overall allocation for the VA-HUD-Independent agencies subcommittee so that all of the worthwhile activities can be funded at reasonable levels. Mr. Chairman, the overall funding shortfall is the key problem with this bill, and I cannot support it in its current form.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I honor one of my constituents, Margaret Murnane, who is a physicist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. This week Professor Murnane received a ``genius'' award from the MacArthur Foundation for her work in optical physics. She is one of just twenty-five Americans named as MacArthur fellows this year. Professor Murnane has developed a camera-like laser that emits pulses of red light. Applications of this laser technology range from laser surgery to monitoring water content in cooking. Additionally, this laser can aid scientists visualize processes that are too fast for the human eye to detect, such as chlorophyll harvesting sunlight, which is a process in plant growth. When she was a child, her father used to give her math puzzles to solve. Without a doubt, this practice contributed to her passion for science. This shows what a little parental involvement can do to further the development of a child's mind. Professor Murnane's contributions to science, education and technology will have a large impact on our society for years to come. I am pleased to honor her today for her accomplishments.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to just speak to my colleague from Utah (Chairman Hansen) and say to him, I understand his frustration, I have listened to his frustration around this issue, and I have respect for it. But I would urge us to continue to discuss this, as we have in the Committee on Resources, and there is legislation pending that would alter the Antiquities Act in ways that he thinks is appropriate and others do; and I would continue to be interested in having that debate. But I think this amendment goes at it in the wrong way. It comes in through the back door; and it has the potential, as previous speakers suggested, of making only monuments in name and would be very, very counterproductive. The other piece that I want to add to this discussion today has to do with local and specific examples in southwestern Colorado. The President just created the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument. I will include for the Record a letter from the Commissioners of the County down there, who, in effect, said, ``We need to move immediately and decisively to put our local input on the management of this area. The only way that we as a community can minimize the negative impacts and be in a position to reap the positive benefits is if we are organized and actively engaged in the planning management and problem solving connected with the monument from day one. If funding is blocked, we will lose this opportunity. Blocking funding will hurt the very communities that are already saddled with the impact of the monument.'' Now, I might not have used those same words, but I strongly agree with him with the need for maintaining that funding. So, again, I appreciate the point of view of the chairman, but I think this is the wrong way to have the debate about the Antiquities Act and how it is applied. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letters for the Record: Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners, Cortez, CO, June 12, 2000. Hon. Mark Udall, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Udall: The Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Southwest Colorado, which we spent a year working to avoid is a reality as of last Friday. The challenge now is to work together to realistically address the potential impacts on our constituents, our fiscal and economic health and the wide variety of important resources within the monument boundary. We are asking for your support in opposing budget amendments that would block funding to new National Monuments is critical for the reasons outlined below. We need to move immediately and decisively to put our local imprint on the management of this area. We have, as a starting point, the summary of public input produced by the RAC citizen Working Group, and the resulting NCA legislative draft to guide the management planning process. We are not at all comfortable with the vague language in the Proclamation, and feel that it would be risky to let the management of this area drift on the basis of ``interim guidelines'' established without local involvement. We have been promised an advisory council representing the spectrum of local interests. We need to get the advisory group in place and immediately begin to engage the planning and management of this area. With all the publicity that has and will result from the proclamation, we must be prepared and funded to deal with a wide range of immediate impacts. It is our understanding that visitation to the Grandstaircase-Escalante increased 250% upon Monument designation. The Working Group Report points to key areas of concern including the impact on services such as road maintenance, search and rescue, fire protection and law enforcement. Given the commingling of BLM and private land, we anticipate more problems with trespassing and damage to private property. The community is adamant about the protection of multiple-use, and we cannot allow the deterioration of archaeological resources to be used as a pretext for restricting these rights, privileges and activities including archaeological research. Nor can we afford to allow a lack of funds for BLM staffing to be used to justify restricting uses and areas of the Monument. Restrictions on grazing would undermine our local ranching industry. Restrictions on oil and gas production would put at risk 30% of the County tax base. Restrictions on recreational uses would disrupt an important focal point for community pride and enjoyment. Much of the 164,000 designated acres are rugged and remote, while the more accessible Sand Canyon is already close to being over-run. Dealing with both the remote and the ``loved to death'' areas is going to require a major community effort involving everyone that uses and values the area. Even the economic benefits that will result will require close coordination between people in contact with visitors and the land management agencies. The only way that we, as a community, can minimize the negative impacts and be in a position to reap the positive benefits is if we are organized and actively engaged in the planning, management and problem solving connected with this monument from day one. If funding is blocked we will lose this opportunity. While we understand the anger and frustration which has led to efforts to block funding for National Monuments, we believe that it is far better to go to the root cause of these abuses by supporting legislation such as H.R. 1487 introduced by Congressman Hansen and S. 729 introduced by Senator Craig, which directly address a more participatory process for establishing National Monuments. In the meantime we hope you will actively voice the concern to your colleagues and in the upcoming floor debate that blocking funding will hurt the very communities that are already saddled with the impacts of new monument designations. We appreciate your consideration. Please let us know if we can help or provide further information. Sincerely yours, G. Eugene Story, Chairman.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in support of this amendment. I do want to acknowledge the good work of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). I think his points are very well made. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) pointed out that this is really a balanced and moderate amendment. What it does is, it moves $14.7 million from the forest products line, and it adds it to the fish and wildlife habitat management line. The effect of the amendment is to add additional funds to maintain this critical fish and wildlife habitat that we all support. It is additionally important to note that the forest products line item remains at $10 million over the administration's request if this amendment passes; and then at the same time, concurrently, the wildlife fish and habitat management account will be at the requested level. This is a balanced and moderate amendment. By restoring $14 million to fish and wildlife, we ensure timber harvest for the long term. We also provide more jobs by investing in the wildlife of our forests today. So I think this is a responsible way to go. It is balanced and it is moderate.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the dean of our delegation, has explained, the amendment would shift $4 million into the Forest Service's wildland fire management account. The purpose of the amendment is to increase the funding for the preparedness and fire operations line items. Those line items pay for a number of important activities aimed at the protection of life, property, and natural resources. The preparedness account is used to enable the Forest Service and cooperating agencies to prevent, defect, and respond to fires on National Forest lands. The fire operations account pays for actually fighting forest fires; but even more importantly, it pays for work to prevent them in the first place by controlled burning and other steps to reduce the amount of hazardous fuels. Quite rightly, the Forest Service gives top priority to so-called ``urban interface'' areas where forest lands adjoin developed areas. As my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), has explained, in Colorado that means particularly the front range area, where the Great Plains meet the Rocky Mountains. The Front Range is the edge of our State's most populated areas. And the danger of fire is real. In fact, in the last couple of days, fires in Jefferson, Park, and Larimer Counties have burned more than 40 houses and caused hundreds of Coloradans to be evacuated from their homes. As we know, this year's fire season has just begun. This morning's Colorado newspapers are reporting that yesterday the ``Hi Meadow'' fire near the town of Bailey has gotten much worse and forced people to evacuate from Buffalo Creek. As all Coloradans know, Buffalo Creek was the scene of another devastating fire just a few years ago. Our governor has declared a state of emergency in affected areas, and this morning FEMA told me they are responding to our State's request for aid. It is too late to prevent these fires. Now they must be fought. But it is still true the best time to fight a fire is before it starts, and that is the purpose of the Hefley-Udall amendment. This is important for all Coloradans. It is especially important for Boulder, which I represent, and the other communities along the Front Range that are at risk for wildland fires. The additional funding provided by the amendment will help make sure the Forest Service will continue to cooperate with its Colorado partners to reduce the risk. Already those partners are hard at work in places like Winiger Ridge near Boulder, the Upper South Platte watershed, and the Seven-Mile area near Red Feather Lakes. Our amendment would help make sure those efforts can continue. Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Committee on Resources, I followed with great interest some of the debates about the health of our forests. I suspect some may want to link this amendment to those debates. But I want to make clear this is not a forest health amendment, it is not an amendment about timber sales. This amendment is about fighting fires and fire prevention. And while prevention often requires reduction of the volume of hazardous fuels, it does not require removal of old growth timber or clearing of large areas. This is also not a big-spending amendment. All it would do is bring the wildland fire management account back near the level of the current fiscal year. The desirability of this amendment was actually spelled out in the report of the Committee on Appropriations. Speaking of the very fire prevention measures affected by this amendment, the committee report says, ``Additional funding in this activity, were it available, would provide much more than a dollar-for-dollar savings in subsequent wildlife and wildfire suppression operations and loss of valuable resources.'' I agree with my colleague that this is a high priority matter, and I urge the adoption of our amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in support of the Hefley-Udall amendment. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Reclaiming my time, again, when I look at the numbers, Mr. Chairman, it seems to be that we leave that ability to the Forest Service. We have increased the amount available to them in this upcoming fiscal year; and yet we are also doing more directed at our wildlife in making sure that the forest is preserved in such a way that the wildlife also have an opportunity to thrive.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.