Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this resolution, for two reasons. It fails to do what should be done, for our country and for all Americans. And, it would insist on doing what should not be done for our economy and for future generations. It does not extend the solvency of either Social Security or Medicare, which we need to do as the first step toward preparing those vital programs to meet the challenges of the years ahead when the ``baby boom'' generation retires in large numbers. It does not properly provide for measures to make affordable prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries and other senior citizens. It doesn't adequately fund essential education programs including Head Start, Pell grants for college students, and special education--in fact, it cuts their purchasing power. It does not protect programs that are vital for many working families--such as child care subsidies, emergency heating and cooling assistance, or affordable housing--or to improve their access to health insurance. It also does not adequately assist our communities to respond to the problems of growth and sprawl and fails to provide enough funds for saving open space. And it does not provide enough for veterans' programs. And it does not give the proper priority to reducing the public debt. But what it does do is to mortgage the future to pay for excessive, unfocused tax cuts that would wipe out almost all of the expected surplus outside of Social Security. It does cut funding for energy research and conservation programs, even as increased prices for gasoline and heating oil are again showing the importance of reducing our dependence on petroleum, while allowing dangerous erosion of funding for many other important scientific research activities. And it does lay down a blueprint for going back to budget deficits. For all these reasons--and more--we should not make the mistake of passing this budget plan. We can do better, and we should. That's why I voted for the alternative plan proposed by Representative John Spratt and other Democratic members of the Budget Committee. The Democratic alternative would have extended the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, while making a downpayment on a plan to let the parents of children who are eligible for Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance program gain health-care coverage under these programs. It also would have provided for Medicare prescription drug coverage, beginning next year, while maintaining the funds needed to crack down on Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. It also would have provided more funds for veterans programs, and would have assisted retirees and people who lose their jobs to keep health insurance. The Democratic alternative would have increased funding for energy research and development, including energy conservation and the development of alternatives to petroleum. And it would have provided more for science, space, and technology programs. It also would have provided fund to continue assisting local school districts to hire more teachers for overcrowded schools, would have provided nearly $5 billion more for special education funding, would have provided for tax credits and funding for better school buildings. It would have provided for increases in Pell grants, Head Start, special education, and other educational programs. The Democratic alternative would fully fund the Lands Legacy Initiative, to save endangered open space and to assist our States and local communities in acquiring parks, conserving wildlife habitat, and protecting sensitive areas. And while the Democratic alternative would have provided for cutting taxes by some $200 billion over the next decade, it still would have dedicated $364 billion over the next decade for paying down the publicly held debt, more than could be done under the flawed plan put forward by the Republican leadership. Mr. Chairman, after I compared the Republican leadership's budget and the Democrat alternative, my choice was clear. I think that when the American people make the same comparison, they will agree that the Republican leadership's plan is a collection of wrong choices for the House and for our country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, to mark National Woman's History Month, I rise to honor an outstanding leader from Colorado--a woman who broke down stereotypes and fought hard for what she believed was right, Representative Patricia Schroeder. Pat represented Colorado's 1st Congressional District from 1973 to 1996. As a 12-term Member of Congress, she was affectionately known as the feminist ``Dean'' on Capitol Hill at a time when feminism was thought of as a radical idea. She helped change the way people thought about women. Her hard work in Congress ensured that women would be allowed to take care of their newborn children, that men and women would be able to take family and medical leave to care for a loved one, and that violence against women would not be tolerated in America. Representative Schroeder was first elected to Congress in 1972 on an anti-Vietnam war platform. One of her first committee assignments was the Armed Services Committee, where she helped reshape the debate about arms control, responsible defense spending and improved working conditions for military personnel. On that committee, Pat worked to make sure that spouses of military personnel received health and survivor benefits. She also authored legislation that authorized State courts to divide military pensions in accordance with State divorce laws. During her tenure on the Armed Services Committee, Pat was the chair of the Subcommittee on Military Installations, and later she chaired the Subcommittee on Research and Technology. She also served on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, which she eventually chaired. In addition, Pat was a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. When she retired in 1996, Representative Schroeder was the dean of Colorado's congressional delegation. Coloradans are independent in thought and deed, and Pat is a perfect example of that characteristic. She fought old attitudes and prejudices and overcame great odds to make a difference in how women are perceived and treated. When Pat was asked why she was running as a woman, she would respond, ``What choice do I have?'' One of her slogans was, ``When She Wins, We Win''--and so we did during the 24 years she served in the House. I am pleased to honor former Representative Patricia Schroeder during National Women's History Month.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly support the rule and will support the bill, but I think we should be doing more. The bill, as amended by this rule, would direct the President to undertake diplomatic efforts to convince countries engaged in oil-price fixing that the current high oil price levels will negatively affect global economic growth rates. I think this is something that the President has been doing all along, but I support this congressional action to emphasize the importance of this strategy. I am hopeful that the passage of this bill will spark a much-needed global discussion on current high oil prices. But it's not enough for us to hope that this global discussion will result in reduced oil prices. Here at home, we need to remember the importance of seeking out alternative energy sources to replace our dependence on ever-dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. That's why I hoped to offer an amendment to the bill that would have authorized the President's fiscal 2001 budget request for the Department of Energy's solar and renewable energy research programs. It was to be very similar to an amendment I offered and the House unanimously adopted on the Floor during last year's debate on HR 1655, the bill to authorize the Department of Energy's energy research programs. However, the rule does not make that amendment in order. I would have preferred a rule that would have done so. Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet acted on the DOE authorization bill, It seems to me that we ought to seize the opportunity for the House to once again move to reauthorize these important programs that can lessen our dependence on foreign oil. There would have been no inconsistency between my amendment and the purpose of the underlying bill. Just like the underlying bill, my amendment would have helped to lessen America's dependence on foreign oil and thus to act as leverage against the price increases of foreign producers. Given the current public concern about the high price of imported oil, I believe it would have been appropriate for the House to consider not just one approach to reducing oil prices, but to consider all approaches that promise to bring down prices by addressing the core problem: our continued dependence on imported oil. We need to invest more in renewable energy programs. They benefit our economy by stimulating private sector activity and adding jobs. They reduce our reliance on imported oil. They have a positive impact on air and water quality. Renewable energy and energy efficiency is all about an investment in America's future--the future of our energy security, our environment, and our international competitiveness. We can't go on year after year without giving adequate attention to developing renewable energy. For our investment in these technologies to pay off, our efforts must be sustained over the long-term. To me, the recent rise in energy prices indicates that we haven't been paying enough attention to the long-term. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are here today to address this urgent issue. I just wish we were being asked to vote on a bill that did more than merely encourage the President to engage in diplomatic efforts as a way to reduce oil prices. It's time for us to think about addressing serious problems with serious solutions.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3843, the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 and urge its adoption. This reauthorization bill authorization funding for the SBA's primary lending programs, the 7(a), 504 and microloan programs. It also includes provisions to authorize and fund disaster loan surety bond guarantees, Small Business Development Centers (SBDC's) the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program, the National Women's Business Council, the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) program, and the Drug Free Workplace program. H.R. 3843 provides record funding for these critical programs that have played a large role in creating and maintaining this country's unprecedented economic growth. The record funding levels will insure that the core SBA programs will continue to grow over the next 3 years. When enacted, H.R. 3843 will fund $1.3 billion in additional 7(a) loans, $3.3 million more in SBIC equity investment loans, and a doubling in Microloan technical assistance grants. Mr. Chairman, in the Second District of Colorado, many small businesses have reaped the benefits of technology related SBA programs. In particular the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program provides the funds necessary to refine their ideas, turn them into products, and to take those products to the commercial marketplace. Although the main purpose of the program remains meeting the federal government's research and development needs, small businesses have turned SBIR-inspired research into commercial products that have improved our economy and scientific advances that have helped to improve the health of people everywhere. Studies show that nationwide, small businesses produce twice as many technological innovations per employee, as compared with large employers. In fact, most of the significant technological innovations of the 20th century ranging from personal computers to high resolution x-ray microscopes can be traced to the small business community. Clearly, the success stories of small business owners who have participated in SBA programs provide powerful testimony to their merits. I commend Chairman Talent and Ranking Member Velazquez on crafting a bipartisan piece of legislation that authorizes record funding for the SBA over the next 3 years. I intend to continue working to help our small business succeed in today's technology driven economy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on reauthorizing these important programs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, Colorado is one of the fastest- growing States in the union, and we have our share of contentious land- use disputes--in fact, sometimes it seems like we may have more than our share. I believe that the Federal Government has a role in helping our communities to respond to the problems that come with that rapid growth. But I don't think the help that's needed is greater involvement of the Federal courts in more and more local land-use decisions. So, I cannot support this bill. I do not think the bill is needed. The vast majority of land-use disputes, including claims that local regulations or decisions amount to a ``taking'' of property, are resolved at the local or State level without significant delay. There is no need to short-circuit the decisionmaking process under local and State law. There is no need to bypass our State courts. I also don't think the bill is sound policy. I am very concerned that it would severely tilt the field in favor of one interest, developers, and make it even harder for our communities to meet the challenges of growth and sprawl. It would saddle taxpayers of our towns, cities, and counties with the costs of expensive Federal litigation. It's also not good for our Federal courts. According to the Judicial Conference of the United States--the body that speaks for our Federal judges--it ``may adversely affect the administration of justice'' and ``contribute to existing backlogs in some judicial districts.'' That could be a serious problem in Colorado and other States where there are or will be judicial vacancies. Finally, as a nonlawyer who takes very seriously the oath we all have taken to support the Constitution, I have listened carefully to the views of the many lawyers--including distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee--who have concluded that the bill is likely unconstitutional. Even if I thought the bill was otherwise desirable, that would make me hesitate. But, as I've said, the bill has other serious shortcomings--and the constitutional issues that have been raised mean that enacting this bill would inevitably lead to even more protracted and expensive litigation that would go all the way to the Supreme Court. However the Court might finally rule, that additional litigation is not something that I think is necessary or that Congress should encourage. So, again, I cannot vote for this bill. I am submitting a letter from the mayor of the city of Boulder, CO, in opposition to H.R. 2372. City of Boulder, City Council Office, Boulder, CO, September 7, 1999. Re Opposition to takings legislation (H.R. 2372). Hon. Mark Udall, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Udall: I am writing on behalf of the City of Boulder to strongly urge your opposition of a federal ``takings'' bill that is aimed at local governments. Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL) recently re-introduced this bill as H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999. H.R. 2372 is virtually identical to takings legislation considered during the last Congress (H.R. 1534), which was sponsored by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA). Specifically, H.R. 2372 would allow developers to circumvent local zoning appeals mechanisms, bypass state courts, and sue towns, cities and counties for alleged takings directly in federal court. The bill's approach contradicts Supreme Court rulings that federal courts cannot decide if a local government has taken property without just compensation until claimants explore allowable alternative uses of the property and until they ask for and are denied just compensation in state court. The Supreme Court's May 24, 1999, City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes decision makes it clear that H.R. 2372's attempt to allow takings claims against localities to bypass state courts is unconstitutional. The Court held that because the Fifth Amendment only bars takings without just compensation, there is ``no constitutional injury'' where state court compensation remedies are available. As the Court noted, these state court remedies are now available in every state. Thus, the nature of the constitutional right requires that a property owner utilize state judicial or other procedures for obtaining compensation before suing a locality in federal court. Unfortunately, many Members of the last Congress co- sponsored the virtually identical H.R. 1534 without a full appreciation of either what it would do or the overwhelming opposition it would face from state and local governments, the courts and others. This was made obvious when 9 Republican and 4 Democratic co-sponsors voted against their own bill when the House approved H.R. 1534 on October 22, 1997. A 52-42 Senate cloture vote failed to receive the 60 votes necessary to end a bipartisan filibuster against consideration of the Senate companion bill, S. 2771. In a July 10, 1998 letter to all Senators, the National Governors Association, National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors and National League of Cities opposed S. 2271 because it would give ``large-scale developers . . . a `club' to intimidate local officials who are charged with acting in the best interests of the community as a whole.'' Threats of premature, expensive federal court lawsuits would pressure local officials to approve projects that would harm the property, health, safety and environment of neighbors. In the last Congress, this bill was strongly opposed by virtually every membership organization representing state and local government, including the International Municipal Lawyers Association, and National Association of Towns and Townships, as well as 41 State Attorneys General. Opposition included both the Conference of Chief Justices on behalf of the state courts, and the Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by Chief Justice Rehnquist, on behalf of the federal courts. I would have faced a Presidential veto if passed in Congress. In addition, the legislation was opposed by a broad array of environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, League of Conservation Voters, Alliance for Justice, Sierra Club, Center for Marine Conservation, Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Scenic America, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Wilderness Society. H.R. 2372 literally would convert local zoning and other land use disputes into federal cases. The result would undermine basic protections for private property, health, safety and the environment. Congress has repeatedly rejected bills that would radically alter the constitutional standards or judicial procedures for determining when a government action results in a taking of private property that requires payment of just compensation. In order to protect everyone's private property and the environment, I urge you to oppose this and other takings bills. The City of Boulder's experience with takings legislation designed to oust the planning board of its ability to conduct Boulder's major site review process on a 500-home development is ample demonstration of the folly of this bill. As it was, the case was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit. Under this bill, Boulder would have faced a takings case in the federal courts, before the Planning Board could even act on the development application. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Joseph de Raismes, City Attorney, at (303) 441-3020. Sincerely, William R. Toor, Mayor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that a constituent from my district, Dr. Susan Solomon, is the recipient of the 1999 National Medal of Science. Dr. Solomon is a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, based in Boulder, Colorado, and is the first NOAA scientist to be awarded the medal, which is the nation's highest scientific honor. She is also the recipient of many other honors and awards that recognize her important work. In commending her accomplishments, Secretary of Commerce William Daley called Dr. Solomon ``one of the most important and influential researchers in atmospheric science during the past 15 years.'' I know I join all my colleagues in congratulating Dr. Solomon on this well- deserved honor. Dr. Solomon first theorized in the 1980s that the explanation for the Antarctic ozone hole involved chemistry on clouds, not just gas molecule reactions, as was thought then. Dr. Solomon confirmed her theories with solid data observed during two National Ozone Expeditions to the Antarctic in 1986 and 1987, when she identified reactions between two different forms of chlorine on the stratospheric cloud surface. These reactions release chlorine molecules, which separate and act as catalysts in destroying ozone. Because of Dr. Solomon's discovery, scientists were then able to conclude that the chlorine responsible for the ozone hole originates from chlorofluorocarbons and other man-made compounds. Dr. Solomon and other leaders in her field provide important role models for today's students as they prepare to meet the demands of tomorrow's technology-based economy. But it is not only the young who can benefit from Dr. Solomon's example. She cites as the most important lesson from her research the ``need to keep an open mind on environmental issues.'' We should all heed her very good advice.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2086. There is a clear need for this legislation. Last year's report by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee pointed out that Federal programs in information technology research are insufficient. The committee stressed that if we were to continue to make advances in education, manufacturing, medicine, and communications, this country needs a long-term plan to replenish Federal investment in basic IT research. While information technology as a sector of the economy has grown at an annual rate of 12 percent between 1993 and 1997, Federal funding for IT research has grown only at the rate of inflation. In fact, appropriation levels for information technology initiatives and for all coordinated IT research programs for this fiscal year were well below the President's request. H.R. 2086 authorizes dramatically increased government-funded research in long-term basic information technology and networking, an increase mainly directed at the National Science Foundation and NASA, but also benefiting DOE, NIST, NOAA and the EPA. I wanted to call the attention of the House to the part of our committee's report on H.R. 2086 that stresses the importance of including physics, mathematics, chemistry, engineering, and other fields of science in the IT research efforts. This language is intended to ensure that the NSF and other agencies that participate in the research initiative authorized by the bill tap into the expertise and capabilities of other disciplines. As author of this part of the report, I appreciate the support of the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and the committee for this statement. It will send a message that the planning process should reflect an inclusive attitude. I also want to take a moment to talk about a few of the amendments being offered today. The amendments offered by my colleagues, the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) would make a good bill better by boosting authorization levels for the National Science Foundation, and I urge its support. Another amendment by my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), would require the NSF and other agencies to prepare a report that would address key issues relating to the digital divide. More than half of the U.S. classrooms are connected to the Internet today, compared to less than 3 percent in 1993. But students in schools without Internet access are quickly falling behind the Internet. The amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) would help meet this challenge. Finally, I wanted to speak in support of the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who will address the issue of Internet access for seniors. In 1998, the number of people aged 50 to 74 using the Internet doubled from the year before. It is estimated by the end of this year there will be 100 million citizens over the age of 50 on line. I can count my mother as one of those people, and I am soon to be one of those people over 50 as well. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) would make sure that the benefits of the Internet are available to senior citizens. So all in all these amendments are important in their emphasis on making the benefits of these newest technologies available to all Americans. I support these amendments and support H.R. 2086.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), for yielding to me. I thank him for his leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, Juanita Johns is one of my constituents back in the Second District in Colorado, and she told me she used to keep her thermostat at 60 degrees so she could pay her drug bills. In addition to that, a few times a week she would visit the food bank so she could eat, and eventually she sold her house and moved in with her son so she could afford her medicines. Now this is intolerable. Seniors should not be forced to make that kind of decision between buying food or buying their medicine or paying their utility bills. Her story, Juanita's story, is one of many that I have heard from seniors in my district. I, too, had a study done by the House Committee on Government Reform that found that seniors in my district who pay for their own prescription drugs pay more than twice what the drug companies' most- favored customer, such as HMOs and the Federal Government, pay. It is clear that rising prescription drug prices and eroding coverage are squeezing seniors' incomes. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), mentioned that seniors make up 12 percent of the population, but they use one-third of all prescription drugs. They have the greatest need for these drugs, but they often do not have adequate insurance coverage to pay for them. That adds up to more than 15 million seniors in our Nation who do not have any sort of drug benefit. As the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) mentioned, Medicare's basic package does not include it. Employers are scaling back or dropping retiree health coverage, and premiums for supplemental medigap policies and drug coverage has in many cases reached unaffordable levels. That is why I am a strong supporter of H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. This simple and important piece of legislation would end unfair drug pricing discrimination and could save seniors up to 40 percent of their drug bills. It is hard to understand why anyone would be against making prescription drugs more affordable, but during the winter recess, as the gentleman referenced, a group called the Citizens for Better Medicare ran attack radio and TV ads against me because of my efforts to help seniors fill their medicine cabinets with affordable, lifesaving medications. It struck me that it was an Astroturf campaign that was designed to look like a grass-roots initiative; but it was really intended, in my opinion, to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical companies, scare seniors, and spread misinformation. As the gentleman remembers, these ads confused H.R. 664 with President Clinton's proposal to have Medicare directly cover seniors' drug costs. The ads had a toll-free number for seniors; and when the seniors called the phone bank, then the operator asked them if they would like to be connected to my office, and then they were directly connected to my office. Oftentimes when the seniors reached my office, they did not know who they were talking to or really what was going on. It also served the purpose of tying my office up for an entire week. I received thousands of telegrams in addition to these phone calls. To summarize, it was really a classic bait and switch kind of campaign, where the ads attacked me for being on the bill of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), but all of the communication my office received was about the President's proposal. Now I have not expressed a position on the President's proposal; but, however I, do support a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is fiscally responsible and fair. Needless to say, this ad campaign did not wash with Coloradans. I want to quote from a couple of newspapers. An editorial in the Denver Post described the ads as ``vicious and outrageous untruths.'' The Boulder Daily Camera called these ads ``a vaguely worded and deceptive advertising campaign.'' Thankfully, many people saw through this well-organized campaign and called my office to offer their support. I looked with interest last month at the news that the drug companies are dropping their opposition to creating this drug benefit under Medicare. The change in their rhetoric is significant. It shows they realize there is a problem and they are willing to work with the Congress on a solution. As I think many of the previous speakers mentioned, we all here have been supportive of the research and development tax credit so the pharmaceutical companies can find these lifesaving medications, but we also feel that there ought to be fair pricing. There will be plenty of time for politics later this year. I am not interested in playing politics with this issue, and I do not think the 15 million seniors who do not have prescription drug benefits want to play politics, either. I am looking for solutions. Let us end this price discrimination. Let us provide universal prescription drug coverage for seniors. People like Juanita Johns in my district and people all over the country are counting on us. I again thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant to vote for this bill--but I will. I am reluctant because this is not the best time for this bill, and this is not the best bill for the job. It's not the right time because under the Budget Act, a tax bill like this--or a spending bill, for that matter--should not be considered at all until after Congress has passed an overall budget resolution to establish priorities among revenue measures and appropriations bills. That is the rule, because that is the prudent way to set our fiscal policy. I agree with the Concord Coalition that we should follow that rule, which is why I voted against the Republican leadership's motion to waive that rule so this bill could be taken up today. And this 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 are the reasons for my reluctance to vote for this bill. They are strong reasons--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. This is the start, not the end of the process-- and I will reluctantly vote for the bill because I favor eliminating the marriage penalty and having the House pass this bill is the only way we can try to do that this year. Under the Constitution, all tax bills must start here, in the House. And during the course of today's debate it's become clear that this is the only tax bill dealing with the marriage penalty that the Republican leadership will allow the House to consider this year. For them, it's their way or no way. But that's not the end of the story, fortunately. From here the bill must go to the other body, where it can be improved, and any final bill must go to the President for signature or veto. So, because I do think the marriage penalty should be ended, I will vote for this flawed and unsatisfactory bill in order to send it to the other body. I hope that there it will be improved. If it is changed, it will have to come back to us here in the House. If that happens, and it is improved to the point that it merits becoming law--meaning that it will deserve the President's signature--I will vote for it again, without reluctance. If it is changed but falls short of being appropriate for signature into law, I will not support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Erin Breeze, one of my constituents from Nederland, Colorado who was one of twelve Americans selected as an inaugural George J. Mitchell Scholar. Erin was selected from more than 250 applicants in a nationwide competition to pursue one year of post-graduate study at a university in Ireland or Northern Ireland. The scholarship is named in honor of former Senator George Mitchell's contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process and is awarded to individuals who have shown academic distinction, commitment to service and potential for leadership. Indeed, Erin has rose to the occasion. Erin will graduate in May with a degree in International Affairs from the University of Colorado. She is a Dean's Scholar, recipient of a service learning scholarship and member of numerous honor societies. Erin spent a year as a volunteer for AmeriCorps, where she completed 1800 hours of service in the areas of education, environment, and public safety. While tutoring first and second grade students in San Diego, CA, Erin also assisted the school district in assessing the needs and conditions of primary and secondary schools. Additionally, after becoming a certified wildland firefighter, she helped develop a community education project with the Flagstaff Fire Department in Flagstaff, AZ and provided disaster relief to residents in Lama, NM following a forest fire. As an intern for the Youth Volunteer Corps in Santa Rosa, CA, Erin designed an educational seminar to teach seventh grade students about the subject of child labor. She then led a group of students through the organization and completion of a school supplies drive for their peers in the Philippines. Recently, Erin returned from Geneva, Switzerland where she was an intern at the International Peace Bureau and The Hague Appeal for Peace. As a George J. Mitchell Scholar, Erin will be enrolled at the University of Limerick for a master's degree in Peace and Development Studies. Her long-term goal is to pursue a career in which she can facilitate collaborative approaches to peacebuilding. Mr. Speaker, for the past year we have heard so much about how our young people are being led astray and turning to violence. However, from my visits with young people in my district, I have seen how they are showing great promise for our nation's future. Erin Breeze is one of those promising individuals who is making a difference both in her local community and the global community. Because of her unswerving dedication and talent, I have no doubt that Erin will be a future world leader for peace.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about our former colleague and ranking Science Committee member George Brown, Jr. His death earlier this year deprived this Congress and this country of a great champion of science and technology. While I worked with him for only a brief time, I felt as though I had known him for years because he had been a colleague and friend of my father and because his reputation was so well known. George Brown was a man of courage and vision and ideological consistency. In his 34 years of distinguished service in the House, he worked to advance energy and resource conservation, sustainable agriculture, advanced technology development, space exploration, international scientific cooperation, and the integration of technology in education. He summed it up best himself in a New York Times article earlier this year: ``I've thought that science could be the basis for a better world, and that's what I've been trying to do all these years.'' I join my colleagues in expressing my sorrow at George Brown's untimely passing. I was privileged to have known him.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Small Business Telecommuting Act, a bill designed to raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers and to encourage employers to offer telecommuting options to their employees. In many areas of this country urban sprawl and traffic congestion are growing at alarming rates. Telecommuting surely is part of the answer to reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Mr. Speaker, telecommuting has many positive bi-products to which I would like to draw my colleagues' attention. Traffic congestion: telecommuting could reduce peak commuter traffic, thereby reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Family wellness: telecommuting benefits the health of our communities by giving workers more time to spend with their families. Employee productivity: studies have shown that telecommuting increases both employee productivity and morale, which in turn helps the business bottom line. This legislation will direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to conduct a pilot program to raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers. Telecommuting is quickly becoming a standard business practice. High-tech industries have employed telecommuting with great success for many years. In addition, the Federal Government has embraced telecommuting as well. This legislation will encourage and aid our nation's small business owners to embrace telecommuting. Telecommuting in the small business community is a critically important tool, because it would allow small employers to retain valued employees with irreplaceable skills and institutional memory when their lives no longer allow them to be in the office daily. Mr. Speaker, all around us we see remarkable strides being made in the use of technology to improve our quality of life and allow us to work more efficiently. I believe the Small Business Telecommuting Act will allow our nation's small business owners to also reap the benefits of these technological strides.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, together with my colleague and cousin, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, I am introducing a bill to encourage greater cooperation between the public--especially young people--and the federal government to enhance the stewardship of the natural and cultural resources of the federal lands and the recreational, educational, and other experiences they provide for so many people. The bill is called the Stewardship Education, Recreation, and Volunteers for the Environment Act--the ``SERVE Act'' for short. Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects the joint effort of my office and that of my cousin and colleague, Mr. Udall of New Mexico. It is truly a Udall-Udall bill, and it's only at my cousin's suggestion that my name is listed first--for once, I decided to accept one of his ideas. Mr. Speaker, the lands that belong to the American people--the National Parks, national forests, wildlife refuges, recreation areas, and the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management--are enjoyed by literally millions upon million of visitors each year. People visit them for sightseeing, wildlife watching, hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping opportunities. In Colorado alone visitors can experience a wide range of outdoor recreation and education opportunities. From the isolated tundra and towering peaks of Rocky Mountain National Park to the city-surrounded greenery of the Two Ponds National Wildlife Refuge, to the sparkling mesas and sandstone arches of BLM lands on the western slope and all the wonderful areas in between, we are blessed with an incomparable heritage that we gladly share with people from across the country and around the world. But the visitors often don't realize how much they owe to the efforts of the many volunteers who have selflessly given their time and expertise to help the professional personnel of the land-managing agencies. Without the hard work, dedication and enthusiasm of these volunteers, it would be impossible for the Federal agencies to come as close as they do to meet the demands for adequate maintenance and sound management of these lands. We think it's in the national interest to properly recognize their contributions, and our bill is intended to do that. It's also intended to provide greater authority for the land-managing agencies to cooperate with volunteers, and to encourage those agencies to reach out to young people to help them learn about the resources and values of the federal lands as well as about the importance of proper stewardship of those resources and values and the opportunities for careers with agencies concerned with the management of natural or cultural resources. There were some efforts along these lines in the past. Some of the land-managing agencies have been given authority to recruit and recognize individuals who donated their energy, time and expertise to enhance our federal and public lands for all Americans to enjoy. However, there is more that can and should be done. Our bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to establish a national stewardship award program to recognize and honor individuals, organizations and communities who have distinguished themselves by volunteering their time, energy and commitment to enhancing the Nation's parks, forest refuges and other public lands. As a minimum, the program would include a system of special passes for free admission to and use of federal lands that would be awarded to recognize volunteers for their contributions. The bill would also encourage an attitude of stewardship and responsibility towards public lands by promoting the participation of individuals, organizations and communities in developing and fostering a conservation ethic towards the lands, facilities and the natural and cultural resources. Specifically, it calls on the Federal land managing agencies to enter into cooperative agreement with academic institutions, State or local government agencies or any partnership organization. In addition, the Secretaries would be enabled to provide matching funds to match non-Federal funds, services or materials donated under the cooperative agreement. Further, the bill encourages each Federal land management agency to cooperate with States, local school districts and other entities to (1) promote participation by students and other young people in volunteer programs of the Federal land management agencies, (2) promote a greater understanding of our Nation's natural and cultural resources, and (3) to provide information and assistance to other agencies and organizations concerned with the wise use and management of our Nation's natural and cultural resources. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity to extend my own appreciation to the federal land managing agencies and the many volunteers who assist them. The point of this bill is to extend that recognition on a formal and national basis, and to build on the sound foundation that they have laid. I hope we can send it to the President for signing into law soon after we reconvene next year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, for the past decade, the Center for Human Rights Advocacy (CHRA), a public interest law firm based in my congressional district, has been monitoring and analyzing social, economic, political, and ethnic problems and anti-Semitic activities in Russia and the former Soviet Union. The organization's President and Chief Counsel, Mr. William Cohen, is frequently called upon in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom to provide expert information and testimony pertaining to human rights and anti-Semitism in Russia and the former Soviet Union. Mr. Cohen also serves on the board of the executive committee of the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews. The primary focus of Mr. Cohen's advocacy ``is to make sure the doors remain open for Jews and all persecuted minorities.'' His recent report, ``The Escalation of Anti-Semitic Violence in Russia,'' demonstrates the level of danger facing Russian Jews in light of the increased frequency of anti-Semitic activity. The report documents the chronology of the latest anti-Semitic events in Russia and the former Soviet Union. Much of this information has never been reported in the media. Mr. Cohen has gleaned most of this information from clients seeking asylum or refugee status. Following is the summary of Mr. Cohen's report. I urge my colleagues to contact my office or the Center for Human Rights Advocacy in Boulder, Colorado, for a copy of the full report.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why I voted the way I did on this bill. First, I had very serious concerns about the way in which this bill came before the House. It was a far-reaching measure, rolling into one oversize pile not just five appropriations bills but also several important authorization bills. It was filed in the early hours of this morning. I am confident that very few if any Members were able to read it all. Yet that is how it was, and we had to vote it up or down, with only limited time for debate and no chance to change it. This is not the way we should do our work. While we are already more than two weeks late, today we passed yet another continuing resolution to keep the agencies covered by this bill operating. So we had some time--and we should have taken the time to do things the right way. However, the majority's leadership decided to reject that more orderly way of proceeding. We had to choose a simple yes or no. And, after careful consideration, I decided to vote against this bill. This was not an easy decision. In reaching it, I was conscious of many good things that were in the five appropriations bills and the other measures that were rolled into this one large, indigestible lump. The bill has many provisions that are good for the country--and, in fact, some of particular benefit for Colorado as a whole and my own district in particular. Many of them were things that I have sought to have included. For example, under the bill the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will receive an appropriation of $2.3 billion, up 8% from last year and nearly 20% more than in the House- passed bill. This is something that I worked to achieve, and something I strongly support. Further, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is funded at $639 million, which is about 1.3% less than in fiscal 1999 but an increase of 46% above the amount in the House-passed bill. This includes funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which has been zeroed out in the House-passed bill. These appropriations are very important. Their inclusion is something I worked to achieve and I would have liked to have been able to support them. I also would have liked to have been able to support the amounts the bill provides for the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service. Again, I have been working to provide these agencies the resources they need to properly manage our federal lands and to help in the crucial job of protecting our open spaces against growth and sprawl. And I very much would have liked to have been able to vote for the bill's funding for education and its provisions to improve health care for seniors and other Americans. Nothing is more important for our society, and nothing is more important for me. And the bill includes other good things as well. However, on balance, I decided that the bill's virtues were outweighed by its faults. They were outweighed by the fact that the bill includes an arbitrary reduction across many departments and agencies which is not only totally unnecessary but also very unbalanced--even unfair--in the way it's structured. It isn't really across-the-board: for example, in the defense department it will not apply to protected pork-barrel items and thus will fall on operations and maintenance that are really the key to our national security. And, apparently just to make it even worse, it does not apply to Congressional pay, so that come the first of the year we will get a cost-of-living increase--something that I voted against-- without any reduction. That was something I could not support. The bill's virtues were also outweighed by the way it offends against fiscal candor and public accountability. It is loaded with accounting gimmicks and transparent fictions--things like calling the constitutionally-required census an ``emergency,'' delaying some payments so they will technically fall into the next fiscal year, and directions to use the most convenient estimates of costs. The effect of these gimmicks and ruses is to pretend that more than $30 billion that's in the bill isn't really there. ``Peekaboo'' is something that's fun to play with toddlers, but I don't think we should be trying to pull it on the taxpayers. So, as I said, Mr. Speaker, my decision was not an easy one. But I think it was the right one. I hope that next year the choice will be different. I hope that the House will do its work the way it should be done, on time and in keeping with the best principles of fiscal responsibility and public accountability. Let us learn, and let us change.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on November 4th, I was unavoidably detained from casting rollcall vote 569. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 569.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was curious what the objection was to increasing local control as my amendment intends to do.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If I might, I would point out that the amendment would allow that to occur, those kinds of collaborative efforts could continue to take place, but they just would not require as the bill now does that 20 percent of those dollars would have to go to those kinds of collaborations. It would give the commissioners, the school boards, the option of doing those kinds of projects but also if they felt their schools needed all of those resources, that they could be applied in that fiscal year to those resources, and the next year they might put them into a bike path project or into ecotourism or whatever the opportunity might be.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I believe that we are all working toward the same goal. My amendment would not serve as a decoupling mechanism. In fact, I think we still have more work to do in that particular way. I would again just emphasize that I think we are trying to reach the same outcomes. My amendment would make sure that local communities have the ultimate say in how those moneys are used year to year, and they could take part in the kinds of projects my good colleague and friend from Oregon suggests, but it just would not require that they take part in those projects.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I want to respond to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). I want to be frank and up front with my comments on the rule about where I stood on the legislation itself. I think, again, we are all striving to find a way to provide consistent and steady funding for school districts, particularly in rural areas. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the gentleman in attempts to make sure that we do that as soon as possible, frankly. As far as my amendment being a poison pill, the gentleman may wish to characterize it that way, but I think it is offered in a spirit of local control and the principle that if an area wants to spend the money on the projects that are suggested, it can. However, it is not required to. I do not think in my opinion that that should be enough to kill what is an important effort, and a sincere effort on your parts, to meet the needs of these rural areas.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I wanted to just for the record clarify that my amendment would not prevent these kinds of local projects that the gentleman mentioned and that have great success in some areas. You draw attention to the Quincy Library model. What it would require, it would not prevent a county from deciding to undertake these kinds of projects. It just would not require that a county would have to spend up to 20 percent of the monies allocated on these kinds of projects.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Again, the law as it is now written and as I read it, it would be a mandate that these local communities would have to spend 20 percent, no less, on these kinds of projects. I would also submit that a number of the national environmental groups very much want to find a solution to this situation, where timber receipts are tied to school funding, but they are not necessarily driven by a fear of additional Quincy Library groups.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?