Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California, for yielding. Madam Chairman, I want to point out again that the amendment would only give the local entities the option. It would not require them to involve themselves in the kinds of I think very effective local decision-making processes that the gentleman talks about.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the projects of which the gentleman speaks, if they are that high a priority, we ought to be looking at other ways of supporting them, as well. I would remind the gentleman, in the bill there is talk of all kinds of other kinds of projects on Federal lands, bike paths, ecotourism. We should see we do that in the future.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I would like to point out that I think we should delink trees and schools, but I want to make sure all of the body understands that my amendment does not go that far. It just says when the money is delivered to the county's doorstep that the counties and those elected officials and those decisionmakers decide how it is spent; that there is no requirement that 20 percent be used on projects on Federal lands. It is about local control. It is about making sure that the people on the ground make the decisions about whether that money is used for schools or for roads or for a Quincy Library effort.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, as I begin, I wanted to acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). I think we all share the same goal, which is to provide the secure and steady and consistent funding for that important resource known as our public schools. And in that spirit, I believe that the amendment that I offer is a simple one but an important one. It would give local discretion on the use of the payments that would go to local governments under the bill. As I said earlier, the amendment would not make the bill perfect. In fact, I do not believe it would make the bill acceptable so far as I am concerned, because it does not break the link between Federal assistance and timber harvests. But the amendment would at least mean that a county would not be forced to spend 20 percent of its payment for doing things that otherwise would be funded under the budgets of the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. That is what the bill as it stands now would do. It says that if a county gets more than $100,000 under the bill, that 20 percent of the total payment would have to be used for public land projects. But suppose that a county had other priorities. Suppose that the school board and county commissioners had reviewed their needs and decided that they wanted to spend all of the payments on schools and roads. Remember, under current law that is where the money would go. But under this bill, the answer would be, too bad. The bill says that Congress does not want them to have that choice. My amendment would provide that discretion. It would allow a local government to use up to 20 percent of its payment for work on the Federal lands, but it would not require it. It would let the local officials decide for themselves. I think that is the right thing to do, regardless of how much money might be involved. But this is not a matter of theory, Madam Chairman. We could be talking about some substantial sums, especially for some of our rural counties. Let me give my colleagues an example. Based on Forest Service estimates from 1998 payment levels, under the bill one county in my district, Clear Creek County, stands to lose its discretion over $100,000. In a rural county like Clear Creek, that is real money. As I look at other counties in Colorado, they might be in the same boat. In fact, 22 counties would have less to spend on roads and schools under this bill than under current law according to the same Forest Service estimates based on 1998 payments. I will not list them all, but I will mention that this bill's Federal mandate would override local discretion over more than $22,000 in Park County; $27,000 in Gunnison County; and more than $53,000 in Mesa County. And the bill would impose its Federal mandate on Grand County to the tune of $336,000. Those other three counties I just mentioned are not in my district; but even if they were, I do not think their commissioners would agree if I said the Federal Government knew better about how they should spend their money than they do. In fact, I do not think that they should have to make that choice, which is why my amendment would let them decide how to spend those funds regardless of how much money is involved. Madam Chairman, I think there are many serious questions about this whole idea of getting local governments into the business of paying for projects on Federal lands. But my amendment does not deal with those questions. It is much more limited. In fact, it seems to me that the bill's supporters should welcome this amendment. After all, the bill is called the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act of 1999; and this is a self-determination amendment, pure and simple. Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. I would again mention that I think it is not the dollars we are talking about; it is the principle of local control.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I support the rule because it appropriately allows the House to consider amendments, including one that I will offer and I will describe in a moment. But I believe the bill is another story. I cannot support the bill in its present form because it is not addressing the real problem with the current law that links Federal assistance for schools and roads to the size of the annual timber harvest on Federal lands. The real problem, if you look at it, is the link itself. This link needs to be broken, but this bill does not do that. I strongly support Federal assistance to education. The need for this assistance is particularly important in areas that are undergoing economic or other stress. In Colorado, for example, the stress that we feel at this point is because of our rapid growth and urban sprawl. In other areas it has other causes, including changes in local economies that have depended on timber harvests. But I think the Congress should provide assistance in ways that are most efficient and will have the fewest of side effects. In other words, if we are going to assist schools or provide help to local governments with funds for schools or fire fighting or whatever needs they may have, we should do so directly in a way as simple as possible to administer and in proportion to the needs. The current law that links payments to timber harvests does not meet those tests of directness, simplicity, and proportionality. So we need to break the link, in other words, to decouple payments as some have described it. We should also break the link because it would free the captives, those captives at the local areas. Local schools, roads or other vital functions of government should no longer be held financial hostage to the very contentious issues that surround the management of our forests. School boards and county commissioners should not be forced to argue that it is necessary to cut more trees in order to repair roofs or keep the roads plowed. I do not mean to say that local officials do not have a legitimate interest in the management of our forests or that they should not speak out about them. I do mean that they and everyone else should be free to debate those issues on the basis of what is best for the lands themselves and for our society as a whole and not in terms of the financial needs of our schools or other institutions. But this bill does not only break the link; it not only does not free the captives. I believe it would make things worse for these local people. The bill would impose a new Federal mandate on the very communities for whom this Federal assistance is most important. It says, for example, that if the local government gets more than $100,000 under the bill, 20 percent of the total payment must be set aside and used for projects on the Federal lands. To put it another way, the bill says that the hostages will have to help pay for things that otherwise would be funded from the budgets of the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. Some of those things could be good things, like repairing trails or removing old logging roads that cause erosion. But suppose the local government has other priorities? What if they would rather spend all their Federal payment on schools or roads, rather than helping the Forest Service or BLM. Then what? Under current law it is their choice. They have that option. Under the bill, the way it is written, they would not. I think that is just flat wrong. So at an appropriate time I will offer an amendment that will return discretion to the local governments. My amendment would allow any local government to spend 20 percent of its Federal payment on Federal land projects, but it would not require that those monies are spent on Federal land projects. Under my amendment, a local government could decide to use all this year's payment for schools and roads and then, next year, perhaps apply some of those monies to these Federal land projects. But in the end it would remove this potential Federal mandate and restore local discretion. My amendment would not cure all the problems with the bill. I think the bill is fundamentally flawed because it does not break this link between Federal assistance and timber receipts. So, to be straight with this body, even if my amendment is adopted, I cannot support the bill. At least my amendment would mean that this bill, which is entitled the Community Self-Determination Act, would come a little closer to living up to its name.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the High Performance Schools Act of 1999, a bill intended to help school districts build schools that provide better learning environments for children, while also saving on energy costs and protecting the environment. I am pleased that my colleague George Miller is joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill. Many of you know about my interest in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. These technologies further our national goals of broad-based economic growth, environmental protection, national security, and economic competitiveness. In recent years, we've seen a wide array of successes in developing these technologies. In particular, much research has focused on improving energy efficiency and increasing the use of renewable energy in building in a ``whole building'' approach to design and construction. By incorporating advanced energy efficiency technologies, daylighting, and renewable energy, ``whole buildings'' provide benefits in the way of energy savings, environmental protection, and economic efficiency. As buildings account for roughly a third of our annual energy consumption and a commensurate share of greenhouse gas emissions, this research focus seems well justified. The bill I am introducing today--the ``High Performance Schools Act of 1999''--takes the concept of ``whole buildings'' and puts it into the context of our schools. My bill would establish a program in the Department of Education to help school districts produce ``high performance'' school buildings. It would provide block grants to state offices to education and energy, via state Governors, that they would then provide to school districts for building design and technical assistance. These grants would be available to school districts that are faced with rising elementary and secondary school enrollments, that can't afford to make major investments in construction or renovation, and that commit to work with the state agencies to produce school facilities that incorporate a ``high performance'' building approach. The time is ripe for improving the way we build our schools. This country is currently experiencing a dramatic increase in student enrollment due to the ``baby boom echo.'' the children of the baby boom generation. During the 20 years from 1989 to 2009, this Nation is being asked to educate an additional 8.3 million children. At the same time, over 70 percent of our Nation's schools were built before 1960 and are now in need of major repairs. Visiting schools in the 2nd Congressional District in Colorado, I have seen firsthand the spaces in which our children are learning and growing. Many districts can't afford sorely needed remodeling or construction of new schools, while others are scrambling to address severe overcrowding issues. and we aren't alone: School enrollment in Colorado increased by 70,000 students in the last five years. While new schools open at or above capacity, enrollment is projected to grow in Colorado by 120,000 in the next decade. Clearly, there's an urgent need for school construction--in Colorado and in very state across the country. Thousands of communities nationwide red even now in the process of building new schools and renovating existing ones. But in drawing up construction plans, schools often focus on short-term construction costs instead of long-term, life-cycle savings. My bill would help ensure that school districts have the tools and assistance they need to make good building decisions. High performance schools are a win for energy savings and a win for the environment, but best of all, they are also a win for student performance. A growing number of studies link student achievement and behavior to the physical building conditions. A study from Mississippi State University, for example, showed that in schools in North Carolina, Texas and Nevada, variables such as natural light and climate control played a role in improved test scores, higher moral and fewer discipline problems. We wouldn't dream of just putting typewriters in these new schools-- we would install today's computer technology, Nor should we build yesterday's ``energy inefficient,'' non-sustainable, and less effective schools. Our kids are our country's future, and they should have the best school facilities, especially if they will cost less and benefit us all in other ways. In short, we have an enormous opportunity to build a new generation of sustainable schools, schools that incorporate the best of today's designs and technologies and as a result provide better learning environments for our children, cost less to operate, and help protect our local and global environment. The High Performance Schools Act would start us on the road to achieving these goals. I look forward to working with Mr. Miller and other Members of the House to move forward with this important initiative.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on October 21st, I was unavoidably detained from casting rollcall votes 522, 523, 524, and 525. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 522, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 523, ``no'' on rollcall vote 524, and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 525.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, funding for the Interior Department and the Forest Service and the other agencies and programs covered by this appropriations bill is very important for our Nation and especially for the West, which is my area of the country. So I regret that I cannot support this conference report. There are many problems with the report, but they can be summed up pretty easily. It does not do enough of the right things, and it does too many bad things. It does not do enough to respond to the urgent need for protecting open space threatened by growth, sprawl and development. It does not do enough to properly manage our Federal lands and the fish, wildlife, and ecosystems that they support. It does not do enough to meet our national responsibilities to our Native Americans. It does not do enough to support arts and arts education. And it does not do enough to help us make progress in making more efficient use of our valuable energy supplies. But in other areas, it does too much. It does too much to revise certain parts of the mining law of 1872 through the appropriations process. Instead of letting the Mill site issue be considered in the context of other aspects of that 125-year-old law, including the question of whether the taxpayers get a fair return for mineral development on our and their public lands. It does too much to block efforts to reform the accounting methods to determine how taxpayers and our public schools will share in the proceeds from oil and gas taken from Federal lands, and it does too much to legislatively interfere with sound and orderly management of Federal natural resources and the protection of the environment. It would undermine the established processes for a rising national forest plan, for managing the public lands managed by the BLM and for protecting the peace and quiet of the national parks. It would unduly restrict our efforts to work with other countries, to work on the problems of global warming and climate change and would weaken our commitment to those communities that want to work hard to make sure that the natural, environmental, and cultural resources found along America's heritage rivers are preserved. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and the other House conferees. I recognize there are important and good things in this bill but, on balance, it falls short and so I cannot support it. Interior Bill--Objectionable Riders 1. oil valuation moratorium Conference Agreement: Continues the moratorium for an additional 6 months while GAO studies the regulations proposed by the Department. This would be the fourth moratorium on these regulations. As requested by the Congressional supporters of the moratorium, the Minerals Management Service has conducted extensive outreach to the industry during the prior moratoria. 2. mining waste Conference Agreement: Prevents the Department from implementing for many mining operations a provision of the Mining Law of 1872 that limits the mine operator to one 5 acre millsite per mining claim. Millsites are typically used to dump mine waste. 3. hardrock mining surface management Conference Agreement: Imposes a one year moratorium on issuance of regulations to improve environmental compliance in the operation of hardrock mines. Requires that the 2001 budget include legislative, regulatory and funding proposals to implement recent recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences concerning surface management of hardrock mines. 4. everglades Conference Agreement: Makes the FY 2000 grant to Florida for land acquisition in support of Everglades restoration contingent on a binding agreement between the Federal Government, the State and the South Florida Water Management District providing an assured supply of water to the natural system of the Everglades and water supply systems for urban and agricultural users. 5. wildlife surveys Conference Agreement: Gives the Forest Service and BLM discretionary authority to conduct wildlife surveys before offering timber sales. 6. mark twain Conference Agreement: Suspends for one year the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to segregate or withdraw land in the Mark Twain National forest from hardrock mining. Also prohibits issuance of permits for hardrock mineral exploration in the Forest for one year. Funds a study to assess the impact of lead and zinc mining in the Forest. 7. grizzly bear reintroduction Conference Agreement: Prohibits reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Selway-Bitteroot Mountains in Idaho and Montana during FY 2000. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been working for several years on an innovative, collaborative process with local stakeholders. 8. grazing Conference Agreement: For FY 2000, automatically renews expiring grazing permits for which NEPA has not been completed for new 10 year terms. 9. interior columbia river basin Conference Agreement: Requires publication of a report describing goods and services in the 144 million acre Interior Columbia River Basin prior to the release of the final environmental impact statement on the Administration's effort to develop a coordinated strategy for management of Federal lands in eastern Washington and Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana. 10. american heritage rivers Conference Agreement: Prevents agencies and offices funded in the bill from using funds to support the American Heritage Rivers program administered through the Executive Office of the President and the Council on Environmental Quality. 11. BIA/IHS Contracting Moratorium Conference Agreement: Continues the 1999 moratorium on tribes assuming additional duties through new or expanded P.L. 93-638 contracts, grants and self-governance compacts. The continued moratorium applies only to contracting and compacting by BIA and HIS and exempts two programs: education construction and IHS programs to Alaska Tribes. 12. NPS/Grand Canyon Noise Conference Agreement: Prohibits the Department from spending funds to implement sound thresholds or standards in the Grand Canyon until 90 days after the NPS provides a report to Congress.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma, in offering this motion to instruct conferees, talked about some of the international programs that will be covered by the conference report. However, reading the Coburn motion, I note that it also would instruct conferees to ``reduce nonessential spending in programs within the departments of Commerce'' as well as other Departments. Unfortunately, it does not indicate what programs might be meant. In considering the motion, I must wonder whether it is aimed at making even further cuts in funding for NOAA's research programs, such as those carried out in its own labs or through cooperation with the University of Colorado and other universities. Because it's impossible to say whether NOAA is outside the scope of the motion, I cannot support the motion. Similarly, I have to wonder whether the motion is intended to instruct the conferees to make further cuts in funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Is funding for NIST something that the gentleman from Oklahoma thinks is not essential? Again, it's impossible to tell, so once again I cannot support the motion. And what about the Justice Department and the Judiciary? What funding for law enforcement and the courts does my colleague think is not essential? I think that having that kind of information would make it easier to decide about this motion to instruct the conferees--and, yet again, without that kind of information, I cannot support this motion to instruct the conferees. So, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure to protect not only the animals involved in federal law enforcement, but also the people and institutions these animals serve. Under this bill, individuals who commit or attempt to commit malicious acts on federal law enforcement animals will face jail sentences of one to ten years depending on the gravity of the act. This important legislation will send a message to any potential offenders that our police dogs and horses are valued for the law enforcement functions they serve, and any offenses against these animals will have serious consequences. This is a modest step, but an important one and I urge its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the memory of Matthew Shepard. One year ago, this 21-year-old college student died in a hospital bed in Fort Collins, Colorado, the victim of a brutal and senseless act of hate. I don't think anyone will ever forget the imagery of him being pistol-whipped, beaten, robbed, tied to a rough-hewn fence and left for dead on a cold October morning outside of Laramie, WY. And all of this because he was gay. It is ironic that his life would be taken in such a violent way, considering the fact that Matthew wanted to dedicate his life to creating a world of peace and promoting human rights. He did not die in vain. His death shook us by our shoulders and forced us to deal with the issue of hate crimes and come to grips with the hate that brews in so many people's hearts. A crime motivated by hate is more than just another crime committed against an individual--it is intended to put fear into a whole community whether it is the African-American, Asian, Latino, disabled, gay and lesbian or senior communities. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Every person is entitled to respect and human dignity, and no person should live in fear for being who they are. Our nation is strong because of our diversity, not in spite of it. We must speak with one voice to erase violence and hate from our communities and from our hearts. And we must pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This piece of legislation may not end all hate violence, but it will send a strong message that this Congress will not tolerate hate crimes, and that people who commit such acts will be met with swift and equal justice. And it will renew our commitment to creating an America where there is ``liberty and justice for all.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2990 and in favor of the Norwood-Dingell Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act. At some time in their lives, all Americans will be faced with making tough choices about medical care for themselves or their families. At these times, the last thing anyone wants to think about is whether their health plan will pay for what's necessary. H.R. 2723 is a bipartisan solution to many of the problems Americans face with their health plans. The bill creates new federal standards and requirements on all health insurance plans and would cover 161 million Americans, much more than what is covered in the Senate bill. I believe H.R. 2723 would protect the doctor-patient reationship. It provides a point of service option if the enrollee otherwise does not have access to non-network alternatives. It provides access to emergency room care, specialists, and clinical trials. It gives women their choices of OB/GYN specialists without referrals from a primary care provider. It allows parents to choose a pediatrician as their child's primary care physician. It provides for continuity of care in cases where a provider or insurer is terminated by a plan. And finally, it will give consumers uniform grievance and appeals procedures, including the right to sue, if their health plan makes a decision that puts them in harms way. In short, this legislation will help restore the doctor-patient relationship, give Americans better access to care, greater consumer information, and better protections and benefits. On top of all this, it protects employers by exempting them from legal action if they are not involved in a claim decision. H.R. 2723 is good legislation. It is good for Americans, and it is good for the future health of our country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and congratulate one of my constituents, Rodney Hero. Mr. Hero is a Professor at the University of Colorado, who was recently presented with the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award for his book, `Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics'. This distinguished annual award honors the author of the premier book published in the United States regarding government, politics or international affairs. Presented by the American Political Science Association, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award is one of the most prestigious awards in political science scholarship. In his award-winning book, Professor Hero offers a unique social diversity theory regarding race and ethnicity in American politics. He argues that race and ethnicity significantly affect politics in all the states, not just the states with a high minority population. Professor Hero's social diversity theory challenges a 35-year-old theory regarding politics in our states. Mr. Speaker, later this week, I will be visiting with Professor Hero and his introduction to American Politics class. I look forward to the opportunity to join the Professor and his class for a spirited discussion on the issues facing our nation. I would like to thank Rodney Hero for the contribution he has made to the world of academia. His contribution truly exemplifies the academic commitment of Colorado's universities and colleges.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct conferees, and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. By adopting this motion, the House will be giving its conferees a simple instruction--to do the right thing. It is the right thing to reject the attempt of the other body to use the appropriations process to rewrite the mining laws in a piecemeal and unbalanced way, for the special benefit of certain interests. We do need to revise the 1872 mining law. But we shouldn't do it in a backdoor way that addresses only one aspect of the law and not the larger issues, including the basic question of whether the American people are receiving an adequate return for the development of minerals from our public lands. It is also the right thing to adequately support the arts and humanities that are so important to the cultural life of our nation. And it definitely is the right thing to reject attempts to use the appropriations process to undermine the protection of our environment. So, I urge the adoption of this motion to instruct the conferees.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I think this resolution is accurate but misleading. The resolution says it's the desire of the House not to rely on funds from the Social Security trust fund for extraneous purposes, and to continue to retire the publicly held federal debt. I think that's accurate, because that is the desire--at least the professed desire--of all or nearly all Members. Certainly it expresses my preference. However, it is misleading because it suggests that the House can escape arithmetic--and we can't. According to the Congressional Budget Office, some of all of the funds in question will end up being used for purposes other than those cited in this resolution. That's not all bad, in my opinion. Congress should respond to true emergencies, such as those experienced by the victims of hurricanes and floods, and to other crisis situations at home and abroad. But we should not try to mislead people about what is involved. We should be straightforward about our arithmetic, and not resort to phony bookkeeping devices such as pretending that the constitutionally required census is an unforeseen emergency. We also should be candid about the fact that all these estimates of future surpluses or deficits depend on assumptions, including assumptions about the realism and desirability of the funding levels set in the 1997 budget agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution because I agree that bolstering Social Security and reducing the federal debts should be our top priorities. But I hope none of the resolution's supporters want to mislead people about what actually has been occurring this year in terms of the tax bill and the appropriations bills. We need to be straight with the American people.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution On May 5, the United Nations and the Indonesian government signed an agreement to allow an independence referendum in the territory of East Timor. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called the signing ``an historic moment.'' As part of the agreement, the Indonesian government promised to maintain order and security during and after the August 30 vote. Nearly five months later, it is clear that the Indonesian government did not fulfill its end of the bargain. In addition, the government-sponsored military has been a willing participant in the carnage that has torn apart the East Timorese capital and that threatens to destabilize this country of 200 million. In the days after the referendum, thousands of East Timorese were driven from their homes and untold numbers were killed. I am hopeful that the recent arrival of the Australian-led multinational peacekeeping mission will bring a measure of peace to the region. But the continuing support of the Indonesian government for the peacekeeping mission is crucial. President Habibie said himself last week that ``we must honor and accept'' the choice of the people of East Timor to become independent. In voting to support a multinational peacekeeping force in East Timor, we are sending a strong message that we endorse this view and that we won't ignore the democratically expressed wishes of the East Timorese people. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report. This is an important bill for our country. It is especially important for Colorado because it provides the funding for continuing work on the critical task of cleaning up Rocky Flats, the former atomic-weapons facility. Rocky Flats sits near the heart of the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area, which is home to more than two million people. It has extensive amounts of hazardous materials. For all Coloradans it's a matter of highest priority to have Rocky Flats cleaned up efficiently, safely, and promptly. In 1997, DOE designated Rocky Flats as a pilot site for accelerated cleanup and closure, and is working to finish cleaning it up in time for closure in 2006. I strongly support this effort, as does the entire Colorado delegation here in the House and in the other body as well. So, I am very glad that the conference report maintains the needed funding for the Rocky Flats closure fund. I want to thank Chairmen Packard and Young, Ranking members Visclosky and Obey, and the other conferees for their leadership and for recognizing the importance of this undertaking for Colorado and the nation. I am particularly pleased that the conference report says in the future DOE should request adequate funds to keep Rocky Flats and the other closure projects on a schedule for closure by 2006 or earlier. I also appreciate the inclusion in this conference report of $24.5 million for the work of DOE's Office of Worker and Community Transition. While this is less than was the Senate's bill, it is more than in the original bill passed by the House earlier this year. The activities of this office, which implements the so-called ``3161'' program, are essential if we are to truly keep faith with the Cold-war warriors who have worked at Rocky Flats and at the other sites in DOE's nuclear-weapons complex. In addition, funding through this office is very important to assist the local communities as they work to adjust to ongoing changes now underway at Rocky Flats and those that will come after cleanup and closure are achieved. I do regret that the conference report does not include more funding for solar and renewable energy programs. I think this is a serious shortcoming in this measure--and, if it were not for the other important programs such as those I have mentioned, I would oppose the conference report because of this defect. However, I will continue to work to provide more funds for these important purposes in the future.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. It is a measure of great importance to Colorado. The Black Canyon National Monument is one of our State's treasures. Its establishment was a wise act of President Hoover that demonstrated the importance and value of the Antiquities Act. I am glad that we are moving today to build on that foundation by redesignating it as a National Park. I am also very pleased that the bill includes designation of wilderness for nearby public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. As I've said before, I think we should make it a priority to act to protect the wilderness values of Colorado's BLM lands, and I hope that the Committee will soon consider further wilderness designations for those lands, such as those proposed by our colleague from the First District, Ms. DeGette. As we considered the bill in the Resources Committee, I did have some concerns about some of its technical details. In particular, I was concerned that there might be some misunderstanding about how the bill would affect the status of water rights now held or claimed by the United States. I had been prepared to seek to amend the bill to clarify that point. However, thanks to the cooperation of the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Hansen, language has been included in the Resources Committee's report on the bill that I think removes any possible misunderstanding. As the report makes clear, section 10 of the bill is intended to assure that the existing water rights of the United States, conditional and absolute, are preserved unimpaired. The report also makes it clear that this bill will neither expand nor diminish the water rights held by the United States for the benefit of the monument and, upon enactment of this legislation, the national park, and that those federal water rights will retain both their priority date and their purposes. In addition, the report explains it is the existence of these federal water rights--and the fact that they will be transferred, unimpaired, to the new Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park--that has led the Committee to conclude that the reservation of new federal water rights is unnecessary to protect the water-related values of the new national park, the new national conservation area, or the new wilderness designations. I greatly appreciate the willingness of Chairman Hansen to work with me to make sure that the legislative history of this bill leaves no doubt about these very important points. I also am very glad that he and the other majority members of the Committee were willing to work with Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mr. Miller, and the rest of us on our side of the aisle to resolve questions about management of off-road vehicle use of some of the lands covered by this bill. The result is that the committee has been able to come to the House with a bill that enjoys broad, bipartisan support. However, Mr. Speaker, there does remain one other matter of great importance to the future of this unit of the National Park System that is not directly addressed in the bill or the committee's report. It involves an imminent threat to the existing Black Canyon National Monument. It centers on a tract of land--about 120 acres--that's a non- federal inholding within the current Monument boundaries. This tract isn't a remote, isolated one. It is just inside the National Monument boundary. The land slopes up and away from the canyon rim. The Monument's Superintendent says it's important for protecting the views from the canyon overlooks--the parts of the Monument that attract the most visitors. What's more, there's a road on the tract--a main road into the Monument, as a matter of fact. And, right now, beside that main Monument road, there's something else, something new. It's a billboard advertising building sites for trophy homes or for a commercial activity like a bed and breakfast. ``For sale,'' the billboard says, ``Beautiful canyon views,'' with ``World-class sunsets'' and ``year-round access on paved road.'' This is not a theory, Mr. Speaker. This is a fact. This is a threat to this park. From talking to other members of our state's delegation, and from listening to what other Coloradans are saying, I am convinced that almost everyone agrees that this threat needs to be averted and that these lands need to be shielded from development. But it seems that there is disagreement about how to achieve that goal. For myself, I think the simplest and best thing to do would be for the United States to acquire full title for that inholding by paying the owner its full fair market value--but nothing more. The National Park Service has told me that they share that view. Toward that end, when the bill was considered by the Committee I sought to amend it to include language that would authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to acquire whatever interests in these 120 acres the Secretary determines desirable in order to protect the resources and values of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. As it happens, that language was not adopted by the Committee, and it is not part of the bill before us today. I still think its inclusion would have made this good bill even better. However, I have agreed to having this bill be considered today under conditions that will preclude any attempt to add such language through an amendment on the House floor. My agreement to this procedure was prompted, first, by the request of other members of our Colorado delegation--particularly Representative McInnis and Senator Campbell--and also by other factors: First, I think this legislation's prompt enactment is highly desirable--and while I don't think adoption of my amendment should slow its progress, I have reluctantly concluded that some of our colleagues in the House, as well as some members of the other body, may not be prepared to give this bill appropriate consideration if it were so amended. Second, even without further legislation the Interior Department already has some authority to respond to this imminent threat to the integrity of the Black Canyon, even though under current law that authority does not include the power to condemn the full fee title to the inholding. And, finally, I have been assured that the National Park Service is moving to respond to the threat. Shortly after the Resources Committee completed its consideration of this bill I wrote to the Secretary of the Interior to urge that prompt action be taken to respond to this threat to the National Monument-- and, in response, I now have been assured that the Interior Department and the National Park Service agree with me about the need to take quick action and that they are initiating such action. For the record, I am including at the end of this statement the letters I have exchanged with the Interior Department and the National Park Service on this subject. As outlined in the letter to me from Denis Galvin (its Acting Director), the National Park Service is taking the necessary steps either to acquire full title to the inholding through an agreement with its owner or, in the alternative, to use its current authority to acquire a conservation easement to prevent incompatible development on the inholding. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the National Park Service will not falter in this effort to protect the Black Canyon of the Gunnison--and I can assure the Service, our colleagues, and the people of Colorado that I am prepared to do all I can toward that same goal. As indicated in my letter to Director Stanton, I will do all I can, whether by way of new legislation or through seeking appropriation of necessary funds. With regard to that question of funding, I recognize some may be concerned about the cost of heading off this threat. I understand that, and appreciate it. After all, we are talking about taxpayers' money. But, Mr. Speaker, I would ask--what is the cost of doing nothing? What would be the cost to the Black Canyon if this land is transformed from open space into buildings? What would be the cost to the experience of visitors if this part of Colorado's countryside becomes yet another tract of trophy homes or commercial developments? I submit that those costs are not only hard to estimate--they are incalculable. I submit those costs would far exceed whatever money may have to come out of the Treasury to prevent that outcome. And, I submit, legislation along the lines of the amendment I proposed in the Committee might well actually reduce the monetary cost to the taxpayers for protecting the Black Canyon. Remember, under current law, the National Park Service can acquire full title to the lands only on whatever terms the owner will accept. Under my amendment, if there were an impasse over the fair market value of that full title, court would decide just what that value is, meaning how much the taxpayers are required to pay. Without that kind of new authority, according to the letter to me from the Acting Director, the National Park Service likely would be required to pay about 90 percent of the same fair market value for a conservation easement that would prevent incompatible development but would leave an inholding to which there would be no established right of public access or use. I don't find that fully satisfactory for anyone--especially for the taxpayers--even though it would be better than allowing the development of these lands. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I think this bill would have been improved if the Committee had adopted my amendment it remains a good and important measure that deserves the approval of the House, and I urge its passage. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, August 12, 1999. Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Babbitt: I am writing to urge you to act to avert a serious threat to the integrity of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument. As you know, Congress is currently considering legislation to elevate this monument to the status of a national park. On July 21, the House Resources Committee considered a bill (S. 323) to do that. I support this change in status, have been working to resolve some technical questions, and have voted to favorably report the bill to the full House. Just before the Committee's consideration of the bill, it was learned that a tract of about 120 acres within the present boundaries of the monument has been acquired by a developer and is now being offered for sale for residential or commercial development. This property is bisected by a main road into the Monument and is in close proximity to the canyon rim. If houses or other structures were to be developed on these parcels, it would seriously affect the visual and environmental integrity of this National Park System unit and would seriously diminish the experience of visitors to this strikingly beautiful canyon. In response, I sought to offer an amendment to authorize and direct you, as Secretary of the Interior, to acquire any and all interests in these lands that you might determine should be acquired in order to protect the resources and values of the Black Canyon. As you know, under current law, the United States can acquire full title to these lands only with the agreement of the landowner, although lesser interests can be acquired in the absence of such agreement. In other words, full title can be acquired only upon the terms set by the developer. My amendment would have provided the National Park Service with full authority to acquire any and all interests in the land-- for fair market value but not for whatever extortionate price might be demanded. While the Committee did not adopt this amendment, I stand ready to take further steps to protect the Black Canyon as may be appropriate. However, the bill has not yet reached the floor and, as you know, the House now has adjourned until September. Under these circumstances, I think it is imperative for you to act promptly to address this serious situation, using authority currently available to the Department of the Interior if possible or by indicating what additional authority is required or would be desirable. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison is one of the Colorado's crown jewels, and a national treasure as well. I feel sure you share my view that its protection is a matter of highest priority, and I look forward to your response to this urgent request. Sincerely, Mark Udall.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2392, the Small Business Innovation Research Program Authorization of 1999 and urge its adoption. The SBIR program was established by the Small Business Innovation Development Act in 1982, based on a successful pilot program at the National Science Foundation. Today's vote takes us one step closer to extending this valuable program for another 7 years. Mr. Speaker, Colorado is home to many cutting-edge small businesses. As creative as these companies are, they often struggle to come up with the funds necessary to refine their ideas, turn them into products, and to take those products to the commercial marketplace. Along the Front Range of Colorado we have experienced tremendous growth in high-tech businesses during the last decade. I feel that the tremendous high-tech growth we have enjoyed can be directly traced to the hundreds of SBIR recipients working in our region. The Small Business Innovation Research Program has filled a real need for these companies over the years. 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. We have made some improvements in the bill as introduced which are supported by the National Venture Capital Association. Venture capitalists have told us that they look at the quality of the management team as much or more than the quality of the product to be commercialized when funding a start-up company. They feel there is much more to commercial success than a great idea. This is why H.R. 2392 asks each Phase II applicant to submit a commercialization plan to show that in addition to thinking through what it will take to achieve technological success, each Phase II awardee is planning for commercial success as well. If the company plans to license a successful technology, the plan will need to describe how it plans to locate the licensee and get the technology to the point where it meets the licensee's needs. If the company plans to do its own manufacturing, the plan should describe the steps the company will take to acquire manufacturing expertise. These plans are not meant to be long, exhaustive, or burdensome to the companies. Rather, they are just meant to show that commercialization is being taken seriously and that there is a good chance the product developed under SBIR will penetrate intended markets. Of course, if the problem being addressed is unique to the government, the company's commercialization plan should be geared to penetrating the federal procurement system or otherwise meeting the needs of the government customer. Madam Speaker, the SBIR program simply seeks to level the playing field for small businesses. Small businesses might not have the colossal R&D departments that some larger businesses have, but they do have the colossal ideas. SBIR makes sure those ideas are looked at and funded. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on extending this important program.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, when the Resources Committee held a hearing on this bill earlier this year, I found it a very troubling measure--one that I could not then support. However, because the Committee made significant revisions in the bill, I joined in voting to send it forward for consideration and further refinement by the House. Shortly, we will consider an amendment to further clarify the bill's very limited scope. I will support that amendment, and, if it is adopted, I then will support the bill for two reasons--because of what the bill as so amended will do, and because of what it will not do. What it will do is highlight the value of public input about managing public lands--lands that belong to all the American people. It will do that by urging the President, so far as practicable, to seek public participation and comment and to consult with relevant Governors and Members of Congress about possible actions under the Antiquities Act. It also will call on those involved with such possible actions to consider relevant information, including previous public comments about the management of the lands involved. These are very modest provisions, but I think they are worthwhile. Even more important is what the bill will not do. It will not weaken the Antiquities Act, and it will not diminish the ability of the President to act quickly when that's required to protect vulnerable resources and values of the public lands. Mr. Chairman, the Antiquities Act is a very important law that has proved its value over the years. Since its enactment, almost every President--starting with Theodore Roosevelt--has used it to set aside some of the most special parts of our public lands as an enduring legacy for future generations. In some instances, those Presidential actions have been controversial when they were done. But they have stood the test of time. In my own State of Colorado, we are very proud of the special places that have been set aside. We do not want to abolish the Colorado National Monument, as established by President Taft and enlarged and revised by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower. We do not want to weaken the protection of Dinosaur National Monument, as established by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge. We highly prize the archeological and other values of Yucca House, protected by President Wilson, just as we do those of Hovenweep, a National Monument set aside by President Harding and enlarged by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower. And we are very protective of two more of our brightest gems--the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, first proclaimed by Herbert Hoover, then enlarged by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, which also was established by President Hoover. Coloradans do not want to lose those National Monuments--we know their value. That's why the Colorado delegation has taken the lead to further expand the Black Canyon monument and to redesignate it as a National Park--something I strongly support. In Colorado, we know the value of the Antiquities Act, and we know why it should remain available to future Presidents. If the amendment I mentioned is adopted--as I hope and expect--this bill would not deprive future Presidents of this important tool. Also, if amended as I expect, the bill would still let a future President act quickly--another reason I can then support it. So long as the mining laws allow anyone to stake a claim on public lands that aren't withdrawn, a President needs to be able to swiftly withdraw special areas before a speculative land rush could make it harder-- maybe impossible--to give needed protection to threatened resources. And, frankly, sometimes a future President may need to use the Antiquities Act on short notice to make sure that Congressional deadlocks don't endanger priceless parts of the public lands. That was why President Carter invoked the act when a filibuster threat by one member of the other body stalled passage of an Alaska lands bill shortly before the expiration of the statutory withdrawal of vulnerable areas in that state. Thanks in large part to that timely use of the Antiquities Act, those areas now include important National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges as well as outstanding units of our National Wilderness Preservation System, all established by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--that is, by Congressional action that built on and revised what the President had done. In fact, Mr. Chairman, that's really the bottom line here--the Antiquities Act lets the President act, but what a President does Congress can undo. For example, by actions of Congress the Mount of the Holy Cross, that famous landmark near Minturn, Colorado, is no longer a national monument--instead now it is protected as part of the Holy Cross Wilderness within the White River National Forest. As that and other examples show, if we in the Congress disagree with a President's decision to use the Antiquities Act, we can reverse or modify anything that the President has done through that authority-- provided that our own preferences have enough support for them to be enacted into law. That's balanced and fair--and that would not be changed by this bill if it's amended as I expect. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment I mentioned--and, if that amendment is adopted, and if the bill is not further amended in a way that would throw it out of balance, I think the bill should be passed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) because, like him, I want the conferees on the Juvenile Justice legislation to omit any provisions that would be contrary to the Constitution. However, I do not think that the Constitution prohibits carefully-drawn, measured provisions dealing with access to firearms by minors and criminals or with firearm safety. In particular, I agree with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that there is no constitutional impediment to the kind of provisions specified in her motion to instruct, which is why I also will vote for that motion.