Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the Defense authorization bill when it was debated earlier here in the House. I did that for a number of reasons, and especially because it provided for better compensation and benefits for the men and women of our armed services. However, I have serious concerns about a number of changes that were made to the bill in the conference committee. In particular, I am concerned about Title 32, which would reorganize the Department of Energy. I am attaching letters on this subject from Secretary Richardson and from Colorado's Attorney General, Ken Salazar. The Secretary is concerned about the potential effect of this part of the conference report on the environment at and around DOE facilities across the country--a serious concern, and one I share. But Attorney General Salazar's concern is even more pressing for those of us from Colorado, because it relates directly to the Rocky Flats site. As his letter says, our Attorney General is ``concerned that the pending legislation would delay the closure of Rocky Flats and substantially drive up cleanup costs.'' I take that very seriously, because I think keeping Rocky Flats on tract for cleanup and closure at the earliest practicable date is a matter of highest priority for our State. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Title 32 of the conference report is completely new. It was not part of the bill that was considered by the House. Under these circumstances, even though others may not fully share the Attorney General's concerns on this point--or the even more far-reaching concerns of Secretary Richardson--I think that the most prudent thing for us to do is to take longer to review these reorganization proposals. Accordingly, I will vote for the motion to recommit the conference report and, if that motion does not succeed, I will vote against the conference report. State of Colorado, Department of Law, Office of the Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, September 3, 1999. Re Preserving Colorado's Authority Over Cleanup of Rocky Flats. Hon. Mark Udall, Colorado Congressional Representative, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Udall: I am concerned that pending legislation to reorganize the Department of Energy (DOE) may inadvertently impair state regulatory authority over DOE facilities. The reorganization provisions are in the Department of Defense FY 2000 Authorization bill as reported by the conference committee. I wanted to take a moment to explain how this proposed legislation would specifically affect Rocky Flats. As set forth in a letter from attorneys general of more than forty states and territories, section 3261 could be used by the federal government to try to undermine the broad waivers of sovereign immunity currently in environmental laws, and exempt the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) from state environmental regulations, permits, orders, penalties, agreements, and ``procedural requirements.'' If successful, such arguments would, among other things, partially repeal the Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA), which states fought so hard to pass in 1992. The FFCA clarified the sovereign immunity waiver in the federal hazardous waste law, and ensured that federal agencies engaged in the management of hazardous waste would have to comply with local, state and federal hazardous waste laws in the same manner and to the same extent as private parties. This waiver governs the on-going state regulation of Rocky Flats pursuant to the Colorado Hazardous Waste Act. Rocky Flats is not specifically named as one of the facilities that will be transferred to the NNSA. However, under Sec. 3291(a) of the Act, ``national security functions and activities performed immediately before the date of . . . this Act'' by the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Nonproliferation and National Security, or the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition will be transferred. The terms, ``national security functions and activities'' are not defined in the Act; however, two of these offices are currently conducting activities at Rocky Flats. Therefore, based on our preliminary analysis, it appears that at least portions of the cleanup work would be automatically transferred to NNSA. These activities are not regulated under the state hazardous waste law. In addition, national security functions and activities performed by ``nuclear weapons production facilities'' are also transferred. The definition in Sec. 3281(2)(F) of ``nuclear weapons production facilities'' includes ``[a]ny facility of the Department of Energy that the Secretary of energy, in consultation with the Administrator and the congress, determines to be consistent with the mission of the Administration.''``Mission'' is defined extraordinarily broadly. Similarly, Sec. 3291(b) provides authority to the Secretary of DOE to transfer any ``facility, mission, or function'' that the Secretary, in consultation with Congress, determines to be consistent with the mission. Under these provisions, portions of the Rocky Flats cleanup, or the entire site could be transferred to NNSA jurisdiction through a simple administrative action. Colorado has worked very hard over the years to ensure that it retains authority over the cleanup of Rocky Flats and other federal facilities. The federal government has shown time and again that it is not up to the task of regulating its own facilities. Obviously, the state has a substantial interest in ensuring that Rocky Flats is cleaned up in a manner that will protect the citizens of this state now and for centuries to come. Consequently, we are very concerned about any legislative change that could be construed to limit the regulatory authority we fought so hard to obtain through the Federal Facility compliance Act of 1992. I am also concerned that the pending legislation would delay the closure of Rocky Flats, and substantially drive up cleanup costs. If work, or portions of work, at Rocky Flats are transferred to the NNSA, it will likely cause delays because of the need to coordinate actions between NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management. Coordination will be difficult because of NNSA's orientation toward weapons production and stockpile stewardship, and because of the NNSA's emphasis on secrecy. Delay means significant cost increases. It costs about $1.5 million a day just to keep Rocky Flats open. In addition, DOE facilities that Rocky Flats depends on to close will be transferred to the NNSA. The main one is the Nevada Test Site, where we send low-level waste for disposal. Again, coordination with the NNSA will be a problem. If part or all of Rocky Flats is transferred to the NNSA, delay could also be anticipated as a result of reinvention of security measures. DOE and its current contractors have made considerable progress in reviewing national security interests and tailoring security measures to appropriately address risks actually posed by nuclear materials at the site. This painstaking review has streamlined cleanup efforts by ensuring that precious resources are not wasted in complying with outmoded security measures that were not related to actual risks. Any increased security requirements at Rocky Flats will dramatically increase the time and money it takes to conduct work in the industrialized Area at Rocky Flats. Most environmental cleanup work at Rocky Flats is currently being deferred in favor of deactivating and decommissioning the buildings. Accelerating this ``D&D'' work is vital to minimizing total cleanup costs because of the high cost of maintaining buildings and security. But the result is that environmental contamination cleanup is delayed. Given the significant pressures on DOE's cleanup budget, it will become increasingly difficult to ensure continued funding for these lower-risk, but still very important, activities, especially if we fail to meet our commitment that Rocky Flats will be ``done'' in 2006. For decades, DOE and its predecessors operated the nuclear weapons complex under a cloak of secrecy. The sad consequence of this culture is a $150 billion legacy of environmental contamination and aging facilities that pose risks to workers, the public and the environment. The clear intent of the reorganization provisions is to draw the cloak of secrecy over the operations of the NNSA. While we absolutely must ensure protection of national security, it would be folly to ignore the clear lesson of the past and to extend this cloak to cover DOE's environmental, safety, and health operations. Moreover, there is no threat to national security in retaining external state oversight of environmental, safety, and health operations. As we mentioned in our previous letter, Senator Rudman, in his Congressional testimony and in his Report to the President recommended that responsibilities for environment, health and safety functions remain with the DOE Offices of Environmental Management and Environment, Safety, and Health, and not be transferred to a new security administration. Undoubtedly, this recommendation was based on the Senator's awareness of the unfortunate ``environmental mortgage'' created by years of self- regulation by weapons complex. I understand that it may not be possible to address these problems before the Defense Authorization bill is enacted. If that is the case, and the bill done become law, I urge you to ensure that these concerns are addressed at the earliest possible opportunity. Sincerely, Ken Salazar, Attorney General.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his interest in working on my amendment. I also want to express my thanks to my colleague from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for working with me as well on the amendment. I will be brief. The amendment is quite simple. It restores authorization levels for the Department of Energy solar and renewable energy and energy efficiency research programs to the levels of the fiscal 2000 year request. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have heard me speak about the reasons why we need to invest more in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. They benefit our economy by stimulating private sector activity and adding jobs, they reduce our reliance on imported oil, and they have a positive impact on air and water quality. I want to just provide a few examples for the record of what these increased levels will accomplish: $10 million will go into research on photovoltaic energy systems. While sales of PVs are at a billion dollar level this year, these systems cannot reach their true potential until we learn how to reduce their cost and increase their efficiency. Another $10 million will go to wind energy systems. These systems again have dropped in price by about 80 percent, but we still have another 40 to 50 percent to go before wind energy can compete economically with other forms of energy. We forecast in the long run over 100,000 megawatts created through this source alone. $17 million of the increase goes to biopower and biofuels. The additional research will permit restoration of projects dealing with co-firing with coal and modular systems development. And finally, almost $40 million will be put back into the program for next-generation vehicles. This program is showing major potential in increasing auto fuel efficiency while also meeting our stringent environmental requirements. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, this is an area where federal investment can really make an enormous difference. Renewable energy and energy efficiency is all about an investment in our future, the future of our security, protecting our environment and enhancing our competitiveness internationally. The authorization levels in 1655 do not give us sufficient flexibility to utilize the potential benefits these programs can provide. This amendment would give us that flexibility, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from the great State of California, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays-Meehan bill and in opposition to the substitutes. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I urged the House to pass legislation before the race for the year 2000 begins. But if we read the newspaper and watch the news, it is clear that the 2000 year election has already begun. Candidates for president and Congress and Political Action Committees are breaking fund-raising records at phenomenal rates. More and more time is being spent raising money, and this translates into less time being spent doing our duties to support the public and represent our citizens. The high cost of campaigns is unfairly restricting dedicated, qualified people from running for public office, and is putting elected officials in a position of having to choose between spending their time doing their jobs or raising money. Unlimited soft money contributions are continuing to allow special interests to buy political access. Mr. Chairman, this must change. To my colleagues, I say, of all the issues we address this year, none is more important. Let us pass this moderate, reasonable campaign finance reform law now.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 898, I rise in support of this important bill to designate the Spanish Peaks as wilderness. The mountains we call the Spanish Peaks are two volcanic peaks in Las Animas and Huerfano Counties. Their Native American name is Wayatoya. The eastern peak rises to 12,893 feet above sea level, and the summit of the western peak is at 13,626 feet. These two peaks were landmarks for Native Americans and for some of Colorado's other early settlers and for travelers along the trail between Bent's Old Fort on the Arkansas River and Taos, New Mexico. This part of the San Isabel National Forest has outstanding scenic, geologic, and wilderness values, including a spectacular system of more than 250 free-standing dikes and ramps of volcanic materials radiating from the peaks. These lands are striking for their beauty and are also very valuable for wildlife habitat. Since 1977, the Spanish Peaks have been included on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks, and the State of Colorado has designated them as a natural area. The Forest Service first reviewed them for possible wilderness designation as part of its second roadless area review and evaluation and first recommended them for wilderness in 1979. However, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980 instead provided for their continued management as a wilderness study area--a status that was continued on an interim basis by the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993. In short, Mr. Speaker, the Spanish Peaks are a very special part of Colorado. Their inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System has been too long delayed. In fact, I had hoped that designation of this area as wilderness would be completed last year. The House did pass a Spanish Peaks wilderness bill sponsored by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, and Representative McInnis after it was favorably reported by the Resources Committee. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on that measure. So, I am very appreciative of the persistence shown by Representative McInnis as well as the good work of Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Chenoweth, and the leadership of Representative Miller of California and the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Smith. As a new Member of the Committee, I am very glad to have been able to work with them to bring us to where we are today with this bill. This bill does differ from last year's Skaggs-McInnis bill in a few respects, and in particular by the exclusion from wilderness of an old road, known as the Bulls Eye Mine Road, and the inclusion of language related to that road. Because some questions have been raised about the scope and effect of that language, contained in subsection 3(1), I thought it was important to provide a further explanation of how that subsection would or would not affect management of this area. Accordingly, I greatly appreciate the assistance of the gentleman from American Samoa in engaging my colleague from Colorado, Mr. McInnis, in a brief colloquy regarding that part of the bill. This colloquy is an important part of the legislative history of this bill. As was mentioned earlier during debate on this bill, its passage is an appropriate step in recognition of the recent 35th anniversary of the enactment of the Wilderness Act. As a strong supporter of protecting wilderness--and particularly of protecting our wilderness areas in Colorado--I hope that this is only the first of several Colorado wilderness bills that will come before the House in the months ahead. Already, the Resources Committee has approved a bill that, among other things, would designate additional wilderness in the area of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. And currently pending before the Committee are two wilderness bills I have introduced, dealing with the James Peak area and with lands within Rocky Mountain National Park, as well as a very important bill by our colleague Ms. DeGette that breaks important new ground in terms of protecting wilderness areas on public lands in Colorado managed by the Bureau of Land Management. In my opinion, all these measures deserve priority consideration in our Committee and here on the floor of the House. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I again thank both the gentleman from American Samoa and my colleague, Mr. McInnis, for their cooperation, and am glad to join in support of the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Biomass Research and Development Act of 1999, a bill intended to expand research and development programs in the use of biomass--crop residues and other organic sources--in the production of energy, fuels, and other products. I am pleased that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert, and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Minge, are joining me as original cosponsors of this bill. By coordinating research efforts and providing research grants to promote biomass conversion techniques, this bill will accelerate our efforts to explore and develop these technologies and integrate existing biomass R&D efforts. ``Biomass'' encompasses plants, trimmings, and other wastes that can be used to make energy. Increased biomass use has the potential to provide economic, national energy security, environmental and public health benefits, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and creating jobs. Some estimates suggest that if the U.S. were to triple its use of bioenergy and biobased products in the next decade (currently only 3 percent of our energy sources come from biomass), we would generate as much as $20 billion a year in new income for farmers and rural communities. As awareness of these potential benefits has increased, there is growing agreement on the need for cross-cutting and integrated approaches in our efforts to foster the development of the U.S. biomass industry. My bill would help lower the cost of research and development for this industry, encourage the evaluation of new energy crops, and accelerate the development of advanced biomass technologies to produce a variety of energy-related products and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Specifically, the bill would: set up an integrated program of R&D activities related to the conversion of biomass into biobased products; authorize funding for research to evaluate the potential energy, economic, environmental, and social impacts of biobased production systems; authorize an interagency board to promote closer coordination and cooperation among federal agencies' research and development programs and other activities related to biobased products; authorize the creation of an advisory committee to provide input to federal biomass research and development programs from non-governmental groups with expertise and interest in biomass utilization; authorize additional federal resources for competitively-awarded grants, contracts, and other financial assistance--preferably to consortia--for research, development, and demonstration with respect to biobased products. Biomass resources are an important domestic and renewable source of energy. This bill would boost efforts to utilize them to their full potential, ensuring a clean, sustainable, and secure energy supply for our nation's future. I look forward to working with the bill's cosponsors and other Members of the House to move forward with this important initiative.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to register my deep concern about funding levels in this bill. Our colleagues have already spoken about how deficiencies in funding for Housing and Urban Development programs would have a devastating impact on families and communities nationwide. Overall, the cuts represent an estimated 156,000 fewer housing units for low-income families in America at a time when worst-case housing needs are at an all-time high. Colorado's HUD funds would be cut by $16.56 million, and my district in Colorado would see cuts in HUD programs of $2.58 million from this year's levels. There are still so many Americans who aren't benefiting from our country's unprecedented national prosperity. As Secretary Cuomo has said, ``Now is the time to invest in a brighter future for people and places left behind.'' Some of my colleagues are seeking to boost the budgets of housing and veterans programs by taking funds from NASA, NSF, and other worthwhile science programs. I don't think this is the answer. In fact, there is no point in trying to shift funds around when the real problem is a severely underfunded bill. The right way to fix this bill is to start over. There is simply no fat to cut from this bill, especially where NASA is concerned. The cuts made to NASA's budget in the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations bill represent the largest cut to the agency since the end of the Apollo program. Not everything was cut--academic programs, for instance, were increased 6 percent over fiscal year 1999 levels. In particular, the budget for the Space Grant program, which works through the Colorado Space Grant Consortium in my district, was increased to FY99 levels, enabling 15 colleges and universities and thousands of K- 12 students throughout Colorado to continue to work together on the Citizen Explorer Satellite. Overall, however, the bill cuts NASA's funding by $1 billion from this year's levels. Space science programs--which fund the planetary missions, space-based observatories and other spacecraft, as well as research grants to universities and other institutions--have been cut $163 million from this year's levels. These cuts endanger current and future NASA projects like Chandra, which recently sent images of exploding stars and black holes back to earth. Chandra's science instruments and the camera that took these photos are housed in a science instrument module built by Ball Aerospace, based in Boulder, CO. This bill would also cut NASA funding to space and earth science programs at the University of Colorado. Important NASA-funded programs at CU's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, the Center for Astrodynamics Research, and the Center for the Study of Earth from Space, among others, would all see deep cuts under this bill. This bill also cuts funding for the National Science Foundation by $24 million below fiscal year 1999 levels. As the only agency with the responsibility of supporting research and education in all science and engineering disciplines, NSF funds many important programs. NSF funding represents 67 percent of the overall budget of the world-renowned National Center for Atmospheric Research, based in Boulder. At flat funding for fiscal year 2000, NCAR will receive, in real dollars, an approximate 4-percent cut. Over the last few weeks, I have received hundreds of letters and calls from Coloradans in my district expressing concern, shock, even outrage over the cuts to science programs in the VA-HUD bill. Many of these calls and letters are from students, researchers, and employees who would see their work directly affected by cuts in NASA's budget. But many of the letters I have received are from citizens who have no direct interest in NASA's programs. To me, their voices are significant because they point to the fact that science and space are concerns to us all. They understand the importance of continuing our investment in science, technology, research, and learning. NASA tells us that ``it is entirely foreseeable that this budget will cut off opportunities for the engineers, technologists, and earth and space scientists of the future, losing a generation of researchers who would have taken space exploration and development of cutting-edge technologies into the next millennium.'' I think that about sums it up. We're living in a time of prosperity that has been brought on by technological advances, yet we're not willing to fund the very programs that represent the backbone of this growth and that will continue to fuel it. Mr. Chairman, the answer isn't to rearrange funding within this bill to suit our various priorities. The answer is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that makes sense. As it stands, this bill isn't up to the task, and I cannot support it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have thought long and hard about what position to take on the Joint Resolution disapproving Normal Trade Relations with China. While it may be in both our national and global interests to continue to engage China economically, I feel strongly that the United States cannot sit by and ignore the flagrant abuses of human rights that China continues to perpetrate. In good conscience, I cannot support NTR for China. This is a difficult issue for me personally. As someone who has had the opportunity to travel extensively throughout Asia, I feel a deep connection with that part of the world. I have spent time in Tibet, getting to know the people and sharing in their customs and traditions. The Tibetans are a peaceful and spiritual people, undeserving of the abuses they have suffered under the Chinese government. When I climbed Mt. Everest in 1994, our group struggled with which route to take so as not to land on Tibetan territory and thereby give support to the Chinese government. Although we did eventually set foot in Tibet, every individual in our group made a commitment to do what we could in our own lives to show support for the people of Tibet and to protest China's human rights record and occupation of Tibet. It is with this commitment in mind that I support this resolution. The Chinese Government maintains one of the most atrocious human rights records in the world. China continues to wage an all-out war on the people, environment, religion and culture of Tibet. In the 46 years of Chinese occupation, over one million Tibetans have been killed and thousands more unjustly tortured, shot and imprisoned. China has plagued Tibet with extensive deforestation and open dumping of nuclear waste. But the abuses are not only reserved for Tibet. Ten years after the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Chinese Government has still not made good on its commitment to increase social freedom. Just last week, the Chinese Government banned the religious group, Falun Gong, and imprisoned 5,000 people for peacefully exercising their basic human rights. As the leader of the free world, the United States is in a unique position to push for freedom and democracy for the people in the region. We must use this opportunity to make a statement to China that we will not tolerate its blatant disregard for human rights.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Commissioners of Clear Creek County, I am today introducing a bill to amend the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Land Transfer Act of 1993. The bill would amend section 5 of that Act so as to allow Clear Creek County additional time to determine the future disposition of about 6,000 acres of land that was transferred to the county under that section of the 1993 Act. Under the 1993 Act, the county had 10 years within which to resolve questions related to rights-of-way, mining claims, and trespass situations on the lands covered by that section of the Act and then to decide which parcels to transfer and which to retain. Among other things, the county is working with the Colorado Division of Wildlife on a proposal that would result in some 2,000 acres being transferred to the Division of Wildlife for management as Bighorn Sheep habitat. The County Commissioners have informed me that this process has taken longer than they anticipated, and that a 10-year extension of time would be helpful to a successful conclusion to this process. The bill I am introducing today responds to that request.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. The Administration's is engaged in a full court press to ensure that developing countries are part of this global solution and to ensure that international efforts to address climate change are cost effective. The Congress has called on the President to engage developing countries and to protect the economic interests of the United States. Section 620 of the bill apparently would make it difficult--maybe impossible--for our government to advance these foreign policy objectives and interests of the United States. Providing technical assistance to developing countries, sharing the U.S.'s successful experiences with market-based mechanisms and vigorously advancing U.S. business interests does NOT constitute a backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. We should be encouraging the Administration to continue to advance the interests of the U.S. in the on-going international climate change negotiations. But instead, the language now in the bill directs us to put our heads in the sand. That's the wrong message to send, and we should delete it from the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and have many serious concerns about the bill itself. For one thing, as it stands, the bill will hurt, not help, our efforts to make our communities safer and to afford equal justice to all of our citizens. Let me give a few examples. Terminating the COPS program will be bad for communities like those that I represent, where residents are struggling to cope with the increased crime that too often comes with population growth. Secondly, cutting funding for the Legal Services Corporation calls into question our commitment to assuring that lower-income citizens can have access to our courts. Finally, number three, failing to adequately fund the enforcement of our civil rights laws will make it harder to protect the rights of all of our American citizens. The bill is also very bad for small business. In fact, it would cut back the Small Business Administration by forcing the SBA to lay off over 75 percent of its work force. It provides no funding for the new markets initiative, which will promote business investment in underserved areas like our urban centers and our Indian reservations. Just as troubling is the way the bill would affect the Commerce Department's National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, two agencies that have important research facilities in Colorado. The bill does provide for funds for some important NOAA projects, including the hyperaircraft. However, cuts in other NOAA funding are still troublesome, particularly as they affect the oceanic and atmospheric research programs. These programs support vital research, both in NOAA's own labs and through cooperation with universities like the University of Colorado. The bill's cuts in their funding are counterproductive to our efforts to understand and respond to climate change and global warming, and would set back needed progress in the ability of the Weather Service to predict severe events that threaten lives and property, like the destructive tornadoes in the State of Oklahoma this spring. As for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, I asked that agency how the bill would affect them. To sum it up, the effects would be terrible. The bill would delay construction of the Advanced Measurement Laboratory, which is essential to allow NIST to conduct research that is sorely needed by American science and American industry, and would require NIST to continue to cope with deteriorating physical facilities that are a serious impediment to its ability to carry out its mission. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a more detailed explanation of how the bill would affect NIST, which was provided to me at my request. I do not want to read it all, but I will sum it up. In short, the bill threatens to make it impossible for NIST to properly carry out its job of promoting technological progress and helping American industry to compete effectively. These are just a few of the serious problems with the bill, Mr. Speaker, so I cannot support the bill. We can do better. We must do better.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment would cut off funding for the World Heritage Convention and the Man in the Biosphere program. I think this would be a mistake. It could set back important programs for protection of internationally- important cultural, historical, and environmental resources. It's claimed that these programs are a threat to Congress' authority over federal lands, but in fact they don't lessen that authority. They also don't affect any other part of the Constitution, or any private property rights. Let me repeat--these programs don't have an effect on those rights. But the amendment would have an effect. It would undermine America's international leadership in environmental conservation and in the protection of historical and cultural resources. So, I think this amendment is bad for our country--and I know it's bad for Colorado. In Colorado, we have several Biosphere Reserves--areas that are part of the Man in the Biosphere program. One is the Niwot Ridge Research area. Another is Rocky Mountain National Park. This amendment could terminate their participation in the program. Earlier this year, I asked Professor William Bowman, the Director of the University of Colorado's Mountain Research Station, about the significance of Niwot Ridge's participation in the program. He explained that having Niwot Ridge in the Biosphere Reserve System had provided a framework for international cooperation in important research efforts, including work with a Biosphere Reserve in the Czech Republic to address air pollution problems--a matter of great importance to Colorado as well as to the Czechs. He also told me that the Biosphere Reserve program had been helpful to the people at Niwot Ridge as they worked with the Forest Service to develop a land-management plan that would promote multiple use by minimizing conflicts between recreational, scientific, and other uses-- again, a matter of great importance to Colorado and other public land states. I also contacted the National Park Service, to find out what it meant to have Rocky Mountain National Park included as a Biosphere Reserve. They told me that it not only meant more research activities occurred in the park, but also that it meant a significant increase in park visitation--tourism that not only provides important educational benefits for the visitors but also provides important economic benefits to Colorado. So, ending this program would be bad for Colorado, and something that I can't support. I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this opportunity to again express my support for this bill. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for working with me and my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) on our amendment on renewable energy. I am glad that the gentleman has agreed to accept our amendment, and I look forward to discussing it in more detail at the appropriate time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado Mr

Mr. UDALL of Colorado Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by just saying how much I appreciate working with my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), chairman of the House Caucus on Renewable Energy, in developing this amendment. I am also grateful for the support of a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge,) the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and many others who have joined me in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the amendment will be accepted. Of course, I wish we could do more for solar and renewable energy programs. I was initially disturbed by the deep cuts that the committee made to these programs, reducing them from $336 million this fiscal year to $279 million in the fiscal year 2000. Even our Committee on Science voted to fund them at $316 million in fiscal year 2000. The Salmon-Udall amendment would restore $30 million to solar and renewable energy programs, leaving them well short of fiscal 1999 funding levels, and would offset this sum with Department of Energy contractor travel funds. Finding offsets to fund these important renewable programs was not easy in such a lean bill, but we did the best we could. Mr. Chairman, renewable energy is all about investing in America's future, the future of our energy security, our environment, and our international competitiveness. Renewable energy programs allow the U.S. to use its scientific and technological expertise in developing alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass power, and geothermal energy. These diverse energy resources can decrease our ever-growing dependence on imported oil, and reduce environmental impacts of traditional fossil fuels while expanding our economy through technological advances. Some may question the need for the development of these technologies. After all, we are not waiting in gas lines, as we were two decades ago, and gas prices are near record levels. But our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is even greater than it was during the 1973 crisis. Why should we jeopardize our national energy security when we can use home-grown clean energy to reduce our reliance on oil imports and diversify our energy sources? The DOE's renewable energy programs are a major component of this country's environmental initiatives. By reducing air pollution and other environmental impacts from energy production and use, these programs constitute, as my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) mentioned, the single largest and most effective Federal pollution prevention program. Past Federal support for sustainable energy programs has been key to the rapid growth of these emerging technologies. Solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass have together more than tripled their contribution to the Nation's energy mix over the past 20 years. Including hydropower, renewables now account for about 10 percent of total domestic energy production and approximately 13 percent of domestic electricity generation. It is estimated that the world market for energy supply equipment and construction over the next 30 years is in the range of several hundred billion dollars. America currently leads the world in developing advanced renewable instruments and products, and we should not surrender this lead to foreign competitors. Yet, funding levels in the bill are not up to the task. For example, this bill would allocate just $67 million for photovoltaic research. This low funding would jeopardize U.S. technological development, industry growth and momentum, at a time when Japan is spending more than $230 million each year on its own PV program. Renewable energy technologies have become increasingly cost competitive, but the pace of their penetration into the market will be determined largely by government support for future research and development. We need to support public-private partnerships that help promote further commercialization of these technologies. If we look back into history, we did the same thing 100 years ago at Petrochemicals, and that is why we have that strong industry in the fossil fuel area. To conclude, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy's renewable energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests. They help provide strategies and tools to address the national security, environmental, and technological challenges we will face in the next century. Our investments in the past 2 decades are just beginning to pay off in terms of energy security and a cleaner environment. Even if we were to just keep these programs at fiscal 1999 levels, this might not be sufficient to ensure that we will have uninterrupted reliable sources of energy in the future. Our amendment does not do all that should be done; but it does greatly improve the bill, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time to me. I rise in support of the rule and in general support of this bill. This is an important bill for our country. It is especially important for Colorado, as well, because it provides the funding for continuing work on the critical task of cleaning up Rocky Flats, the former atomic weapons facility. The flats sits near the heart of the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area, which is home to more than 2 million people. It has extensive amounts of hazardous materials. For all Coloradans it is a matter of highest priority to have Rocky Flats cleaned up efficiently, safely, and promptly. In 1997, the DOE designated the Rocky Flats site as a pilot for accelerated clean-up and closure, and is working to finish cleaning it up in time for closure in the year 2006. I strongly support this effort, as does the entire Colorado delegation here in the House and the other body as well. So I am very glad the bill includes the amount requested in the President's budget for the Rocky Flats closure fund. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), and the ranking members, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their leadership and for recognizing the importance of this undertaking for Colorado and our Nation. I also appreciate the inclusion in this bill of funds for the work of the DOE's Office of Worker and Community Transition. The activities of this office, which implements the so-called 3161 program, are essential if we are truly to keep faith with the Cold War warriors who worked at Rocky Flats and at the other sites in the 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 clean-up and closure are achieved. For example, a number of these communities have joined together to form the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments. This organization, working with other communities and groups, can play a vital role in building consensus about the future uses of both the open space buffer zone and the more intensively developed industrial zone, as well. So I regret that the bill does not provide all the funds requested by the President for worker and community transition purposes. However, I do understand the tighter constraints under which the Committee on Appropriations has had to work, and I hope that as we proceed with the legislative process, it will be possible to increase that amount to a level more adequate to the program's important purposes. However, I am very concerned about the language in the committee report suggesting that the DOE ``should prepare for significantly decreased or no funding in fiscal year 2001 for implementing these 3161 programs.'' Terminating or even deeply reducing this fund next year would not be wise or appropriate. It would be a serious breach of faith with our Cold War veterans, and would make it that much harder for local communities to adequately respond to the changed circumstances at Rocky Flats and elsewhere throughout the complex of DOE sites. So I urge the committee to rethink this point, and to refrain from such an approach when it develops next year's bill. In addition, there are a couple of areas where I think the bill needs improvement. For example, there are provisions related to wetlands that I think should not be included. I think the bill would be better if it did not include language that could make it harder for us to take action to deal with problems associated with climate change and global warming. I also have some concerns about the bill's provisions as they could affect the Western Power Administration and related entities. In my view, though, the most troublesome aspect of the bill is the inadequate funding it would provide for the DOE's very important programs related to solar and renewable energy, both here at home and internationally, as well. Working with others on both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and I have been working hard to improve this part of the bill to make it even more balanced and a better measure. I will have more to say regarding the solar and renewable energy programs, but for now let me reiterate my appreciation for the hard work of the Members and staff of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the entire Committee on Appropriations. I urge support for the rule.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall 323, I was engaged in a meeting with a colleague regarding legislation affecting Colorado, and did not hear the bells in time to be recorded. Had I been able to respond in time, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I rise as a Westerner, and I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment is about balanced forest management. This amendment is about putting back in the money the administration requested to manage our watersheds and increase the protection of our fisheries. If we do that, if we manage our watersheds, we are going to have more trees in the long-run, healthier forests, and we are going to help those rural economies. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) have brought an important amendment. I urge its adoption. This is a good amendment. This helps our western and eastern forests.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, over the next 2 days we Members of Congress will have the opportunity to hear from a bright and dedicated group of high school students from the State of Colorado. These students are Members of an organization called SAFE Colorado, or Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic. This group formed in the aftermath of the Columbine High School tragedy, and they are here in Washington, D.C., to encourage Congress to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles and criminals. While these SAFE students are here, I urge that all Members listen to what they have to say. I have visited numerous high schools in my district, and what I have learned is that these young women and men know their schools better than anyone else in their communities and certainly better than any of us here in the Congress. We can all learn from their experience and advice. Additionally, these young men and women do not care about politics or posturing. Instead, they care about whether they are going to be safe in their schools. As a father of two children in the public schools, I understand their concerns. The tragedy at Columbine High School has deepened my commitment to measures to make our communities safer and our schools safer. Gun laws are not the only answer, but I think they are a crucial part of the equation. I hope the House will have the wisdom to listen to these students and pass sensible gun safety measures that our colleagues in the Senate have already endorsed. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to these brave and conscientious young people from Colorado. I wish them a safe trip, and I wish them success in convincing the Congress to act to curtail gun violence in America today. The vast majority of Coloradans and Americans support sensible gun safety laws and so should we.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it is July. Half a year is gone. Next week we will go home to tell our constituents what the House has accomplished. What will we say? If we are candid, we will have to say, not enough. We have not acted to protect patients' rights. We have not acted to reform campaign finance. We have not acted to help communities respond to growth and sprawl. We have not even done an easy thing like renewing the research and development tax credit. It expired last night. We need to do better. In fact, we need to make the credit permanent and broaden it. A temporary credit like the one that expired last night is a less effective credit because researchers cannot count on it. Making it permanent would end this uncertainty. A broader credit would benefit small businesses and high-tech entrepreneurial start-ups. Under the law that just expired, these firms did not benefit. We should go further and use the credit to promote collaboration between the Federal Government, the private sector and universities like the University of Colorado in my district. Half the year is gone, but half remains. We need to stop wasting time and missing deadlines. Let us pass this tax credit as soon as possible.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House of Representatives had the opportunity to pass sensible gun safety laws to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles and criminals, and to make our communities safer--but we didn't. When we debated the bill, I supported the McCarthy amendment because it contained common sense proposals that would have closed the gun show loophole, banned large capacity ammunition clips and required child safety locks on newly purchased handguns. After that amendment was defeated, I voted against the final version of the gun bill because its background check provision would have given criminals the opportunity to buy guns at gun shows and it would have weakened our current background check laws. The final House bill would have made it easier for a criminal to purchase handguns, and that was unacceptable. As I have gone door-to-door talking with people and visiting schools in my district, there is no doubt that people overwhelmingly support common sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids and criminals. My constituents don't care about politics. They care about whether their children are going to be safe when they are at school. And as a father of two children in public schools, I understand their concerns. Those concerns were eloquently expressed in a letter I received from Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was one of the students murdered at Columbine High School. I am attaching his letter to this statement, and I urge all Members of the House--particularly the leadership of the Judiciary Committee--to review it carefully as we move toward a conference with the Senate on the Juvenile Justice legislation. Dear Representatives Hefley, McInnis, Schaffer and Udall: I am Tom Mauser, father of Columbine High School victim Daniel Mauser. While I do not live in your district, as an advocate for common sense gun laws I have heard from people from all over Colorado through a web site I've set up in honor of my son (www.danielmauser.com). These people have expressed fear about the safety of their children. Many believe in common sense gun laws, and though they don't speak with the intensity of NRA members, I think their voices should also be heard. I urge you to pass the Juvenile Justice bill now before the House with the gun control amendments as passed by the Senate intact. Please don't water them down, don't create more loopholes, and don't approve poison pills that would deter passage. There are those who think I am singularly focused on gun control. No, in ALL of my public appearances I have clearly stated that there are many factors that are responsible for the tragedy at Columbine and other schools (lack of parental oversight, lack of value placed on human life, violence in the media, etc.) However, addressing these cultural factors will take time. Most must be addressed by families and communities, not Congress. One of the only major things Congress can do is to tighten loopholes and reduce children's access to guns. So the question is, will you show leadership to address this one action you can take? Or will you pretend that the status quo is okay? I urge you once again to pass the Juvenile Justice bill with the gun control amendments passed by the Senate. If you are unwilling to do so, I ask you to ponder these questions: What useful purpose is there for the semi-automatic weapons like the one used to kill my son? Why do we need imported gun clips holding more than ten bullets, like the one used to kill my son? How many more school shootings or how many more gun deaths would there have to be before you would put aside concerns about `bureaucratic burdens on gun owners' and vote against the NRA and for common sense gun laws? How many??? On my son's web site I will place your voting record on this issue. Just as the NRA pressures you and holds you accountable, so too will I. In just 12 days since it began, the web site has had well over 5,000 hits, and I expect more as time goes on. I hope you will honor Coloradans and our God by doing the RIGHT thing. I encourage you to visit my son's web site (www.danielmauser.com) so you'll be reminded of the human costs of these tragic shootings. I welcome your response to this letter, as would the thousands of Coloradans logging on to the web site. Sincerely, Tom Mauser.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the James Peak Wilderness Act of 1999. This legislation will provide important protection and management for some striking mountain open space along Colorado's Continental Divide west of Denver. These lands, which include the 13,294-foot James Peak, are the heart of the largest unprotected roadless area on the northern Front Range. The James Peak area that will be protected by my bill offers outstanding recreational opportunities for hiking, skiing, fishing, and backpacking, including the popular South Boulder Creek trail and along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. James Peak is one of the highest rated areas for biological diversity on the entire Arapaho National Forest, including unique habitat for wildlife, miles of riparian corridors, stands of old growth forests, and threatened and endangered species. The area includes a dozen spectacularly situated alpine lakes, including Forest Lakes, Arapaho Lakes, and Heart Lake. Many sensitive species such as wolverine, lynx, and pine marten only thrive in wilderness settings. Adding James Peak to the chain of protected lands (wilderness and National Park lands) from Berthoud Pass to the Wyoming State line will promote movement of these species and improve their chances for survival. My bill will designate 22,000-acres of the James Peak roadless area as wilderness. This area will be added to the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993--the last major wilderness legislation passed for federal public lands in Colorado. Last year, my predecessor, Congressman David Skaggs, introduced a similar bill that would have protected 15,850- acres of the James Peak roadless area as wilderness. The increase in my bill is due to the inclusion of lands with Grand County that were excluded from the Skaggs bill. These acres were included to preserve the integrity of the James Peak area and protect important lands within this roadless area in Grand County. My bill also does not include 7 small wilderness additions that were in Skaggs' bill. I am evaluating these lands for a possible future bill. My bill also includes provisions encouraging the Forest Service to acquire two in holdings within the proposed wilderness in Grand County. These lands are a section of State Land Board Land and a private mining claim. My bill will also address the need to provide facilities at the Alice Township and St. Mary's Glacier. This area is experiencing increasing use as a forest access point, and there is a need to supply adequate services for visitors in this area. My bill will also direct the Forest Service to remove an abandoned radio tower facility on Mt. Eva near James Peak. As my bill will be an addition to the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993, the James Peak Wilderness will be subject to the water provisions of that Act thus avoiding potential conflicts related to water. In addition, James Peak is a headwaters area, so there will be no conflicts with existing water rights. As wilderness, the James Peak area also will be subject to the Wilderness Act of 1964. Under this Act, activities such as hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, rafting, canoeing, cross-country skiing and scientific research are allowed. In addition, use of wheelchairs, treatment of diseases and insects, fire suppression activities and research and rescue activities will be allowed. Activities that would be excluded include motorized vehicle use, mining, timber harvesting, oil and gas drilling, road building and the use of motorized and mechanized equipment. In addition, my bill has been drafted in such a way as to avoid conflicts and to address concerns that were expressed during the development of Representative Skaggs' bill. Specifically, my bill addresses the following issues: Private Lands. My bill is drawn to avoid potential conflicts with private interests by excluding private lands and facilities. Recreation: My bill does not include the Rollins Pass road between the James Peak roadless area and the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness Area to the north. This road is used for recreational access for mountain bikers and snowmobiles. In addition, areas along the proposed western boundary within Grand County have been excluded from my bill to address recreational access to area and trails used by mountain bikers and snowmobiles. These areas include the Jim Creek drainage and the area south of the Rollins Pass road on the Grand County side. Search and Rescue. As already provided by the Wilderness Act, activities related to the health and safety of persons within the area will be allowed, including the need to use mechanized equipment to perform search and rescue activities. Timer and minerals. About one-third of the area is timbered--or 8,300-acres--and one-third of this is old growth. Steep slopes and lack of road make the area's timber uneconomic to harvest. The area has low mineral potential. Grazing. The area contains only one active grazing allotment with a yearly stocking level of 60 cows and calves. Under the Wilderness Act grazing can continue.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act of 1999. This legislation will provide important protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country, adding nearly 250,000 acres in the park to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill is essentially identical to one my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, introduced in October of last year, which in turn was based on similar measures he had proposed in the 103rd and 104th Congresses. It also reflects previous proposals by former Senator Bill Armstrong and others. I am grateful to have the opportunity to press forward in the effort to complete the work they began. Over the last several years my predecessor worked with the National Park Service and others to refine the boundaries of the areas proposed for wilderness designation and consulted closely with many interested parties in Colorado, including local officials and both the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the St. Vrain & Left Hand Ditch Water Conservancy District. These consultations provided the basis for many of his bill's provisions, particularly regarding the status of existing water facilities, and I have drawn on them in shaping the bill I am introducing today. Covering 94 percent of the park, the new wilderness will include Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of Rocky Mountain National Park are included in this wilderness designation. The features of these lands and waters that make Rocky Mountain National park a true gem in our national parks system also make it an outstanding wilderness candidate. The wilderness boundaries are carefully located to assure continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas; privately owned land, and areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park management and visitor services. In addition, specific provisions are included to assure that there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities. This bill is based on National Park Service recommendations, prepared 25 years ago and presented to Congress by President Nixon. It seems to me that, in that time, there has been sufficient study, consideration, and refinement of those recommendations so that Congress can proceed with this legislation. I believe that this bill constitutes a fair and complete proposal, sufficiently providing for the legitimate needs of the public at large and all interested groups, and deserves to be enacted in this form. It took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass the most recent bill to designate additional wilderness in our state's national forests. We now must take up the urgent question of wilderness designations of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain National Park that are dealt with in this bill. All Coloradans know that the question of possible impacts on water rights can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. So, it's very important to understand that the question of water rights for Rocky Mountain National Park wilderness is entirely different from many considered before, and is far simpler. To begin with, it has long been recognized under the laws of the United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national park itself. Division One of the Colorado Water Court, which has jurisdiction over the portion of the park that is east of the continental divide, has already decided how extensive the water rights are in its portion of the park. In December, 1993, the court ruled that the park has reserved rights to all water within the park that was unappropriated at the time the park was created. As a result of this decision, in the eastern half of the park there literally is no more water for either the park or anybody else to claim. This is not, so far as I have been able to find out, a controversial decision, because there is a widespread consensus that there should be no new water projects developed within Rocky Mountain National Park. And, since the park sits astride the continental divide, there's no higher land around from which streams flow into the park, so there is no possibility of any upstream diversions. As for the western side of the park, the water court has not yet ruled on the extent of the park's existing water rights there, although it has affirmed that the park does have such rights. With all other rights to water arising in the park and flowing west already claimed, as a practical matter under Colorado water law, this wilderness designation will not restrict any new water claims. And it's important to emphasize that any wilderness water rights amount only to guarantees that water will continue to flow through and out of the park as it always has. This preserves the natural environment of the park, but it doesn't affect downstream water use. Once water leaves the park, it will continue to be available for diversion and use under Colorado law regardless of whether or not lands within the park are designated as wilderness. These legal and practical realities are reflected in my bill--as in my predecessor's--by inclusion of a finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation. Some may ask, why should we designate wilderness in a national park? Isn't park protection the same as wilderness, or at least as good? The answer is that the wilderness designation will give an important additional level of protection to most of the park. Our national park system was created, in part, to recognize and preserve prime examples of outstanding landscape. At Rocky Mountain National Park in particular, good Park Service management over the past 83 years has kept most of the park in a natural condition. And all the lands that are covered by this bill are currently being managed, in essence, to protect their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, but will make it clear that within the designated areas there will never be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that interfere with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the mountains. This kind of protection is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As surrounding land development and alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's landscape. Further, Rocky Mountain National Park's popularity demands definitive and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for development within the park. While only about one tenth the size of Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain sees nearly the same number of visitors each year as does our first national park. At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue improvements to park roads and visitor facilities. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill will protect some of our nation's finest wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any existing opportunity for new water development. And it will affirm our commitment in Colorado to preserving the very features that make our State such a remarkable place to live. Thus, the bill deserves prompt enactment. I am attaching a fact sheet giving more details about the bill: Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act 1. Rocky Mountain National Park Rocky Mountain National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks, possesses some of the most pristine and striking alpine ecosystems and natural landscapes in the continental United States. This park straddles the Continental Divide along Colorado's northern Front Range. It contains high altitude lakes, herds of bighorn sheep and elk, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra, old-growth forests and thundering rivers. It also contains Longs Peak, one of Colorado's 54 fourteen thousand- foot peaks. 2. Congressman Udall's Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Proposal Former Congressman David Skaggs from the Second District had been working for years to designate certain areas within the Park as wilderness. Congressman Skaggs introduced a bill last year, and this proposal by Congressman Udall is essentially identical. The Udall proposal would designate nearly 250,000 acres within Rocky Mountain National Park, or about 94 percent of the Park, as wilderness, including Longs Peak--the areas included are based on the recommendations prepared over 24 years ago by President Nixon with some revisions in boundaries to reflect acquisitions and other changes since that recommendation was submitted; designate about 1,000 acres as wilderness when non-conforming structures are removed; and add non-federal inholdings within the wilderness boundaries to the wilderness if they are acquired by the United States. The Udall proposal would NOT create a new federal reserved water right; instead, it includes a finding that the Park's existing federal reserved water rights, as decided by the Colorado courts, are sufficient, nor include certain lands in the Park as wilderness, including Trail Ridge and other roads used for motorized travel, water storage and conveyance structures, buildings, developed areas of the Park, and private inholdings. 3. Existing Water Facilities Boundaries for the wilderness areas are drawn to exclude: existing storage and conveyance structures, thereby assuring continued use of the Grand River Ditch and its right-of-way; the east and west portals of the Adams Tunnel and gauging stations of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project; Long Draw Reservoir; and lands owned by the St. Vrain & Left Hand Water Conservancy District, including Copeland Reservoir. The bill includes provisions to make clear that its enactment will not impose new restrictions on already allowed activities for the operation, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction of the Adams Tunnel, which diverts water under Rocky Mountain National Park (including lands that would be designated by the bill), or other Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities. Additional activities for these purposes will be allowed, subject to reasonable restrictions, should they be necessary to respond to emergencies.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Rocky Flats Open Space Act. This legislation will preserve important open space and wildlife resources of this former nuclear weapons production facility in the heart of a major metropolitan area. The Rocky Flats facility sits on land purchased by the federal government in the early 1950s for the production of nuclear weapons components. Since 1992, Rocky Flats' mission has changed from production of nuclear weapons components to managing wastes and materials and, cleaning up and converting the site to beneficial uses in a manner that is safe, environmentally and socially responsible, physically secure, and cost-effective. The land at Rocky Flats is generally divided into a buffer zone of about 6,000-acres and an industrial area of about 385-acres. The industrial area contains the building and facilities that were used to manufacture nuclear weapons components. The buffer zone has been generally used as an open space perimeter around the centrally located industrial area. Since it was established in 1951, the Rocky Flats buffer zone has remained essentially undisturbed. This land possesses an impressive diversity of wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. It also represents one of the last sections of critical open space that makes up the striking Front Range mountain backdrop. The concept of preserving this land as open space is not new. Recently, the city of Westminster, Colorado, just east of Rocky Flats, conducted a citywide poll asking residents how they thought the Rocky Flats site should be managed into the future. The results of that poll were released in February 1999 and they show that people overwhelmingly support the preservation of Rocky Flats as open space. In fact, 88 percent of the respondents picked open space as the preferred land use. Additionally, from 1993 to 1995, The Rocky Flats Future Site Use Working Group, composed of a broad range of local community representatives and the public, evaluated the potential future uses of the Rocky Flats site. In 1995, the Group issued a set of recommendations, which included keeping the buffer zone in open space. Furthermore, the 1996 Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement and corresponding Rocky Flats Vision Statement, the documents which govern cleanup of the site, contemplate open space uses for the buffer zone. In short, my bill reflects the preferences of the citizens who live around the site by designating the buffer zone as open space. Just last month, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson designated about 800 acres of the northwest section of the buffer zone as the Rock Creek Reserve to preserve and protect the important wildlife, cultural and open space resources of this area. My bill complements the Secretary's action by acknowledging the important wildlife and open space opportunities of the entire buffer zone. Because a number of future management decisions still need to be made, my bill also creates a Rocky Flats Open Space Advisory Council, composed of representatives of the communities, citizens and state and federal agencies, to make recommendations as to how the buffer zone should be managed as open space. It is important that there be a rational and more predictable process for addressing land use and the open space potential of Rocky Flats. My bill ensures that state and local government will have a seat at the table in determining the future of land use at Rocky Flats. In addition, it is important to underscore that my bill will not affect the ongoing cleanup and closure activities at Rocky Flats. My bill encourages DOE to remain on track for the cleanup and closure of the site by the year 2006. It also directs that the bill's provisions for open space management cannot be used to establish cleanup levels for the site, and instead directs that the appropriate cleanup levels be based on public health and safety considerations. Specifically, the Rocky Flats Open Space Act would declare that the lands owned by the federal government at Rocky Flats will remain in federal ownership, and that the lands comprising the buffer zone (about 6,000-acres) remain as open space. Additionally, the bill would create an Open Space Advisory Council, comprised of representatives of the local community and citizens, to make recommendations on the appropriate entity to manage the wildlife, wildlife habitat and open space resources of the buffer zone. The advisory council would also provide any other advice on how this open space resource should be managed. Furthermore, the bill would stipulate that the U.S. Department of Energy continues with all required cleanup and closure activities. The bill would not establish the Rocky Flats industrial area as open space, but that would not be precluded by the bill if the communities find such use appropriate. Similarly, the bill won't affect the scope and schedule of cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats--it does not hamper achieving a cleanup and closure by the year 2006--or affect the historic former Lindsey Ranch Homestead facilities that presently exist in the buffer zone. It also won't affect the recently created Rock Creek Reserve established by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for about 800-acres in the northwest area of the buffer zone.