Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1906, Agriculture Appropriations for FY 2000. In particular, I wish to draw my colleague's attention to the valuable work being done by the Ultraviolet-B (UV-B) Monitoring Program at Colorado State University. This program provides information on the geographical distribution and temporal trends of UVB radiation in the United States. This information is critical to the assessment of the potential impacts of increasing ultraviolet radiation levels on agricultural crops and forests. Specifically, it provides information to the agricultural community and others about the climatological and geographical distribution of UVB irradiance. In a broader sense, the monitoring program supports research that increases our understanding of the factors controlling surface UVB irradiance and provides the data necessary for assessing the impact of UVB radiation on human health, ecosystems and materials. Beginning in 1992, Congress appropriated two million dollars per year in support of this research effort. At that level of funding, the program was able to get underway and to carry forward some money each year. Recently, appropriations have been at $1,000,000 annually, which, with the carry over amounts have been adequate. As of FY 1999, the carry-over funds have been exhausted. The President's budget calls for $1,750,000 to simply continue this program at current funding levels. H.R. 1906 appropriates $1,000,000 for this program, but I remain hopeful that the goal of $1,750,000 can be accommodated during the upcoming conference committee with the other body. Mr. Chairman, since the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985, I have been personally very concerned about the impact of UVB radiation on all of earth's living systems. This program is surely a step toward understanding and monitoring this significant threat to all of our ecosystems.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It would exempt all the Biosphere Reserves in Colorado from the provisions of the bill that would end the participation of U.S. sites in the Man and the Biosphere program unless we pass and the President signs a new law to continue their participation. As I noted in general debate, currently there are two of these reserves in Colorado, the Niwot Ridge Research Area and Rocky Mountain National Park. They include lands within the Second Congressional District which I represent. Mr. Chairman, these areas are not involved in some conspiracy. They are not part of any sinister foreign plot to undermine our Constitution or our way of life. On the contrary, they are places where good things are taking place. In the Niwot Ridge area, scientists associated with the University of Colorado are doing important research about air pollution and other environmental issues in cooperation with scientists from other countries, such as the Czech Republic. This is important work, work that needs to continue; and my amendment would allow that to happen without interruption. As for Rocky Mountain National Park, all I can say is that this is one of Colorado's brightest gems, one of the things that makes us proud to be Coloradans. Rising up from the edge of the Great Plains, it straddles the Continental Divide and includes snow-capped peaks, high- altitude tundra, and a diverse array of other land forms and a splendid diversity of vegetation and wildlife. As Coloradans, we are glad to share its beauty with the Nation and we invite the world to experience it. And the world is doing just that, at least in part, because of its designation as a Biosphere Reserve. The National Park Service tells me that many visitors say that they learned of the park because it was included in the Man and the Biosphere program and that is what made them want to visit it. As one who believes there is a benefit to every visitor to special wildlands like Rocky Mountain National Park, I am convinced that that is reason enough to keep the park in this program. But it is also true that tourism is a very important part of Colorado's economy, and that is another reason to keep the park in the program, which my amendment would do. Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. Adoption of my amendment will not make this a good bill. Even if this amendment is adopted, that alone will not be sufficient for me to be able to support the bill. But this amendment will protect Colorado from some of the worst consequences of the bill, and to that extent I think it is very, very important. Accordingly, I urge adoption of the Udall amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding. I just wanted to make a couple other comments in response to the points that my colleague from Colorado made, as well as my colleague from Minnesota. It seems, as I hear this debate today, all roads lead to the New World Mine. We keep coming back to that particular situation. And I think there is a continued debate about what happened there, and we ought to continue to figure out ways in the long run to mitigate those kind of situations when we have a big mining project on the edge of a national park that is so important to us, the Yellowstone National Park. But I am offering my amendment in the spirit of let us not let that conflict and that situation affect what is going on in Colorado. There are important research projects occurring at Niwot Ridge and occurring in Rocky Mountain National Park. I do not see what the problem is that we are fixing in Colorado. In fact, I think we are creating a problem by doing this. So I urge adoption of my amendment. Let us not hurt Colorado and some of the other States that are involved in these projects, this important Man and the Biosphere project, because of what happened in one case in Yellowstone National Park.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill would undo some of the most important progress that has been achieved toward protection of internationally important cultural, historical and environmental resources. What would enactment of this bill mean? Well, for starters, it would mean that the United States has decided to politicize the question of whether our country will continue to take part in the World Heritage Convention, the Man and the Biosphere Program, and the so-called Ramsar Convention regarding wetlands that have particular importance as waterfowl habitat. That might not be objectionable if our participation in these international programs involved any trade-offs in terms of our ability to make decisions about the management of our lands or resources, but the fact is that nothing in these international agreements affects the ownership or the management of any lands or other resources. Similarly, I could understand the need for this legislation if, as some of its supporters claim, these international agreements have eaten away at the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its constitutional power to make the laws that govern Federal lands, but here we are debating a bill that would be an exercise of exactly that constitutional power, and that constitutional power is fully intact today, fully intact with regard to each and every acre of Federal lands, including all the Federal lands that are covered by these international agreements. So what is the real point of this bill? As far as I can tell, it is primarily a means for supporters to take a shot at the United Nations and particularly UNESCO, and to demonstrate their solidarity with some who seem to view the U.N. as engaged in a vast multiwing conspiracy to overthrow our constitutional government. I do not think the U.N. is a threat to Congress' authority over Federal lands or to any other part of the Constitution. I do think this bill, if we take it seriously, is a threat to America's international leadership in environmental conservation and in the protection of historical and cultural resources. So I think this bill is bad for our country, and I know it is bad for my home State of Colorado. I want to tell my colleagues about the two Biosphere Reserves that we have, areas that are part of the Man and the Biosphere Program. One is the Niwot Ridge Research area and the other is Rocky Mountain National Park. As it now stands, this bill would kick those areas out of the program unless Congress passes a new law to retain them. To get a better idea of what that would mean for Niwot Ridge, I contacted Professor Bowman, the Director of the University of Colorado's Mountain Research Station, and he explained to me that having Niwot Ridge in the Biosphere Reserve System, it provided a framework for international cooperation of many important research efforts, including working with the Biosphere Reserve in the Czech Republic to address air pollution problems, which is a matter of great importance not only to us, but to the Czechs. He told me that the biosphere program also had been helpful to people at Niwot Ridge as they worked with the Forest Service to develop a land management plan that would promote multiple use by minimizing the conflicts that we all grapple with here over recreation and scientific and other uses, which is again a matter of great importance to Colorado and all other public land States. I also talked to the National Park Service about Rocky Mountain National Park, which again is included as a biosphere reserve. They told me that it not only means that there are more research activities at the park, but that it meant a significant increase in park visitation, tourism, which not only provides important educational benefits but is an important part of our economy in Colorado. Kicking these areas out of the program would be bad for Colorado and something that I cannot support. Exempting the Colorado areas from the bill would be an improvement, but I do not think that alone would make the bill acceptable. We need to reject this bill, move away from the posturing and begin working on the real problems that face us on our public lands.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). It would increase authorization levels for the National Weather Service and the atmospheric research functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by 3 percent in fiscal year 2001. As it stands, this bill includes no increases in program accounts from fiscal year 2000 to 2001. I believe that will be insufficient to provide for the real needs of our Nation. With no allowance for inflation, this flat funding authorization will produce a decline in the real work being done by NOAA. The nominal dollars from fiscal year 2000 to 2001 appear to be the same, but the level of service it supported will decline, in real terms. With a major NOAA facility in my district in Boulder, Colorado, I want to avoid this real decline in the level of funding and services. The Space Environment Center that detects solar storms which can interfere with the operations of our utility companies and cell phones is based also in Boulder. The Forecast Systems Lab, which worked with the Weather Service to develop the advanced weather interactive processing system, or the radar system that is now used across our country, is also based in Boulder. But this decline in funding and services will affect other Members' districts as well, and the impact of reduced funds on NOAA's Weather Service and its studies on atmospheric and environmental change will be felt nationwide. The Costello amendment will result in an increase in program authorizations of less than $27 million. The level of increase is consistent with the committee's past reviews and estimates, and those are produced by the majority. The majority endorsed a 3 percent increase in fiscal 1998 and fiscal 2000 and a 4 percent increase in fiscal year 1999. Furthermore, in a February report the majority criticized as too low the out-year numbers and the President's request for programs under the Committee on Science's jurisdiction. I would add that the Costello amendment is consistent with the findings in the report on Federal Science policy of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). That report called for stable and substantial funding for science programs. But it is hard to see how funding can be stable and substantial if we routinely let inflation eat away at our programs. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment. As it stands, the bill does not enable NOAA and the National Weather Service to do their jobs. We must not marginalize these important programs.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Weiner-Udall-Crowley- Kucinich-Rivers amendment. I would like to talk on two points of the amendment. One is just the fiscal issues that we have been discussing here. I would also like to speak to the point of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) about the discussion about the quality of life issues that are at stake. Let us again remind ourselves that the Weiner amendment would restore funding for aircraft noise reduction research to fiscal 1999 levels in the NASA budget. If we look out a little further, it would increase in fiscal year 2000 by $11 million; fiscal 2001, $10 million; and fiscal 2002, $8.5 million for aircraft noise reduction research and technology. Now, in 1999, this noise reduction technology was funded at a level of $36 million. In fiscal year 2000, it is scheduled only for $25 million; in fiscal year 2001 for $26 million; and fiscal year 2002, $19 million. The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) would restore the funding for aircraft noise reduction to levels that are commensurate with 1999. The Weiner amendment would bring us back up to NASA's overall budget levels of $13.655 billion, which is exactly the same amount of money that was appropriated in fiscal year 1999. So with all due respect, this is not a budget buster. This is in fact being fiscally responsible. In the long run, we are going to save money by making sure that we put these monies into investing in reducing noise at our airports. The Department of Transportation estimates that over 3 million Americans are affected by airport noise every day. This FAA authorization bill that we are facing later on in our session is likely to increase traffic at our Nation's busiest airports. By supporting this amendment, we are going to provide some relief for the people that live around those airports. I want to talk briefly about my State. We have Denver International Airport, known as DIA. It is the jewel of our Nation's airport system at this point. But we want to build a sixth runway. We cannot do that right now because increased noise has become an issue, not only for urban residents but for farmers, for business people, and for all the people that live in the mountains of Colorado. We ought to be doing all we can to solve that problem now so that people all over the country who use Denver International Airport know that that airport is going to be open in all kinds of weather conditions. Historically, the FAA has been great at running the trains, if you will, running the airports in our country, but NASA has done the important research and development. We ought to be encouraging that combination, and this amendment will do that. If we want to reduce opposition to airport operations and expansion, we ought to pass this amendment now. This is going to be our only chance this session to reduce the din around our cities and airports. Rather than create more delay and litigation over our airports, let us encourage the development of quieter engines so our air transportation system can help us meet the challenges and the opportunities facing us in this next century.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a gifted and compassionate constituent of mine, Gordon South. Gordon has made a difference by volunteering his time and efforts to help protect and support the environment. Throughout his life, Gordon has demonstrated his unswerving dedication to the earth and its inhabitants. Since the time he was eight years old, Gordon has committed his summers to helping Dr. Laura de Ghetaldi with her orphaned fawn and injured deer rehabilitation program south of Boulder. This has not always been an easy task. He has bottle fed injured deer, tracked down poachers who have shot re- released deer, and he has grieved when some of the deer died after valiant attempts to save their lives. Such was the case this year when a black bear mauled and killed all of the fawns and adult deer in the rehabilitation program. In addition to his rehabilitation work, Gordon has participated in the Boulder County Junior Ranger Program committing long hours to repairing and building trailheads. He also volunteers in the surgical unit and the Foster Program at the Humane Society of Boulder County. On top of his volunteerism, Gordon is a solid student at Fairview High School where he competes on the track and cross-country teams. After graduation this year, he plans to attend Colorado State University and one day become a veterinarian. Mr. Speaker, as our nation is engaged in a dialogue about our youth and the causes of youth violence, we must not forget about those youngsters who are making worthy contributions to our communities. I take great pride in honoring Gordon South and his achievements, his passion for the earth its wildlife, and his future endeavors. His is a lesson we all can learn from.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to extend my thanks to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for yielding me time to speak on the emergency supplemental. The gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) misspoke briefly and mentioned referees rather than conferees, and I thought at the time maybe we need more referees over there than conferees to get us back on track. The conferees have been working to combine two emergency supplemental appropriations bills, one to fund our ongoing military activities in the Balkans and another that will provide humanitarian relief to the victims of Hurricane Mitch as well as vital assistance to hard-pressed farmers here at home. These are important purposes. But, once again, there has been an attempt to take them hostage by some who want to load up the bill with unrelated riders that would not pass alone. The list is long, but I wanted to mention a couple of these riders, just two examples of egregious things that should not be in the bill and should not be approved. One rider would overturn a court decision reducing by millions of dollars the refunds that natural gas companies now owe to consumers in 23 States, including Colorado. Another would reverse a Department of the Interior decision that says the mining law of 1872 should limit the amount of materials that a mine can dump on adjacent public lands. In other words, both of these provisions would legislatively override current law to benefit certain well-connected parties at the expense of the public, the public that we represent here; and in the case of the mining law rider, apparently at the expense of the environment as well. To add a note of irony, in this case we would be overriding part of the 1872 mining law that is backed by some of the people who have repeatedly opposed attempts to reform that statute, which is antique at best. Mr. Speaker, we do not yet know just what the conference report will include, but this we do know: Humanitarian assistance is one thing, sweetheart deals are another. Holding aid money hostage in order to deliver this kind of deal is bad policy, and we should reject it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 209, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1999. H.R. 209 is the product of 2 years of hard work on the part of the Committee on Science, the Senate Committee on Commerce, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the administration. We seem finally to have developed a version of the legislation that is acceptable to all these parties. This is no small feat in the world of patent policy, and I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the subcommittee chair, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), the subcommittee ranking Democrat, for their hard work which has put us in this enviable position. H.R. 209 is the first comprehensive review of Federal patent policy in 15 years. The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which it amends, has made a major difference in the commercialization of Federal inventions. Before Bayh- Dole passed, it was relatively rare for inventions resulting from Federal research to reach their market potential. As many as 20,000 Federal inventions were patented but not licensed. Only two or three inventions at that point had achieved royalties as high as a million dollars, and the total royalty stream for the entire Federal Government at that time was less than the royalties received by a mid-sized university today. Bayh-Dole has opened major opportunities to research universities like the University of Colorado, which is in my district in Colorado. It has been a major contributor to the outreach activities of contractor-operated laboratories like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, located also in Colorado. It has led to benefits for Federally employed inventors and their laboratories, including NIST and NOAA at the Department of Commerce and throughout the government. Over the 19 years since the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, we have learned of the need for some improvements. The bill before us takes advantage of the lessons learned and is intended to make the law more user friendly. It also updates the act to reflect the new ways that industry now gets and shares information. One important section of the bill developed by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) deserves special mention. That section provides for the Committee on National Security, part of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to work with affected agencies, to make sure that major cooperative research and development agreements get proper interagency review. Some of these cooperative agreements involve issues of national security, domestic competitiveness, and even international competitiveness. These clearly extend beyond the expertise of the contracting agency and interagency clearance will permit resolution of significant issues before agreements are signed. We are pleased that the Committee on National Security has begun its work in anticipation of the passage of this provision and that they are also examining analogous situations that involve Work for Others agreements and patent licensing. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 209 is very similar to legislation that passed the House twice last Congress. A handful of improvements have been made at the suggestion of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Jurisdictional differences in the Senate also appear to have been worked out. So it is our hope that if we can pass this bill today, it will be considered in the near future by the Senate and cleared by the President perhaps this month. I urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me this time to speak in support of H.R. 1550, the Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1999. I would like to talk specifically about the merits of two provisions added by amendments I offered that are designed to strengthen our counterterrorism training efforts. As we experience more instances of domestic terrorism, it is vital our first responders are trained to address the possibilities of terrorist attack. We are now facing a situation in which a policeman, paramedic or firefighter can be called upon to deal with a terrorist scenario. Take Oklahoma City. In the bombing there, the incident commander was the fire chief. The law enforcement emergency professionals and others reported to him. In the future, given this example, training received at the National Fire Academy might mean life or death not just for our first responders but for uncountable numbers of people. It is essential that the Fire Administration have the resources necessary to help meet the anti-terrorism training needs of the fire services. I agree with the Committee on Science's 1997 report authorizing the Fire Administration that important training programs for major fires, natural disasters and hazardous materials accidents should not come at the expense of existing USFA programs. I would also note that the Blue Ribbon Panel convened last year by FEMA Director Witt recommends that the Fire Administration budget for natural disaster and terrorism response activities be $15 million. Accordingly, my first amendment increased the authorization level for the Fire Administration's anti-terrorist training activities by $1 million for fiscal year 2000 and by an additional $2 million for fiscal year 2001. These increases raised the total authorization level for this important activity to $6 million per year in the first year and to $8 million, or twice the current level, by the second year. Under my second amendment, the U.S. Fire Administration is required to assess the need for additional capabilities for Federal counterterrorism training of emergency response personnel. We need to know how adequate our current efforts are, what our current need is, and how best to satisfy that need in the event that demand for training exceeds our current capacity for training. My amendments were designed to ensure an important activity of the Fire Administration is placed on a reasonable growth track consistent with the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendation. Terrorism is a problem that has reached endemic proportions; and I feel strongly that, whenever possible, we should do our part to protect Americans from this national threat. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1183, the Fastener Quality Act Amendments Act of 1999. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has already summarized the provisions of the legislation. I will only add that H.R. 1183 is the result of bipartisan efforts and that this bill represents the hard work of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the Committee on Science, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member on the Committee on Commerce. Further, as always, it has been a pleasure working with the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), my chairwoman on the Subcommittee on Technology. While I am new to this committee and this issue, I have had a particular interest in this bill because it so directly relates to the work of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, an agency that has important facilities in my district. H.R. 1183 remains true to the intent of the original Fastener Quality Act passed 10 years ago. H.R. 1183 maintains the necessary standards to ensure the quality of high-strength fasteners, while recognizing advances in manufacturing techniques, such as quality assurance systems. Moreover, it would not have been possible to craft this legislation without the close cooperation of industry and labor. I want to specifically mention the Automotive Industry Fastener Manufacturers and affected labor groups for their frank and candid discussions with us, as well as their willingness to compromise. Ultimately, it was this prevailing sense of cooperation that allowed us to develop this legislation. In closing, I would urge my colleagues to support 1183. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 94 ``On Agreeing to the Conference Report on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 94.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), which I am sure expresses the thoughts not only of the Colorado delegation, but of the entire House. I want to acknowledge my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). He and I came to this body as freshmen this year and went through our orientation as new Members together. I hold a fond memory of that experience, and am profoundly saddened that a tragedy in our home State has been the occasion for our partnership on a legislative matter. My guess is that parents all over America hugged their children a little tighter last night, and I am sure parents will worry just a little bit more as they send their children off to school tomorrow. We cannot allow what happened at Columbine High School to dampen our hopes for the future of America's schools or our children. It must remain an aberration and not a precursor of things to come. In addition to offering our condolences to the families, friends and loved ones of those who were killed and injured in this awful crime, I think it is important for this body to speak with an unified voice in condemning such violence. It is also crucial for this body to offer leadership to the American people by initiating a thoughtful dialogue on the problem of gun violence in our schools. Mr. Speaker, I hope, I pray that we as a Nation will respond to this tragedy by looking beyond our prejudices and our political leanings. This tragedy challenges us to place an even greater priority on the quality of the lives we build for all of our children. I urge adoption of this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a Coloradoan and as an American, I am profoundly shocked and saddened by the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, yesterday. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families who have been victims of this terrible crime. I can hardly imagine the horror and pain experienced by the families who lost loved ones in this tragedy, and as the father of two school aged children, I am deeply distressed by the prospect that our schools have become places where this kind of violence can take place. Today, however, is not a time to rush to judgment about the causes or cures for this tragedy. I do believe, however, that parents, community leaders and policymakers at all levels, including school boards, State legislators and our national government need to come together in coming weeks and reflect upon this tragedy. We need a fuller discussion of the values we share as Americans, and we need to work more actively than ever before to make our schools safe and to ensure that our Nation's classrooms are places for learning and for nurturing the full potential of our young people. Mr. Speaker, I hope that as a Nation we will respond to this incident by looking beyond our prejudices and political leanings. My concern is that the violence that took place in Colorado has deeper implications for our future than we can fully fathom at this moment. I fear it goes deeper than observations about a decline in our values or moral decay as a society. Ultimately, this tragedy will challenge us to carefully explore our understanding of rights and freedoms, whether it is access to the Internet or access to guns. Moreover, it will challenge us to place an even greater priority on the quality of our lives and the lives of our children.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Natalia Toro, who took top honors in the Intel Science Talent Search. Ms. Toro is a 14 year-old senior at Fairview High School in Boulder, Colorado. In winning this prestigious award, Natalia bested 40 finalists, who were selected from a nationwide pool of 300 semi-finalists. In addition, she is the youngest winner ever of the Intel Science Talent Search. Ms. Toro's entry was a physics project in which she studied oscillation of neutrinos, the most elusive of subatomic particles. She completed her research on this subject while participating in the Research Science Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last summer. While I take pride in highlighting Ms. Toro's achievement in this competition, I am equally happy to salute her love of science and learning. I firmly believe that we can offer our children no greater gift than to instill in them a love of learning. The Toros are an example of how parental involvement can play a critical role in a child's intellectual development, as well as the child's overall success in life. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to share with my fellow members of the House of Representatives the outstanding achievement of Natalia Toro. I would like to acknowledge her parents, Beatriz and Gabriel Toro, for inspiring her thirst for knowledge. The Denver Post Recently highlighted Natalia's achievement. Mr. Speaker I submit a Denver Post article to be included in the Congressional Record. [From the Denver Post, July 14, 1998] The Science of Nurturing Congratulations to Natalia Toro, who at age 14 already has become a role model, especially for other first-generation American youths. Natalia's proficiency in mathematics and science propelled her into first place in the Intel Science Talent Search for her work in high-energy physics. She is the youngest winner ever in the 58-year-old contest formerly run by Westinghouse. With her prize $50,000 scholarship, the Fairview High senior now plans to attend either Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the California Institute of Technology. How did this daughter of Colombian immigrants achieve academic excellence? Her mother credits Natalia's natural curiosity. ``She's very curious. And she's a hard-working person, and I think she really has a passion for learning. I don't think we did anything special,'' says Beatriz Toro. But while Natalia's parents won't take credit for her accomplishments, they surely fueled her love of learning. Beatriz and Gabriel Toro came to America from Colombia in 1979. they chose to teach their only child English as her first language. She learned Spanish later ``with our help,'' her mother says, and is fluent in both. Toro, a civil engineer, and his wife, who has degrees in psychology and nursing, sent Natalia to the small, private Bixby Elementary School in Boulder, then to the public Fairview. She also has attended classes at the University of Colorado. ``Those schools, they did their part with my daughter.'' Mrs. Toro says. But the parents did their part, too. When Natalia asked questions, they tried to answer them. When they didn't know the answers, they headed to the library to find the answers. ``I think the most important thing is that your kids are happy,'' Mrs. Toro says. ``When you're telling the kid, `You have to do this and you have to do that,' I don't think it works. I wouldn't push a child.'' ``It sounds funny, but I didn't do anything special with my daughter,'' That depends on what constitutes ``special.'' Not all parents take a child's questions seriously enough to research until they find the answers. But doing so surely send the message that learning is fun. Not all immigrants are able to make sure their children learn English before the parents' native language. But doing so surely eases a child's way through U.S. schools. And not all families place a priority on happiness. But it seems only natural that a happy child would be a curious, alert and motivated child. We salute Natalia for the path she has taken, and we commend her parents and her schools for helping her to find that path. This is a girl who does Colorado proud.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding to me to speak on this very important issue facing us today in the 106th Congress. I am pleased to join my freshman colleagues in calling for this early consideration of campaign finance reform in our 106th Congress. I know that a lot of my colleagues, many of my colleagues share my concern that the high cost of elections and the flood of so-called soft money, special interest money may threaten the integrity of our electoral system. Just 6 months ago, the majority of our House voted to pass the Shays- Meehan bill. This bill had at that time, and I believe still has, strong bipartisan support. This is for a number of reasons. Let me tell my colleagues about a few of them, Mr. Speaker. First is that unlimited soft money contributions allow special interests to buy political access. It is important to point out that soft money, unlike hard money, is unregulated. On the hard money side, there are limits on the amounts of money one can contribute. It is also transparent. It is public money. Soft money is much harder to trace. We need to make sure that the policy decisions that we make here are not unduly influenced by these special interests. Secondly, the high cost of elections now contributes to the public's perception that elections and, therefore, public servants can be bought and sold. I think, especially given the events of these last months, more public cynicism is not now what we need about our U.S. Congress. Third, more and more time spent chasing money means that less time is devoted to our public duties as Representatives. We need to restore this balance. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, who ran for the Congress this last election for the first time, and we are elected as freshmen, know how much time we spent on the telephone and at fund- raising events rather than studying issues of importance around public policies, whether it is education or Social Security or health care. We need to restore that balance so that we can spend more of our time on those important issues and less time on raising money. Fourth, the high cost of campaigns unfairly restricts the process in many cases to those who can afford to run. We need a system that is equitable for all candidates. This country has been built on the idea that all of us are equal, that it is an egalitarian system. We ought to make sure that anybody what wants to and has a passion can run for office, not just those people who have deep pockets. Fifth, and I think maybe most importantly, a majority of Americans, in fact an enormous majority, a New York Times survey shows that 9 out of 10 Americans think that we ought to have significant campaign finance reform. We are here to listen to our constituents and represent our constituents. We ought to be doing that on campaign finance reform. It is early in our session, but we need to act now so that we can begin to put this legislation in place for the races in the year 2000. I am here to speak in favor of beginning that process. I am proud to be a sponsor of the bipartisan Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. I have to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the bill may need some work. It is probably not perfect. But we ought to bring it up so that it sees the light of day. We ought to begin a debate in committee. We ought to bring it to the floor of the House. So let us start today. Let us address this problem now. Let us make sure that we bring this legislation forward and we begin to restore common sense to our campaign finance reform system.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I agree. Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples. I probably spent many days on the campaign trail, 4 or 5, 6 hours on the telephone making these phone calls. I even got to the point where I purchased a headset so that I could save my neck from the constant strain of holding that telephone handset. I know there are people out there who do that for a living, and a headset is a great tool. But it was symbolic to me that I was not out visiting with people and learning about the issues and studying the broad range of things that we are faced with while we are here in the Congress. Let me talk a little bit about the issue ads and so-called expenditure campaigns. These groups can come in and be for you or be against you. But in either case one has no say, no control over these ads that are running. In particular, I have been concerned about groups who think they might want to support me, but they could be running negative campaigns against my opponents when that is not the way I want to campaign. So we need to get ahold of these independent expenditure campaigns. We need to get ahold of this soft money situation. As Jefferson talked about, when democracy is ailing, one of the best solutions, one of the best treatments is more sunshine, more transparency. We need to make sure that all of the money that is contributed to our campaigns is visible, and people can track it and trace it. We could use the Internet. We could have almost instantaneous disclosure. I would certainly support that. I think many Members of the House of Representatives would.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important parts of the Shays-Meehan bill is that the sham ads, and they really are that, would be exposed for what they are. I do not have any problem with people wanting to speak out. That is the First Amendment. That is what this country is founded upon. It is one of the key principles that makes our country so free. But we ought to be clear about where those ads are coming from. We ought to be clear about who is paying for those ads. I think that is not an abrogation of the First Amendment. It is not restricting people's right to free speech. But it is letting all of the voters know where these resources are coming from so they can make an informed choice. I think there is nothing more crucial with Shays- Meehan than getting a handle on all of this money that comes from outside the system right now.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for yielding to me to speak on this very important issue of school modernization. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in calling for school modernization all across this great land of ours. Our Nation's schools are crumbling at an alarming rate, and this is compounded by the dramatic increase in enrollment due to the so-called baby boom echo, the children of baby boomers like mine who are filling our schools all over this country. Without a fundamental increase in the rate of school construction and modernization, each passing year will bring a school system less worthy of our children. I am visiting every high school in my district in the next year so that I can see firsthand the spaces in which our children are learning and growing. A couple of weeks ago I visited the high school in Idaho Springs, Colorado, and frankly, I was overwhelmed by what I saw that day. Some classrooms could only be accessed by walking through other classrooms that were already in session. There were spaces that were unusable or completely inadequate for learning, as well as other infrastructure and technology problems. The citizens in this school district have tried to fix these problems by improving school bond issues, but they are a small community and unable to meet the full responsibility of financing reconstruction or new construction for a new high school. This is a prime example of a school district that needs the kind of aid we are proposing. There are three initiatives we can take right now to upgrade our public schools. First, we need smaller classes. Simply put, smaller classes produce brighter, better-educated kids. We need to finish the job of hiring 100,000 new teachers in order to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3, so we can reduce the number of students in one of these classrooms to 18 or less. Second, we must provide Federal tax credits to enable States and districts to modernize and renovate public schools, to improve learning conditions, and end overcrowding. In 1995, the GAO, which is nonpartisan, by the way, put out an in- depth study on the state of America's public, elementary, and secondary school facilities. I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) that the results are staggering. Let me list some of them. One-third of the Nation's schools need extensive repair or replacement. That is one-third. These schools serve about 14 million of our American children. The schools in urgent need are not just in one category. They are across the spectrum. Thirty-eight percent of these schools are in urban areas, 30 percent are in rural areas, and 29 percent are in suburban areas, so it covers all the American landscape. This backlog of school infrastructure unmet needs totals right now $112 billion. On top of this, 58 percent of our schools report unsatisfactory environmental conditions. These problems include things like ventilation, heating, air conditioning, and lighting. Then, in addition, we have the environmental hazards that I alluded to such as asbestos, lead in our water, lead in the paint on the walls, and radon gas in our schools. According to an audit on behalf of our school districts in Colorado, $190 million is needed to correct these most critical safety building problems in my home State. We might say, why do we need to modernize beyond this particular situation? School enrollments are increasing all over the country. Let me give a couple of facts from Colorado. We are going to have 70,000 new students in the next 5 years in Colorado, and the number is projected to be 120,000 10 years out. One does not have to be a rocket scientists to understand that the demand for our school facilities is going to increase dramatically with these dramatic increases in our student population. The school construction initiatives we are considering in the Congress will help our school districts build and renovate facilities to keep up with the rapid growth in student population and eliminate these safety hazards. That is why I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 996, the Etheridge School Construction Act of 1999. Finally, we need to equip and upgrade our existing schools with the technological tools that students are going to need for the 21st century. As our technology continues to play a larger role in our lives, we must make sure that we continue to hook up schools to the Internet, protect the E-Rate discount for schools and libraries, and integrate technology into school curriculum. Currently, 21 percent of Colorado schools have insufficient computer capacity and 57 percent have inadequate modem lines. That is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe no challenge is greater for our Nation than ensuring that all of our children receive the highest quality education possible. By meeting this challenge, we will give them the gift of opportunity. With opportunity and preparation, our children will be able to live their lives to their fullest potential.