[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1133-E1134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 26, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4690) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 3, 2001, and for other purposes:

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill 
for the country and for Colorado. I would like to be able to support 
it.
  However, I cannot vote for it as it stands now, for a number of 
reasons.
  For one thing, I am very concerned about the bill's funding for the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  NOAA operates six of its twelve Environmental Research Laboratories 
in Colorado, and my own hometown of Boulder has the largest 
concentration of NOAA research Federal staff in one area--300--as well 
as the

[[Page E1134]]

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

                          ____________________