[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 81 (Friday, June 17, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1273-E1274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 15, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2862) making 
     appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, 
     Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes:

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant 
support of this bill.
  It needs to be passed, and I will vote for it, but in my opinion it 
falls short of what is needed to adequately fund a number of important 
purposes.
  As Ranking Member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the 
House Committee on Science, I am pleased that the bill includes $16.5 
billion for NASA funding. NASA's working in human space exploration, 
space and earth science, and aeronautics plays an important role in 
advancing our knowledge, expanding our economy and inspiring Americans 
both young and old. I believe NASA performs important research which 
allows us to better understand our climate, the creation of our planet 
and the universe beyond.
  I am encouraged that the Committee did not cut NASA's aeronautics 
budget by $54 million as the President had requested. Progress in 
aeronautics is crucial to the health of the Nation's air transportation 
industry, which in turn is crucial both to the continued strength of 
our domestic economy and to our international competitiveness. 
Aeronautics research and development can enable advances in the 
capability of our Nation's air transportation system to handle the 
enormous increases in air travel projected over the next 20 years. 
Aeronautics R&D can enable more environmentally compatible commercial 
aircraft, with significantly lower noise, emissions, and energy 
consumption compared to aircraft in commercial service today.
  I am also pleased that the Committee includes $40 million more than 
the President's

[[Page E1274]]

request for earth science programs. These programs have taken a 
significant cut in recent years even though they have delivered 
important scientific data.
  I am a strong supporter of the servicing of the Hubble Space 
Telescope and am happy to see that this bill expresses support for a 
fourth servicing mission to Hubble. However, I had hoped the bill would 
provide more detailed guidance regarding the amount of funds to be used 
for the Hubble servicing mission. I will continue to work with my 
colleagues to ensure that a Hubble servicing mission takes place and 
that it is provided with necessary funding.
  This bill also provides significant funding for the President's 
exploration initiative. I support the President's Vision for Space 
Exploration and believe human space exploration is a worthwhile 
undertaking. However, NASA's exploration plans are currently in flux. 
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has expressed a desire to accelerate 
the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, and Project Prometheus 
is being restructured. These are just a few examples of the possible 
changes to the Exploration program at NASA. So in light of the 
relatively immature state of the Exploration program, I believe we need 
to proceed cautiously and thoughtfully while ensuring that the demands 
of the exploration mission do not take away from other core missions.
  We are currently faced with a tight budget, and I realize we need to 
make very difficult decisions about the Federal budget. However, I am 
concerned that we are not investing enough in science and research and 
development, which has the effect of strengthening and expanding our 
economy.
  I am also pleased that the bill includes $106 million for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). MEP serves small and medium 
sized manufacturing companies nationally to enhance their ability to 
compete globally. Every Federal dollar appropriated for MEP leverages 
$2 in state and private-sector funding, which means that a small 
federal investment of $106 million translates into billions of dollars 
in benefits for the economy in terms of jobs created and retained, 
investment, and sales. The appropriators' acknowledgment of MEP's 
importance is welcome--especially as manufacturers continue to 
experience tough economic times.

  And, because of its importance for my own Congressional District, I 
am glad to note that the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) budget includes $45 million for construction and specifically 
$9.4 million for the completion of the Boulder Central Utility Plant. 
NIST's Boulder laboratories were built in the 1950s and are in critical 
need of modernization to ensure the continuation of world-class 
research.
  However, my support for the bill is reluctant for the reasons I have 
expressed year after year--namely, that it provides inadequate funding 
for the Department of Commerce laboratories in my district in 
Colorado--NIST and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA).
  The NOAA budget took a cut of 13 percent over the FY05 level and has 
been the target to draw from for other programs in the bill during 
debate on the floor. The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 
(OAR), which funds the important work being conducted in the labs in my 
district, is funded at $326 million in the bill--down from $337 million 
in FY05. NOAA performs vital research in climate change, cooperates 
with NASA on Earth observations, monitors our oceans and provides 
Americans with important weather forecasting that affects one-third of 
all industries in our country. A 13-percent cut to this agency means 
not only cuts to important research but also to Americans jobs. If we 
do not support and protect this research and these jobs, we cannot 
continue to be a leader in oceanic and atmospheric research.
  NIST also fared poorly in this bill--receiving a cut of $150 million 
from the FY05 budget. I am specifically concerned that the Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP) received no funding. While I believe this is 
an important and worthy program, if this body intends to eliminate its 
funding, at a minimum we need to provide close-out costs associated 
with its termination. The Views and Estimates of the FY06 budget signed 
by Democratic and Republican members of the House Science Committee 
identified at least $33 million in close-out costs which will have to 
be absorbed by NIST labs, resulting in cuts to research programs.
  The Small Business Administration also has not fared well. I am 
disappointed by the anemic investment made by the Bush Administration 
and Congress in our Nation's small businesses. Although small 
businesses are the top job creator in this country, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) budget is one of the hardest hit in the bill. 
While the bill improves upon the budget request by reinstating the 
microloan program and 7a loan program, more needs to be done. We must 
not turn our back on America's economic future.
  My reactions are also mixed regarding the Justice Department portion 
of the bill.
  For example, I was glad to see that under the bill as it came to the 
floor the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) would have 
received an increase of $54 million over the FY05 budget. I was 
supportive of this increase because I think it is important that we 
provide states with this reimbursement. However, I could not support 
the Dreier amendment that took funds out of the already dramatically 
cut NOAA budget to further fund SCAAP. Year after year, NOAA programs 
have faced budgetary cuts, which translate into degraded ability to 
perform its world-class research, and a loss of American jobs.
  I voted for some amendments intended to improve the bill. Some were 
adopted, including the Baird amendment to increase funding for the COPS 
program, but others were not.
  In particular, I am very glad that the House approved the amendment 
to limit the use of Section 215 of the ``Patriot Act'' to obtain 
information from libraries and bookstores. I hope that the approval of 
this amendment demonstrates that the Congress will take a similarly 
thoughtful approach when we consider whether to extend or revise that 
Act.
  However, I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendment to bar 
prosecution on Federal drug charges of people using marijuana for 
medical purposes in ways permitted by the laws of Colorado or any other 
state that permits such use.
  I am not a doctor or a lawyer. My support for the amendment was not 
based on a judgment about the medical value of marijuana or a 
disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision upholding the 
constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act as applied to its 
use pursuant to a state medical-marijuana law. Instead, it was based on 
my respect and support for the people of Colorado who voted to allow 
medical use of marijuana in our state. I think that the Federal 
government ought to share that respect and not seek to overrule that 
decision. That would have been the effect of the amendment, which is 
why I voted for it.
  Finally, I am not encouraged by funding levels in the bill for State 
Department activities.
  The State Department as a whole is funded 10 percent less than in FY 
2005. Funding for peacekeeping missions is decreased from this year's 
levels when we take supplemental funds into account, making it harder 
for the international community to support activities that are ongoing 
in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Liberia, West Africa, East Timor, 
Cambodia, Western Sahara, Kosovo and Bosnia. Funding for education and 
cultural exchange programs is higher than last year but less than the 
request, which is disappointing at a time when our investment in the 
non-military sources of foreign policy is more important than ever. 
Even more disappointing at a time when the President is speaking out 
about the importance of U.S. democratization efforts is the 15 percent 
cut to National Endowment for Democracy programs.
  In summary, this bill is not all that it should be--but it is not so 
bad that it should be rejected. I will vote for it and hope that it 
will improve as the legislative process continues.

                          ____________________