Udall makes tough decision on lab funding

I wrote in June about U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., being in a sticky situation when the House approved cutting funding for Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories by $400 million after rejecting his proposal to reduce the proposed cuts by $192 million.

Most of the cuts were for LANL. Who would want to be remembered as the representative for LANL when its funding was severely cut?

The proposed cuts come in part because of security breaches at the lab and in part because some Democrats want to shift the lab’s mission from nuclear weapons to energy research.

According to the Associated Press, Udall voted for the cuts on Tuesday in approving the House Energy and Water Appropriations Act. His spokeswoman said Udall believed “it is necessary to direct increased funding toward energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, as this bill does. Congressman Udall voted for this bill because all of our national laboratories should be conducting critical energy research and science programs to address national security challenges.”

The state’s two Republican representatives voted against the cuts, and U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., wasn’t happy with them. The state’s Republican Party put out a news release blasting Udall.

“Tom Udall has turned his back on the people of northern New Mexico,” GOP Executive Director Adam Feldman said in the release. “Thousands of New Mexicans could lose their jobs because of Tom Udall’s ineffectiveness as a congressional representative, and due to his blind allegiance to the misplaced priorities of Democrats in Congress. He has placed ideas about renewable energy ahead of the active provision of national security, and most importantly, ahead of the well-being of the people of northern and central New Mexico.”

Without taking a side on whether the cuts are justified – which I won’t do – the last portion of Feldman’s statement made me uncomfortable. Elected officials in Washington have a duty to look at the bigger picture, in addition to representing their constituents. If they believe there’s a larger issue that has to take precedence over the jobs or opinions of some people in their districts, shouldn’t they take that seriously?

U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., though many in his district disagree with him, has held fast to his belief that the war on terrorism should be fought in Iraq and that the United States has a duty to stay there. Should the fact that a large percentage of people in his district disagree mean he votes against what he believes to be right?

Similarly, say Udall believes energy independence is one of the most important issues of our time, and that our weapons programs are too large and outdated. Should he vote to spend taxpayer money to prop up a program that he believes should be reshaped just so people don’t have to find new jobs?

Corporations don’t work that way. Why expect government to do so?

It’s too soon to know whether the cuts will stand. Differences between House and Senate bills must still be worked out in conference committee.