Floor Statements

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the provisions of S. Res. 255 as a further mark of respect for the memory of our late colleague, Senator Edward Moore Kennedy.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss why we need a clean energy economy and how natural gas will be a critical component of our future energy mix.

We need legislation to move forward, to the President's desk, this year. To compete in a 21st century global economy, the United States must take immediate action to transition to a clean energy market, one that allows us to take advantage of the many different clean energy sources that our country has to offer.

Some have asked why we need to act on clean energy legislation.

Several of my colleagues this week have eloquently discussed the impacts of carbon pollution. In the West, we are already seeing indications of climate change through warmer winters and drier summers. This is a global challenge that we must address and not ignore. But, irrespective of the impacts of carbon pollution to our communities and environment, clean energy legislation really comes down to two things-- our economic and national security.

Clean energy legislation will create millions of new jobs here at home and provide the basis for America's 21st century economy. Clean energy economy legislation will spur innovation in and accelerate the shift to clean and domestic energy sources. It will create a new industrial sector employing millions of Americans in the research, development, manufacture, sale, installation, and servicing of new energy technologies. With the U.S. leading the way, we will sell our new technologies to other countries throughout the world.

Clean energy legislation will also help strengthen our national security. The most obvious reason, of course, is that switching to clean, domestic sources of energy will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by shifting America toward cheaper, cleaner alternative energy sources like natural gas and wind power. Our current economy unfortunately depends on the importation of foreign oil from nations that do not have our best interests at heart, which creates threats to America's national security and puts our troops in harm's way.

Where does this leave us?

We need to jump-start our clean energy economy, and that means we need to invest in the wide range of energy sources that are available now, as well as research and development of future energy sources.

This is not about a silver bullet answer to our energy problems: it is, rather, like silver buckshot.

On the ground, that means we should encourage energy development of new renewable energy sources, find cleaner ways to use traditional energy sources like coal and oil, and expand our use of clean, mature technologies like nuclear and natural gas.

Natural gas, in particular, often does not get the attention that it deserves among our diverse portfolio of clean energy sources.

Natural gas will be the bridge between today's economy and our clean energy future.

It is the cleanest of the fossil fuels and has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy, emitting about half of the CO2 of coal when burned for electricity generation.

Furthermore, the technology is already being used by utilities across the country. Let me emphasize again--this is mature technology that is already in use across the country to power our homes and businesses.

In fact, natural gas accounts for 24 percent of the energy consumption in this country and approximately 98 percent of U.S. natural gas consumption originates right here in North America, principally from the United States and Canada.

Using natural gas means that we do not have to depend on foreign governments determining the cost of our energy or whether or not we even have access to it. And increasing natural gas production and use means that we are creating jobs and supporting families here at home.

Natural gas is an abundant resource across our country.

In recent years, natural gas production from conventional resources has continued to decline, but production from unconventional resources such as coal beds, tight gas sands, and particularly from natural gas shales has increased.

These are in regions--such as the Northeast--that are not traditionally thought of as gas-producing States. In fact, expanded drilling in tight gas sands and gas shales helped increase total U.S. gas production by about 9 percent in 2008 after a decade of its being roughly constant.

We also have natural gas reserves, particularly off our coasts, that have yet to be fully explored.

Now, let me be clear in that I do not support drilling for gas anywhere and everywhere. I believe certain areas, both on and offshore, should be placed off limits to development.

But we also need to take advantage of this domestic resource and develop some of these resources in an environmentally friendly way. That is why, during consideration of the clean energy bill in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I supported Senator Dorgan's efforts to open up the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to development.

Between recent discoveries of new domestic natural gas reserves and untapped reserves offshore, natural gas can continue to be a vital energy source for our country. The latest estimates indicate that we have enough reserves to sustain our current consumption rate for almost 100 years--and that is without new technology development or new reserve discoveries.

It is also important to understand how natural gas interacts with other energy sources, particularly renewable energy, like wind and solar. Many here in the Senate know that I am a strong proponent of a national renewable electricity standard, or RES. Colorado already has a State RES and it has been very successful in both increasing our use of renewable energy sources and bringing new jobs to our State. However, renewable energy sources alone will not be enough to fulfill our country's energy needs, especially in the short term, and electricity powered by natural gas will play a critical role in adjusting to the variability of renewable energy generation.

We can take these steps to decrease our carbon emissions and promote our domestic energy sources without increased energy costs for consumers. New natural gas combined-cycle plants are competitive with new coal plants. Natural gas plants have lower capital costs and shorter construction times than coal-fired powerplants. For example, the National Academies of Sciences recently released a report ``America's Energy Future: Technology and Transformation'' as part of a comprehensive look at our energy policy. The report found that, at a price of $6 per million Btu, natural gas plants have the lowest lifetime cost of electricity of comparable energy source.

While there has been concern in recent years over price fluctuation in the natural gas market, the Energy Information Administration projects that prices will range from $6 to $9 per million Btu or lower for natural gas for decades.

Yet natural gas is not just for producing electricity. Clean natural gas is already being used as an alternative fuel for vehicles. Developing a stronger and wider market for natural gas vehicles will reduce our dependency on foreign oil, create jobs, and benefit the environment.

As of 2006, there were about 116,000 compressed natural gas vehicles and about 3,000 liquefied natural gas vehicles in the United States. About two-thirds of these natural gas vehicles are passenger vehicles.

The benefits of creating a natural gas fuel system akin to the current petroleum system would be immediate. Average consumers would save about $800 in fuel costs by switching to natural gas. And, again, not only is natural gas cheaper for powering vehicles but it would also emit fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline vehicles and natural gas could be produced domestically.

These facts seem almost too good to be true, but they are just that: facts. What we need now is to invest in natural gas and support creating a viable natural gas vehicle industry.

So natural gas--a clean, domestic fuel source that powers mature technology--is already a force in our electricity market and is a growing factor in our transportation system. Yet the current--the bill that the House passed does not include appropriate encouragement for this energy source.

As I work with my colleagues here to pass clean energy legislation this year, I will continue to push for incentives for natural gas powered electricity and clean natural gas vehicles. America--and Colorado--can become the world leader in clean energy, exporting our expertise, intellectual property, and products worldwide, just as we have done repeatedly throughout our history. With our budding renewable energy industry and strong support for traditional energy sources, Colorado has a tremendous opportunity to lead the clean energy revolution, and I do not want us to miss it. But that means we must take action now and that is why we need to get clean energy legislation passed this year.

Mr. President, today I acknowledge the retirement of LTC (Ret.) Walter Paul, of the Colorado Army National Guard, and to recognize him for his distinguished public service as the resource manager and legislative director of the Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs from 1999-2009.

Walter Paul was born in Vienna, Austria, and raised in the state of Victoria, Australia. He received a BS in chemistry from the University of Wisconsin in 1971. After college, he entered the U.S. Army as an artillery officer and served on active duty in Oklahoma, California, and Germany. He left active duty in 1978 but remained committed to his service by joining the California Army National Guard. When he moved his family--his wife Anna and two daughters--to Colorado in 1979, he transferred to the Colorado Army National Guard. As an artillery officer in the Colorado Army National Guard, he commanded the 2nd Battalion 157th Field Artillery in Colorado Springs.

As a traditional guardsman, Lieutenant Colonel Paul served as a member of the Guard on weekends while maintaining a business career during the week. He worked for Honeywell Semiconductor Division in Colorado Springs as a military program manager. In 1986, he earned his MBA from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, UCCS, and for 13 years, he taught part time at the UCCS Business

School. Lieutenant Colonel Paul also served as the chairman of the board of directors for St. Mary's High School in Colorado Springs, from which both of his daughters graduated.

In 1999, Lieutenant Colonel Paul was hired as resource manager and legislative director for the Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. In that role, he was responsible for the department's State budget, purchasing and contracting, and State tuition assistance, and he coordinated all the State and Federal legislation that impacts the Colorado National Guard, veterans in Colorado, as well as the Colorado Civil Air Patrol. After 10 years working for the Department, Lieutenant Colonel Paul retired earlier this summer. His daughters are now married, and he and Anna, his wife of 39 years, live in Colorado Springs.

I first met Lieutenant Colonel Paul in 1999 in my first year in office as a Member of the House of Representatives from Colorado's Second District. Over the years, he and his colleague Colonel (Ret.) William ``Robby'' Robinson worked very closely with my office on issues important to the Guard in Colorado, and helped me and my staff understand the critical role the Guard plays in times of peace and war. It was clear that this wasn't ``just'' a job for Lieutenant Colonel Paul--he was dedicated to his work and to the Guard, he was always available when my office needed his assistance, and his cheerful demeanor made him a joy to work with.

LTC Walter Paul has tirelessly supported our Nation's men and women in uniform. He is a patriot whose distinctive accomplishments reflect great credit upon him, the State of Colorado, and the Nation. I hope my colleagues will join me not only in recognizing his past accomplishments, but also in wishing him all the best in his future pursuits.

Mr. President, today I recognize and pay tribute to COL (Ret.) William ``Robby'' Robinson, who was commissioned as an infantry officer in 1968 through the U.S. Military Academy and who will retire next month after 13 years working for Colorado's Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. We owe him a debt of gratitude for his contributions to our Nation.

Colonel Robinson's civilian education includes a bachelor of science from West Point and a master's degree in public administration from Harvard University. His professional military education includes the infantry officer basic and advanced courses, Ranger, Airborne, Jumpmaster and Pathfinder schools at Fort Benning, GA; the College of Naval Command and Staff in Rhode Island; and the Army War College in Pennsylvania as the USCINCPAC Fellow.

His assignments have included the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC; 173rd Airborne Brigade, Vietnam; A Company, 1st Battalion 502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne Division, Vietnam; 75th Infantry, Ranger, 101st Airborne Division, Vietnam; Logistics Plans Officer and Division Training Officer in the 24th Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia; and Task Force Commander of 2nd Battalion 8th Infantry in the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, CO.

Among Colonel Robinson's awards and decorations are the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, eight Air Medals, two Defense Meritorious Service Medals, and three Meritorious Service Medals.

Colonel Robinson has also served as an instructor of political sciences at West Point; Aide de Camp to the U.S. Representative to the NATO Military Committee in Brussels, Belgium; speechwriter for the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command; chief of strategy at USCINCPAC in Hawaii; and as Fifth U.S. Army senior active duty adviser to the Colorado Army National Guard.

He retired from active duty in June 1996 and became the resource manager and legislative liaison for Colorado's Department of Military Affairs. In 1999, he began serving as deputy director of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. He will retire next month, after 13 years with the department.

It was in his capacity as deputy director that I first met Colonel Robinson, when he and the department's legislative director, LTC (Ret.) Walter Paul, visited my office in my first year as a Member of the House of Representatives from Colorado's Second District. Over the years, Colonel Robinson and Lieutenant Colonel Paul worked very closely with my office on issues important to the Guard in Colorado, and helped me and my staff understand the critical role the Guard plays in times of peace and war.

Colonel Robinson is a man of integrity, whose counsel is widely sought. In his years of service, he has demonstrated his deep commitment to our Guard members, our veterans, and their families. Retirement will allow him to spend more time with his wife Cathy, who is program director for Elbert County Social Services, their daughter Meredith, a veterinarian in Wheat Ridge, and their son Will, a student at the University of Colorado, Denver. But we will miss him and will continue to seek his counsel.

I know all my colleagues join me in saluting COL (Ret.) William ``Robby'' Robinson for his many years of truly outstanding service to the United States Army, the Colorado National Guard, our veterans, and our Nation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing along with my friend and colleague, Senator Bennet, the Ruedi Reservoir Water Allocation for Recovery of Endangered Fish Act. This bill will help address endangered fish issues in the Colorado River on Colorado's western slope by allowing the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to release the remaining un-marketed water in Ruedi Reservoir for recovery purposes.

The Ruedi Reservoir is a component of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation project, located on the Fryingpan River in western Colorado. The primary purposes of Ruedi are to provide storage of replacement water that allows out-of-priority diversions by the project to Colorado's east slope, and to provide marketable water for Colorado's west slope uses. A little more than one-third of Ruedi's marketable yield is currently under contract with limited prospects for foreseeable future contracting.

In 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, issued a programmatic biological opinion, PBO, for a critical reach of the Colorado River in Colorado related to recovery efforts for four fish species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, ESA. The PBO provides ESA compliance for five Reclamation projects: the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, including Ruedi Reservoir, the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, the Colbran Project, the Grand Valley Project, and the Silt Project.

The PBO also provides ESA compliance for all existing non-federal water projects and water users of the Colorado River upstream of the Gunnison River depleting approximately 1 million acre-feet per year and for 120,000 acre-feet per year of new depletions. As part of the PBO, Colorado water users agreed to provide 10,825 acre-feet per year for fish recovery from interim water sources until 2010, by which time permanent sources of water must be identified and agreements completed between water users and the FWS to provide the permanent source or sources of water.

Water users have identified the required permanent sources of water for endangered fish. Half of the 10,825 acre-feet per year requirement will be met from converting a historical agricultural water right and half from uncontracted, unobligated Ruedi Reservoir water. Reclamation has initiated NEPA compliance on Federal actions related to providing 10,825 acre-feet per year for endangered fish. This bill provides that the NEPA process be completed before authorizing Reclamation to apply the marketable yield to ESA benefits.

In regards to costs, the reimbursable capital costs for the Ruedi Reservoir were assigned separately in the authorizing legislation to east and west slope beneficiaries of the project. The east slope's obligation of $7.6 million was assigned to Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District under a conventional Reclamation master contract for the 28,000 acre-feet replacement pool. The obligation to repay Ruedi Reservoir's $9.3 million cost was assigned to the marketable yield for the west slope's benefit, and this was to be re-paid by water contracts from this pool for west slope uses. There is no traditional, master contract with a west slope project ``sponsor'' for this portion of the project's cost recovery. A little more than one-third of the available marketable yield pool is currently under contract. Given that there are limited prospects for foreseeable future contracting, permanent assignment of 5,412.5 acre-feet of water for endangered fish recovery is prudent and appropriate.

To effectuate this new arrangement, the bill would amend Public Law 106-392 to permanently assign 5,412.5 acre-feet of water in Ruedi Reservoir from the west slope's marketable yield pool to endangered fish recovery and associated cost reallocation to non-reimbursable purposes. In so doing, the bill would accomplish a number of goals such as ensure continued ESA compliance for all east and west slope Colorado River main stem water users upstream of the Gunnison River, provide water from Ruedi Reservoir at affordable rates for potential future contracting, and provide consistency with long-standing Congressional policy and Reclamation law that water dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes from Reclamation projects is a non-reimbursable cost. The bill would also ensure compliance with Colorado law regarding the purposes of Ruedi Reservoir, namely that the marketable yield pool is available for the benefit of west slope water users by providing ESA compliance for uses of this water.

As with most issues related to water in the west, and especially in Colorado, one facility like the Ruedi Reservoir can affect many interests and values. This bill would provide mutual benefits to water users throughout the Colorado River. It is an example where we can reach consensus to continue to provide needed water to communities while also preserving fish species.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a revised version of the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Mineral Royalty Revenue Allocation Act that I previously introduced on August 4, 2009. This bill is the same as the one I previously introduced, but it corrects an error regarding the allocation of outstanding mineral royalties to four counties in Colorado instead of two--those four counties being Garfield, Rio Blanco, Mesa and Moffat. This revised version also makes it clear that the mineral royalty allocated to these four counties would not affect the normal allocations to those counties under the ``payment in lieu of taxes'' program. In all other respects, the bill and its purposes remain the same. It is a bill designed to release mineral royalty receipts to Colorado where the receipts were generated from gas development within this reserve on the western slope near Rifle, Colorado.

By way of background, in 1997, Congress transferred the federal Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands in western Colorado from the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and directed the BLM to begin leasing the oil and gas resources under these lands. The Transfer Act also directed that the royalties recouped from this leasing program be set aside and the state portion not disbursed to Colorado until the Interior Department and the DOE certified that enough money from the royalty receipts accrued to satisfy two purposes.

The first was to provide funding to clean up the Anvil Points site on these lands. Anvil Points was an oil shale research facility that operated within the Naval Oil Shale Reserve for about 40 years. The facility was operated by DOE at one point, and private industry performed research there under contract. Waste material was produced at this facility from oil shale mining and processing. That waste accumulated in a pile of about 300,000 cubic yards of spent oil shale and other material--including arsenic and other heavy metals--which rests on slopes below the facility.

The second purpose was for the reimbursement of certain costs related to the transfer.

Following the transfer to the BLM, this area experienced significant natural gas leasing and, as a result, significant royalty revenue was generated.

On August 8, 2008, the DOI and DOE certified that adequate funds had accrued to accomplish the goals of cleanup and cost reimbursement and subsequently allocated all royalty revenue generated after this date according to the Mineral Leasing Act, which establishes that Colorado receive a proportionate share.

However, considerably more revenue accrued than was necessary to accomplish the cleanup and cost reimbursement goals. This bill would direct that this additional royalty revenue be allocated to Colorado according to the formulas and processes established for the disbursement of federal mineral royalties under the Mineral Leasing Act.

The bill also directs that the Colorado share of this remaining royalty revenue be allocated to the four Counties directly impacted by oil and gas leasing on the Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands--specifically, Garfield, Rio Blanco, Mesa, and Moffat Counties. Finally, this bill makes it clear that these royalty payments shall not affect the funds that these Counties normally receive under the ``payment in lieu of taxes''--or PILT--program.

Based on figures provided by the BLM, there remains approximately $17 million in these accounts for Colorado's royalty revenue share. This bill would make Colorado whole and provide it with its rightful share of the remaining royalty revenue to address critical local needs and impacts from the very leasing that produced the royalty revenue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, the Rural Physician Pipeline Act of 2009.

In making my way across my home State, I have listened to rural constituents from all over Colorado, and their message is clear: rural communities are being hit hard by America's health care crisis.

The life expectancy for women in many rural counties across the Nation has declined significantly over the past several decades, and health outcomes for Hispanic, Native American, and other minority populations are at unacceptable levels. Low-income rural Americans in these areas have very few options for affordable access to health care, if they have any at all.

Just over 2 weeks ago, I reached out to health care providers and professionals in rural regions of Colorado that have been most impacted by our ailing health system to hear directly from those on health care's front lines. While there are many factors contributing to the lower health outcomes we are seeing in these regions, including regulatory hurdles and low reimbursement rates for rural clinics and hospitals, the physicians and health professionals I spoke with were pretty clear about the overwhelming culprit: lack of primary care doctors.

Invoking imagery of the black bag toting doctor from decades ago making house calls to treat all that ailed you and your family, primary care physicians are still the lynchpin of our health care system. These physicians are the most familiar to Americans--they are the family doctor, general practitioner, and pediatrician, and they are many times the only point of contact that people have with the health care system. They are the first line of defense for keeping our families healthy.

Unfortunately, as the entire Nation suffers from a shortage of primary care doctors, our rural areas are hit the hardest. For a variety of socioeconomic and resource-related reasons, rural communities struggle to compete with big cities in recruiting from an already scarce pool of doctors. Some of these barriers are inherent to these areas--lack of job opportunities for spouses or a general lack of desire to live the lifestyle offered by our rural communities. But some barriers can be overcome if we use our resources wisely and work toward solutions to break them down, particularly with respect to how we as a nation train and compensate our front line doctors.

Medical school is where we develop and educate our new doctors, yet the 4 years of training they provide more often than not nudge students into more lucrative specialty care or toward practice in higher paying cities. While we certainly rely on our cardiologists, orthopedists, neurologists, and the many other medical specialists to provide the top-notch care that only they are trained to provide, we cannot continue to push students into these areas to the detriment of primary care. A balance needs to be found.

Today, I am proud to introduce, along with Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, the Rural Physician Pipeline Act of 2009, a bill that I hope can be part of the solution to our rural physician shortage. This legislation would make grants available to medical schools across the country for establishing programs designed to recruit students from rural areas who have a desire to practice in their hometowns. These programs would cultivate and strengthen the rural commitment of these future ``homegrown'' doctors, provide them the specialized training necessary to excel in the unique environment of sparsely populated regions, and assist them in finding postgraduate training programs that specialize in training doctors for practice in underserved rural communities.

Primary care doctors in rural areas face challenges that urban doctors do not. When a physician is the only health care provider for an entire county, he or she cannot refer patients down the hall to a specialist. The rural training programs encouraged by this bill would give students additional training in pediatrics, emergency medicine, obstetrics, and behavioral health, among other areas, which will allow them to better serve their communities and hopefully lower the disturbing disparities of health outcomes we have seen over the years.

I was prompted to write this bill after seeing the promising results of a similar program at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Faculty like associate dean for rural health, Dr. Jack Westfall, and rural health track director, Dr. Mark Deutchman, have found that reaching out to rural communities for student recruitment and reinforcing their rural commitment throughout their training is the best way to get them back into the communities that need them most.

My hope is that an expansion of similar programs nationwide will provide a ``one, two punch'' for the rural physician workforce--it will train more rural doctors, and it will train them better.

I recognize that this legislation would play only a modest role in tackling the immense workforce challenges our health care system faces. We need more equitable payments for low-paid primary care doctors, loan-forgiveness programs must be expanded to allow medical graduates to practice primary care without going into budget-crushing debt, and graduate medical education dollars need to be more flexible so that rural residency programs can be established to train graduates.

Health care reform needs to address these areas.

As my fellow Senators and I depart Washington for our home States to listen to the ideas, needs, and concerns of our constituents over the remainder of the month, We do so with the knowledge that there is much to accomplish

upon our return. And as Congress continues working toward a health reform bill that puts the patient in charge of his or her health care choices, brings costs down, ensures financial sustainability, and brings security and stability for all Americans, there is one other thing we must also insist: health reform will not leave rural America behind.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a revised version of the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Mineral Royalty Revenue Allocation Act that I previously introduced on August 4, 2009. This bill is the same as the one I previously introduced, but it corrects an error regarding the allocation of outstanding mineral royalties to four counties in Colorado instead of two--those four counties being Garfield, Rio Blanco, Mesa and Moffat. This revised version also makes it clear that the mineral royalty allocated to these four counties would not affect the normal allocations to those counties under the ``payment in lieu of taxes'' program. In all other respects, the bill and its purposes remain the same. It is a bill designed to release mineral royalty receipts to Colorado where the receipts were generated from gas development within this reserve on the western slope near Rifle, Colorado.

By way of background, in 1997, Congress transferred the federal Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands in western Colorado from the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and directed the BLM to begin leasing the oil and gas resources under these lands. The Transfer Act also directed that the royalties recouped from this leasing program be set aside and the state portion not disbursed to Colorado until the Interior Department and the DOE certified that enough money from the royalty receipts accrued to satisfy two purposes.

The first was to provide funding to clean up the Anvil Points site on these lands. Anvil Points was an oil shale research facility that operated within the Naval Oil Shale Reserve for about 40 years. The facility was operated by DOE at one point, and private industry performed research there under contract. Waste material was produced at this facility from oil shale mining and processing. That waste accumulated in a pile of about 300,000 cubic yards of spent oil shale and other material--including arsenic and other heavy metals--which rests on slopes below the facility.

The second purpose was for the reimbursement of certain costs related to the transfer.

Following the transfer to the BLM, this area experienced significant natural gas leasing and, as a result, significant royalty revenue was generated.

On August 8, 2008, the DOI and DOE certified that adequate funds had accrued to accomplish the goals of cleanup and cost reimbursement and subsequently allocated all royalty revenue generated after this date according to the Mineral Leasing Act, which establishes that Colorado receive a proportionate share.

However, considerably more revenue accrued than was necessary to accomplish the cleanup and cost reimbursement goals. This bill would direct that this additional royalty revenue be allocated to Colorado according to the formulas and processes established for the disbursement of federal mineral royalties under the Mineral Leasing Act.

The bill also directs that the Colorado share of this remaining royalty revenue be allocated to the four Counties directly impacted by oil and gas leasing on the Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands--specifically, Garfield, Rio Blanco, Mesa, and Moffat Counties. Finally, this bill makes it clear that these royalty payments shall not affect the funds that these Counties normally receive under the ``payment in lieu of taxes''--or PILT--program.

Based on figures provided by the BLM, there remains approximately $17 million in these accounts for Colorado's royalty revenue share. This bill would make Colorado whole and provide it with its rightful share of the remaining royalty revenue to address critical local needs and impacts from the very leasing that produced the royalty revenue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, the Rural Physician Pipeline Act of 2009.

In making my way across my home State, I have listened to rural constituents from all over Colorado, and their message is clear: rural communities are being hit hard by America's health care crisis.

The life expectancy for women in many rural counties across the Nation has declined significantly over the past several decades, and health outcomes for Hispanic, Native American, and other minority populations are at unacceptable levels. Low-income rural Americans in these areas have very few options for affordable access to health care, if they have any at all.

Just over 2 weeks ago, I reached out to health care providers and professionals in rural regions of Colorado that have been most impacted by our ailing health system to hear directly from those on health care's front lines. While there are many factors contributing to the lower health outcomes we are seeing in these regions, including regulatory hurdles and low reimbursement rates for rural clinics and hospitals, the physicians and health professionals I spoke with were pretty clear about the overwhelming culprit: lack of primary care doctors.

Invoking imagery of the black bag toting doctor from decades ago making house calls to treat all that ailed you and your family, primary care physicians are still the lynchpin of our health care system. These physicians are the most familiar to Americans--they are the family doctor, general practitioner, and pediatrician, and they are many times the only point of contact that people have with the health care system. They are the first line of defense for keeping our families healthy.

Unfortunately, as the entire Nation suffers from a shortage of primary care doctors, our rural areas are hit the hardest. For a variety of socioeconomic and resource-related reasons, rural communities struggle to compete with big cities in recruiting from an already scarce pool of doctors. Some of these barriers are inherent to these areas--lack of job opportunities for spouses or a general lack of desire to live the lifestyle offered by our rural communities. But some barriers can be overcome if we use our resources wisely and work toward solutions to break them down, particularly with respect to how we as a nation train and compensate our front line doctors.

Medical school is where we develop and educate our new doctors, yet the 4 years of training they provide more often than not nudge students into more lucrative specialty care or toward practice in higher paying cities. While we certainly rely on our cardiologists, orthopedists, neurologists, and the many other medical specialists to provide the top-notch care that only they are trained to provide, we cannot continue to push students into these areas to the detriment of primary care. A balance needs to be found.

Today, I am proud to introduce, along with Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, the Rural Physician Pipeline Act of 2009, a bill that I hope can be part of the solution to our rural physician shortage. This legislation would make grants available to medical schools across the country for establishing programs designed to recruit students from rural areas who have a desire to practice in their hometowns. These programs would cultivate and strengthen the rural commitment of these future ``homegrown'' doctors, provide them the specialized training necessary to excel in the unique environment of sparsely populated regions, and assist them in finding postgraduate training programs that specialize in training doctors for practice in underserved rural communities.

Primary care doctors in rural areas face challenges that urban doctors do not. When a physician is the only health care provider for an entire county, he or she cannot refer patients down the hall to a specialist. The rural training programs encouraged by this bill would give students additional training in pediatrics, emergency medicine, obstetrics, and behavioral health, among other areas, which will allow them to better serve their communities and hopefully lower the disturbing disparities of health outcomes we have seen over the years.

I was prompted to write this bill after seeing the promising results of a similar program at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Faculty like associate dean for rural health, Dr. Jack Westfall, and rural health track director, Dr. Mark Deutchman, have found that reaching out to rural communities for student recruitment and reinforcing their rural commitment throughout their training is the best way to get them back into the communities that need them most.

My hope is that an expansion of similar programs nationwide will provide a ``one, two punch'' for the rural physician workforce--it will train more rural doctors, and it will train them better.

I recognize that this legislation would play only a modest role in tackling the immense workforce challenges our health care system faces. We need more equitable payments for low-paid primary care doctors, loan-forgiveness programs must be expanded to allow medical graduates to practice primary care without going into budget-crushing debt, and graduate medical education dollars need to be more flexible so that rural residency programs can be established to train graduates.

Health care reform needs to address these areas.

As my fellow Senators and I depart Washington for our home States to listen to the ideas, needs, and concerns of our constituents over the remainder of the month, We do so with the knowledge that there is much to accomplish

upon our return. And as Congress continues working toward a health reform bill that puts the patient in charge of his or her health care choices, brings costs down, ensures financial sustainability, and brings security and stability for all Americans, there is one other thing we must also insist: health reform will not leave rural America behind.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Mineral Royalty Revenue Allocation Act. It is a bill designed to release mineral royalty receipts to Colorado where the receipts were generated from gas development within this reserve on the western slope near Rifle, Colorado.

By way of background, in 1997, Congress transferred the federal Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands in western Colorado from the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and directed the BLM to begin leasing the oil and gas resources under these lands. The Transfer Act also directed that the royalties recouped from this leasing program be set aside and the state portion not disbursed to Colorado until the Interior Department and the DOE certified that enough money from the royalty receipts accrued to satisfy two purposes.

The first was to provide funding to clean up the Anvil Points site on these lands. Anvil Points was an oil shale research facility that operated within the Naval Oil Shale Reserve for about 40 years. The facility was operated by DOE at one point, and private industry performed research there under contract. Waste material was produced at this facility from oil shale mining and processing. That waste accumulated in a pile of about 300,000 cubic yards of spent oil shale and other material--including arsenic and other heavy metals--which rests on slopes below the facility.

The second purpose was for the reimbursement of certain costs related to the transfer.

Following the transfer to the BLM, this area experienced significant natural gas leasing and, as a result, significant royalty revenue was generated.

On August 8, 2008, the DOI and DOE certified that adequate funds had accrued to accomplish the goals of cleanup and cost reimbursement and subsequently allocated all royalty revenue generated after this date according to the Mineral Leasing Act, which establishes that Colorado receive a proportionate share.

However, considerably more revenue accrued than was necessary to accomplish the cleanup and cost reimbursement goals. This bill would direct that this additional royalty revenue be allocated to Colorado according to the formulas and processes established for the disbursement of federal mineral royalties under the Mineral Leasing Act.

The bill also directs that the Colorado share of this remaining royalty revenue be allocated to the two Counties directly impacted by oil and gas leasing on the Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands--specifically, Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties. The bill further requires that the royalties be used to address these impacts through activities such as land and water restoration, road repair, and other capital improvement projects.

Based on figures provided by the BLM, there remains approximately $17 million in these accounts for Colorado's royalty revenue share. This bill would make Colorado whole and provide it with its rightful share of the remaining royalty revenue to address critical local needs and impacts from the very leasing that produced the royalty revenue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Mineral Royalty Revenue Allocation Act. It is a bill designed to release mineral royalty receipts to Colorado where the receipts were generated from gas development within this reserve on the western slope near Rifle, Colorado.

By way of background, in 1997, Congress transferred the federal Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands in western Colorado from the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and directed the BLM to begin leasing the oil and gas resources under these lands. The Transfer Act also directed that the royalties recouped from this leasing program be set aside and the state portion not disbursed to Colorado until the Interior Department and the DOE certified that enough money from the royalty receipts accrued to satisfy two purposes.

The first was to provide funding to clean up the Anvil Points site on these lands. Anvil Points was an oil shale research facility that operated within the Naval Oil Shale Reserve for about 40 years. The facility was operated by DOE at one point, and private industry performed research there under contract. Waste material was produced at this facility from oil shale mining and processing. That waste accumulated in a pile of about 300,000 cubic yards of spent oil shale and other material--including arsenic and other heavy metals--which rests on slopes below the facility.

The second purpose was for the reimbursement of certain costs related to the transfer.

Following the transfer to the BLM, this area experienced significant natural gas leasing and, as a result, significant royalty revenue was generated.

On August 8, 2008, the DOI and DOE certified that adequate funds had accrued to accomplish the goals of cleanup and cost reimbursement and subsequently allocated all royalty revenue generated after this date according to the Mineral Leasing Act, which establishes that Colorado receive a proportionate share.

However, considerably more revenue accrued than was necessary to accomplish the cleanup and cost reimbursement goals. This bill would direct that this additional royalty revenue be allocated to Colorado according to the formulas and processes established for the disbursement of federal mineral royalties under the Mineral Leasing Act.

The bill also directs that the Colorado share of this remaining royalty revenue be allocated to the two Counties directly impacted by oil and gas leasing on the Naval Oil Shale Reserve lands--specifically, Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties. The bill further requires that the royalties be used to address these impacts through activities such as land and water restoration, road repair, and other capital improvement projects.

Based on figures provided by the BLM, there remains approximately $17 million in these accounts for Colorado's royalty revenue share. This bill would make Colorado whole and provide it with its rightful share of the remaining royalty revenue to address critical local needs and impacts from the very leasing that produced the royalty revenue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, today I wish to congratulate and honor the crew of STS-125, who conducted NASA's fifth and final mission to the Hubble Space Telescope earlier this year. The crew-- Commander Scott D. Altman, Pilot Gregory C. Johnson and mission specialists John M. Grunsfeld, Michael J. Massimino, Andrew J. Feustel, Michael T. Good and Megan McArthur--brilliantly executed a mission that included an unprecedented five spacewalks in 5 consecutive days to install two new instruments, repair two others and add necessary upgrades to extend the life of the Hubble. Most importantly, they returned safely to Earth.

I would like to specifically acknowledge Dr. Grunsfeld, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for many years. Prior to the mission, the New York Times referred to Dr. Grunsfeld as the ``keeper of the Hubble'' because of his long commitment to the program, including three servicing missions. I cannot imagine a better caretaker. Without him, the Hubble would not be the unparalleled success it is today. I am also thrilled that Dr. Grunsfeld will be joining the faculty of the University of Colorado at Boulder after an extraordinary career at

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, 28 years ago my father, former Congressman from Arizona, Morris Udall, took the long walk from the House of Representatives to come to the Senate. The divide that separates the two great Chambers of Congress sometimes struck my father as deeper and wider than the Grand Canyon of Arizona, but he crossed over that day because he had a mission. He came to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of a fellow Arizonan Sandra Day O'Connor--the first woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

My father, who was often at odds with ideologues of every stripe, noted she was ``clearly conservative,'' but he also spoke of her ``great judicial temperament'' and her disposition to always put justice ahead of partisanship.

Justice O'Connor proved to be an outstanding member of the Court, and my father never regretted his decision to support her nomination.

A generation later, I am honored to stand here today to voice my strong support for the first Hispanic woman nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court--Sonia Sotomayor.

Judge Sotomayor's story is truly the quintessential example of the American dream. The daughter of Puerto Rican parents who moved to New York City at a time when racial and ethnic prejudice was widespread, she lost her father at age 9. Her extraordinary mother worked hard to provide an example of striving in the best sense of that word. Sonia Sotomayor took that example to Princeton, Yale Law School, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, and as a Federal judge.

It is no wonder the Hispanic community is proud of this nomination and has shown an outpouring of support for Judge Sotomayor. I was moved personally to learn that Hispanic citizens from across the country traveled to Washington, DC, and stood in line for hours in order to be in the audience for her confirmation hearings.

Former Colorado State Senator Polly Baca was one of those who traveled from Colorado. As a friend of the Sotomayor family, Polly's reaction mirrored many others when she said that the judge is ``just brilliant.'' ``Some people viewed her as a bit of a nerd,'' Senator Baca said, ``because she worked so hard, studied so hard. And she's led her life that way. . . .'' ``She is who she is,'' Senator Baca concluded. This historic nomination is not only a source of pride for Hispanic Americans, but for all of us. That is because we all take heart and experience pride when we hear of a fellow American who overcomes great obstacles and does good through hard work and perseverance.

Let me quote the Greeley Tribune out on our eastern plains in my home State of Colorado. The Tribune wrote:

This is, instead, a celebration of the growth of our

democracy . . . it is important that we recognize her

nomination for what it is: a signpost on the unending road

toward a more perfect union.

The Framers of the Constitution specifically outlined the advise and consent role of the Senate regarding nominations. This is one of our most solemn duties as Senators, the importance of which cannot be overstated. I take this responsibility very seriously. The Supreme Court is the highest Court in our land. Once it rules on a case, that holding and rule become the law of the land. The Presiding Officer, as the former attorney general of Illinois, knows that to be the case. The men and women we send to serve there make decisions and render judgments that can chart our destiny, literally, as a people.

So an inspiring life story is not the only or even the most compelling reason to confirm Judge Sotomayor. What matters most? Her qualifications for the job, her record, and her approach to the Constitution.

Last week my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee began the confirmation proceedings for Judge Sotomayor and examined her record. During those hearings, the judge handled herself with grace and poise. She answered tough questions and clearly demonstrated her commitment to the law and the Constitution.

Out on the west slope of our great State of Colorado, we have the city of Grand Junction. The Daily Sentinel, that city's newspaper, stated last week: ``Sotomayor is unquestionably qualified.'' And I agree.

There is no doubt that she is superbly qualified to be our next Supreme Court Justice. As a Federal trial judge, in addition to her more recent experience on the court of appeals, Judge Sotomayor brings more experience as a judge to the job of serving on the Supreme Court than anyone currently serving on the Court.

In addition, the judge received a ``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. This is the highest rating from the ABA, notable because it is given by Judge Sotomayor's peers.

Judge Sotomayor has received endorsements from a variety of organizations, ranging from law enforcement and sportsmen and hunters, to legal and higher education professionals.

The Framers of the Constitution anticipated the importance of having an independent and duty-bound judiciary. Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, noted that:

To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is

indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules

and precedents, which serve to define and point out their

duty in every particular case that comes before them. . . .

From her record, it is unmistakable that Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated a commitment to precedent and the rule of law, as Mr. Hamilton described it. During her confirmation hearings, she said:

As a judge, I do not make the law . . . judges must apply

the law.

Some have raised the question whether Judge Sotomayor is a ``liberal activist'' because of her involvement on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. But Judge Sotomayor's role and involvement has not been in directing legal opinions from this organization, but it has been directed instead at encouraging Puerto Rican youth to pursue careers in the legal profession.

According to her record, she has participated in 434 published panel decisions where there was at least one judge appointed by a Republican President. Despite notions to the contrary, she has agreed with the result favored by the Republican appointee 95 percent of the time. What does that demonstrate? Well, it demonstrates that Judge Sotomayor does not have an ideological bias but that she is a moderate jurist.

I also wish to acknowledge another alleged controversy Judge Sotomayor's critics have seized upon as a reason to oppose her confirmation; that is, her so-called ``wise Latina'' remarks in which the judge waxed not so eloquently on her hopes that she might draw special wisdom and insight from her personal experience. Judge Sotomayor herself has acknowledged the clumsiness of her language. If anything in her record suggested a special bias or prejudice, these words might be evidence of a larger problem, but that is simply not borne out in a review of her record on the bench. Nor did her decision on the Ricci case strike me as evidence of activist bias so much as it was a case of deference for judicial precedent. It strikes me as particularly unfair for Judge Sotomayor's critics to assail her for social activism when there is little, if any, evidence of that in her record, and they also used the Ricci case as an example. Frankly, I think the judge's opinions consistently show judicial restraint, respect for established legal precedent, and deference to the policymaking role of the elected branches--even when it leads to a result that may be unpopular or different from her personal opinion.

After I had a chance to meet with Judge Sotomayor, I came away with the opinion that she possesses the temperament, the qualifications, and the experience to meet the challenges of serving at the highest level on the Supreme Court.

I also appreciated that she acknowledged one of the most important issues to the livelihood of westerners: water. She surprised me when she said that all of the questions surrounding water may be among the most challenging legal controversies we face in the next 25 to 50 years. We did not have a conversation about the specific legal issues that might emerge around water, energy, or public lands in the West, but what I saw was a reassuring appreciation for the unique problems of our region and an intellectual curiosity to match it.

So as I conclude, I have reviewed Judge Sotomayor's impressive judicial record. I have watched and listened carefully to her answers during her confirmation hearing and met with her in person. Like Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I believe she is poised to make history. I am proud to support her nomination, and I would encourage my colleagues in the Senate to do likewise.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I heard the Senator from Massachusetts laying out the scenario we face not just as Americans but as inhabitants of this wonderful planet Earth. I was compelled to come to the floor and talk about what we are doing in Colorado in seizing the opportunities that the Senator from Massachusetts points out.

He described ably and eloquently what I have characterized as a ``no regrets'' policy. We ought to take all of these steps because whether or not climate change materializes--and I am one who believes the science is very powerfully pointing in that direction--all of those steps would result in the benefits he described. Today I want to bring my home State perspective to

this debate over cleaner, safer, and more secure energy sources.

When we make this change, we will improve our national security. We lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we protect our Earth, and we preserve the air we breathe and the water we drink. Most of all, we keep faith with our children. I have long believed that we do not inherit the Earth from our parents; we are actually borrowing it and all its majesty from our children.

Colorado has a unique perspective on this opportunity, and I think America can benefit from our experiences.

For many years, we have been a national leader in developing energy sources that are traditional, such as coal and natural gas. And in recent years, we have begun to lead the Nation in producing renewable energy from the Sun, the wind, and from biomass.

In 2004--the Presiding Officer, who is a former Governor, can understand the symbolism of what we did--I led a campaign along with the Republican speaker of our State house, Lola Spradley, to create a renewable electricity standard for our State. We barnstormed together in our State in that highly partisan 2004 election. We surprised people that a Democrat and Republican were campaigning together. It was not a Republican or Democratic issue; it was a Colorado issue and, more importantly, it was a Colorado opportunity.

There were naysayers who tried to scare our voters by saying the renewable standard would raise energy costs and harm our economy. But our voters decided to take up the challenge and to commit to generating 10 percent of our electricity from the Sun and from the wind and other clean sources of energy. Our clean energy producers went to work after we passed this measure, and just 3 years later our legislature, realizing we were soon to reach that goal, said: Let's double the standard. So we now have a 20-percent standard we are committing to reach by the year 2020.

We are fortunate to have these ample supplies of clean energy resources in Colorado. But the real key to this has been releasing the ingenuity of our people and then setting goals that create a sustainable future. I wanted to share some examples from Colorado specifically.

Just last week, Tristate, a Colorado utility, joined with a subsidiary of Duke Energy and announced plans to build a wind power facility in Kit Carson, CO, out in our eastern plains.

Vestas--which many are familiar with as the Danish wind turbine supplier--recently broke ground on two new manufacturing plants in the city of Brighton that will eventually employ over 1,300 people. It is also building a $250 million plant in Pueblo that will be the largest facility of its kind and employ 500 people.

Our Governor, Bill Ritter, has estimated that the solar component--we had a solar component in our renewable electricity standard, specifically to generate solar energy activity--has brought over 1,500 new jobs to Colorado.

I think it is fair to say we have wind turbines sprouting and growing like trees on our eastern plains and we have solar farms that are covering the entire San Luis Valley, which is one of our agricultural gems. This is as a direct result of Coloradans setting a goal and saying we are going to meet that goal. I guess I am optimistic enough about America to know that America can follow Colorado's lead. For me, it is when, not if, we commit to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future, we will lead the world in this next great technological revolution.

The Senator from Massachusetts spoke to the awe-inspiring numbers that are potentials--a $6 trillion economy--waiting for us out there if we will only commit to pursuing it. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that a 25-percent renewable electricity standard by 2025 will lead to almost 300,000 new jobs in America, $260-plus billion in new capital investments, $13 billion in income to farmers, ranchers and rural landowners, and $12 billion in local and State tax revenues. Consumers would save $64 billion in lower electricity bills by 2025, while we would reduce the carbon pollution emitted by cars that would be the equivalent of taking 45 million vehicles off of our roads.

I am talking about jobs, Madam President, but it goes much further than that. If, and I say when, we develop a clean energy economy, we will create a new manufacturing base. It will protect our lands and our water, and it will align a policy compass that helps us navigate toward a more prosperous future.

I would like to take a minute and emphasize that the clean energy future I paint doesn't mean the abandonment of traditional sources of energy. We have coal and oil and natural gas in abundance. Nor should it shut the door on nuclear power. Quite the opposite. These sources will remain an essential component of our energy mix for the foreseeable future. I think, as Colorado's experience shows, a balanced energy portfolio will work and that we can find that sweet spot in an energy mix for the future.

We have ample supplies of fossil fuel in Colorado, and we ought to continue to develop those sources. They are crucial to the livelihood of tens of thousands of Coloradans and still comprise the majority of our electric generation. Natural gas, in particular, is a clean and domestic source of energy, and it will be a crucial bridge fuel to the future.

We have massive quantities of oil shale potential on our western slope, and we should continue to research to see if we can produce it in a commercially viable way and in an environmentally sensitive manner.

Colorado has been able to bridge the divide, literally, between our western slope and our eastern plains and between conventional sources of energy from the last century and the clean sources of the future, and the rest of America must now do the same.

The bottom line, though, Madam President, is we must have a comprehensive energy policy that transitions us to cleaner, safer, and more sustainable sources of energy while making full use of existing sources in a responsible manner.

In Colorado, we have a very tangible interest in America adopting broad clean energy sources and therefore limiting our contribution of carbon into the atmosphere, and I would like to focus on one key element of life on our planet, and that is water.

Water is the lifeblood of the entire West. When you grow up in the desert, as I did, you learn to treasure water. You learn that everything is shaped by it, and it may not always be there when you need it if you don't husband those resources. My constituents know that maintaining our water supply is crucial to the health of their families and to preserving the way of life we so value in the West. We have suffered through water shortages. We have seen drought.

My father's generation--not that far removed from our generation-- experienced the great Dust Bowl of the 1930s. That was an ecological disaster that reminds us that while we are smart as a species, and we are industrious, Mother Nature always bats last.

When scientists look at our part of the country, they predict that droughts will get worse and precipitation patterns will decrease in Western States because of our use of and dependence on the traditional sources over the last century. People in Colorado know we can't ignore this threat. We have seen acre after acre of our forests devastated by the mountain pine beetle--an epidemic that was exacerbated by a warming climate that will get worse in the hotter drier conditions to come. When they see that, when I see that, we know that doing nothing is not an option.

The cost of inaction is simply too high, and you see that point of view in all the States in my region of the country, regardless of the leadership at the gubernatorial level, at the legislative level. No matter what part of the country we are from, we have a stake in crafting a new energy policy. Beyond regional interests, members of both political parties know we have to meet this challenge because if we don't, it is not only our economic prosperity that is at stake, our national security is at stake.

I was inspired this week to see that our former colleague, the highly respected, now retired, Senator John Warner, is traveling across the country making the case for a plan to address the threats from climate change. We can debate the causes of climate change, and we should continue to have that debate, but we know what we must do.

First, we must lead the world in a clean energy revolution, and next we must acknowledge that our reliance on foreign sources of oil and fossil fuels isn't a sustainable strategy. Third, we must act soon.

I used to think having a discussion about adapting to the changes being brought about by the emission of carbon was a mistake, and that by looking at adapting we were giving in to the problem. But I have come to realize that we have to be realistic and we have to recognize that the changes that are coming will have real impacts on all of us. If we don't act now, the changes that are coming at us and bearing down on us will have a terrible effect on future generations, and we will be doing those generations a terrible disservice.

The longer we wait, the longer we deny, the longer we spend debating, the harder and, frankly, the more expensive it will be to deal with those changes. So the time to act is now. I urge all of our colleagues to join together to pass a strong, clean energy bill. We can drive America with clean energy.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 1511 to S. 1390.

In the midst of my first campaign for Congress in 1998, the Nation was shocked by the tragic death of Matthew Shepard.

We all know well the story of Matthew--a 21-year-old University of Wyoming student who was brutally murdered simply for being gay. He was beaten severely, tied to a fence, and left to die in freezing temperatures. Matthew was taken to a hospital in Fort Collins, CO, where he never regained consciousness.

I was elected to Congress a month after Matthew's murder. And for every year thereafter, I have supported Federal hate crimes legislation that would later be renamed for him--The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Ten years later, in 2008, I asked my fellow Coloradans to entrust me with the honor of representing them in the Senate. During that campaign, I was deeply saddened to learn about another tragic murder this time in my home State of Colorado.

In July of last year, 18-year-old Angie Zapata was beaten to death in the living room of her Greeley apartment. According to press accounts, Angie's attacker claims that he brutally went after her with a fire extinguisher, pummeling her until she could not fight back because of his hatred for transgender and gay people. This case is a sobering reminder that 10 years after Matthew Shepard's murder, vile prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity still plagues our society.

Unlike Federal law, Colorado has a strong hate crimes statute. The man accused of killing Angie was the first person in the Nation to be tried and eventually convicted under any State's hate crime law for killing a person because of transgender orientation. I hope that the successful prosecution of Angie's killer in Colorado will be an example for other States and demonstrate to Members of Congress that it is time for the country as a whole to follow our lead.

President Obama has promised to sign into law the expansion of hate crimes statute to include sexual identity, gender identity and disability, which is what the amendment before us today would do. I am a cosponsor and ardent supporter of this amendment because I believe now is the time in remembrance of Matthew and Angie and all other Americans who have been a victim of violent crimes motivated by hate to get this done. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today as a member of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate to support this bipartisan bill in front of us that is critically important to our national security.

I applaud Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their leadership in guiding this bill to the floor today. They have done a tremendous job. I also want to acknowledge the expert staff they have been ably supported by who serve on the committee the Acting President pro tempore and I are both so honored to be a part of.

I am particularly grateful to them for including provisions important for Colorado, including $560 million in authorized military construction.

I would like to highlight in particular the military construction dollars for Fort Carson, which is in the wonderful city of Colorado Springs and the County of El Paso. Millions of dollars have been allocated to Fort Carson for military construction projects to prepare to expand the post so it could house a 47th Brigade Combat Team, and millions more are in the pipeline for fiscal year 2010.

But the future of that funding was put in doubt when Defense Secretary Gates announced earlier this year that the Army would not create a new brigade combat team at Fort Carson.

I remain disappointed that brigade will not be coming to Fort Carson, at least in the near future. But I understand Secretary Gates's concern that we need to fill out the brigades we have, expand the amount of dwell time service members have between deployments, and meet readiness requirements before we create new brigades.

Still, I wanted to ensure that Fort Carson and the Colorado Springs community are not punished because of the Army's decision. Many of the soldiers at Fort Carson live and work in substandard buildings. They still need new barracks, mess halls, vehicle maintenance shops, and other infrastructure--even if that new brigade combat team will not be located there.

A number of faculties were scheduled to be replaced in future years anyway, so with the dollars we have kept in the bill, the 43rd Brigade Combat Team will get its updated facilities a few years early. I am pleased the committee worked with me to preserve the most important construction dollars at Fort Carson. This ensures the soldiers at Fort Carson will have the quality of life they deserve.

The bill also includes language I offered in the committee with Senator

Lieberman that studies the benefits and risks of reducing the planned number of BCTs from 48 to 45. The relationship between the number of brigades and dwell time and demands on specific military occupational specialties, so-called MOSs, is complicated. I want to make sure the reduction of BCTs results in the upsides we expect and does not present unforeseen problems or downsides.

Staying on the topic of what is important in the bill to Colorado, there is $246 million in funding to keep the cleanup of the Pueblo Chemical Depot on track. This will allow the destruction of weapons there and the cleanup at the depot to be completed by the congressionally mandated date of 2017. Significantly, the bill funds the disposal, onsite, of these hazardous wastes left after the chemical treatment of the mustard agent. I worked with the people of Pueblo to fight a proposal to ship this waste offsite, so I am glad the bill underscores the DOD's commitment to onsite disposal. It is the safest thing to do and makes the most sense.

Finally, in regards to Colorado, the committee approved an amendment I offered regarding reimbursement for health care providers, such as Pikes Peak Behavioral Health Group in Colorado Springs. This center, and many centers like it, want to help our soldiers and their families, but TRICARE--which is the civilian health care system for military personnel and their dependents--cannot keep up with the high costs of medical care, and sometimes providers are not reimbursed at all for their necessary services.

In particular, TRICARE providers are not reimbursed for providing case management services for soldiers with PTSD and traumatic brain injury, known as TBI. If we help these soldiers stay in treatment, if we make sure they get their medical appointments, and if we generally coordinate their care, we end up reducing costs, and we help those soldiers and their families who are facing these challenges with mental health function in their communities.

So this amendment directs the Defense Secretary to assess the efficacy and cost of case management services for those with serious mental health problems. My hope is the study will show the benefits of case management and then help further the DOD consider covering this important service under TRICARE.

If I might, let me turn to the broader legislation because it includes many provisions that do not directly relate to Colorado.

The bill supports our service members, and it keeps Americans safe. It authorizes $679 billion for defense programs, with $129 billion going to our ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

First and foremost, the bill focuses on our military's readiness needs. We need to do all we can to help make sure our men and women in uniform--who voluntarily put their lives on the line for us, and who have been stretched to the limit by repeated deployments--have the training, the equipment, and the facilities necessary.

To help our men and women in uniform support themselves and their families, the bill provides a 3.4-percent, across-the-board pay raise, as well as an extension of stop-loss pay for 2 more years. That is an important number.

Importantly, this bill gives Afghanistan the attention it deserves. I had the great privilege of traveling to that part of the world recently, and I think there is a window of opportunity to try to arrest deteriorating security conditions in both countries and to work with the civilian governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan to achieve stability and security in this all-important region.

This is not about ``staying the course.'' This is about finally committing resources and attention to an area that is a critical front in the war against Islamic extremism and correcting the mistakes and missteps of recent years.

That is what the bill would do. It would refocus our attention on this important region. It would protect our troops in harm's way by providing funds for MRAP all-terrain vehicles to be deployed in Afghanistan and additional Blackhawk helicopters to give mobility to our troops.

Our bill also supports the training and equipping of the Afghan Security Forces, as well as efforts to help the Pakistani Government understand and implement a counterinsurgency strategy on the part of their military forces.

Moreover, our bill cares for our wounded warriors. It expands TRICARE benefits for certain military retirees. It requires mental health assessments of service members prior to deployment, and it calls for an increase in the number of military and civilian behavioral health personnel.

We also include a comprehensive review of the activities of the Department of Defense for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of substance abuse disorders among service members. This is particularly important in light, today, of a report that has been released--the EPICON study--that directly focuses on Fort Carson.

This is a study that was initiated last year to examine the records of Fort Carson soldiers who have been involved in violent crimes since returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army Surgeon General, Lieutenant General Schoomaker, put together a team of experts to identify any commonalities among the violent crimes.

I had a chance to sit down with General Schoomaker yesterday. He and his team have concluded that although risk factors alone do not explain a ``clustering'' of crime in the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division--the 4 of the 4--a combination of factors converged to increase the risk that these soldiers would be engaged in violent crime.

One concern General Schoomaker expressed was that the stigma and lack of referral to the Army Substance Referral Program for required substance abuse screening may have increased the overall risk of violent behavior. The general talked about the need to reduce barriers to treatment for alcohol and drug abuse, which is an Army-wide concern. He mentioned pilot projects ongoing at a number of posts where soldiers who ``self-identify'' a substance abuse problem can get treatment without the knowledge of their commanders, helping them seek treatment without fear of appearing weak in the eyes of their superiors. I will be urging the Army to establish a similar pilot program at Fort Carson.

Mr. President, let me turn to the bill and what is notable for what it does not include. There are policies that are difficult to change because they are antiquated and no longer reflect the reality of our society. The failed policy, ``don't ask, don't tell,'' is a good example. But the fact that it will be difficult to repeal does not mean we should not try.

Since the implementation of this program in 1993, the Armed Forces have discharged over 12,000 brave and qualified combat troops--code- breakers, medical and intelligence specialists, and skilled translators--simply for being gay. This includes over 300 service personnel who have been discharged since President Obama took office.

Mr. President, this is 2009. I believe this discriminatory policy undermines the strength of our military and the fairness of our great Nation. We are engaged in two wars. It is counterproductive to discharge service members who have critical skills to winning these wars, even as the military has to spend scarce dollars to replace them. In my opinion, we need to bring the injustice of this policy to the forefront now, and I plan to work with my colleagues and with the administration to see that we accomplish, in a timely manner, the full repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

There are things this bill doesn't include that it shouldn't include, such as spending on underperforming, unnecessary, and outdated weapons systems. It took courage for Secretary Gates to make the recommendations he did, since it is never easy to stop spending programs in our Defense budget. But we need to stop funding programs that significantly exceed their budget and we need to stop spending limited dollars to buy more capability than the Nation needs.

There are also provisions in this bill that shouldn't be included, such as additional spending on the F-22. I voted in committee against an amendment to add $1.75 billion to the bill to purchase F-22 aircraft that the military does not

want, does not need, and says we cannot afford. The F-22 is a valuable, capable aircraft, but the question is whether we need more than 187 F- 22s to meet the Nation's requirements, and there is bipartisan agreement that we do not. Presidents Obama and Bush, two Secretaries of Defense, three Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and current members of the Joint Chiefs agreed that 187 aircraft are sufficient.

So let me conclude by saying that this is a good bill. It is a bill that balances the need to sustain our current war-fighting abilities with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. It is critical that we are able to meet the operational needs of our military today, even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world.

This is a good bill for our Nation and for my home State of Colorado; it is a carefully drafted and considered bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2009. This bill is the same as a bill introduced in the last Congress by my colleague Representative Doug Lamborn. I was proud to cosponsor that bill in the last Congress, which passed the House of Representative but was not taken up in the Senate, and I am pleased to introduce it today.

The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act addresses concerns regarding a mine tunnel in Leadville, Colorado. In 2008, a blockage formed in the tunnel that backed up a large volume of water, thereby creating a potential safety hazard to the community in the event of a catastrophic failure. While taking actions to address the immediate threat, questions arose as to whether the Bureau of Reclamation, which owns the tunnel, has the authority to help implement a number of remedies to reduce this threat and clean up additional contaminated water from the tunnel. My bill would clarify that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat water in the tunnel and is responsible for maintaining it in order to reduce future threats to the community.

The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel was originally constructed by the federal Bureau of Mines in the 1940s and 1950s to facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for World War II and Korean War efforts. The Bureau of Reclamation acquired the tunnel in 1959, hoping to use it as a source of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a water diversion project in the Fryingpan and Arkansas River Basins. Although the tunnel was never used for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, water that flows out of the tunnel is considered part of the natural flow of the Arkansas River. With the passage and subsequent signing into law of H.R. 429 during the 102nd Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation constructed and continues to operate a water treatment plant at the mouth of the tunnel.

Groundwater levels at the tunnel have fluctuated in recent years. The 2008 collapse in the tunnel increased the tunnel's mine pool significantly, leading to new seeps and springs in the area. Estimates suggest that up to 1 billion gallons of water may have built up behind the blockage within the mine pool.

In November 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, sent a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation expressing concerns over a catastrophic blowout as a result of the built up water, and, in February 2008, the Lake County Commissioners declared a state of emergency. The Bureau of Reclamation developed a risk assessment in the area, and the EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation performed some emergency measures to relieve water pressure in the area.

While this emergency work was important, the long-term need to rehabilitate and maintain the tunnel remains an open question. There has been general agreement on what needs to be done; namely, plugging the tunnel, drilling a well behind the plug, and then pumping the water out so it can be piped to the Bureau of Reclamation's existing treatment plant. However, it remains unclear as to whether the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to help solve the problem by treating the water that the EPA plans to pump from behind the blockage.

In short, we found there is not only a physical blockage, but also a legal blockage that has prevented the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA and the State of Colorado from reaching an agreement on a long-term solution. This legislation will clear out the legal blockage by allowing the Bureau of Reclamation and the EPA to collaboratively implement the proposed remedy and address the unsafe mine pool in the tunnel.

Specifically, the bill does three things:

First, it clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat water pooling up behind the blockage. Currently, the Bureau has authority to treat ``historic releases,'' which could include water behind the tunnel blockage, but Bureau of Reclamation officials are uncertain. In response, this bill eliminates the ``historic release'' language and clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation can treat the blocked water in the tunnel.

Second, the bill authorizes and directs the Bureau of Reclamation to participate with the EPA on the remedy established under Superfund for the tunnel. The bill also maintains that the Bureau of Reclamation is not liable for the Superfund site cleanup in Leadville. Nevertheless, since remediation activities will occur within the Superfund site, the Bureau of Reclamation has been reluctant to implement this remedy. The Bureau of Reclamation does not want to assume any Superfund liability and does not read current law as allowing participation

with the EPA on the long-term remedy. The bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation not only has the authority to implement the long- term solution at the Superfund site, but that it will be required to join the EPA in implementing it.

Third, the bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation is required to maintain the structural integrity of the tunnel to minimize the chance of another blockage within the tunnel.

The bill also authorizes any funding that might be necessary for the Bureau of Reclamation to perform its clarified responsibilities under this bill.

By clearing up the legal blockage, the bill will help create a collaborative working relationship between the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA and the State of Colorado to solve this problem for the long- term benefit of Colorado.

I look forward to working with the rest of the Colorado Congressional delegation on this legislation and on moving quickly to address concerns with the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp Hale Study Act of 2009. This is a companion bill to the one my Colorado colleague, Rep. Doug Lamborn, has introduced in the House of Representatives, H.R. 2330.

This bill was first introduced by Rep. Lamborn in the last Congress and I was proud to cosponsor that bill. The bill passed the House of Representatives last session, but was not taken up by the Senate. H.R. 2330 has passed the House of Representatives in this Congress and I hope that the Senate can do the same.

I am again pleased to join my colleague Representative Lamborn in reintroducing this bill. It concerns an important military legacy from the WWII era. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central Colorado, was a facility that trained a number of soldiers for combat in high alpine and mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high- altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley suitable for housing and other facilities. The camp itself was located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties.

In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army tested a variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale.

Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous country.

In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated and control of the lands was returned to the Forest Service in 1966. Today the camp is part of the White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left over from weapons testing at the camp, particularly in the East Fork.

Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992. The bill I am introducing today would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district.

Specifically, the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System, and also to consider other Federal, State, local, private or nonprofit means of protecting and interpreting the site. That would include an analysis of the significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale for training of the 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the United States Armed Forces; and use of Camp Hale for training by the Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

The study would also examine the opportunities for public enjoyment of the site, any operational, management, and private property issues that need to be considered if Camp Hale were to be added to the National Park System, the feasibility of administering Camp Hale as a unit of the National Park System considering its size, configuration, ownership, costs, and other factors, and the adequacy of other alternatives for management and resource protection of Camp Hale and for appropriately commemorating the role of Camp Hale in connection with training of United States troops and assistance to Tibetans opposed to the occupation of Tibet.

The bill also contains language ensuring that existing private property rights are not affected by this study, including water rights. The bill in this Congress contains a small change from the last bill in that it makes clear that the bill does not affect the ability to construct needed water infrastructure in the area subject to the study.

Camp Hale is an important part of our nation's proud national defense legacy and it deserves to be recognized and protected. The people who trained there are proud of their accomplishments and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2009. This bill is the same as a bill introduced in the last Congress by my colleague Representative Doug Lamborn. I was proud to cosponsor that bill in the last Congress, which passed the House of Representative but was not taken up in the Senate, and I am pleased to introduce it today.

The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act addresses concerns regarding a mine tunnel in Leadville, Colorado. In 2008, a blockage formed in the tunnel that backed up a large volume of water, thereby creating a potential safety hazard to the community in the event of a catastrophic failure. While taking actions to address the immediate threat, questions arose as to whether the Bureau of Reclamation, which owns the tunnel, has the authority to help implement a number of remedies to reduce this threat and clean up additional contaminated water from the tunnel. My bill would clarify that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat water in the tunnel and is responsible for maintaining it in order to reduce future threats to the community.

The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel was originally constructed by the federal Bureau of Mines in the 1940s and 1950s to facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for World War II and Korean War efforts. The Bureau of Reclamation acquired the tunnel in 1959, hoping to use it as a source of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a water diversion project in the Fryingpan and Arkansas River Basins. Although the tunnel was never used for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, water that flows out of the tunnel is considered part of the natural flow of the Arkansas River. With the passage and subsequent signing into law of H.R. 429 during the 102nd Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation constructed and continues to operate a water treatment plant at the mouth of the tunnel.

Groundwater levels at the tunnel have fluctuated in recent years. The 2008 collapse in the tunnel increased the tunnel's mine pool significantly, leading to new seeps and springs in the area. Estimates suggest that up to 1 billion gallons of water may have built up behind the blockage within the mine pool.

In November 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, sent a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation expressing concerns over a catastrophic blowout as a result of the built up water, and, in February 2008, the Lake County Commissioners declared a state of emergency. The Bureau of Reclamation developed a risk assessment in the area, and the EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation performed some emergency measures to relieve water pressure in the area.

While this emergency work was important, the long-term need to rehabilitate and maintain the tunnel remains an open question. There has been general agreement on what needs to be done; namely, plugging the tunnel, drilling a well behind the plug, and then pumping the water out so it can be piped to the Bureau of Reclamation's existing treatment plant. However, it remains unclear as to whether the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to help solve the problem by treating the water that the EPA plans to pump from behind the blockage.

In short, we found there is not only a physical blockage, but also a legal blockage that has prevented the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA and the State of Colorado from reaching an agreement on a long-term solution. This legislation will clear out the legal blockage by allowing the Bureau of Reclamation and the EPA to collaboratively implement the proposed remedy and address the unsafe mine pool in the tunnel.

Specifically, the bill does three things:

First, it clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat water pooling up behind the blockage. Currently, the Bureau has authority to treat ``historic releases,'' which could include water behind the tunnel blockage, but Bureau of Reclamation officials are uncertain. In response, this bill eliminates the ``historic release'' language and clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation can treat the blocked water in the tunnel.

Second, the bill authorizes and directs the Bureau of Reclamation to participate with the EPA on the remedy established under Superfund for the tunnel. The bill also maintains that the Bureau of Reclamation is not liable for the Superfund site cleanup in Leadville. Nevertheless, since remediation activities will occur within the Superfund site, the Bureau of Reclamation has been reluctant to implement this remedy. The Bureau of Reclamation does not want to assume any Superfund liability and does not read current law as allowing participation

with the EPA on the long-term remedy. The bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation not only has the authority to implement the long- term solution at the Superfund site, but that it will be required to join the EPA in implementing it.

Third, the bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation is required to maintain the structural integrity of the tunnel to minimize the chance of another blockage within the tunnel.

The bill also authorizes any funding that might be necessary for the Bureau of Reclamation to perform its clarified responsibilities under this bill.

By clearing up the legal blockage, the bill will help create a collaborative working relationship between the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA and the State of Colorado to solve this problem for the long- term benefit of Colorado.

I look forward to working with the rest of the Colorado Congressional delegation on this legislation and on moving quickly to address concerns with the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.