Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was signed into law for the purpose of increasing access to higher education for all citizens of the United States and to strengthen the capacity of higher education institutions to better serve their communities. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act during the 109th Congress presents a powerful opportunity for the Nation to address the higher education needs of our constituencies and it is for this reason that I rise today to introduce the Improving Educational Opportunities for All Act. This bill will make changes to definitions located within title II, teacher quality enhancement grants, and title V, the development institutions sections of the Higher Education Act.

When the Higher Education Act was reauthorized in 1998, Congress responded to the Nation's critical need for high-quality teachers by creating grants to help States invest in the recruitment, preparation, licensing, and support of teachers. Title II of the Higher Education Act, the teacher quality enhancement grants initiative, encourages States to improve the quality of their teaching force through such reforms as strengthening teacher certification standards; holding institutions of higher education accountable for preparing teachers with strong teaching skills and knowledge of their content areas; and reducing shortages of qualified teachers in high-need areas. I believe that these grants have been very effective in meeting their goals, but I also want to make sure that this money is targeted to our highest need local education agencies.

The changes I am proposing to title II of the Higher Education Act will enhance the definition of high need local education agencies to include local education agencies that have a high percentage of students who are minority or of limited English proficiency, residing in rural areas as defined by the Bureau of Census, or have high percentages of Naive American students.

Nationwide, studies show the most disadvantaged children are the ones most likely to be taught by the newest, least-qualified and lowest- scoring teachers. We need to attract good teachers who are committed to their profession, and reward teachers who are qualified and want to teach in areas of most critical need. We need teachers to be well- prepared to teach all students to the highest standards and I hope that the changes I am proposing will help States develop and implement programs to meet these needs.

Another positive addition to the Higher Education Act, has been the creation of title V grants to developing institutions. Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic serving institutions, HSIs. HSI's use grants under this section to strengthen academic quality, improve institutional management, and increase financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students.

Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under title V, an institution must, have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum 2-year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant.

The first change I am proposing is a change to title V's current ``50 percent'' low-income assurance requirement. I believe that this requirement is an unnecessary bureaucratic regulation that constrains Hispanic serving institutions abilities to implement programs designed to provide long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Currently, there are no Government authorized means to collect student financial data, and, although some information can be extrapolated from student financial aid forms, it is not enough information to complete the title V forms.

The bill I am introducing today will improve the HSI eligibility requirements by allowing applicants for title V funding to satisfy the 50 percent low-income Hispanic student population criterion with appropriate evidence of student eligibility for title IV, need-based, aid. The revised title V section will retain the requirement that to be eligible for title V funds, an institution must have an enrollment of needy students. However, rather than conditioning grant qualification upon the cumbersome requirement that institutions prove 50 percent of their Hispanic students are low income, it will allow institutions to qualify for title V money if 50 percent of the students are receiving need-based assistance under title IV or a substantial percentage of the students are receiving Pell grants.

Another unnecessary regulation under title V is the minimum 2-year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. Title V's 2-year wait out period impedes Hispanic Serving Institutions efforts to implement continuing programs with long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Eliminating the 2-year wait out period will be of great importance to equipping our Nation's Hispanic serving institutions with the continuous funding that they need to best answer complex challenges. In 2000, Congress eliminated the wait out period for tribally controlled colleges and universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. Historically Black colleges and universities also do not have a wait out period. It is now time for us to eliminate the wait out period for Hispanic serving institutions.

Hispanic serving institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home State of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic serving institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions. However, by convoluting the application process, Congress is preventing these institutions from applying for grants and obstructing their development.

I know that the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee have been working very hard on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I appreciate their efforts, and hope they will consider making the changes I am recommending.

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

Mr. President, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was signed into law for the purpose of increasing access to higher education for all citizens of the United States and to strengthen the capacity of higher education institutions to better serve their communities. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act during the 109th Congress presents a powerful opportunity for the Nation to address the higher education needs of our constituencies and it is for this reason that I rise today to introduce the Improving Educational Opportunities for All Act. This bill will make changes to definitions located within title II, teacher quality enhancement grants, and title V, the development institutions sections of the Higher Education Act.

When the Higher Education Act was reauthorized in 1998, Congress responded to the Nation's critical need for high-quality teachers by creating grants to help States invest in the recruitment, preparation, licensing, and support of teachers. Title II of the Higher Education Act, the teacher quality enhancement grants initiative, encourages States to improve the quality of their teaching force through such reforms as strengthening teacher certification standards; holding institutions of higher education accountable for preparing teachers with strong teaching skills and knowledge of their content areas; and reducing shortages of qualified teachers in high-need areas. I believe that these grants have been very effective in meeting their goals, but I also want to make sure that this money is targeted to our highest need local education agencies.

The changes I am proposing to title II of the Higher Education Act will enhance the definition of high need local education agencies to include local education agencies that have a high percentage of students who are minority or of limited English proficiency, residing in rural areas as defined by the Bureau of Census, or have high percentages of Naive American students.

Nationwide, studies show the most disadvantaged children are the ones most likely to be taught by the newest, least-qualified and lowest- scoring teachers. We need to attract good teachers who are committed to their profession, and reward teachers who are qualified and want to teach in areas of most critical need. We need teachers to be well- prepared to teach all students to the highest standards and I hope that the changes I am proposing will help States develop and implement programs to meet these needs.

Another positive addition to the Higher Education Act, has been the creation of title V grants to developing institutions. Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic serving institutions, HSIs. HSI's use grants under this section to strengthen academic quality, improve institutional management, and increase financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students.

Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under title V, an institution must, have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum 2-year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant.

The first change I am proposing is a change to title V's current ``50 percent'' low-income assurance requirement. I believe that this requirement is an unnecessary bureaucratic regulation that constrains Hispanic serving institutions abilities to implement programs designed to provide long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Currently, there are no Government authorized means to collect student financial data, and, although some information can be extrapolated from student financial aid forms, it is not enough information to complete the title V forms.

The bill I am introducing today will improve the HSI eligibility requirements by allowing applicants for title V funding to satisfy the 50 percent low-income Hispanic student population criterion with appropriate evidence of student eligibility for title IV, need-based, aid. The revised title V section will retain the requirement that to be eligible for title V funds, an institution must have an enrollment of needy students. However, rather than conditioning grant qualification upon the cumbersome requirement that institutions prove 50 percent of their Hispanic students are low income, it will allow institutions to qualify for title V money if 50 percent of the students are receiving need-based assistance under title IV or a substantial percentage of the students are receiving Pell grants.

Another unnecessary regulation under title V is the minimum 2-year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. Title V's 2-year wait out period impedes Hispanic Serving Institutions efforts to implement continuing programs with long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Eliminating the 2-year wait out period will be of great importance to equipping our Nation's Hispanic serving institutions with the continuous funding that they need to best answer complex challenges. In 2000, Congress eliminated the wait out period for tribally controlled colleges and universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. Historically Black colleges and universities also do not have a wait out period. It is now time for us to eliminate the wait out period for Hispanic serving institutions.

Hispanic serving institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home State of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic serving institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions. However, by convoluting the application process, Congress is preventing these institutions from applying for grants and obstructing their development.

I know that the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee have been working very hard on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I appreciate their efforts, and hope they will consider making the changes I am recommending.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today to make my colleagues aware of an important achievement by the Bush administration to secure an agreement with the Russian Government to ensure that a major nonproliferation program moves forward. This agreement will resolve the longstanding disagreement on liability associated with the construction of Mixed Oxide, MOX, Fuel Fabrication Facility in Russia.

This agreement will permit the U.S. and Russia to move forward with the construction of dual MOX fuel fabrication facilities to turn weapons-grade plutonium into civilian mixed-oxide fuel that can be burned in commercial nuclear reactors. Each side will dispose of 34 tons of excess plutonium.

Today the U.S.-Russian counterparts will agree to the terms of an agreement negotiated during the G8 summit in Scotland earlier this month. It was during this summit in which terrorists attempted to disrupt the meeting by setting off simultaneous explosions in the London subway, killing over 40 innocent victims. This senseless violence underscores the importance of eliminating the possibility, however remote, that terrorists might secure and use plutonium or highly enriched uranium in their acts of terror against civilian or military targets.

As we see the world become more and more dangerous, it is critical that we make progress on reprocessing plutonium into MOX. Black marketers and terrorists would love to get their hands on this plutonium. President Bush has worked hard to engage President Putin on this issue, and as a result of that continuing dialogue there is now an agreement to implement a MOX program.

I am very pleased that this agreement has been made because it will give us a surefire way to dispose of weapons-grade material while at the same time providing economic benefits to both countries. I am hopeful the Russian Duma will take quick action.

This agreement breaks a 2-year diplomatic impasse that has stalled the construction of fuel fabrication facilities in the United States and Russia.

I would like to recognize the efforts of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Under Secretary of State John Bolton, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, and the entire Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation within the NNSA. Both the State Department, which negotiated the diplomatic solutions, and the Department of Energy, which has responsibility for managing the design, construction, and operation of the Nation's first plutonium reprocessing plant, have been exceptional. Both teams have worked hard to realize the ultimate goal of eliminating 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium from each of the U.S. and Russian stockpiles.

Over the past year I have pressed the Department of Energy and the State Department to resolve the liability issue. Upon their confirmations, both Secretary Rice and Secretary Bodman have committed their full support, and they should be proud of their early success.

The effort to address the elimination of excess weapons-grade material has been under consideration for over a decade. President George Bush's term initiated the earliest efforts to identify excess weapons-grade material. Over the next decade, the Clinton administration worked with then-President Yeltsin to consider options for eliminating excess material.

In 1994, the National Academy of Sciences', NAS, report on the ``Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium'' found that excess material constituted a ``clear and present danger.'' That same year a joint DOE-DOD review found that 38.2 metric tons of plutonium and 174.3 metric tons of highly enriched uranium were surplus to U.S. defense needs. A programmatic environmental impact statement was undertaken to evaluate options for disposal of this material.

In 1995, U.S. and Russian experts met at Los Alamos to provide recommendations on plutonium disposition. Since those early meetings the labs have contributed a considerable amount of time and effort to support this initiative. In fact, Los Alamos prepared the plutonium that is being used as the initial test fuel assembly currently being burned in the Catawba reactor owned by Duke Power.

In April 1996, at the Moscow Nuclear Safety and Security Summit, it was determined that irradiating plutonium as part of a mixed oxide fuel in commercial reactors and vitrification are appropriate strategies for disposal.

In June 1997, the Independent Holdren-Velikhov Commission issued a final report recommending a disposal pathway identified at the Moscow Summit. The report is a joint U.S. and Russian National Academy of Science review.

In July 1998, the U.S. and Russia signed a Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement that provides for a joint, small-scale test of disposition pathways. This agreement also provided a 5-year liability agreement between the United States. and Russia for coverage of U.S. workers in Russia that expired in July 2003.

In September 1998, President Clinton and President Yeltsin entered into a bilateral plutonium disposition agreement.

In October 1998, I included $200 million in ``emergency'' funding dedicated entirely to plutonium disposition to demonstrate to Russia the firm U.S. commitment to plutonium disposition. This funding persuaded Russia to enter into serious negotiations. Today, $150 million of those funds remains available for use to initiate construction.

That same month, G8 members established the Multilateral Plutonium Disposition Group and committed to international financing of the Russian plutonium program. As of January 2005, total pledges from the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan, Italy, and France total $865 million. I am confident that with the liability issue resolved additional funding will be made available to support the Russian effort. The U.S. will fulfill its commitment to build the U.S facility on it own.

In March 1999, the U.S. awarded the MOX facility contract to Duke Cogema Stone and Webster--DCS--to design the U.S. MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. In August, DOE awarded a contract to design the Pit Disassemble and Conversion Facility.

In January 2000, DOE issued a Record of Decision on locating the pit conversion and fuel fabrication facility at Savannah River, SC.

In September 2000, the United States and Russia signed the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, which calls for each country to dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium

in parallel. It was agreed that construction would begin by 2003. Unfortunately, one item left unresolved in that agreement was the question of liability protection for the U.S. for work performed in Russia.

In January 2001, the Bush administration began a year-long review of all nonproliferation programs with Russia. During this review, the contracting team submitted a construction authorization request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval.

January 2002, the administration decided to pursue a MOX-only pathway and put an end to further work on a vitrification program.

In September 2002, MINATOM, the Russian counterpart to the Department of Energy, agreed to use an identical design of the U.S. proposed MOX facility.

In July 2003, the temporary 5-year limited liability coverage provided under the 1998 Science and Technical Cooperation Agreement expired.

In February 2004, without a formal agreement on liability, the U.S. announced a delay in the program. Plans to initiate construction in May 2004 were delayed until May 2005.

August 2004, the Russians begin site characterization work at the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk, Russia, as a location of the MOX facility. The site has been cleared and is awaiting construction. Unlike the Savannah River site, which has a year-round construction season, the Seversk site is limited to work in the summer.

In September 2004, Los Alamos shipped 125 kilograms of surplus plutonium to France for fabrication into MOX fuel assemblies for a test burn in a commercial U.S. reactor. This activity is undertaken in France since the design of the U.S and Russian fuel fabrication facility is identical to the French facility that is currently reprocessing spent commercial fuel for European and Asian customers. The shipments between the U.S. and France occurred without incident and the lead test assemblies are now being used in the Catawba reactor owned and operated by Duke Power.

In December 2004, the engineering team completed the licensable design of the U.S facility, and the NRC awarded the construction permit for the U.S. facility in March 2005.

On April 20, 2005, the U.S. offered a new liability agreement that was ultimately accepted by the Russian Government in July 2005. It took several months of intense lobbying to pressure the U.S. interagency process to produce a liability agreement that was not identical to the liability terms provided under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Agreement.

On July 19, 2005, the United States and Russia agreed to the terms of a final liability package. This agreement must go to President Putin to be drafted and published as a Presidential decree. Once circulated, Secretary Rice and her counterpart in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will officially sign the agreement, which will then go to the Russian Duma for ratification.

Once this document is signed by Secretary Rice, the Department of Energy will move forward with a site clearing activities in Savannah River, SC, with construction to commence in fiscal year 2006.

I am proud of the fact that two different administrations have followed through on this bilateral initiative, and we are now approaching another critical juncture. Following a decade of successful and numerous scientific, environmental and regulatory reviews, we are at a stage where it is important that Congress maintain an adequate and reliable level of funding to complete construction.

I am aware of the fact that the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have reduced funding for MOX construction but have preserved the funding within other nonproliferation accounts. I am hopeful that during the consideration of the Senate defense authorization bill, Chairman Warner and Senator Levin will agree to restore the funding back into the MOX construction accounts.

In addition, I am hopeful that I will be successful in convincing the House to restore critical funding that was eliminated from the MOX construction program. Of the $360 million requested for construction, the House only provided $35 million. Failure to provide adequate funding would undermine a decade of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia and do nothing to reduce the amount of excess plutonium.

If we are unable to fully fund the construction program and keep the project on track it will prevent the U.S. from consolidating plutonium across the weapons complex and could result in a $100 million per year penalties to be paid to the State of South Carolina as mandated in the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. We have come too far to not complete this project.

I have believed in this initiative from the beginning and believe we can do more to reduce the threat from nuclear proliferation. I am committed to seeing additional resources be used in securing Russian warheads beyond the reach of terrorists. I am committed to strong enforcement by the U.S. or International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, to break up the nuclear black market, where nuclear technology and scientific expertise can be bought for a price.

The stakes are too high and the price too great to consider anything but an aggressive effort by the U.S. and our global partners to prevent the spread of nuclear material.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing previously scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, July 19, at 10 a.m., in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, has been rescheduled for 2:30 p.m. of that same day.

The purpose of the oversight hearing is to receive testimony regarding the effects of the U.S. nuclear testing program on the Marshall Islands.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Josh Johnson or David Marks.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize the achievements of the Stolar Research Corp. of Raton, NM. Stolar's drill string radar was recently selected by R&D magazine as one of the 100 most technologically significant products introduced into the marketplace this year.

The drill string radar attaches to systems that drill for natural resources. It can identify geological formations, locate the position of oil and gas deposits, and determine the thickness of coal seams. The use of the drill string radar will permit missed oil and gas reserves to be cost effectively and easily located. I have every expectation this capability will allow us to more efficiently utilize the resources we have. This ability will lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy, which is vital to our economic and strategic interest.

I would also like to commend Dr. Larry Stolarczyk, founder and president of Stolar Research Corp. His accomplishments and commitment to his hometown of Raton are an example to all New Mexicans.

This is the fourth industry award Stolar has received and I believe it will not be the last. I am very proud of Stolar's achievements. I congratulate them and encourage them to keep up the good work.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize the central role White Sands Missile Range, WSMR, has played in the defense of our Nation and our exploration of space, as we commemorate its establishment 60 years ago.

I would also like to honor the men and women who have served and worked at White Sands. It is due to their hard work and dedication that White Sands has been, and remains a shining example of American scientific and technological innovation.

On July 9, 1945, White Sands Missile Range was officially established. One week later, its place in history was assured with the detonation of the world's first atomic device at the Trinity site. This would prove a pivotal moment in the final defeat of the Japanese Empire and the course of world history. The Trinity test was to be the first of many historical achievements that will forever be linked to White Sands.

At White Sands the technology was developed and matured that would propel the United States into space and to the Moon. Beginning with the reverse engineering and testing of captured German V2 rockets at the end of the Second World War, a base of knowledge was created there that would lead directly to the development of the Redstone rocket program and every rocket produced in the United States since. It was a Redstone Rocket which launched the first U.S. astronaut, Alan Shephard, into space on May 5, 1961. For these achievements, White Sands is often referred to as the ``Birthplace of the Race to Space.''

White Sands continues its close connection to the space program today as a space harbor serving as the backup landing facility for the space shuttle. It also serves as the primary training area for NASA space shuttle pilots flying practice approaches and landings in the shuttle- training aircraft.

Over the last 60 years, White Sands Missile Range's contribution to the security of the United States has been significant. Most of the missile systems used by the U.S. military have been tested at WSMR. Like America's first guided anti-aircraft missile the Nike Ajax and the Patriot missile system made famous during the first gulf war, the missile systems tested at White Sands have played an important role in ensuring the technological superiority of the Armed Forces throughout the last six decades.

Today, White Sands Missile Range continues its long tradition of excellence as a testing and development center for new technologies and is the largest military facility in the United States. I would like to thank the men and women, past and present, who have made White Sands a source of national pride. I have no doubt the work done at White Sands will continue to contribute to the national security of the United States and further the scientific achievements of our Nation.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing, entit1ed Climate Change Science and Economics, will be held on Thursday, July 21 at 10 a.m. in Room SH-216.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the current state of climate change scientific research and the economics of strategies to manage climate change. Issues to be discussed include: the relationship between energy consumption and climate change, new developments in climate change research and the potential effects on the U.S. economy of climate change and strategies to control greenhouse gas emissions.

Because of the limited time avai1ab1e for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact: Steve Waskiewicz at 202-224- 7555.

Mr. President, I would like to extend my best wishes to LTC Vernon Simmons who recently retired as deputy to the Director of Budget and Appropriations Liaison in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller. Vern's career as an Air Force officer defines service to one's country, and I know that Vern's dedication and leadership will be sorely missed by me and my staff, as well as his colleagues at the Air Force and the Department of Defense.

Lieutenant Colonel Simmons' career exemplifies hard work and commitment to excellence. In 1983, he graduated with honors from Northeastern University in Boston with a bachelor of science degree in business administration. It was there that he also completed his 4-year ROTC program, prior to entering active duty. He also earned a master of arts degree in economics from the University of Oklahoma in 1994.

Vern's first assignment was in Air Force Systems Command at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, OH. He was assigned to the program control office as a program control integrator on the F-15E aircraft. It was there that he

also met his wonderful wife the former Celeste Aida Adams of Dayton,

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 12 at 10 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of: Jill L. Sigal, of Wyoming, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, David R. Hill, of Missouri, to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy, and James A. Rispoli, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 14 at 10 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of: R. Thomas Weimer, of Colorado, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and Mark A. Limbaugh, of Idaho to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. President, I am a long-time supporter of free trade agreements because I believe free trade agreements can be beneficial to everyone. Free trade agreements have a positive impact on the job market and the economy.

I have spent many hours listening to this body debate the Dominican Republic-Central American-United States Free Trade Agreement (DR- CAFTA). Upon careful consideration of the issues at stake in this important economic measure, I have come to the conclusion that the ratification of DR-CAFTA will result in the growth of our national economy. Additionally, DR-CAFTA's passage will represent an enormous step towards increased prosperity in Central America.

The reasons to support DR-CAFTA are numerous. The measure is favorable to our Nation's export market. DR-CAFTA countries currently make up the twelfth largest market for U.S. exports, with those countries purchasing more than $15.1 billion in U.S. exports in 2003. I believe we should do what we can to foster additional growth in that market. Passage of DR-CAFTA will do just that. In addition, DR-CAFTA is favorable to our country's textile suppliers. Passage of this bill will put our suppliers on a level playing field with their counterparts in Asia.

I believe that the argument that DR-CAFTA will represent an exodus of jobs and dollars to Central America is unfounded. Under the status quo, 80 percent of all imports from Central America and 99 percent of agricultural imports from Central America enter the United States duty free. In contrast, many American farmers suffer from the burden of tariffs ranging from approximately 7 percent in the case of Nicaragua to 23 percent for certain products from the Dominican Republic. Creating a more equitable duty system for agricultural imports and exports is important to my home State of New Mexico, which is heavily involved in the agricultural industry.

This agreement is also important to New Mexico because an estimated $234 million worth of products, many of them semi-conductors and electronics, were exported from New Mexico to DR-CAFTA countries in 2004. This ranked New Mexico thirteenth among U.S. States exporting goods to CAFTA countries. Clearly, my home State will benefit from a free trade agreement with these Central American countries.

DR-CAFTA is important to our country. It is a pro-export, pro-worker, pro-agriculture, pro-economy trade agreement, and I appreciate the efforts of the administration and our trade negotiators in crafting such an agreement. I am proud to vote in favor of DR-CAFTA.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Arizona leaves, before we started, we were aware of only one person--until the Senator from Arizona spoke, and we understand Senator McCain is going to see what he wants to do--who wanted a rollcall vote. Now we will look for any others and will be glad to work with the Senator's people. If he will tell us now, we will share anything he would like as soon as possible.

For the information of the Senate, Senator Feinstein--permit me to editorialize a minute--has offered this amendment, or something like it, a couple times. We have voted on it, but she wants substantial time, and certainly that is her privilege. We will not take much time in opposition.

For the benefit of our colleagues, how long does the Senator from California intend to take?

There will be no others?

On our side, unless somebody else wants time--on this amendment, do you want time?

In opposition?

Mr. President, that is 15 minutes in opposition, plus 5 minutes for me. There will be 20 minutes in opposition.

It is eight items. We will give them all to the Senator from Arizona. We have given them to him already.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to bring the Energy and Water bill for fiscal year 2006 to the floor for consideration. Thanks to Chairman Cochran and his ranking member, Senator Robert Byrd, the subcommittee allocation is $31.2 billion, an amount that is $1.5 billion over the President's request.

Chairman Cochran has been generous to this subcommittee, and I am committed to supporting priorities that have been neglected or underfunded in past budgets.

There are two priorities within this bill, and they are water and science.

The first priority is water. As all the Members know, the request cut water projects below the current year level.

In addition, the budget has imposed an OMB-originated formula to establish priorities among water projects. I don't believe the OMB formula is fair, and we have ignored it for purposes of identifying worthy Corps projects in this bill.

I would also like to point out that there is an extensive discussion in the report regarding this committee's support of the Corps' ability to reprogram funds and utilize continuing contracts as an effective tool to manage the over 2,200 Corps projects and studies. The House has proposed to eliminate the Corps reprogramming authority and restrict its ability to focus resources on critical construction priorities.

Each construction project is different with numerous challenges, including weather, water flows and construction logistics, including manpower and materials, that may cause significant delays. On the other hand, some projects are able to accelerate their schedule. Using the reprogramming authority the Corps is able to keep accelerated projects on track by reprioritizing funds from delayed projects.

I have been contacted by many Members and heard from numerous communities who oppose the House language. I share their concerns and believe the House proposal is unworkable and would eliminate the Corps' ability to prioritize work. These reforms are in the best interest of the Corps or taxpayers.

The subcommittee has also provided funds to offset the $521 million in unfunded legislative assumptions included in the budget request associated with the management of the Power Marketing Administration.

The second priority in this bill is science. Funding for both the both Office of Science and the Stockpile Stewardship R&D accounts within NNSA received increases.

The budget request reduced the Office of Science funding by $136 million. This mark restores the cut and more, providing an increase of $240 million above the request.

I am also concerned about the funding reductions to the science-based stockpile steward ship accounts. I have attempted to restore this scientific capability that is essential to the certification of our nuclear deterrent without the validation of underground testing.

For the benefit of the Senate, I will review the highlights of this bill.

The mark provides $5.29 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers which is $966 million above the budget request.

We have included new construction projects and initiated new study starts.

This bill ignores the OMB-developed formulation for the Corps as it would negatively impact rural projects and projects that have already begun construction.

This mark also ignores the administration's decision not to fund beach renourishment. These projects are very important to many communities and likewise members of the Senate.

For the Bureau of Reclamation, this bill provides just over $1.08 billion, an increase of $130 million above the President's request. This project support water projects in 17 Western States and provides $60 million for Animas La Plata, an increase of $8 million over the reuestst. The committee provides full funding for Cal Fed of $37 million, and provides the current year funding for Water 2025.

For the Department of Energy, the mark provides $25.04 billion.

For nuclear weapons activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration), NNSA, the bill provides $6.55 billion, which is $76 million under the President's request.

This decrease is a result of the $222 million transfer of cleanup operations out of the NNSA to the Office of Environmental Management and a reduction in the NIF construction program.

The committee mark increases are targeted to the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program. Funding for the science, engineering and advanced computing campaigns are up $164 million.

For nuclear nonproliferation activities the Senate bill provides $1.7 billion, which is $91.8 million above the request and $236 million above the current year level.

I think it is also important to mention that this subcommittee mark fully funds the plutonium disposition program, including $362.5 million for the construction of both the Pit Disassembly facility and well as Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina.

This facility is our only pathway to permanently eliminate excessive and dangerous plutonium supplies. The NNSA spends tens of millions of dollars to protect this material that will not be necessary if we are able to turn plutonium into commercial nuclear fuel. It is our Nation's best opportunity to undertake reprocessing.

The administration is making good headway in negotiations with the Russians, which I believe warrants full funding of this critical project.

For the Yucca Mountain project, the Senate bill provides $577 million, which is consistent with current year funding and $65 million below the President's request.

This mark does not take a position on developing an interim storage facility. While I personally believe that a central interim storage facility makes sense, this bill is not the proper vehicle to have this debate.

For the Energy Supply and Conservation Programs the subcommittee mark provides $1.9 billion, an increase of $195 million above the request.

For nuclear energy R&D, the bill provides $499.9 million, which is $60 million above the President's request and $64 million over the current year levels.

Also, Nuclear Power 2010, $76 million, an increase of $20 million and Advanced Fuel Concepts Initiative, $85 million is provided, an increase of $15 million.

For the Office of Science, the bill provides $3.7 billion, an increase of $240 million above the request and $102 million above the current year level. We have provided $100 million to ensure that DOE facilities operate at 100 percent capacity. A $40 million increase has been provided to accelerate the four planned facilities under the Genomes to Life program. And $30 million is provided to establish a nanotechnology transfer account.

For independent agencies, the mark provides: $67 million for the Denali Commission; $65.5 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission; $12 million for the Delta Regional Authority, an increase of $6 million over the President's request; and $734 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an increase of $41 million over the current year level.

Mr. President, to reiterate, I suggest there are many here worried about water projects and the Corps of Engineers. This is the bill for all American water projects, the Corps, the Bureau of Land Management, and any others. This bill funds that at a level of $1.8 billion. That is $130 million more than the President and $63 million more than current level.

This bill covers the Department of Energy. It covers all of the stockpile stewardship activities. It covers nonproliferation activities. That is one for which the President has asked for substantial money.

Renewable R&D is in this bill with very substantial funding. There is nuclear research and development and, most importantly, we have substantially increased basic science research. This bill and this Department does a little more than one-third of the entire Nation's basic science funding. We thought this was a year to increase it, not decrease it. We have been told this is a time to increase it because we have increased funding for health sciences over the past 10 to 12 years but not basic science. We found money from other places to increase that.

This bill also includes money for nuclear waste disposal. That has been very difficult. It also has Yucca Mountain and has the cleanup. It also has three or four independent agencies.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer a managers' amendment which has been cleared on both sides.

I send to the desk a series of amendments, all of which have been approved on both sides, some of which are technical, some are otherwise, but there are no objections.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Has time expired on the Feinstein amendment?

How much time do the proponents have?

I ask the Senator from California, in the interest of moving along, would she like to shorten her time if we shorten ours? We have 12 minutes, and the Senator from California has 7.

I propose we have 5 minutes and Senator Feinstein have 2.

Five and 5? We have 12, and the Senator from California has 5. I will take it: 5 and 5; is that all right?

Five and 5. Without using this time on this unanimous consent request, I ask we move off this amendment for the purpose of offering two amendments that are going to be accepted.

Mr. President, I send to the desk on behalf of Senators Allard and Salazar an amendment relating to the purchase of mineral rights at Rocky Flats technical site. I note the presence of both Senators from Colorado, and I say to them that I am pleased to accept the amendment. It has been cleared on both sides. I appreciate their work. We will do everything we can to keep it in conference.

I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The second amendment I referred to will be offered by the Senator from Colorado and withdrawn--no, it will not be withdrawn. It will be offered.

Five minutes on our side.

Amendment No. 1084, As Modified

Mr. President, the previous amendment that was adopted, I ask consent that Senator Salazar be deemed an original cosponsor when it was entered as if it were there.

That takes care of that one.

Mr. President, there is no time agreement on the amendment, but I did understand we were going to accept it. I didn't think we were going to have any time. I ask the Senator, could we proceed to adopt the amendment, if the Senator from New Mexico is willing to do that?

We are willing to accept the last amendment that was offered by the Senator.

I say to the Senator, you understand this is a difficult amendment. We have had objection from the Armed Services authorizing committee. We take it to conference willingly, with the clear understanding we are going to work on it with the Secretary of Energy, and Defense, and with you and the Armed Services Committee, and do the best we can as we complete the matter in conference.

I have an amendment on behalf of Senator Lindsey Graham that has been cleared on both sides. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand we are now back on the Feinstein amendment and there is 5 minutes on each side.

May I tell Senators, if nothing else breaks here, there are no other amendments. We will vote on this. Senator Coburn has one and he will withdraw it. Can the Senator wait until Senator Feinstein finishes and then he will be recognized?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator wants 2 minutes, and then I will wrap it up.

I am hearing talk about a new nuclear weapon. I wish those who were talking about a new nuclear weapon were reading the current evaluations and studies about the future of nuclear weapons. You sure are not talking about this. If ever there were going to be new nuclear weapons, they would be little nuclear weapons. They would not be blockbusters. Whole

studies are looking at whether all the countries with big nuclear weapons are going to have a whole new generation someday of smaller ones, less in size, where the world can have far fewer.

That is not the subject tonight because this weapon is not a new nuclear weapon. First of all, this is a bill, appropriations, that says the Congress is approving to build a new nuclear weapon for the astronomical sum of money of $4 million. I don't know what you could build for $4 million. It says ``a study.'' And then it determines what the study is.

I don't know, I have never heard so much said about so little. That sounds like something somebody said about something else in history, so I don't want to demean it because we are just talking about an issue on the floor of the Senate. But if you want to give a speech of significance about nuclear weapons and put maps up showing the devastation of the two that were used, we ought to have a big debate. Maybe some think that was a mistake. But the truth is, none of that has anything to do with this amendment. The United States of America, through its experts, says we should have a study.

This Senator said to them, tell me how much money you need for a study--not 10 years from now to build something. What do you need for a study? They said: $4 million. That is what is in this bill. That is all. No more, no less. That is what the amendment is about.

I hope we will once again say let's let our country do this kind of research.

I yield any time I might have.

I have no time.

I am glad to yield that.

Let me say in the appropriations in this bill for the fiscal year we are appropriating, it is $4 million. There is no appropriation for the following year or the following year or the following year. So I do not know what that will be.

But I tell you, you have to come back for another appropriation, so that is for sure. That is the situation.

With reference to whether we have this in our arsenal, I think the distinguished Senator from the State of Arizona answered that question with reference to the instrument that will deliver a weapon, if we ever do the research to know whether we need it. Am I correct?

I yield the floor. We don't need any additional time. Have you had the yeas and nays?

I am trying to get us finished so we will have two votes back to back, one on this amendment and one on final passage.

Senator Coburn wants to take a few minutes. He wants to offer an amendment.

Amendment No. 1086 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I ask amendment 1095 be modified as stated in the instruction which I am going to send to the desk. There is an error. This corrects the error. I ask consent that be done.

I ask consent that Senator John McCain be recognized now for 10 minutes to speak on the bill, or whatever he desires; when he has completed, we proceed to the Feinstein amendment; then we proceed to final passage and there will be 10 minutes on the Feinstein amendment on the rollcall, after which we proceed to rollcall on final passage.

I have no objection.

I ask it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on final passage at this time.

Mr. President, I believe from our side--and Senator Reid is here--there is no further business to bring before the Senate on this bill.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I am aware of the concern expressed by numerous producers and Senators about Department of Energy plans to close such oil and gas research facilities.

I understand that according to Energy Information Administration data, fossil fuels provide over 80 percent of U.S. energy supply, and oil and natural gas will continue to provide 65 percent of domestic energy needs for 20 to 25 years in the future.

I understand the argument that is thus fitting that the National Energy Technology Laboratory devote a significant portion of its research to fossil fuels and oil and gas technology research and development.

I understand that independent oil and natural gas producers--small- business owners--drill 85 percent of the wells in the U.S. and provide 75 percent of America's natural gas supply. Independents produce 60 percent of the crude oil in the lower 48 States.

I understand that a 2003 National Petroleum Council study stated: ``Eighty percent of domestic natural gas production in 10 years will be from wells yet to be drilled. . . . Small, independent producers will drill most of these wells.''

I understand the argument that such independent producers have comparatively limited capacity for research and development of new oil and gas technologies.

I understand the argument that is thus fitting that the National Energy Technology Laboratory utilize its research capacity to assist these independent oil and gas producers by performing the all important oil and gas research and development function.

I understand that the bulk of the independent oil and gas production in United States is performed in the west.

I understand that many of the independent oil and gas companies are headquartered in the west.

I understand the argument that it is thus appropriate to have a significant and even proportionate share of the research of the National Energy Technology Laboratory performed in the west, at such facilities as the Tulsa office.

It is my hope that the Department of Energy will not perform organizational or staffing realignments in such a way as to reduce or close the Tulsa office of the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

I appreciate the Senators from Virginia and their interest in this important matter and I agree with the importance of the 12GeV Upgrade at the Jefferson Lab. With the funds available to the subcommittee, we made recommendations to give priority to increasing operational time for all of our existing labs as opposed to spending these resources on capital expansions. I recognize, however, that with regard to Jefferson Lab we are soon at a scientific turning point when the increased energy will be critical to maintaining the pace of discovery. If it would be satisfactory to the two Virginia Senators, I would like to explore this matter further to see if it can be addressed in the fiscal year Conference and by the Department in their fiscal year budget proposal.

I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, a member of the subcommittee.

As you know, the comprehensive energy legislation that the Senate recently passed authorizes this program.

I would like to assure the Senator from Hawaii that I will work with him to ensure that this program will be considered in conference.

Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns the Senator from Rhode Island has raised and assure the Senator that I will work to find a solution that does not diminish services and recognizes the concerns of State and local weatherization program managers.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize a unique community in my home State of New Mexico and some of its many proud accomplishments. 2005 marks a special year for the city of Artesia as it celebrates its centennial.

After two names ``Miller'' and ``Stegman,'' the citizens finally decided on ``Artesia'' in 1903 after the discovery of several flourishing Artesian wells in the area, and in January of 1905 the community of Artesia became an incorporated municipality. At the time, roughly 1,000 residents called Artesia home and these folks undertook a daunting task to make it a growing, prosperous community. Over the 100 years since its conception, Artesia and its citizens have seen many changes. Artesia, once a sleepy farming and ranching town, now finds itself at the hub of southeast New Mexico's oil and gas industry.

Very few cities in my home State have replicated Artesia's drive for excellence. The efficient use of the Pecos River Valley, and turning it into one of the most admirable and profitable agricultural regions in the State, is commendable. They have utilized the fertile Pecos soil to produce some of the state's best alfalfa and corn, which in turn has allowed them to raise livestock that are the envy of many New Mexican producers.

Artesia, in accord with its ambitious nature, has surpassed even its well-deserved legacy as an oil, gas and agricultural force. When attempting to find a use in the late 1980s for a shuttered college campus, the city leaders checked with me and our collaboration resulted in the city offering the space to the Federal Government. That offer brought the establishment of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center that is today the Nation's training focal point for Federal security personnel who protect our borders and Federal facilities. It has been beneficial not only for the Federal Government and the American people, but also Artesia's economic diversity.

Artesia's standard for excellence is also reflected in their extraordinarily successful school program. Students retain a sense of pride, while teachers act as models for the rest of the State to follow. No where else has a football team won twenty-four State titles, yet still preserve the highest regard for education. The quality of Bulldog character is known, not only in the southeastern part of the State, but throughout the Land of Enchantment.

As I review the past 100 years, one thing becomes clear. Artesians are achievers. When problems or opportunities arise, Artesians roll up their sleeves and go to work to complete the task at hand. This is why oil and gas was initially discovered and still flourishes in the Pecos Valley. All the while, farming and ranching has persevered, and more recently dairies and other additions to the economy have pushed it into a constant position of expansion. Dedication to purpose and enthusiastic pursuit of success are ingrained in its citizens, young and old. It is no wonder Artesia has become known as ``The City of Champions.''

I consider myself fortunate to be the Senator from a State where hard work and dedication still prevails, perfection is pursued, and its citizens are not afraid to get their hands dirty. During this centennial year, I am absolutely amazed at the large number of citizens that are busy planning activities, contributing ideas and historical facts, raising funds, and volunteering time and effort to conduct a full year of activities with the expressed purpose of making 2005 a truly memorable year for all of its citizens. As their United States Senator, I want to commend Artesia and its citizens for a job well done in making Artesia, New Mexico such a wonderful place to live and work over the past 100 years.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 14 at 10. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of:

R. Thomas Weimer, of Colorado, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Mark A. Limbaugh, of Idaho, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 12, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of:

Jill L. Sigal, of Wyoming, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.

David R. Hill, of Missouri, to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy.

James A. Rispoli, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management.

Mr. President, I speak on the pending Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 2006. I would to discuss the Committee recommendation for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, Water Management and Planning program.

I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Burns, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Dorgan, for restoring $2 million to the President's budget request for BIA Water Management and Planning. These funds are very important to the Indian Tribes and Pueblos in the State of New Mexico.

I am particularly interested in the Water Technician Training program that is funded within this BIA program. The BIA Water Technician Training program trains Native Americans to manage water resources on their reservation lands. The program trains tribal members in a broad range of water-related fields, including hydrology, fish and wildlife biology, irrigation, soil surveys, dam operation, surface and ground water pollution, and forest management. Training is offered at university campuses, including New Mexico State University.

The program curriculum is developed with Federal agency partners, including the Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Forest Service. With this technical training, tribal members work to manage and preserve water and other natural resources for the benefit of the tribe. The program provides educational and employment opportunities and economic benefits.

May I inquire of the distinguished Chairman if it is the intention of the Subcommittee in restoring $2 million to the BIA Water Management and Planning Program to continue the Water Technician Training program, which is currently receiving $400,000?

I thank my colleagues for this assurance. I appreciate their confirmation as to continuation of funding for the BIA Water Technician Training program.

Grand Teton national park visitors center