Floor Statements

I congratulate my colleague and good friend from South Carolina for a fine statement.

I also rise today in support of President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the United States.

President Bush could not have nominated an individual more qualified to be confirmed as the next Chief Justice of the United States. If one were to prescribe the ideal training regimen for a future Chief Justice, Judge Roberts' career may well serve as the model.

Judge Roberts has interacted with the Supreme Court in nearly every conceivable capacity. After law school, he held a prestigious position at the Supreme Court as a clerk to Justice William Rehnquist. He then went on to argue 39 cases before the Supreme Court, representing both public and private litigants. He currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit often referred to as the second highest court in the land.

In short, he has worked at the Supreme Court, represented dozens of clients before the Supreme Court, and served as a judge on the court that many consider a stepping-stone to the Supreme Court. I cannot imagine someone more qualified to now serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

After spending considerable time with Judge Roberts the nominee, I came to be equally impressed with John Roberts the man. He is humble, unassuming, polite, and respectful. In that respect, he shares the values of many of my fellow Coloradans.

The humility he exudes is reflected in his view on the role of judges and the courts. Judge Roberts says:

[A] certain humility should characterize the judicial role.

Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other

way around.

He describes himself as a ``modest judge,'' which is evidenced in his ``appreciation that the role of the judge is limited, that judges are to decide the cases before them, they're not to legislate, they're not to execute the laws.''

This judicial philosophy is imperative to preserving the sanctity of the Constitution that is under attack by a handful of activist judges activist judges who proclaim the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional and attempt to redefine the institution of marriage. Unlike these activist judges, Judge Roberts will be on the side of Constitution.

As a Senator representing Colorado, I also appreciate the uniqueness of the issues important to Colorado and the West. The departure of Justice O'Connor, and now Chief Justice Rehnquist, marks the loss of a Western presence on the Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, I asked President Bush to nominate a judge with an understanding of issues important to Colorado and the West, such as water and resource law.

I asked Judge Roberts about his understanding of Western resource and water law. Judge Roberts acknowledged the loss of the Western presence on the Court and assured me that he understands the uniqueness to the West of such issues as water, the environment, and public lands.

He shared his experience working on several cases in the State of Alaska, encompassing issues on rivers, Indian law, and natural resources. He also described his practice of traveling to the site of cases when he believes it is beneficial to his understanding of the facts. This practice is demonstrative of his commitment to fully understanding cases from the perspective of both sides.

I was pleasantly surprised to learn that he currently has a law clerk from New Mexico. Law clerks sit at a judge's right hand and are integral in the judge's decisionmaking process. I am hopeful that Judge Roberts will continue to surround himself with individuals who have a Western perspective.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has reviewed Judge Roberts' record more extensively than any previous Supreme Court nominee. The Administration produced more than 76,000 pages of documents related to Judge Roberts' distinguished career in public service. Judge Roberts testified for more than 20 hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

During the extensive review process, the country learned a great deal about

Judge Roberts' fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

We learned about his judicial philosophy, one which is firmly rooted in the rule of law and unwavering in its reverence for the Constitution. I believe his most telling statement was this:

I come before the Committee with no agenda. I have no

platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to

do certain things in exchange for votes. I have no agenda,

but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will

confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and

fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I

will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on

the bench, and I will decide every case based on the

record, according to the rule of law, without fear or

favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that

it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or

bat.

We learned that Judge Roberts subscribes to ``the bedrock principle of treating people on the basis of merit without regard to race or sex.'' His belief in these principles is echoed in praise from several women's and minority groups.

The Minority Business Round Table says ``his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court would certainly uphold our core American values of freedom, equality and fairness.''

The Independent Women's Forum applauds Judge Roberts as a ``very well qualified candidate with a reputation of being a strict interpreter of the law rather than someone who legislates from the bench.''

We learned that Judge Roberts recognizes the limitations on the government's taking of private property and the role of the legislature in drawing lines that the Court should not. The Court in Kelo permitted the transfer of property from one private party to another private party to satisfy the Constitution's ``public use'' requirement, essentially erasing this fundamental protection from its text. Judge Roberts says the Kelo decision ``leaves the ball in the court of the legislature. . . . [Congress] and legislative bodies in the States are protectors of the people's rights as well. . . . [Y]ou can protect them in situations where the Court has determined, as it did 5-4 in Kelo, that they are not going to draw that line.''

We learned that Judge Roberts will rely on domestic precedent to interpret the U.S. Constitution, not foreign law. Judge Roberts said, ``as a general matter . . . a couple of things . . . cause concern on my part about the use of foreign law as precedent . . . . The first has to do with democratic theory. . . If we're relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no President accountable to the people appointed that judge, and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge, and yet he's playing a role in shaping a law that binds the people in this country.''

Given his keen intellect, impartiality, temperament, sound legal judgment, and integrity, it is not surprising that Judge Roberts enjoyed bipartisan support by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I expect that he will enjoy similar bipartisan support in his confirmation vote tomorrow morning.

I want to commend President Bush on the unprecedented level of bipartisan consultation he engaged in with the Senate prior to this nomination. The Constitution grants the power to the President to nominate and the Senate to provide advice and consent. Although Senators can provide input, the Senate does not co-nominate. When the President sends forth highly qualified candidates, this body has an obligation to the American people to provide a timely up-or-down vote.

I commend my colleagues on the respectful hearings and expeditious process. The Ginsburg Standard was applied to Judge Roberts fair, respectful hearings; no prejudging of cases likely to come before the court; and a timely, up-or-down vote.

With consultations on the next nominee already well under way, and an announcement imminent, I am hopeful that my colleagues will apply the same standards.

Judges are not politicians. The Senate debate should reflect that the job of a judge is to review cases impartially, not to advocate issues. Judges should be evaluated on their qualifications, judicial philosophy, and respect for the rule of law.

I am confident that President Bush will send forth a highly qualified nominee to replace Justice O'Connor, and I am hopeful that my colleagues will continue to build on the spirit of bipartisanship witnessed during this confirmation process.

In conclusion, I cannot imagine a better qualified candidate than Judge Roberts to lead this nation's highest Court into the 21st century. I believe his rhetoric matches his actions.

On behalf of the citizens of Colorado, I thank Judge Roberts for his willingness to serve our country. I am hopeful that the fair and respectful hearings accorded to him by this body will serve to inspire the best and the brightest of future generations to make similar sacrifices in the name of public service.

I strongly urge my colleagues to cast a vote in favor of Judge John G. Roberts' confirmation as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize one of my constituents, Mr. Ralph Curtis. Mr. Curtis has served as manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District for 25 years. He took over the managerial position when the organization was very small, consisting of just Ralph and one other employee. The time and energy that Ralph has given

to the Rio Grande Water Conservation District has made this organization the well respected entity that it is within the San Luis Valley and Colorado.

Because he grew up on--and later managed--his family's ranch in Saguache, Ralph has long been aware of the importance of water to the San Luis Valley. Under his direction, the district took a leadership role in fighting against the American Water Development Inc. water grab, in water conservation education and in pro-active efforts on behalf of endangered species such as the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.

Ralph's community contributions have not gone unmarked either. He has been honored with numerous awards such as: the Wayne Aspinall Water Leader of the Year, San Luis Valley Wetlands Stewardship Award, Friend of 4-H, Distinguished Service Award for Conservation of Natural Resources, Support of Colorado Association of Soil Conservations Districts, and he was inducted into the Honorable Order of the Water Buffalo.

Ralph has always looked ahead to the next challenge, has always looked forward to the next hill, in order to see where the road will lead him. I would like to wish Ralph and his wife Gloria the very best as they walk down that new road together looking for new challenges.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the United States.

It would be difficult to identify a jurist better qualified for our Nation's highest Court than Judge John Roberts. He is a distinguished jurist who enjoys broad bipartisan support.

There is good reason for this broad bipartisan support. Judge Roberts' sharp intellect and legal ability are beyond question. In addition, his humility, fairness, and open-minded approach to the practice of law have won him admirers from across the political spectrum.

During his career as a practicing attorney, Judge Roberts argued a variety of positions in a number of high-profile cases and has represented criminal defendants, environmental interests, and the State of Hawaii in a dispute over legislation meant to favor native Hawaiians as a group.

During the 2001 landmark Microsoft antitrust case before the District of Columbia court, he argued on behalf of the Clinton Justice Department and a group of primarily Democratic State attorneys general that several of Microsoft's business practices violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

In the landmark 2002 environmental case, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, he successfully argued before the Supreme Court in favor of limits on property development and in support of protection of the Pristine Lake Tahoe Basin area.

Judge Roberts has been described as ``one of the top appellate lawyers of his generation'' by the Legal Times, and one of the top 10 civil litigators by the National Law Journal in 1999.

Colorado's own Rocky Mountain News offered its unequivocal endorsement of Judge Roberts. The Rocky Mountain News stated that ``Roberts is

not only well-spoken, he's tactful, amicable and focused'' and ``projects a temperament that should serve a Chief Justice well.''

I ask unanimous consent to have the full September 17 article printed in the Record.

Mr. President, another Colorado newspaper, the Pueblo Chieftain, offered its praise for Judge Roberts stating that ``Judge Roberts looks like the kind of justice who would apply the Constitution as it is written,'' adding ``that's as it should be.''

I ask unanimous consent to have the full September 8 editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I believe Judge Roberts will be an advocate and practitioner of judicial restraint, a Justice who focuses on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution as the Framers intended. In his own words:

My obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath.

I believe he is temperamentally and intellectually inclined to stick to the facts and the law in cases that will come before him on the High Court, and that he will refrain from attempting to legislate from the bench. In his own words, Judge Roberts says:

The role of the judge is limited . . . [j]udges are to

decide the cases before them. They're not to legislate,

they're not to execute the laws.

I also believe Judge Roberts' personal views will not determine the outcome of cases before him. In his own words, the ``American justice system is epitomized by the fact that judges . . . wear . . . black robes. And that is meant to symbolize the fact that they're not individuals promoting their own particular views, but they are supposed to be doing their best to interpret the law, to interpret the Constitution, according to the rules of law--not their own preferences, not their own personal beliefs.''

Judge Roberts recognizes the importance of property rights and the role of the legislature in drawing the line in cases of eminent domain. Commenting on the Court's recent decision in Kelo, Judge Roberts explained:

What the Court was saying is there is this power, and then

it's up to the legislature to determine whether it wants that

to be available--whether it wants it to be available in

limited circumstances, or whether it wants to go back to an

understanding as reflected in the dissent, that this is not

an appropriate public use.

President Bush has sent forward the name of an excellent nominee. His qualifications to serve as Chief Justice of the United States are even more apparent after his remarkable testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Roberts testified for approximately 22 hours, 10 hours longer than William Rehnquist when he became Chief Justice, 5 hours longer than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and 4 hours longer than Stephen Breyer.

During the course of his testimony, Judge Roberts demonstrated an impressive command of the law and understanding of a myriad of legal issues. He provided thoughtful and thorough answers to over 500 challenging questions asked by Senators of both parties.

Personally, I admire his commitment to maintaining his judicial independence and ability to rule fairly by choosing not to prejudge cases that are likely to come before him. It is indicative of his undying and lifelong commitment to equal protection under the law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to give him a final vote in support of his nomination.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be laid aside, and I ask that the clerk report amendment No. 1738.

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

Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah will yield, I would like to have an opportunity, with the presentation of my amendment, to speak for 10 minutes, if I might.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining until the next vote?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until the vote be equally divided, with 5 minutes per speaker.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, and I appreciate his leadership.

The Government of Japan has maintained an embargo on U.S. beef for more than 20 months. The beef industry is an integral part of the U.S. economy. It is an integral part of the State which I represent, the State of Colorado, and is an integral part of Nebraska's economy, as we just heard from Senator Nelson about concerns that apply to his State. This issue is particularly important for the southern and western parts of the United States.

Before the embargo, exports to Japan were approximately $100 million a month. Today, the border closure has cost us over $2 billion. Since the border closure, 10,000 U.S. meat packers have lost their jobs. To address this we came to an agreement with the Japanese on what it would take to open our borders to each other. The United States has worked diligently to meet our end of the agreement and to assure that we can resume trade with the Japanese. Yet even with all of our efforts, Japan's border remains closed. The Japanese Government has made some progress. Yet the process is becoming muddled underneath unnecessary bureaucracy on the part of the Japanese Government.

The United States has a long commitment to producing the world's safest food, and they still continue to have that strong commitment. The safety of U.S. beef is assured by sound science based on policy. I emphasize that U.S. beef is both safe and delicious. The time has come for us to express our frustration as a collective body.

I, along with a number of my colleagues, met with the Ambassador from Japan to the United States a number of months ago and was assured they were giving serious consideration to the embargo they placed against American beef because of, at that point, one case of mad cow disease in the United States. They were relatively assured that the process was going to move along. We told them at the time that we believed the process was being delayed. They assured us they would move it along.

They did move it along. Last week or so, we did get our decision back from this commission in Japan, and it was unfavorable as far as allowing U.S. beef to be imported into the country of Japan.

Japan has had a number of mad cow disease cases. We have had only two cases. Both of those have not resulted in any other outbreaks. They have had upwards into the teens of cases of mad cow disease, and yet they are using, in my view, the mad cow disease as a reason to impose an embargo against American beef.

We cannot stand aside and lose thousands upon thousands of jobs in the beef industry as a result of this action. It is not based on good science. We have extremely good meat processing procedures that protect human health in the United States, the best in the world as far as I am concerned. I don't think we have anything to be apologetic for. Just because you recognize one or two cases of mad cow disease does not mean you have a problem. It may mean you are doing a good job. I can think of countries that have not

had any cases of mad cow disease and may very well have it. It may be they are not doing a good job, that they are not checking for the disease, and if you don't check for it, you are not going to find it.

We have a very strict system of surveillance in this country. When we process beef, we hold suspected animals if they show any clinical signs at all, whether it is a temperature or that they show any signs of being uncoordinated that might suggest mad cow disease--if this is the case we take them out of the processing lines until we have a confirmation as to whether they are afflicted or not afflicted.

As a result of these frustrations, I offer this sense-of-the-Senate resolution asking that the U.S. borders not be open to Japanese beef imports until the Japanese borders are open to us.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Senator from Nebraska and myself are on the same page. We are both greatly disappointed that the negotiations from Japan have not been progressing well at this particular point. I think we need to recognize that the State Department has been working hard on this issue as well as the Department of Agriculture. In fact, I have been told as recently as yesterday that the Secretary of State has had discussions with the Ambassador from Japan. I do think we need to do something on this floor to send a strong message to Japan about our concerns about their continuing to apply an embargo against United States beef. It is blatantly unfair and scientifically doesn't stand up.

As far as I am concerned, we can go ahead and adopt the Allard amendment by a voice vote or unanimous consent, however the chairman wishes to proceed. Then these things perhaps can get refined better in conference committee when we work through this process in conference committee.

I have no objection on this side, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1737, as modified.

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

Mr. President, very briefly, what this amendment does is it just allows Colorado State University to lease land from the Agricultural Research Service. It is not a controversial provision.

I ask unanimous consent it be adopted.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor an exceptional organization. The Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes provides care and support for over 5,000 children and young adults with type one diabetes, including their families. For their dedicated work and unrelenting commitment to excellence, I wish to honor the Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes here today.

Since 1980, The Barbara Davis Center has grown to become the largest facility in the Nation dedicated to pediatric diabetes and is now located on the Fitzsimmons Campus of the University of Colorado at Denver Health Sciences Center in Aurora, Colorado. The staff at the Center has worked tirelessly to meet the needs of countless children throughout Colorado and the entire world who suffer from type one, or insulin-dependent diabetes. The Center's clinics received worldwide recognition for their care of those affected with pediatric diabetes, a chronic, life-threatening illness. In addition, the Center is a first- rate teaching and research facility on the forefront of the investigation into the cause, treatment, and elimination of diabetes.

The Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes is relentless in its efforts to treat children with diabetes, support their families, and find ways to prevent and ultimately cure this devastating disease. For more than a quarter of a century the Center has proudly served the children of Colorado, our Nation, and the world. Founder Barbara Davis and the staff at the Center have dedicated themselves to enhancing the lives of those affected by diabetes. They are true champions in the fight against childhood diabetes, and I am honored to recognize their work.

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

Mr. President, I understand we now have the legislative conference report before the Senate.

Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the legislative branch fiscal year 2006 appropriations conference report. This is my first year as chairman of this subcommittee and I am delighted we'll be able to send the bill to the President prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. I very much appreciate the support of my ranking member, Senator Durbin, as well as the full committee chairman, Senator Cochran, and ranking member, Senator Byrd.

In general, I believe this is a fair agreement. It provides $3.8 billion for the Congress and its support agencies. Funding in the conference agreement is $198 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and a reduction of $225 million below the request. While there are very few programmatic increases in the bill, funding is sufficient to maintain current operations in all agencies. Significant increases above the fiscal year 2005 budget are recommended in only a few areas, such as funding to complete the Capitol Visitor Center.

Highlights of the bill include funding of $250 million for the Capitol Police, which will enable the Capitol Police to maintain its current staffing level of 1,592 police officers and ensure appropriate levels of security for the Capitol complex. The Capitol Police salaries funding has increased by almost 100 percent since fiscal year 2002, and the number of officers has increased by about one-third. This indicates our support for Capitol Police and all the good work they do to protect this great institution.

The recommendation also includes $428 million for the Architect of the Capitol, including $42 million for Capitol Visitor Center construction and $2.3 million for initial operational costs of the CVC. The Architect believes this amount will be sufficient to complete the CVC construction. Also within the AOC budget is storage modules for the Library of Congress at Ft. Meade, totaling $40.7 million. While this is an expensive project, it is critically needed to take care of burgeoning storage requirements at the library

For the Library of Congress, funding would total $560 million, including funding for the Library's highest priorities such as the new National Audio-Visual Conservation Center and Congressional Research Service enhancements.

Funding for the GPO would total $123 million, including $2 million to retrain staff for the new digital environment; the Government Accountability Office would receive $482 million, and the Open World Leadership Program would be funded at the budget request level of $14 million.

I do have some concerns about this conference agreement which I would like to bring to my colleagues attention. First, I am deeply disappointed that the House insisted on the elimination of the Capitol Police mounted unit. I believe, as my predecessor Ben Nighthorse Campbell did, that there are some significant benefits to the Capitol Police having a mounted unit, and the costs are relatively small--about $150,000 a year. The officers who are part of this unit have received extensive training, the horses and attendant equipment have been purchased. This investment will be down the drain just 1 year after the unit became operational.

We reluctantly went along with the House only because this bill needs to get done. But I believe it is a short-sighted decision that we will all regret.

Another regret I have with this conference agreement is the elimination of Senate language authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to hire an executive director for the Capitol Visitor Center. The CVC project is something I have been following closely, with monthly hearings in our subcommittee. In addition to concerns regarding the management of this mammoth construction project, I am very concerned that the Architect hasn't been given direction and authority to make operational decisions including the hiring of an executive director. GAO has reported it is critical AOC develop a strategic plan for moving from construction to operations. Without an executive director such decisions will surely languish.

Despite these concerns, I believe it is a fair and balanced conference agreement and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the Senator from Illinois. I have cherished our relationship in being able to work with the Senator from Illinois on this bill.

I agree we have a lot of dedicated police officers out there and the Members of Congress need to appreciate all they are doing to maintain our safety, not only for us but for the visiting public.

Finally, I thank our full committee chairman, Senator Cochran, as well as the staff who were involved: Carrie Apostolou, Lance Landry, Christen Taylor, Fred Pagan, and from Senator Durbin's staff, Nancy Olkewicz and Drew Willison.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield to the minority to speak first. Are there any additional comments?

Mr. President, I think we have a good bill for us. I ask everybody to vote ``aye'' on the conference report. We have been very generous with the police. We all recognize the hard work and sacrifice they have made on behalf of all of us, our staffs, and the many visitors who come to the Capitol.

We have taken a very strong position in support of the Capitol Police on this side of the Capitol. We worked closely with the minority side and appreciate their input as we move forward with this particular piece of legislation.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has contacted me, along with other members of the Colorado Congressional Delegation, seeking the introduction and passage of Federal legislation authorizing the title transfer of specific features of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project from the Untied States to Northern. This title transfer will be similar to a bill that I carried during the 106th Congress, which transferred other Bureau of Rec facilities to Northern. The projects involved in the proposed title transfer are those single-purpose water conveyance facilities used for the distribution of water released from Carter Lake Reservoir: the St. Vrain Supply Canal; the Boulder Feed Canal; the Boulder Creek Supply Canal; and the South Platte Supply Canal.

The entire project, called the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, was built from 1938 to 1957, and provides supplemental water to more than 30 cities and towns. The water is used to help irrigate over 600,000 acres of northeastern Colorado farmland.

The proposed legislation will divest Reclamation of all present and future responsibility for and cost associated with the management, operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of, and liability for the transferred facilities. This responsibility will become that of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

The legislation will eliminate the duplication of efforts between the District and Reclamation in issuing and administering crossing licenses and other forms of permission to utilize the land on which the facilities are located. Finally, the legislation will provide for enhanced local control over water facilities that are not of national importance, and allow these facilities to be used for more efficient and effective water management. Local control, especially in the case of matters in relation to water, has always been a major component of my philosophy. I am proud to introduce this bill which will serve to further that intent.

Mr. President, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has contacted me, along with other members of the Colorado Congressional Delegation, seeking the introduction and passage of Federal legislation authorizing the title transfer of specific features of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project from the Untied States to Northern. This title transfer will be similar to a bill that I carried during the 106th Congress, which transferred other Bureau of Rec facilities to Northern. The projects involved in the proposed title transfer are those single-purpose water conveyance facilities used for the distribution of water released from Carter Lake Reservoir: the St. Vrain Supply Canal; the Boulder Feed Canal; the Boulder Creek Supply Canal; and the South Platte Supply Canal.

The entire project, called the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, was built from 1938 to 1957, and provides supplemental water to more than 30 cities and towns. The water is used to help irrigate over 600,000 acres of northeastern Colorado farmland.

The proposed legislation will divest Reclamation of all present and future responsibility for and cost associated with the management, operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of, and liability for the transferred facilities. This responsibility will become that of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

The legislation will eliminate the duplication of efforts between the District and Reclamation in issuing and administering crossing licenses and other forms of permission to utilize the land on which the facilities are located. Finally, the legislation will provide for enhanced local control over water facilities that are not of national importance, and allow these facilities to be used for more efficient and effective water management. Local control, especially in the case of matters in relation to water, has always been a major component of my philosophy. I am proud to introduce this bill which will serve to further that intent.

Mr. President, I think 10 minutes would be fine. I was going to make an argument on an amendment that will be presented. I don't know where it is before us. I do have a couple of amendments I would like to propose. I think for the debate on those two amendments and a floor statement, I probably need 10 minutes.

I thank the chairman for yielding me 10 minutes.

There are three amendments that I have offered and I would like to ask for their consideration, and then I wish to make some comments relating to one of them and then finally some comments on the Levin missile defense amendment offered earlier today.

Amendment No. 1419

I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment, and I ask for the consideration of amendment No. 1419.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to lay aside that amendment, and I ask for the consideration of amendment No. 1383. That amendment has been previously filed.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay that amendment aside, and I ask for the consideration of amendment No. 1506.

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

Mr. President, No. 1506 deals with the mineral rights at Rocky Flats. This basically will provide for the Secretary to purchase these mineral rights. There is money that has been provided for this in previous legislation and that is pending. This allows for the transfer of those mineral rights on Rocky Flats. It is based on the owner of the mineral rights being willing to sell.

In 2001, I successfully inserted a provision in the National Defense authorization bill that authorized the creation of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Under this legislation, the Department of Energy was required to transfer most of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site to the Department of Interior for the purposes of creating a wildlife refuge to preserve Colorado's rare Front Range habitat.

Earlier, 2 months ago, the Departments of Energy and Interior signed a memorandum of understanding that stipulated how and when the Department of Energy would transfer the management of most of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site to the Department of Interior. However, this memorandum of understanding was incomplete. It completely deferred the issue of the disruptive surface mining of privately owned mineral rights that is occurring on the site until later this year. This deferral did not meet the legislation requirement under the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act and represented a critical impediment to the closure of Rocky Flats.

The Department of Interior contended that surface mining such as that now occurring at Rocky Flats is fundamentally contrary to its refuge management goals, and makes the achievement of refuge purposes on those lands impossible.

To better understand this issue, I requested that the Department of Energy hire an independent contractor to conduct an appraisal on the value of the mineral rights. The independent contractor determined the owners and provided a preliminary cost estimate as to the fair market value of those mineral rights containing sand and gravel.

After the appraisal was completed, my staff personally contacted each mineral rights owner. I wanted to see if they would be interested in selling if they were offered money for the fair market value of the mineral rights. I also reassured them that the owners would not be forced to sell if they didn't want to.

Shortly thereafter, it was brought to my attention that the purchase of mineral rights could be included as part of a comprehensive natural resource damage settlement. I am pleased to announce that the State of Colorado, my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, and I have worked out legislation providing for such an arrangement. I am confidant that this arrangement will be acceptable to the Department of Energy and the Department of Interior.

Under the amendment I am introducing today, the Secretary of Energy will be required to purchase essential mineral rights necessary to transition Rocky Flats to a national wildlife refuge.

The Secretary can only purchase these mineral rights once the following conditions are met: (1) The owner of the minieral right is a willing seller; (2) the Secretary purchases the mineral right at fair market value; and (3) the Trustees for Rocky Flats release the Department from its natural resource damage liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, CERCLA.

Also included in this legislation is a provision that states that if the owner of the mineral right refuses to sell, the Secretary of Energy may satisfy the Department's natural resource liability obligation by paying the trustees of the site an amount equal to the fair market value of the mineral right owned by the unwilling seller.

I believe this amendment makes too much sense for us to pass up. We have winners, winners, and winners. It is certainly a win for the State of Colorado--the State mechanism that would provide more dollars for Colorado than most likely would have been gained through the normal natural resources damages settlement process. The owners of the mineral rights win because they now have an opportunity to sell their mineral rights at fair market value, a possibility that never existed before. The Department of Energy wins because it is able to pay off its natural resource damage liabilities that would have arisen under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The Department of Interior wins because this legislation would remove the last impediment to the memorandum of understanding between Interior and the Department of Energy so that Interior can move forward with creating a wildlife refuge at Rocky Flats. Most importantly, the people of Colorado win because now they will be able to enjoy the pristine beauty and splendor of the Rocky Mountain's Front Range through the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Hundreds of acres of rare xeric tallgrass prairie will be preserved. The natural wildlife in the refuge will be protected.

As I said, this is a win-win proposal. Everyone gains. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Amendment No. 1492

I rise in opposition to the Levin missile defense amendment. This amendment eliminates $30 million--there has been $50 million requested--for long-lead funding for ground-based interceptor missiles 31-40 and $20 million for associated silo construction. The $50 million would be used to plus-up the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which is already fully funded at $415.5 million, with an additional $1.6 billion for DOE nonproliferation programs.

The CTR currently has $500 million in unobligated funds for 2005. So I would hope we could keep these provisions in the current authorization bill.

DOD already directed a $1 billion reduction in MDA funding in fiscal year 2006 and $5 billion in 2006 through 2011. To add upon that an additional reduction in long-term funding puts this program in jeopardy. We need to have those long-term plans in place, funded, because they are very important to the security of this Nation.

This amendment would unnecessarily delay the fielding of ground-based interceptors in 2009 and 2010. We simply cannot afford such a delay because the threat is ``real and imminent,'' as General Cartwright has testified. The CIA and DIA assess North Korea as ready to flight test an ICBM that can reach the United States, and Iran may have such a capability in 2015, according to the DIA.

A production break, by the way, would cost $270 million to restart, so there is a cost in delaying these funds.

Despite recent test failures, the technology is mature enough to proceed with fielding even though we continue to test and improve reliability.

STRATCOM, the Director of Operational Tests and Evaluation, and the Independent Review Team agree that the ground-based midcourse defense test bed has some limited capability. The Independent Review Team also found no fundamental design flaws with the GMD system, and that we need to concentrate on manufacturing quality control.

I happen to be in favor of more operational testing. The MDA is pursuing a prudent approach by delaying further testing until reliability issues are addressed. Four flight tests were scheduled for 2006, starting in October and ending with an intercept next September. Also, the SASC adopted the Nelson amendment that directs increasing cooperation between independent testing agencies and MDA, and calls for more operationally realistic testing that will be evaluated by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

I have been out to visit the southern parts of the test bed. I am convinced our technology is there. I am convinced the threat is real. As a result, I think we need to move forward and we need to move forward in a long-term way so the manufacturers who provide the missiles and technology for the program have some reliable source of revenue as we move forward. We should not interrupt the program. The agencies that are responsible for administering the program need to have that funding there so they can continue to plan in the future for the defense of this country.

There is an emerging threat. There is a threat that continues to emerge, I would say, from North Korea. I think we have to be concerned about Iran.

I have always been a strong proponent of missile defense. I think this particular amendment that Senator Levin has introduced tends to make it difficult for us to meet our long-range goals, to protect the borders of this country, and protect the American people from some type of missile attack. In today's environment, it is important that we have that insurance for the future of America.

I wanted to make the comments on the Levin amendment because I think it is ill-advised in light of the state of the world today.

Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman.

As I have discussed with the Chairman's staff--I assume you are talking about the amendment on the mineral rights.

That provision is before the OMB, so I cannot publicly state their position until we get a decision back from OMB.

Yes.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strike the $4 million appropriation for the robust nuclear earth penetrator commonly known as RNEP. There are some comments made in the debate today to which I would like to add my perspective because they were basically incorrect.

We have been debating this amendment for the past 3 years. And we have been passing this provision in the Senate, defeating any amendments to take it out of legislation. In all the testimony I have had over the past 3 years as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, which my distinguished colleague from Alabama now chairs, never once has anybody, in testifying before that committee, said that there will not be any nuclear fallout. Not once have they indicated that they felt this was going to lead us into an arms race.

Here is what we have done. This is what they have talked about, taking some of the nuclear warheads that we now have in our nuclear arsenal and redesigning those in a way in which they might be more effective, if we happen to have a deep bunker that is posing a threat to Americans, whether American soldiers or American citizens.

We need to have a study. That is what this provision is all about. What we are talking about is reducing the amount of collateral damage. That means reducing the amount of, perhaps, nuclear fallout or perhaps reducing the blast range because you take all that energy and you drive it down into the ground instead of driving it in a horizontal direction, which obviously means for collateral damage. They are talking about focusing the study on the B-83 warhead which is part of our arsenal today. That is all we are talking about, a study. We are going to be looking at the current arsenal makeup of weapons that we have to modify them to reduce collateral damage. I think that is a commendable goal. I think it warrants the support of the Members of the Senate.

This bill includes funding of $4 million to continue the Air Force- led feasibility study. This is a study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator. This is not a new issue for Congress to consider. In both the defense authorization and the Energy and Water appropriations bills, amendments have been offered to cut all funding for the robust nuclear earth penetrator. These amendments have been defeated on multiple occasions.

The purpose of the RNEP feasibility study is to determine if an existing nuclear weapon can be modified to penetrate into hard rock in order to destroy a deeply buried target that could be hiding weapons of mass destruction or command and control assets. The Department of Energy has modified nuclear weapons in the past to modernize their safety and security and reliability aspects. We have also modified existing nuclear weapons to meet our new military requirements. Under the Clinton administration, we modified the B-61 so it could penetrate frozen soils. The RNEP feasibility study is narrowly focused to determine whether the B-83 warhead can be modified to penetrate hard rock or reinforced underground facilities.

Funding research on options, both nuclear and conventional, for attacking such targets is a responsible step for our country to take. As many as 70 nations are developing or have built hardened and deeply buried targets to protect command and communications and weapons of mass destruction production and storage assets. Of that number, a number of nations have facilities that are sufficiently hard and deep enough that we cannot destroy most of them with our conventional weapons. Some of them are so sophisticated that they are beyond the current U.S. nuclear weapons capability.

I believe it is prudent and imperative that we fund this study. I emphasize again, this is a study on the potential capabilities to address this growing category of threat.

Should the Department of Energy determine, through this study, that the robust nuclear earth penetrator can meet the requirements to hold a hard and deeply buried target at risk, the Department still could not proceed to full-scale weapon development, production or deployment without an authorization and appropriation from Congress. Let me repeat that. The Department of Energy cannot go ahead, beyond this study, without the express authorization or appropriation from Congress.

Frankly, we should allow our weapons experts to determine if the robust nuclear earth penetrator could destroy hardened and deeply buried targets. That is the purpose of the study. Then Congress could have the information it would need to make a responsible decision as to whether development of such a program is appropriate and necessary to maintain our Nation's security.

Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment before us.

Amendment No. 1418

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment so I may offer a number of amendments.

Madam President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1418.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1419.

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

Madam President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 1419 and the incredible achievements of the workers at the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats environmental technology site and to offer an amendment on behalf of these workers. Rocky Flats is located a few miles northwest of Denver, CO. For four decades, this facility was the Department of Energy's dedicated site for manufacturing plutonium pits for the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

This highly classified production facility was run by over 8,000 Coloradans who worked day and night for most of the Cold War and used some of the most dangerous substances known to man, including plutonium, beryllium, and uranium. The workers at Rocky Flats were devoted to their jobs and believed in their mission. They risked their lives on a daily basis and did so with the knowledge that their efforts were contributing to the security of our Nation. They are heroes of the Cold War and have earned our respect, admiration, and our appreciation.

When plutonium pit production ended in 1991, it was unclear what role these workers would play in the cleanup of Rocky Flats. They could have walked away from the job. They had performed their duty with excellence for nearly 40 years. No one could ask them to do more. Yet the workers at Rocky Flats were not ready to quit. They saw a new challenge in front of them--a challenge they could not walk away from. They knew the cleanup would be difficult and very dangerous, but they were not deterred.

These workers stayed and, over the next decade, they performed magnificently. Their task was anything but simple. Five large plutonium processing facilities encompassing over a million square feet were highly contaminated with dangerous radioactive material. The contamination was so severe that these buildings were ranked among the top 10 contaminated facilities in the DOE nuclear weapons complex. Building No. 771, in particular, was even singled out by the national media as ``the most dangerous building in America.''

The cleaning and eventual demolishing of these buildings was just the beginning. Hundreds of vials of contaminated process piping interlaced the complex. More than a dozen infinity rooms were so contaminated that they had been sealed and abandoned--some for as long as 30 years. Hundreds of tons of plutonium compound, uranium byproducts, and other radioactive and toxic residues remained at Rocky Flats.

Yet the workers at Rocky Flats were not deterred. They had built components using some of the most dangerous substances the world has ever known. Now they were ready to tackle one of the most dangerous cleanup projects ever contemplated.

In 1992, Rocky Flats was transferred to the DOE's environmental management program for the purpose of cleaning up the contamination and waste. Few knew where to begin. The unprecedented size and magnitude of the project was simply daunting. It took years to just figure out the best approach to the project. The expected cost was also staggering. In 1995, the cleanup was predicted to cost upward of $35 billion and to take 70 years to complete.

When I came to the Senate in 1996, the cleanup of Rocky Flats had been dragging out for nearly 4 years with little progress. Tons of weapons-grade plutonium remained and most buildings at Rocky Flats had not been touched. More than 2 million 55-gallon drums of waste needed to be removed.

I found this lack of progress simply unacceptable. The safety of the people of Colorado was at risk and the American taxpayer could ill afford to allow this project to drag on indefinitely. At my urging, the DOE, in 2000, finally put the resources into accelerating the cleanup of Rocky Flats. Under the leadership of then-Under Secretary Bob Card, and then-Assistant Secretary Jesse Roberson, the DOE took the unprecedented step of rethinking its approach to the cleanup. These creative leaders challenged the lead contractor, CH2M HILL, and the workers at Rocky Flats to move much more aggressively. They were given the seemingly impossible mission of completing the cleanup of the massive contamination at Rocky Flats by 2007, at a cost of less than $7 billion.

Most scoffed at this approach. They believed there would be considerable cost overruns and schedule delays. They didn't think CH2M HILL could effectively execute this kind of contract. Most of all, they doubted the commitment of the workers at Rocky Flats. They could not fathom why these workers would work themselves out of a job. Even the GAO doubted the ability of the workers at Rocky Flats to ship massive quantities of waste required to achieve closure by 2006.

I, however, had faith in the workers at Rocky Flats. I am pleased to state today that Kaiser-Hill and the workers at Rocky Flats have not disappointed me. In fact, it appears that Kaiser-Hill and the workers at Rocky Flats are far exceeding their cleanup commitments.

I cannot express the full extent of how proud I am of their achievement. Listen to some of their accomplishments: All weapons grade plutonium was removed in 2003.

More than 1,400 contaminated glove boxes and hundreds of process tanks have been removed.

More than 400,000 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste has been removed.

Six hundred and fifty of the eight hundred and two facilities have been demolished.

All four uranium production facilities have been demolished.

All five plutonium production facilities have been demolished or will be within the next 3 months.

Three hundred and ten of three hundred and sixty sites of soil contamination have been remediated.

The last shipment of transuranic waste was shipped this past April.

It now appears that the cleanup of Rocky Flats will be completed-- completed--as early as this October, a full year ahead of schedule, and save the American taxpayers not thousands, not millions, but billions upon billions of dollars.

Mr. President, you can only appreciate the magnitude of this accomplishment when you realize that within 6 years, Rocky Flats will have been transformed from one of the dangerous places on Earth to a beautiful and safe natural wildlife refuge.

I applaud the leadership provided by CH2M HILL. The management expert provided by this company was critical to this effort. Kaiser-Hill took the challenge head on despite the tough schedule and limited funding. The company can be proud of its accomplishments and its contribution to the safety of the people of Colorado.

Yet CH2M HILL could not have achieved the demanding goals established by the Department of Energy without the hard work and determination of the Rocky Flats workers. Most of these workers had to literally develop an entire new skill set. They went from manufacturing plutonium pits to dismantling glove boxes. They cleaned up rooms that were so contaminated that they were forced to use the highest level of respiratory protection available.

Perhaps more important, these workers were extraordinarily productive even though they knew they were essentially working themselves out of a job. With the completion of the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats, they knew they would have to find employment elsewhere. There was no guarantee that the next job would pay as much or provide the same level of benefits.

Despite knowing they were going to lose their jobs, the workers at Rocky Flats remained highly motivated and totally committed to their cleanup

mission. They believed in what they were doing and worked hard to clean up the facility as quickly and as safely as possible. They achieved more in less time and with less money than anyone dreamed possible. I am proud of the workers at Rocky Flats. I believe they have once again earned our Nation's sincere appreciation and respect.

Given the sacrifice and dedication demonstrated by these workers, you would think the Department of Energy would do everything it could to ensure that these workers received the compensation and benefits they have earned.

You would think assisting those workers who lose their retirement benefits because of the early completion of the cleanup would be a top priority of the Department. After all, these workers saved the Department billions upon billions in cleanup costs.

Last year, it became clear to the DOE and to me that the cleanup at Rocky Flats could be completed much earlier than anyone expected. The workers were supportive of early closure but were concerned that some of their colleagues would lose retirement benefits because of early closure.

I share their concern and requested in last year's Defense authorization bill that the DOE provide Congress with a report on the number of workers who would not receive retirement benefits and the cost of providing these benefits. After a lengthy delay, the DOE reported that about 29 workers would not receive pension and/or lifetime medical benefits because of early closure. The cost of providing benefits to these workers is estimated to be just over $12 million.

To my dismay, I discovered the DOE's report was woefully incomplete. I was subsequently informed that at least another 50 workers would have qualified for retirement benefits had the DOE bothered to include those workers who had already been laid off because of the accelerated closure schedule.

Mr. President, this means as many as 75 workers at Rocky Flats will lose their pensions, medical benefits, or, in some cases, both because they worked faster, less expensively, and achieved more than they were supposed to. They not only worked themselves out of a job but also out of retirement benefits and medical care.

I find the Department of Energy's refusal to pay these benefits to be outrageous.

Many of the workers at Rocky Flats served our Nation for over two decades. They have risked their lives day in and day out, first by building nuclear weapon components, and then by cleaning up some of the most contaminated buildings in the world. All they have asked for in return is to be treated with fairness and honesty.

To my disappointment, and to the disappointment of the workers at Rocky Flats, the DOE cannot seem to keep its end of the bargain.

These workers would have received retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to 2035, as originally predicted. The workers would have received their retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to December 15, 2006, as the site contract specified. But by accelerating the cleanup by over a year and saving the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, these workers are left without the retirement benefits they deserve and, I feel, have justly earned.

Mr. President, the Department's refusal to provide these benefits has ramifications far beyond Rocky Flats. Because Rocky Flats is the first major DOE cleanup site, workers at other sites around the country are watching to see how the DOE treats the workers at Rocky Flats. Unfortunately, they have seen how the DOE has failed to step up and provide retirement benefits to those who have earned it.

The workers at other sites now have no incentive to accelerate cleanup. Why should they? The Department of Energy hasn't lifted a finger to help the workers at Rocky Flats. It would be foolish for workers at other sites to think the DOE would act fairly with them if they accelerated cleanup.

To me, the Department's decision is penny-wise and pound-foolish. By refusing to provide these benefits, the Department saves money in the short term. Yet by discouraging the workers from supporting acceleration, the Department is going to cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions in additional funding in the long run.

I believe Congress needs to correct the Department's mistake before it is too late.

Today, I offer an amendment that will provide some of the benefits to those workers who have lost them because of early closure. I am pleased that my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, has agreed to cosponsor this important amendment. I support his bipartisan effort. The amendment is narrowly focused on providing health, medical, and life insurance benefits to those workers affected.

This amendment is limited in the funding it provides. It is solely focused on providing these benefits to those workers who would have received health, medical, and life insurance benefits had the site remained open until December 15, 2005, the date of the site cleanup contract.

To be clear, these benefits are not an additional bonus for a job well done, nor is it a going away present for those two decades of service. The health, medical, and life insurance benefits are what these workers have already earned--nothing more, nothing less.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. These workers have earned these benefits, and it is up to this body to see they receive it.

Let's not let the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy tarnish the credibility of the Federal Government. It is time for this body to correct this mistake before the Department's foolishness costs the American taxpayers even more money in the future.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Madam President, I appreciate the fine work of the Senator from Alabama, a good friend of mine. There are a couple points I would like to make.

The workers at Rocky Flats were paid by Federal dollars. They were not technically employed by the Federal Government. Their benefits were paid by the Federal Government. There is a commitment there, in my view. This amendment tries to correct any legal problems we may have there.

Again, I appreciate the concern and interest the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Affairs has toward this issue. I hope somehow we can resolve this in all fairness, not only to the taxpayers but also to the workers.

Madam President, we may very well have to vote on these pending amendments. I would like to have them available for that purpose. I would like to continue to talk with the staff of the Department of Energy and the chairman and his staff. But if necessary, I would like to have an opportunity to have a vote on this amendment.

The proper request is, I ask for their consideration.

We would like to have a vote on the amendments.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Boy Scouts of America and the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 amendment being offered by majority leader Frist.

I support the Boy Scouts of America and its goals. I was fortunate to be able to have most of the same experiences and training offered by the Boy Scouts

as I grew up. My boyhood on a ranch in Walden, CO, offered me the chance to develop the outdoor skills and nature appreciation that are so much a part of Scouting. As a child I also learned much about patriotism, community service, religion, political involvement and civic responsibility--the intellectual development stressed by the Boy Scouts. As a veterinarian I often served as an advisor to the Scouts on a variety of issues relating to animal care and health. Americans all over our Nation contribute and are touched by this great organization.

On July 25 through August 3, Boy Scouts from all over the Nation will gather at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia for their National Scout Jamboree. This opportunity is time to celebrate scouting and the strong ideals it instills in it's youth.

Boy Scouts of America, like other nonprofit youth organizations, depend on the use of these public facilities for various programs and forums. Boy Scouts of America have had a long and positive relationship with the Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development. This relationship has fostered responsible fun and adventure to the more than 3 million boys and 1 million adult volunteers around the country.

However, since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Boy Scouts of America, BSA v. Dale, the Boy Scout's relationships with Government has been the target of frivolous lawsuits. Currently, State and local Governments are actively excluding Boy Scouts from using public facilities, forums, and programs. These are resources that are available to a variety of other youth or community organizations. Today access by the Scouts has been unfairly limited because of the Boy Scout's unwavering acknowledgment of God.

As we fight to prevent court involvement from changing our founding documents and other symbols of our national heritage we must also support and protect the heritage of Boy Scouts of America. Citizenship, service, and leadership are important values on which the Boy Scouts of America was built. The ability of the Boy Scouts to instill young people with values and ethical character must remain intact for future generations. The Boy Scouts of America is a permanent fixture in our culture and no court ruling can or should attempt to diminish their rights to equal access.

This amendment's mission is to ensure that the Boy Scouts are treated equally. I feel the Boy Scouts have been unfairly singled out. It is important to guarantee their right to equal access of public facilities, forums, and programs so that the Boy Scout of America can continue to serve America's communities and families for a better tomorrow.

Please join me in supporting the Boy Scouts of America and majority leader Frist's Support Our Scouts amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Kenneth W. Montfort College of Business at the University of Northern Colorado on receiving the 2004 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, the Nation's highest honor for quality and performance excellence.

The Kenneth W. Monfort College of Business at the University of Northern Colorado is the sole business school to receive the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This award recognizes the outstanding performance and accomplishments of American businesses, schools, and health care organizations that surpass standards of excellence and ethics.

Monfort College of Business offers the only program of its kind in the Rocky Mountain region focused exclusively on undergraduate business education and internationally accredited in business administration and accounting. Monfort is one of five undergraduate-only programs in the United States to hold such accreditations. Students at Monfort score in the top 5 percent on nationwide standardized exit exams and earn a degree in business administration with an emphasis in accounting, computer information systems, finance, general business, management, or marketing. An interdisciplinary degree is also available in nonprofit management. Monfort's student-centered approach is exemplified by its three-dimensional learning strategy: High-Touch, small class sizes taught on an interactive basis, Wide-Tech, exposure to a wide array of business technologies, and Professional Depth, instruction from seasoned professors, including highly placed executives.

Understanding the importance of a well-rounded college education is important if we are to produce the next

generation of our State's and our Nation's leaders. I commend Kenneth W. Montfort College of Business at the University of Northern Colorado for their efforts to promote excellence in higher education. Undoubtedly, their success serves as an example of excellence to colleges and universities around the country.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Kenneth W. Montfort College of Business at the University of Northern Colorado for being recognized for their efforts and success.

Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for yielding. I compliment him on his tremendous leadership in the Finance Committee, particularly on the issue of trade.

I rise today in strong support of the U.S. Central America and Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, and our administration's current trade policies.

We sometimes forget what history has taught us. If we look back to the early part of the 20th century, the early 1900s, our country was struggling economically. One of the reasons, it was decided after a while, is because we were too restrictive on our trade policies. We had high tariffs on a lot of different products coming into this country. All of a sudden, the economists began to wake up: If we liberalize our trade policies, we begin to open trade to the entire world, and we benefit. Lo and behold, we found our country began to do better economically.

We forget what history taught us. We do not want to go back to some of the old tried-and-failed solutions some of my colleagues on the other side are talking about. They do not work. It destroys your economy.

If we look with other countries to liberalize our trade agreements, we raise the entire tide. Sure, other countries benefit, but we benefit even more. We will see that as we move forward with this debate.

NAFTA has not hurt this country, it has helped it. It has created more jobs, not less. So many figures we will hear presented here are focused on one particular group, it is one side of the ledger. Nobody talks about what has happened on the other side of the ledger when we created more jobs, particularly on the service side of our economy.

Another point I would make is look at the poor countries in the world today. They have more trade restrictions than those more modern countries that are doing well economically. Doesn't that tell us something? Doesn't that tell us that if we can get them to relax their tariffs, they can begin to benefit with us and what is happening in the growth of our economies? Not only do we help them, but we help ourselves. So it is a mutual win-win agreement on these international trade agreements.

We can look at all these trade agreements and see how they have helped us economically. They have helped our friends and trading allies. They have helped us to export the idea of democracy and what free markets are all about. It is what makes a difference between our success and many other countries that do not have a democracy, that do not talk about how important it is to have free markets.

I rise today in strong support of this trade agreement. Prior to the Bush administration, momentum of trade liberalization had clearly slowed. Thankfully, Congress reapproved executive authority for trade agreements, and with the leadership of President Bush, the administration has made international trade a high priority for the health and well-being of the American economy. That is good.

We have acted to strengthen the President's ability to eliminate trade barriers with other countries. The first steps have been taken toward a new era of trade liberalization.

At the end of 2002, the Bush administration completed free-trade negotiations with Chile and Singapore which were first begun by the Clinton administration in 2000. This is not a partisan issue, it is a bipartisan issue. These free-trade agreements with Chile and Singapore entered into force on January 1, 2004.

In 2004, the agreements with Australia and Morocco were signed and approved by Congress, and this Australian trade agreement recently came into force this January.

These agreements make a strong statement about the commitment of the United States to international trade, and CAFTA continues the trend of reaching bilateral trade agreements in our own hemisphere and abroad.

The countries entering into CAFTA are among the developing countries that already enjoy duty-free access to U.S. markets for the majority of their exports. That is their goods coming into our country. While these developing countries have high tariff and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports and impose restrictions on U.S. businesses, the agreement will liberalize trade in goods, services, government procurement, intellectual property investment, and address important labor and environmental issues. We are going to let them join with us in our economic prosperity. That is not going to hurt the United States. It is going to benefit our economy.

Trade between the United States and CAFTA countries totaled over $33 billion alone last year. The United States exported almost $16 billion in goods to five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic in 2004--more than all exports to Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia combined.

This agreement will create the second largest U.S. export market in Latin America--$16 billion--behind only Mexico, and the 14th largest U.S. export market in the world. The market access and trade discipline provided by CAFTA offer an opportunity to expand U.S. exports to a region that is already seeing high export growth rates. In fact, from 2000 through 2004 export shipments to CAFTA designations grew by almost 16 percent compared to 5 percent for U.S. overall exports.

CAFTA also helps to move the current trading relationship from one- way preferences to a more reciprocal partnership. Currently, about 80 percent of the region's exports enter the United States duty free, while U.S. goods exported to CAFTA countries face significant tariffs. However, with this agreement in place CAFTA will boost opportunities for exporters throughout the country, providing new market access for these producers.

Specific to my home State's interests, the State of Colorado, CAFTA immediately eliminates tariffs on 80 percent of U.S. exports and eliminates all tariffs within 10 years, including up to 15 percent tariffs on Colorado's exports of machinery, manufactured products, and transportation equipment. The information technology producers will also gain with the elimination of distribution barriers and elimination of information technology tariffs, as well as the opening of key information technology services, including telecommunications, and will also protect intellectual property rights.

For Colorado's farmers and ranchers CAFTA will eliminate tariffs on 50 percent of U.S. exports immediately and most remaining duties within 15 years, benefiting beef and pork producers with the immediate elimination of tariffs over 15 years; dairy products with duty-free tariff rate quotas that will expand from over 10,000 tons in year 1 and out of quota tariffs eliminated over 20 years; and finally corn, wheat, and grain products with the immediate binding at zero of tariffs on wheat, barley, oats, and rye as well as for corn in Costa Rica and sorghum in the Dominican Republic and Guatemala. All remaining tariffs on feedgrains will be eliminated over 15 years.

Clearly, this agreement greatly benefits my State of Colorado and the Nation as a whole. I am pleased to stand behind the agreement reached by former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and our current USTR, Rob Portman.

On noneconomic impact, I have already said that even if we were to set aside all the economic benefits for continuing liberalization of international trade like CAFTA, there are still many other reasons, most notably humanitarian reasons. History has shown it is the isolated closed societies that are the most brutal and repressed. International contact brought about by increased trade with businessmen, foreign goods exchanges, corporate presence, and marketing serves to increase access to a higher standard of living and a better quality of life.

International trade also requires important reforms of the domestic, legal, and business environment that are key to encouraging business development and investment. Such reforms include providing greater transparency for Government to strengthen the rule of law and improving protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. We must always remember that America's No. 1 export is democracy, and overreaction to our trade deficit, increasing tariffs, or other false barriers to trade will damage not only our bottom line but also our national security interests. We cannot allow that to happen.

Madam President, we have heard a lot of doomsday predictions from opponents of this fair trade agreement that CAFTA will lead to all kinds of job loss both here and in Central America. A lot of these people said the same thing about NAFTA. Remember the great sucking sound of jobs that were supposed to go to Mexico? Well, it just did not happen.

Let's take a look at this chart. This is the chart on U.S. jobs from 1993 to 2004. Remember that we adopted NAFTA in 1993, I guess 1994. What this chart shows is the number of jobs in the United States from 1993 out to 2004, that if the trade critics were right, you would expect to see a fall in the number of jobs in the United States. Following the passage of NAFTA, look at it. It just did not happen. The blue line is manufacturing jobs--basically, a straight line, a little bit of reduction on the end. And look at what has happened, though, to nonmanufacturing jobs. This is the purple line or the light pink line, what is happening in the growth. We simply have not lost any jobs since the start of NAFTA. In fact, the United States had almost 17 million manufacturing jobs in 1994. That number rose to 17.26 million by 2000. Now it is falling only after the recession hit us in the year 2000. That was about the time we had 9/11. In fact, after NAFTA passed, the U.S. unemployment rate dropped.

Take a look at the U.S. unemployment rate from 1993 to 1994. In 1993, the

U.S. unemployment rate was about 6.9 percent as reflected here, and in 1994, the year NAFTA passed--right in here reflected by this chart--it fell to 6.1 percent, and then it continued to fall reaching only 4 percent in 2000. Then at its peak postrecession point, the unemployment rate was 5.5, still lower than it was in 1994, I might add. So NAFTA clearly did not cause massive unemployment in the United States as predicted by trade critics.

Well, then the critics will say that maybe they were wrong with the numbers. Maybe there was no massive loss of jobs, but NAFTA caused us to substitute good-paying jobs for bad-paying jobs. Again, the facts show that they were wrong. Let's take a look at real hourly wages from 1983 to 2004. What we see happening here is a drop in real hourly wages until we get down to 1994 when we then adopted NAFTA.

Lo and behold, look what happens to wages, both the real average manufacturing wages, which is reflected by this top line, and then what has happened with the real hourly wages in the private sector. Look at the climb that we have seen in real hourly wages. Real hourly wages have risen since NAFTA for all workers. In fact, wages that were in decline in the decade prior to NAFTA have increased steadily since the NAFTA agreement was reached.

We also heard that NAFTA would result in the flood of cheap imports from Mexico. Again, the critics were simply wrong. I point to this next chart which reflects U.S. imports from Mexico prior to NAFTA, and under NAFTA, as a share of total U.S. imports. U.S. imports from Mexico have held fairly steady at 7 percent, as we can look across here, as a percent of total U.S. imports, not much higher than they were in the 5 years prior to NAFTA.

We also heard that U.S. companies would start investing all their money in Mexico because U.S. workers can't compete with Mexico's wage rates. Again, the doom and gloom crowd was simply wrong. Look at the chart. What we see, talking about U.S. direct investments, is that U.S. investments didn't migrate to low-wage countries as predicted. In fact, after NAFTA went into effect, U.S. investment in Europe increased by 48.5 percent of total U.S. investment abroad to 53.8 percent in 2003.

Here is what happened with the investment in Mexico. If we look at the larger peaks that we have over here, this reflects what has happened with Europe. These are modern countries that we are dealing with, and we have the poorer countries down here. We did not see our investments being soaked up by low-wage countries. We still continue to maintain our trade with modern countries. So our challenge is to get poorer countries up into our modern sphere.

In contrast, U.S. direct investment in Mexico accounted for 2.8 percent in 1994 and just 3.4 percent 10 years later. Put another way, Europe's share of investment increased by 5.3 percentage points, and Mexico's by .6 percentage points.

We also heard that Mexico was just too poor to buy our product so we should not trade with them. Wrong again. Mexican consumers increased their purchases of U.S. consumer goods since NAFTA went into effect. In fact, U.S. exports of consumer goods are 66 percent higher in 2004 than they were in 1993.

U.S. exports of home entertainment equipment grew from $984 million to $1.293 billion. Exports of household goods have grown from $1.4 billion to $2.1 billion. And U.S. agriculture has benefitted. Since the implementation of the agreement, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico have nearly doubled. Mexico now imports nearly $6.5 billion of U.S. agricultural products, making them our third largest market.

It is important for all of us to realize that we can take some of these figures, if we just talk about certain individual commodities or certain individual industries, and we can talk about just that particular--we can single out industries that for one reason or another have problems. The overall figures shown on these charts indicate what is happening with trade and what is happening with the economy as a result of liberalizing our trade and opening it up. I don't think anybody can deny that we have not benefitted. And I don't think that anybody can deny those countries that have traded with us have not benefitted. So we all benefit from this rising tide. That is why I feel so strongly that we need to move forward. I think the doomsday scenarios predicted by the critics did not happen. They were wrong about the North American Free Trade Agreement then and they are wrong about the Central American Free Trade Agreement now.

Madam President, we need to move forward. I applaud the leadership for moving this issue forward quickly. I particularly applaud the chairman of the Finance Committee for his superb leadership on this particular issue. I know it is difficult and demanding, but it is important, important to the welfare of everyone in America, not just a few. It is important to the welfare of our trading partners, not just a few. This is an overall policy where many people benefit, and we should not forget that the whole economy of the United States will be better because we have liberalized our trade. What we saw in the early 1900s is a lesson we should not forget because we had high tariffs and trade restrictions that did not work. Now we are in a different era. We don't want to forget the lessons history taught us.

Madam President, I want to yield the floor and thank the leadership and particularly Chairman Grassley on this issue.

I ask unanimous consent to have two editorials printed in the Record.