Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 138, H.R. 2985; I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to; provided further that the Lott-Dodd amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to, there be 5 minutes of debate equally divided between the two managers, and the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record. I further ask unanimous consent that following passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. President, I am proud to present to the Senate the Appropriations Committee's recommendations for fiscal year 2006 Legislative Branch appropriations, H.R. 2985. I would like to thank Senator Durbin, ranking member of the subcommittee, for his full cooperation in crafting the legislation. Under our recommendation, funding for the legislative branch would total $3.83 billion in budget authority and $3.84 billion in outlays. This is $230 million above the FY05 enacted level and a reduction of $194 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 $264.6 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 recommendation also includes $427 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 $580 million, including funding for the Library's highest priorities such as the new National Audio-Visual Conservation Center and Congressional Research Service enhancements. A total of $9.8 million would be included for the Books for the Blind digital talking book, as a ``downpayment'' on the $75 million effort to replace the current cassette playback system with digital ``flash memory'' technology.

Funding for the GPO would total $126.9 million, including $5 million to retrain staff for the new digital environment; the Government Accountability Office would receive $484 million, and the Open World Leadership Program would be funded at the budget request level of $14 million.

Funding and language pertaining only to the House remains as passed by the House, pursuant to the normal protocol of comity between the two bodies.

This is a non-controversial and lean bill that meets the most important needs of the Congress and its support agencies, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Before closing, I would like to thank the staff who have been involved in this bill. Senator Durbin's staff, Nancy Olkewicz, Drew Willison and Pat Souders, and my own staff, Lance Landry, Carrie Apostolou, and Christen Taylor.

Yes, that's correct.

I have a rather lengthy statement on this amendment. There is still some time, I understand, on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator; is that correct?

Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and that amendment is amendment No. 1084.

This amendment should read sponsored by both Allard and Salazar. Here is a corrected amendment. I will send that to the desk.

The only difference would be that the listing of the sponsors on there should list Allard and Salazar. Otherwise there is no difference. Maybe we are okay to move forward. Is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment and make a few comments, if I might.

I have had faith in the workers of Rocky Flats and I am pleased to say 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 at Rocky Flats in the State of Colorado. I cannot express the full extent of how proud I am of their achievements.

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 have been removed; 650 of the 802 facilities have been demolished; all 4 uranium production facilities have been demolished; all 5 plutonium production facilities have been demolished or will be within the next 3 months; 310 of 360 sites of soil contamination have been remediated, and the last shipment of transuranic waste was shipped this last April.

It now appears the cleanup of Rocky Flats will be completed as early as October, a full year ahead of schedule, and save the American taxpayer billions upon billions of dollars of what was envisioned when we first started talking about cleanup at Rocky Flats.

One can appreciate the magnitude of this accomplishment only when they realize that within 6 years Rocky Flats will have been transformed from one of the most dangerous places on Earth to a beautiful and safe natural wildlife refuge. Yet the cleanup contractor could not have achieved this demanding goal as 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 tore down buildings while wearing stiff environmental protection suits. They cleaned up rooms that were so contaminated that they were forced to use the highest level of respiratory protection available. Perhaps more importantly, 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 their next job would pay as much or provide the same level of benefits. Despite knowing that they were going to lose their jobs, the workers of 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 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, one would think the Department of Energy would do everything it could do to ensure that these workers received the compensation and benefits they have earned. One would think assisting those workers who lose their retirement benefits because of the early completion of the cleanup would be a top priority for the Department. After all, these workers saved the Department billions upon billions of cleanup costs.

Last year, it became clear to the Department of Energy and to me that the cleanup at Rocky Flats would 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 shared their concern and requested in last year's defense authorization bill that the Department of Energy 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 Department of Energy reported that about 29 workers would not receive pension and/or lifetime medical benefits because of early closure. The cost of providing benefits to those workers was just over $12 million.

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

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 they also worked themselves out of retirement benefits and medical care.

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

Many of the workers at Rocky Flats have served our Nation for over 2 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 Department of Energy cannot seem to keep its end of the bargain. The Department seems to think that the only thing these workers deserve is a shove out the door.

These workers would have received their retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to 2035 as originally predicted. These workers would have received their retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to 2007 as the site contract specifies. But by accelerating the cleanup by over a year and saving the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, these workers are left without the retirement benefits they deserve and have earned.

The Department's refusal to provide these benefits has ramifications far beyond Rocky Flats. Because Rocky Flats is the first major DOE clean-site, workers at other sites around the country are watching to see how the Department of Energy treats the workers at Rocky Flats. Unfortunately, they have seen how the Department of Energy 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 clean- up. Why should they? The Department of Energy has not lifted a finger to help the workers at Rocky Flats. It would be foolish for workers at other sites think the Department of Energy would act fairly with them.

To me, the Department's decision is a penny wise and a 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 taxpayer 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 the benefits to those workers who would have lost their retirement benefits because of early closure. This amendment is designed to provide retirement benefits to only those who would have received retirement benefits had the site remained open until December 15, 2005, the date of site cleanup contract.

To be clear, this funding is not an additional bonus for a job well- done. Nor is it a going away present for two decades of service. These retirement benefits are what these workers have already earned--nothing more, nothing else.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. These workers have earned these benefits, and it is up to this body to see that they receive them. Let us 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 taxpayer even more money in the future.

I yield the floor.

Yes, that will be fine.

That is my understanding. I thank the chairman of the Energy and Water Committee and I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Amendment No. 1098

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment before us.

The bill before us includes an appropriation of $4 million to continue an Air Force-led feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator--RNEP. This is not a new issue for the Congress to consider. In both the defense authorization and energy and water appropriations bills the last 2 years, 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, security, and reliability aspects. We have also modified existing nuclear weapons to meet new military requirements. Under the Clinton administration, we modified the B-61 so that it could penetrate frozen soils.

The RNEP feasibility study is narrowly focused on determining 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 conventional weapons. Some of them are so sophisticated that they are beyond the current U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities. I believe it is prudent and imperative that we fund this study on potential capabilities to address this growing category of threat.

Should the Department of Energy determine, through this study, that the robust nuclear penetrator can meet the requirement to hold a hardened 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 beyond this study without the expressed authorization and appropriation from Congress.

We should allow our weapons experts to determine if the robust nuclear earth penetrator could destroy hardened and deeply buried targets. Then Congress would have the information it would need to decide whether or not development of such a weapon is appropriate and necessary to maintain our nation's security.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment before us.

Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning CBR Youth Connect.

``Youth are our focus and our future, connecting is our job.'' This statement represents the newly expanded vision of Colorado Boys Ranch, CBR, Youth Connect, a foundation with a 45-year history of helping troubled young men become productive citizens in their communities and throughout the world. CBR Youth Connect offers more than 200 applied learning opportunities and nontraditional programs and therapies, each one designed to help youth enhance their skills, attitudes, and relations with others. Programs and services range from animal-assisted programs to family therapy to an accredited school system. Each program and service offered by CBRYC is designed to contribute to a boy's overall treatment plan, helping him learn, grow, and develop as an individual.

The roots for CBR Youth Connect were planted in 1958 when county judges, from various districts in the State of Colorado, envisioned a rural orphanage that would be an ideal setting for dependant and neglected boys. They found their setting in the agrarian community of La Junta, located in Colorado's southeast corner. And with the admittance of the first boys in 1961, the Colorado Boys Ranch was born.

From the moment of conception, the mission of the Colorado Boys Ranch has been to do whatever is necessary to help each troubled boy. Over the last 45 years, CBR has developed from a Colorado orphanage into a highly accredited national mental health treatment and education organization serving youth with severe mental health needs. Due to the hard work and dedication of their highly experienced staff, CBR has garnered various accomplishments, including a customer satisfaction rating of 96 percent from parents, youth, and referral services. CBR Youth Connect has recently been rated as ``one of the best in the nation'' by the rigorous Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care, and it features one of the largest, most comprehensive data bases in the Nation for analysis and research of adolescent mental health.

In 2003, with a decrease in public funding, the Colorado Boys Ranch Board felt confident that the ranch could evolve into a new organizational structure. Recognizing the commitment of their dedicated staff and CBR's extraordinary success rate, the board believed that they could transform into an organization that would reach many more youth, families, and advocates. Their new vision statement was based on the notion that: ``Youth are our focus and our future, connecting is our job.'' Their goal is to connect youth and their families with knowledge, relationships, and resources; and out of this fresh outlook came with it a new name: CBR Youth Connect.

Currently more than 120 youth, ages 10-21, from all ethnic, cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds are admitted to CBR Youth Connect each year. With the advent of their new organizational structure and expanded vision, CBR Youth Connect hopes to expand their reach to troubled youth around the world with the hopes of becoming recognized as the foremost leader in psychiatric residential treatment and education. To accomplish this goal, staff members are traveling to countries around the world, providing the latest in research, treatment, and education to help troubled youth and their families.

I salute CBR Youth Connect.

Mr. President, I will get back on the subject of the Interior appropriations bill, if I might. I start out my comments by thanking Senator Burns, my good friend and colleague from Montana, chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the ranking member, Senator Dorgan, and their staffs for the hard work that went into this bill. We all knew this was not going to be an easy process this year because it is a tough budget year and difficult adjustments had to be made.

I respect the President and his effort to try and hold down Federal spending. Senator Burns and I, who both serve on the Budget Committee, understand the importance of trying to bring some fiscal sanity to the process. I do respect many of the comments my colleague from Oklahoma made on the floor. The only comment I have is that the time to have made many of those points is when the budget itself was before us. When the budget was before us, we had an opportunity to hold down spending. Many of us were disappointed at the level of spending that ended up being reflected out of the budget proposal, but I do want to commend Senator Burns and his staff for staying within the 302(b) allocation, or the amount of money that was allocated through the budget to the Appropriations Committee, that eventually was reflected in the total amount of spending in this bill. So from my point of view, I found the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to be very responsible and diligent in his duties. I, for one, am very appreciative of that.

As I mentioned earlier, I respect what the President was trying to do to hold down spending. Some of the cuts he put forward, I strongly support. Some of them I have a disagreement with, and some of those disagreements are reflected in this particular legislation.

To give a little historical background, when the State of Colorado joined the Union in 1876, we were known as the Centennial State because we came in 100 years after our independence in 1776. Our first Senator, Senator Teller, was one of two Senators who assumed his duties and then, after his second term, became Secretary of the Interior. He became known eventually as the representative of the entire West because a lot of States were still territories. The jurisdiction of the territories fell under the Department of the Interior. So, historically, the programs in the Interior Department have been very important to States in the West. Colorado is no exception to that.

If we look at today's figures, the Federal Government owns approximately 24 million acres in Colorado. That is 34 percent of the total State lands. All told, about 60 percent of all the lands in the State of Colorado are owned by public entities--whether it is the Federal Government with its 34-percent share, or State and local lands which are owned by school districts in the State, as well as State parks and local parks and that type of thing. So, like other Western States, the Interior appropriations bill becomes very important.

If we contrast that with the State of Indiana, which is made up of less than 23 million acres, then the Members of Congress begin to appreciate the real significance of Federal lands in States such as Colorado. Only eight States, all in the West, have a higher percentage of Federal land ownership than the State of Colorado. This is important when we get to programs like the PILT Program, which means Payments In Lieu of Taxes. This is a program very important to the State of Colorado, as it is to many Western States. Payments In Lieu of Taxes is designed to help prevent property tax imbalance.

The Federal Government does not pay property taxes. So we have come up with this program called PILT, or Payments In Lieu of Taxes. The program helps those local governments whose property tax bases have been impacted because of Federal agencies, and helps to fund the services that they provide to their communities. This is an area where the President had suggested a reduction in funding.

I support the committee action in this bill to restore those dollars. The PILT funding in this bill is $235 million, $35 million above the amount of the President's budget request and $8.2 million more than last year's level. But the chairman was able to do this and stay within the budget numbers that were allocated to this committee.

Let me say a little bit more about the PILT Programs. These dollars go to the States, but what they help pay for primarily is education because in the Western States so much of the property tax goes to education. For example, in the State of Colorado a good share of educational effort is paid by the local property taxes. There are some Federal dollars and some State dollars that go in and match in with the local dollars, but basically education is a local program. So if you want to have a strong educational program, particularly in the rural areas of Colorado, this is an important program.

Why shouldn't the Federal Government do its fair share? If they are

using the resources of the communities in the States in which the Federal Government is doing business and costing those taxpayers money because of their presence, I think they owe those States, and those counties and local governments, their fair share of the property tax burden.

Another important program funded through the Interior appropriations bill is the Bureau of Land Management Oil and Gas Management Office. This is the office that is responsible for the leasing and permitting of onshore oil and gas wells. Throughout the West, there are very long delays in processing these permits, solely because the Bureau of Land Management lacks the staff to do it.

I have been told that each month of delay getting these wells on the line means that 28 million cubic feet of gas is not reaching the market. I believe that is critical. It is important to the Western States, but it is critical to the overall good of this country. Again, I commend the chairman for seeing the need and addressing the issue in this particular bill. But it concerns me when one considers the constrained supply and high prices all of our constituents are facing. So I am hopeful that down the line, we will be able to find some additional funding for these activities.

A program that is new to the Interior appropriations bill this year is the State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program, often called STAG. Just over $2.5 million in STAG funds will be going to Colorado. The nice thing about this program is that it is based on grants, so for those communities that have true needs, that money is going to be available to them.

This program helps communities around the country fund upgrades to their drinking water treatment systems. It is especially important to small communities that have severely aging infrastructure and are disproportionately impacted by increases in requirements and water standards. We have gone through a recent change in water standards that is having a disproportionate impact on some of the smaller communities that I represent in the State of Colorado.

I would also mention a number of projects that are funded throughout this bill that are important to me and to the State of Colorado. These projects are not locale-designated projects. In other words, not one community or one county necessarily benefits, but they do tend to benefit a larger geographical area. As I go through these, I think you will begin to understand what I am trying to accomplish.

We get a lot of requests as Members of the Senate from specific cities and specific counties wanting projects designated specifically for their area. But I have tried to keep these generally spread out because then the entire State of Colorado benefits. There are a lot of needs out there.

We set aside some money for the High Elk Corridor. It is a migration route for elk, and it is important in central Colorado, so we have set some money aside for that. The Platte River fish recovery project--this is for the entire drainage system of the south Platte and also the north Platte. It affects, actually, more States than just Colorado. It is an attempt to restore endangered species within the drainage system so the Endangered Species Act doesn't come into play in a way that impacts property rights, which is a very important issue as far as Western States are concerned.

I also have some money here for the Upper Colorado Fish Recovery Program. This is the Colorado River drainage system. Not only does it help the State of Colorado, but other States that are on the Colorado River, because we are trying to sustain an endangered fish population in that river system so that our water users do not get disproportionately impacted.

We have some money in there to complete a conservation easement on the Banded Peaks Ranch, and funds for the Colorado Canyons conservation area. We want to help sustain the conservation efforts there.

It is projects such as these that benefit the public as a whole, and I am pleased we were able to secure funding for them.

Finally, before closing, I again thank the full committee chairman and ranking member, Senators Cochran and Byrd, and the majority and minority leader for bringing this bill to the floor so quickly. Again, I also recognize the diligent effort by Senator Burns and his ranking member, Senator Dorgan. This is the first appropriations bill we have up on the Senate floor this year. It reflects their hard work and commitment to getting us through this session in a timely way.

I believe it is very important that Congress meet its responsibilities to pass funding bills before the end of the fiscal year. I think that continuing resolutions and omnibus bills tend to be messy, and an inappropriate way to go about fulfilling our responsibilities to fund the Federal Government. I am pleased we seem to be on track to pass the appropriations bills on time this year.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Energy bill which we are considering on the floor.

I am grateful to the majority leader and minority leader and to the leaders of the Energy Committee, for bringing this legislation to the floor. I want to especially commend Senator Domenici, chairman of the Energy Committee, for his leadership on this bill. He has worked tirelessly on this important legislation, and our Nation owes him a great deal of appreciation for his persistence.

Ongoing events, here in the United States as well as around the world, are daily reminders of how desperately our country needs a sound energy policy. One only has to pick up a newspaper or listen to the nightly news to know that our national security is one of the most important issues we are currently facing. And one only has to receive their monthly electric bill or drive past a gas station to know that our energy markets are in need of certainty and stability. This is the third Congress during which we have tried to pass an energy bill, and I say it is time to get it done.

I would like to first speak about oil shale, a promising fuel source found in abundance in the Rocky Mountain region. The oil shale in this region produces a very light crude, suitable to fill needs for jet fuel and other very pure fuels. During the last several years a handful of companies have worked to develop technologies that will allow for economically and environmentally feasible development of this resource.

Some of the oil shale resources lie under private lands, but much of it--certainly the richest deposit--is under Federal lands. This area, now under the purview of BLM, was formerly known as the Naval Oil Shale Reserve. I would remind my colleagues that, when my former colleague Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, authored the legislation to transfer the Naval Oil Shale lands into the keeping of BLM, the legislation specified that the resource remain available for development. Congress recognized that BLM was in a better position to manage the publicly owned lands than was the Department of Energy, but we never intended to place the development of the resources in this area off limits.

The energy legislation we are considering here allows for small-scale demonstration projects. But I am also working with my colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett, on provisions that will help lead to commercialization after the demonstration projects have proven themselves.

It is a bad business practice to pour millions of dollars into research and development projects with no hint of assurance those projects will lead to commercialization. I believe it is important to give companies that are investing tens of millions of dollars into these research projects a proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.

As a founder and cochairman of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus I am also supportive of incentives that are included in the legislation to continue moving the country's use of renewable resources forward. Technological advancements in solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, fuel cells, and hydro have made great strides. And increases in technology have led to decreases in price. Government has played an important role in the research that will help us reach our renewable technology goals, and we should continue to further those goals. The input and investments of the Federal Government have been vital in furthering industry and private sector involvement in the renewable field.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, often called NREL in Colorado, has made an incredible contribution, and has played a very important part in current technological advancements. The technologies being developed at NREL--whether providing alternative fuels and power, or making our homes and vehicles more energy efficient--are vital to our Nation's energy progress.

We must continue to provide incentives for the implementation of renewables use and for the infrastructure necessary to support these renewable sources. These technologies are a necessary step in balancing our domestic energy portfolio, increasing our Nation's energy security and advancing our country's technological excellence, and I believe this bill takes an important step in that direction.

It is my hope that Congress passes an energy bill this year. I think that we will be making a huge step in that direction when the Senate does pass this bill. In closing I extend my thanks and admiration to Senators Domenici and Bingaman, and their staffs, for the long hours and extreme dedication they have given to this matter. I must say that I believe that this is the best energy bill we have produced in a number of years, and I know there are many throughout the country, even on the other side of the Hill, who agree with me. The President is ready to sign an energy bill and I am hopeful that we are able to give him one in the very near future.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 866, As Modified

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on climate change

legislation.)

Mr. President, the ability of communities to provide its citizens with clean, safe drinking water is one of the most important public utility services any municipality can offer. I support many of the goals of the Clean Water Act and believe that the United States has made great progress in eliminating dangerous substances from drinking water. It has helped make our national drinking water infrastructure more reliable and more effective. Unfortunately, many of the small, financially strapped, rural communities in Colorado cannot meet the obligations of the Clean Water Act or the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency because of increasingly onerous unfunded Federal drinking water mandates, As a result, communities in my home State are faced with two options: increase taxes and utility rates to exorbitant levels or end municipal water delivery. Neither option is acceptable.

That is why I am introducing the Rural Colorado Water Infrastructure Act, a bill that will allow Colorado to participate in a program known as Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act. My legislation authorizes $50 million for design and construction assistance to non- Federal interests in the most desperate Colorado communities for publicly owned water related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects.

The Rural Colorado Water Infrastructure Act will allow local communities to enter into cost share agreements with the U.S. Corps of Engineers to develop wastewater treatment and related facility water supply, conservation and related facilities, storm water retention and remediation, environmental restoration, and surface water resources protection and development.

Cities in Colorado like Alamosa, Sterling, and Julesburg that face enormous costs to develop new facilities may be able to utilize the program and save themselves from economic hardship. The Corps of Engineers Section 595 program has been a great ally to many Western States, and, under my legislation, Colorado would also be able to benefit from this successful public-private partnership.

Mr. President, the ability of communities to provide its citizens with clean, safe drinking water is one of the most important public utility services any municipality can offer. I support many of the goals of the Clean Water Act and believe that the United States has made great progress in eliminating dangerous substances from drinking water. It has helped make our national drinking water infrastructure more reliable and more effective. Unfortunately, many of the small, financially strapped, rural communities in Colorado cannot meet the obligations of the Clean Water Act or the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency because of increasingly onerous unfunded Federal drinking water mandates, As a result, communities in my home State are faced with two options: increase taxes and utility rates to exorbitant levels or end municipal water delivery. Neither option is acceptable.

That is why I am introducing the Rural Colorado Water Infrastructure Act, a bill that will allow Colorado to participate in a program known as Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act. My legislation authorizes $50 million for design and construction assistance to non- Federal interests in the most desperate Colorado communities for publicly owned water related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects.

The Rural Colorado Water Infrastructure Act will allow local communities to enter into cost share agreements with the U.S. Corps of Engineers to develop wastewater treatment and related facility water supply, conservation and related facilities, storm water retention and remediation, environmental restoration, and surface water resources protection and development.

Cities in Colorado like Alamosa, Sterling, and Julesburg that face enormous costs to develop new facilities may be able to utilize the program and save themselves from economic hardship. The Corps of Engineers Section 595 program has been a great ally to many Western States, and, under my legislation, Colorado would also be able to benefit from this successful public-private partnership.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the chief of police of

Loveland, CO, Tom Wagoner, for his distinguished career of service to the people of Loveland.

Chief Wagoner was born in Minnesota and raised in eastern Illinois. After spending 2 years in the Army, he became a police officer and joined the Greeley, CO, Police Department in 1979. Having served in several positions in the Greeley Police Department, Chief Wagoner left Colorado in 1987 to be the police chief in Tullahoma, TN.

Fortunately, it was not long before Chief Wagoner came back to Colorado to serve as the police chief in my hometown of Loveland in 1989. The city of Loveland has greatly benefited from his leadership. Over the course of his tenure, he made many additions to the department, including a mounted patrol unit, a motorcycle unit, a community policing program, and a new radio system. Chief Wagoner also presided over a move to a new police headquarters in 2002 and has ensured that the Loveland Police Department has received national accreditation since 1992.

I thank Chief Wagoner for over 15 years of service to the citizens of Loveland. He leaves behind a difficult set of shoes to fill, and he will be missed.

Mr. President, I inquire what the regular order might be. I was scheduled to speak at 8:15. I am not entirely sure on the regular order.

Mr. President, my time right now as set aside for the majority is now being taken up by this discussion. I would like to have some time reserved for myself in the 30 minutes. Right now we have 6 or 7 or 8 speakers lined up, and so I want to have an opportunity to make my views known at some point in time. I think we need to establish regular order, and if both parties have agreed that it goes back over to the other side at 9 o'clock, I would like to have that extended out so that when we reach 9 o'clock then I can speak from 9 to 9:30.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his kind comments on the judicial nomination process. My thanks extend to all my colleagues tonight for their comments on the judicial nomination process and compromise negotiations.

I rise to congratulate the 14 Senators who have indicated through a Memorandum of Understanding that they will no longer support a filibuster on 3 of President Bush's judicial nominees. This is a good first step toward a bipartisan resolution.

My statement this evening is based on remarks that I prepared prior to the announcement of the judicial nomination compromise; however, the basic intent of my remarks has not changed even though the filibuster has been broken on three of the President's nominees. Tonight, I will address the qualifications of Priscilla Owen, and how important it is that we allow a yes or no vote on judicial nominees. All I ask for is an opportunity to have a yes or no vote on those judges that are pending before the Senate.

I am concerned about the next step in the judicial nomination debate--where are we going to go from here when it comes to the filibuster? I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who wish to move forward and forget about finger pointing and blame--who voted for who, who voted for a filibuster and how many times did they vote against cloture. I just hope we do indeed move forward. I hope we will look at each judge that is before the Senate for confirmation and vote them up or down based on their qualifications. That is what our forefathers had in mind when the advise and consent.

I join my colleagues in support of the nomination of Priscilla Owen, the Texas Supreme Court justice who was first nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2001 by President Bush. I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation and allow an up-or-down vote on her nomination. I hope that fairness prevails and that we do indeed proceed with a vote on her nomination, and it looks like that is indeed the way the events have unfolded this evening.

I have had the opportunity to meet with Priscilla Owen personally. I don't know how many of my colleagues who oppose or who continue to oppose her have accepted her offer to visit with them, but I hope they will have the courtesy to meet her in person before deciding to refuse to offer her a fair up-or-down vote. If they do, they will quickly learn she is a person of integrity, humility, and possesses a keen understanding of the law.

On a personal note, she is a wonderful human being. I was particularly impressed when she told me that growing up she hoped to be a veterinarian. As a veterinarian myself, you can understand why I was impressed. She spoke of growing up and participating in a family cattle ranching enterprise, helping her parents and grandparents during calving season, nursing and branding.

There is something special about a person who has been kicked by a cow and swatted across the face with a dirty cow tail. It makes a person more real, more understanding of life and hard work. This is exactly the type of judge we need on the bench, one who understands real life, honest-living and hard-working people.

Instead of defaming her, I wish my colleagues would get to know her so that they might recognize the legal skill and value she would bring to the United States as a member of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Priscilla Owen will uphold the law, not make the law. Some find this to be a problem. I find it to be a blessing.

Priscilla Owen has served the law with distinction. A justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 1995, she received overwhelming approval from the people of Texas, 84 percent of whom voted to retain her service on the bench.

Unlike many Members of the Senate, including myself, when it came time for the voters to decide whether or not she should remain on the bench, Ms. Owen received the endorsement of every major newspaper in the State of Texas. I ask, does that sound like someone who is too extreme?

Priscilla Owen's life has not been limited to the law. She is a decent human being and dedicated community servant. She has worked to educate parents about the effect divorce has on children and worked to lessen the adversarial nature of legal proceedings when a marriage is dissolved. She works with the hearing impaired and organizations dedicated to service animals for those with disabilities. She teaches Sunday school and is committed to the poor and underprivileged.

It is clear that she is qualified to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Justice Owen ``well qualified,'' its highest possible rating. She has the support of former Democrat justices on the Texas Supreme Court and 15 past presidents of the Texas State Bar.

To say that she is not qualified is utterly ridiculous. Because her credentials are so outstanding, throughout this debate, the other side has relied on hyperbole and rhetoric, accusing her of being ``extreme'' in order to smear her nomination. So the question her nomination presents us, then, is whether she is extreme or qualified? The great thing about the Constitution is that it provides us with a mechanism to make this type of ``advice and consent'' determination on whether she is extreme or qualified--through a simple up-or-down vote.

An up-or-down vote is a simple matter of fairness. Every judicial nominee that makes it out of the Judiciary Committee should receive an up or down vote. The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It is merely a parliamentary delay tactic that was relatively unused until modern times. In 214 years, never has a nominee with the majority of support of the United States Senate been denied a vote.

Throughout the history of the United States, a nominee who clearly held the majority support of the Senate had never been defeated by the use of the filibuster--until now. During the last Congress those opposed to President Bush's nominees tried to establish a precedent by using the filibuster to block a nomination. Having witnessed what was taking place, I appealed to my colleagues to restore the fairness that this body and the American people deserve. That is why I am so excited about moving forward with 3 of the nominations, which includes Priscilla Owen, so we can have an up-or-down vote.

Throughout this debate, I have consistently stated we must reach a compromise that allows an up-or-down vote on all nominees, while affording everybody an opportunity to be heard. This is not a partisan issue or flippant suggestion; it is simply a matter of fairness. If a nominee reaches the floor, then they should receive a vote--up or down. I don't believe there is anything wrong with providing a nominee an up- or-down vote once they reach the floor.

Some in this body act as if the filibuster has been used before to kill a judicial nominee. But such actions are simply misguided. Every nominee with a majority of support has received an up-or-down vote-- every nominee for over 200 years.

I do not take the confirmation of judicial nominations lightly, nor do my colleagues. But we must not twist the confirmation process into a partisan platform.

Our fundamental duty to confirm the President's nominees is not an easy task. It carries with it the weight and responsibility of generations--a lifetime appointment to a position that requires a deep and mature understanding of the law.

We were elected to the Senate by people who believed we would accomplish our fundamental duties--as representatives of the people to say yes or no to the President's nominees.

I believe Members have a right to express their opinions. I also believe that Members have a right to a vote and that it is wrong to deny others of their opportunity to vote on judicial nominations.

The debate is not about numbers. It is not about percentages--how many judges that Republicans confirmed or how many judges Democrats have confirmed. To frame this debate as a numbers fight is not being fair to the American people. We were not sent to Congress to focus on a numerical count, but instead to carry out our constitutional obligations, in this instance the advice and consent clause.

Some Senators have come to the floor to argue that the advice and consent clause doesn't mean that we actually vote on nominees. They argue that a vote is only needed to confirm the nominee, but that other tactics can be used to disapprove the nominee. Unfortunately, these other tactics that have been used to kill a nomination have resulted in the obstruction of our constitutional duties.

To help address this point, I will turn to a recent article published in the National Review, which discusses the meaning of the advise and consent clause through the eyes of our country's Founders. The article notes the appointment clause is listed as an explicit power vested in the executive.

The advise and consent obligation follows this clause but it is in the article addressing executive powers. It is not listed in the article addressing legislative powers. The author believes that this is instructive because it helps us understand that the Founders intended the President to play the main role in the nomination process, not the legislature. Had the Founders intended the legislature to be the fulcrum, they would have listed the advise and consent clause as a fundamental duty in the article addressing legislative powers.

I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. President, had the Founders intended a 60-vote supermajority, they would have included the requirement in the Constitution the way they did on the treaty power clause. The clause on the treaty power, after mentioning ``advice and consent,'' requires concurrence by two-thirds of the Senators present. The clause on the appointment of ambassadors and others, including Supreme Court Justices, by contrast, does not.

The author then pointed out several other provisions in the Constitution where a supermajority vote is required. In article I, section 3, two-thirds of Members present are required for Senate conviction for impeachment. In article I, section 5, two-thirds are required to expel a member of either House. Article I, section 7 requires two-thirds for overriding a Presidential veto.

The fact that the Constitution explicitly requires two-thirds in some contexts indicates that the Senate's consent in article II, section 2 is by majority vote when no supermajority vote is required. The general rule is that majorities govern in a legislative body unless another rule is expressly provided.

The article also cited a Supreme Court case noting that more than a century ago, in United States v. Ballin, that ``the general rule of parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations. . . . No such limitation is found in the Federal Constitution and, therefore, the general law of such bodies obtains.''

In the author's own words: ``. . . the particular process in the Appointments Clause--of presidential nomination and Senate `consent' by a majority''--was carefully considered by the Constitutional Convention. A number of alternative processes for appointments were thoroughly considered--and rejected--by the Constitutional Convention. And this consideration took place over several months.

The Constitutional Convention considered at least three alternative options to the final appointments clause: (1) placing the power in the President alone,(2) in the legislature alone, (3) in the legislature with the President's advice and consent.

On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be ``appointed by the national Legislature,'' and that was rejected. Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a ``supermajority'' be required for judicial appointments, but this was rejected.

On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion ``that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch,'' following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time.

Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final appointments clause, making the President primary and the Senate alone secondary with the role of advise and consent.

I am no lawyer, but to me if a document consistently states when a supermajority vote is required and silent when it is not required, that they meant to write it that way and it was not a mere oversight no supermajority was required for the approval of judicial nominees.

Clearly, a supermajority was never intended, but what was intended was an up-or-down vote, a fair nonpartisan up-or-down vote.

If a Member of the Senate disapproves of a judge, then let them vote against the nominee. I encourage them to express their dissatisfaction and vote no on the nominee. But do not deprive those of us in the Senate who support a nominee of our right to a vote. Do not deny an up- or-down vote entirely. Let's decide whether the Members of this body approve or disapprove of the nominees, and let's vote. Let's vote to show whether this body believes the nominees are unfit for service or out of the mainstream. I believe they have majority support--majority support from the elected representatives of the people. But let's vote and find out.

It is our vote--the right of each Member to collectively participate in a show of advise and consent to the President--that exercises the remote choice of the people who sent us to Congress.

Our three-branch system of government cannot function without an equally strong judiciary. It is through the courts that justice is served, rights protected, and that lawbreakers are sentenced for their crimes.

Unfortunately, one out of four of President Bush's circuit nominees have been subjected to the filibuster, the worst confirmation of appellate court judges since the Roosevelt administration. The minority cannot willingly refuse to provide an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees without acknowledging that irreparable harm may be done to an equal branch of government.

The decision to vote up or down on a nominee or deny that vote entirely pits the Constitution against parliamentary procedure. That is the Constitution versus the filibuster. I urge my colleagues to put their faith in the

founding document and not in a filibuster. To do anything else dishonors the Constitution and relegates it to a mere rule of procedure.

I am pleased that we have reached a common ground on three of the judicial nominees. I am pleased that we have recognized our duties as Members of this body to uphold the Constitution. But I would ask my colleagues for fairness as we move forward for the rest of the session, for the rest of this Congress, to put partisan politics aside and to fulfill our advise and consent obligations on all nominations. As we move through the rest of the Congress, let's vote up or down and end this debate about filibusters with honor.

Mr. President, I am excited that we can now move forward.

I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, it seems as though we need to do closing script, and if the Senator from Iowa will yield to me, I will be glad to do that formality.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, it is with much excitement and anticipation that I, along with Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave in the House of Representatives, introduce legislation known as ``The Arkansas Valley Conduit.'' This bill will ensure the expedited construction of a pipeline that will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By creating a Federal-Local cost share to help offset the costs of constructing the Conduit, this legislation will protect the future of Southeastern Colorado. First introduced during the 107th Session of Congress and subsequently in the 108th, we have redrafted the legislation for the 109th Session to create a stronger stand-alone bill. Congresswoman Musgrave and I have worked hard to craft it so that it meets the needs of a region of Colorado that has suffered from decades of inadequate drinking water supplies. On the heels of one of the worst droughts in Colorado history, the Conduit will provide a dependable source of water to communities--water that will allow these communities to grow and prosper.

By way of background, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally authorized by Congress forty years ago as a part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project. Due to the authorizing statute's lack of a cost share provision and Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status, the Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has degraded to a point where it is no longer economical to use as a means of transport. At the same time, the Federal Government has continued to strengthen its unfunded water quality standards.

Several years ago, in an effort to resurrect the Conduit, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I worked to secure $200,000 for a Bureau of Reclamation Re-evaluation Statement on the project. Thanks to this effort, the people of the valley began to realize that the Conduit may one day be more than just a pipedream, and that Congress was serious about fulfilling the promise of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

Our legislation calls for a 80/20 Federal/Local cost share. This is a sizeable sum, but is a far cry from the estimated $640 million it would take to build new treatment facilities for each of the communities if the Conduit was not built. It requires cooperation of the Department of the Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local project participants.

The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to dozens of valley communities and tens-of-thousands of people along the river. Local community participants continue to explore options for financing their share of the costs, and are working hard to develop the organization that will oversee the Conduit project. I applaud those in the community who have worked so hard for the past several years to make the Conduit a reality. Upon its completion, it will stand as testament to a pioneering vision and commitment to sensible water policy.

With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a reality.

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

Mr. President, it is with much excitement and anticipation that I, along with Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave in the House of Representatives, introduce legislation known as ``The Arkansas Valley Conduit.'' This bill will ensure the expedited construction of a pipeline that will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By creating a Federal-Local cost share to help offset the costs of constructing the Conduit, this legislation will protect the future of Southeastern Colorado. First introduced during the 107th Session of Congress and subsequently in the 108th, we have redrafted the legislation for the 109th Session to create a stronger stand-alone bill. Congresswoman Musgrave and I have worked hard to craft it so that it meets the needs of a region of Colorado that has suffered from decades of inadequate drinking water supplies. On the heels of one of the worst droughts in Colorado history, the Conduit will provide a dependable source of water to communities--water that will allow these communities to grow and prosper.

By way of background, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally authorized by Congress forty years ago as a part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project. Due to the authorizing statute's lack of a cost share provision and Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status, the Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has degraded to a point where it is no longer economical to use as a means of transport. At the same time, the Federal Government has continued to strengthen its unfunded water quality standards.

Several years ago, in an effort to resurrect the Conduit, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I worked to secure $200,000 for a Bureau of Reclamation Re-evaluation Statement on the project. Thanks to this effort, the people of the valley began to realize that the Conduit may one day be more than just a pipedream, and that Congress was serious about fulfilling the promise of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

Our legislation calls for a 80/20 Federal/Local cost share. This is a sizeable sum, but is a far cry from the estimated $640 million it would take to build new treatment facilities for each of the communities if the Conduit was not built. It requires cooperation of the Department of the Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local project participants.

The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to dozens of valley communities and tens-of-thousands of people along the river. Local community participants continue to explore options for financing their share of the costs, and are working hard to develop the organization that will oversee the Conduit project. I applaud those in the community who have worked so hard for the past several years to make the Conduit a reality. Upon its completion, it will stand as testament to a pioneering vision and commitment to sensible water policy.

With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a reality.

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

Mr. President, I understand that S. 1098, introduced earlier today by Senator Kennedy, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, May 24. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and that the Senate then return to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; provided that the time until 11:40 a.m. be divided equally between the leaders or their designees, and the time from 11:40 a.m. to 12 noon be equally divided between the two leaders; provided further that notwithstanding provisions of rule XXII, at 12 noon, the Senate proceed to the cloture vote on the Owen nomination, with the live quorum waived.

I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons.

Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. At 12 noon, we will proceed to the cloture vote on the Owen nomination, and that will be the first vote of the day. Given the events of the day, it is expected cloture will be invoked on this well-qualified nominee. We have had 4 days of substantive debate on the nomination. It is our hope that once cloture is invoked, we can quickly move to a vote on confirmation.