Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

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

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

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

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

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

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

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. ALLARD. 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.