Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. The proper request is, I ask for their consideration.

Mr. ALLARD. We would like to have a vote on the amendments.

Mr. ALLARD. Yes.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. Yes, that's correct.

Mr. ALLARD

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

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

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. Yes, that will be fine.

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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.