January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S229 

Republican Senator who supported the 

filibuster introduced an alternative 

bill, claiming to offer a solution for 

victims of pay discrimination. In reality, that partisan alternative proposal would fail to correct the injustice 

created by the Ledbetter decision. At 

the Judiciary Committee hearing in 

September, Ms. Ledbetter confirmed 

that the alternative bill would not 

have remedied her case, but instead 

would have imposed additional burdens 

and increased the costs of her litigation. 

Congress passed Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act to protect employees 

against discrimination with respect to 

compensation because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin—however the Supreme 

Court’s cramped interpretation of this 

important law contradicts Congress’s 

intent to ensure equal pay for equal 

work. 

This Supreme Court decision goes 

against both the spirit and clear intent 

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and 

sends the message to employers that 

wage discrimination cannot be punished as long as it is kept under wraps. 

At a time when one-third of private 

sector employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their 

pay with each other, the Court’s decision ignores a reality of the workplace—pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed by employers. 

Equal pay is not just a women’s 

issue, it is a family issue. With a record 

70.2 million women in the workforce, 

wage discrimination continues to hurt 

the majority of American families. As 

a working mother, the discrimination 

inflicted on Ms. Ledbetter affected her 

entire family and continues to affect 

her retirement benefits. As the economy continues to worsen, many Americans are struggling to put food on the 

table and money in their retirement 

funds. It is regrettable that recent decisions handed down by the Supreme 

Court and Federal appellate courts 

have contributed to the financial 

struggles of so many women and their 

families. In the next weeks, I hope we 

can act to overturn the wrongly-decided Ledbetter decision to prevent the 

devastating consequences of pay discrimination. 

By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for 

himself and Mr. SALAZAR: 

S. 187. A bill to provide for the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado; to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing four bills, 

S. 187, S. 188, S. 189, S. 190, that will 

preserve and protect majestic public 

landscapes in Colorado and help provide needed water supplies to communities and farmers on Colorado’s productive Eastern Plains. These bills 

were introduced in the last session of 

Congress, where they each had hearings and one passed the U.S. House of 

Representatives. I hope that we can 

work together to move these bills in 

this Congress and see them signed into 

law. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

text of all four bills be included in the 

RECORD and be printed alongside these 

remarks. 

The first bill is the Arkansas Valley 

Conduit Act of 2009. This bill will help 

protect the water supply for the Arkansas River Valley’s communities and 

its productive agricultural lands by advancing the construction of the longplanned Arkansas Valley Conduit. The 

bill will restructure the cost-share provisions of the project and is similar to 

legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senators Wayne Allard and 

KEN SALAZAR and introduced yesterday 

in the U.S. House of Representatives by 

Reps. JOHN SALAZAR and BETSY MARKEY. 

The Arkansas Valley Conduit, a proposed 130-mile water delivery system 

from the Pueblo Dam to communities 

throughout the Arkansas River Valley, 

was originally authorized in 1962 as 

part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas, FryArk, project. Unfortunately, the authorization did not include a Federallocal cost-share provision necessary to 

cover the estimated $300 million in 

construction costs, and local communities—especially those in southern 

Colorado—do not have the resources to 

shoulder all of the costs. The project 

has thus remained unfinished for over 4 

years. 

The bill will provide for a 65–35 Federal-local cost-share for completion of 

the project, with revenues from socalled ‘‘excess-capacity’’ contracts for 

water storage in other Fry-Ark project 

facilities being used to fund the majority of the local contribution. This approach is the result of close collaboration between community stakeholders 

and the Colorado congressional delegation and will ensure communities in 

the Arkansas River Valley can finance 

their portion of the project without incurring unbearable financial burdens. 

Moreover, the bill will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to move forward 

with the construction of the Conduit. 

The depressed economic status of 

southeastern Colorado made it a difficult financial undertaking for the region, a challenge that continues today. 

This bill will help see this facility become a reality and thereby help the 

farming and ranching communities in 

the valley continue to produce needed 

food and fiber for the state and Nation. 

The second bill I am introducing 

today is the Colorado Northern Front 

Range Mountain Backdrop Protection 

Study Act. I introduced similar bills in 

the U.S. House of Representatives in 

the 107th, 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses. In previous Congresses, the bill 

passed the House and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

but did not receive final action. 

The bill is intended to help local 

communities identify ways to protect 

the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in 

the northern Denver-metro area and 

the region just west of Rocky Flats. 

The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes much of the land in this 

backdrop area, but there are other 

lands involved as well. 

Rising dramatically from the Great 

Plains, the Front Range of the Rocky 

Mountains provides a scenic mountain 

backdrop to many communities in the 

Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado. The portion of the 

range within and adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides many opportunities 

for outdoor recreation. The open-space 

character of this mountain backdrop is 

an important aesthetic and economic 

asset for adjoining communities, making them attractive locations for 

homes and businesses. But rapid population growth in the northern Front 

Range area of Colorado is increasing 

recreational use of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and is also increasing pressure for development of 

other lands within and adjacent to that 

national forest. 

We can see the effects of rapid population growth throughout Colorado and 

especially along the Front Range. 

Homes and shopping centers are 

sprawling through valleys and along 

highways that feed into the Front 

Range. This development then spreads 

out along the ridges and mountaintops 

that make up the backdrop. We are in 

danger of losing to development many 

of the qualities that have helped attract new residents to Colorado. So, it 

is important to better understand what 

steps might be taken to avoid or lessen 

that risk—and this bill is designed to 

help us do just that. 

Already, local governments and other 

entities have provided important protection for portions of this mountain 

backdrop, especially in the northern 

Denver-metro area. However, some portions of the backdrop in this part of 

Colorado remain unprotected and are 

at risk of losing their open-space qualities. This bill acknowledges the good 

work of the local communities in preserving open space along the backdrop 

and aims to assist further efforts along 

the same lines. 

The bill directs the U.S. Forest Service to study the ownership patterns of 

the lands comprising the Front Range 

mountain backdrop, identify areas that 

are at risk, and recommend to Congress how these lands might be protected and how the Federal Government could help local communities and 

residents to achieve that goal. Importantly, I note that the bill does not 

interfere with the power of local authorities regarding land use planning 

or infringe on private property rights. 

Instead, it will bring the land protection experience of the Forest Service 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S230 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

to the table to assist local efforts to 

protect areas that comprise the backdrop. The bill envisions that to the extent the Forest Service should be involved with Federal lands, it will work 

in collaboration with local communities, the state and private parties. 

I strongly believe it is in the national 

interest for the Federal Government to 

assist local communities to identify 

ways to protect the mounatin backdrop 

in this part of Colorado. The backdrop 

beckoned settlers westward and presented an imposing impediment to 

their forward progress that suggested 

similar challenges ahead. This first exposure to the harshness and humbling 

majesty of the Rocky Mountain West 

helped define a region. The pioneers’ 

independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day. We 

need to work to preserve it by protecting the mountain backdrop as a 

cultural and natural heritage for ourselves and generations to come. 

The third bill I am introducing 

today—the National Trails System 

Willing Seller Act—will allow people 

who want to sell land for inclusion in 

certain units of the National Trails 

System to do so. Current law prohibits 

people who own land associated with 

several units of the trail system from 

selling those lands to the Federal Government for inclusion in those units. 

This bill will allow such sales to happen. 

This legislation is identical to bills 

introduced in previous Congresses by 

my former Republican colleagues from 

Colorado, Representatives Beauprez 

and McInnis. The Trail System units 

covered by the bill are the Oregon National Historic Trail, the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, 

the Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail, the Iditarod National Historic 

Trail, the North County National Scenic Trail, the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail, the Potomac Heritage National 

Scenic Trail, and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail. 

Our national trails are a national 

treasure, and we should allow people 

who own land along these trails to sell 

that land to the Federal Government 

to be part of our public lands legacy. 

But it is important to make clear that 

these land sales are from willing sellers, which is what this bill will do. This 

bill makes a small but important adjustment to current law, and I think it 

deserves the support of all Members of 

the Senate. 

The final bill I am introducing today 

is the Rocky Mountain National Park 

Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, which will designate nearly 250,000 acres of Rocky 

Mountain National Park as wilderness. 

I introduced this bill in the 110th Congress as a member of the House of Representatives. It was cosponsored in the 

Senate by my colleague Senator KEN

SALAZAR, and eventually by the Colorado Congressional delegation. Over a 

period of months, we worked together 

to develop this bipartisan legislation 

that will provide important protection 

and management direction for some 

truly remarkable country. This is a 

public lands policy goal that goes back 

to the 1960s, and is long overdue. 

This bill is consistent with the Colorado Congressional delegation’s efforts 

in the last Congress to strike a balance 

in protecting the park and the water 

users who rely on the Grand River 

Ditch. This carefully negotiated language met the needs of those users, but 

questions have been raised about the 

particular way that liability and water 

use issues were addressed in the delegation bill. Specifically, there have been 

questions about how these provisions 

work in the context of the Park Resources Protection Act. While I am 

confident that my bill addresses these 

liability concerns, I appreciate the recent efforts by Senator SALAZAR to 

offer a slightly different approach that 

provides a path to a widely-shared goal 

that has broad support in Colorado. 

The wilderness designation in this 

bill for the park will cover some 94 percent of the park, including Longs 

Peaks and other major mountains 

along the Great Continental Divide, 

glacial cirques and snow fields, broad 

expanses of alpine tundra and wet 

meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams, all 

untrammeled by human structures or 

passage. Indeed, examples of all the 

natural ecosystems that make up the 

splendor of the park are included in the 

wilderness that will be designated by 

this bill. At the same time, the wilderness boundaries have been drawn so as 

to allow continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, and 

areas where additional facilities and 

roadwork will improve park management and visitor services. In addition, 

specific provisions are included to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing 

water facilities. 

The lands designated as wilderness 

will become part of the National Wilderness Preservation System that was 

established by the Wilderness Act and 

will be managed in accordance with 

that Act and the provisions of the bill. 

The bill’s provisions amplify this by 

specifying that—no new reclamation 

projects will be allowed in the wilderness area; nothing in the bill will create a ‘‘buffer zone’’ around the wilderness and non-wilderness activities visible or audible from within the wilderness will not be prohibited; the National Park Service can act to control 

fire, insects, and diseases, including 

use of mechanical tools within the wilderness; and nothing in the bill will reduce or restrict the current authority 

of the National Park Service to manage the Park’s lands and resources. 

The bill is similar to measures previously introduced by my predecessor 

in the House of Representatives, Representative David Skaggs, as well as 

other bills introduced before that, and 

legislation I introduced in the 107th, 

108th, and 109th Congresses. However, 

it does include a number of adjustments and refinements that reflect discussion within the Colorado delegation 

in Congress and with interested parties 

in Colorado. 

Like H.R. 2334 of the 110th Congress, 

the new bill includes wilderness designation of more than 700 acres in the 

Twin Sisters area south of Estes Park. 

These lands were acquired by the 

United States and made part of the 

park after submission to Congress of 

the original wilderness recommendation for the park in the 1970s, and so 

were not included in that recommendation. They are lands of a wilderness 

character, and their designation will 

not conflict with any current uses. On 

the west side, the town of Grand Lake 

and Grand County requested that about 

650 acres inward from the park boundary around the town be omitted from 

the wilderness designation in order to 

allow the park to respond to potential 

forest fire threats. As was the case previously, this bill accommodates that 

request. 

Also like that previous measure, the 

bill responds to the request of the 

Town of Grand Lake, Grand County 

and the Headwaters Trails Alliance, a 

group composed of local communities 

in Grand County that seeks to establish opportunities for mountain biking, 

and the International Mountain Bicycling Association to omit from wilderness designation an area along the 

western park boundary, running south 

along Lake Granby from the town to 

the park’s southern boundary. This 

will allow the National Park Service to 

retain the option of authorizing construction of a possible future mountain 

bike route within this part of the park. 

Similarly, the bill expands the Indian 

Peaks Wilderness Area by 1,000 acres in 

the area south of the park and north of 

Lake Granby. The lands involved are 

currently managed as part of the Arapaho National Recreation Area, which is 

accordingly reduced by about 1,000 

acres. 

As did the previous bill, this bill includes a section that authorizes the 

National Park Service to lease an 11- 

acre property, the Leiffer tract, that 

was donated to the National Park 

Service in 1977. Located outside the 

park’s boundaries, it has two buildings, 

including a house that is listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

The Park Service would like to have 

the option of leasing it, but current 

law allows leasing only for ‘‘property 

administered . . . as part of the National Park System,’’ and this property 

does not qualify. The bill allows the 

Park Service to lease the property as if 

it were located inside or contiguous to 

the park. 

Also like previous measures, the bill 

addresses the question of possible impacts on water rights—something that 

can be a primary point of contention in 

Congressional debates over designating 

wilderness areas. It reflects the legal 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S231 

reality that it has long been recognized 

under the laws of the United States 

and Colorado, including a decision of 

the Colorado Supreme Court, that 

Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive Federal reserved 

water rights arising from the creation 

of the national park itself. And it reflects the geographic reality that the 

park sits astride the continental divide, meaning there is no higher land 

around from which streams flow into 

the park, and thus there is no possibility of any diversion of water occurring upstream from the park. In recognition of these legal and practical realities, the bill includes a finding that 

because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there 

is no need for any additional reservation or appropriation of such right, and 

an explicit disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation. 

As I mentioned, there are also provisions in this bill that deal with the 

Grand River Ditch, created before 

Rocky Mountain National Park was established and partly located within the 

park. The owners of the ditch are currently working to conclude an agreement with the National Park Service 

with respect to operation and maintenance of the portion of the ditch within 

the park, and the bill provides that 

after conclusion of this agreement the 

strict liability standard of the Park 

Resources Protection Act which now 

applies to any damage to park resources will not apply so long as the 

ditch is operated and maintained in accordance with the agreement. The owners of the ditch remain liable for damage to park resources caused by negligence or intentional acts, and the bill 

specifies that it will not limit or otherwise affect the liability of any individual or entity for damages to, loss of, 

or injury to any park resource resulting from any cause of event occurring 

before the bill’s enactment. In addition, the bill specifies that its enactment will not restrict or otherwise affect any activity relating to the monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, 

replacement, or use of the ditch that 

was authorized or approved by the National Park Service as of the date of 

the bill’s enactment. The bill also provides that use of water transported by 

the ditch for a main purpose or main 

purposes other than irrigation will not 

terminate or adversely affect the 

ditch’s right-of-way. 

The matters dealt with in this bill 

have a long history. The wilderness 

designations are based on National 

Park Service recommendations presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. That they have not been 

acted on before this reflects the difficult history of wilderness legislation. 

One Colorado statewide wilderness bill 

was enacted in 1980, but it took more 

than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally 

able, in 1993, to pass a second statewide 

national forest wilderness bill. Since 

then, action has been completed on 

bills designating wilderness in the 

Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel 

National Forest as well as in the Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, 

the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge 

portion of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area, and the 

James Peak area of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests. 

We now need to continue making 

progress by providing wilderness designations for other deserving lands in 

Colorado, including lands that are 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe for finally resolving the status of the lands 

within Rocky Mountain National Park 

that are dealt with in this bill. 

Lands covered by the bill are currently being managed to protect their 

wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no longer leave 

this question to the discretion of the 

Park Service, but will make it clear 

that within the designated areas, there 

will never be roads, visitor facilities, or 

other manmade features that interfere 

with the spectacular natural beauty 

and wildness of the mountains. This is 

especially important for a park like 

Rocky Mountain, which is relatively 

small by western standards. As nearby 

land development and alteration has 

accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the park’s backcountry 

becomes an increasingly rare feature of 

Colorado’s landscape. Further, the 

park’s popularity demands definitive 

and permanent protection for wild 

areas against possible pressures for development within the park. While only 

about one tenth the size of Yellowstone 

National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park sees nearly the same number of visitors each year. At the same 

time, designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as 

wilderness will make other areas, now 

restricted under interim wilderness 

protection management, available for 

overdue improvements to park roads 

and visitor facilities. 

In summary, the Rocky Mountain 

National Park Wilderness and Indian 

Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act will 

protect some of our Nation’s finest 

wild lands. It will protect existing 

rights. It will not limit any existing 

opportunity for new water development. It is bipartisan and will affirm 

the commitment of all Coloradans to 

preserving the features that make our 

State such a remarkable place to live. 

So, I think it deserves prompt enactment. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bills was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 187 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Arkansas 

Valley Conduit Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT, COLORADO. 

(a) COST SHARE.—The first section of Public Law 87–590 (76 Stat. 389) is amended in the 

second sentence of subsection (c) by inserting after ‘‘cost thereof,’’ the following: ‘‘or 

in the case of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, 

payment in an amount equal to 35 percent of 

the cost of the conduit that is comprised of 

revenue generated by payments pursuant to 

a repayment contract and revenue that may 

be derived from contracts for the use of 

Fryingpan-Arkansas project excess capacity 

or exchange contracts using Fryingpan-Arkansas project facilities,’’. 

(b) RATES.—Section 2(b) of Public Law 87– 

590 (76 Stat. 390) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘(b) Rates’’ and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(b) RATES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Rates’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) RUEDI DAM AND RESERVOIR, FOUNTAIN

VALLEY PIPELINE, AND SOUTH OUTLET WORKS

AT PUEBLO DAM AND RESERVOIR.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the 

reclamation laws, until the date on which 

the payments for the Arkansas Valley Conduit under paragraph (3) begin, any revenue 

that may be derived from contracts for the 

use of Fryingpan-Arkansas project excess capacity or exchange contracts using 

Fryingpan-Arkansas project facilities shall 

be credited towards payment of the actual 

cost of Ruedi Dam and Reservoir, the Fountain Valley Pipeline, and the South Outlet 

Works at Pueblo Dam and Reservoir plus interest in an amount determined in accordance with this section. 

‘‘(B) EFFECT.—Nothing in the Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 

Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 

U.S.C. 371 et seq.)) prohibits the concurrent 

crediting of revenue (with interest as provided under this section) towards payment of 

the Arkansas Valley Conduit as provided 

under this paragraph. 

‘‘(3) ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT.— 

‘‘(A) USE OF REVENUE.—Notwithstanding 

the reclamation laws, any revenue derived 

from contracts for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas project excess capacity or exchange 

contracts using Fryingpan-Arkansas project 

facilities shall be credited towards payment 

of the actual cost of the Arkansas Valley 

Conduit plus interest in an amount determined in accordance with this section. 

‘‘(B) ADJUSTMENT OF RATES.—Any rates 

charged under this section for water for municipal, domestic, or industrial use or for the 

use of facilities for the storage or delivery of 

water shall be adjusted to reflect the estimated revenue derived from contracts for 

the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas project excess capacity or exchange contracts using 

Fryingpan-Arkansas project facilities.’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

Section 7 of Public Law 87–590 (76 Stat. 393) 

is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 7. There is hereby’’ 

and inserting the following: 

‘‘SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There is’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to annual appropriations and paragraph (2), there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 

necessary for the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—Amounts made available 

under paragraph (1) shall not be used for the 

operation or maintenance of the Arkansas 

Valley Conduit.’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

S. 188 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Colorado 

Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop 

Protection Study Act’’. 

SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

The purpose of this Act is to identify options that may be available to assist in 

maintaining the open space characteristics 

of land that is part of the mountain backdrop of communities in the northern section 

of the Front Range area of Colorado. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ 

means the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 

through the Chief of the Forest Service. 

(2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the 

State of Colorado. 

(3) STUDY AREA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

means the land in southern Boulder, northern Jefferson, and northern Gilpin Counties, 

Colorado, that is located west of Colorado 

State Highway 93, south and east of Colorado 

State Highway 119, and north of Colorado 

State Highway 46, as generally depicted on 

the map entitled ‘‘Colorado Northern Front 

Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study 

Act: Study Area’’ and dated August 27, 2008. 

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

does not include land within the city limits 

of the cities of Arvada, Boulder, or Golden, 

Colorado. 

(4) UNDEVELOPED LAND.—The term ‘‘undeveloped land’’ means land— 

(A) that is located within the study area; 

(B) that is free or primarily free of structures; and 

(C) the development of which is likely to 

affect adversely the scenic, wildlife, or recreational value of the study area. 

SEC. 4. COLORADO NORTHERN FRONT RANGE 

MOUNTAIN BACKDROP STUDY. 

(a) STUDY; REPORT.—Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this Act and 

except as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary shall— 

(1) conduct a study of the land within the 

study area; and 

(2) complete a report that— 

(A) identifies the present ownership of the 

land within the study area; 

(B) identifies any undeveloped land that 

may be at risk of development; and 

(C) describes any actions that could be 

taken by the United States, the State, a political subdivision of the State, or any other 

parties to preserve the open and undeveloped 

character of the land within the study area. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall 

conduct the study and develop the report 

under subsection (a) with the support and 

participation of 1 or more of the following 

State and local entities: 

(1) The Colorado Department of Natural 

Resources. 

(2) Colorado State Forest Service. 

(3) Colorado State Conservation Board. 

(4) Great Outdoors Colorado. 

(5) Boulder, Jefferson, and Gilpin Counties, 

Colorado. 

(c) LIMITATION.—If the State and local entities specified in subsection (b) do not support and participate in the conduct of the 

study and the development of the report 

under this section, the Secretary may— 

(1) decrease the area covered by the study 

area, as appropriate; or 

(2)(A) opt not to conduct the study or develop the report; and 

(B) submit to the Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources of the Senate and the 

Committee on Natural Resources of the 

House of Representatives notice of the decision not to conduct the study or develop the 

report. 

(d) EFFECT.—Nothing in this Act authorizes the Secretary to take any action that 

would affect the use of any land not owned 

by the United States. 

S. 189 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 

Representatives of the United States of America 

in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as ‘‘National Trails 

System Willing Seller Act’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE LAND FROM 

WILLING SELLERS FOR CERTAIN 

TRAILS. 

(a) OREGON NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.— 

Section 5(a)(3) of the National Trails System 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may 

be acquired by the Federal Government for 

the trail except with the consent of the 

owner of the land or interest in land. The authority of the Federal Government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be 

limited to an average of not more than 1⁄4

mile on either side of the trail.’’. 

(b) MORMON PIONEER NATIONAL HISTORIC

TRAIL.—Section 5(a)(4) of the National Trails 

System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(4)) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No land 

or interest in land outside the exterior 

boundaries of any federally administered 

area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of 

the owner of the land or interest in land. The 

authority of the Federal Government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be 

limited to an average of not more than 1⁄4

mile on either side of the trail.’’. 

(c) CONTINENTAL DIVIDE NATIONAL SCENIC

TRAIL.—Section 5(a)(5) of the National Trails 

System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(5)) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No land 

or interest in land outside the exterior 

boundaries of any federally administered 

area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of 

the owner of the land or interest in land. The 

authority of the Federal Government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be 

limited to an average of not more than 1⁄4

mile on either side of the trail.’’. 

(d) LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL HISTORIC

TRAIL.—Section 5(a)(6) of the National Trails 

System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(6)) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No land 

or interest in land outside the exterior 

boundaries of any federally administered 

area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of 

the owner of the land or interest in land. The 

authority of the Federal Government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be 

limited to an average of not more than 1⁄4

mile on either side of the trail.’’. 

(e) IDITAROD NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.— 

Section 5(a)(7) of the National Trails System 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may 

be acquired by the Federal Government for 

the trail except with the consent of the 

owner of the land or interest in land. The authority of the Federal government to acquire 

fee title under this paragraph shall be limited to an average of not more than 1⁄4 mile 

on either side of the trail.’’. 

(f) NORTH COUNTRY NATIONAL SCENIC

TRAIL.—Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails 

System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No land 

or interest in land outside the exterior 

boundaries of any federally administered 

area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of 

the owner of the land or interest in land.’’. 

(g) ICE AGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL.—Section 5(a)(10) of the National Trails System 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(10)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may 

be acquired by the Federal Government for 

the trail except with the consent of the 

owner of the land or interest in land.’’. 

(h) POTOMAC HERITAGE NATIONAL SCENIC

TRAIL.—Section 5(a)(11) of the National 

Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(11)) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking the fourth and fifth sentences; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No 

land or interest in land outside the exterior 

boundaries of any federally administered 

area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of 

the owner of the land or interest in land.’’. 

(i) NEZ PERCE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.— 

Section 5(a)(14) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(14)) is amended— 

(1) by striking the fourth and fifth sentences; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No 

land or interest in land outside the exterior 

boundaries of any federally administered 

area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of 

the owner of the land or interest in land. The 

authority of the Federal Government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be 

limited to an average of not more than 1⁄4

mile on either side of the trail.’’. 

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. 

Section 10 of the National Trails System 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1249 is amended by striking 

subsection (c) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this Act, there are authorized to be 

appropriated such sums as are necessary to 

implement the provisions of this Act relating to the trails designated by section 5(a). 

‘‘(2) NATCHEZ TRACE NATIONAL SCENIC

TRAIL.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the 

Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘trail’) designated by section 5(a)(12)— 

‘‘(i) not more than $500,000 shall be appropriated for the acquisition of land or interests in land for the trail; and 

‘‘(ii) not more than $2,000,000 shall be appropriated for the development of the trail. 

‘‘(B) PARTICIPATION BY VOLUNTEER TRAIL

GROUPS.—The administering agency for the 

trail shall encourage volunteer trail groups 

to participate in the development of the 

trail.’’. 

S. 190 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rocky 

Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act’’. 

SEC. 2. PURPOSES. 

The purposes of this Act are— 

(1) to include in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System certain land within the 

Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, to 

protect— 

(A) the enduring scenic and historic wilderness character and unique wildlife values of 

the land; and 

(B) the scientific, educational, inspirational, and recreational resources, values, 

and opportunities of the land; and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S233 

(2) to adjust the boundaries of the Indian 

Peaks Wilderness and Arapaho National 

Recreation Area of the Arapaho National 

Forest. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) MAP.—The term ‘‘Map’’ means the map 

entitled ‘‘Rocky Mountain National Park, 

Colorado Wilderness Boundaries’’ and dated 

September 2006. 

(2) PARK.—The term ‘‘Park’’ means the 

Rocky Mountain National Park in the State. 

(3) POTENTIAL WILDERNESS LAND.—The term 

‘‘potential wilderness land’’ means— 

(A) the land identified on the Map as potential wilderness; and 

(B) any land acquired by the United States 

on or after the date of enactment of this Act 

that is— 

(i) located within the boundaries of the 

Park; and 

(ii) contiguous with any land designated as 

wilderness by section 4(a). 

(4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ 

means the Secretary of the Interior. 

(5) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the 

State of Colorado. 

(6) TRAIL.—The term ‘‘Trail’’ means the 

East Shore Trail established under section 

5(a). 

(7) WILDERNESS.—The term ‘‘Wilderness’’ 

means the Rocky Mountain National Park 

Wilderness designated by section 4(a). 

SEC. 4. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—In furtherance of the 

purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 

et seq.), there is designated as wilderness and 

as a component of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System approximately 249,339 

acres of land in the Park, as generally depicted on the Map, which shall be known as 

the ‘‘Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness’’. 

(b) MAP AND BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 

Resources of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources of the Senate a map and boundary 

description of the Wilderness. 

(2) AVAILABILITY.—The map and boundary 

description submitted under paragraph (1) 

shall be on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the Director of the 

National Park Service. 

(3) CORRECTIONS.—The Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors in the 

map and boundary description submitted 

under paragraph (1). 

(4) EFFECT.—The map and boundary description submitted under paragraph (1) shall 

have the same force and effect as if included 

in this Act. 

(c) INCLUSION OF POTENTIAL WILDERNESS

LAND.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—On publication in the Federal Register of a notice by the Secretary 

that all uses of a parcel of potential wilderness land inconsistent with the Wilderness 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) have ceased, the 

parcel shall be— 

(A) included in the Wilderness; and 

(B) managed in accordance with this section. 

(2) MAP AND BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION.—The 

Secretary shall modify the map and boundary description prepared under subsection (b) 

to reflect the inclusion of the parcel in the 

Wilderness. 

(d) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN LAND.—The 

boundaries of the Wilderness shall specifically exclude: 

(1) The Grand River Ditch (including the 

main canal of the Grand River Ditch and a 

branch of the main canal known as the 

‘‘Specimen Ditch’’), the right-of-way for the 

Grand River Ditch, land 200 feet on each side 

of the marginal limits of the Ditch, and any 

associated appurtenances, structures, buildings, camps, and work sites in existence as of 

June 1, 1998. 

(2) Land owned by the St. Vrain & Left 

Hand Water Conservancy District, including 

Copeland Reservoir and the Inlet Ditch to 

the Reservoir from the North St. Vrain 

Creek, comprising approximately 35.38 acres. 

(3) Lands owned by the Wincentsen-Harms 

Trust, comprising approximately 2.75 acres. 

(4) Land within the area depicted as the 

‘‘East Shore Trail Area’’ on the map prepared under subsection (b)(1). 

(e) ADMINISTRATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing 

rights, any land designated as wilderness 

under subsection (a) or added to the Wilderness after the date of enactment of this Act 

under subsection (c) shall be administered by 

the Secretary in accordance with— 

(A) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et 

seq.); and 

(B) this Act. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE OF WILDERNESS ACT.— 

With respect to the land designated as Wilderness by subsection (a) or added to the Wilderness after the date of enactment of this 

Act under subsection (c), any reference in 

the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) to 

the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall 

be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of this Act or the date of enactment 

of the Act adding the land to the Wilderness, 

respectively. 

(3) WATER RIGHTS.— 

(A) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

(i) according to decisions of the State 

courts, the United States has existing rights 

to water within the Park; 

(ii) the existing water rights are sufficient 

for the purposes of the Wilderness; and 

(iii) based on the findings described in 

clauses (i) and (ii), there is no need for the 

United States to reserve or appropriate any 

additional water rights to fulfill the purposes of the Wilderness. 

(B) NO RESERVATION OF WATER RIGHTS.— 

Nothing in this Act or any action carried out 

pursuant to this Act shall constitute an express or implied reservation by the United 

States of water or water rights for any purpose. 

(4) GRAND RIVER DITCH.— 

(A) LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, or any stipulation or applicable agreement, during any period in which 

the Water Supply and Storage Company (or 

any successor in interest to the Water Supply and Storage Company with respect to the 

Grand River Ditch) operates and maintains 

the portion of the Grand River Ditch within 

the Park in compliance with an operations 

and maintenance agreement between the 

Water Supply and Storage Company and the 

National Park Service entered into on 

llllllllllll, no individual or entity who owns, controls, or operates the Grand 

River Ditch shall be liable for any response 

costs or for any damages to, loss of, or injury 

to the resources of the Park resulting from 

any cause or event (including, but not limited to, water escaping from any part of the 

Grand River Ditch by overflow or as a result 

of a breach, failure, or partial failure of any 

portion of the Grand River Ditch, including 

the portion of the ditch located outside the 

Park), unless the damages to, loss of, or injury to the resources are proximately caused 

by the negligence or an intentional act of 

the individual or entity. 

(B) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section 

limits or otherwise affects any liability of 

any individual or entity for damages to, loss 

of, or injury to any resource of the Park resulting from any cause or event that occurred before the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

(C) EXISTING ACTIVITIES.—Nothing in this 

Act, including the designation of the Wilderness under this section, shall restrict or otherwise affect any activity (including an activity carried out in response to an emergency or catastrophic event) on, under, or affecting the Wilderness or land excluded 

under subsection (d)(1) relating to the monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of the Grand River Ditch 

that was authorized or approved by the Secretary as of the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

(D) NO EFFECT.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of any previous or existing 

law, any stipulation, or any agreement, or 

interpretation thereof, use of water transported by the Grand River Ditch for a main 

purpose or main purposes other than irrigation shall not terminate or adversely affect 

the right-of-way of the Grand River Ditch, 

and such right-of-way shall not be deemed 

relinquished, forfeited, or lost, solely because such water is used for a main purpose 

or main purposes other than irrigation. 

(5) COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT AND

WINDY GAP PROJECT.— 

(A) EXISTING ACTIVITIES.—Activities (including activities that are necessary because 

of emergencies or catastrophic events) on, 

under, or affecting the Wilderness relating to 

the monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of the Alva B. 

Adams Tunnel at its designed capacity and 

all other Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities located within the Park that were allowed as of the date of enactment of this Act 

under the Act of January 26, 1915 (16 U.S.C. 

191)— 

(i) shall be allowed to continue; and 

(ii) shall not be affected by the designation 

of the Wilderness under this section. 

(B) EFFECT.—Nothing in this Act or the 

designation of the Wilderness shall prohibit 

or restrict the conveyance of any water 

through the Alva B. Adams Tunnel for any 

purpose. 

(C) NEW RECLAMATION PROJECTS.—Nothing 

in the first section of the Act of January 26, 

1915 (16 U.S.C. 191), shall be construed to 

allow development in the Wilderness of any 

reclamation project not in existence as of 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

(6) NO BUFFER ZONE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act creates a protective perimeter or buffer zone 

around the Wilderness. 

(B) ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE WILDERNESS.—The 

fact that a nonwilderness activity or use can 

be seen or heard from within the Wilderness 

shall not preclude the conduct of the activity or use outside the boundary of the Wilderness. 

(7) FIRE, INSECT, AND DISEASE CONTROL.—In 

accordance with section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), the Secretary 

may take such measures in the Wilderness as 

are necessary to control fire, insects, and 

diseases, including the use of mechanized 

tools, subject to such conditions as the Secretary determines to be desirable. 

(8) MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.—Nothing in 

this Act shall be construed as reducing or restricting the authority of the Secretary to 

manage the lands and other resources within 

the Park pursuant to the Act of January 26, 

1915 (16 U.S.C. 191), and other laws applicable 

to the Park as of the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

SEC. 5. EAST SHORE TRAIL AREA IN ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall establish within the East 

Shore Trail Area in Rocky Mountain National Park an alignment line for a trail, to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S234 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

be known as the ‘‘East Shore Trail’’, to 

maximize the opportunity for sustained use 

of the Trail without causing— 

(1) harm to affected resources; or 

(2) conflicts among users. 

(b) BOUNDARIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—After establishing the 

alignment line for the Trail under subsection 

(a), the Secretary shall— 

(A) identify the boundaries of the Trail, 

which shall not extend more than 25 feet east 

of the alignment line or be located within 

the wilderness area; and 

(B) modify the map of the Wilderness prepared under section 4(b)(1) so that the western boundary of the Wilderness is 50 feet east 

of the alignment line. 

(2) ADJUSTMENTS.—To the extent necessary 

to protect National Park System resources, 

the Secretary may adjust the boundaries of 

the Trail, if the adjustment does not place 

any portion of the Trail within the boundary 

of the Wilderness. 

(c) INCLUSION IN WILDERNESS.—On completion of the construction of the Trail, as authorized by the Secretary— 

(1) any portion of the East Shore Trail 

Area that is not traversed by the Trail, that 

is not west of the Trail, and that is not within 50 feet of the centerline of the Trail shall 

be— 

(A) included in the Wilderness; and 

(B) managed as part of the Wilderness in 

accordance with section 4; and 

(2) the Secretary shall modify the map and 

boundary description of the wilderness prepared under section 4(b)(1) to reflect the inclusion of the East Shore Trail Area land in 

the Wilderness. 

(d) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section— 

(1) requires the construction of the Trail 

along the alignment line established under 

subsection (a); or 

(2) limits the extent to which any otherwise applicable law or policy applies to any 

decision with respect to the construction of 

the Trail. 

(e) RELATION TO LAND OUTSIDE WILDERNESS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this 

subsection, nothing in this Act shall affect 

the management or use of any land not included within the boundaries of the Wilderness or the potential wilderness land. 

(2) MOTORIZED VEHICLES AND MACHINERY.— 

No use of motorized vehicles or other motorized machinery that was not permitted on 

March 1, 2006, shall be allowed in the East 

Shore Trail Area except as the Secretary determines to be necessary for use in— 

(A) constructing the Trail, if the construction is authorized by the Secretary; or 

(B) maintaining the Trail. 

(3) MANAGEMENT OF LAND BEFORE INCLUSION.—Until the Secretary authorizes the 

construction of the Trail and the use of the 

Trail for non-motorized bicycles, the East 

Shore Trail Area shall be managed— 

(A) to protect any wilderness characteristics of the East Shore Trail Area; and 

(B) to maintain the suitability of the East 

Shore Trail Area for inclusion in the Wilderness. 

SEC. 6. INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS AND ARAPAHO NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

(a) INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS BOUNDARY

ADJUSTMENT.—Section 3(a) of the Indian 

Peaks Wilderness Area, the Arapaho National Recreation Area and the Oregon Islands Wilderness Area Act (16 U.S.C. 1132 

note; Public Law 95–450) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘seventy thousand acres’’ 

and inserting ‘‘74,195 acres’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘dated July 1978’’ and inserting ‘‘dated May 2007’’. 

(b) ARAPAHO NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—Section 4(a) of the 

Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, the Arapaho 

National Recreation Area and the Oregon Islands Wilderness Area Act (16 U.S.C. 460jj(a)) 

is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘thirty-six thousand two 

hundred thirty-five acres’’ and inserting 

‘‘35,235 acres’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘dated July 1978’’ and inserting ‘‘dated May 2007’’. 

SEC. 7. AUTHORITY TO LEASE LEIFFER TRACT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(k) of Public 

Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–2(k)) shall apply to 

the parcel of land described in subsection (b). 

(b) DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND.—The parcel 

of land referred to in subsection (a) is the 

parcel of land known as the ‘‘Leiffer tract’’ 

that is— 

(1) located near the eastern boundary of 

Rocky Mountain National Park in Larimer 

County, Colorado; and 

(2) administered by the National Park 

Service. 

By Mr. NELSON of Florida: 

S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the 

electoral college and to provide for the 

direct popular election of the President 

and Vice President of the United 

States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, earlier today, the Congress met 

in a joint session, as it does every 4 

years in early January, to conduct the 

official count of the electoral ballots 

from the States. Most Americans pay 

no attention to this ritual, believing 

that presidential elections in this 

country get decided on Election Day. 

But it is the votes of the Electoral College, presented by each State to the 

Congress, that determine who our next 

President and Vice President are going 

to be. We are the beacon of democracy 

in the world, and yet, voters in this 

country do not have the opportunity to 

elect their leaders directly. 

Today, I am introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College to allow direct election of 

the President by popular vote. If the 

principle of one person, one vote is to 

mean anything, it is that the candidate 

who wins a majority of the votes wins 

the Presidency, and votes for every 

candidate from every State should 

count. 

On only a few occasions in our history, the candidate who lost the popular vote won the Electoral College and 

became president. In 2000, George W. 

Bush actually lost the nationwide popular election to Al Gore by nearly 

544,000 votes, yet won the presidency in 

a Supreme Court showdown over Florida’s Electoral College votes that 

hinged on far fewer disputed State ballots. That dispute undermined Americans’ confidence in our democracy and 

should not be allowed to happen again. 

In addition, the Electoral College 

skews the way candidates for president 

campaign, causing them to focus only 

on contested ‘‘battleground States’’. As 

the Miami Herald recognized in an editorial published the day after the 2008 

election, the Electoral College is a 

‘‘horse-and-buggy-era political contraption,’’ which effectively shuts out 

the majority of Americans—those who 

don’t live in one of the key battleground States—from any meaningful 

participation in the selection of our 

President. 

A recently released study by 

FairVote, the Center for Voting and 

Democracy, documents just how lopsided the Electoral College has made 

presidential elections: more than 98 

percent of all campaign events and 

more than 98 percent of all campaign 

spending occurred in 15 large and small 

battleground States representing 36.6 

percent of the Nation’s eligible voter 

population. Of the 300 campaign events 

by the major presidential candidates 

held between September 5 and November 4, 2008, fully 57 percent of these 

events took place in four States—Ohio, 

Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia— 

representing just 17 percent of the Nation’s eligible voters. Voter turnout 

was 67 percent in the 15 battleground 

States and only 61 percent in the remaining 35 States. 

The simple and straightforward constitutional amendment simply provides 

for the direct election of the President 

and Vice President, based on the national popular vote from the 50 States, 

the U.S. territories, and the District of 

Columbia. 

The proposed amendment also confirms—consistent with the vision of the 

Framers—that it is within Congress’s 

power to set the time, place and manner—as well as other key criteria—for 

holding Federal elections. Unlike some 

proposed constitutional amendments 

that have been introduced in the past, 

my proposal does not delve into additional detail by specifying the qualifications for voters or by imposing a 

majority requirement for an election, 

leaving those issues for the Congress to 

address through the legislative process. 

Rather, the amendment keeps the 

focus where it belongs—on enshrining 

in our Constitution the principle of one 

person, one vote, in the election of our 

President. 

I first introduced this constitutional 

amendment during the previous Congress, as part of a broader package of 

reforms that also included measures to 

make it easier to vote, for example, by 

encouraging early voting or no-fault 

absentee voting; to ensure that there is 

a verifiable paper ballot so that every 

vote cast gets counted; and to allow 

voters, not party bosses, to select presidential candidates. I plan to file these 

other election reforms early in this 

Congress. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the joint resolution was ordered to be 

printed in the RECORD, as follows: 

S.J. RES. 4 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, That the following article 

is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S235 

valid to all intents and purposes as part of 

the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 

within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress: 

‘‘ARTICLE— 

‘‘SECTION 1. The President and Vice President shall be jointly elected by the direct 

vote of the qualified electors of the several 

States and territories and the District constituting the seat of Government of the 

United States. The electors in each State, 

territory, and the District constituting the 

seat of Government of the United States 

shall have the qualifications requisite for 

electors of the most numerous branch of the 

legislative body where they reside. 

‘‘SECTION 2. Congress may determine the 

time, place, and manner of holding the election, the entitlement to inclusion on the ballot, and the manner in which the results of 

the election shall be ascertained and declared.’’. 

f 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 10—RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL 

TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST ATTACKS FROM GAZA AND REAFFIRMING THE UNITED 

STATES’ STRONG SUPPORT FOR 

ISRAEL IN ITS BATTLE WITH 

HAMAS, AND SUPPORTING THE 

ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE 

PROCESS 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KYL, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. 

CHAMBLISS, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. HATCH, 

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BOND, Mr. SCHUMER, 

Mr. DEMINT, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. 

THUNE, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. 

MENENDEZ, Mr. MARTINEZ, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. CASEY, 

Mr. PRYOR, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. CARPER, 

Mr. BAUCAS, Mr. BAYH. Mr. JOHANNS, 

Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. 

CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to: 

S. RES. 10 

Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel; 

Whereas Hamas has been designated by the 

Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization; 

Whereas Hamas has refused to comply with 

the requirements of the Quartet (the United 

States, the European Union, Russia, and the 

United Nations) that Hamas recognize 

Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and 

agree to accept previous agreements between 

Israel and the Palestinians; 

Whereas, in June 2006, Hamas crossed into 

Israel, attacked Israeli forces and kidnapped 

Corporal Gilad Shalit, whom they continue 

to hold today; 

Whereas Hamas has launched thousands of 

rockets and mortars since Israel dismantled 

settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005; 

Whereas Hamas has increased the range of 

its rockets, reportedly with support from 

Iran and others, putting additional large 

numbers of Israelis in danger of rocket attacks from Gaza; 

Whereas Hamas locates elements of its terrorist infrastructure in civilian population 

centers, thus using innocent civilians as 

human shields; 

Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza 

Rice said in a statement on December 27, 

2008, that ‘‘[w]e strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against 

Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence there’’; 

Whereas, on December 27, 2008, Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert said, ‘‘For approximately seven years, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens in the south have 

been suffering from missiles being fired at 

them. . . . In such a situation we had no alternative but to respond. We do not rejoice 

in battle but neither will we be deterred 

from it. . . . The operation in the Gaza Strip 

is designed, first and foremost, to bring 

about an improvement in the security reality for the residents of the south of the 

country.’’; 

Whereas, on January 2, 2009, Secretary of 

State Rice stated that ‘‘Hamas has held the 

people of Gaza hostage ever since their illegal coup against the forces of President 

Mahmoud Abbas, the legitimate President of 

the Palestinian people. Hamas has used Gaza 

as a launching pad for rockets against Israeli 

cities and has contributed deeply to a very 

bad daily life for the Palestinian people in 

Gaza, and to a humanitarian situation that 

we have all been trying to address’’; 

Whereas the humanitarian situation in 

Gaza, including shortages of food, water, 

electricity, and adequate medical care, is becoming more acute; 

Whereas Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with over 500 trucks and 

numerous ambulances entering the Gaza 

Strip since December 26, 2008; 

Whereas, on January 2, 2009, Secretary of 

State Rice stated that it was ‘‘Hamas that 

rejected the Egyptian and Arab calls for an 

extension of the tahadiya that Egypt had negotiated’’ and that the United States was 

‘‘working toward a cease-fire that would not 

allow a reestablishment of the status quo 

ante where Hamas can continue to launch 

rockets out of Gaza. It is obvious that that 

cease-fire should take place as soon as possible, but we need a cease-fire that is durable 

and sustainable’’; and 

Whereas the ultimate goal of the United 

States is a sustainable resolution of the 

Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will allow 

for a viable and independent Palestinian 

state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel, which will not 

be possible as long as Israeli civilians are 

under threat from within Gaza: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, 

and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in selfdefense to protect its citizens against acts of 

terrorism; 

(2) reiterates that Hamas must end the 

rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, 

recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians; 

(3) encourages the President to work actively to support a durable, enforceable, and 

sustainable cease-fire in Gaza, as soon as 

possible, that prevents Hamas from retaining 

or rebuilding the capability to launch rockets and mortars against Israel and allows for 

the long term improvement of daily living 

conditions for the ordinary people of Gaza; 

(4) believes strongly that the lives of innocent civilians must be protected and all appropriate measures should be taken to diminish civilian casualties and that all involved should continue to work to address 

humanitarian needs in Gaza; 

(5) supports and encourages efforts to diminish the appeal and influence of extremists in the Palestinian territories and to 

strengthen moderate Palestinians who are 

committed to a secure and lasting peace 

with Israel; and 

(6) reiterates its strong support for United 

States Government efforts to promote a just 

resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 

through a serious and sustained peace process that leads to the creation of a viable and 

independent Palestinian state living in peace 

alongside a secure State of Israel. 

f 

SENATE RESOLUTION 11—TO AUTHORIZE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. 

MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to: 

S. RES. 11 

Whereas, last Congress the Committee on 

Armed Services conducted a staff inquiry 

into allegations regarding irregularities in 

the administration of a contract for 

logistical support in Iraq by the Department 

of the Army; 

Whereas, upon the completion of the Committee’s staff inquiry, the Chairman and 

Ranking Member referred to the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Defense for review allegations regarding the 

Administration of this LOGCAP contract; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of 

the United States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under 

the control or in the possession of the Senate 

may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from such control or possession 

but by permission of the Senate; 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence 

under the control or in the possession of the 

Senate may promote the administration of 

justice, the Senate will take such action as 

will promote the ends of justice consistent 

with the privileges of the Senate: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking 

Member of the Armed Services Committee, 

acting jointly, are authorized to produce to 

the Department of Defense Inspector General 

records of the Committee’s staff inquiry into 

allegations relating to the administration of 

the Army’s LOGCAP contract. 

f 

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND 

PROPOSED 

SA 1. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 22, to designate certain land components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs 

and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and 

for other purposes; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 22, supra; which was ordered to lie on 

the table. 

SA 3. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 22, supra; which was ordered to lie on 

the table. 

SA 4. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 22, supra; which was ordered to lie on 

the table. 

SA 5. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 22, supra; which was ordered to lie on 

the table. 

SA 6. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE