S226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

organizations to assess emerging industry 

pathways; 

‘‘(2) how the eligible partnership has consulted with and involved students in qualifying schools in the design and implementation of the emerging industry pathways 

school- and work-based curriculum or program; 

‘‘(3) the effectiveness of the school- and 

work-based curriculum or program with respect to improving— 

‘‘(A) student engagement; 

‘‘(B) attendance; 

‘‘(C) secondary school graduation rates; 

and 

‘‘(D) preparation for and placement in a career in an emerging industry or in postsecondary education; 

‘‘(4) how the eligible partnership has improved its capacity to respond to new workforce development priorities and create educational opportunities that address such new 

workforce development priorities; and 

‘‘(5) any other information the Secretary 

may reasonably require. 

‘‘(b) FINAL REPORTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An eligible partnership 

that receives a grant under this subpart 

shall, at the end of the grant period, collect 

and prepare a report on the following information: 

‘‘(A) The number and percentage of students served by the eligible partnership 

who— 

‘‘(i) graduated from secondary school with 

a regular secondary school diploma in the 

standard number of years; 

‘‘(ii) entered into a job in an emerging industry; and 

‘‘(iii) enrolled in a postsecondary institution. 

‘‘(B) The emerging industry pathways 

school- and work-based curriculum or program and the— 

‘‘(i) successes of such curriculum or program, including placement rates of students 

in work or postsecondary education and 

trends in secondary school graduation rates 

in qualifying schools utilizing the schooland work-based curriculum or program; 

‘‘(ii) areas of improvement for the schooland work-based curriculum or program; 

‘‘(iii) lessons learned from the implementation of the school- and work-based curriculum or program in secondary schools; 

and 

‘‘(iv) plans to replicate the school- and 

work-based curriculum or program in other 

schools or examples of successful replication 

of the curriculum or program. 

‘‘(2) SUBMISSION OF REPORTS.—A report prepared under paragraph (1) shall be submitted 

to the Secretary and the National Research 

Center for Career and Technical Education. 

‘‘(c) FEDERAL EVALUATION AND REPORT.— 

Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment of this subpart, the Secretary 

shall— 

‘‘(1) develop and execute a plan for evaluating the emerging industry pathways 

school- and work-based curricula or programs assisted under this subpart; and 

‘‘(2) submit a report to Congress— 

‘‘(A) detailing aggregate data on— 

‘‘(i) the categories of activities for which 

eligible partnerships used grant funds under 

this subpart; 

‘‘(ii) the impact of the grants on— 

‘‘(I) student engagement, attendance, and 

completion of secondary school; and 

‘‘(II) the postsecondary placement of students in high-quality emerging industry careers or postsecondary education; and 

‘‘(iii) promising strategies for improving 

student engagement, attendance, and completion of secondary school through engaging curricula or programs; and 

‘‘(B) that includes any recommendations 

for improvements that can be made to the 

grant program under this subpart. 

‘‘SEC. 5626. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—From the amounts appropriated to and available for Program Administration within the Departmental Management account in the Department of Education for each of fiscal years 2010 through 

2013, there are authorized to be appropriated 

$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 

through 2013, respectively, to carry out this 

subpart. 

‘‘(b) SET ASIDE FOR EVALUATION.—Of the 

amounts appropriated under subsection (a) 

for a fiscal year, 2 percent shall be set aside 

for such fiscal year for the Federal evaluation required under section 5625(c).’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents in section 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by 

inserting after the item relating to section 

5618 the following: 

‘‘SUBPART 22—CONNECTING EDUCATION AND

EMERGING PROFESSIONS DEMONSTRATION

GRANT PROGRAM

‘‘Sec. 5621. Definitions. 

‘‘Sec. 5622. Program authorized. 

‘‘Sec. 5623. Applications. 

‘‘Sec. 5624. Program administration. 

‘‘Sec. 5625. Evaluation and reports. 

‘‘Sec. 5626. Authorization of appropriations.’’. 

By Ms. STABENOW (for herself 

and Ms. SNOWE). 

S. 179. A bill to improve quality in 

health care by providing incentives for 

adoption of modern information technology, to the Committee on Finance. 

Ms. STABENOW. I am very pleased 

to introduce the Health Information 

Technology Act with my friend and 

colleague from Maine, Senator SNOWE. 

As co-chairs of the Senate Health Care 

Quality Improvement and Information 

Technology Caucus, we have seen firsthand the transformative power information technology has on the delivery 

of health care. 

Our legislation is a substantial downpayment in building up our Nation’s 

health information network and an important step in reforming health care. 

In doing so, we will reduce costs for our 

businesses, improve the quality of care 

for patients, and ensure health providers have access to the most accurate 

information. And I am very excited 

that President-elect Obama identified 

health IT as an important part of investing in our Nation’s economy. 

The result of using 19th century technology in a 21st century health care 

system is higher costs, increased errors, and decreased quality of care. Too 

often, care is duplicated or the best and 

most appropriate care isn’t given. Our 

health care professionals can’t possibly 

provide the best care if they don’t have 

complete and accurate information 

about the patient sitting in front of 

them. 

Many studies have found that as 

much as $300 billion is spent each year 

on health care that does not improve 

patient outcomes on treatment that is 

unnecessary, inappropriate, inefficient, 

or ineffective. For example, in last 

year’s series of health reform hearings 

in the Senate Finance Committee, we 

heard testimony from Elizabeth 

McGlynn of the RAND Corporation 

that we only receive 55 percent of recommended preventive care services, 54 

percent of recommended care for acute 

health problems, and 56 percent of the 

care that doctors agree is necessary for 

people with chronic conditions when 

we seek medical treatment. 

It’s long past time that we fully utilize technology to make health care accessible and affordable for every family 

and business. However, most of our Nation’s health care providers don’t have 

access to capital in order to purchase 

information technology and service updates. Too many providers, especially 

our safety-net providers, are having a 

hard enough time just keeping up with 

their daily costs, much less to invest in 

something new. 

A March 2001 Institute of Medicine 

study concluded that in order to improve quality, there must be a national 

commitment to building an information infrastructure. An October 2003 

Government Accountability Office report found that the benefits of an electronic healthcare information system 

included improved quality of care, reduced costs associated with medication 

errors, more accurate and complete 

medical documentation, more accurate 

capture of codes and charges, and improved communication among providers enabling them to respond more 

quickly to patients’ needs. 

By providing the most appropriate 

care at the most appropriate time in a 

safe, secure way, we can reap huge savings. A January 2005 Report by the 

Center for Information Technology 

Leadership found that moving to 

standardized health information exchange and interoperability would save 

nearly $80 billion annually in the 

United States. 

The benefits of adoption and use of 

health care information technologies, 

systems and services will be widespread: employers will realize cost savings, clinicians will gain new electronic support tools and patient information to help guide medical decisions, 

and patients will benefit from a more 

efficient health care system and from a 

safer health care system with fewer unnecessary treatments and more attention to preventive care. 

We know that adoption of health information technology can play a critical role in 

improving patient outcomes and at the same 

time greatly reduce costs. But it can’t happen without the federal government playing 

a role. The members of the Health Information Technology Leadership Panel concurred 

that without federal leadership, neither their 

individual companies nor the industrial sector as a whole can achieve the breadth of 

HIT adoption that would be required to realize the needed transformation of health care. 

Our country must have a national 

commitment to building an information infrastructure, and the Federal 

Government needs to step up to the 

plate and provide much-needed funds to 

get the ball rolling. Without health IT, 

we are not going to be able to accomplish other reforms necessary to improve our health care system. That is 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S227 

why I am fighting for funding similar 

to the legislation we are introducing 

today, will be included in the economic 

recovery act we will soon be debated. 

The sooner we get them into our hospitals, physician offices, nursing 

homes, community health centers, 

community mental health centers, and 

other health care providers, the sooner 

our patients, providers, and pocketbooks will see the rewards. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I 

join my colleague, Senator STABENOW

of Michigan, to introduce the Health 

Information Technology Act of 2009 to 

improve the quality of health care 

through the implementation of information technology, IT, in hospitals, 

health centers and physician practices 

throughout the country. Our legislation will help us address two critical 

issues. 

The first is the serious patient safety 

problem facing our Nation. Indeed, if 

most Americans were told today that 

98,000 lives were lost needlessly last 

year—and a cure was available—they 

would undoubtedly call for action. Yet 

the Institute of Medicine, IOM, has reported that medical errors inflict that 

terrible toll every year, even though 

the technology is at our disposal to 

dramatically reduce those deaths. 

A second major problem is the escalating cost of health care. Health 

spending now comprises over 16 percent 

of GNP—$2.2 trillion last year—and the 

price of a health plan has grown so 

high that 70 million Americans today 

are either underinsured or lack any 

coverage whatsoever. That group expands as unemployment rates increase 

and individuals and families lose 

health insurance tied to employment. 

A recent Urban Institute study found 

that for each 1 percentage point increase in unemployment 1 million 

Americans are added to the rolls of the 

uninsured. However, simply expanding 

government subsidies or entitlements 

alone is not the answer, because on our 

current trajectory, escalating costs 

will erode our ability to maintain such 

supports. It is clear that some fundamental changes must be made in 

health care to combat rising health 

care costs. 

Bold changes and innovations are 

necessary to address both medical errors and escalating costs. One of those 

changes must be the application of 

modern data technology. Most of us 

have been told at one time or another, 

‘‘we’re waiting to get the test results 

mailed’’ or ‘‘we’re still waiting for your 

chart.’’ Consider the savings we realize 

when a physician can locate information efficiently so that tests don’t have 

to be repeated and data isn’t delayed. A 

patient obtains faster, higher quality 

care when multiple practitioners can 

review diagnostic test results right at 

their desktops. The fact is the health 

care industry is one of the last sectors 

where information flows so slowly. Indeed, it is often easier to track the 

service history on one’s automobile 

than to see your own health history. In 

an age where millions of Americans 

share family pictures over the Internet 

in seconds, isn’t it long past time that 

a physician should be able to retrieve 

an x-ray just as easily? 

Today, the technological tools are at 

hand to dramatically reduce medical 

errors and save lives. Many of us have 

heard about how drug interactions can 

be avoided by software systems which 

check a patient’s prescriptions for hazards, and there are so many other applications which can also improve 

health. For example, by reviewing and 

analyzing information, a health provider can help a patient better manage 

chronic diseases such as diabetes and 

heart disease to reduce avoidable adverse outcomes. The unfortunate reality is that the cost of new systems 

and a lack of standards have prevented 

us from reaping the benefits of new 

technologies. 

While the current economic crisis has 

surely put a focus on addressing the inefficiencies and high costs of health 

care, I have long shared a determination to modernize health information 

with my colleagues. In 2003, I joined 

with Senator Bob Graham to introduce 

the ‘‘Medication Errors Reduction Act 

of 2003’’ to make grants of up to $750,000 

available to hospitals and nursing facilities to aid in implementation of 

health IT infrastructure. In 2005, Senator STABENOW and I offered our bill to 

create a $4 billion competitive grant 

program and tax incentives to enable 

hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, 

community health centers and physicians to invest in health IT. 

The President-elect shares our recognition of the critical role which information technology must play in 

transforming health care. In his campaign, he acknowledged the critical 

need to make technology implementation a priority. 

A lack of standards to ensure interoperability has been a factor in slowing 

IT adoption by many health care providers. One must know that a system 

purchased will be compatible with others, and that—no matter what may 

happen in the future to a vendor—the 

investment one makes in building an 

electronic medical record won’t be 

wasted. In other words, your system 

must be able to communicate with 

other systems, and your investment in 

building electronic medical records 

must be preserved. When a patient 

moves, their electronic ‘‘chart’’ should 

be able to move right along with them 

to prevent disruption in the continuity 

of their care—in other words ‘‘we must 

have interoperability.’’ 

Yet standards alone are not sufficient, as there are fiscal hurdles to implementing health IT. Today, many 

providers are struggling to adopt new 

technology, and for those who serve 

beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and 

SCHIP, it can be exceedingly difficult. 

Our physicians, for example, have seen 

recent Medicare payment updates 

which have not even kept pace with inflation—even as we expect them to 

make a major investment in health IT. 

We must also recognize there is a 

misalignment of fiscal incentives for 

health IT. The benefits to patients are 

evident—in fewer delays, in better outcomes, in lives saved. Modern information technology reduces costs as well, 

but primarily to those who pay for 

services—not for the healthcare providers who must bear the burden of implementation. Indeed, it has been estimated that 89 percent of cost savings 

accrue to those who pay for services. It 

should be obvious then that the federal 

government would invest in health IT 

to both improve health outcomes and 

to reduce its expenditures on Medicare, 

Medicaid and SCHIP. 

That is precisely the type of investment the Health Information Technology Act of 2009 would achieve. Because as we look to the many studies 

and reports on health IT, it is clear 

that annual cost savings can actually 

exceed the price of implementation. 

With that kind of return, it is indisputable that the federal government 

must employ health IT to see not only 

the savings in lives, but also better 

management of our health care spending. 

Our legislation spurs adoption by 

providing grants to physicians, hospitals, long term care facilities and 

both federally-qualified health centers 

and community mental health centers. 

These grants are targeted to help provide the health IT resources providers 

need to serve our federal beneficiaries. 

In fact, the size of an allowable grant 

for each provider is keyed to the proportion of the patient care which they 

deliver to federal beneficiaries. This 

will help providers deliver better care 

to those on Medicare, Medicaid and 

SCHIP while we also see costs reduced 

in those programs. That is simple common sense. 

The legislation supports reasonable 

expenditures for a variety of costs required to implement health care information technology. These include such 

components as computer hardware and 

software in combination with installation and training. In addition for a system to be suitable for support under 

this legislation, we require that it 

must meet the HHS Secretary’s interoperability standards. 

Our new legislation even provides an 

alternative to those for-profit providers who do not wish to apply for a 

grant. Under this bill, such providers 

will be able to expense the cost of a 

qualified system. We will thus assure 

that every type of provider has a meaningful opportunity to invest in moving 

their health care practice into the new 

millennium. With the development of a 

21st century health technology system, 

we will ensure that providers have the 

appropriate tools to effectively provide 

the best quality health care at reasonable cost. 

As the current Congress struggles 

with matters related to the ailing 

economy, many Americans are finding 

it exceedingly difficult to access health 

care which they find to be both expensive and inefficient. While it is clear 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

that health IT alone will not reduce all 

excessive costs or address every inefficiency, one must understand that the 

only way to achieve either goal is to 

have access to the type of coordinated 

information that a fully integrated 

health care system would provide. In 

fact, the information we will obtain 

through health IT is essential to 

achieve such goals as improving quality and reforming provider payment. 

This is the foundation for our work on 

health reform. 

When the Medicare and Medicaid programs began, we could have only 

dreamed about computerized clinical 

information systems. Today, we have 

this technology at our disposal, and I 

strongly believe that we cannot afford 

to delay implementation. In fact, as we 

face challenges in the financing of 

these vital federal programs, this is exactly the sort of initiative which will 

enable us to achieve the fundamental 

improvements to make our health entitlements more fiscally secure. 

I hope my colleagues will join us in 

support of this legislation so we may 

soon achieve the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs. 

By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, 

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. 

LEAHY, Mr. REID, Ms. SNOWE, 

Mr. DODD, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Mr. REED, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BROWN, 

Mr. BYRD, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. 

LEVIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. KOHL, Mr. 

LIEBERMAN, Mr. AKAKA, Mrs. 

FEINSTEIN, Mr. DORGAN, Mrs. 

BOXER, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. 

WYDEN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. JOHNSON, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. CARPER, 

Ms. STABENOW, Ms. CANTWELL, 

Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. 

LAUTENBERG, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. 

MENENDEZ, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. 

WEBB, Mr. CASEY, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. MCCASKILL, 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TESTER, 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 

UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. WARNER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. 

MERKLEY, Mrs. HAGAN, Mr. 

BEGICH, and Mr. PRYOR): 

S. 181. A bill to amend title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 

1967, and to modify the operation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to 

clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice 

that is unlawful under such Acts occurs 

each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for 

other purposes; read the first time. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I’m 

proud to join Senator MIKULSKI in introducing this legislation. Equal pay 

for equal work is a fundamental civil 

right. Over the past 4 decades, America 

has made enormous progress toward 

ensuring that all its people have an 

equal chance to enjoy the benefits of 

this great Nation. Bipartisan civil 

rights bills have been enacted to expand and strengthen the law to ensure 

fair pay for all workers. Despite these 

advances, civil rights is still America’s 

unfinished business. It is therefore fitting that we open the 111th Congress 

with introduction of the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 

This bill will restore the basic right 

of all workers, regardless of their race, 

sex, religion, national origin, age, or 

disability, to be paid fairly, free from 

discrimination. It will restore workers’ 

rights to challenge ongoing discrimination and hold unscrupulous employers 

accountable. 

This legislation is needed because the 

Supreme Court turned back our Nation’s progress on equal pay with its 

Ledbetter decision, which undermined 

a core protection of Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and overturned 

decades of precedent that had established a fair, workable rule for challenging pay discrimination claims. 

This needed bill will restore the longstanding rule that each discriminatory 

paycheck is a separate wrong that may 

be challenged by workers within the required period after receiving the check. 

In the Ledbetter case, a jury had found 

that Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than 

her male coworkers because she was a 

woman. The jury awarded back pay to 

Ms. Ledbetter, but the Supreme Court 

reversed that award, holding that she 

had waited too long and should have 

filed her lawsuit within a short time 

after Goodyear first began discriminating against her. Never mind that 

the company discriminated against her 

for decades, and that the discrimination continued with each new paycheck 

she received. 

Far too often, workers like Lilly 

Ledbetter put in a fair day’s work, but 

go home with less than a fair day’s 

pay. Women, African-American, and 

Latino workers all earn a fraction of 

what white male workers make. Many 

qualified older workers and workers 

with disabilities also are paid less than 

their coworkers for reasons unrelated 

to their performance on the job. 

It’s more important than ever that 

we attack the problem of pay discrimination and correct the injustice caused 

by the Ledbetter decision. In the current economic crisis, millions of American workers are struggling to make 

ends meet. Pay discrimination makes 

that struggle harder, and workers can’t 

afford to lose more economic ground. 

To protect these workers, we must 

move quickly to pass the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 

I urge my colleagues, Republicans 

and Democrats alike, to do so, and to 

send a strong signal that this new Congress is dedicated to standing up for 

fairness and equality in the workplace. 

The Lilly Ledbetters of our Nation deserve no less. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to join Senators MIKULSKI, 

KENNEDY, SNOWE and others in introducing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 

Restoration Act of 2009. This legislation is long overdue and I am pleased 

that the majority leader will try again 

to move this legislation in the opening 

days of this new Congress. The Supreme Court’s divided decision in 

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our country. More than 40 

years ago, Congress acted to protect 

women and others against discrimination in the workplace. In the 21st century, equal pay for equal work should 

be a given in this country. Unfortunately, the reality is still far from this 

basic principle. American women still 

earn only 77 cents for every dollar 

earned by a male counterpart. That decreases to 62 cents on the dollar for African-American women and just 53 

cents on the dollar for Hispanic-American women. 

For nearly 20 years, Ms. Ledbetter 

was a manager at a Goodyear factory 

in Gadsden, Alabama. After decades of 

service, she learned through an anonymous note that her employer had been 

discriminating against her for years. 

She was the only woman among 16 employees at her management level, yet 

Ms. Ledbetter was paid between 15 and 

40 percent less than all of her male colleagues, including several who had significantly less seniority. After filing a 

complaint with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, a Federal 

jury found that Ms. Ledbetter was 

owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, 5 members of the Supreme Court 

overturned her jury verdict because she 

had filed her lawsuit more than 180 

days after her employer’s original discriminatory act. 

I was honored to invite Ms. Ledbetter 

to testify at a Judiciary Committee 

hearing I chaired in September to examine how the Supreme Court’s recent 

decisions have affected the lives of ordinary Americans. Ms. Ledbetter’s case 

is but one example of how the Supreme 

Court has dramatically misinterpreted 

the intent of Congress and offered a liability shield to corporate wrong-doers. 

This decision is yet another example 

of the Supreme Court’s increasing willingness to overturn juries who hear the 

factual evidence and decide cases. A recent study revealed that in employment discrimination cases, Federal 

courts of appeal are 5 times more likely to overturn an employee’s favorable 

trial verdict against an employer than 

they are to overturn a verdict in favor 

of the corporation. That is a startling 

disparity for those of us who expect 

employees and employers to be treated 

fairly by the judges sitting on our appellate courts. 

In the 110th Congress, the House 

passed the bipartisan Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act by a vote of 225–199. In 

the Senate, despite the support of 57 

Senators who urged its consideration, 

the majority of Republican Senators 

objected to even proceeding to consideration of this bipartisan measure. One 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
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