[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 5 (Sunday, January 11, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S263-S271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DESIGNATING CERTAIN LAND COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS 
                 PRESERVATION SYSTEM--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate shall resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 22, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 2 p.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand I now will be proceeding as 
though in morning business for 5 minutes; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, he may use the time to be charged against 
the majority.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S264]]

                          Obama Recovery Plan

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, President-elect Obama gave a powerful and 
visionary speech last Thursday on the Federal Government's role in 
creating short-term jobs and in making long-term investments for future 
jobs.
  To be successful, that short- and long-term investment program must 
include programs to revitalize the American manufacturing sector. Many 
of us have urged the implementation of a national manufacturing policy 
for years without success during the 8 Bush years--years of neglect of 
this vital sector of our economy that saw our Nation lose 3.7 million 
manufacturing jobs.
  An American Manufacturing Initiative requires a true government 
partnership with the private sector--a partnership that recognizes that 
our companies are not competing with companies overseas but instead 
competing with countries whose governments support manufacturing.
  A prime example of that support is in the area of advanced technology 
vehicles and advanced batteries. The President-elect said last Thursday 
that we must spark the ``creation of a clean energy'' economy. He said 
further that ``we will put Americans to work in new jobs,'' including 
``constructing fuel efficient cars.''
  Investing in green energy technologies will provide a double benefit 
of job creation and reduction of CO2. Wind and solar are 
repeatedly cited as the prime targets for such investment, and they 
should be. But there is another important technology that is not 
mentioned that should be at the top of the list, and that is batteries.
  The production of future green vehicles in the United States will 
involve a significant number of green manufacturing jobs, and because 
transportation is one of the greatest sources of CO2, a 
major shift to these vehicles will result in a significant reduction in 
greenhouse gas emissions. Such a shift from our current gasoline-
powered light duty fleet of cars and SUVs to electric drive vehicles 
such as hybrid electric, plug-in hybrids, and all-electric vehicles 
would cut our liquid fuel consumption by 83 percent, significantly 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  But while descriptions of economic recovery programs so far talk of 
tax credits for purchase of such vehicles, what is missing to date is 
commitment to fund grants for development and production of the 
batteries that will likely determine whether these vehicles are 
ultimately made in the U.S.
  Because the heart of these green cars will be their batteries. As the 
Nation makes a serious push toward greater use of hybrid electric, 
plug-in hybrid vehicles, and all-electric vehicles, there will be 
increasing demand for the advanced batteries that will power these 
vehicles. We must ensure that we can meet the demand for production of 
these batteries here in the U.S.
  The upcoming economic recovery package needs to devote a minimum of 
$1 billion to grants to support advanced battery production in the 
United States. The lithium ion battery is at the heart of that effort. 
While most of the technology was first invented in the U.S., nearly all 
of those batteries currently produced come from Pacific Rim countries 
as a result of years of financial support from their governments.
  One may ask why we need additional funds for grants for advanced 
battery development and manufacturing, when the Congress has already 
provided funding for loans for the retooling of facilities to produce 
advanced technology vehicles and has provided funding for loan 
guarantees for advanced energy technologies. The answer is that we need 
grant funding now to jump start development of a U.S. manufacturing 
base for advanced batteries before all of their production goes off 
shore. Loans and loan guarantees can be important provided they are not 
just authorized but funded, but they cannot match grants other 
countries offer.
  We took a step in this direction in sections 641, 132, and 136 of the 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, when Congress authorized 
grants for advanced battery development, grants for conversion of 
domestic manufacturing capability to produce advanced technology 
vehicle components and grants for retooling of facilities to produce 
advanced technology vehicles. But we faltered because we failed to 
appropriate funds for the programs we had authorized. It is these grant 
programs that we must now fund to spur and assure that the production 
of the advanced batteries that are the heart of green cars will be here 
in the U.S.
  The country or region that controls and dominates the production of 
batteries will also ultimately control green vehicle production. An 
example of this is already occurring today in the U.S. where production 
of the American-made Ford Escape hybrid is limited because Toyota 
controls the production of batteries and, therefore, the number of 
batteries provided for the Ford Escape.
  We are at a critical juncture in the commercialization of advanced 
battery technology. Even as we deliberate an economic recovery bill, 
vehicle manufacturers are moving toward decisions on where to purchase 
the next generation of batteries. Battery manufacturers are at this 
moment assessing the battery production options in the U.S. and other 
countries.
  Hope for a robust economic recovery in the industrial sector requires 
us to develop advanced batteries here in the U.S. We cannot afford to 
lose their development and production to other countries that are 
willing to offer greater financial incentives than we are. If we offer 
loans while other countries offer grants, we could lose the battle for 
green vehicle production to other countries, not because they produce 
more efficiently or cheaply or produce better quality but because they 
are willing to offer attractive incentives such as grants.
  We have the technology and ingenuity and infrastructure to build a 
thriving green manufacturing sector that can create millions of jobs 
here in America. But it will require significant government support to 
match the support other countries offer.
  If we fail to provide major grants for advanced battery development 
and production, we will not only fail in an area of immediate and 
significant job creation. We will also end up substituting dependency 
on a different form of imported energy--batteries--for our current 
dependency on foreign oil.
  I cannot overstate the critical urgency of this matter and will 
continue to press this matter in the days ahead.
  I thank Senator Bingaman and others for the time and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation and 
willingness to work with me of the Senator from New Mexico. He has been 
a gentleman throughout. We have always had conversations; we just 
haven't agreed on what we have done. It has been a pleasure to work 
with him.
  Here is a 1,300-page bill. People are going to say a lot of this has 
been around for a long time, that it doesn't need any debate, that it 
certainly should not be amended, but it is 1,300 pages. The CBO has 
refused to score this one. The last one they scored was between $6 and 
$8 billion. This is somewhere between $10 and $12 billion, especially 
when we take the outyears beyond 10 years out of it. So here we sit 
with a 1,300-page bill that has 45 blatant earmarks in it with no 
ability to amend.
  Since July 16, save one time in September, the minority has not been 
allowed to offer an amendment on any bill. In 180 days, we have had one 
amendment. No amendments could be offered. It was announced that 
cloture would be filed prior to even this vote so that we are going to 
cut off debate. We could have finished this bill last Friday with four 
or five amendments. We offered 12 amendments and the thought was that 
we shouldn't.
  My concern is, is there reason to hope for change? A lot of my 
colleagues on my side of the aisle have things that are important to 
them in the bill. The question the American people ought to be asking 
is, with 165 bills, 1,300 pages, is now the time for us to set in 
motion to take an additional 2.2 million acres out of energy production 
and limit energy exposure to about 5 or 6 million more acres, and raise 
the total number of wilderness acres to 2 million greater than that we 
have in total development in the country? How long ago was it we had 
$4-a-gallon gasoline? Do we not think that is going to come back?

  So on process grounds, for the ability to amend or at least have a 
vote on an amendment to see whether we think we

[[Page S265]]

ought to be long range in our thinking, I have no doubt President-elect 
Obama wants to see change, he wants to see change here, he has given 
our country renewed hope, but the first thing out of the box will be 
our same old habits.
  For a good portion of this bill, there is nothing wrong. The chairman 
knows there are a large number of bills in this bill to which I do not 
have any objection. But I certainly have some objection to us tying our 
hand behind our back on energy in the future, which we will do in 
tremendous ways. My colleagues from Wyoming, and their plans for 
protecting a very pristine wild area, want to do a good thing, but it 
can be done better and still preserve tremendous amounts of oil and 
natural gas in this country.
  So we are here today for the first time in 40 years on a new weekend 
of a first session--the first time in 40 years--and we are going to use 
it to force through a 1,300-page, $10 billion bill with $915 million in 
mandatory spending--at a minimum because we did not score it past that; 
it is going to go about $3 billion total above that--without a single 
amendment being allowed to debate and vote on.
  As I said, it has been 120 days since the last amendment, 180 days 
since the last two amendments the minority has been allowed to offer as 
an amendment to a bill. When you count Republican and Democratic 
Senators throughout the country, you have 156 million people 
represented by Republicans. Yet they are shut off from having an 
amendment on the floor of the Senate--the greatest deliberative body in 
the world--from having the ability to amend. That is not change.
  The other problem is our priorities are wrong. We presently have a 
$9.6 billion backlog in our national parks. They are hurting. The 
backlog since this time last year has grown by $400 million. With this 
bill, we are going to load down the National Park Service with 
spending, administrative fees, doing all sorts of important things. The 
Clinton birthplace, one which today is run through private funds, we 
are going to ask the American taxpayer to now pay for it. We are going 
to spend $3.5 million to help St. Augustine, FL, have a birthday party 
6 years from now. That cannot be our priority. It cannot be.
  But what we have done is we have put together a bill so we can build 
a broad basis of consensus to pass it, with everybody holding their 
nose on everything except on their own thing. Everybody would admit 
this is not a priority for this country at this time. As a matter of 
fact, if we were really doing what we should be doing, we should be 
working on getting out of the economic mess we are in rather than 
creating additional barriers and consequences from the actions we are 
going to take with this bill.
  When you think about the national parks and you think about the 
visitor center in Hawaii with the USS Arizona that is sinking--and in a 
couple years we are not even going to be able to honor that tremendous 
site because we do not have and will not have put the funds there to 
take care of the problems--how is that a priority? Mr. President, 1,117 
Americans died on the USS Arizona, and the Senate sits today to spend 
$10 billion on a large number of things that are not a priority and do 
not have anything to do with the heritage of sacrifice that so proudly 
and visibly is demonstrated by that memorial.
  The Grand Canyon National Park has a $299 million backlog. Trails are 
closed because we cannot maintain them. The National Mall, in this very 
city, has a $700 million backlog in maintenance. Without even 
considering those things and putting them in priority--one of the 
things I love about Barack Obama is he gets it that you have to do the 
long-term things and you have to have a priority and you have to be 
transparent as you go about that so the American people can make a 
judgement on us. Yet, without a single effort to prioritize spending or 
honor commitment to our national resources, we are about to add to the 
burden 10 new heritage areas; 4 new units to the National Park Service; 
14 studies to create and expand more National Park Service; 80 
wilderness designations, which are an additional 2.2 million acres of 
Federal land--the Federal Government owns 660 million acres right now; 
it is the largest expansion in wilderness areas in the last 25 years--
92 wild and scenic river designations affecting 1,100 miles of 
shoreline, and every one of those designations will markedly impact our 
attempts at some sort of energy independence. You cannot deny that it 
will have an impact. It will have an impact. It will make it much more 
difficult, even with clean technology and even with alternative energy, 
to bring that energy to the American people.
  Another significant component of this bill is it massively threatens 
property rights in this country. Over 100 different property rights 
organizations are in opposition to this bill, and for good reason. 
Because even though several of the bills in here prohibit the use of 
eminent domain, the vast majority of them do not, and several recommend 
that eminent domain be used to accomplish their purpose. The Government 
owns 1 out of 3 acres in the U.S. and 1 out of 2 acres in the West. 
Eminent domain, whether it be from wilderness areas, heritage areas, 
national wild and scenic rivers, national trails, will have a major 
impact on anybody living close or in somewhat proximity to any of these 
new designations because, in fact, they are impacted, even outside of 
it. In testimony before the Energy Committee, it was stated by the Park 
Service and several others that, in fact, they will use that to lessen 
the effect and impact on these new designations.
  Let me outline some of the other authorizations we are making in this 
bill. I know my colleagues disagree with me on authorizing versus what 
they mean on appropriations, but the fact is, if you read the press 
releases of Members of this body, when we authorize, they tell the 
people at home we are going to spend it.
  We are going to estimate $1 billion for a water project in California 
that is 84 years old that will never accomplish what it is supposed to 
and will have a major impact on 10,000 agricultural entities and impact 
over $2 billion worth of commerce--$2 billion in commerce--and that $1 
billion is just the start of annual mandatory expenditures in the 
future.
  There is $5 million--and I know the Acting President pro tempore is 
very interested in this, but we have to ask the question--to create a 
way to limit the impact of wolves on our cattle ranchers in Montana, 
Wyoming, and Idaho. We created it. Is that a priority for us right now, 
to compensate ranchers who lose cattle to wild wolves? Should that be 
where we are spending our money right now, especially when everybody 
will agree at the end of this next year, on full accounting, at the end 
of the next fiscal year, we are going to be close to a $1.8 trillion 
deficit? Should we annually spend that money? Should we create another 
Federal program that is going to dole out money--not that maybe we 
should not do that, but is now the time to do it? Is now the time to 
put it in the row of saying: Here is where we are going to spend our 
money.
  There is $250,000 to study whether Alexander Hamilton's boyhood home 
in Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, should be designated as a new 
national park. Should we spend that money now? Once we authorize that, 
that is going to come through the National Park Service and they are 
going to expend the money. They are going to do what Congress tells 
them to do.
  There is $12 or $14 million for a new garden for our arboretum to 
make sure we have taken care of orchids. We should probably do that at 
some point in time, but is now the time to do that?
  We have 100 environmental groups that think we should not challenge 
this road through the wilderness in Alaska to one city when we already 
have an alternate method of transportation. Yet we are going to do that 
in this bill because we have put it together. Everybody holds their 
nose and votes.
  We are going to authorize the expenditure of money to discover old 
shipwrecks. We should be doing that now? That is a priority for the 
Congress and the country in the condition in which we find ourselves?
  I believe many things in this bill, this 1,300 pages, we ought to do. 
But if you went through and polled the average American on everything 
in this bill, what they would say is: It is probably not worth it for 
me to get what my State wants and give on all these other things.
  We are going to lose 300 million barrels of proven oil reserves. 
There is no

[[Page S266]]

question about that. The data used by the U.S. Geological Survey is old 
data. They admitted it is old data. We are going to lose energy, the 
access to it. We are going to lose the ability to access future energy 
reserves. But, most of all, what we are going to do is we are going to 
disappoint the American people because things have not changed. What is 
a priority for us here in terms of political benefit at home is going 
to trump doing what is in the best interest, in the long-term interest 
of the country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will vote to invoke cloture on 
the motion to proceed so that we can debate, amend, and consider the 
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, S. 22. I hope that my 
colleagues and I will be given the chance to amend this bill as I have 
reservations about supporting its final passage in its current form.
  While I appreciate the chairman's efforts to make improvements, I 
intend to cosponsor an amendment to strike a troublesome provision that 
would authorize the transfer of Federal land in the Izembek National 
Wildlife Refuge--a designated wilderness area and internationally 
recognized Ramsar site--so that a road could be built. The road is 
purportedly to allow travel between two Alaskan communities in cases of 
medical emergencies. However, Congress has already appropriated more 
than $36 million to provide a hovercraft, which I am told crosses Cold 
Bay in about 20 minutes and to date has met every medical evacuation 
need in all weather conditions--over 30. The road, on the other hand, 
would need to avoid the numerous ponds and priority wetland areas--
taking one to two hours to drive--and would not provide safer, faster, 
or more cost-effective transportation than the hovercraft.
  I am also troubled by the addition of a provision that has been 
considered by neither the House nor the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, a prerequisite for all the other public lands 
bills in the package. The Washington County provision was air-dropped 
into this legislation. It is unfortunate that the wilderness 
designations in the provision fall well short of the wilderness-quality 
land in the county that should be protected. This public lands bill 
only proposes to designate 44 percent of what is included in the 
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, which I have been pleased to join 
Senator Durbin in supporting. Furthermore, this public lands package 
omits a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously 
agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act 
of 2008, S. 2834.
  This bill certainly has many good provisions, but I hope we can work 
to improve this important piece of legislation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Bingaman, 
Domenici, and Murkowski for their excellent leadership in putting 
together this package, and Senator Reid for his commitment to seeking 
its passage on the floor. I would just like to say a few words about my 
three wilderness bills in the package: the California Desert and 
Mountain Heritage Act, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park 
Wilderness Act, and the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild 
Heritage Act.
  But first, since the economy is on all our minds right now, I just 
want to talk a little about the economic importance of these wilderness 
areas.
  The Outdoor Industry Foundation estimates that outdoor recreation 
contributes $730 billion per year to the United States' economy and 
supports nearly 6.5 million jobs. Recreation specifically in wilderness 
areas produces at least $630 million annually, according to a report by 
Colorado State University resource economists.
  The economic benefit of wilderness areas extends far beyond these 
types of direct uses. People are drawn to living in areas with scenic 
beauty, opportunities for recreation, and a high quality of life 
bringing new jobs and consumer spending to rural counties.
  Articles in the journals ``Population and Environment'' and the 
``International Journal of Wilderness'' have documented that population 
growth, increases in employment, and wage increases in rural counties 
of the western United States are all significantly correlated with the 
percent of wilderness land in these counties. And property values are 
almost 13 percent higher in locations adjacent to wilderness.
  When you include indirect economic benefits and ecosystem services 
such as protecting watersheds or filtering waste, wilderness areas 
produce a staggering $3 to $4.5 billion per year. Colleagues, let me be 
clear--protecting wilderness does not hurt our economy--it is an 
investment into our future.
  Now I want to tell you a little about each of my three wilderness 
bills and why it is so important that we pass them as part of this 
package. These are bipartisan, bicameral bills that will preserve some 
of California's and the nation's most magnificent places for 
generations to come. I have worked with Senator Feinstein and our 
colleagues in the House on each of these bills for over 2 years, 
finding the right balance for the conservation, development, and 
recreational needs in these areas.
  The California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act, written with 
Representative Mary Bono Mack, protects some of the last wild places in 
Riverside County--one of the fastest-growing counties in California.
  My bill creates four new wilderness areas and expands six existing 
wilderness areas, including the Joshua Tree National Park Wilderness 
with its unique Mohave Desert ecosystem.
  It designates segments of four rivers as wild and scenic--including 
the North Fork of the San Jacinto Creek, and adds four parcels to the 
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
  These areas exemplify the incredible diversity of desert and mountain 
habitats in southern California, ranging from the sandy, pristine 
deserts of the Palen-McCoy region, to the rugged, varied topography of 
the Orocopia Mountains, to aptly-named Beauty Mountain.
  In total, the bill protects more than 220,000 acres of public lands 
and 31 miles of rivers in some of the most spectacular natural areas of 
California.
  And according to estimates by the Wilderness Society based on data 
from the United States Forest Service, this legislation could generate 
an additional 120 to 157 jobs and $3.6 to $5.7 million in annual income 
in Riverside County.
  The Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act, written with 
Representatives Jim Costa and Devin Nunes, would protect spectacular 
high Sierra lands in the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 
including the incomparable Mineral King Valley, majestic granite peaks, 
deep canyons, one of the largest cavern systems in the Western United 
States, and magnificent forests of ancient Sequoias.
  The centerpiece of this bill is the 39,740-acre John Krebs Wilderness 
Area, which includes the Mineral King Valley. This wilderness area will 
be named after former Congressman Krebs, a man of extraordinary 
political courage, who wrote the 1978 law establishing a national park 
to protect this magnificent area from development as a ski resort.
  The bill also designates 45,000 acres of public land within other 
areas of the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park as wilderness.
  This area has some of California's most unique geological features, 
ranging from the largest grove of Sequoias on Redwood Mountain, to 
Lilburn Cave--part of the most extensive network of caverns in the 
western United States.
  This legislation will ensure that these beautiful areas will be 
sustained and preserved as part of America's identity and rich natural 
heritage.
  Applying the economic model of Colorado State University economist 
John Loomis to this bill, this bill could generate at least 50 jobs and 
$1.3 million per year in Tulare County.
  And finally, the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild 
Heritage Act, written with Representative Buck McKeon, will preserve 
the magnificent mountains, rivers, and open spaces of California's 
Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Mountains.
  The bill establishes approximately 470,000 acres of wilderness in 
Mono, Inyo, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties through new 
designations and expansions.
  These areas include the high desert mountain and alpine tundra of the 
majestic White Mountains, the classic

[[Page S267]]

high Sierra landscape of the Hoover Wilderness area, the dramatic 
eastern escarpment and trout-producing streams of the John Muir 
Wilderness, and the pristine Owens River Headwaters in the Ansel Adams 
Wilderness.
  The bill also designates approximately 74 miles of wild and scenic 
rivers, including the Upper Owens River--one of the most important 
river systems in the Eastern Sierras, which supports one of America's 
finest and most economically valuable trout fisheries--and the Amargosa 
River--the only major river flowing into Death Valley National Park.
  In addition to the Eastern Sierra, the bill also protects about 
40,000 acres in the Magic Mountain and Pleasant View Ridge areas, and 
seven miles of Piru Creek--one of the few year-round trout fishing 
streams in southern California. These areas are all located within Los 
Angeles County, one of the most urban and densely populated areas of 
our country.
  While preserving some open spaces near these urban areas, we have 
been careful to accommodate their current and future development needs. 
We have worked closely with the Los Angeles Department of Water and 
Power and other utilities to exclude their facilities from these 
wilderness areas, ensuring that the water and power needs of California 
residents will continue to be met now and in the future.
  And this bill will provide substantial economic benefits. According 
to estimates by the Wilderness Society based on data from the United 
States Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land 
Management, this legislation could generate an additional 2800 jobs and 
over $700 million per year in Mono and Inyo Counties.
  These three bills protect some of the most breathtaking places in 
California, areas that provide a refuge for birdwatchers, hikers, 
campers, equestrians, fishermen, and other visitors looking to escape 
our crowded, fast-paced cities to enjoy the tranquility of nature.
  These areas also provide critically important habitat for a multitude 
of wildlife and plants, many of which are found nowhere else on Earth. 
Bighorn sheep, mule deer, mountain lions, bald eagles, and desert 
tortoises are all found in areas protected by these bills.
  Moreover, by protecting important source waters for California's 
drinking water and areas of open space and fresh air, these bills will 
help protect water and air quality for our ever-expanding urban areas.
  And just as importantly, these bills will have economic benefits, not 
only protecting California's recreation economy but stimulating jobs 
and increasing property values in the regions surrounding these 
wilderness areas.
  All of these bills have bipartisan, bicameral, and diverse support. 
They have been developed in close consultation with local communities, 
elected officials, recreational organizations, businesses, federal and 
state agencies, and local property owners--and have received numerous 
endorsements from these groups.
  These bills have broad support from local communities and would not 
impact the use of private lands in these counties. They would simply 
improve the protection of existing Forest Service, National Park 
Service, or Bureau of Land Management lands.
  The areas in these bills are truly magnificent places representing 
California's incredible range of landscapes and habitats. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
enact this package into law and protect these treasures for future 
generations of Americans.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support passage of S. 22, 
the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. In particular, I wish 
to express my thanks to the bill's managers for including title XII, 
consisting of five critical oceans bills: the Coastal and Ocean 
Observation System Act, the NOAA Ocean Exploration and Undersea 
Research Program Act, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and 
Monitoring Act, the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Protection Act, and the 
Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act. Together, these will have a 
substantial positive impact on management of our Nation's ocean and 
coastal resources and will enhance the efficiency of maritime 
industries and our ocean conservation efforts.
  For over a decade, I have served as ranking member of the Senate 
subcommittee with jurisdiction over our oceans. In the 110th Congress, 
all five of these bills passed unanimously out of the Commerce 
Committee, but failed to pass the full Senate, despite the fact that 
their benefits will extend far beyond the coastal zone and accrue to 
the nation as a whole. From the enhanced weather and climate 
forecasting and efficiency of maritime transportation that will result 
from an improved ocean observing system to the discoveries waiting to 
be found in the depths of the world's seas, the programs authorized and 
enhanced by this legislation will deliver economic and scientific 
benefits for generations to come.
  Oceans cover nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface, and have 
great influence over our lives. They shape our weather and climate 
systems, provide highways for international and domestic commerce, 
sustain rich living and nonliving resources on which many of our 
livelihoods are based, and provide our nation over 95,000 miles of 
shoreline which is the backbone of tourist and recreational activities 
in many coastal states. Despite the constant, intricate interaction 
between our lives on land and the natural systems of the ocean, we know 
woefully little about the physical properties of the enormous liquid 
surface of our planet. We literally know more about the landscape of 
the moon than we do about the oceans' depths. What lies over the 
horizon and beneath the waves remains, by most accounts, a mystery.
  And yet, the effects of those mysterious systems can be devastating. 
In recent years, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters have 
devastated regions of our Nation, and other parts of the world. Today, 
we have the technology to monitor a wide range of ocean-based threats, 
from destructive storms to quieter dangers such as harmful algal blooms 
and man-made pollution. The purpose of the Coastal Ocean Observing 
System Act is to put that technology to work predicting these threats 
more accurately and, when possible, mitigating their effects.
  This bipartisan, science-based bill, derived from legislation I first 
introduced in 2003, would authorize the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to coordinate an interagency 
network of ocean observing and communication systems around U.S. 
coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and 
information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind 
speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other 
variables--that are essential to marine science and resource management 
and can be used to improve maritime safety, transportation, and 
commerce. Such data would improve both short-term forecasting that can 
mitigate the effects of major disasters, and prediction and scientific 
analysis of long-term ocean and climate trends. A 2004 study of the 
Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System showed that six dollars returned 
to the regional economy for every dollar invested. Passage of this 
legislation would allow this system and the others like it around the 
country and the globe to continue to grow and provide vital services to 
the world's maritime community.
  Of course, the need to access this type of information is not limited 
to the Gulf of Maine. In June 2006, the Joint Ocean Commission 
Initiative, made up of members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the 
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, presented to Congress a list of the 
``top 10'' actions Congress should take to strengthen our ocean policy 
regime. One of those priorities was ``enact legislation to authorize 
and fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System.''
  While my ocean observing legislation will greatly enhance our ability 
to analyze and disseminate oceanographic and meteorological data, we 
also face a shortfall in our Nation's ability to explore vast regions 
of our undersea territory. Nearly 3 years ago, the U.S. Commission on 
Ocean Policy released its longwaited report, which noted that 
approximately 95 percent of the ocean's floor remains uncharted 
territory. If past experience is any indication, fascinating 
discoveries await us in these vast unexplored areas. These regions are 
sure to include species of marine life that are currently unknown to 
science, archaeological and historical

[[Page S268]]

artifacts that can shed new light on our past, and marine resources 
that may support the ongoing quest for a sustainable future.
  In 2004, the U.S. Ocean Policy Commissioners called for enhanced, 
comprehensive national programs in ocean exploration, undersea 
research, and ocean and coastal mapping. The vision of the 
Commissioners, one that I share, is for well-funded and 
interdisciplinary programs. Such programs are currently being led by 
NOAA, with significant input from partners in other agencies, academia, 
and industry, but currently they lack formal Congressional 
authorization. This legislation would establish those programs, and 
provide a strong foundation upon which we can continue to expand the 
quest for knowledge to areas of the planet that have literally never 
been seen by human eyes. I look forward to seeing these efforts 
enhanced under this legislation.
  I would also like to acknowledge my support for three other oceans 
bills included in this package: the Federal Ocean Acidification 
Research and Monitoring Act, the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Protection 
Act, and the Ocean and Coastal Mapping and Integration Act. All will be 
integral to enhancing our Nation's coasts and oceans. Once more, I 
would like to thank Senator Bingaman for agreeing to include these 
bills in this package, and Senate leadership for bringing this vital 
package to the floor to give us the opportunity to pass these bills so 
critical to the future of our oceans.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Nineteen minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 9 minutes of that time. 
If the Acting President pro tempore would alert me when the 9 minutes 
is up, I would appreciate it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will vote on 
whether to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 22, the 
Omnibus Public Lands Act. This is a package of over 160 bills that 
primarily consists of public land, national park, and water development 
bills that were reported last Congress by our Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Consideration of these bills has been delayed for a long period, and 
I strongly support moving forward expeditiously with this package, 
beginning this afternoon with this vote to invoke cloture on the motion 
to proceed to consideration of the bill.
  The package has been developed on a bipartisan basis. First, it was 
developed in consultation with Senator Domenici, who at the time was 
the ranking member of the Energy Committee, and this year it has been 
developed in consultation with Senator Murkowski, who is expected to 
have that same position once our committee assignments are finalized.
  As developed last Congress, this package includes roughly an even 
number of bills sponsored by Democrats and Republicans or by a 
combination of both. Although the package of bills was introduced just 
a few days ago, for purposes of transparency the entire text of this 
legislation was put on the Web site for the Energy Committee, which is 
energy.senate.gov, for anyone to review. It has been there now for 
several days. However, the history of the 160 bills that are 
incorporated in this legislation goes back much further.
  Last Congress, almost 500 bills were referred to the Energy 
Committee, about half of which dealt with public land and water 
resource issues. Over the course of the last Congress, the committee 
held over 40 public hearings on those bills. They were marked up over 
the course of five separate business meetings. Up until the past few 
years, once a committee had approved a group of bills of this type--
especially when that approval was unanimous, as was the case in most 
all of the legislation being considered--the bills would be taken up 
and passed by the Senate by unanimous consent. As everyone is aware, we 
are no longer able to move bills in that fashion in the Senate.
  Some of my colleagues may remember that the Senate took up and passed 
a different package of public land bills last year in an effort to send 
as many bills to the President as possible and to do the work that 
needed doing out of our committee. That package included only the bills 
that had been passed already by the House of Representatives. It was my 
intent at that time--and I stated that it was--to bring to the Senate 
the Senate-introduced bills shortly thereafter--the ones that had 
passed our committee.
  Unfortunately, the time demands in the Senate did not allow that to 
happen, so we are now trying to do the work of the last Congress in the 
first few days of this Congress. In my view, it is time to pass these 
bills and move on.
  Some have suggested these bills are not a priority and not deserving 
of the Senate's time. I disagree strongly. Many of the bills in this 
package resolve major land and water policy issues that have been 
contested for many years and, in some cases, for decades. Ask any 
Senator who has spent years working through these issues. Ask Senator 
Wyden about the Mount Hood wilderness bill or Senator Crapo about the 
Owyhee Canyonlands bill or Senator Bennett about his Washington County 
lands bills or the Navajo Indian Water Settlement Act, on which I 
worked hard and on which my colleague, Senator Udall, has worked hard 
in his previous service in the House of Representatives.
  While the individual bills in the package were initially developed at 
the local level, the combination of these 160 bills reflects possibly 
the most significant conservation legislation passed by the Senate in 
the past decade. This Omnibus Public Lands Management Act will result 
in the addition of over 2 million new acres to the National Wilderness 
Preservation System. It will establish three new units of the National 
Park System. It will enlarge more than a dozen existing areas, 
establish a new national monument, and three new national conservation 
areas could be administered by the BLM. It adds over 1,000 miles to the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, one of the largest additions to 
that system ever achieved. It will add four new trails to the National 
Trails System, a combined addition of over 2,800 miles of new trails. 
In addition to addressing important public land issues, S. 22 also 
includes 30 provisions that will help address water resource issues 
across the country and particularly in the West.
  A few minutes ago I referred to the importance of the Navajo Indian 
Water Rights Settlement in the State of New Mexico. There is no more 
important legislation to the Navajo people than this legislation. The 
unfortunate reality is that nearly 40 percent of Navajo people today 
live below the poverty line and have no ready access to drinking water. 
We need to solve that problem. This legislation takes a major step in 
solving that problem. This is a high priority for my State of New 
Mexico, and for that reason I strongly support it.
  Equally important, the bill includes numerous provisions to improve 
Federal land management and to help local communities throughout the 
West. The bill will establish a forest landscape restoration program to 
promote collaborative landscape restoration to reduce fire risks and 
fire costs.
  Most of the newly designated wilderness areas are located in Western 
States. I understand and support the need to maintain a robust energy 
development program. The latest information we have from the Geological 
Survey is there are not 300 million barrels of oil per day being put at 
risk in this legislation; in fact, it is less than 5 million. So those 
figures are just erroneous from all that we have seen.
  Action on this bill has been delayed for a very long time. In my 
view, it is time for the Senate to recognize the importance of the 
individual efforts Senators have made in trying to put forward 
legislation important to their States. The national significance of 
this bill is clear. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting to invoke cloture on the bill.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 11 minutes 30 
seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I know Senator Crapo had asked for 4 
minutes. Let me yield the remaining 11

[[Page S269]]

minutes to my colleague, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, and she can 
divide that among the other Members as she chooses.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments will be brief.
  I, too, rise today to speak in favor of cloture on the motion to 
proceed to S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
  The omnibus bill has been criticized as being large--and it is a 
large pile of paper. It is almost 1,300 pages. We acknowledge that. But 
this package of bills before us today also represents a huge commitment 
of time, a large commitment of resources by the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, as well as the other four Senate committees. In the 
case of the Energy Committee, this package, along with a similar 
package that was passed by the Senate last spring, represents almost 2 
years' worth of hearings, negotiations, and business meetings on all of 
these public lands issues.
  This package contains over 160 public lands bills, the vast majority 
of which went through the regular committee process, and then sat 
individually on the Senate calendar at the end of last session. There 
were 20 Members on my side of the aisle who were the primary sponsors 
of the bills in this package. Many more of them are cosponsors. 
Clearly, when you have this many individual pieces of legislation, this 
bill--this package--does a great many things. It covers the full range 
of the committee's public lands jurisdictions, whether it be from small 
boundary adjustments and land exchanges to large wilderness 
designations.
  Some will argue that the number of bills contained in this package is 
bad and that somehow this is new and unprecedented. The Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources has traditionally been the most prolific 
committee in the Senate with regard to substantive legislation. The 
President pro tempore knows that; he serves on this committee. There 
are some who may claim it is bad to be advancing so much legislation, 
but for those of us from the Western States that contain large amounts 
of public lands, we understand legislation such as is contained in this 
package is necessary for the day-to-day functioning of the western 
economy.
  Here, in the eastern part of the country, a farmer or a businessman 
who wants to acquire or sell new property can sign a contract. They can 
go to the courthouse. But in the West, simple transactions often take 
literally an act of Congress. That is what we see in so many of these 
individual bills that are part of S. 22.
  This bill also designates those parts of our natural landscape and 
historical structures that deserve protection. I believe we as a nation 
can maximize the development of our domestic energy resources while at 
the same time protect our Nation's other natural resources and 
wilderness. In fact, the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest 
Service have testified that none of the wilderness designations 
proposed in this legislation will negatively impact on the availability 
of oil, gas, or national energy corridors.
  Now, there is one section that does restrict oil and gas development 
in Wyoming, but it is fully supported by the Wyoming State delegation, 
as well as Governor Freudenthal, and as mentioned by the chairman, the 
amount of the potential oil is 5 million barrels, not 331 million as 
argued by some opponents.

  Furthermore, every land designation in this package was considered at 
the request of the affected State's delegation. Almost all of the lands 
in this bill are already federally managed lands, and most to be 
designated as wilderness are either within Federal parks or have been 
managed with restrictions such as wilderness study areas or 
``roadless'' areas. So, therefore, a designation as Federal wilderness 
does not further restrict uses beyond what has been in place for quite 
some time.
  This bill actually transfers 23,226 acres of Federal lands to private 
and State sectors through conveyance, exchange, or sale.
  Finally, any provisions that received a negative score from CBO have 
been removed from the bill. Now, the bill does authorize the 
expenditure of significant amounts of funding, but each of those is 
dependent on future appropriations that depend on the oversight 
provided by the Appropriations Committee and Presidential budget 
requests.
  While this process we have in front of us may not be the preferred 
method for passing legislation, I do believe overall this package will 
improve our Nation's management of its public lands and parks and will 
be a long-term benefit to our Nation. So I do respectfully request my 
fellow Members' support for passage of this important legislation.
  With that, I know Senator Crapo from Idaho and Senator Bennett also 
wish to add a few comments. How much time do we have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 6 minutes.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of S. 
22, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act.
  To call this legislation bipartisan is an understatement. This bill, 
as has been mentioned, contains over 150 individual provisions, 
sponsored by almost 50 different Members of this Chamber--nearly half. 
It represents every region of the country and has an almost equal 
number of bills from each side of the aisle. It will provide 
significant protection to existing public lands, improve recreation, 
cultural, and historic opportunities, and provide important economic 
benefits for rural economies such as in my home State of Idaho.
  Every bill in the package has gone through regular order. Most have 
had multiple hearings and markups in the Energy Committee. All are 
fully supported by the committee chairman and the ranking member. In 
fact, many of the provisions, such as my top legislative priority--the 
Owyhee initiative--are the product of years of extensive collaboration 
at the Federal, State, county, and local levels, in conjunction with 
elected officials, tribes such as the Sho Pai, businesses, community 
leaders, outdoor enthusiasts, conservationists, ranchers, landowners, 
and other stakeholders.
  Additionally, the package does not contain any bills that have a CBO 
score without an offset. This is not to say that the legislation is 
without controversy or that it is unanimously supported. Few pieces of 
legislation that pass through this Chamber are. However, while any 
omnibus package by nature will contain elements that are troubling to 
some, the Energy Committee has carefully negotiated the inclusion of 
each bill in this package to successfully reach a compromise on which 
all sides could agree.
  As with my Owyhee wilderness legislation, not everyone got exactly 
what they wanted, but the broad array of collaborators achieved enough 
of their objectives to support the whole package and get behind 
legislation that offers significant improvement to land management 
practices and a reduction in decades-old conflict.
  Similarly, this omnibus lands bill has broad support in every region 
of the country. As a result, on balance, this omnibus lands bill is 
widely supported and represents a diverse group of interests from every 
region. Recognizing this, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of cloture so that we can pass this legislation and move forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for this 
legislation even though there are bills in the package that I do not 
support.
  I oppose the National Landscape Conservation System. I might have 
preferred that it be separated out so we could have that particular 
vote. But that is not the way the committee has decided to do it, and 
this committee, in leadership of both parties, has adopted the pattern 
of packaging bills together at the end of a Congress, and that is what 
we are faced with today.
  Given that history, I rise to support the bill because most of it is 
acceptable to me, and one bill in particular is one on which I have 
been working for close to, if not more than, a decade. The issue of 
wilderness in southern Utah has been the most contentious issue I have 
had to deal with in the time I have been in the Senate. It was an issue 
in my campaign in 1992. It has aroused emotion, and, indeed, something 
stronger than emotion throughout the State for many years. Working

[[Page S270]]

with Bill Meadows and members of the National Wilderness Society, 
working with the Washington County commissioners and those on the 
ground, I am honored to have been able to help craft a compromise with 
which no one is 100 percent satisfied but which both sides in good 
faith now say is the logical thing to do.
  I would have preferred some other things in it. The chairman of the 
committee, Senator Bingaman, was rather firm in his opposition to those 
things. We will still debate those at a future time, but let's take 
what we have on the table before us. Let's consume it with gratitude 
and give thanks. It is time to see this issue put to bed and time to 
see resolution of it. People of good will acting in good faith on 
different sides of the argument have come together with an agreement 
that makes sense.
  For that reason, I stand here urging my colleagues to support the 
motion to invoke cloture, and once cloture is invoked, to support all 
of the subsequent procedural motions that will be necessary for this 
bill to become law.
  I hope it can become law while President Bush is still the President 
to demonstrate that this issue of dealing with difficult land use 
challenges in the West is not a partisan one, and a Democratic Congress 
working with a Republican President can bring closure to these 
challenges in a way that will benefit the entire country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, will you let me know when I am at 5 
minutes?
  The platform for the inauguration is almost complete. They are 
putting the finishing touches on it. I think America, with good reason, 
is excited with new hope, the idea of change. This is something we need 
in our country. We have obviously gotten bogged down in many areas. But 
I am afraid as I walked in the Senate Chamber today, I smelled the same 
stale air of good-ole'-boy, back-slapping, porkbarrel-lobbyist-driven 
politics.
  We are here on a Sunday voting about something in the middle of a 
recession, very difficult economic times, many critical issues. But the 
majority has asked us to come back today to vote on a conglomeration of 
bills which no one has read. I know the chairman has said the committee 
has had it posted on the committee site for a few days, but as of 
Friday, if anyone in America wanted to go to the official Senate Web 
site or if the media wanted to find out what was in this bill, it was 
not available to them.
  Most Members of the Senate--I suspect all except for maybe Tom Coburn 
and a few others--have not even read this bill. Last week, all of us 
came in here, and if we didn't take the oath of office ourselves, we 
listened to others take it many times. That oath didn't say that I was 
to be here to defend and protect what is right for South Carolina or 
get everything I could for Oklahoma or Utah or Alaska. It asks us to 
defend and protect the Constitution, which prescribes a very limited 
Government, very limited function for the Federal Government. All of 
our freedoms are dependent on that. Yet we are about the old business 
today of how can we put together a bill that will almost force a 
majority of the Senate to vote for it.
  I know that different Members know a section of this bill, the part 
that is for their State, and that is good. We need to look out for our 
States. But we need to look out for our country. We have never been in 
a time in our country when we have had so much debt and so much 
spending and so much uncertainty. How can we come here today and say: I 
got what I want. Do you have what you want? Let's everybody get what 
they want, and let's ball it up and vote for a bill on which we have 
had hardly any debate, no amendments are allowed, 1,300 pages that no 
one has read, 160 bills put together that none of us knows what is in 
here, and Americans don't know what is in here. We have all been asked 
to miss church, leave our families, and come here and vote on this 
bill.
  As we think about change in our country, I hope we can all think 
about how we can change this place because the Senate seems to be that 
last obstacle for everything we need to change, because we cannot 
continue to pass bills by putting together a little bit of what 
everybody wants and forgetting what is good for our country.
  We have been doing this for years, and that is how this country has 
gotten into so much debt and put such pressure on our economy, taken so 
much money in taxes out of the private sector that the private sector 
no longer works.
  As Senator Coburn has said, I know there are many provisions in this 
bill that represent years of work and will do a lot of good. But in 
these times, when people are out of work and we are looking around to 
how can we find the money we need to fix the problems, if we actually 
took the time to read what is in this bill, the majority of Americans, 
I can say this with confidence, would say this is not right. We should 
not have to pass all of these things that are not needed in order to 
get those things that are.
  We know we don't need $5 million for botanical gardens in Hawaii and 
Florida. That may be a wonderful thing to do, but in these times, when 
we are asking Americans to sacrifice, when we are mortgaging the future 
of our children for what we are spending today, it doesn't make any 
sense to put that in a bill so we could get somebody's vote. We don't 
need $14 million for tropical research in Panama. Senator Coburn has 
mentioned other items. We don't need $12 million for the Orchid Museum 
in Maryland. These are all good things, but this bill is full of these 
things, and there is nobody who is going to be voting today who knows 
all the things that are in here.
  If we continue to do business this way, the change we are hoping for, 
that we are going to be looking at a historical spectacle in a couple 
of weeks with the inauguration of a new President that I hope will 
represent a new generation of thought in America, I plead with my 
colleagues: I know this is going to sail through today. Everybody has 
come back to vote because there have been press releases on so many 
different items in this bill. But if we continue to go through this 
year where anyone who asks for an amendment or a few moments of debate 
is made a spectacle of, saying we are going to be here this weekend to 
vote if you don't give me unanimous consent to vote when I want to, you 
can't have an amendment, if my colleagues on my side continue to accept 
this situation, there is going to be no such thing as a Republican 
Party, and the country we love will continue to deteriorate.
  I encourage my colleagues to think twice. You may have something that 
works for you in this bill, but this bill does not work for America.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Six minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I don't know where to begin. In the last 
few moments, we have heard the following quotes: fully supported by 
those who have bills in this Omnibus bill. President-elect Obama says 
we need to work hard on earmarks. There are 45 earmarks in this bill. I 
know, I don't want to embarrass anybody. The fact is that most of us 
don't like the earmarks that are in the bill but are willing to 
tolerate the earmarks that are in the bill to get something that is 
good for us at home.
  I believe we are at the ultimate tipping point in this country. I 
believe if we don't make drastic changes over the next year and a half, 
that 2012 will see the default of the U.S. Government on its bills. I 
honestly believe that. There are a lot of economists who agree with me 
on that point.
  How do we then, if, in fact, any aspect of that is true, begin to 
start changing our direction where we start working on the issues that 
are a priority for America?
  I have no doubt that there are key, significant things that need to 
get done that are in this bill, and a lot of them I am not opposed to. 
But I will tell you, I am always going to be opposed to wasting money. 
Another man's waste is somebody else's gold. But you cannot defend the 
directed earmarks in this bill in any way, shape, or form when we are 
doing such things that are so foolish, and the American people laugh at 
us and say: Why would you spend $3.5 million for a birthday party 6 
years from now or why would you

[[Page S271]]

even authorize it in a time when nobody will disagree we are going to 
be close to a $1.8 trillion deficit when we finish up in September 
2009. Nobody is going to disagree with that point. We know the 
structural deficit is $1.2 billion. We know we are going to spend $400 
billion of stimulus. And we know we are going to steal $167 million 
from Social Security. Instead of us working on Social Security and 
trying to straighten it out, we are sitting here passing a parochial-
based bill that in the long run for the country as a whole does not 
solve the major problems it faces. That is what it comes down to.
  I know I won't come anywhere close to winning this vote, but every 
time in the future, as long as I am a Senator, we are going to take the 
time to debate. It is going to be painful, but we are going to debate 
it because the American people deserve to know what we are doing. And 
if it continues that the minority party in the greatest deliberative 
body in the world gets no amendments, then we are probably not going to 
do anything. There has been one amendment since July 16 in this body 
for a member of the minority that represents over half of the 
population in this country. This is not the greatest deliberative body 
in the world. This is the greatest chokehold body in the world.
  We ought to have the right to offer amendments. If they are defeated, 
fine. What are we afraid of? We could have had the amendments done. We 
could have voted this bill on Friday. We could have had a time 
agreement and we wouldn't be here today or we could have been here 
actually doing something that is of massive importance to our long-term 
future. But we chose the politically expedient route, the politically 
expedient direction to the detriment of the future of this country.
  There is a difference in thinking about the short term and the long 
term. We cannot ignore the short term, but it cannot be a priority 
anymore. It cannot be a priority. The long term has to be the priority. 
Our survival has to be the priority, not a political survival, not a 
parochial survival, but the very survival of this country.
  So when we talk about what we are going to spend and how we are going 
to do it and we ignore the big issues that are in front of us because 
we are going to spend the time on the small issues, the country is 
getting the Senate it deserves.
  It is time for us to refocus on the important issues in this country, 
and that is not our next election.
  I yield back my time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). By unanimous consent, pursuant 
to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture 
motion, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
     2009.
         Harry Reid, Jon Tester, Daniel K. Inouye, Robert 
           Menendez, Ken Salazar, Jeff Bingaman, Robert P. Casey 
           Jr., Mark L. Pryor, John F. Kerry, Richard Durbin, Ron 
           Wyden, Dianne Feinstein, Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Thomas 
           R. Carper, Carl Levin, Patrick J. Leahy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 22, a bill to designate certain land as 
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, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), 
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), 
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Martinez), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Voinovich).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 12, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 1 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--12

     Brownback
     Coburn
     Corker
     DeMint
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     McCain
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Alexander
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Ensign
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Specter
     Vitter
     Voinovich
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays are 
12. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________