[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.
____________________