[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 133 (Monday, September 21, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9578-S9583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2996, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2996) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are back on the fiscal year 2010 
Interior appropriations bill, which we started on Thursday of last 
week. Chairman Feinstein will be joining us shortly, but she asked me 
to say there is no reason why Members cannot come to the floor now and 
offer their amendments for the purposes of debate.
  We have a busy schedule ahead of us and want to try to complete 
action on this bill and the remaining appropriations bills for fiscal 
year 2010, so I ask my colleagues to please come and offer your 
amendments and work with our respective staffs so we can get as much 
done today as possible.
  Mr. President, I see no other Senator on the floor, so I ask 
unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. But what I plan to do is, if a Senator comes with an 
amendment for the appropriations bill, I will yield to that Senator, 
and then after that I will resume my remarks if I am not finished.


                             Nuclear Power

  Mr. President, if health care were not our first concern today, 
energy and climate change would be. It is lurking in the shadows, 
having had a lot of work done in the House, and it is about to come 
before the Senate. So as to the remarks I wish to make today, if I had 
to put a title on them, I would choose this: What the United States 
should really fear about nuclear power.
  Communications experts say fear is the best way to get attention when 
you are trying to win an argument. Groups who oppose nuclear power have 
certainly mastered that technique by playing to economic, 
environmental, and safety fears.
  So I wish to introduce a little element of fear into my argument 
here. I want to suggest what could happen if we do not adopt nuclear 
power as a more important part of our energy future, if Russia and 
China and India and a lot of other countries go with nuclear--as they 
are now--while we get left behind. Are we going to be able to compete 
with countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear power while we 
are stuck with a bunch of windmills and solar farms, producing 
expensive, unreliable energy or, more likely, not much energy at all? 
The whole prospect of the United States ignoring this problem-solving 
technology that we invented is what I fear most about nuclear power.
  Let me give you an idea of what I am talking about. A few years ago, 
in January 2006, the Chinese sent a delegation of nuclear scientists 
and administrators to the United States on a fact-finding mission. They 
toured the Idaho National Laboratory, the Argonne National Laboratory, 
and they visited GE and Westinghouse, trying to decide which technology 
to choose for their nuclear program.
  Now you might wonder why anyone would be seeking our advice about 
nuclear power when we haven't issued a construction permit to build a 
new reactor in the past 30 years. But as Kathryn McCarthy, deputy 
director of the Idaho National Laboratory, said at the time:

       The world still looks to us for leadership in this 
     technology. They'd prefer to copy what we've already done. 
     They don't like being on the cutting edge.

  Well, that may have been true in 2006, but it's not anymore. The 
Chinese eventually chose Westinghouse technology for their first 
reactors. At the time, Westinghouse was an American company. In 2007, 
Toshiba bought Westinghouse, so now it is a Japanese-based company. 
Then when the Chinese got their Westinghouse reactor, they insisted on 
having all the specifications so they could see how it was put 
together. That is what we call ``reverse engineering.'' As you might 
guess, China's next wave of reactors is going to be built with Chinese 
technology.
  By 2008, the Chinese had shovels in the ground. The first four 
Westinghouse reactors are scheduled for completion by 2011. They also 
bought a pair of Russian reactors, which should be finished around the 
same time. They started talking about building 60 reactors over the 
next 20 years and just recently raised it to 132. They're in the 
nuclear business.
  What have we accomplished in the meantime? Well, people in the United 
States have been talking about a ``nuclear renaissance'' in this 
country since the turn of the century. In 2007, NRG, a New Jersey 
company, filed the first application to build a new reactor in 30 
years. They're still at the beginning of what promises to be at least a 
5-year licensing process before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No 
one really knows how long this will take, since as soon as the licenses 
are issued, opponents will file lawsuits and the whole thing will move 
to the courts. If they are lucky, they might have a reactor up and 
running by 2020. Other companies have followed suit, and there are now 
34 proposals before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but nobody in 
the United States has yet broken ground. So it is not likely the 
Chinese will be coming to us any time soon for more tips on how to 
build reactors. In fact, we will probably be going to them.
  That is one aspect of what is going on in the world today. Here is 
another. As countries began constructing new reactors, it quickly 
became clear that the bottleneck would be in forging the steel reactor 
vessels. These are the huge, three-story-high, forged steel units that 
hold the fuel assembly--the reactor core. That means forging steel 
parts that may weigh as much as 500 tons.

[[Page S9579]]

  In 2007, the only place you could order a reactor vessel was at the 
Japan Steel Works, and they were backed up for 4 years. Everyone 
started saying: This is going to be what holds up the world's nuclear 
renaissance. They will never be able to produce enough of those 
pressure vessels.
  So what happened? Well, first, Japan Steel Works invested $800 
million to triple its capacity. They are going to be turning out 12 
pressure vessels a year by 2012. Then the Chinese decided to build 
their own forge. In less than 2 years, they put up a furnace that can 
handle 320-ton parts. They turned out their first components in June. 
Now they are building two more forges. So, you see, the Chinese will 
not be standing in line in Japan any time soon. The Russians are doing 
the same thing. They are in the midst of a big revival, planning to 
double the production of electricity from nuclear power by 2020. They 
are also building a forge and just cast their first 600-ton ingot in 
June. France, Britain, South Korea, and India are all following suit. 
Very soon, every major nuclear country in the world is going to be able 
to forge its own reactor vessels, except one--and that is us, the 
United States.
  No steel company in America is capable of forging ingots of more than 
270 tons. We are still stuck in the 1960s. That means when it comes to 
building reactors, we will have to stand in line in Japan or somewhere 
else. In fact, just about everything in our first new reactors is going 
to be imported. The nuclear industry tells us that at least 70 percent 
of the materials and equipment that go into these first few reactors 
will come from abroad. That is because we have let our nuclear supply 
industry wither on the vine. In 1990, there were 150 domestic suppliers 
making parts for nuclear reactors. Today, there are only 40, and most 
of them do their business overseas. Of the 34 proposals before our 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 20 are designed by Westinghouse, now a 
Japanese company, and nine are from AREVA, the French giant. General 
Electric, the only American company left on the field, has partnered 
with Hitachi. They together sold five reactors to American utilities 
but fared poorly in the competition for Federal loan guarantees. Two 
utilities have now canceled those projects, and there are rumors that 
GE may quit the field entirely. They do not seem very enthusiastic 
anymore about nuclear anyway. Have you seen those GE ads for windmills? 
They are all over the place. Have you seen their ad for the smart grid, 
where a little girl says: ``The sun is still shining in Arizona''? That 
was pretty good too. Now have you seen any GE ads, in this day of 
concern about climate change, that say that 70 percent of our carbon-
free electricity comes from nuclear power? I certainly haven't.

  Babcock & Wilcox is the one American company that stirred some 
interest recently when it announced plans for a new ``mini reactor.'' 
This is a 125-megawatt unit that can be manufactured at the factory and 
shipped by rail to the site, where several units can be fit together 
like Lego blocks. This left the impression that America might be 
innovating again, forging back into the lead. But the complete 
prototype for the Babcock & Wilcox reactor is still 2 years away, and 
then it may take another 5 years to get the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's design approval. Meanwhile, the Russians are already 
building a mini reactor that will be floated into a Siberian village on 
a barge to produce power. The Russians have already got orders for mini 
reactors from 12 countries. So in spite of Babcock & Wilcox's fine 
effort--and I am certainly proud of them--the Russians are considerably 
ahead of us.
  Let's take stock. There are 40 reactors now under construction in 11 
countries around the word--not one of them in the United States of 
America. In fact, only two are in Western Europe: one in Finland and 
the other in France, both built by AREVA. All the rest are in Asia. 
Although we have not gotten used to it, Asia may soon be leading the 
world in nuclear technology.
  Japan has 55 reactors and gets 35 percent of its electricity from 
nuclear energy, almost double the 19 percent we get here in the United 
States. The Japanese have two reactors under construction and plans for 
10 more by 2018. The Japanese are finding they can build a reactor, 
start to finish, in less than 4 years. That is less time than it takes 
to get one American reactor through licensing at the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
  South Korea gets nearly 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear--
that is twice as much as we do--and is planning another 8 reactors by 
2015. So far, they have bought their reactors from the Japanese, but 
now they have their own Korean next-generation reactor--a 1,400-
megawatt giant evolved from an American design. They plan to bring two 
of these on line by 2016. Taiwan also gets 18 percent of its 
electricity from nuclear and is building two new reactors.
  In September, Bloomberg News reported that Japan Steel Works' stock 
had risen 8 percent on the Tokyo Stock Exchange because of China's 
decision to double future construction from 60 to 132 new reactors. 
They figure they will get some of the action at Japan Steel Works. Much 
of China's $586 billion stimulus package is going toward developing 
nuclear power. ``While China had been focusing on building new coal 
plants,'' said Bloomberg, ``it has now shifted its focus to nuclear 
because of the environmental issue,'' said Ikuo Sato, president of 
Japan Steel Works, in Bloomberg.

  Meanwhile, India is embracing thorium, a technology a lot of people 
think may eventually replace uranium as nuclear fuel. Thorium is twice 
as abundant as uranium and doesn't produce the plutonium everybody 
worries will be used to make a bomb. There is a lot of enthusiasm for 
thorium among scientists in our country. But it is India that is going 
ahead, with 6 reactors under construction and 10 more planned. They 
began with a Russian design, but they are also trying some American 
technology they acquired in signing their 2005 agreement with the Bush 
administration.
  What about Chernobyl. Well, just like everybody else, Russia stopped 
all construction on new nuclear reactors after that horrible accident. 
But they learned their lesson and started constructing much safer 
reactors in the 1990s, completing the first in 2001. Now they have 
plans to expand along the lines of France, building two reactors every 
year from now through 2030. They have a very good reason. Russia has 
huge natural gas supplies, but it is wasting them by using one-third of 
it to produce electricity. They could get six times the price by 
selling natural gas to Western Europe. So they are replacing gas 
generation with nuclear--which is exactly the opposite of what we are 
doing here. Since 1990, every major power plant built in this country 
burns natural gas. We now get 20 percent of our electricity from 
natural gas--more than nuclear's 19 percent, and the natural gas 
percent is still going up.
  And be aware, all these countries that are developing nuclear just 
aren't building them for themselves. They are selling to the rest of 
the world as well. AREVA is building reactors in Finland, China, Italy, 
Brazil, and Abu Dhabi. The Russians have signed deals with China, Iran, 
India, Nigeria, and Venezuela. They are even selling to us. In July, 
Tenex, Russia's uranium corporation, signed a long-term contract to 
supply fuel to Constellation Energy, which has reactors in Maryland and 
upstate New York. It was the sixth contract Tenex signed with an 
American utility in the past 2 months.
  How did the Russians end up supplying us with uranium? It is a long, 
interesting story and the most important players stood and worked on 
this Senate floor. In 1996, Senator Sam Nunn, Senator Pete Domenici, 
and Senator Richard Lugar pioneered a remarkable deal with the post-
Soviet Government, in which we would buy highly enriched uranium from 
old Soviet bomb stocks. The uranium would be sent to France, where it 
would be ``blended down'' from 90 percent fissionable material to 3 
percent to be used in American reactors. For the last two decades, old 
Soviet stockpiles have supplied half our nuclear fuel. One out of every 
ten light bulbs in America is now powered by a former Soviet weapon--
one of the greatest swords-into-plowshares efforts in history, although 
few people seem to know about it. Now the Russians have learned to do 
de-enrichment themselves. They have decided they don't need France. 
They say: Hey, we don't have to import this stuff anymore; we will 
produce it here.

[[Page S9580]]

Of course, producing things is one way countries get rich and its 
citizens improve their standard of living.
  Once upon a time we were pioneers in nuclear technology. Forty years 
ago, we were the only people in the world who knew how to deal with the 
atom. That is not true anymore. We have shied away from the technology 
while everyone else has forged ahead. Even Europe is coming back. The 
British have announced they are going nuclear. They have hired the 
French national electric company to help. Italy closed all its nuclear 
reactors right after Chernobyl but ended up importing 80 percent of 
their electricity at a huge cost. Now they have announced they are 
going back to nuclear as well. France already gets 80 percent of its 
power from nuclear and has the cheapest electricity in Europe, not to 
mention the second lowest carbon emissions, behind Sweden, which is 
half nuclear. France also sells $80 billion worth of electricity to the 
rest of Europe each year. Notice how well France did in the last 
turndown--it barely went into recession at all. That is not because the 
French spend less on government or work harder than us or take fewer 
vacations. It is because nuclear power is helping to keep their whole 
economy afloat.
  So does that mean we have fallen completely behind? Not at all. In 
fact, there is a great irony to all this. We still know how to run 
reactors better than anyone else in the world. Our fleet of 104 plants 
is up and running 90 percent of the time. No one else even comes close. 
France, for all its experience, is still at 80 percent. Other countries 
are even lower. We still understand the technology better than anyone 
else in the world. But because we have placed so many obstacles in our 
path, we aren't allowed to build reactors anymore. And that is what 
scares me. We are gradually losing our economic place in the world.
  Now a lot of people say: Well, what is the difference? So what if we 
fall behind on nuclear technology. We will forge ahead with something 
else. Well, there are several reasons to be concerned:
  First, there is energy security. America already spends $300 billion 
a year importing two-thirds of our oil from other countries. If we 
remain on the current path of no new nuclear power or start depending 
on other countries to build our reactors and supply us with fuel, we 
are going to be even more vulnerable than we are today. The best way to 
reduce imported oil, aside from ramping up domestic production, will be 
to use electricity to power cars and trucks. At first, we can plug our 
electric vehicles in at night when there is much unused electricity. 
After that, we should be using nuclear. We can't have Americans going 
to bed every night hoping the wind will blow so they can start their 
cars in the morning.
  Second, there is the matter of technological leadership. Americans 
produce, year in and year out, 25 percent of all the wealth in the 
world. Most of that wealth has been driven by new technologies. We were 
the birthplace of the telephone, the electric light, the automobile, 
the assembly line, radio, television, and the computer. But nuclear 
energy--perhaps the greatest scientific advance of the 20th century--is 
passing us by. The 21st century is going to run on clean, cheap, 
greenhouse-gas-free nuclear power. And, how can we criticize India and 
China for not reducing their carbon emissions when we refuse to adopt 
the best technology ourselves?
  Then there is weapons proliferation. In the 1970s, we gave up on 
nuclear reprocessing in the hope that by not dealing with plutonium, we 
would prevent nuclear weapons from spreading around the world. That has 
turned out to be an unwise decision. France, Britain, Russia, Canada, 
and Japan went right on reprocessing and no one has stolen plutonium 
from them. Instead, rogue countries, such as North Korea and Pakistan, 
have found their own ways to develop nuclear weapons. The technology of 
bomb making is no big secret anymore. The real problem is that by 
reneging on world leadership, we have left the field to others. For 
instance, right now the Russians are building a commercial reactor for 
Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He is not exactly friendly toward the United 
States. To make things more interesting, Manhattan District Attorney 
Morganthau recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that his office 
has recently uncovered evidence that Iran may be providing Venezuela 
with missile technology.
  But what worries me are these two issues: First, if we do decide to 
move toward a nuclear-based economy and we have to import 70 percent of 
the technology and equipment, how are we any better off than when we 
were importing two-thirds of our oil? We will just be creating jobs for 
steelworkers in Japan and China instead of the United States. Second, 
if we don't move toward a nuclear-powered economy but try to do 
everything with conservation and wind and solar, we are going to be 
sending American jobs overseas looking for cheap energy.
  So to ensure we have enough cheap, clean, reliable, no-carbon 
electricity in this country to create good, high-quality, high-tech 
jobs, here is what I believe we have to do. The United States should 
double its production of nuclear power by building 100 nuclear reactors 
in 20 years. Nuclear today provides 70 percent of our carbon-free 
electricity. Wind and solar provide 4 percent. Nuclear plants operate 
90 percent of the time. Wind and solar operate about one-third of the 
time.
  The Obama administration's Nobel Prize-winning Energy Secretary, 
Steven Chu, says nuclear plants are safe and that used nuclear fuel can 
be safely stored onsite for 40 to 60 years while we figure out the best 
way to recycle it. Producing 20 percent of electricity from wind, as 
the Obama administration proposes, will require building 186,000, 50-
story turbines--enough to cover an area the size of West Virginia--plus 
19,000 miles of new transmission lines to carry electricity from remote 
to populated areas. One hundred new nuclear plants could be built 
mostly on existing sites.
  To produce 3 percent to 6 percent of our electricity, the taxpayers 
will be subsidizing wind to the tune of $29 billion over the next 10 
years. The 104 nuclear reactors we have today were built basically 
without taxpayer subsidies. It will cost roughly the same to build 100 
new nuclear plants, which will last 60 to 80 years, as it would to 
build 186,000 wind turbines, lasting 20 to 25 years. And this doesn't 
count the cost of transmission lines for wind. Finally, there will be 
twice as many green jobs created building 100 nuclear reactors as there 
would be created building 186,000 wind turbines.
  An America stumbling along on expensive, unreliable renewable energy, 
trying to import most of our energy from overseas, is going to be an 
America with fewer jobs and a lower standard of living.
  Nuclear opponents continue to prey on fear of nuclear power. The 
truth is, if we want safe, cost-effective, reliable, no-carbon 
electricity, we can no longer ignore the wisdom of the rest of the 
world. The real fear is that we Americans are going to wake up on one 
cloudy, windless day, when the light switch doesn't work, and discover 
we have forfeited our capacity to lead the world in creating jobs 
because we ignored nuclear power, a problem-solving technology we 
ourselves invented.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to repeat for our colleagues and 
their staffs that the Interior appropriations bill, one of the most 
interesting pieces of legislation before the Congress, is before the 
Senate right now. We know some of our colleagues have amendments to 
offer. We have already received some of them.
  If any Senator would like to come to the floor to speak on those 
amendments this afternoon, there is time for him or her to do that. If 
they have not offered their amendments, I encourage them to do that 
because we would like to move the bill along.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S9581]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Landrieu.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2460

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself, 
     Mr. Levin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. 
     Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 2460:

  The amendment is as follows:

                           amendment no. 2460

       On page 219, line 5, before ``and including'' insert the 
     following: ``of which $250,000 shall be made available to 
     carry out activities under the Civil Rights History Project 
     Act of 2009 (20 U.S.C. 80s et seq.), to remain available 
     until expended;''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this amendment is cosponsored by the 
ranking member of this committee, Senator Alexander, Senators Bennett, 
Cochran, Levin, and Schumer. Representative Carolyn McCarthy has been 
the leader in the House. I thank her for her leadership in enacting the 
Civil Rights History Project Act into law.
  This is an amendment that would direct $250,000 in salaries and 
expenses at the Smithsonian Institution to be used for the Civil Rights 
History Project. This is a project that was authorized by law in May of 
this year. It will give us a permanent historical record of the 
firsthand stories of the individuals who risked and sacrificed in the 
civil rights movement. The project is modeled after the Veterans 
History Project and will be housed in the Smithsonian's National Museum 
of African American History and the Library of Congress. So for 
generations to come, historians, students, and the public will be able 
to listen to civil rights pioneers tell their stories and describe a 
time that is quickly receding into history. If you think about it, this 
could be a very exciting teaching tool for future generations.
  I am very pleased to support this amendment, along with the ranking 
member of this committee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from 
California for thinking of this. The late Alex Haley, the author of 
``Roots,'' used to say: When an older person dies, it is like a library 
burning down. And many who participated in it or many who even saw the 
major events of the civil rights movement are growing older and their 
stories need to be told. So this is an important amendment with 
bipartisan support. I am glad the Senator from California so 
thoughtfully offered it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the ranking member. I agree with him 
strongly. I believe it is important to hear the voices of the actual 
people so the students 20, 50, 75 years from now can really listen to 
what happened from the mouths of the people who were actually there and 
participated.
  You should, once again, know this has been authorized, and it is 
simply coming right out of salaries and expenses of the Smithsonian.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are not.


                   McCHRYSTAL COUNTERINSURGENCY PLAN

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, eight years ago America was attacked at 
home by an enemy that we had underestimated for too long. As a result 
of this single planned attack, thousands of innocent people were 
killed, the Twin Towers were left in ruins, and our long-held 
confidence as a Nation in the security of our homeland was seriously 
shaken.
  The horror of that day brought our country together, including 
lawmakers of every ideological stripe. And it was in this context of 
unity that we resolved to do everything in our power to ensure that 
America never experienced a day like September 11 again.
  At the heart of that resolve was a recognition that al-Qaida and 
affiliated terrorist groups had been at war with the United States long 
before September 11, 2001. September 11 may have been the day that we 
saw the terrible consequences of inaction, but the pattern of smaller-
scale attacks leading up to that day was also suddenly, undeniably 
clear. On 9/11, we saw that this was a war not of choice but a war of 
necessity that would take time and require great sacrifice, and that 
war continues.
  From the very start, the centerpiece of our strategy has been the 
same: to deny al-Qaida and its affiliates sanctuary, and, crucially, to 
deny them a staging ground from which they can plan, prepare, or launch 
another attack on U.S. soil. We have carried out this strategy using 
the vast tools of intelligence, diplomacy, and force at our disposal, 
and our future success depends on our continued use of all these tools.
  We have also recognized from the first moments of this fight that we 
can't succeed alone. America is not al-Qaida's only target, and we are 
not capable of defeating al-Qaida without the cooperation of many 
allies and friends, many of whom have experienced terrorism firsthand. 
The fight against al-Qaida is a global fight, and its success will 
continue to depend on a division of labor among many nations.
  Nowhere is our reliance on partners and allies more apparent at the 
moment than in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Just as progress in Iraq 
depended on the training of an indigenous security force, so too does 
our progress in Afghanistan depend on the training of security forces 
there; and so too does our success in Pakistan depend upon the ability 
of the Pakistani Army to fight terrorists in the tribal areas.
  Still, while Afghanistan and Pakistan may now be at the center of the 
fight, it's important to realize that our success will mean continued 
reliance on the cooperation of other friends and allies across the 
globe, from our own borders to other distant places where our forces 
can not go or where our presence is of limited use.
  This is why I and others have pointed out that our success in 
preventing inmates from Guantanamo from returning to the fight depends 
on cooperation from political leaders in places like Yemen and Saudi 
Arabia. And this is why many of us have pointed out that al-Qaida's 
presence is growing in Yemen and threatens Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida 
claimed credit just last month for the first terrorist attack on a 
member of the Saudi royal family in recent memory.
  Many countries are engaged in the same fight that we are. As the war 
on terror continues, these countries need to be assured of our 
cooperation just as much as we need to be assured of theirs.
  So far on Afghanistan, the President has shown admirable consistency. 
He has not lost sight of the need to pressure al-Qaida's senior 
leadership; he has stated, rightly, in my view, that the core goal of 
the war there is the disruption, dismantling, and defeat of al-Qaida 
and the prevention of safe havens for terrorists. And he was wise 
earlier this year to appoint General Stanley McChrystal to command our 
forces in Afghanistan in pursuit of these goals.
  By now, General McChrystal has had time to develop an initial 
assessment of the situation. That assessment, elements of which are now 
public, calls for a genuine counterinsurgency. Soon, he will make a 
formal request for the resources he needs to carry this strategy out. 
We don't know all the details yet, but we do know that much more hard 
work lies ahead. And we also know that, according to General 
McChrystal, ``failure to provide adequate resources . . . risks a 
longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and 
ultimately, a critical loss of political support . . . [and that] any 
of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.''
  Looking back, we can see that the work of fighting terrorism at home 
and abroad has been difficult, it has been long, and it has tested our 
resolve. But here is the good news: It has been a success. By searching 
out terrorists where they are, keeping up the pressure, and remaining 
flexible, our Armed Forces, intelligence professionals, and the help of 
our allies and

[[Page S9582]]

friends has achieved something few people thought possible on September 
11, 2001. America has not been attacked at home since.
  But this much is also clear: al-Qaida remains intent on attacking the 
United States. Its terror network is lethal, resilient, determined, and 
mobile, and the day we lose sight of this is the day that our good 
fortune in preventing another attack may run out.
  The President, to his credit, has not lost sight of this sobering 
reality. But any failure to act decisively in response to General 
McChrystal's request could serve to undermine the other good decisions 
the President has made.
  General McChrystal has made clear that more forces are necessary. But 
even that won't be enough. Even with the best strategy and the finest 
implementation, our efforts in Afghanistan will not succeed without the 
support of the American people. This is why, in my view, the President 
must soon explain to the American people his reasons either for 
accepting the McChrystal Plan or, if he chooses an alternative, explain 
why he believes the alternative is better.
  As the President has noted, any commitment of additional forces is a 
decision of the gravest importance. No President takes a decision like 
this lightly. And this is why General McChrystal and General Petraeus 
should also come to Washington to explain to Congress and to the 
American people how their strategy will work.
  Despite our best efforts to defeat al-Qaida and deny them sanctuary 
in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they remain a serious threat. The Taliban 
is gaining ground. But if our recent experience with Iraq shows us 
anything, it is that our commanders in the field are in the best 
position to tell us what will work. General McCyrstal says that without 
adequate resources, we will fail. In my view, we should listen to that 
advice.
  Leading up to and during the surge in Iraq, many voices in Washington 
had given up hope of success. One prominent Senator said that a surge 
of American forces would do nothing. One of the Nation's top newspapers 
said that staying the course in Iraq would only make the situation more 
bloody and frightening, and that there was nothing ahead for Iraq but 
even greater disaster.
  But we know what happened. By listening to our commanders in the 
field, the tide in Iraq began to turn. We salvaged our chances. And 
nearly 3 years later, a country and a war that many had given up for 
lost is showing strong signs of stability.
  At the time, America was fortunate that in its moment of need, GEN 
David Petraeus came forward with a plan to secure Iraq and implemented 
it with the help of brave soldiers and marines in Baghdad and Anbar 
Province. General McChrystal has now sent his recommendation for a 
counterinsurgency strategy to protect the population and defeat the 
Taliban in Afghanistan. Congress should support it.
  The war ahead in Afghanistan would not be easy. Counterinsurgency is 
very demanding in terms of people, resources and vigilance. But the 
consequences of withdrawal, or even of a plan that is more narrowly 
focused on developing Afghan security forces, would likely be worse, 
since neither plan will lead to the defeat of al-Qaida or reverse the 
gains that the Taliban has made in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  By ceding Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaida, we would all but 
ensure that the terrorists have the ability to plan and carry out 
another attack from the very same place that they plotted and carried 
out the attacks of 9/11; al-Qaida in Pakistan would serve as a magnet 
to every young man wishing to enter the jihad; and our ability to stop 
either of these frightening developments would be severely diminished.
  The President has said he will not allow these things to happen: For 
the sake of our long-term security, we should support the McChrystal 
Plan. Anything less would confirm al-Qaida's view that America lacks 
the strength and the resolve to endure a long war. We have proved them 
wrong before. Let's prove them wrong again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 2456

  Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside in order to call up amendment No. 2456.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for himself, Mr. 
     Merkley, and Ms. Klobuchar, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2456.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
          Agency to conduct a study on black carbon emissions)

       On page 192, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

          General Provisions, Environmental Protection Agency


                              black carbon

       Sec. 201.  (a) Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with other Federal agencies, shall carry out and submit to 
     Congress the results of a study to define black carbon, 
     assess the impacts of black carbon on global and regional 
     climate, and identify the most cost-effective ways to reduce 
     black carbon emissions--
       (1) to improve global and domestic public health; and
       (2) to mitigate the climate impacts of black carbon.
       (b) In carrying out the study, the Administrator shall--
       (1) identify global and domestic black carbon sources, the 
     quantities of emissions from those sources, and cost-
     effective mitigation technologies and strategies;
       (2) evaluate the public health, climate, and economic 
     impacts of black carbon;
       (3) identify current and practicable future opportunities 
     to provide financial, technical, and related assistance to 
     reduce domestic and international black carbon emissions; and
       (4) identify opportunities for future research and 
     development to reduce black carbon emissions and protect 
     public health in the United States and internationally.
       (c) Of the amounts made available under this title under 
     the heading ``Environmental Programs and Management'' for 
     operations and administration, the Administrator shall use up 
     to $2,000,000 to carry out this section.

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to take the next several 
minutes to speak about an amendment that Senators Merkley and Klobuchar 
and I have to the Interior and Environment appropriations bill. With 
this amendment, we are asking the Environmental Protection Agency to 
conduct a comprehensive study on something called black carbon 
emissions. This is very similar to a bipartisan bill I worked on with 
Senators Inhofe, Boxer, and Kerry that actually passed the Senate EPW 
Committee. Taking steps to reduce black carbon emissions is a win/win 
situation. We can lessen the threat of global warming, and at the same 
time we can improve global public health.
  Black carbon emissions, sometimes called soot, are the dark particles 
emitted when fossil fuels, biomass, and biofuels are burned. In the 
United States we see mainly black carbon from old, dirty diesel 
engines. Internationally, black carbon comes from old cook stoves, 
inefficient industrial processes, and also dirty diesel engines. Black 
carbon contributes to serious global respiratory and cardiovascular 
health problems and even to death. Scientists also believe black carbon 
emissions contribute to global warming. In fact, it is estimated to be 
the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide. 
However, there is still a lot we don't know about black carbon.
  Our amendment asks EPA to do several things: One, to identify global 
black carbon sources and cost-effective reduction technologies; two, to 
identify the public health, economic, and climate impacts of black 
carbon; three, to identify opportunities for current and possible 
international funding for mitigation; and four, to identify 
opportunities for future research and development.
  We ask the EPA to use funds already allocated to them from their 
operations budget to fund this study.
  Here in the United States we have made great progress in reducing 
black carbon by regulating the new diesel engines and through a 
voluntary national diesel retrofit program. We still have over 11 
million old diesel engines without proper emission control technology. 
There is good news and bad news about diesel engines. One is they last 
a long time. That is the good news. The bad news is they last a long 
time.
  Black carbon remains a problem worldwide. This amendment will enable 
us to build on the progress we

[[Page S9583]]

have already made and to use our resources wisely to reduce black 
carbon emissions at home and abroad.
  I thank the managers of the bill for their interest in working with 
us on this amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Warner of Virginia be added as a cosponsor on the civil rights oral 
history project amendment, amendment No. 2460, which is before this 
body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe the ranking member will 
concur with this. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2460, as Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of 
the amendment on the Smithsonian Civil Rights History Project, 
amendment No. 2460. What this amendment does is simply on line 2 change 
the word ``shall'' to ``may.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To support the participation of the Smithsonian Institution 
   in activities under the Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009)

       On page 219, line 5, before ``and including'' insert the 
     following: ``of which $250,000 may be made available to carry 
     out activities under the Civil Rights History Project Act of 
     2009 (20 U.S.C. 80s et seq.), to remain available until 
     expended;''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 
noon Tuesday, September 22, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to 
amendment No. 2460, as modified, with no amendment in order to the 
amendment prior to the vote, with the time until 12 noon equally 
divided and controlled between Senators Feinstein and Alexander or 
their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Jones Academy was founded over 100 years 
ago, in 1891, on the site of an earlier school operated by the Choctaw 
Nation. Its sister institution was the Wheelock Academy for Girls, 
founded earlier than Jones and providing an academic curriculum for 
girls. Both programs were federally funded through the Office of Indian 
Affairs--later renamed the Bureau of Indian Affairs--with many private 
and tribal donations.
  Until 1950, the situation worked. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
technically ran the school, the relative isolation of the school and 
the constant presence of a large Indian Tribe meant that the children 
at Jones Academy received an education adequate for their academic and 
personal needs. In 1952, the Federal Government instituted the 
termination policy. In 1953, the BIA approached the Public School 
District of Hartshorne, OK. They offered to close the academic programs 
for Jones Academy and totally close Wheelock Academy. The children were 
to be bused to Hartshorne School District, in exchange for local public 
education of these children. The school district agreed, provided they 
continued to receive Johnson-O'Malley payments as well as impact aid 
payments for Indian students. Over tribal objections, this arrangement 
was instituted and Jones Academy became a dormitory-only program. It 
has remained such for 45 years.
  An agreement between the Choctaw Nation and the Hartshorne School 
District was reached in 2003 to allow children in the lowest grades, 1-
6, to attend classes on campus, at Jones Academy, thus receiving better 
support and avoiding lengthy busing. As part of this agreement, and to 
assist the children through better programs, the Choctaw Nation has 
constructed and equipped state-of-the-art facilities, and it did so 
without any Federal assistance. In recent years, the programs at Jones 
Academy School site have won numerous awards for being one of 
Oklahoma's highest achieving schools.
  However, the Choctaw Nation is not able to implement control over the 
Jones Academy program or exercise self determination as other tribes 
do. They wish to do so, as a normal extension of Jones' recent success 
and the Choctaw Nation's desire to improve continuously. This can only 
be done if the tribe is allowed to actually operate Jones Academy 
academic program under its own policies and programs, reflecting its 
push for excellence.
  Because of a moratorium enacted in 1995, which prevents any tribal 
school from receiving Federal academic program support for any program 
not operated at that school, the Jones Academy is prevented from 
reestablishing their programs and entering the Federal grant schools 
system. This moratorium was originally enacted as a ``temporary'' halt 
to changes to allow the BIA time to develop and institute a new 
construction and facilities system. However, the moratorium has been 
continued as a provision of the law.
  My Oklahoma colleague in the House, Mr. Boren, has been working on 
this issue, and the House committee report accompanying the proposed 
fiscal year 2010 Interior appropriations bill contains language to 
address the issue in the form of a BIA study. I support the inclusion 
of this language and support the prompt completion of the study. I 
support the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and Chief Pyle on this issue.

                          ____________________