[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 14, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10397-S10402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2010--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 3183, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 3183, making 
     appropriations for energy and water development and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 10 minutes 
of debate with the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, and 10 minutes of 
debate equally divided between the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
Dorgan, and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, is there an order in the unanimous consent 
request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The only order is that the Senator from North 
Dakota is to control the final 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma has been allotted 10 
minutes. I saw him just walk through the Chamber a moment ago. The 
ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Utah, is allotted 
5 minutes. Let me reserve my time and perhaps ask the Senator from Utah 
to begin, and then we hope the Senator from Oklahoma would return and 
use his 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor and 
recommend passage of the energy and water conference report for the 
fiscal year 2010. Despite the President sending up his budget in May, 
nearly 4 months after the budget had been traditionally sent to 
Congress, this subcommittee worked hard to produce a conference report 
that is ready earlier than any that I can remember. I compliment my 
chairman, Senator Dorgan, for his hard work in developing a balanced 
bill in a legitimate time period.
  The subcommittee produced a bill that is under the President's budget 
request by nearly $1 billion. That is quite extraordinary in this world 
where we are trying to shovel more money out the door, to come in with 
a number that is less than the request of the President.
  The House and Senate bills differed significantly in their 
priorities, but I believe the conference report before us balances the 
funding interests of both bodies and those of the administration as 
well. The Corps of Engineers remains an area of great interest. The 
budget request for the corps is down $277 million from fiscal year 
2009. The conference report has restored $320 million to meet the large 
number of member requests, and the conferees allocated $313 million to 
work off significant construction backlogs.
  The Senate bill did not include new starts in the mark. Both the 
House and the administration proposed new starts, so we had to resolve 
that issue in the conference. The conference provides $100,000 per 
project in new starts in this bill.
  Turning to the Bureau of Reclamation, the budget request was $55 
million below fiscal year 2009 levels. The conferees provided an 
additional $67 million for the Bureau of Reclamation, which is 6.3 
percent over the request and 1 percent over fiscal year 2009. Once 
again, as the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation has a 
tremendous backlog of underfunded and meritorious projects, and we did 
our best to try to work into that backlog.
  Finally, as to the Department of Energy, the conference report 
recommends $27.1 billion for the Department of Energy, which is $1.3 
billion below the President's request and $318 million above the 
current year.
  We cannot ignore the fact that $44 billion was provided in stimulus 
funding for the Department this year, including $16 billion provided 
for renewable energy accounts. That is why we have been able to make 
the changes we did.
  In restoring balance to the energy programs, the committee recommends 
an additional $25 million for nuclear energy R&D, including an $85 
million increase for the Nuclear Power 2010 Program.
  With respect to the concerns raised by the Senator from Oklahoma, I 
point out the Senate adopted his amendments by unanimous consent. I was 
in support of those amendments and would be happy to support them again 
as they come in other appropriations bills. The reaction on the part of 
the House was that there were two amendments proposed by the Senator 
from Oklahoma: one they were willing to accept and one they were not. 
We had to make a decision as to which of the two we would support and, 
with Senator

[[Page S10398]]

Dorgan, I supported one of the amendments of the Senator from Oklahoma 
that made it into the conference report. I am sorry we were unable to 
get the other one in, but we did our best and we would be happy, as I 
say--at least I would be happy; I will not speak for the chairman--I 
would be happy to support this at some point in the future.
  I yield the floor and whatever remainder of the time I may not have 
used I ask accrue to Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are at this point not because an 
amendment was not accepted. We are at this point because of the nature 
of the amendment that was not accepted. I recognize my colleagues for 
the good work they did on this bill. It is the lowest increase of any 
appropriations bill that has come to the Senate floor. But the problem 
is very straightforward and very simple: Why would the House not accept 
an amendment that said transparency for the American public is what we 
are after? We have to question that. And why would our conferees sign 
on to a conference report that did not have transparency? That is the 
question.
  There was an amendment that said the reports asked for out of this 
appropriations bill, unless they contain information related to the 
security and defense of this country, should be made public to all 70 
Senators who are not on the Appropriations Committee but, more 
important, to the people of this country. I cannot understand; nobody 
can offer an argument on why you would not want to do that. Yet somehow 
it is not in the bill. How do we explain that? Is it because it is a 
Coburn amendment that it is not in the bill? Is it because there is 
something in the reports we do not want the American people to see? If 
that is the case, what is the problem? Where is the problem?
  The reason I did not give unanimous consent on this bill coming to 
the floor is that I believe we ought to have a discussion about 
transparency. One of the things my friend, President Obama, was good at 
when he was here, and has said he is for as our President, is 
transparency. We teamed up and passed, along with Senator Carper and 
Senator McCain, the Transparency and Accountability Act. By the spring 
or summer of this year we will be able to see where every penny of our 
tax dollar goes, all the way down to subgrantee and subcontracting. 
That is real transparency.
  The question before us is why would this body accept this conference 
report cloaked in secrecy?
  I know Senators wanted this amendment. I am not accusing them of not 
wanting it. What I do not understand is why they would ever agree to a 
conference that did not have it in any bill we did? Why would we not 
let the American people see what we are doing? Why would we not want 
the people to see an annual report by the Department of Energy on their 
financial balances? That is one of the reports that is in here. Can 
somebody tell me why we would not want that? Who in the House would not 
want that? What is it we do not want the American people to see? A 
report by the Chief of Engineers on water resources? Why can't the 
American people see that? A report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
identifying barriers to and its recommendations for streamlining for 
construction of new nuclear reactors? Why should not the American 
people see what the problems are and see what that report says? Why 
should that be cloaked, out of light, out of view, and away from the 
knowledge of the American people?
  To me, there is either one of two explanations. One is they do not 
care about what the American people think about knowing what is going 
on in our government or there is something else going on inside one of 
these reports they do not want the American people to see. It is one of 
those two things. I don't know which it is. But what I believe is, it 
is unacceptable for us to pass a bill, a conference report, that has 
information in it that is not a risk for any of our national security 
issues to which the American people should not be privy.
  I believe, if we vote for this conference report, what we are saying 
is we endorse it; we know it better. There are certain things that even 
though they don't relate to security, you are not smart enough, you 
don't have the insight, you don't have the wisdom, you don't have the 
knowledge to make a judgment.
  I reject that, our Founders rejected that, and we as a body ought to 
reject it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the unanimous consent agreement provides I 
will have the final 5 minutes of debate. If the Senator from Oklahoma 
wishes to consume the remainder of his time, I will use the final 5 
minutes and then we will proceed.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry:
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. It is true the Senator does have the last time, but is 
the unanimous consent agreement that the last 5 minutes is his?
  I understand. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I think I speak for myself and Senator 
Bennett, we very much appreciate the work the Senator from Oklahoma 
does. He does it diligently. He is on the floor a great deal pushing 
his views on these issues. On the specific issue that he just 
described, it is an issue in which he came to the floor and offered it. 
We included it in the bill during the Senate floor consideration 
because we believed in it. We agreed with him, as did others in the 
Senate, and that is what we took to conference.
  The Senator from Oklahoma weaves a bit of a larger cloud than exists 
by suggesting there was some sort of deep secrets or conspiratorial 
approach to try to prevent the public from seeing something. That is 
far from the case. The Senator makes a point that we agreed with by 
accepting his amendment. That is, reports required of the Department of 
Energy to be sent to the Congress should be available not only to 
Congress but to the American people. We agreed with that point. That is 
why we put it in the Senate bill. We went to conference with the House. 
There was objection. The fact is, this is a very big piece of 
legislation. If we decided that if we can't resolve an objection or if 
we can't reach agreement on everything, then there won't be a 
conference report. If that were the case, there would be very few 
conference reports on the floor of the Senate.
  As my colleagues from Oklahoma and Utah know, there is a lot of give 
and take in the conference process. This is a piece of legislation that 
has some $30 billion-plus on a wide range of issues such as nuclear 
weapons. This bill also funds nuclear weapons programs, water programs 
for both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, 
energy programs, nuclear waste cleanup sites and many more complicated 
and important issues. In order to get a conference report, we had to 
give and take here and there, and there was an objection to the 
provision the Senator from Oklahoma had put in the Senate bill. I 
regret that, but that was the case. As my colleague from Utah described 
previously, I will continue to support the Senator from Oklahoma's 
efforts to make sure all of these reports are made available to the 
American people, providing that there is no national security issue or 
secret clearance to them.
  I emphasize something my colleague from Oklahoma described about 
this. This conference report on energy and water is an important 
conference report. We need to get our bills done on time. Aside from 
the fact that it does not include his amendment, which we had 
previously supported and still do, we need to do our work. There is a 
lot of criticism about not passing appropriations bills. We will pass 
appropriations bills this year in great contrast to years previous when 
there have been big omnibus bills. That is a good thing, that we are 
making progress to pass individual appropriations bills. We brought 
this bill to the floor for debate. Amendments were offered, and the 
bill was passed. That is exactly the way the process should work.
  Senator Bennett and I brought a bill to the floor that is slightly 
less than 1 percent above last year's expenditures for water and energy 
and so on. The Senator from Oklahoma acknowledged at the beginning of 
his remarks that

[[Page S10399]]

this bill, with respect to the fiscal year 2010, is not a bill that 
unnecessarily throws a lot of money at programs and projects. We are 
less than 1 percent above last year's expenditures. That is important 
to note.
  With respect to the many programs in the bill, there are many that 
are flat funded. Some are even slightly below fiscal year 2009. The 
exception is in three areas where there were increases. The first area 
of increase was for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs 
because we are trying to make sure we move down the road more 
aggressively to attain a lower carbon future and promote greater 
efficiency. Second, the DOE's Science program represents an investment 
that will provide significant dividends in the future. Our great 
science laboratories and other investments in science represent a 
profoundly important investment in our nation. Finally, naval reactors 
had an increase. We put some additional money there because of the 
importance of this program. The rest of the programs are very near 
their fiscal year 2009 levels with no increase at all.
  This is a good conference report. I don't believe it is inappropriate 
for my colleague from Oklahoma to be upset that his amendment is not a 
part of the report. I understand his position. He has served in the 
House and Senate. He understands there are many things in conference 
that get dropped. Yet, for everything that is dropped, there was 
someone in the House or Senate who believed it was important enough to 
come to the floor, offer it, fight for it, and passionately believe in 
it. I understand that is true with everything. It is certainly true for 
our colleague from Oklahoma who spends a lot of time pushing for 
increased transparency. We appreciate that. That is why we agreed to 
the amendment during the Senate debate.
  This Energy and Water Appropriations bill is an important piece of 
legislation. It does not contain the one amendment the Senator from 
Oklahoma got put in the Senate side. We wish it did, but it does not. 
But the conference report is nonetheless something that merits the 
support of the broad membership in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill 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 conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water 
     Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
         Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Patrick J. Leahy, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Evan Bayh, Mark L. Pryor, Jon Tester, Robert 
           Menendez, Frank R. Lautenberg, Kent Conrad, Patty 
           Murray, John F. Kerry, Daniel K. Inouye, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Carl Levin, Jack Reed, John D. Rockefeller, 
           IV, Bill Nelson.

  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 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water 
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Missouri 
(Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 79, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 321 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     LeMieux
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--17

     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Graham
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     McCain
     Sessions
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Begich
     Hutchison
     Kerry
     McCaskill
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 79, the nays 
are 17. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleagues who voted for 
cloture for the Energy and Water Appropriations conference report. It 
is important that we do the appropriations bills and get them done 
individually. We are now past October 1, but in the last 2 years, we 
actually had to do omnibus appropriations bills. Thanks to Senator Reid 
and his determination and thanks to Senator Inouye, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, we are doing the bills one by one by one, and 
we are going to get them finished. We just voted on the bill that funds 
all of the energy and water programs in the country, and it is a very 
important investment in this country.
  I wanted to comment more generally about a few issues. The 
legislation we are moving, the conference report, just got cloture. We 
got it through the House and the Senate and now we are in a period of 
30 hours post-cloture. Hopefully, we will then get it to the President 
for his signature for it to become law. The concerns I have about the 
issues here include not just the water infrastructure and nuclear 
weapons programs in our Energy and Water bill but also very much 
include energy.
  I wish to speak for a moment about the energy challenges we face. 
This chart describes a very serious dilemma for our country. Two-thirds 
of the crude oil used in the United States today is imported. Two-
thirds of the crude oil we use comes from other countries, some of whom 
don't like us very much. Our economy runs on energy. If, God forbid, 
tomorrow the supply of oil to this country were interrupted by 
terrorists or for some other reason, our economy would be in desperate 
trouble. Every single day the American people get up and use energy but 
take it for granted. We get out of bed, and we turn a switch on. We 
assume the lights will be on. We perhaps plug in an electric razor or 
toothbrush and expect there to be electricity to run that razor or 
toothbrush. We take a shower and expect the water heater to have been 
heated with electricity or natural gas to provide the hot water for a 
shower. Then we make coffee and breakfast, and there is electricity 
assumed to be available. Further, we put a key in the ignition of a 
vehicle and drive off to work, using energy once again.
  Every part of our daily life is filled with the use of energy. The 
question is, How can we address this issue of our unbelievable reliance 
on foreign oil? It threatens our national security and our energy 
security to be so reliant on foreign oil. The reliance we have has to 
be reduced. So how do we do that? Even as we do that, we must also find 
a way to reduce the carbon footprint and reduce the amount of 
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere to protect the planet. So 
two things are working at the same time.
  I wish to talk for a bit more about the legislation we have finished 
in the Senate Energy Committee, rather than the Energy and Water 
Appropriations panel which I chair. Senator Bingaman chairs the Energy 
Committee, and I am the second ranking Democrat on that authorizing 
committee. I wish to talk about what we have written in the energy 
authorizing bill in the context with efforts that some have described

[[Page S10400]]

to merge that energy bill with a cap-and-trade climate change bill and 
bring both to the floor for a debate. I prefer we not do that approach. 
Not because I don't think we should address climate change; I believe 
we should have that debate too. I believe we are going to have to have 
a lower carbon future. What I believe we should do is a two-step 
process that focuses on energy legislation. From a policy standpoint, 
it would give us a real opportunity to reduce carbon in the atmosphere 
by changing our energy mix. First by using more renewable energy, and 
second by finding ways, through greater investments in research and 
technology, to reduce the carbon emitted when we burn fossil fuels to 
produce energy. So I have a couple of comments about this two-step 
approach.
  The Energy bill we have enacted provides a lot of things. It provides 
a substantial increase in renewable energy, and it does that through 
wind turbines which create electricity from the wind. There is no 
carbon output with wind energy. The problem is that we have a lot of 
wind in remote areas, and we need to move it to the load centers that 
need the electricity. It's well known that there is wind from Texas to 
North Dakota. By the way, North Dakota ranks No. 1 in wind; we are the 
Saudi Arabia in wind. We also have a substantial opportunity to develop 
solar from Texas across the Southwest to California where the sun 
shines all the time, or virtually all the time. We can maximize the 
production of energy where it is available from wind, solar, biomass 
and so on, and then we can build the transmission capability to move it 
to the load centers that need it. By doing this, you will dramatically 
change our energy capability in this country.
  The legislation we have done in the Energy Committee accomplishes 
that goal. We have a significant transmission piece in that legislation 
that allows us, at long last, to build the transmission capacity we 
need to support our renewable potential.
  We built an Interstate Highway System around this country so you can 
get in a vehicle and drive almost anywhere, but we have not built an 
interstate highway of transmission to move energy from where it exists 
to where it is needed. We have a patchwork of transmission that was 
built up over a period of time when there was a local utility that 
produced energy for a certain market and then in that area distributed 
energy to its market. That is the kind of transmission system we have. 
We need to dramatically modernize the transmission so we can maximize 
the amount of renewable energy.
  There are a lot of things happening that I think are exciting in 
energy that can change our future. Do you know right now there are a 
couple hundred people working on a process to find innovative ways to 
use coal. Dr. Craig Venter is involved. He is one of the great 
scientists in our country and one of the two people who led the human 
genome project. They are working on finding ways to create synthetic 
microbes that would actually consume a coal in deep seams and turn the 
coal into methane. Think of that. It creates synthetic microbes that 
will essentially eat the coal--that is not a scientific term--they will 
consume the coal and leave in its wake methane, turning coal into 
methane.
  We have others who are working on the development of algae and 
energy, and Dr. Venter is involved in this as well. By the way, after 
15 years of it being discontinued, I restarted the algae research at 
the DOE energy laboratories through my Energy and Water Subcommittee. 
Dr. Venter is working on developing strains of algae that will excrete 
lipids that become a fuel. We know we can grow algae in water and 
sunlight and CO2 and then get rid of CO2 by 
growing algae and then destroy the algae by harvesting it and creating 
diesel fuel. Dr. Venter is looking at ways to produce algae that simply 
excrete the lipids and, with little transformation, becomes a fuel. We 
have so many things going on that are so interesting. I think 10 years 
from now we will look in the rearview mirror and see dramatic changes 
in how we produce energy and how we significantly reduce carbon.
  I wish to show a map of my State in which we have some projects that 
are extraordinary. The western half of North Dakota has substantial oil 
development. The USGS determined that it was the largest discovery of 
technically recoverable oil that has yet been assessed in the lower 48 
States. They estimated that there was as much as 4.3 billion barrels of 
oil in this region known as the Bakken formation. We also have a 
substantial amount of coal, lignite coal. We have one of the largest 
commercial working example of CO2 sequestration by capturing 
the CO2 from a synthetic gas plant, putting it in a 
pipeline, and sending it up to Saskatchewan where they inject it 
underground for enhanced oil recovery. By doing this, it improves the 
productivity of marginal oil wells in Saskatchewan. So we actually 
capture the CO2 from the North Dakota plant that is 
gasifying coal and gas, ship it up to Canada, and then inject it 
underground in an enhanced oil recovery process. In my judgment, that 
is a very exciting thing.
  Here are the fuels we use for the production of electricity. About 
forty-eight percent of our electricity comes from coal. Nuclear 
provides a smaller piece than that need. We have natural gas, 
hydroelectric, and other renewables too. So my point is we are not 
going to have a future without using coal for some period of time. The 
question is how do we use it in a different way. I believe a 
substantial investment in technology that will allow us to build near-
zero emission coal-fired plants. I believe we can do that by capturing 
carbon and protecting our environment. We must maximize the use of 
renewables from wind, solar, biomass, and other sources. We must also 
move toward an electric drive transportation system, and then continue 
to invest in a longer term hydrogen fuel cell system. We need to do all 
of these things are what we can and should do.
  The Energy bill we passed out of the Energy Committee is a giant step 
forward to maximize renewables and increase energy efficiency as a way 
to reduce carbon. I think what we ought to do is bring that energy bill 
to the floor, have a debate, get it to the President for his signature. 
This would be a giant step in the direction of climate change. 
Following that, we should bring the climate change bill to the floor 
and then address the issue of targets and timetables and other 
mechanisms to find out what is achievable for protecting this country. 
Some have heard me speak about this and have said, Well, he doesn't 
support any sort of climate change legislation. What I have said is I 
don't support cap and ``trade.'' At this point, I have said I don't 
support providing a $1 trillion carbon securities market for Wall 
Street so that speculators and the investment banks can trade carbon 
securities tomorrow and tell us what our price of energy is going to be 
for us the next day. I have precious little faith in those same people 
who ran up the price of oil last year to $147 a barrel in day trading 
when the market fundamentals showed that demand was down and supply was 
up. So, no, I don't support the trade side using that mechanism, but I 
do support creating climate change legislation that has appropriate 
targets and timetables that reduce our nation's carbon footprint. We 
can do that. We will do that. I think there is general consensus we 
should do that.
  All I am saying is this: What we ought to do is bring to the floor 
energy legislation that will adopt the policies on maximizing 
renewables, building the transmission capability, creating the building 
efficiencies and much more that is and important step forward and the 
lowest hanging fruit in energy. Among these positive benefits, energy 
efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit by far that costs the least to 
retrofit America's buildings and homes. We should do all of that in the 
Energy bill that has now been waiting for some months. I have spoken to 
the majority leader who has been a terrific advocate for sound and 
thoughtful energy policies. I have also talked to the President 
directly about this. It is not that I don't want to do climate change 
because I know my colleagues are working hard on it. It is the fact 
that I want to make progress in energy policy first that can change our 
fuel mix and develop a lower carbon future. Because we have done that 
work in the Energy Committee, we have taken an important step. We can 
then bring a climate change bill to the floor after that which I know 
is controversial, but that

[[Page S10401]]

we can work on developing targets and timetables for that lower carbon 
future. I think this is something we should do and I think we can do. I 
think it would, in my judgment, be the best fit for this country's 
future energy policy and for the policy that is necessary to lower the 
future CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and protect the 
environment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
any recess adjournment or morning business period count past cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from 
North Dakota that the one example he gave about algae--it is so 
exciting that we know now that you can take algae and put it in some 
kind of plastic cylinder, expose it to sunlight, and with the right 
ingredients in there, pump in CO2, and it consumes the 
carbon dioxide and in the process it makes ethanol. So as the Senator 
has hinted, if this process ends up working, and working efficiently, 
what about putting an algae ethanol-producing plant right next to a 
coal-fired electricity plant to take the CO2 out of the 
coal, and instead of trying to inject it into the ground, put it right 
into the ethanol-producing algae plant? There are limitless 
possibilities, as the Senator from North Dakota pointed out. I find it 
quite exciting.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I held a 
hearing on the beneficial use of carbon. A scientist at Sandia National 
Laboratory said: Think of carbon not just as a problem but an 
opportunity.
  In this case, when you talk of algae, it is single-cell pond scum, a 
green slime you find on top of wastewater, right? The fact is, you can 
feed CO2 to algae and produce something from it that extends 
our fuel supply. It is exactly the kind of thing that makes sense.
  There are other beneficial uses of carbon as well. If we change our 
way of thinking a bit, we all have the same goal, which is to protect 
our planet. We can find other ways of maximizing the use of renewables 
and to reduce carbon by using it for enhanced oil recovery and 
producing additional fuel by growing algae.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the 
Energy and Water appropriations bill. It certainly is going to continue 
to help us provide for the Nation's energy needs and water 
infrastructure, but it also restores funding to our efforts at 
restoring America's Everglades.
  For many years, the Everglades have simply languished. Over half a 
century ago, or three-quarters of a century ago, the idea was to get 
rid of the floodwaters, and mankind went in there and completely 
reversed what Mother Nature intended, diked and drained and sent 
freshwater out to tidewater and did it exactly the opposite.
  In this massive project, we are trying to restore the natural 
ecosystem that once dominated the entire south half of the peninsula of 
Florida. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 was a major step 
toward restoring parts of the Everglades. This effort was also helped 
by this year's omnibus and stimulus spending bills which put a 
significant amount of funding toward restoration--about $360 million. 
Building on that momentum, the President's budget for fiscal year 2010 
included $214 million in funding for the Everglades from the Army Corps 
of Engineers.
  Despite the best bipartisan efforts of the Florida delegation, the 
final bill contains $180 million in funding for the Everglades instead 
of what we had hoped for, but we do have exciting things happening this 
year. In a few months, there will be two groundbreaking projects that 
are critical to restoring the Everglades--the construction of the 
Tamiami Trail bridge and the Picayune Strand.
  While this particular appropriations bill falls short of the 
President's request, I have been assured by the administration that 
Site One, which is one of the projects that is funded minimally in this 
appropriations bill, and the Indian River Lagoon, also funded 
minimally, are going to have the funds needed to go forward from 
another source, perhaps the stimulus bill. I wish to express my 
appreciation to the administration. We have overcome great obstacles to 
get us this far. This bill settles the question of whether the Indian 
River Lagoon and Site One are new starts or not. In 2010 we will begin 
construction on those new projects.
  It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that ``the great thing in the 
world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are 
moving.'' When it comes to the Everglades restoration, we are going in 
the right direction. We have great science, we know what needs to be 
done, and we are doing it. In 12 months, we have allocated $600 million 
for the Everglades. In the next year, we are going to break ground on 
four projects.
  I wish to conclude by saying that restoration not only means doing 
these projects, which often are Army Corps of Engineers projects, but 
it also means protecting the 68 threatened and endangered species that 
call the Everglades home.
  Just yesterday, a long-awaited Federal report was released that found 
that the Burmese python, a giant constrictor snake, and four other 
large constrictor snakes pose a high risk to these kinds of 
environments in the United States. We have been saying this for the 
last 3 years, but we now have the official report issued by the Federal 
Government. The report says, in particular, that Florida, Texas, and 
Hawaii provide prime habitat for these giant predators. Remember, these 
predators have no natural enemies. It doesn't make any difference if 
the critter has scales, feathers, or fur--these giant constrictor 
snakes consume them all. We have 68 threatened and endangered species 
in the Everglades that call the Everglades home. According to the 
superintendent of the Everglades Park, there are estimates of up to 
140,000 of these snakes because they proliferate so greatly. They got 
one female, and they found 56 eggs inside her ready to hatch. That is 
how much they proliferate. So the report finally backs up what the 
National Park Service staff, the scientists, and the citizens of south 
Florida have been concerned about for the past years--the enormous 
damage caused by importing invasive species like the Burmese python.
  We are going to continue to work with the Florida delegation and the 
Department of the Interior, with Secretary Ken Salazar, who has taken a 
personal interest in this, with the Army Corps of Engineers, with the 
State of Florida, the local communities, and the citizens who are 
committed to the Everglades, toward restoring this national treasure.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record, the Budget 
Committee's official scoring for the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.
  The conference report provides $33.5 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for fiscal year 2010, which will result in new outlays of 
$19.6 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken 
into account, discretionary outlays for the conference report will 
total $43 billion.
  The conference report matches its section 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and for outlays.
  The conference report includes several provisions that make changes 
in mandatory programs that result in an increase in direct spending in 
the 9 years following the 2010 budget year. Each of these provisions is 
subject to a point of order established by section 314 of S. Con. Res. 
70, the 2009 budget resolution. The conference report is not subject to 
any other budget points of order.
  I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of the conference report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S10402]]



      H.R. 3183, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010
   [Spending comparisons--Conference Report (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     General
                                          Defense    Purpose     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
    Budget Authority...................     16,629     16,836     33,465
    Outlays............................     18,391     24,563     42,954
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority...................  .........  .........     33,465
    Outlays............................  .........  .........     42,954
Senate-Passed Bill:
    Budget Authority...................     16,886     16,864     33,750
    Outlays............................     18,571     24,630     43,201
House-Passed Bill:
    Budget Authority...................     16,367     16,931     33,298
    Outlays............................     18,219     24,508     42,727
President's Request:
    Budget Authority...................     16,548     17,845     34,393
    Outlays............................     18,345     24,269     42,614
Conference Report Compared To:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget Authority...............  .........  .........          0
        Outlays........................  .........  .........          0
    Senate-Passed Bill:
        Budget Authority...............       -257        -28       -285
        Outlays........................       -180        -67       -247
    House-Passed Bill:
        Budget Authority...............        262        -95        167
        Outlays........................        172         55        227
    President's Request:
        Budget Authority...............         81     -1,009       -928
        Outlays........................         46        294       340
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The table does not include 2010 outlays stemming from emergency
  budget authority provided in the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act
  (P.L. 111-32).

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a 
report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items

       I certify that the information required by rule XLIV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate related to congressionally 
     directed spending items has been identified in the conference 
     report which accompanies H.R. 3183 and that the required 
     information has been available on a publicly accessible 
     congressional website at least 48 hours before a vote on the 
     pending bill.

  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the 
vote to invoke cloture on the conference report to accompany the Energy 
and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, 
H.R. 3183. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have 
supported cloture.

                          ____________________