[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22182-22196]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the matter before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2456 offered by Senator Carper.


                           Amendment No. 2494

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside, 
and at this time I call up amendment No. 2494.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2494.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for an evaluation of the aquifers in the area of 
          the Jungo Disposal Site in Humboldt County, Nevada)

       On page 240, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 423. JUNGO DISPOSAL SITE EVALUATION.

       Using funds made available under this Act, the Director of 
     the United States Geological Survey shall conduct an 
     evaluation of the aquifers in the area of the Jungo Disposal 
     Site in Humboldt County, Nevada (referred to in this section 
     as the ``site''), to evaluate--

[[Page 22183]]

       (1) how long it would take waste seepage (including 
     asbestos, discarded tires, and sludge from water treatment 
     plants) from the site to contaminate local underground water 
     resources;
       (2) the distance that contamination from the site would 
     travel in each of--
       (A) 95 years; and
       (B) 190 years;
       (3) the potential impact of expected waste seepage from the 
     site on nearby surface water resources, including Rye Patch 
     Reservoir and the Humboldt River;
       (4) the size and elevation of the aquifers; and
       (5) any impact that the waste seepage from the site would 
     have on the municipal water resources of Winnemucca, Nevada.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to address a crisis 
affecting Native Americans served by the Indian Health Service's Schurz 
Service Unit in Nevada.
  This amendment to H.R. 2996, the Interior, Environment and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, would direct the Indian Health Service to 
use any unobligated contract health service funds from fiscal year 2009 
to pay the Service's obligations to private health providers who have 
treated Nevadans. The Service's Schurz Service Unit administers 
contract health funds for thousands of eligible Indian beneficiaries 
who receive care from the Fallon Tribal Health Center, Reno-Sparks 
Health Center, Pyramid Lake Health Center, Walker River Paiute Health 
Clinic, and other tribal health clinics and stations.
  I understand that it may be difficult to coordinate care and 
referrals where the Indian Health Service administers contract health 
funds and the tribes enter Federal contracts or compacts to provide all 
other health services. But this arrangement does not relieve the Indian 
Health Service of its responsibilities--to provide timely responses and 
communications between patients, primary physicians, private health 
providers and specialists; to ensure that proper procedures and payment 
schedules are followed at the Indian Health Service Unit or the Phoenix 
Area Office or by the State of Nevada and private providers; and to 
complete payments and reimbursements in a timely and business-like 
manner. At the Schurz Service Unit, these responsibilities have not 
been fulfilled, and individuals have suffered because they have been 
denied care or decided not to seek care because they could not pay for 
the service.
  This amendment would provide immediate relief for some of the 
problems identified by the Indian Health Board of Nevada, tribal 
leaders, and private health providers. It would direct the Indian 
Health Service to pay outstanding contract health obligations incurred 
by the Schurz Service within 90 days of enactment of this bill. 
Briefly, these obligations cover debts that the Indian Health Service 
has approved and date from fiscal years 2000, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 
and 2009. The oldest obligations, those before October 1, 2008, total 
less than $1.4 million, while the current fiscal year includes more 
than $5 million in outstanding bills. There are hundreds of providers 
who have not been paid for services rendered--services that the Indian 
Health Service has determined should be paid.
  In my home State, Native Americans rely on private and community 
health providers for a range of services. These providers are critical 
components in our Indian communities' network of health care. And, 
unlike other Indian Health Service Units in the Phoenix Area Office, 
there are no Indian Health Service hospitals in Nevada and Nevada's 
Indians are expected to travel to the Phoenix Indian Medical Center to 
be treated for serious health care problems. We must work with private 
providers so they continue to serve IHS-eligible patients and prevent 
further erosion of the health care network serving some of our most 
vulnerable citizens.
  I will continue to fight for our Native Nevadans and health providers 
who are valued members of Indian country's health care team. This 
amendment does both, by helping the Indian Health Service deal with a 
critical problem at the federally operated service unit in Schurz and 
by honoring its obligations with our private care providers. And I 
believe that by directing this one-time payment, the Indian Health 
Service, working with tribes and health providers, will be able to 
implement necessary procedural and structural changes to better 
coordinate care and manage contract health funds for fiscal year 2010.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the amendment for 
Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 2461

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
2461 be called up and the pending business be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2461.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the Des Moines 
                    Art Center in the State of Iowa)

       On page 135, line 2, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act may be used for the Des Moines Art 
     Center in the State of Iowa''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would simply prohibit the 
use of funds for the Des Moines Art Center in Des Moines, IA--just one 
of the 308 earmarks contained in this bill which total $246 million. 
This earmark is like most other earmarks posing as a national spending 
priority. Many of these earmarks were not authorized and were not 
competitively bid in any way, and no hearing was held to judge whether 
these are worthy of scarce taxpayers' dollars.
  Every summer we hear news of major wildfires destroying people's 
homes and businesses across the country. According to the National 
Interagency Fire Center, over 5.5 million acres of land were scorched 
this year so far. Spending bills such as this one are vitally necessary 
for fire suppression activities and forest health programs--programs 
that save lives and property. As we look for ways to pay for the 
escalating cost of wildfires, we must also address the mixed messages 
we are sending to taxpayers about our spending priorities.
  Buried in the committee report, as usual, is a $200,000 earmark for 
historic preservation needs at the Des Moines Art Center in Iowa. I am 
all for preserving our Nation's historic buildings, but good intentions 
or not, the process of earmarking is how appropriators steer taxpayers' 
dollars to pet projects that wouldn't otherwise win a grant competition 
or pass a prioritization formula. They are placed above more deserving 
projects simply because of their ``connections'' in Washington.
  According to an article in the Des Moines Register dated August 27, 
2009, entitled ``Look Out Below: Des Moines Art Center is Adding Space 
Underground,'' the Art Center is embarking on a $7.5 million capital 
improvement project which includes building a $3.5 million basement 
level ``storage addition and a new glass elevator.'' The Art Center 
raised this money as part of its ongoing $34 million fundraising 
campaign launched in 2005.
  The multimillion dollar underground addition will double as a ground 
level ``green roof,'' says the art center's director Jeff Fleming: 
``People can walk on it without even knowing it's a roof . . . a great 
space for outdoor gatherings.''
  The article also notes that the art center will gladly name the new 
addition to whichever benefactor closes out their $34 million 
fundraising campaign.
  Americans are hurting. The unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent. 
The deficit is estimated to be $1.6 trillion for this year, and the 
projected 10-year deficit jumped from $7.1 trillion to $9 trillion, et 
cetera, et cetera. Obviously, it might be nice if we started thinking 
about the future of America and the future generations who are going to 
pay the tab for our continued spending.
  I am offering this amendment on behalf of taxpayers who will 
rightfully

[[Page 22184]]

question what makes the Des Moines Art Center a national spending 
priority. Why is the Des Moines Art Center allowed to bypass the proper 
procedures for determining historic preservation spending? Why can't 
the Des Moines Art Center cough up $200,000 from its $7.5 million 
capital improvement project? Why can't they address this $200,000 need 
in their $34 million fundraising campaign?
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I spent, as did many of my colleagues, the last few days at home in 
Arizona, traveling around my State. When this issue of earmarking and 
porkbarrel spending is brought up, there is a visible reaction. 
Americans are sick and tired of it. Sooner or later, while those who 
continue to vote for and support this unnecessary, unneeded porkbarrel 
spending while we have a 10-year $9 trillion deficit, Americans are 
going to rise up in an even more vociferous fashion than they are 
today.
  I believe what is going on around the country is not just the issue 
of health care. What is going on around the country is people are sick 
and tired of this unbridled spending in porkbarrel and earmark projects 
which have bred corruption here in our Nation's Capital. They figured 
it out. They have had enough of it.
  I ask my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment, being aware 
that those on the Appropriations Committee will probably vote to turn 
down this amendment even though it is only a $200,000 unnecessary 
spending project. So do so. You have done it in the past. I am going to 
continue, and the American people are going to continue, to demand some 
kind of accountability for this outrageous, out-of-control spending 
which has mortgaged future generations of Americans and, believe me, at 
least in the State of Arizona, they are sick and tired of it.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment at a 
time to be determined by the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to call my colleagues' attention 
to a truly disturbing development in the health care debate. A 
colleague of ours--a colleague of ours--has called for an investigation 
into a major health care company because this company informed its 
customers of its concerns about health care legislation that this 
colleague of ours introduced. Let me say that again. A colleague of 
ours has called for an investigation of a major health care company 
because this company disagreed with a bill our colleague introduced.
  As a result, the Federal Government has now told all companies that 
provide Medicare Advantage to stop communicating with their clients 
about the effects of that legislation. Let me say that again. The 
Federal Government has now told these companies to stop communicating 
with their clients about the effects of a piece of legislation that is 
before us, even telling them what they can and cannot post on their Web 
sites. This gag order, enforced through an agency of the Federal 
Government at the request of a Senator, is wrong.
  It started when a company based in my hometown of Louisville, KY--
Humana--had the temerity in the eyes of some of our colleagues to 
explain to its customers that if Medicare Advantage is cut, as the 
chairman's mark requires, it may reduce benefits which, of course, is a 
commonsense conclusion.
  This is America, the United States of America. Citizens, either as 
individuals or grouped together in companies, have a fundamental 
right--a fundamental right--to talk about legislation they favor or 
oppose in this country.
  This is the core of the first amendment's protections of speech. 
Unfortunately, this is part of a troubling trend of efforts to dismiss 
the concerns raised by the American people over the past few months.
  Over the summer, we saw American citizens who raised concerns about 
the health care proposals before Congress dismissed--utterly 
dismissed--as somehow un-American by leaders in Congress. That is bad 
enough, but using the full weight of the Federal Government's 
enforcement powers to stifle free speech should trouble all Americans--
and all of us--even more. We cannot allow government officials to 
target individuals or companies because they do not like what they say.
  The latest effort to squelch free speech raises several serious 
questions.
  Is this what we have come to as a country; that an individual or 
company can no longer factually advocate their position on an 
incredibly important public policy issue? Is this what we have come to 
in America?
  Shouldn't customers have a right to know the potential impact of a 
congressional action?
  Is this what we believe as a Senate; that this body should debate a 
trillion-dollar health care bill that affects every single American 
while using the powerful arm of the government to shut down speech?
  Is this how citizens and companies can expect to be treated if health 
care reform passes; that any health provider that disagrees with a 
powerful Senator will be subject to an investigation and a gag order 
for disagreeing with a powerful Senator?
  How is this any different than what the Washington Post and the New 
York Times have done in lobbying for a reporter shield law? Would we 
stand by if the Judiciary Committee asked the FBI to investigate the 
media for taking positions on pending legislation with which we do not 
agree? Of course not.
  Humana is headquartered in my hometown of Louisville, and, yes, I 
care deeply about its 8,000 employees in Kentucky. But this gag order 
now applies to all Medicare Advantage providers. Shut up, the 
government says. Don't communicate with your customers. Be quiet and 
get in line.
  I remind my colleagues that I have spent a good part of my career 
defending the first amendment rights of people to criticize their 
elected officials, including me. I would make the same argument if this 
were a company based in San Francisco or Helena, MT, or Chicago.
  The right to free speech is at the core of our democracy. Free 
citizens have a first amendment right to petition their government for 
a redress of grievances. This gag order on companies such as Humana and 
those in all our States, in my view, is a clear violation of that right 
and it is wrong.
  Employers who warn their customers about the effects of legislation 
are not the ones who should be getting warnings. They are not the ones 
who ought to be getting warnings. Senators who threaten first amendment 
rights are the ones who should be getting the warnings.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, before the Republican leader leaves, I 
congratulate him for his statement. Over the years, he has been a 
consistent defender of first amendment rights, even for a great many 
Americans with whom he disagreed. Senator Byrd, who is the 
constitutional conscience of the Senate, often encourages Senators to 
carry with us a little pocket version of the Constitution.
  I am reading the first amendment to the Constitution, which the 
Senator from Kentucky spent a great deal of his career defending:

       Congress shall make no law--
  No law--

       respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 
     free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or 
     of the press, or of the right of people peaceably to 
     assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of 
     grievances.

  I ask the Senator through the Chair whether, as he understands the 
first amendment to the Constitution, it would be clearly 
unconstitutional for us to pass a law that would tell a major

[[Page 22185]]

health care company that if they objected to a piece of legislation by 
informing their customers of its consequences that there would be some 
penalty?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Tennessee, he 
is absolutely correct. There are two obvious violations of the first 
amendment here. One is the right to speak freely and the other is the 
right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances.
  Here you have an industry, the health insurance industry, at least 
one company of which is communicating with its customers the truth 
about this legislation and being threatened by a powerful Senator and a 
government agency to shut up.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, as I understand it from reading it in 
the newspapers some of the big drug companies are lined up with the 
Obama administration with the Democratic health care bill. I wonder 
what the Republican leader would think if some Republican Senator 
called one of the big drug companies and said: You are going to suffer 
serious consequences or even went to one of the agencies of government 
and caused them to tell a big drug company that because of their 
speeches and remarks, they were going to suffer some consequences.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, once again, I say to my friend from 
Tennessee, to call an agency of the government for the purpose of 
implementing a gag order against a company that is speaking freely 
about the impact of legislation on its business and its employees is an 
astonishing thing to behold in the United States of America.
  I assume the particular industry the Senator from Tennessee is 
talking about, which has been out running millions of ads in support of 
what the administration is trying to do, is not getting such threats.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I assume, Mr. President, that the big drug companies 
that are running ads against Republican Senators for questioning the 
health care reform bill, they have a right to do that. I know what is 
happening in Memphis is people are seeing the ads and calling me and 
telling me: Continue to oppose what is going on. But that is part of 
our system.
  I congratulate the Republican leader for bringing to the attention of 
all his colleagues this action.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Tennessee. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Delaware be permitted to speak in morning business not to 
exceed 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


                          First State Robotics

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, imagine a robot that could play ball. 
Imagine a robot that could actually pick up a ball from the ground, 
hold on to it, and then, when the time is right, successfully toss it 
to another robot. Finally, imagine that this robot was built by a group 
of high school students.
  I recently met an extraordinary group of students who turned this 
vision into reality. As part of Delaware's Miracle Workers robotics 
team, students designed and built this robot to compete in the For 
Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, for FIRST, 
national robotics competition.
  The FIRST Program was founded in 1989 by inventor Dean Kamen to 
inspire young people to pursue careers in science, technology, 
engineering, and math, or STEM. Since that time, FIRST has grown 
significantly. In 2008, drawing from the support of thousands of 
volunteers and mentors, sponsorships from some of the world's largest 
and smallest companies, educational institutions, and the Federal 
Government, FIRST introduced nearly 160,000 students from all 50 States 
and 37 countries to the joys of problem solving and engineering.
  In Delaware, participating students spent an entire school year 
building their robot, which is taller than some humans, decorated in 
green and black, and even wearing a bow tie. The first half of the year 
the team was dedicated to learning the basics of engineering, 
programming, and project management. The remainder of the year was 
slated for designing, building, testing, and refining the robot for 
competition. Students worked in specific subteams, including 
electrical, programming, mechanical, fundraising, publicity, scouting, 
3-D animation, Web team, and more. Students engaged with adult 
volunteers--many of them engineering professionals--who helped train 
and mentor the team.
  Incredibly, these types of programs are not just for those in high 
school. Delaware's First State Robotics organization oversees several 
other programs and provides engineering experience for students from 
prekindergarten through college. First State Robotics aims to inspire 
in young people, schools, and communities an appreciation for science, 
engineering, and technology.
  The results are remarkable. Ninety-seven percent of First State 
Robotics participants have attended college, with 82 percent pursuing 
degrees in science and engineering. Many have earned credits at a local 
community college for their participation in the program, and several 
have earned scholarships applicable toward higher education.
  Communities also benefit from these programs. Participating students 
take part in book drives, blood drives, and mentoring. They give robot 
demonstrations in local schools and community events to promote 
recruitment and education.
  It is clear that First State Robotics is having an incredible impact 
on students. Alumni of the program are more interested in pursuing 
careers in the sciences and engineering, and they are involved with 
their communities as volunteers. Many graduates say that participating 
in First State Robotics was the most positive and rewarding experience 
of their lives, and through these experiences they decided to pursue 
further study of engineering.
  We must continue to encourage today's students to become tomorrow's 
engineers by highlighting and promoting programs such as First State 
Robotics. It is through comprehensive programs such as these that 
students learn that engineering can be a path to making a difference.
  Through hands-on activities, students participating in First State 
Robotics are given the opportunity to learn that engineers, such as the 
Presiding Officer, are the world's problem solvers, do make a 
difference in people's lives and quality of life, and can help us reach 
the goal of clean water, lifesaving cures for cancer and disease, clean 
renewable energy, affordable health care, and environmental 
sustainability.
  The national FIRST Program shows how important it is that the 
American people, the Federal Government, and industries united to 
support STEM initiatives. These educational programs will lead us not 
only to new frontiers in health, energy, technology, and security but 
to new jobs and, ultimately, a sustainable economic recovery.
  I know that if given the opportunity, a new generation of engineers 
and scientists will lead us into the new frontiers, and many FIRST 
alumni have already done so.
  I commend the students of First State Robotics and dedicated mentors 
for their shining examples of the miracles of engineering.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill 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 (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from 
Delaware. He did go 5 minutes.
  I believe Senator Barrasso has an amendment he wishes to offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 2471.

[[Page 22186]]

  On Friday, September 11, the Washington Times ran a front-page story 
on an issue titled ``Forest Fire Aid Allotted to DC, Western States 
Feel Burned.''
  That is about right. The story talks about the U.S. Forest Service 
plans to spend $2.8 million of wildland fire management funds in the 
District of Columbia. This is ridiculous, it is outrageous, and we 
should not stand for it.
  Mr. President, just to read the first paragraph:

       Even with forest fires raging out west, the U.S. Forest 
     Service this week announced it will spend nearly $2.8 million 
     of forest firefighting money in Washington--a city with no 
     national forests and where the last major fire was probably 
     lit by British troops in 1814.

  The article continued:

       The vast majority of the money--$2.7 million--is going to 
     Washington Parks & People, which sponsors park festivals and 
     refurbishes urban parks in the Washington area.

  Mr. President, in Wyoming, we have over 9 million acres of national 
forest land. There are seven national forests in our State. We face 
many management challenges in those forests. The agency struggles to 
meet its basic responsibilities. Over 1 million acres are infested with 
mountain pine beetle in Wyoming. That is just one species of beetle--a 
species that has killed over 1 million acres of trees. The devastation 
stretches well beyond the horizon in many places. And where the beetle 
infestation is at its worst--in the Medicine-Bow National Forest--the 
affected acres have doubled between 2007 and 2008. The problem is 
severe. It is growing exponentially, and we are facing extreme risk of 
wildland fire in Wyoming.
  So when the U.S. Forest Service recommended $500 million and received 
that amount of money for Wildland Fire Management in the stimulus 
package, one would think maybe the agency would use those funds to 
combat threats to forest health in its lands nationwide. One would 
think that maybe we would see some real results on the ground in 
Wyoming and in the State of Colorado. Instead, Wyoming was awarded zero 
dollars in the first round of U.S. Forest Service projects under the 
stimulus, and only after the congressional delegation and the Governor 
of Wyoming appealed to the Department of Agriculture were funds awarded 
for forest projects in Wyoming. Meanwhile, the agency wants to spend 
$2.8 million on wildland fire in Washington, DC?
  The people and forest communities in my State deserve better, and the 
people of America demand better. Wyoming boasts incredible wildlife 
populations, unique ecosystems, and breathtaking views. Over half the 
land in Wyoming is public land. One can see rangelands, alpine forests, 
glacial basins, and desert landscapes in Wyoming. We host millions of 
visitors every year who will enjoy Wyoming's wilderness.
  The District of Columbia is not under threat of wildland fire. In 
fact, the government's National Interagency Fire Center defines what 
qualifies as a wildland fire--and DC does not qualify. Clearly, the 
District should not receive wildland fire management funds. The U.S. 
Forest Service should not spend vital funds for wildfire fighting and 
for prevention in Washington, DC.
  I have introduced this amendment with a number of other Senators from 
the West. Senator Kyl and Senator Ensign and Senator McCain are 
cosponsoring, and we want to make sure the U.S. Forest Service is not 
wasting management opportunities. We will not stand by and watch our 
States burn when resources are available to prevent that, and I would 
ask all Senators to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending business and call up amendment No. 2471.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso], for himself, Mr. 
     Kyl, Mr. Ensign, Mr. McCain, Mr. Risch, and Mr. Crapo, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2471.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of wildland fire management stimulus 
                   funds in the District of Columbia)

       On page 240, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 423. PROHIBITION ON USE OF WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 
                   STIMULUS FUNDS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds made available under the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115) 
     for wildland fire management shall be used in the District of 
     Columbia.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. He 
has a very good point and a very good amendment. This was not the 
intention of the Interior part of the stimulus bill. It is not the 
intention of this bill. Therefore, I think the amendment of the Senator 
from Wyoming is completely in order. It has been called up, and our 
side is prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senator from 
Wyoming on his vigilance. There is no Senator--certainly on this side 
of the aisle, and I suspect not in this Chamber--who gets up earlier, 
works harder, or keeps in closer touch with what is going on in Wyoming 
and in this country than Senator Barrasso, and he is exactly right on 
this issue.
  The chairman, Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from California, has made 
fighting wildfires a major part of her effort this year. She and the 
administration have included within this appropriations bill the 
firefighting money that usually is set aside for emergency 
appropriations. So that money needs to be spent correctly, as it should 
be. I think Senator Barrasso and the other Senators who cosponsored it 
are exactly right, and I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee 
that it is a good amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So we will accept it, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2471) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator 
Alexander for their gracious reception and acceptance of this amendment 
in the Chamber with that resounding voice vote in support of the 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2472

  Mr. President, I also filed amendment No. 2472, and I wish to speak 
on that amendment at this time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, is the Senator calling up that 
amendment?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I am not at this point.
  Mr. President, I have serious concerns about the recent Interior 
Secretarial Order No. 3289. This order will incorporate climate change 
into all decisionmaking at the Department of the Interior.
  Although I commend the Secretary for attempting to address this 
issue, I have concerns that we are getting the cart before the horse. 
Congress has not passed a climate change bill. Yet sweeping regulations 
are being proposed by the Secretary of the Interior. These regulations 
put into question the future and past land management agreements 
regarding oil and gas development, renewable energy development, 
recreational use, and wildlife protection.
  Under these rules, a dark cloud is placed over all existing 
agreements regarding these activities. In addition, all pending 
decisions regarding both energy development and recreational use will 
also be put on hold indefinitely. All this will occur through 
regulations that did not have the approval or the consent of the 
American people.
  I would ask my colleagues, no matter where they stand on the issue of 
climate change, to vote for this amendment. We need to get the order 
right. First, a climate change bill that has the public's approval; 
then after that is voted upon, and if approved, let the

[[Page 22187]]

regulatory process at the agency level begin. That is what my 
colleagues are voting on if they vote for this amendment.
  So I urge adoption of the amendment at the point when it is called 
up.


                           Amendment No. 2473

  Mr. President, I also filed amendment No. 2473, and I will also speak 
on that at this time. That amendment would prevent the Environmental 
Protection Agency's endangerment finding from going into effect until 
the EPA grants the petition of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to have an 
on-the-record, trial-like hearing on the scientific data behind the 
EPA's endangerment finding.
  The chamber petitioned the EPA for a trial-like hearing on the 
scientific data behind the endangerment finding before an 
administrative judge or EPA official. The chamber stated in their 
petition that:

       An endangerment finding would give rise to the most far-
     reaching rulemaking in American history. Before embarking on 
     that long, costly process, the EPA ought to do everything 
     possible to assure the American people of the ultimate 
     scientific accuracy of its decision.

  The on-the-record proceeding would be a great opportunity for EPA to 
ensure transparency. This administration claims to be the most 
transparent administration in history. What better opportunity to 
demonstrate this by authorizing the chamber's petition. The 
administrative proceeding is allowed by law. It will be a short on-the-
record proceeding. To deny this request is an admission by the EPA that 
their work on endangerment can't stand scrutiny. This should be a 
concern for all Americans at this point.


                           Amendment No. 2474

  Mr. President, I would like to move on to another amendment which I 
have filed--amendment No. 2474--and I will speak on it at this point.
  This amendment would require the Environmental Protection Agency 
inspector general to complete an investigation into the treatment of 
Dr. Alan Carlin by his superiors at the Environmental Protection 
Agency. Under this amendment, the endangerment finding could not 
proceed until the investigation is completed.
  Dr. Alan Carlin and a colleague prepared a 98-page analysis arguing 
that the EPA should ``take another look'' at the EPA's scientific data 
behind the endangerment finding that carbon dioxide is a threat to 
public health. According to a report by Kimberly Strassel with the Wall 
Street Journal, a senior EPA official suppressed this detailed account 
of the most up-to-date science on climate change.
  These reports raise serious questions about the process behind and 
the substance of the EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases 
endanger public health and welfare. On August 21, Inside Washington 
Publishers reported that the EPA is considering scrapping the National 
Center for Environmental Economics' role in scientific analysis. Well, 
this would essentially eliminate the EPA office that Dr. Carlin has 
worked in for years.
  In an editorial in the Washington Times, the paper stated:

       This attempt to marginalize a true whistleblower smacks of 
     insincerity . . . and . . . its implications for economic and 
     environmental policy are dangerous.

  This is an administration that claims to put a premium on 
transparency and openness. Their actions to date have demonstrated 
neither. My colleague, Senator Thune, has requested an inspector 
general's investigation into this matter. I believe the investigation 
should be conducted and completed before the EPA proceeds further with 
endangerment.
  So, Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending business and call up amendment No. 2474.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am very concerned by what I am seeing 
today. My effort in offering this amendment is to promote transparency 
and good government. Dr. Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA, wrote a 
report critical of the EPA's process behind the endangerment finding. 
He said the EPA relied solely on outside sources for their science. He 
also pointed out that the scientific data they are relying on is 3 
years old.
  The EPA tried to quash his report. Dr. Carlin's boss warned Carlin to 
drop the subject altogether. He was told:

       With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to 
     move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to 
     spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, 
     no research etcetera, at least until we see what EPA is going 
     to do with climate.

  Mr. Carlin was ordered not to have any direct communication with 
anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change 
and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency 
group working on that very topic. To not even allow the Senate to have 
a vote to decide whether to investigate this matter looks like 
political expediency. It is wrong and it should concern all of those 
who claim to care about transparency.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to make clear that it would be 
my intent, should the other two climate change amendments be called up, 
to object to them. However, this has nothing to do with the 
distinguished Senator, whom I respect enormously. It does have 
something to do with putting climate change on this bill.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to talk about an issue that 
is very important to our country. It involves our food supply and it 
involves thousands of jobs. While it may appear to affect just one 
State, the input we are getting from around the country is that this is 
very much a national issue.
  I have an amendment to address it which I would like to discuss. This 
amendment, I believe, if we would take the time, we could find 
agreement. It addresses a major problem in the State of the Senator 
from California, but it also addresses a problem that affects the 
Nation's food supply by allowing us to focus on balancing jobs, the 
economy, and food with environmental laws.
  As the chairman knows, there is a major water problem in California's 
Central Valley. Some very narrowly interested environmental groups have 
used the Endangered Species Act to shut off water to a region that 
produces 13 percent of the Nation's food supply. The result has been 
devastating. The land is dry, crops have been destroyed, and tens of 
thousands of jobs--tens of thousands of people are out of work. A 
recent University of California, Davis, study found that up to 40,000 
jobs will be lost by the end of this year. In one city, the 
unemployment rate has reached 40 percent.
  This is certainly a local water crisis, but it has also become a 
national issue. The problem has been the subject of several national 
television programs, and people across the country are beginning to 
realize that this problem on the west coast could touch us all in the 
form of higher food prices if we don't address it. It is also another 
precedent that affects my State, as environmentalists have really swung 
the balance away from good economy and jobs to something that seems 
much more radical to us--the development of our port in South Carolina, 
the passage of ships. And you see development all over the country 
being affected. So we need to focus on this issue in this bill. This is 
a good place for the amendment.
  It is almost impossible to overstate the value of California's 
agriculture to the Nation's economy, most of which is produced--most of 
the food supply we are talking about--right in the Central Valley. This 
region provides the lion's share of California's crops, which account 
for, and I want to stress this, 94 percent of America's tomatoes, 93 
percent of our broccoli, 89 percent of our

[[Page 22188]]

carrots, 86 percent of our garlic, 78 percent of our lettuce, 90 
percent of our strawberries, and 88 percent of our grapes, just to name 
a few. We can hardly say this is the issue of one State. This is a 
national issue that we need to address.
  People are also coming to realize that if we do not begin to bring a 
measure of balance back to our environmental laws, special interest 
groups and activist courts will be able to use this statute and others 
to destroy thousands of jobs at a time when our country is in 
recession.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for her work on this issue. 
The senior Senator from California has been a leader. She has pledged 
to work with the Department of Interior to find a solution, and she 
recently called for an independent review of the science underlying the 
two biological opinions that created this manmade drought.
  My amendment today is very simple and represents a modest and 
balanced approach. It turns the water back on for 1 year to provide 
time for all leaders at the local, State, and Federal levels to find a 
long-term solution.
  It will also give farmers the predictability they need to plan for 
next year's crops. They can't make the loans and get the seeds and plow 
the fields if they know in December the water will be turned off again 
and won't be turned back on until after July. One cannot farm with that 
type of unpredictability.
  I know there are those who say there is no problem because the pumps 
are currently on. But those pumps are set to shut off in December, 
leaving Central Valley farms dry as planting season comes around.
  My amendment has precedent. In fact, the last time this environmental 
provision was waived was in 2003, when water was turned off in New 
Mexico. That time the Senate voted unanimously for a bill that included 
a complete waiver of ESA for 2 years, which was even more aggressive 
than what I am proposing today.
  I know this is a very important issue to the Senator from California. 
I hope she will support my amendment. I know many people are working on 
long-term solutions, but we need to do something now. The provision in 
the bill to study this is likely to take 2 years. We are likely to lose 
another 2 years of farm products as well as thousands of jobs in the 
Central Valley. This is not something I have made up on my own. A 
number of groups, farm groups in California, as well as the National 
Cotton Council of America, the Tulare County Farm Bureau, Fresno County 
Farm Bureau, Kings County Farm Bureau, Families Protecting the Valley, 
Westland Water District--I have a whole page of large groups that 
involves many jobs and families in California and across the country 
supporting this amendment which won't cost taxpayers anything but will 
actually create jobs, put people back to work, and expand the Nation's 
food supply.
  We cannot allow a judge or radical environmental group to cut off 
water to people who are producing the Nation's food supply. My 
amendment would address this in a very reasonable way. I call on the 
Senator from California to work with me in support of this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and send 
my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. After the Senator completes his remarks, I would like 
the opportunity to say why.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


               Motion to Recommit with Amendment No. 2500

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am disappointed I was unable to offer 
the amendment. Certainly it relates to the underlying bill. Since there 
are so many people and jobs across the country depending on us doing 
something quickly, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] moves to 
     recommit the bill H.R. 2996 to the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate with instructions to report the 
     same back to the Senate forthwith with the following 
     amendment No. 2500:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by 
     the Secretary of the Interior to restrict, reduce, or 
     reallocate any water, as determined in--
       (1) the biological opinion published by the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service and dated December 15, 2008; and
       (2) the biological opinion published by the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service and dated June 4, 2009.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I 
look forward to more discussion, because I know there are many people 
in the Senate concerned about the same issue. There may be better ways 
to resolve the problem. I am certainly open to work with anyone. This 
is an immediate problem. We cannot continue to spend trillions of 
dollars of taxpayer money to create jobs while we allow government 
agencies to shut down jobs and jeopardize food supply. We need to be 
able to act as a body to solve some small problems instead of what we 
are doing here, which is to totally revamp the health care system or 
major changes that do not address the problems right in front of our 
face. I encourage my colleagues to consider this. Let's debate it and 
discuss it. I believe we can come up with a solution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am rather surprised about this. I 
don't think anyone in my State or in this body has spent as much time 
as I have on water in the State of California. The motion offered by 
the Senator from South California surprises me since no one from 
California has called, written, or indicated they wanted this on the 
calendar. No one has indicated to me, as chairman of the committee, in 
all of the time Senator Alexander and I have been working on this bill 
that this is what they wanted. In fact, what this would do is prohibit 
the Secretary of Interior from expending appropriate funds to restrict, 
reduce, reallocate water supplies from the Central Valley Project and 
the California State Water Project under biological opinions issued by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States and the NOAA 
fisheries.
  The Senator from South Carolina is venturing into a very complicated 
area. This would prohibit the approval on two gates. It would prohibit 
work on the intertie where water is now being transferred from one 
system, State-run, to Federal and back and forth based on need, water 
transfers in the hundreds of thousands of acre-feet. It would prohibit 
Interior from working on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. It would 
prevent Federal agencies from working on water quality issues in the 
delta.
  What is the delta? The delta is a large inland body of water in 
northern California. It is the drinking water for 16 million people. It 
is the source of water, some of which trickles down to southern 
California. The Metropolitan Water district, for example, in Los 
Angeles uses between 800,000 acre-feet and a million acre-feet a year 
of this water. Jurisdictions all over the State use some of this water. 
The agriculture community uses 80 percent of the water in the delta. 
There are enormous endangered species issues in the delta, the death of 
certain kinds of fish, the nonnative species of fish, deteriorating 
levees that when they deteriorate, the peat soil drifts into the water 
and creates all kinds of problems for treatment and would likely 
collapse in the instance of a major earthquake.
  What is happening is a whole effort to restore the delta, to develop 
a management plan for the delta, how to rebuild it, how to shore it up, 
and also whether in fact there should be some conveyance around the 
delta to bring some of the water south. This is a very hot issue in 
California. It is not a hot issue in South Carolina, trust me.
  It is interesting to me that groups go to the Senator from South 
Carolina instead of to the chairman of the committee for something 
which is preemptive and would handcuff the Secretary of Interior. The 
Secretary of the Interior has appointed his No. 2 person,

[[Page 22189]]

David Hayes, to handle western water. David Hayes has been in 
California. He has solved many problems. He came with me in August to a 
meeting in the southern Central Valley to discuss these problems and 
say what the Department was prepared to do about them.
  On September 30 of this month, the Interior Secretary is holding a 
meeting to announce what actions he is going to take on 2 Gates, on the 
intertie, on water transfers. I don't understand why we would want to 
handcuff the Secretary of the Interior by saying no money can go for 
any of these things, that water has to be released to the Central 
Valley with no controls on it. This makes no sense to me.
  I see a series of letters that have come in from people I have talked 
with. I know there is a problem with the biological opinions. There are 
30 lawsuits against the biological opinions. I understand that. To that 
end, I have been asked to put $750,000 in this bill to allow the 
National Academy of Sciences to come in and do an overarching but 
quick, within 6 months, look at the biological opinions and either say 
the opinions are founded in sound science or they are not. That is in 
the heart of this bill.
  The ranking member has agreed to put this money in this bill for that 
purpose. Along comes something now which would totally handcuff the 
Secretary of Interior, which would mean no permits to move water 
between the California aqueduct and the Central Valley Project and back 
and forth and no permits for 2 Gates, two of the emergency solutions 
that have been put forward.
  If this passes, we can be sure there will be court action, and we 
will most likely be enjoined. To my view, it makes no sense. We need 
the help of Interior. I have asked the Department of Interior, in terms 
of Federal agencies, to take the lead in dealing with California water. 
A specific person has been designated, the No. 2 person in the 
Department, David Hayes. A whole process has been entered into now for 
the administration, through the Secretary of Interior, to begin to put 
its hands on the problem and deal with it.
  I cannot support legislation that says: Go ahead and release water, 
regardless of endangered species, regardless of any court that might 
come down on top of you and say stop. I can't do that. It isn't 
responsible to do so.
  It is interesting to me--and I am looking at some of the letters--the 
people who I meet with, whose phone calls I respond to, who have never 
called and said: Look, this is what we need.
  I don't quite understand what is going on here. That is the reason 
for my objection. I am not going to put the State of California and the 
bay delta in the threat of another lawsuit. We have enough already. 
Water is a huge, complicated, and difficult issue. No one cares more 
about it than I do or has tried harder to sort out the problems.
  In a way, this is a kind of Pearl Harbor on everything we are trying 
to do, which is to work together to put Interior in the lead, not to 
handcuff Interior. That is the reason I objected to the amendment.
  I understand on the motion there will be a vote. I urge a no vote.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2461

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the senior Senator from Arizona. The amendment by Senator 
McCain singles out one instance of congressionally directed funding 
that I had included in the bill now before us, fiscal year 2010 
Interior appropriations. The Senator claims this earmark, which 
provides $200,000 in funding for repair and renovation of the historic 
Des Moines Art Center, is somehow inappropriate and should be removed 
from the bill. Well, it comes as no surprise that I strenuously 
disagree.
  First of all, as a constitutional matter, I take issue with the 
premise underlying the Senator's amendment--the idea that Congress has 
no business directing the expenditure of Federal moneys to earmarks, 
that there is something inherently wrong or evil in this traditional 
practice, and that only the executive branch should determine where 
Federal moneys are spent. Well, I beg to differ.
  The Constitution, article I, section, 9, expressly gives Congress the 
power of the purse. The executive branch can't spend one nickel unless 
this Congress gives it the authority to do so. Over the centuries, over 
the last couple hundred years, we have given to the executive branch 
the authority to make budgets, spend money on different things through 
all the different departments and agencies, but if Congress wanted to, 
we could take it all back. We could take it all back because the 
Constitution gives Congress the sole power to spend money.
  What is more, compared to executive branch individuals, Members of 
Congress have a much better understanding of where and how Federal 
funds can be spent most effectively in their respective districts and 
States, and that is certainly the case with the earmark in question.
  I assume the Senator from Arizona doesn't know a lot about the Des 
Moines Art Center. Well, let me explain it for the Record. The Des 
Moines Art Center encompasses three nationally significant buildings, 
two of which have been listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places since 2004. One of these buildings was designed by the famous 
architect, Eliel Saarinen, and another by the world renowned I.M. Pei. 
These buildings are architectural gems but, unfortunately, they have 
suffered from deterioration over the years.
  So I secured the modest funding in this earmark--$200,000--for the 
specific purpose of replacing windows that were causing inconsistent 
temperatures and high condensation, resulting in damage to the 
building's plaster, the wood paneling, and the floors. There is nothing 
the least bit wasteful or frivolous about these renovations. In fact, 
they will create jobs and put people to work.
  I also wish to point out that this funding is awarded through an 
authorized program called Save America's Treasures. This program was 
established within the National Park Service to protect:

       America's threatened cultural treasures, including historic 
     structures, collections, works of art, maps and journals that 
     document and illuminate the history and culture of the United 
     States.

  Money for the program is awarded both competitively through grants 
and through congressionally designated funding.
  Over the years, the Save America's Treasures Program has helped to 
protect many important buildings and artifacts across our country. 
There is no question that the Des Moines Art Center is both worthy and 
in urgent need of this modest funding. The buildings of the center, as 
I said, are architectural masterpieces. They contribute mightily to 
making Iowa's capital city a livable, attractive urban center with a 
lively cultural scene.
  Bear in mind that the Des Moines Art Center is a cultural institution 
in the State of Iowa, drawing hundreds of thousands of visitors not 
only from Iowa but from around the United States and from all over the 
world every year. In the last 12 months, the center has served nearly 
half a million people. School kids from all over our State come into 
Des Moines in buses from their schools out in the countryside, out in 
the small districts, to go to the art center to see these magnificent, 
wonderful works of art and the buildings themselves.
  I wish to emphasize that in terms of fundraising for renovations and 
operations, the art center and the Des Moines community are more than 
pulling their own weight. The center currently is in the midst of a $34 
million fundraising campaign. However, only $7.5 million of that is for 
capital and building improvement. The remaining $26.5 million is for 
the center's operating endowment. That allows the art

[[Page 22190]]

center to be free and open to the entire community all year-round. 
Moreover, the $200,000 in Federal funds will leverage $1.9 million in 
public and private challenge grants--not a bad leveraging of Federal 
dollars.
  The fact is, the Des Moines Art Center is struggling to meet its 
fundraising targets in any and all ways possible, including in 
relatively modest increments. The center has received $275,000 from 
Polk County--that is the county encompassing our capital city of Des 
Moines. They received $25,000 from the city of Des Moines. At this 
point, the center has exhausted their private fundraising options. So 
the $200,000 grant from the Federal Government, along with the 
additional $1.9 million that it will leverage, is critical to meeting 
the center's goal of renovation.
  I appreciate this opportunity to share with our colleagues my reasons 
for including this earmark in the bill before us. I am proud of this 
congressionally directed funding. It would go to a worthy and urgent 
public purpose.
  I believe the effort by Senator McCain to remove this money from the 
bill is misguided, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the McCain 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill 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, earlier while I was arguing the 
opposite side of the question of the DeMint amendment which is now 
before this body, I mentioned that there were 30 lawsuits pending 
against the biological opinions having to do with the bay delta. The 
number is actually 13. I apologize. I wish to have the record 
corrected. Thirteen is enough.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2498

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2498 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2498.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that no funds may be used for the administrative 
  expenses of any official identified by the President to serve in a 
     position without express statutory authorization and which is 
  responsible for the interagency development or coordination of any 
rule, regulation, or policy unless the President certifies to Congress 
 that such official will respond to all reasonable requests to testify 
  before, or provide information to, any congressional committee with 
   jurisdiction over such matters, and such official submits certain 
                    reports biannually to Congress)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                           FUNDING LIMITATION

 Sec. _. None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act 
may be used for the administrative expenses of any official identified 
   by the President to serve in a position without express statutory 
authorization and which is responsible for the interagency development 
      or coordination of any rule, regulation, or policy unless--

       (1) the President certifies to Congress that such official 
     will respond to all reasonable requests to testify before, or 
     provide information to, any congressional committee with 
     jurisdiction over such matters; and
       (2) such official submits a report biannually to each 
     congressional committee with jurisdiction over such matters, 
     describing the activities of the official and the office of 
     such official, any rule, regulation, or policy that the 
     official or the office of such official participated or 
     assisted in the development of, or any rule, regulation, or 
     policy that the official or the office of such official 
     directed be developed by the department or agency with 
     statutory responsibility for the matter.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to call up an amendment to 
ensure that the so-called czars appointed by this administration can be 
held accountable to Congress and to the American people.
  The effective functioning of our democracy is predicated on open 
government, on providing a transparent process for the people we serve. 
It cannot instill trust and confidence in its citizenry unless 
government fosters accountability. It is against that backdrop I raise 
my concerns regarding the administration's appointment of at least 18 
new czars to manage some of the most complex issues facing our country.
  I am not talking about traditional offices within the office of the 
President. I am not talking about, for example, the position of his 
Chief of Staff or the position of his press secretary. Similarly, I am 
not talking about officials who have responsibility to coordinate 
policy across agency lines that are specifically established in law. A 
good example of that is the Director of National Intelligence. That is 
a position that was established by Congress and whose head is nominated 
by the President and confirmed by Congress. So I am not talking about 
those officials either.
  What I am talking about are new positions not created in law that 
have been established and which have significant policy 
responsibilities, or so it seems. Part of the problem here is we don't 
know exactly what the responsibilities are. As I, along with several of 
my colleagues, including the ranking member of this subcommittee, 
Senator Alexander, recently expressed in a letter to the President, I 
am deeply troubled because these czars fail to provide the 
accountability, transparency, and oversight necessary for our 
constitutional democracy.
  The creation of czars within the Executive Office of the President 
and elsewhere in the executive branch circumvents the constitutionally 
mandated advise and consent role our Founding Fathers assigned to the 
Senate. They greatly diminish the ability of Congress to conduct 
meaningful oversight to hold officials accountable for their actions, 
and it creates confusion about which officials are responsible for the 
government's policy decisions.
  For example, Nancy-Ann DeParle, an individual for whom I have great 
respect, is the health policy czar within the White House. Kathleen 
Sebelius is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. So who is 
making policy when it comes to health care? Who do we hold accountable? 
Well, we know we can call the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
before us to testify in open session at public hearings, but most 
likely we cannot call Ms. DeParle before us to testify, even though she 
has been great about coming up for private meetings.
  Senators Alexander, Bond, Crapo, Roberts, and Bennett joined me in 
writing to the President to raise these important issues. We have 
identified at least 18 czar positions where reported responsibilities 
may be undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities of 
Congress or the express statutory assignments of responsibility to 
other executive branch officials.
  Again, to be clear, I do not consider every position identified in 
various media reports to be problematic. Positions that are established 
by law or are subject to Senate confirmation, such as the Director of 
National Intelligence, the Homeland Security Advisor, and the Chairman 
of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board do not raise the 
same concerns about accountability, transparency, and oversight.
  Furthermore, we all recognize that Presidents are entitled to rely on 
experts to serve as senior advisers. But those czar positions within 
the Executive Office of the President and in some

[[Page 22191]]

executive agencies are largely insulated from effective congressional 
oversight. Many of the czars appointed by this administration seem 
either to duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and 
responsibilities that Congress already has conferred upon Cabinet level 
officers and other senior executive branch officials.
  Indeed, many of these new czars appear to occupy positions of greater 
responsibility and authority than some of the officials who come before 
us for Senate confirmation. Whether in the White House or elsewhere, 
these czar appointments are not subject to the Senate's constitutional 
advise and consent role. Little information is available concerning 
their responsibilities and authority. There is no careful Senate 
examination of their character and qualifications. We are speaking here 
of some of the most senior important positions within our government.
  The appointment of so many czars has muddied the waters, causing 
confusion and risking miscommunication going forward. We need to know, 
with clarity: Who is responsible for what? Who is in charge--the czar 
or the Cabinet official? Who can the Congress and the American people 
hold accountable for government policies that affect their lives?
  For these reasons, I offer an amendment that would prevent any more 
Federal funds from being made available for the administrative expenses 
of czars until two key conditions are met. I don't think these 
conditions are unreasonable. I don't think they are difficult for the 
President to meet, but they would make a real difference.
  First, the amendment I am proposing would require the President to 
certify to Congress that every one of these positions will respond to 
reasonable requests to testify before or provide information to any 
congressional committee with jurisdiction over the matters the 
President has assigned to that individual.
  Second, our amendment would require every czar to issue a public 
written report twice a year to these same congressional committees. 
This report would include a description of the activities of the 
official and the office, any rule, regulation, or policy that the 
official participated in the development of, or any rule, regulation, 
or policy that the official directed be developed by the department or 
agency with statutory responsibility for the matter.
  This amendment would represent a significant step toward establishing 
an oversight regime for these positions that would provide the 
transparency and accountability our Nation expects from its leaders.
  Beyond the specific requirements of this amendment, in the letter we 
sent to the President we implored the President to consult carefully 
with Congress prior to establishing any additional czars or filling any 
existing vacancies for these positions.
  We stand ready to work with the President to address the challenges 
facing our Nation and to provide our country's senior leaders with the 
authority, accountability, and legitimacy necessary to do their jobs. 
If there are problems, then the administration should come to us. We 
can work on revamping organizational structures to help eliminate those 
problems, but we must eliminate the serious problems with oversight, 
accountability, transparency, and vetting that are associated with the 
proliferation of these czars.
  I urge my colleagues to support what I think is a very reasonable 
approach to this difficult issue.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from 
Maine for her leadership on this issue. She has shown great respect for 
the President's authority under the Constitution. We all respect that. 
He has the right to appoint his own advisers, period, and to take their 
advice and, as a result, assert some executive privilege. And we don't 
inquire into that. He is entitled to that.
  But under the Constitution, article II, section 2, states that the 
Cabinet officers and other appointments of significant policy positions 
should be appointed by the advice and consent of the Senate.
  It is true a number of Republican Senators have raised a question 
about the 18 new czars appointed by President Obama who are not 
confirmed by the Senate, all of whom are new. They didn't exist before. 
This large number of new senior positions is of great concern.
  Senator Collins, in her letter of September 14 to the President--
written with great respect, signed by Senator Bond, Senator Crapo, 
Senator Roberts, Senator Bennett, and myself--basically made the 
argument she just made. She acknowledged the President's authority 
under article II to appoint his advisers and to be the leader of the 
country. But in terms of these specific responsibilities, the letter 
asks for information about the responsibilities of these 18 new czars; 
of how they were picked and how they were examined and whether they 
would be willing to testify before us.
  In her remarks, Senator Collins pointed out if we have a Health 
Secretary and a health czar, who is in charge? If we have an Energy 
Secretary and an energy czar, who is in charge? Those are the big 
issues before us. Health care is nearly 20 percent of the economy. We 
have town meetings all over the country about it. Right after that 
comes energy and climate change, and those are going to be a massive 
issues for our country. So it is important for us to know who is in 
charge so they can testify before the Congress and so we can effect 
their appropriations if we should choose to do so.
  The main point I want to underscore is the fact that this is not just 
a concern on the Republican side of the aisle. The senior Senator in 
the Senate, and the senior Democrat--the President pro tempore--is 
Robert C. Byrd. Sometimes we call him the constitutional conscience of 
the Senate. Senator Byrd was the first Member of this body to raise 
questions about the czars. I am sure he would have done it if there had 
been a Republican President--he probably has many times before--but he 
also did it even though there is now a Democratic President.
  I think it is important to reflect upon what he said in his February 
23 letter to President Obama. Senator Byrd said:

       As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House 
     staffers are not accountable for their actions to the 
     Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but 
     the President. They rarely testify before congressional 
     committees, and often shield the information and decision-
     making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. 
     In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to 
     inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

  In speaking about the lines of authority between these new White 
House positions--these czars--and their executive branch counterparts, 
the Secretaries, Senator Byrd said this to the President:

       Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and 
     responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes 
     purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-
     making process.

  Senator Byrd went on to say:

       As you develop your White House organization, I hope you 
     will favorably consider the following: that assertions of 
     executive privilege will be made only by the President, or 
     with the President's specific approval; that senior White 
     House personnel will be limited from exercising authority 
     over any person, any program, and any funding within the 
     statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or 
     agency head; that the President will be responsible for 
     resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency 
     or department head and the White House staff; and that the 
     lines of authority and responsibility in the administration 
     will be transparent and open to the American public.

  Not only Senator Byrd, but Senator Lieberman, who is the chairman of 
the committee on which Senator Collins is the ranking Republican, has 
expressed his willingness to hold hearings on this issue. Senator 
Feingold of Wisconsin, a Democratic chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, has written to the President expressing his concern. 
Senator Feingold says:

       The Constitution gives the Senate the duty to oversee the 
     appointment of Executive officers through the Appointments 
     Clause in Article II, section 2. The Appointments Clause

[[Page 22192]]

     states that the President: ``shall nominate and by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint 
     ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of 
     the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United 
     States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided 
     for, and which shall be established by law.

  Senator Feingold goes on to say:

       This clause is an important part of the constitutional 
     scheme of separation of powers, empowering the Senate to 
     weigh in on the appropriateness of significant appointments 
     and assisting in its oversight of the Executive branch.

  Senator Feingold and Senator Byrd and Senator Collins, and several of 
us who signed Senator Collins' letter, and Senator Vitter of 
Louisiana--we all respect the President's authority to be the President 
and to appoint his Cabinet members and other executive branch officers. 
But we expect that those officers, the people who are actually setting 
the policy and running the departments, should be accountable to those 
of us in the Senate because the Constitution says so.
  As a practical matter, we all know in Washington most people in the 
executive branch measure their power by the number of inches they are 
from the President of the United States. In the White House, most of 
the scurrying around at the beginning of an administration is to see 
who can get the office closest to the Oval Office. So it is always an 
issue about the amount of power that begins to accumulate in the White 
House. When it begins to take away accountability and authority and 
responsibility and create confusion about whether the Cabinet 
Secretaries have the authority, that is the time that we begin to cross 
the constitutional line.
  That is what Senator Byrd talked about in February, what Senator 
Feingold talked about last week, and what Senator Collins is talking 
about today. I congratulate her on her amendment. I think it is 
constructive. I think it is respectful to the President. It 
acknowledges his role in the Constitution, but it reiterates the 
importance of the role of the Senate in accountability and in 
transparency. I look forward to supporting her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I listened to the comments of the 
ranking member, the Republican manager of the bill. I agree with 
everything he said. I have great respect for the Senator from Maine. I 
find this amendment reasonable and our side is prepared to accept it.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON addressed the Chair.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we have one issue up right now, and 
then we will be happy to call on the Senator from Georgia. I know he 
has an amendment. I will ask unanimous consent that directly following 
disposal of the amendment of the Senator from Maine we turn to the 
Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for 
just one moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, 
be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the Senator from California, and the Senator from Tennessee for their 
kind comments.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. To understand this correctly, the intention is to 
take this by unanimous support. However, there is one thing that needs 
to be checked on. The clerks will do that, if the Senator from Maine is 
agreeable. In the meantime, we will proceed with the Senator from 
Georgia? Hearing no objection, I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2504

  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent we set aside the pending 
amendment and call up amendment No. 2504.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2504.

  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To encourage the participation of the Smithsonian Institution 
in activities preserving the papers and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther 
     King, Jr., under the Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009)

       On page 219, line 5, before ``and including'', insert the 
     following: ``of which $5,000,000 may be made available to the 
     Secretary of the Interior to develop, in conjunction with 
     Morehouse College, a program to catalogue, preserve, provide 
     public access to and research on, develop curriculum and 
     courses based on, provide public access to, and conduct 
     scholarly forums on the important works and papers of Dr. 
     Martin Luther King, Jr. to provide a better understanding of 
     the message and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.;''.

  Mr. ISAKSON. First, I thank the chairman for the courtesy of allowing 
me to call up the amendment at this time and appreciate the courtesy of 
the Senator from Maine. I have requested in appropriations the 
designation which is included in this amendment which says the 
Secretary may--underline the word ``may''--appropriate $5 million to 
Morehouse College for the purpose of the curation and the care of the 
Martin Luther King, Jr., papers in Atlanta, GA, for the civil rights 
museum of history.
  Briefly, not to belabor the point, a number of years ago, as you may 
know, the family of Martin Luther King put up the King papers for 
auction to the highest bidder. A number of people in the State of 
Georgia and the city of Atlanta determined that those papers belonged 
to the world and raised $32 million amongst themselves to buy the 
papers to protect them forever for posterity. An issue came up in the 
U.S. House of Representatives to appropriate that money, and it didn't 
happen. Without those bidders, those papers would have gone to the 
highest bidder. Whether or not it would have remained in the public 
purview for posterity no one knows. But we do know because of the 
people and the mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin, the distinguished 
Representative of our State, had the courage and fortitude and 
foresight to raise the money, and those papers are now under protection 
for the people of the world.
  The money is being raised to build the civil rights museum, and it 
will start in the not too distant future at Centennial Park in Atlanta. 
It will house the papers of Martin Luther King, but there are 10,000 
exhibits within the papers of Dr. King. Therefore, Morehouse College 
has been designated to be the curator and protector of those papers, 
much as our archivists in the country do for the great historical 
documents of the United States. This money would go to assist Morehouse 
College as the curator to protect those papers, which will be in the 
public domain forever.
  I appreciate very much the distinguished chairman allowing me to 
offer the amendment. I hope at the appropriate time it will be adopted. 
I think it is an important contribution to the history of our country 
and future of civil rights and the world.
  I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 22193]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2504, as Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that Isakson amendment No. 
2504 be modified with the changes that are at the desk, which are 
technical amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment as modified is as follows:
       On page 219, line 5, before ``and including'', insert the 
     following: ``of which $5,000,000 may be made available to the 
     Secretary of the Interior to develop, in conjunction with 
     Morehouse College, a program to catalogue, preserve, provide 
     public access to and research on, develop curriculum and 
     courses based on, provide public access to, and conduct 
     scholarly forums on the important works and papers of Dr. 
     Martin Luther King, Jr. to provide a better understanding of 
     the message and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.;''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 at 5:45 
p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following 
amendments and motion; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of 
debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that no 
amendments be in order to the amendments or motion prior to the vote; 
that after the first vote in the sequence, the succeeding votes be 
limited to 10 minutes each: McCain amendment No. 2461, DeMint motion to 
recommit, and Reid amendment No. 2494.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, that 
would be the Reid amendment as modified?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Right.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2494, as Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reid 
amendment No. 2494 be modified with the change at the desk and that 
once the amendment is modified, it be agreed to, as modified, and the 
motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is agreed to, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2494), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 240, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 423. JUNGO DISPOSAL SITE EVALUATION.

       Using funds made available under this Act, the Director of 
     the United States Geological Survey may conduct an evaluation 
     of the aquifers in the area of the Jungo Disposal Site in 
     Humboldt County, Nevada (referred to in this section as the 
     ``site''), to evaluate--
       (1) how long it would take waste seepage (including 
     asbestos, discarded tires, and sludge from water treatment 
     plants) from the site to contaminate local underground water 
     resources;
       (2) the distance that contamination from the site would 
     travel in each of--
       (A) 95 years; and
       (B) 190 years;
       (3) the potential impact of expected waste seepage from the 
     site on nearby surface water resources, including Rye Patch 
     Reservoir and the Humboldt River;
       (4) the size and elevation of the aquifers; and
       (5) any impact that the waste seepage from the site would 
     have on the municipal water resources of Winnemucca, Nevada.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2461

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to the regular 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe the regular order is that I am 
allowed 1 minute. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  This amendment strikes an earmark of $200,000 for the Des Moines Art 
Center in Iowa. The center just began a $7.5 million capital 
improvement project. It is time we got serious.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Harkin in urging a 
``no'' vote. I think he argued quite eloquently on the floor.
  I yield my time, and we can go straight to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 291 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Barrasso
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Lincoln
       
  The amendment (No. 2461) was rejected.


                           Motion to Recommit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a 
vote in relation to the DeMint motion to recommit.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, both Senators from California, as 
well as the managers of this bill, urge a ``no'' vote on the DeMint 
amendment.
  What this amendment would do is essentially prohibit the Secretary of 
the Interior from expending appropriated funds to restrict, reduce or 
reallocate water supplies from the Central Valley Project and the 
California State Water Project. In essence, South Carolina is telling 
California how to handle its water issues.
  To handcuff the Secretary of the Interior will essentially prohibit 
transfers between the State and the Federal water projects, which 
transfers are being done to facilitate additional

[[Page 22194]]

water to go to a very needy farm belt in the great Central Valley of 
California. To put a prohibition on the Secretary to use any of the 
funds in this budget to reallocate or transfer this water is a mistake.
  I urge a ``no'' vote, and I move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is still time remaining. The Senator 
from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, this issue shines a spotlight on the 
utter stupidity of what this body does so often. Lawsuits cut off water 
to one of the most fertile farming communities in our country that 
supplies 13 percent of our food supply. About 40,000 people are now out 
of work because of this arbitrary lawsuit. Now President Obama has 
declared it a disaster area so we can spend more taxpayer money to bail 
out the small businesses we are putting out of business.
  All this amendment does is restrict the use of funds to cut off water 
to the farmers in California that affect this whole Nation. It is not a 
California issue, it is an American issue. It makes no sense in a 
recession to put people out of work and to arbitrarily, with no good 
science involved here, cut off water from the farmers of America.
  I have a list of farm bureaus throughout California, the National 
Cotton Council, and people all over this country who are saying enough 
is enough. Let us use some common sense. Please support this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, this will be the last vote of the evening. 
I will file cloture tonight on this bill and, hopefully, we can move 
immediately to the Defense appropriations bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I move to table this motion to 
recommit, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 292 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Lincoln
       
  The motion to table was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2454.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


               Motion to Recommit with Amendment No. 2508

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I find this very frustrating. As I 
understand it, the Chair who is handling the bill on the floor is not 
objecting personally but on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida. I find 
it frustrating because this is a completely germane amendment to the 
bill. It is a limitation amendment which is completely germane to the 
bill. I don't think there is any reasonable argument that something so 
directly pertinent and germane should not be open for discussion and 
vote on the Senate floor.
  I think, quite frankly, it is unreasonable for Senator Nelson to 
block an amendment in this way. Having been forced to do this, I now 
send to the desk a motion to recommit with instructions so that this 
amendment can be considered and heard in that manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] moves to recommit 
     the bill, H.R. 2996, to the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate with instructions to report back the same to the 
     Senate forthwith with the following amendment No. 2508.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to delay the implementation of 
the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 
                               2010-2015)

       On page 240, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 423. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUND TO DELAY DRAFT PROPOSED 
                   OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING 
                   PROGRAM 2010-2015.

       None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to delay the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and 
     Gas Leasing Program 2010-2015 issued by the Secretary of the 
     Interior under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344).

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will be happy to explain the substance 
of this amendment. Again, I am forced to file this motion to recommit 
simply to have this germane, relevant amendment heard and voted on with 
regard to the bill.
  What does the amendment do? The amendment is very straightforward. It 
simply says:

       None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to delay the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and 
     Gas Leasing Program from 2010-2015 issued by the Secretary of 
     the Interior under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act.

  We all know we face enormous energy needs in this country. That 
became particularly acute and particularly obvious last summer when the 
price at the pump went through the roof and rose to $4 a gallon for 
gasoline. At that time, people rightly became enraged that we were not 
doing more to control our own destiny and our own energy future. People 
started demanding that Congress act, that Congress do something with 
regard to oil and gas and other energy resources we have right here at 
home.
  That is when the petition began: Drill here, drill now. That is when 
every Member of this Congress was deluged with calls and e-mails and 
letters saying: Let's get ahold of our own destiny and produce that 
energy which we have right here at home.
  In that time period last year, Congress heard that message loudly and 
clearly. So for the first time in years, the moratorium on offshore oil 
and gas production was lifted by Congress, and President Bush similarly 
lifted a more limited executive moratorium on offshore production. So 
those barriers and those hurdles were finally lifted because of the 
demands of the American people, when the American people said very 
loudly, very clearly: This is ridiculous. We have resources here at 
home. We have domestic energy. Let's use that domestic energy rather 
than being held hostage by foreign powers. That was real progress. That 
was moving, certainly, in the right direction.

[[Page 22195]]

  The problem is, the new administration and the new Secretary of the 
Interior have made it clear that--despite all of those actions, despite 
all of that clear communication by the American people, despite 
Congress taking that historic action of lifting the moratorium, despite 
the previous administration lifting the executive moratorium--they are 
not in any hurry and they are not going to take any action in the near 
future to move forward with the 2010 to 2015 offshore planning area and 
lease sales.
  So what, unfortunately, Secretary Salazar has said pretty clearly is 
he is not going to take action in the foreseeable future to actually 
move forward with that going after domestic production and domestic 
resources. That is really a shame because, while the price at the pump 
has stabilized somewhat from last summer, and that is a good thing, the 
need--particularly the medium- and long-term need--is still there. Over 
the next 20 years, U.S. demand for energy is only going to grow. It is 
particularly going to grow as we get out of this recession and come 
back into a more normal economy. Overall, it is expected to grow at an 
annual rate of 1.4 percent. That is going to demand more energy. We 
need to conserve. We need to develop new technology. We need to develop 
new energy sources. But that need is still going to grow, so that short 
term we will have increased demand for the types of energy we use.
  We have enormous potential right here at home. The question which 
this amendment poses is, are we going to tap that potential or are we 
going to use the resources we have so that we cannot be held hostage 
any longer by hostile foreign powers.
  According to conservative estimates from MMS, there are about 288 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 52 billion barrels of oil in the 
OFC, off the lower 48 States. That is an enormous amount of energy as 
yet untapped. That is enough oil to maintain current production for 105 
years. That is enough natural gas to maintain production for 71 years. 
That is enough oil to produce gasoline for 132 million cars and heating 
oil for 54 million homes for 15 years. It is enough natural gas to heat 
72 million homes for 60 years or to supply current industrial and 
commercial needs for 28 years or to supply current electricity 
generating needs for 53 years. Further, the MMS reports that the waters 
off Alaska's coast hold about 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is in addition to all of the 
potential, all of the resources I was just talking about.
  Make no mistake about it, we need to move to a new energy future. We 
need to develop new technology. We need to develop new sources of 
energy. But we need a bridge to get to that future, and certainly 
current fuels--oil and natural gas, particularly natural gas, which is 
a relatively clean-burning fuel--are an absolutely vital bridge to get 
to that future.
  The American people are scratching their heads. We have enormous 
needs, particularly the need to build an energy bridge to a new, 
exciting energy future. The good news is we have enormous domestic 
resources that can help get us there, particularly natural gas. So why 
are we not matching those two things that should match up so well? The 
American people demanded that last summer. Because of their loud and 
clear voice, they got dramatic action out of Congress, lifting the 
moratoria. The problem is, the new administration and the new Secretary 
of the Interior are simply saying: We are not in any hurry to get 
there. We are not going to lift a finger to actually move forward with 
the concrete work that needs to be done.
  That is really inappropriate. That is ignoring the clear clarion call 
of the American people. So, again, that brings us to my amendment, 
amendment No. 2454, which my motion to recommit would add to the bill. 
It simply says:

       None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to delay the draft proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and 
     Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015 issued by the Secretary of 
     the Interior under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act.

  The American people have spoken: Drill here, drill now; build an 
important bridge to the future. No, it is not the future, but it is a 
necessary bridge to get us there. Let's adopt that common sense of the 
American people. Let's respond to that clear call of the American 
people dating back to last summer. Let's pass this clear limitation 
amendment, perfectly germane to this bill, so we can move forward with 
developing our domestic energy resources right here at home to build a 
more stable energy future.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last summer President Bush signed into 
law a $50 billion foreign aid--HIV/AIDS--bill. Included as part of the 
PEPFAR bill was a $2 billion authorization that I, and a bipartisan 
group of Senators, worked to include that focused on the critical 
public safety, health care, and water needs in Indian country. All of 
the Senators who worked to include this provision in the final package, 
including now Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton, 
recognized that there are great needs internationally, but that we have 
equal or maybe even greater needs here at home on our Nation's 
reservations.
  The final PEPFAR bill created a $2 billion 5-year authorization, 
beginning in fiscal year 2009, for the emergency fund for Indian safety 
and health. Over the 5-year authorization, $750 million could be spent 
on public safety, $250 million on health care, and $1 billion for water 
settlements. The need for increased funding in these three areas cannot 
be underestimated.
  Nationwide, 1 percent of the U.S. population does not have safe and 
adequate water for drinking and sanitation needs. On our Nation's 
reservations this number climbs to an average of 11 percent and in the 
worst parts of Indian country to 35 percent. The Indian Health Service 
estimates that in order to provide all Native Americans with safe 
drinking water and sewage systems in their home they would need over 
$2.3 billion.
  The heath care statistics are just as startling. Nationally, Native 
Americans are three times as likely to die from diabetes compared to 
the rest of the population. In South Dakota, 13 percent of Native 
Americans suffer from diabetes. This is more than twice the rate of the 
general population, where only 6 percent suffer from diabetes. On the 
Oglala Sioux Reservation in my home State of South Dakota, the average 
life expectancy for males is 56 years old. In Iraq it is 58, in Haiti 
it is 59, and in Ghana it is 60--all higher than right here in America. 
In South Dakota, from 2000 to 2005, Native American infants were more 
than twice as likely to die as non-Native infants.
  Tragically, there are also great needs in the area of public safety 
and justice. One out of every three Native American women will be raped 
in their lifetime. According to a recent Department of Interior report, 
tribal jails are so grossly insufficient when it comes to cell space, 
only half of the offenders who should be incarcerated are being put in 
jail. That same report found that constructing or rehabilitating only 
those detention centers that are most in need will cost $8.4 billion.
  The South Dakota attorney general released a study last year on 
tribal criminal justice statistics and found homicide rates on South 
Dakota reservations are almost 10 times higher than those found in the 
rest of South Dakota. Also, forcible rapes on South Dakota's 
reservations are seven times higher than those found in the rest of 
South Dakota.
  There is no better example of these public safety issues as Standing 
Rock Sioux Tribe, which is located on the North and South Dakota 
border. In early 2008, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation had six 
police officers to patrol a reservation the size of Connecticut. This 
meant that during any given shift there was only one officer on duty. 
One day, the only dispatcher on the reservation was out sick. This left 
only one police officer to act both as a first responder and also as 
the dispatcher. This directly impacted the officer's ability to patrol 
and respond to emergencies, and prevented him from appearing in tribal 
court to testify at a criminal trial.

[[Page 22196]]

  Later in the year, I was able to work with my Senate colleagues and 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to bring additional police officers to the 
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation through Operation Dakota Peacekeeper. 
This effort increased the number of officers working on the reservation 
from 12 to 37. This operation, which was a success, was only possible 
because the Bureau of Indian Affairs was able to dramatically increase 
the number of law enforcement officials on the reservation during the 
surge. And this dramatic increase in officers was only possible because 
the Bureau had been given additional public safety and justice funds in 
2008.
  Since its enactment last year, I have been working with my colleagues 
to ensure that the emergency fund for Indian safety and health is 
funded as quickly as possible. Earlier this spring, 13 of us sent a 
letter to the chairman and vice chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee asking that the committee increase the allocations in three 
different bills, including the Interior appropriations bill that we are 
debating today. As a result of that letter, the allocations in both the 
Energy and Water Development and Interior appropriations bills were 
increased by $50 million each, for a total of $100 million.
  While this funding increase is a positive sign, neither subcommittee 
directed this additional funding into the emergency fund as requested. 
Instead, the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee divided the 
additional funding up between a variety of water settlement projects, 
and the Interior Subcommittee provided $25 million for public safety 
construction and $25 million for ``public safety and justice programs 
as authorized by the PEPFAR Emergency Fund.''
  While I am pleased to see that there has been a $100 million increase 
in funding for Native American public safety and water projects, I 
think more could be done if we deposited funds directly into the 
emergency fund, which would be allocated to the areas of greatest need. 
The emergency fund, unlike general appropriations, is needed because 
the fund allows the relevant Federal agencies to spend the additional 
resources in those places where there are actual emergencies. It would 
allow agencies, like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to begin additional 
operations, like Operation Dakota Peacekeeper, and bring immediate 
solutions to parts of our nation that are most in need.
  That is why I filed my amendment, amendment No. 2503, today. I have 
filed an amendment that would simply transfer the $50 million increase 
in public safety and public safety construction funding into the 
emergency fund. While I do not intend to seek a vote on this amendment 
today, I am committed to continuing to work in a bipartisan manner for 
the much needed funding for the emergency fund. Toward that end, I am 
encouraged by the discussions I have had with several of my colleagues 
who are willing to continue this effort.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of H.R. 2996, the Department of the 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2010.
  The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
provides $32.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal 
year 2010, which will result in new outlays of $19.7 billion. When 
outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary outlays for the bill will total $34.3 billion.
  The Senate-reported bill matches its section 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and is $5 million below its allocation for outlays. No 
points of order lie against the committee-reported bill.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table 
displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 2996, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010
  [Spending comparisons--Senate-reported bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               General
                                                               purpose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
    Budget Authority.......................................       32,100
    Outlays................................................       34,273
Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget Authority...................................            0
        Outlays............................................           -5
    House-Passed Bill:
        Budget Authority...................................         -200
        Outlays............................................           85
    President's Request:
        Budget Authority...................................         -225
        Outlays............................................          35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Table does not include 2010 outlays stemming from emergency budget
  authority provided in the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.
  111-32).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

                          ____________________