[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22340-22362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2996, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Carper amendment No. 2456, to require the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study on 
     black carbon emissions.

[[Page 22341]]

       Collins amendment No. 2498, 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.
       Isakson modified amendment No. 2504, 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.
       Vitter motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, with instructions to report the same back to 
     the Senate forthwith with Vitter amendment No. 2508 (to the 
     instructions on Vitter motion to commit the bill), to 
     prohibit the use of funds to delay the implementation of the 
     Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing 
     Program 2010-2015.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the floor is now open for amendments 
to the Interior bill. I hope Senators will come to the floor if they 
have an amendment. The filing deadline is 1 o'clock this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from California 
that I join her in urging our colleagues to come to the floor and offer 
their amendments so we can move on through the bill. There is an 
opportunity to offer them and to debate them.
  Mr. President, if someone comes to the floor I will finish quickly so 
they can take the floor and we can move on with the bill, but while we 
are waiting for that, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, with great respect to the President of 
the United States, I am still shaking my head a little bit in disbelief 
at his speech yesterday on climate change at the Climate Change Summit 
in New York. Here we had 100 leaders from around the world in our 
country to talk about climate change and the President said what he has 
said before, which is that we need to stop putting so much carbon in 
the air because carbon is the principal greenhouse gas that contributes 
to climate change, in the opinion of most scientists.
  But in saying that, the President did not mention the one way we have 
to create a lot of low-cost electricity without putting any carbon in 
the air, and that is nuclear power--a process that the United States 
invented; a process that the United States operates more efficiently 
than any other country in the world. It produces 19 percent of our 
electricity, and our plants operate 90 percent of the time. Even 
France, which gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, 
only operates its plants 80 percent of the time. He failed to mention 
nuclear power even though it produces 70 percent of our carbon-free 
electricity, and even though every one of the other top five carbon 
emitting nations in the world are committed to a full-scale 
construction program for nuclear power.
  This is what the President said:

       The developed nations that caused much of the damage to the 
     climate over the last century have the responsibility to 
     lead--and that includes the United States.

  Well, according to the Wall Street Journal on Monday, September 21, 
in its news pages, we know who produces the carbon: China is No. 1--6 
million metric tons; the United States is No. 2--nearly 6 million 
metric tons. So we produce about the same. Russia is next--1.7 million; 
India is next; Japan is next. Those are the top five carbo emitting 
nations.
  President Obama lectured other countries when he said:

       But those rapidly developing nations--

  And here he means China and India--

     that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon 
     emissions in the decade ahead must do their part as well.

  He is right about that. The President went on to say:

       We cannot meet these challenges unless all the largest 
     emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together. There's no 
     other way.

  He is right about that. But then, to my great astonishment--and I am 
sure to others--he stopped there and he basically was saying to China 
and to Russia and to India, as well as Japan: You must do something 
about carbon. We are going to take the lead. Yet they all are building 
nuclear power plants that emit zero carbon and we haven't started one 
new reactor in 30 years, even though we invented it. How can the 
President of the United States lecture other countries about the carbon 
they produce--the principal greenhouse gas--when they are expanding the 
one technology that could do the most to solve the problem?
  Let's be very elementary here. Coal and natural gas plants produce 
nearly 40 percent of the carbon when they produce electricity. The 
President did boast of how the United States is committed to building 
windmills and solar panels. In fact, his administration wants to build 
20 percent of our electricity from wind turbines. These aren't 
grandma's windmills, these are the giant 50-story wind turbines that 
they want to string along the Appalachian Mountain tops, from the 
Smokey Mountains to the White Mountains, along the coastlines, and run 
19,000 miles of transmission lines to get the power to our homes and 
businesses. That is the plan. And to a point, that plan can help. I 
mean, renewable energy--solar panels, wind turbines--is a supplement to 
the electricity we need. But today, wind turbines and solar panels 
produce about 3 to 4 percent of America's carbon-free electricity. 
Nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. So 
why not expand nuclear power? Yet we haven't built a new nuclear 
powerplant in 30 years.
  What is happening around the world? Well, they are not slowing down. 
They are taking full advantage, as the world often has, of American 
ingenuity. We invented nuclear power here. And after we invented the 
atom bomb, President Eisenhower and other scientists in the 1950s said: 
Let's have an atoms for peace program.
  So we went off on two tracks. We used nuclear reactors to operate our 
Navy, which we have done successfully, without incident ever since the 
1950s. Admiral Rickover pioneered that. So today we have about 80 Navy 
vessels operated by reactors and, during the 1970s and 1980s, we built 
104 nuclear reactors. This was the Atoms for Peace Program. We took 
what probably was the greatest scientific invention of the last 
century, the reactor, and used it to produce a lot of low-cost, 
reliable energy--which is the dream of the world, to have a lot of low-
cost, reliable energy for everyone in the world. That is the one of the 
single best steps toward reducing poverty and increasing prosperity.
  So here we are in the United States, using our 104 nuclear reactors--
not having built a new one in the last 30 years--to produce 19 percent 
of our electricity and 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. But 
what is happening around the world? There are 44 new nuclear 
powerplants under construction in the world. China has four under 
construction. This was the first country the President would be 
lecturing: Do something about carbon-free electricity. So China is 
planning 132 nuclear powerplants and we are constructing zero. We have 
not constructed one in 30 years. How can we lecture China about carbon 
if they are building 132 nuclear powerplants, which would be enough to 
produce one-fourth of all the electricity the United States uses? That 
is more than we produce today through nuclear power.
  Russia is building two a year. One reason Russia is doing it is 
because they want to sell their natural gas to Europe at a lot more 
expensive price, so they are taking advantage of nuclear power to raise 
their standard of living. Japan is 36 percent nuclear power today. 
Japan, as everyone knows, suffered under the two atom bombs that were 
dropped. But they have come to terms with the safe use of

[[Page 22342]]

atoms for peace, nuclear-power-produced electricity--36 percent of 
their electricity is nuclear. They are building two more plants. The 
United States has not built a plant in 30 years.
  South Korea, one of the most successful emerging countries--in 
America, one of those countries that the President might be saying you 
need to do something about climate change--they are. Forty percent of 
their electricity is carbon-free nuclear power and they are building 
eight more nuclear plants by 2015 and we have not built one in 30 
years.
  India, the largest democracy--we point our finger at them and say we 
don't have to do anything about climate change until you do. They are. 
They are considering a thorium reactor. They are committed to nuclear 
power, partly because of the agreement between the United States and 
the Bush administration and India, and we are helping them build 
nuclear powerplants. We are helping China as well. But we have not 
built one in 30 years.
  The President even said Iran has the right to build a nuclear 
powerplant; not a nuclear bomb but a nuclear powerplant. We have not 
built one in 30 years.
  France--we don't usually like to say the French are ahead of us. We 
have a little love-hate relationship with France, but look what they 
have done. They have taken our nuclear reactor invention and 80 percent 
of the electricity in France comes from nuclear power. They have among 
the lowest rates of carbon emissions in the entire European Union. They 
have among the lowest electricity prices in the European Union. They 
are selling electricity to Germany, which is the only one of the 
European countries that has said they don't want any nuclear power. So 
they are buying nuclear power from France.
  There are many other countries in the world that are using nuclear 
power. But as the Wall Street Journal said: China, the United States, 
Russia, India, and Japan produce most of the carbon. Scientists believe 
carbon produces 40 percent of the greenhouse gases that cause global 
warming and the United States is the only one of those five countries 
that is not committed to the construction of new nuclear powerplants.
  The President's plan instead is an energy tax and renewable mandates 
that would force us to build more giant wind turbines. Wind turbines 
work some places. They don't work in my part of the country. The wind 
doesn't blow enough, and we don't want to see them on our mountaintops. 
I am a sponsor of Senator Cardin's mountaintop removal bill. We don't 
want people blowing up our mountaintops and dumping the tops of the 
mountains in our streams. We don't want them putting 50-story wind 
turbines that don't turn more than 19 percent of the time up there 
either. So there is a growing recognition that in addition to the 
unreliability of renewable energy, the energy sprawl on our landscape 
is something we should think about.
  One thing we should think about is think about where to put renewable 
energy installations, to make sure they are in appropriate places. The 
other thing to think about is are there any alternatives to renewable 
energy. The answer, of course, is, yes, there are alternatives to 
renewable energy. The principal one is nuclear power.
  Let me be specific. In order to make 20 percent of our electricity in 
the United States from carbon-free sources, we could either build about 
186,000 wind turbines--these are 50 stories tall--that would cover an 
area about the size of West Virginia. Or we could build 100 new nuclear 
reactors. We have 104 today. Remember, China is building 132. Today, 
nuclear produces about 20 percent of all our electricity; wind provides 
about 1.3 percent.
  Nuclear power is baseload power because it operates 90 percent of the 
time. That means we could have it on almost all the time. Wind power is 
intermittent. It only works when and where the wind blows and there is 
no way today to commercially store large amounts of that electricity.
  Nuclear, as I mentioned earlier, operates 90 percent of the time. 
Wind operates about 33 percent of the time.
  When you read that you have 1,000 megawatts of electricity from 
nuclear, that means you have 900 megawatts because it operates 90 
percent of the time. When you read you have 1,000 megawatts of wind, 
that means you probably have 300 or 350 megawatts because it only 
operates a third of the time and, as they found in Denmark and other 
places, the wind often blows at night when we don't need it. We have 
lots of unused electricity at night.
  As far as additional infrastructure, building 100 new nuclear 
reactors would take very little new infrastructure because you could 
locate them mostly on the existing sites where we now have the 104 
nuclear reactors we have today. Wind turbines, on the other hand, as I 
said, would take an area the size of West Virginia, plus 19,000 miles 
of new transmission lines that would go from unpopulated areas, through 
suburban areas, to populated areas where people need the electricity.
  What about the Federal subsidy? Sometimes people say these big new 
nuclear plants must have a big federal subsidy, but the fact is they do 
not. To produce the first 100 plants that we have, they were built 
without much federal subsidy. To build 100 more, the estimates are for 
$17.5 billion over 10 years, including a capped nuclear production tax 
credit--that would build the 100 nuclear plants. To build 186,000 wind 
turbines the taxpayer would shell out about $170 billion.
  We hear a lot of about green jobs, let's have renewable electricity 
because that produces green jobs. Green jobs are good jobs. We have two 
big new plants in Tennessee that the Governor recruited and they make 
polysilicone, which is for the purpose of making solar panels. We hope 
solar energy works and we believe it will. Today it costs four to five 
times in our area what other electricity costs, but we hope the price 
comes down and we are all for that. But the estimate for nuclear's 
green jobs to build 100 reactors would be about 250,000 construction 
jobs. To build 180,000 1.5 megawatt wind turbines would be about a 
third of that, 73,000 construction jobs, and then 70,000 permanent jobs 
for nuclear and 77,000 permanent jobs for the wind turbines. They would 
be about the same.
  The lifetime of a nuclear plant is about 60 to 80 years. The lifetime 
of the wind turbines is about 20 to 25 years. At a recent hearing which 
was chaired by the Senator from California, we talked with the Interior 
Secretary about the possibility of bonds for the developers who are 
putting up these 186,000 turbines. What if they wear out after 15 or 20 
years, which is what they are expected to do? Or what if policies 
change? Or what if subsidies disappear? Or what if we decide we prefer 
other forms of energy? Who is going to take them down? We need to think 
about that, just as we did not think about abandoned mines all over the 
country--47,000 alone in California.
  Then there is the visual impact I mentioned. If you build 100 big 
nuclear powerplants, 100 reactors, they have tall cooling towers. There 
is a visual impact there. But you do it mostly on the sites where the 
104 are today, where they are well accepted by the people in those 
communities and it is only 100 of them and it only takes about 100 
square miles. Mr. President, 186,000 wind turbines would cover 25,000 
square miles, which is an area the size of West Virginia.
  I hope as we proceed, after health care, to our debate on energy and 
climate change, that we will take a more realistic attitude. I am one 
of those Senators who believe climate change is a problem. I believe 
humans are contributing to it. I think it is time for us to stop 
emitting so much carbon into the air. But I would like for us to do 
that in a low-cost, sensible way that permits us to keep our jobs in 
this country and not in a high-cost way that causes us to drive jobs 
overseas, looking for cheap energy. Every single Republican Senator has 
endorsed an energy plan that is, No. 1, 100 new nuclear powerplants in 
20 years; No. 2, electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years; No. 3, 
offshore exploration for natural gas, which is low carbon and

[[Page 22343]]

oil--we should use our own while we use it; and, No. 4, doubling 
research and development for alternative energy. How can we make solar 
cost-competitive? How can we find a way to recapture carbon from coal 
plants? How can we have advanced biofuels? How can we find the fourth 
generation of nuclear energy that recycles used nuclear fuel in a way 
that doesn't produce any plutonium?
  It is not just the 40 Republican Senators who are interested in that. 
I have had a number of Democratic Senators talk with me about that. 
Many were far out in front of the issue before I began to speak so much 
about it.
  My hope would be that, as we look more seriously at the issue of 
climate change and energy, that we adopt a low-cost energy strategy. We 
don't need an energy tax that raises everybody's electric bill. We 
don't need a renewable energy mandate that requires us to put up wind 
turbines in the Southeast, where the wind doesn't blow, anymore than we 
need a nuclear energy mandate that requires people to put up nuclear 
plants where people don't want them or a hydroelectric mandate that 
requires States to put up dams where there is no river. We need a low-
cost, clean energy policy. Almost every other major country in the 
world is deciding that nuclear power is the key to the future.
  Wind is a supplement. One day solar may be widely used as supplement. 
But for baseload power for a prosperous country there is no choice, in 
my view. So climate change may be the inconvenient problem, as my 
friend and fellow Tennessean, Al Gore, says. But nuclear power, I am 
afraid, is the inconvenient solution, and I hope we will move to the 
day when the President of the United States will go to a summit on 
climate and say: Yes, we are building wind turbines in appropriate 
places; yes, we are having solar thermal panels in appropriate places; 
yes, we have doubled and tripled our investment in research and 
development for alternative energy. But as the country that invented 
low-cost, reliable, clean, carbon-free nuclear energy, I, the President 
of the United States, have set as a goal that we will double the amount 
of electricity we will produce from nuclear power.
  If the President went to Copenhagen and said we were committed to 
build 100 new nuclear powerplants in 20 years and to electrify half our 
cars and trucks in 20 years, just implementing those two goals would 
get us close to the Kyoto Protocol standards in 2030; just implementing 
those two goals--100 new nuclear plants and electrifying half our cars 
and trucks--and we can do both. We already did both. Between 1970 and 
1990 we built 104 reactors, not to mention the 81 U.S. Navy vessels 
powered by nuclear reactors, so we have done that. Most experts, 
including many in the Obama administration, agree we can electrify half 
our cars and trucks, and probably without building one new powerplant 
because we have so much unused electricity at night. We can plug them 
in at night. We will be reducing imported oil, keeping the price of 
fuel low, we will be cleaning the air, and we will be dealing with 
global warming.
  So why are we engaged in a 1,000-page energy tax, a cap-and-trade 
system that doesn't effectively deal with fuel, that adds to taxes, and 
it runs jobs overseas, when we have before us the technology we 
invented that would lead us into the next century?
  So I hope those issues evolve. I have seen that sometimes we do not 
have the votes on this side of the aisle, but we have the right 
message. Sometimes we find if we work with our colleagues on the other 
side, we can have the same message.
  So I believe there are many Democrats and all of the Republicans who 
will join in setting a new national goal of 100 new nuclear plants in 
the next 20 years. I believe we already have consensus on electrifying 
half of our cars and trucks. So if that will help us reach the climate 
change goals, why don't we do that instead of a national goal that 
raises the price of energy, increases poverty, runs jobs overseas, and 
causes all sorts of unanticipated problems?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, one of my delights has been to work 
with the distinguished ranking member. I think anyone who was listening 
to this does see his erudition and knowledge on this particular 
subject. So I would like to thank him and commend him for his remarks. 
Senator Alexander is correct. If we are going to address global 
warming, all of the options have to be on the table and we have to 
rethink and relook at nuclear power as being a viable alternative as a 
clean fuel.
  What has surprised me today is that so many people do not believe we 
face an emergency. So I have spent quite a bit of time trying to go 
back and look at global warming, look at books written by scientists, 
talk with people who have knowledge, who have expertise. And I have 
come to the conclusion that, unfortunately, it is real, that it is 
happening, and that it is substantially impacting our Earth. So since 
there is no one on the floor of the Senate wishing to offer an 
amendment--and I would be very happy to cease and desist should there 
be someone on the floor wishing to offer an amendment--I would like to 
say a few words about what I see happening kind of as, not a 
contretemps to what the Senator said but as a supporter of what he has 
said.
  I think the science, as I said, is overwhelming. Our climate is 
changing. The Earth's climate has, in fact, warmed by 1.1 to 1.6 
degrees Fahrenheit since the industrial revolution. People look at this 
and say: Oh, that is not very much. In fact, it is very much, and it 
changes the dynamic. It impacts species. It kills some. It diminishes 
the carbon sink of the ocean. It does a number of things. But let me 
read to you something that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change warned in 2007.

       Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Observational 
     evidence from all continents and most oceans show that many 
     natural systems are being affected by regional climate 
     change.

  So I just pulled a few charts, and I would like to put them up and 
show them to you, which is the evidence of the change in our climate.
  This is the Greenland Ice Sheet. The year is 1979. Since 1979, 30 
percent of the ice sheet has melted. Here is Greenland in 1979, both 
the rust color as well as the interior. Here it is in 2007.
  The source is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. So 
this is an actual rendering. It is pretty clear how much has melted. 
Here is the Arctic at the end of the 2007 ice melt. The sea ice cover 
was 23 percent smaller than it was in 2005 and 39 percent below the 
long-term average from 1979 to the year 2000.
  So here is the whole Arctic ice sheet. We now know the Northwest 
Passage is open and is open for the first time in history all during 
the year. You can see in 2005 the Arctic went all of the way out. 2007, 
here it is. The source of this is the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
  These are a couple of satellite photos from intelligence. We have 
large satellites in the air. They have photographed, as part of a 
project, some of the melt. This happens to be the Beaufort Sea, both in 
August of 2001 and 2007.
  This site near the edge of the ice pack in summer as shown here has 
ponds of melted water forming on the surface. These dark pools absorb 
more of the summertime solar radiation than does the surrounding ice, 
enhancing melting.
  So observations of sea ice conditions reveal considerable year-to-
year variability. But these images display the variability with regard 
to the amount of melting and are an example of the long-term sequential 
record needed to support and understand this dynamic system. So pond 
coverage, monitored over time, contributes to the estimate. But this is 
the Beaufort Sea in 2001, and here it is in 2007. The dark is all open 
water. I think it is pretty clear.
  This other satellite photo is of Barrow, AK. Here we see the Chukchi 
Sea in 2006, and it is pretty clear. Here it is in July of 2007, as 
photographed by a U.S. satellite. What they say is sea ice forms along 
the coast in the winter and

[[Page 22344]]

generally melts or is breaking away by mid-July. Observation of sea ice 
reveals considerable year-to-year variability.
  This is similar to the other one, but I think this really shows the 
difference in satellite photographs, and there is a project to continue 
from the atmosphere to prove the change in the ice map and the breakup 
of ice masses. So we know Greenland is melting at an extraordinary 
pace.
  This week NOAA's National Climatic Data Center announced that the 
world's ocean surface temperature this summer was the warmest ever 
recorded. These records date back to 1880.

       In the Arctic, researchers have found that the widely 
     documented summer shrinking which I have just showed you 
     again resulted in the first ever opening of the Northwest 
     Passage.

  In 2007, the winter thickness of that sea ice diminished by a record 
19 percent in one winter, and scientists fear if the glaciers of 
Antarctica and Greenland melt at the same time, sea levels could rise 
by 20 feet. People say: Oh, that cannot possibly happen. I tell my 
constituents when they come: If you live near a beach in California, 
imagine what happens if the worldwide sea levels move up by 20 feet? In 
fact, some of this movement is already being felt in some of the 
Southern Pacific Islands, with people even making arrangements to move 
from those islands.
  In California we have seen a dramatic increase in catastrophic 
wildfires. I have spoken about that on the Senate floor. I have spoken 
about it to my ranking member. We have spoken about it in committee. We 
believe this bill meets the challenge because for the first time it 
funds the fire suppression needs of the Forest Service.
  But in the last 5 years, wildfires have burned more than 10,000 homes 
in California alone. Scientists now are predicting a 70- to 90-percent 
diminution of the Sierra snow pack. This is important because the 
Sierra Nevada Mountains provide the water for most of California. As a 
matter of fact, it provides the water for two-thirds of the State. That 
water could be lost due to climate change. At the same time annual 
rainfalls are decreasing, and the State's forests are burning up like 
never before. Here is the point: Can this warming be stopped? I have 
read a lot about it. I have talked to many people. I have talked to 
scientists I respect very much. What they tell me is it cannot be 
diminished, but it might be able to be controlled.
  The reason for this is that carbon released into the atmosphere does 
not dissipate. It has remained in the atmosphere since the beginning of 
the industrial revolution. So as carbon begins to pile up in the 
atmosphere, it creates the warming, and it also creates the potential 
catastrophe.
  So what do we do? We need to begin by reducing emissions of carbon, 
and that is pretty clear now. I have seen no serious science that 
diminishes this at this point in time. Instead, what they tell me is 
that we need to reduce emissions by 65 to 80 percent below 1990 levels, 
and all by the middle of this century.
  That translates to a goal of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide 
in the atmosphere. So I think, as Senator Alexander alluded to, there 
is no single policy we can implement to curb our Nation's emissions, no 
silver bullet. Rather, we need all the tools available, and this 
includes laws designed to protect the public from dangerous air 
pollution like the Clean Air Act.
  Global warming is real. It is happening today. It is being charted by 
our satellites. It is being charted by our scientists. It is being 
charted by those of us in this body, and I think the real key is if we 
are ready to admit that fact and take the action to make the necessary 
conversion.
  The Senator from Tennessee just spoke, I think eloquently, about the 
merits of nuclear power. I am one who believed originally that the 
human element and the waste element was such that it was not a viable 
alternative source. I no longer believe that. I think it is a viable 
alternative source, if we can fix the permit process that enables 
state-of-the-art nuclear technology to be built in a relatively short 
period of time.
  The yield from a nuclear plant, as we know, of clean energy is very 
large indeed. So that is a positive thing. We are debating now the 
placement of solar facilities: where they should go, how big they 
should be, and this is cutting edge for us. We have talked about it. I 
have indicated my concern about projects that are too big, like 20 
square miles in pristine areas of the California desert that we have 
been trying to protect with public funds over time.
  We have learned that the largest solar facilities are perhaps 250 
megawatts. So if you have them way up to 800, 1,000, this is without 
precedent. So we need to discuss if this is wise. If so, where should 
they be? What is the upside? What is the downside? Do they require new 
transmission corridors or are our existing transmission corridors 
adequate?
  So I think these are the kinds of discussions that are most fruitful, 
how we deal with the present circumstances. I hope that more Members of 
this body recognize it is only a question of time.
  I remember the days when there was never a funnel cloud off the coast 
of California. Now people report that they see funnel clouds off the 
coast of California. Of course, one of the results of global warming is 
volatility increases of weather patterns. Raindrops are bigger, more 
volatile. Hurricanes, tornadoes are more volatile. We have to begin to 
deal with that.
  There are people who believe the Earth is immutable, that the Earth 
will not change. Again, as I go back and read the literature and go 
back 255 million years, what is posited is that there was effectively 
one land mass on Earth and, geologically, that can be shown today. Yet 
various events have broken up the land masses. Volcanic activity that 
produces some of the greatest mountain ranges in the world also is 
believed to be responsible for the separation of the continents 
millions of years ago. I don't know, but this is much of what we see as 
we read some of the scientific material.
  I do not believe the Earth is immutable. That is what has been so 
interesting about foraging into Mars to try to see if Mars ever, in 
fact, had water on it. Time is infinite. Therefore, one never knows 
when the planet Earth was born, what it was like when it was born, how 
it has changed over the millennia. One thing we know in the instant of 
this millennia we share, we have a problem, and we have to solve it.
  I thank the Senator from Tennessee for bringing to the debate what is 
a valuable alternative source of energy that should be continued, just 
as wind, just as solar, just as biofuels, and just as moving away from 
the internal combustion engine into hydrogen, electricity, those things 
which can guarantee our future.
  The one thing that is frightening about all this is we will not do it 
fast enough and we will not do it in a way that is able to stop the 
climate change which is now taking place, halt it. We can't reverse it 
but halt it. The time has come for the United States to take a 
leadership role. We have a big conference at the end of the year, which 
we have briefly discussed, where nations will come together and where 
they will look at the United States and say: You are the wealthiest 
country on Earth. You have 5 percent of the population, but you use 25 
percent of the energy. Therefore, you have an obligation to lead. 
Certainly, the Chinese will believe this, although, as the Senator has 
pointed out, the Chinese have rapidly overtaken the United States in 
their release of global warming gases. But certainly India looks to us 
as well. So China, India, the big developing countries that so impact 
the release of global warming gases, it is very important that our 
President stand tall, that the United States stands tall and that we 
are willing to offer real leadership to the world.
  Whether this happens remains a cipher, but I very much hope and pray 
it does.
  I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his remarks. I am happy to 
make this small addition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I congratulate the Senator from California. She is 
characteristically balanced in her approach

[[Page 22345]]

and passionate about it which becomes a former mayor who is accustomed 
to making practical decisions. We have all had to change our minds 
about some things as we go along. There is in this body an entire range 
of views about climate change. Some are about ready to jump off the 
cliff. Others believe it is a complete hoax. That is probably the way 
it is in the country today among a variety of views.
  My own view is that if I had this much information about my house 
probably catching on fire, I would buy some fire insurance. What we 
need to do in the Senate is say: Yes, it is a problem, and we are 
helping to cause it. What makes the most practical sense for dealing 
with it in a rapid way without running our jobs overseas where they are 
looking for cheap energy?
  There are a variety of ways to do that. I totally agree that 
renewable energies are an important new source, but we need to be smart 
about it. One way to be smart is intensive research. We may find a way 
to make solar power a fourth the cost of what it is today. Then we have 
rooftops instead of thousands of square miles of thermal powerplants we 
can use. We may find cost effective ways to recapture carbon from coal 
plants. That would be a blessing not only for us but for the world 
because it would mean low-cost energy without polluting the world. It 
is important to recognize that the Obama administration's chief 
scientist, Dr. Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, says 
unequivocally that nuclear power is safe and used nuclear fuel can be 
safely stored onsite for 40 to 60 years, while we have a mini Manhattan 
project to find the best way to recycle that used nuclear fuel, most 
likely in a way that doesn't produce highly enriched uranium of the 
kind that causes proliferation concerns.
  So the two questions often raised regarding nuclear power--what to do 
with the waste and is it safe. The chief scientist in this 
administration says those concerns aren't a problem. If that is the 
case, then nuclear power has to be a big part of the solution.
  I am delighted I had a chance to hear the Senator speak on climate 
change. I hope, as we talk more about this over the next several 
months, we can agree on a consensus and permit the President to go to 
international summits and show the United States is actually leading.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Once again, Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the 
ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, for his 
comments. I agree with him.
  The floor is open. We are going back and forth using the time, but I 
don't want Members to believe that if they come to the floor to offer 
an amendment, we will not promptly hear their amendment. The floor is 
open. So, please, if you have an amendment, come to the floor. The 
filing deadline is in 36 minutes. Hopefully, we will know what we are 
facing in about 36 minutes. We would like to move this bill and move on 
to Defense appropriations.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Recognizing Angel Flight and Mack Secord

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the great 
work that is done by the Angel Flight organization and, in particular, 
one of its Georgia members, Mack Secord. In the world of nonprofits, 
Angel Flight stands out for its determination to bring those in need 
lifesaving medical care. In a world of dedicated volunteers, Mack 
Secord stands out for coupling his passion for flying with his passion 
to help his fellow man.
  Angel Flight's creed is that the cost of travel should never stand in 
the way of patients receiving necessary medical care. Through a network 
of volunteer pilots, Angel Flight specializes in flying those in need 
to medical facilities at distant locations.
  In Georgia, we are proud that the DeKalb Peachtree Airport in metro 
Atlanta is home to Angel Flight, the original volunteer pilot 
organization serving those who live in or traveling to or through 
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and the Carolinas.
  Since the year 2000, Angel Flight's missions of hope have increased 
more than 760 percent. Last year, these generous volunteer pilots flew 
2,266 missions, serving patients with 167 different medical conditions 
who ranged in age from newborn to 100 years old.
  In some of our Nation's most trying hours, the pilots and 
coordinators of Angel Flight were there. In the aftermath of 9/11, they 
transported relief workers, firefighters, Red Cross personnel, and FBI 
agents to New York and Washington when commercial air traffic was 
grounded. They served as first responders during Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita, flying 450 relief missions that carried supplies, medical 
equipment, and volunteers into disaster areas, and reunited families 
separated by the storms.
  In recognition of the service of its volunteers, Angel Flight 
received awards from the Red Cross and the National Aeronautic 
Association.
  One of Angel Flight's dedicated volunteers is Mack Secord of Atlanta. 
Simply put, Mack's life has always been about service. He is one of the 
original 15 pilots of Angel Flight of Georgia. But before he found his 
calling transporting adults and children to hospitals, burn centers, 
and cancer treatment facilities, Mack had another calling: his country. 
Mack spent 42 years as a pilot in the U.S. Air Force. For 5 of those 
years, he served as the Air Force's senior spokesman at the Pentagon.
  Flying and helping others have always been Mack's twin passions. In 
1964, while in the Air Force, he participated in a daring humanitarian 
airlift in the Congo that saved more than 2,000 people who had been 
taken hostage. For his efforts, Mack and his colleagues received the 
prestigious Mackay Trophy awarded by the Air Force for the most 
meritorious flight of the year.
  Since 1985, Mack has donated his time, his Cessna 180, and the cost 
of his fuel to Angel Flight. On his first mission, he picked up a 
little boy in Columbus, GA, who had terrible burns on his face and body 
from pulling a frying pan off a stove. Mack says he didn't know burn 
patients require continuing treatment. He said:

       I realized during the first flight that this was an 
     important service and that I could make a difference.

  Mack is a one-man cheering section for Angel Flight. He spreads the 
word to the Lions Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, Rotary Clubs, pilots 
associations, schools, churches, and anyone who will listen. He jokes 
that he will give his 20-minute PowerPoint presentation to any group of 
people who will sit still. This remarkable man also volunteers at the 
Hartsfield-Jackson Airport USO, works at the Atlanta Community Food 
Bank, and participates in a program to read to the blind. But his first 
love is flying.
  Last August, Mack received the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award 
from the FAA to commemorate 50 years of flying without accidents, 
incidents, or violations. In October, Mack was given the first-ever 
Lifetime Achievement Award from Angel Flight, marking his 23 years of 
service. Fittingly, it will be renamed the ``Mack Secord Award.'' Just 
this month, Mack was honored with the National Aeronautical 
Association's Public Benefit Flying Award for decades of going above 
and beyond as a volunteer pilot, bringing lifesaving medical care to 
families in need. This recognition couldn't come to a more deserving 
organization than Angel Flight, nor to a more deserving individual than 
Mack Secord.
  On behalf of those who need help, thanks to Angel Flight, and to Mack 
Secord, for letting your passion for service take flight and for making 
hope soar.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

[[Page 22346]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to share a few thoughts about 
the process we are going through and the impact it is having on 
spending by the U.S. Government. We are at a rate that everyone agrees 
is unsustainable.
  Worse than that, I think it is irresponsible, and we do not need to 
be doing the things we are doing now. I object. The ramp-up in 
discretionary spending for the appropriations in fiscal year 2010 is 
unprecedented. We know we have the biggest deficits we have ever had in 
the history of the Republic. Now we are passing more appropriations 
bills that will take effect next year that will have unprecedented 
spending levels. For example, the agriculture bill; I have always tried 
to support Agriculture Appropriations in the Senate. I have not always 
been able to do so. It had an increase of 14.5 percent. At that rate, 
spending on agriculture will double in 5 years. The average increase in 
agricultural spending, compounded over the past 7 years, from 2003 
through 2009, was just 2.1 percent. So we have 14 percent.
  Now we have the Interior and EPA funding and their increases this 
year in the bill before us today, which is 16.6 percent. What is 
inflation? Two percent or less. That is a 16-percent spending increase 
in 1 year. At that rate, spending for Interior and EPA would double 
every 4 to 5 years. Within this bill, the increase for the EPA is 33 
percent. I guess that would double in 2 to 3 years. Since EPA was added 
to the Interior financing in 2006, it is difficult to compare--at least 
prior to that. However, we have added EPA funding to the Interior 
funding to get a comparison over previous years. The average annual 
increase in Interior-EPA Appropriations, from 2001 to 2009, is 1 
percent but this year 16.6 percent. And we have the largest deficit in 
the history of the Republic this year.
  When we pass a stimulus bill that is huge, in terms of additional 
spending, that is not being counted in what I am making reference to 
today.
  We also passed the Transportation HUD bill, commonly called the THUD 
bill. Looking at its configuration for the past 3 years, we are able to 
conclude how that developed. From 1995 to 2009, we have seen a 5.2-
percent average increase in discretionary spending--5.2 over the last 8 
years. This year, what do you think it is? It is 23 percent. At a 23-
percent rate, spending for highways in America would double in 3 to 4 
years.
  Why is this important? Let me back up one more time and mention the 
stimulus package. We passed, this year--the President insisted on it, 
and he was able to force it through--an $800 billion stimulus package. 
It was supposed to be to fix our crumbling infrastructure, our highways 
and bridges. Did you know only 4 percent or less of that $800 billion 
went to highways and bridges? That was a flimflam. The number I am 
talking about in the basic highway budget we passed, I guess, a few 
weeks ago, that bill has a 23-percent increase, in addition to the 
money they got out of the stimulus package.
  To show you how large that $800 billion is--the stimulus package--
spending only 4 percent on highways increased the Federal highway 
funding by about 40 percent. It may be more. You can say: Well, Jeff, 
the economy isn't doing well, so we need to spend more money. I submit 
that we are spending money to a degree that it is putting a cloud over 
the future of our Nation, and people who are involved in finance and 
investment and business are worried not about what is going to happen 
in the next year but about what is going to happen in the next 5 to 10 
years. How can we sustain something that is unsustainable? The 
administration said this cannot be sustained and Democratic Senators 
have said it. Certainly, I say it.
  In 2008, the entire national debt from the beginning of the founding 
of our Nation through 2008 was $5.8 trillion. According to our 
Congressional Budget Office, which I believe is a fair and impartial 
group, they calculated the President's budget and what it would mean to 
the deficit. They concluded that in 5 years--and the President 
submitted a 10-year budget--that would double to $11.8 trillion. That 
which we took over 200 years to accumulate--$5.8 billion--would be 
doubled in 5 years. By 2019, 10 years from now, it would triple to 
$17.3 trillion in debt.
  The road we are on today will triple the national debt. I am not 
making up these numbers. These are the Congressional Budget Office 
numbers. It is stunning. In fact, it is based on the assumption that 
unemployment would top out at about 8 percent. What are we moving to 
now? About 10 percent. It also assumed a vigorous bounce-back in 
economic growth next year, which it doesn't look like we are going to 
get. So the results of those numbers can be worse than it appears here 
because the economy isn't coming back as rapidly as we would like it 
to.
  It is hard to figure this. Some might say: I am unable to understand 
this, Sessions. How much money is this? A trillion dollars doesn't mean 
much to me.
  Well, we spend less than $100 billion a year on education now. We 
spend about $40 billion on highways. Do you know how much we spend on 
interest on the debt? People think you can just print the money, and 
that is not what happens. We borrow. We sell Treasury bills and notes; 
people buy them and we have to pay them interest. Right now, interest 
rates are pretty low. It is expected those interest rates are going to 
increase from the financial sector on Wall Street, and the CBO, which 
calculates these numbers--everybody assumes the interest rates will go 
up some. How much, we don't know. They took a moderate increase in 
interest rates.
  In 2009, this year, the interest on our debt is expected to be $170 
billion. That is going to go up every year. Why? Because the deficit 
this year is going to be about $1.8 trillion. We have never had such a 
deficit in the history of the Republic. Last year, we had a $450 
billion deficit, the largest deficit in the history of the Republic. 
This year, it will be $1.8 trillion. What does that mean? We have to 
borrow that money.
  Over the 10-year budget window, as assumed by the CBO, the deficits 
will never fall below $600 billion. In fact, it will average over $900 
billion--almost $1 trillion a year. That is how you get to $17 trillion 
after 10 years. So we have to borrow that money in the world 
marketplace. Countries such as China bought huge amounts of our 
Treasury. We pay them interest on that money. What does this mean over 
the 10 years? I think this can help the American people understand how 
sizable this debt is.
  As I noted, we spend $100 billion on education federally and $40 
billion on transportation. This year, 2009, we spent $170 billion on 
interest. In 2009, under the red line here on the chart, it will be 
$799 billion--$800 billion--money that we used to be in a position to 
do things with, such as build roads and do other things the Nation 
needs. That is now going to have to be spent every year--$800 billion--
to pay interest. That is why Alan Greenspan, Wall Street experts, Ben 
Bernanke, and others have said this is unsustainable; we cannot 
continue this course.
  What do we get from the Appropriations Committee and the Senate 
leadership? We get an Interior bill that increases funding 16.6 
percent. That is not acceptable. That is simply too much spending. As I 
indicated, a lot of money is being pumped into Interior and 
environmental appropriations from this $800 billion stimulus. I am not 
counting that. This is baseline spending. So next year, if somebody in 
this Congress were to have an epiphany and become frugal, and we cut 
the budget and don't increase it a bit, what will be the average 
increase over 2 years? It would be 8 percent. That is totally 
unacceptable.
  In the last 3 years, spending for interior and the environment, 2007 
had a 5.6-percent increase; in 2008, a 3.7-percent increase; last year, 
minus 2.9. So you are averaging far less than that. This is a 
thunderous increase in spending in this Appropriations bill. I cannot 
support it. There are a lot of good things in this legislation, and I 
would like to support it. But I will not vote for a bill that increases 
discretionary spending by 16 percent.
  Has anybody been in a townhall lately and talked to their 
constituents?

[[Page 22347]]

How concerned are they? They think we have lost our minds up here. Have 
we not? Is the message not getting through? Look at this highway bill--
a 23-percent increase in HUD and highway spending. It is 23 percent, 
and that doesn't include the stimulus money, which amounts to a 40-
percent increase on top of that. This is baseline spending. When you 
put it in the baseline and do not make it an emergency, stimulus 
spending, you have created momentum for continuing increases in the 
future. How many people think we are going to cut spending for next 
year? How many people think we will have spending for HUD and 
transportation that will be below or equal to the inflation rate?
  Unless the American people get heard soon, we will have another 
budget with a big increase. We have never seen 23 percent and those 
kinds of baseline expenditures before. I don't want to go on anymore at 
length. I don't want to vote against these bills. I would like to vote 
for the good things in them. But we have to simply recognize what we 
are doing is unacceptable. The American people are furious with us. 
They are rightly furious with us. We need to get our act together. When 
we had a shortage, one of the most significant votes I recall we took--
it was so irresponsible--was when Senator Vitter, from Louisiana, 
offered an amendment that said the shortage in gas tax revenue that we 
find with the highway bill, that should be made up by taking money from 
the stimulus package. That had been unspent--$800 billion. If it only 
takes $20 billion or something such as that, that is what the bill was 
supposed to be for--crumbling infrastructure. He proposed that and it 
was voted down. Why? Because they did not want to take a dime out of 
the $800 billion stimulus bill, even if it was not spent, and they 
wanted to fill that gap with more debt. Since we are already in 
deficit, to find another $20 billion or so to complete the highway bill 
over the next year or two, we just have to increase the debt. That is 
what we have been doing. It is an unsustainable course.
  I urge my colleagues to begin to say no. Let's vote no on this 
legislation. Let's start sending the American people a message that we 
hear their concerns, we know their concerns are legitimate and right, 
and it is time for us to be responsible.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam 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.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I understand I cannot call up an 
amendment right now because of the rules that are currently in place, 
but I wish to speak about an amendment I will be offering at a later 
time when the rules permit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, the amendment I will be offering 
speaks to what I see as a very fundamentally flawed process in our 
appropriations in Congress. I am not in the majority in this body as it 
relates to the subject of earmarks. I realize I am one of very few in 
my party and a few more but not a whole lot on the other side of the 
aisle who do not participate in the earmarking process.
  I hope my amendment is calling attention to how this process is 
flawed and why we need to change the process. There are many problems 
with the process, but two of them I am going to speak briefly about 
today.
  One, the process is fundamentally unfair. It is rather mysterious how 
much money gets set aside for earmarks and who does it and where it 
happens. It is even more mysterious as to how the decision is made as 
to how the earmarks are distributed among the Members.
  I point out that in looking at the appropriations bills that we have 
handled so far, it is very clear that the process is heavily weighted 
toward the Members who serve as appropriators. I get that. That is part 
of the culture that has grown up around earmarking; that is, if you are 
an appropriator, you are entitled to get more. I am not sure that is a 
good way to spend public money, but I think it is important to point 
out that is the process.
  Fifty percent of all the earmarks in this bill are going to the 
members of the committee. Last week, it was even more egregious. I 
don't think most Members realized when we voted on the T-HUD bill, the 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill last week, that in 
the Transportation part of the bill, there was $1.6 billion in 
earmarks. Over 50 percent of that money went to four Members, four 
States. So out of 50 States, four States got more than half of all the 
money. Well, when I tell that to people in Missouri, they say: Huh? How 
does that happen? How can that happen? And I frankly don't have a very 
good answer for them.
  The other problem I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues 
today is not just the process as it relates to how earmarks are 
distributed but where these earmarks come from. This money is not 
growing on a secret tree somewhere that we are harvesting. It is coming 
out of programs. It is coming out of budgets. One of the things I found 
most troubling is that many of these earmarks are coming out of 
competitive grant programs or formula grant programs.
  Formula is a formula because there is a way that is predictable about 
how the money is distributed--based on the size of the State, based on 
population; depending on the program, based on geography. It is a 
formula everybody understands. Taking money out of a formula to fund 
earmarks takes it from a predictable process based on merit to a very 
unpredictable process based on who you are.
  The same thing with competitive grant programs. Competitive grant 
programs are ones where merit is supposed to rule the day based on 
criteria set forth. The amendment I will offer basically wipes out the 
earmarks in one of these competitive grant programs. The program I am 
referring to is a great program--it is called Save America's Treasures. 
It was created by executive order in 1998. It is a public-private 
partnership, and there are specific criteria as to what a project has 
to have in order to qualify for this money--$20 million.
  This is a small example. I admit this is not going to change 
anything, as we keep talking about bending the cost curve, but it is a 
great example of what I am talking about. It began as a competitive 
program and it has begun to morph into something more than a 
competitive program because now half of the money this year will be 
earmarked, leaving only $10 million for a competitive program.
  So if your State doesn't get an earmark, either in the House or the 
Senate, in the bill, then the chances of your State getting any money 
out of this program have been cut in half. It is only $10 million for 
the entire country for these grants which are to restore America's 
historic treasures across the country. That is a problem.
  Is this an isolated problem? No. No. In fairness to this 
subcommittee, this is a little problem compared to some of the other 
competitive grant programs that have been raided for earmarking. The 
hijacking of public money for earmarking from the competitive grant bus 
is going on everywhere, and let me give another couple of examples.
  Last week, when we did the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development Appropriations bill, there were two good examples. They are 
programs that began to provide competition to valued programs across 
the country. The first one is the Neighborhood Initiatives at HUD, the 
Housing and Urban Development Department. In 1998, Congress created 
this program. The interesting thing is it was created to help people 
who were doing welfare-to-work projects. Great intentions; great 
program.
  Ironically, HUD began granting these awards to people based on the 
competitive criterion that Congress had given them. Congress passes the 
program, funds the program, and tells HUD these are the competitive 
bases on which you

[[Page 22348]]

should make these grants. There were no earmarks in the program at all 
in 1999--none--after Congress created the program. Beginning in 2001, 
however, every dime in this program under the Neighborhood Initiatives 
Program has gone to earmarks. Once again, a competitive merit process 
morphs over into a completely earmarked process.
  How about another example of a program--the Economic Development 
Initiative, also in HUD. Congress introduced the program in 1994; once 
again, a congressional program. Funds were to be awarded competitively, 
and for the first couple of years they were. EDI funds were awarded 
competitively. Congress started earmarking the account beginning in 
1998. By 2001, the entire account was earmarked. So Congress began it 
as a good idea, and said do it competitively. By 2001, competition was 
gone.
  Ironically, the statute that sets out the criteria for competitive 
EDI is still on the books. It is still in the law, but we no longer 
follow it because there has been a decision to morph that competitive 
program into an earmark program. I think that competition is a good 
thing, and this isn't about a bureaucrat somewhere sprinkling fairy 
dust and supplementing their judgment for the judgment of Congress.
  In fact, the examples I have given are programs that were designed to 
be competitive, and in two or three instances they were designed to be 
competitive by Congress itself and then somehow they have morphed over 
into a pecking order of priorities based on someone's seniority or the 
committee they serve on, or even if they are in some political trouble. 
It seems to me a goofy way to spend money, especially the public's 
money.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. All it does is 
restore the program to a competitive basis and allow every State to 
compete on the same basis for the money in that competitive program. 
When the time is right, I will call up the amendment, once the rules 
allow me to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam 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. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have consulted with the manager and 
the ranking member, and I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, there is now underway--beginning 
yesterday in the Finance Committee--a discussion about health care 
reform. It is complicated, controversial, difficult, but important. I 
know they are working hard to try to figure out what they might do to 
see if they can put some downward pressure on health care costs and 
also to extend coverage to those who don't have health coverage.
  There has been a lot of generous discussion on the floor of the 
Senate. We have had a so-called Gang of 6, now there is a gang--a 
larger number--of the Finance Committee members, and soon there will be 
a gang of 100 Senators who are trying to consider what to do about 
health care issues. We have had people come to the floor of the Senate 
to say there is a proposal for a government takeover of health care. I 
don't support that. I don't believe anybody has proposed that but, 
nonetheless, we have had people come to the floor of the Senate saying 
that is what is being proposed. I don't support a health care reform 
plan that lifts the ban on using Federal funding for abortion services. 
I don't support government rationing of health care. I don't believe 
that has been proposed, although it has been alleged it has been 
proposed. I don't support providing health care benefits to those who 
have come to this country illegally. And I don't support doing anything 
that undermines Medicare for the elderly or in any way diminishes or 
undermines VA health care.
  All of these have been discussed by people who have trotted over to 
the floor of the Senate to make allegations about thing one or another. 
At some point we will consider and vote on the floor of the Senate on 
legislation that I think meets the interests of this country, meets the 
test of being in the public interest, and does not represent a 
government takeover of health care. But having said that, let me make a 
point that one of the things that has not been adequately discussed, 
but will be, is the issue of price increases for health care--cost 
increases--and especially that portion that relates to prescription 
drugs.
  Let me be quick to say with respect to prescription drugs that the 
pharmaceutical industry plays a very important role in this country. 
The development of prescription drugs some with private investment 
funding in research and development by the pharmaceutical industry, 
some is a result of what we spend in public funding through the 
National Institutes of Health and then make what we have learned 
available to these companies--all of these in my judgment benefit this 
country and reflect the public interest.
  The relentless march of increased costs of health care in virtually 
all areas includes the increased cost of prescription drugs, and the 
question is: What do we do about that? There is very little discussion 
about it, but I want to talk about it for a couple of minutes today.
  I have introduced--for some number of sessions of the Congress now, 
along with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Snowe--
a piece of legislation that has had broad bipartisan support. It 
includes the late Senator Ted Kennedy as a cosponsor during this 
session of the Congress. It includes Senator Barack Obama as a 
cosponsor in the last Congress. It includes Senator John McCain, 
Senator John Thune, and Senator Grassley. It is bipartisan and has had 
very broad support. Yet we have not been able to get it through the 
Congress because it is controversial. Let me describe what it is. It is 
legislation that tries to put some downward pressure on the escalating 
prices of prescription drugs.
  I understand it is legislation that causes great concern to the 
pharmaceutical industry. I understand that because they price 
prescription drugs in this country the way they want to price them, and 
the way they want to price them is for brand-name prescription drugs we 
pay the highest prices in the world by far, not even close.
  I have a pretty good description of that in my desk. These are empty 
bottles. Let me ask unanimous consent I be able to show them on the 
floor of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. These are bottles in which Lipitor is deposited. It is 
made in Ireland. The company which makes Lipitor, which is the highest 
selling prescription drug for the control of cholesterol of any drug in 
the world, I think--it is very popular.
  As we can see this drug is made in a factory in Ireland and then sent 
around the world. This is actually the same bottle--one is blue and one 
is red. But this was sent to Canada and this was sent to the United 
States. The only difference is that in the United States, if we buy a 
tablet of Lipitor in this order, we pay $4.48, and the Canadian 
consumer pays $1.83.
  It is not just the U.S. versus Canada. It is the U.S. price versus 
prices almost anywhere. Again, the same drug put in the same bottle in 
a plant sends medicine around the world to Germany, Italy, Spain, 
France, England and, yes, Canada and the United States, and what is the 
difference? There is no difference. It is the same pill put in the same 
bottle. The difference is price. We get to pay double what most other 
people in the world pay for Lipitor. Fair? Not as far as I am 
concerned. It does not make much sense to me.
  How do we make that stick? We make that stick by saying to the 
American people: You can't purchase that same FDA-approved drug when it 
is sold in other parts of the world. You can't purchase that for half 
the price

[[Page 22349]]

because we will not allow you to bring it back into this country 
because we are worried, the pharmaceutical industry says, that 
counterfeit drugs would come into the country.
  Let me talk just a bit about that. When I say this, I don't want 
anybody to believe our drug supply is unsafe, but I do want to say 
this: 40 percent of the active ingredients in U.S. prescription drugs 
currently come from India and China. I am going to talk about that just 
for a minute. I am saying this because the pharmaceutical industry 
continues--including yesterday as a result of stories about this--
continues to say if we pass the legislation that a broad bipartisan 
group of us want to pass, that gives the American people freedom--yes, 
freedom; the freedom to purchase the identical FDA-approved drug from 
wherever they choose to purchase it--they say if we do that we 
undermine the safety of prescription drugs, there are counterfeits, and 
so on--safety.
  Forty percent of the active ingredients in prescription drugs come 
from India and China. Last year the Wall Street Journal did a very 
large story and did some first rate journalism, I might say.

       More than half the world's heparin, the main ingredient in 
     a widely used anti-clotting medicine, gets its start in 
     China's poorly regulated supply chain.

  So ingredients go into medicine that comes into this country, heparin 
in this case. Let me describe the photographs in the Wall Street 
Journal. They went to find out where the heparin came from.
  Here is an example of a man using a tree branch to stir a caldron of 
material coming from pig intestines that becomes heparin, from which 
the ingredient for heparin is extracted. You can see the kind of 
facility this is; uninspected, by the way. Never inspected. Pig 
intestines coming out of this machine. These are Wall Street Journal 
photographs, not mine, that describe heparin, the active ingredient, 
heparin, originating in this sort of unregulated area in rural China.
  The industry is saying to me if we pass legislation that requires 
batch lots and pedigrees and controls, manufacturing controls on 
anything that comes in, and chain of custody, somehow we would injure 
the safety of the drug supply? Come on, that is not the case at all.
  In fact, what we will do with the legislation that we have created is 
dramatically improve the safety of all of our drug supply because of 
what we provide for the FDA and what we require to be done to assure 
the safety of the chain of custody for the drug supply.
  Dr. David Kessler, former head of the FDA, says this about our 
proposal. The Dorgan-Snowe bill ``provides a sound framework for 
assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective. Most notably, it 
provides additional resources to the agency to run such a program, 
oversight by the FDA of the chain of custody of imported drugs back to 
the FDA-inspected plants, a mechanism to review imported drugs to 
ensure that they meet FDA's approval standards, and the registration 
and oversight of importers and exporters to assure that imported drugs 
meet these standards and are not counterfeit.''
  The question is this: It is not whether the pharmaceutical industry 
is a good industry--it is. It is not whether it does good things for 
our country--it does. I have supported the pharmaceutical industry in 
many ways. I support the research and development tax credit from which 
they benefit. I have always supported that. I am very interested in 
driving more research, so I support that. I have written that I would 
even support an increase in the patent period in cases where it takes 
them longer than it should take to get their product to market. They do 
have a point about that. I am not interested in injuring anybody, 
especially this industry.
  I do think, however, if we are going to talk about how to deal with 
the relentless march of increased health care costs, we cannot ignore 
the increased costs of prescription drugs.
  The pharmaceutical industry and the White House had announced a deal 
by which the pharmaceutical industry would contribute $80 billion over 
10 years to help pay for what they had described. Basically, it is 
providing a benefit to help partially fill the so-called doughnut 
hole--I know this is Washington jargon--for senior citizens in 
Medicare; to partially fill that it provides rebates for purchases of 
brand-named drugs.
  I think that is fine. But that is not a proxy for trying to restrain 
the relentless increase in the cost of prescription drugs in this 
country.
  In 2008, the average price increase for the most widely used brand-
name prescription drugs was 8.7 percent, more than twice the rate of 
general inflation. The fact is, if we go back we see what has happened 
to the cost of these prescription drugs in our country. It is up, up, 
and way up, and too many people are having to determine whether they 
purchase their medicine or buy their groceries, or purchase their 
medicine or pay their rent. I think there are ways for us to address 
it.
  My colleagues and I are offering legislation when a health care bill 
comes to the floor of the Senate. We are going to offer legislation 
that will be the Dorgan-Snowe bill with, I think, somewhere around 30 
cosponsors or so, that is very simple. It simply provides the freedom 
for the American consumer to purchase the FDA-approved drug where they 
choose to purchase the drug, and we outline the countries in which 
there is a nearly identical chain of custody to the chain of custody we 
have in our country for prescription drugs, then provide the resources 
for the FDA to monitor and to deal with that.
  Second and most important, we provide requirements for pedigrees and 
batch numbers and lot numbers to be able to trace back prescription 
drugs.
  One of the things we discovered with the heparin issue is we couldn't 
trace it back to find out where it came from. That does not make any 
sense to me. We do need legislation, in my judgment.
  I received a letter from a woman in North Dakota a while back. She is 
suffering from fibromyalgia. She had the disease 20 years and tried 
many different treatments. The disease impairs her cognitive skills and 
causes her fatigue every day, and she is trying a new drug that she 
says helps with the fatigue and her concentration. She said:

       I have taken my first pill now and noticed improvement 
     immediately, but the drug costs $348 a month, $11.60 a pill, 
     so I am going to have to try to find a way to work despite 
     the fact I really can't work in order to pay this drug bill.

  She says:

       Byron, I am beat up but I ain't used up. This pill could be 
     the difference between working and filing for Social Security 
     disability. Is there some way that people can afford this 
     drug which doesn't yet have a generic version? Is there some 
     way to put some downward pressure on prices?

  The answer is yes, there is; legislation we introduced in the Senate. 
The Congressional Budget Office says this saves $50 billion, I believe 
it is, in 10 years, a $50 billion saving, and $10.6 billion of that is 
savings to the National Government. The National Federation of 
Independent Business--and I will ask unanimous consent to have this 
printed in the Record--the NFIB has just written, September 21, 2009, 
saying:

       On behalf of the NFIB I would like to express our support 
     for S. 1232, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety 
     Act of 2009. . . .

  It is signed by Susan Eckerly, the senior vice president of public 
policy.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the NFIB 
letter dated September 21, 2009, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               National Federation


                                      of Independent Business,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 2009.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Olympia Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of the National Federation of 
     Independent Business (NFIB), I would like to express our 
     support for S. 1232, the ``Pharmaceutical Market Access and 
     Drug Safety Act of 2009.'' This bill would

[[Page 22350]]

     allow for the importation of prescription drugs while 
     ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect 
     the integrity of imported medications. Importation offers a 
     means of reducing one of the most rapidly rising healthcare 
     costs facing consumers today: spending on prescription drugs.
       This much-needed bipartisan legislation comes at a critical 
     time for men and women in the small business community 
     struggling with the ever-increasing cost of healthcare. Small 
     firms pay an average of 18 percent more than their larger 
     counterparts for the same healthcare benefits and are 
     continually seeking out ways to lower their healthcare costs. 
     With U.S. prescription drug spending expected to increase 
     over the next decade, it is clear that the small business 
     community must pursue viable opportunities to improve 
     affordability and access to healthcare goods and services. 
     The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this 
     legislation could result in a direct savings of $50 billion. 
     Those savings could provide some much-needed and long overdue 
     relief to small business.
       The ``Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 
     2009'' secures a framework for the safe and legal importation 
     of prescription drugs. NFIB is pleased that your legislation 
     includes specific requirements to ensure that every imported 
     drug must meet U.S. safety standards. The benefits for small 
     business are also achieved by allowing licensed pharmacies 
     and drug wholesalers to import Food and Drug Administration-
     approved medicines for commercial purposes.
       Providing access for the importation of prescription drugs 
     enjoys broad support. Seventy-eight percent of NFIB members 
     favor allowing individuals to purchase drugs from other 
     countries--support that is affirmed by other public opinion 
     research including a Wall St. Journal poll indicating that 
     eighty percent of Americans support importation.
       Thank you for your continued efforts to increase access to 
     affordable healthcare for the small business community. We 
     look forward to working with you on this important piece of 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                                Susan Eckerly,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                                    Public Policy.

  Mr. DORGAN. Many other organizations have supported this legislation. 
The reason I wanted to visit about it today briefly is to say that 
whatever is considered in the Finance Committee and then developed as 
between the Finance and the HELP Committees and brought to the Senate 
floor for debate when health care is debated on the Senate floor, I 
will intend to be here with my colleagues. I know Senator McCain, 
Senator Stabenow, Senator Snowe--many others will want to be here to 
offer this amendment at the front end of a discussion and debate on 
health care on the floor of the Senate.
  This has been a long, tortured trail--too long, in my judgment--to 
get this done. I understand, as will have been the case in the past and 
likely will be the case this year, we will have people stand up on the 
Senate floor and oppose us, saying it is going to undermine or somehow 
compromise the safety of the drug supply. It is simply not true. All of 
the experts who have looked at this have said we have created something 
that will actually improve the safety of the drug supply coming into 
this country.
  Let me describe it in the easiest and best way I know, and that is 
with a very popular prescription drug. Somebody once said so many 
people take this they ought to put it in the water supply. I guess I 
don't support that, but Lipitor is the most popular drug, medicine for 
lowering cholesterol, by far. There are others as well. I should not 
fail to name them, but I believe this is the biggest selling 
cholesterol-lowering drug. The American people get to pay twice as much 
for the same pill put in the same bottle as virtually everybody else in 
the world. I think that is not fair. I think it is not fair that the 
American people pay the highest prices in the world. It wouldn't happen 
if the American people had a little bit of freedom, and that is the 
freedom to purchase this prescription drug from a FDA-approved plant 
with pedigreed lot numbers in a supply stream or chain of supply that 
is judged safe by our FDA.
  We will have this amendment, have debate, have a vote. My fervent 
hope is that this is the time. There is a time and place for 
everything. My hope is that at long last this is the time Congress will 
pass this kind of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.


                         Federal Student Loans

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the pending business is the Interior 
appropriations bill. I know several Senators have amendments. If they 
would like to come and speak on those amendments, this is a good time 
to do that. Then, working with the Senator from California, who is 
chairman of the committee, we will try to move those amendments to a 
vote as quickly as possible. If Senators do come to speak on 
amendments, I will stop talking and give them the floor. But for the 
time being, I would like to say a few words about Federal student 
loans.
  President Obama said the other day, in what I thought was a very 
perceptive comment, that he understood the health care debate and all 
its intensity is a proxy for a larger debate, and that is about the 
role of government in our society. What I and many Republicans believe 
and, I think, many Independents and Democrats, as well, in the State of 
Tennessee, and I suspect across the country--is that we have suddenly 
seen too many taxes, too much spending, too much debt, and too many 
Washington takeovers. The President says, and he is correct to an 
extent with this, that some of these Washington takeovers were not his 
fault, were not his doing. I suppose he would say that about some of 
the bank takeovers and the insurance company takeovers. I am not so 
sure about the takeover of the automobile companies or the takeover of 
the farm bonds or the proposal to take over health care. But here is a 
voluntary takeover that is absolutely unnecessary, is unwise, and the 
American people should pay attention to this.
  This goes to the center of what the President said. If health care is 
a proxy for a debate about the extent to which the American Government 
ought to be involved in our society, then the proposal by the President 
to take over the entire student loan program and move it from the 
private sector into the government is a perfect example of what we 
ought not to be doing.
  Let me speak first to the dimensions of this program. The United 
States has the best system of higher education in the world. One of the 
greatest aspects of it, one of the greatest contributors to its 
quality, is that we have a generous amount of Federal dollars which 
permit about half or more of our students to either get a Federal 
grant, which we usually call Pell grants, or a Federal student loan 
which follows them to the institution of their choice. So unlike our 
elementary and secondary schools, your Pell grant--your grant going all 
of the way back to the GI bill in 1944--can follow you wherever you go. 
That choice and that competition and that money have helped to create 
not just some of the best colleges and universities in the world but 
virtually all of them. Most observers agree on that.
  The higher education system today is 6,000 institutions. These are 
the universities of North Carolina and Tennessee. That is what we might 
think of first, but there are also community colleges, the 2-year 
schools. There are also nonprofit colleges. There are also the 
religious institutions--Notre Dame and Brigham Young and many others. 
So there are 6,000 institutions.
  Last year, 4,400 of those 6,000 institutions used the regular student 
loan program. That is the one where you go to the bank, usually your 
community bank or local bank, and you get a student loan. And 1,600 
schools, or about one-fourth, used the direct loan program, which was 
put in at the time I was Secretary of Education about 20 years ago, and 
you just go to the U.S. Department of Education and get your money. On 
the private side of it, which is what 3 out of 4 students choose, there 
are 2,000 lenders that participate in the program. This year, there are 
nearly 18 million loans to students and parents--18 million--and 14 
million of them are in the regular student loan program, 4.5 million 
through the government. There was $86 billion of loans made. So the 
regular student loan volume through the private lenders was about $64 
billion; the direct loan volume was $22 billion.
  So all in all outstanding, $617 billion of volume for both programs, 
and the President has said we are going to take all of that and put it 
in the U.S. Department of Education. So what his

[[Page 22351]]

proposal is, if you are one of the 14 million students today who are 
getting their student loans from their local banks, starting in January 
you are out of luck. You better line up outside the U.S. Department of 
Education with the other 19 million people who want a student loan and 
hope they can provide you with the same sort of service your community 
bank or lending institution or nonprofit organization in your area 
provides you today.
  There is a lack of evidence to show that the U.S. Department of 
Education can do a better job of making loans than banks can. I used to 
work at the U.S. Department of Education. I was the Secretary. It is 
one of the smaller departments in government. The people there know a 
lot about education, but none of them really is running for banker of 
the year.
  Arne Duncan is President Obama's Education Secretary. He is one of 
his best appointments. I would much prefer seeing him in Memphis 
working on charter schools or in Denver trying to find ways to pay 
outstanding teachers more or trying to help create a better system of 
colleges and universities or community colleges instead of trying to 
manage the problem of, how do I grant $100 billion in new loans to 19 
million people every single year? How do I replace 2,000 private 
lenders?
  Let me give you an example of what a private lender might do. In 
Tennessee, we have EdSouth. This is a nonprofit provider. Here is what 
they do. They had five regional outreach counselors to canvass 
Tennessee to provide college and career planning, financial aid 
training, college admissions assistance, and financial aid literacy. 
They made 443 presentations at Tennessee schools through college fairs, 
guidance visits, and presentations. They worked with 12,000 Tennessee 
students to improve their understanding of the college admissions and 
financial aid process. They provided training to over 1,000 school 
counselors so those counselors could work better with their students. 
They distributed almost 1.5 million financial aid brochures to 
Tennessee students and families. Will the U.S. Department of Education 
start providing those services, or will the 19 million students who 
want student loans simply line up outside the U.S. Department of 
Education or one of its offices somewhere and apply for a loan? I think 
I know the answer to that question.
  According to the Department of Education, it costs them about $700 
million a year to administer the loans they make today. That is for 
one-quarter of all the students. They estimate they can make those same 
loans to 19 million students at about the same amount of money. I doubt 
if that is true, which brings me to the point of the savings--the 
alleged savings of this program.
  Senator Gregg and I--the Senator from New Hampshire, who is the 
former chairman of the Budget Committee, ranking member now--talked 
about the alleged savings in moving all of these loans from the lending 
institutions that make them to 19 million students today, to the U.S. 
Department of Education.
  Senator Gregg received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office 
on July 27. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2009.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, 
         Washignton, DC.
       Dear Senator: This letter responds to your request for an 
     estimate of the change in federal costs, adjusted for the 
     cost of market risk, that might result from enactment of the 
     President's proposal to prohibit new federal guarantees of 
     student loans and to replace those guarantees with direct 
     loans made by the Department of Education The Federal Family 
     Education Loan Program (FFELP) provides federal guarantees 
     for loans made to students by private lenders and is the 
     predominant source of loans for higher education; the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that, under 
     current law, guaranteed loans will account for 70 percent of 
     all new direct and guaranteed student loans made over the 
     next 10 years. Under the President's proposal, the Department 
     of Education, through the William D. Ford Direct Loan 
     Program, would provide federal support for student loans only 
     by lending money directly to students.
       In its July 24, 2009, cost estimate for H.R. 3221 (the 
     Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, as 
     approved by the House Committee on Education and Labor), 
     which would incorporate the President's proposal, CBO 
     estimated that replacing new guarantees of student loans with 
     direct lending would yield gross savings in federal direct 
     (or mandatory) spending of about $87 billion over the 2010-
     2019 period. (Mandatory spending is governed by existing 
     provisions of law and does not require future 
     appropriations.) About $7 billion of those savings would 
     represent a reduction in the administrative costs of the 
     guaranteed loan program, which are recorded in the budget as 
     mandatory spending. In contrast, most of the administrative 
     costs for the direct loan program are funded in appropriation 
     bills and recorded as discretionary spending. Thus, of the 
     $87 billion reduction in direct spending, roughly $7 billion 
     would be offset by an increase in future appropriations for 
     administrative costs, for an estimated net reduction in 
     federal costs from the President's proposal of about $80 
     billion over the 2010-2019 period.
       Those estimates follow the standard loan-valuation 
     procedure called for in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 
     (FCRA) The law specifies that the cost of federal loans and 
     loan guarantees be estimated as the net present value of the 
     federal government's cash flows, using the Treasury's 
     borrowing rates to discount those flows; that calculation 
     does not include administrative costs, which are recorded in 
     the budget year by year on a cash basis (that is, 
     undiscounted). The FCRA methodology, however, does not 
     include the cost to the government stemming from the risk 
     that the cash flows may be less than the amount projected 
     (that is, that defaults could be higher than projected). CBO 
     found that after accounting for the cost of such risk, as 
     discussed below, the proposal to replace new guaranteed loans 
     with direct loans would lead to estimated savings of about 
     $47 billion over the 2010-2019 period--about $33 billion less 
     than CBO's estimate under the standard credit reform 
     treatment.


        estimating subsidy costs using credit reform procedures

       To determine whether a proposal to change the federal 
     student loan programs would lead to budgetary savings 
     requires comparing the federal government's costs for the 
     subsidies that the two programs provide. Those subsidy costs 
     depend on the various cash flows of the direct loan and 
     guaranteed loan programs, the interest rates used to discount 
     those cash flows, and the programs' administrative costs.
       FCRA calls for using a present-value subsidy concept--in 
     what is otherwise a largely cash budget--to better compare 
     the strikingly different patterns of federal cash flows under 
     the two programs. In the direct student loan program, the 
     federal government makes a large, one-time outlay for the 
     amount of the loan (net of various fees) and then receives a 
     stream of principal and interest payments over time. In the 
     guaranteed student loan program, the federal government faces 
     a more complicated set of payments. It does not disburse a 
     principal amount (loans are disbursed by private lenders) but 
     instead receives some up-front fees, makes a stream of 
     subsidy payments (known as special-allowance payments) to 
     lenders, partially compensates lenders for loans that go into 
     default, and pays certain borrower benefits, in addition to 
     various other receipts and payments.
       FCRA facilitates the comparison of the budgetary effects of 
     direct loans and loan guarantees by converting the net 
     outlays for each program into a single lump-sum estimate of 
     net costs (that is, the discounted present value of all cash 
     flows). Those cash flows are discounted using the 
     government's costs of borrowing--that is, the interest rates 
     it pays on Treasury securities of comparable maturities. The 
     resulting subsidy estimate is recorded in the federal budget 
     in the year of a loan's disbursement. Subsidies computed 
     under FCRA do not include the government's costs for 
     administering the loans; those administrative costs are 
     recorded separately, on a cash basis.
       Under the FCRA accounting rules, the guaranteed loan and 
     direct loan programs have very different subsidy rates, and 
     thus different budgetary costs, even though the programs 
     result in very similar loans to borrowers. CBO estimates that 
     over the 2010-2019 period, the subsidy cost for each dollar 
     of a guaranteed loan will exceed the subsidy cost for each 
     dollar of a direct loan by between 10 cents and 20 cents. 
     Generally, in CBO's estimation, the direct loan program will 
     have a negative subsidy rate (that is, the net receipts to 
     the government on a present-value basis are projected to be 
     greater than its disbursements), whereas the guaranteed loan 
     program will have a positive subsidy rate (that is, a net 
     cost on a present-value basis). The difference in subsidy 
     rates under FCRA for direct and guaranteed loans occurs 
     primarily because of certain payments made for the latter--in 
     particular, interest payments made on behalf of borrowers for 
     subsidized loans and special-allowance

[[Page 22352]]

     payments to lenders. The latter are made by the government to 
     lenders in the guaranteed loan program to ensure that they 
     receive a specified interest rate on their student lending. 
     The difference in the programs' subsidy rates led to CBO's 
     estimate that under the procedures specified in FCRA, 
     enactment of the President's proposal (as included in H.R. 
     3221) would yield net budgetary savings of approximately $80 
     billion (representing $87 billion in mandatory savings and $7 
     billion in discretionary costs) over the 2010-2019 period.


                           adjusting for risk

       The full value of the subsidy provided by the government's 
     student loan programs depends on what students would have to 
     pay to obtain loans in the private market without federal 
     support. That cost depends on the riskiness of the loans. 
     Estimates of subsidies that are made using the techniques 
     specified by FCRA do not provide a comprehensive picture of 
     the costs of loan programs, mainly because they do not fully 
     account for the riskiness of the loans. That methodology, 
     which uses yields on Treasury securities as discount rates, 
     tends to understate the subsidy provided under each program; 
     but it generally understates the subsidy costs of the direct 
     loan program to a greater degree than it does those of the 
     guaranteed loan program. Alternative estimates of the value 
     of the programs' subsidies that might better reflect the 
     costs they represent for the government would incorporate the 
     estimated cost of the market risk that taxpayers bear through 
     such lending--a cost analogous to the higher returns that 
     private investors expect for making risky investments.
       When conditions in the financial markets are relatively 
     benign, as CBO assumes will be the case after the first few 
     years of the 2010-2019 projection period, the private 
     sector's pricing of student loans that do not carry a federal 
     guarantee suggests that the cost of raising capital for such 
     loans will be 2 to 3 percentage points more per year than the 
     interest that the government pays on Treasury securities with 
     comparable maturities. That difference reflects the risk 
     involved in extending long-term, unsecured credit to an 
     individual consumer; participants in private-sector loan 
     markets generally demand a higher rate of return for bearing 
     that risk. (Put differently, the cost of capital for the 
     firms that make such loans will be higher than the rates on 
     Treasury securities.) A private entity that issued or insured 
     student loans would recognize that higher cost of capital by 
     discounting its expected cash flows from the loans at that 
     higher rate. (A private entity would also approach 
     administrative costs somewhat differently, but administrative 
     costs account for little of the difference between the costs 
     of the direct and guaranteed loan programs.)
       Applying a set of risk-adjusted discount rates to the cash 
     flows from the government's student loans would raise the 
     subsidy rates for both student loan programs, but the rate 
     for the direct loan program would increase by more than the 
     rate for the guaranteed loan program because of differences 
     in the timing and riskiness of the estimated cash flows. CBO 
     estimates that if projected savings for the President's 
     proposal were calculated using risk-adjusted discount rates, 
     those savings would be $47 billion over the 2010-2019 
     period--a difference of $33 billion relative to CBO's cost 
     estimate for H.R. 3221 issued on July 24.
       Although the use of subsidy rates that have been adjusted 
     for the cost of risk generally improves the ability to 
     compare the costs of financial programs, the approach does 
     raise some concerns. As the recent financial turmoil has 
     shown, risky assets, including student loans, can fluctuate 
     wildly in value. Those fluctuations can lead to large changes 
     in market-based estimates of subsidy rates for student loans 
     from one year to the next. Quite similar assets may trade at 
     widely divergent values for reasons that are difficult to 
     establish. Nevertheless, CBO believes that risk-adjusted 
     subsidy rates provide useful information about the cost of 
     federal programs in terms of the value of the economic 
     resources that are devoted to those programs. The Congress 
     adopted the approach of incorporating the cost of market risk 
     into budget estimates for the 2009 enactment of the Troubled 
     Asset Relief Program (TARP). That approach requires that the 
     costs of assets purchased under the program be estimated 
     using a present-value approach that, except for its 
     requirement of an adjustment for the cost of market risk, is 
     similar to the way loans and loan guarantees are evaluated 
     under the Federal Credit Reform Act.
       I hope this information is helpful. If you have further 
     questions, we would be happy to address them. The CBO staff 
     contact for this analysis is Sam Papenfuss.
           Sincerely,
                                             Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Gregg basically asked: Is it true that if we 
stop making loans through private and nonprofit lenders whereby the 
Federal Government guarantees the loans and pays a regulated subsidy to 
the lender--if we stop that and start making all of them through the 
government directly, will we save $87 billion? And the short answer--if 
you want the long answer, the letter is available--the short answer is 
no, you do not save $87 billion; you are likely to realize $47 billion 
in savings over the next 10 years.
  Then, in addition to that, we have to deduct for the--I see the 
Senator from Oklahoma. Is he ready to speak on his amendments?
  Mr. COBURN. In a moment after we are set up.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I will be through in about 4 or 5 minutes. I welcome 
him and look forward to his comments.
  Instead of saving $87 billion, we save $47 billion. Then we have to 
deduct the administrative costs. Remember, instead of making some of 
the loans, the Department of Education is going to make 19 million 
loans. The Department estimates it might cost it $7 billion over the 10 
years to do that. Others think it might cost $30 billion. So the real 
savings--the real savings are either $47 billion or more like $20 
billion or $23 billion in savings over 10 years.
  In order to do that, of course, we are going to have to raise the 
Federal debt. We are going to have to borrow $1 billion a year for the 
next 5 years. So at a time when we are concerned that we are adding $9 
trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, we are going to add 
another half trillion over 5 years so we can make student loans instead 
of doing it through private institutions.
  Here is the real clincher. When you press and say: In order to make 
these loans, what is the real reason you think you can do this if the 
savings aren't really $87 billion but they are more like $47 billion or 
more like $23 billion over 10 years?
  They say: Well, the real reason is the government can borrow money 
cheaper than the private banks can.
  That is true. The government can borrow money at a quarter of a 
percentage point, and then it loans it to the students at 6.8 
percentage points.
  Well, my first point would be that I don't think the government ought 
to be making a profit by overcharging students for their student loans 
and then turn around and take credit for starting new programs. What 
the government is actually going to be doing is charging a student who 
has a job and is trying to get a student loan--is going to say: OK, we 
are going to borrow the money at one-quarter of 1 percent and loan it 
to you at 6.8, and then we are going to take that money and pay for 
your Pell grant or pay for someone else's Pell grant.
  In other words, they are going to overcharge the student to make the 
Congressman look good. That is what we are doing. We are going out and 
announcing all of these programs. So we are spending $87 billion, when 
it is really between $23 and $47 billion--that is the amount we really 
have--and we make that money by overcharging the students.
  At the very least, if we are going to take all of these loans into 
the government, we ought to reduce the interest rate so we don't 
overcharge the students.
  I see the Senator from Oklahoma. I am going to defer to him and 
welcome him to the floor. But I hope, as we think about the issue the 
President so accurately described--he said: The health care debate is 
really a proxy for the role of government in our society. He is exactly 
right about that. And while some of the Washington takeovers may not 
have been avoidable at the beginning of the year, there is no reason in 
the world why Washington should take over 19 million student loans, 
eliminate 2,000 lenders, stop students on 6,000 campuses from having a 
choice in competition, and say: The government is the best banker in 
America; line up outside the Department of Education, all 19 million of 
you, in January and get your student loan.
  So I am thinking of introducing an amendment that is called a truth-
in-lending amendment if this legislation were to pass, and it would say 
to every one of the 19 million students: Truth in lending--beware. Your 
government is overcharging you so your Congressman and your Senator can 
take credit for starting a new program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page 22353]]


  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to spend a few minutes--I guess I 
would inquire of the chairman and ranking member, we are not allowing 
amendments to be brought up at this time; is that correct?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct, through the Chair. There is a 
disagreement with the Senator from Louisiana and there is a hold on 
anything coming before this body.
  Mr. COBURN. I have germane amendments, most of which will be germane 
postcloture.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator can certainly talk about his amendments.
  Mr. COBURN. We cannot call them up and make them pending.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
  I wanted to spend a little time talking about the appropriations 
process before I speak on the amendments. I have seven amendments, 
maybe eight. All are commonsense amendments. Most people in America 
would agree with them.
  But this first chart I am showing shows that what we are doing this 
year is, out of every dollar the Federal Government spends, we are 
borrowing 43 cents against our kids, against our grandkids. That is 
even true in this bill. This bill we have before us--a large portion of 
the money to pay for this Interior appropriations bill is going to come 
from our children.
  So one of the things you say is, well, what is the inflation out 
there in terms of what are the costs that are actually increasing and 
how do we compare to what everyone else is facing in terms of spending 
based on increased costs? And in 2008, 2009, during that fiscal year, 
we actually had a minus three-tenths of 1 percent inflation. That is 
called deflation. And so far this year, we have had 1.6 percent, and it 
is probably going to go lower than that when we see the end of the 
fiscal year. So let's say 1.6 percent is the cost we are seeing in 
terms of inflation this year.
  Well, one of the first bills we passed was the Legislative Branch 
appropriations bill, and when we had a minus three-tenths of 1 percent 
increase, we increased our expenses in the Congress by 10.88 percent. 
This year, we have already passed the bill, and we increased it three 
times what the rate of inflation is. So just even in our own budget, 
running our own offices, running the Congress, we are increasing what 
we spend three times faster than the rate of inflation.
  If we look at the Homeland Security appropriations--all these 
numbers, by the way, don't include the billions of dollars each of 
these agencies received with the stimulus package--from 2008 to 2009, 
Homeland Security was increased 9.97 percent. That is a number of 
infinity in terms of inflation because we had no inflation. So a 9.97-
percent increase, almost 10 percent, as compared to no inflation, we 
grew the government in this area. This year what we have passed already 
is another 7.22 percent growth, despite tens of billions of dollars 
going to the Department of Homeland Security with the stimulus package.
  Then we had the Agriculture appropriations bill. For the 2008-2009 
fiscal year, we increased it 13 percent. This year we are increasing it 
12.68 percent. At this rate, we will double the size of Homeland 
Security and the Agriculture Department in 4.75 years, if we take the 
multiple of this, if we continue at this rate. The Transportation-HUD 
appropriations, which we passed last week, 13.31 percent in the 2008-
2009 fiscal year. This year we have 22 percent we have increased it, 
fully 15 times more than inflation. And in transportation, the costs 
have actually gone down in terms of what it costs to build a road or to 
repair a bridge because of the economy.
  Then we have this bill. Last year we increased Interior 4.13 percent. 
Now we are increasing it again 16.28 percent. Does anybody out there 
have anything on which they are seeing those kinds of increases in 
income in America? Remember, 43 percent of this is borrowed from our 
children's futures.
  To sum up, look at what we have done so far. Legislative branch, 
increased 4.75 percent; Homeland Security, 7.2; Energy and Water, 
1.41--we actually did one that is at inflation--Agriculture, 12.68; 
Transportation and HUD, 22.54; Interior, 16.28--all the time when we 
have an inflation rate of 1.6 percent. What is going on? The American 
people ought to be highly concerned with the appropriations bills 
flowing through here. It is all borrowed money. All the increases are 
borrowed against our children and grandchildren.
  Here is what we have done so far in the Senate. There is no question 
the Interior bill will pass. The appropriators will make sure of that. 
They have their earmarks in it. Whether they claim to be a fiscal 
conservative or not doesn't matter. They will vote for the bill to 
protect their earmarks. We can see what kind of growth we are 
experiencing in the last 2 years in this country in expanding the size 
of the Federal Government. These aren't small increases. They are 
gigantic. Nothing in the 8 years preceding this came anywhere close to 
it. We have this ballooning Federal Government that at the rate we are 
going this year will double in less than 5 years. The size of the 
Federal Government, if we continue this trend, will double in the next 
5 years.
  That doesn't count a health care bill that will add another 150,000 
Federal employees and another $1 trillion of expenditure. We ought to 
be worried about our future. We ought to be paying attention to what 
the Chinese are saying, the biggest purchaser of our bonds and bills: 
You are spending too much money.
  They are right. They are absolutely right.
  How is it, in a time of economic decline and almost nonexistent 
inflation, we can justify rates of increase that will double the size 
of the Federal Government in 5 years? I don't understand that. I don't 
believe 80 or 90 percent of the American people understand that, unless 
they are not paying any taxes and don't care. But their grandchildren 
will care.
  Let me translate what will happen. What is going to happen with this 
kind of explosive government growth, with an almost $12 trillion debt 
we have now that will double in the next 5 years and triple in the next 
10 years, according to the budget plan passed by those on the other 
side of the aisle, is that our children and grandchildren will see a 
standard of living 30 percent below what we have today. That is the 
consequence of borrowing 43 percent of everything we do. Interest rates 
are not always going to be as low as they are. In 2013, this government 
is going to pay over $1 trillion in interest costs per year. That is $1 
trillion we are taking from the American people that is not going to 
help anybody. It is just going to offset this terrible precedent we are 
setting on spending. We can't afford it. If we want the dollar to sink 
and we want inflation to come roaring back, all we have to do is keep 
doing what we are doing.
  Then the value of our homes, the value of retirements, although 
already hit by the decline, will erode even further. We cannot create 
wealth by trying to borrow our way out of trouble.
  What I see, as I look at my five grandchildren, is we are acting 
totally irresponsibly. There is no other thing we could do to describe 
what we are going to do. Yet tomorrow, when we get into cloture on this 
bill and we finally pass the bill, what are we going to do? We are 
going to mortgage the future of this country.
  Let me explain. That means stealing hope, the propensity to think 
about tomorrow being better, when, in fact, we, the Members of 
Congress, have ensured it will not be. We are taking away the hard-
earned assets, not only through taxes but through inflation, of the 
American worker. We have a real problem in front of us. We have an 
irresponsible Appropriations Committee that continues to send bills out 
that are growing the government at a rate that is absolutely 
unsustainable.
  What is the answer? The answer is to ask Congress to start making 
hard choices. Just like every other family is doing out there today, 
make the hard choice of prioritizing. What is most important? What is 
next most important? What is superfluous? What is not absolutely 
necessary now that we want to steal from our grandchildren to be able

[[Page 22354]]

to have today? The heritage of this country, the thing that created 
American exceptionalism, the thing that built the most powerful, most 
successful economic model in the history of the world was a heritage of 
one generation saying: We will sacrifice to create opportunity for the 
next generation. These bills and this one, in particular, abandon that 
heritage. What we are saying is: We want for us now, and we don't care 
about our children and grandchildren. These are indisputable numbers. 
These are CBO numbers. At a minimum, this is what we are going to do. 
At a maximum, it is going to be much worse.
  Next year we are going to borrow more than 43 percent. We are going 
to approach 50 percent of everything we spend based on the budget plan. 
We are going to have another $1.6 trillion deficit. That is Washington 
accounting, Enron accounting. The real deficit, when we take all the 
money stolen from all the trust funds, will put it closer to $1.9 
trillion. Do the math: 300 million people into $1.9 trillion; we are 
spending $6,000 more for every man, woman, and child than we are taking 
in.
  I carry with me, based on last year's numbers, what the Federal 
Government does per family, per household. The year that ends this 
month, we will spend $34,000 of your money--not counting the States, 
not counting municipalities--$34,000 per household through Federal 
Government programs; 43 percent of which, which comes out to about 
$15,000 per household, is borrowed. We will spend $9,000 on Medicare 
and Social Security; $5,800 on defense; antipoverty programs, almost 
$5,000; this year per family $1,210; in 3 years, $850 per family. 
Federal employee retirement benefits per family, you are paying $1,000 
per family for Federal employees' generous retirement benefits. We are 
paying $800 for veterans benefits. For regulation and research, we are 
paying $700 per family. For highways, we are paying $500 per family; 
for justice administration, $452; and for unemployment benefits, $900 
per family.
  If we total all that--all the others count $1,361 per family--we come 
up with $33,800 per family. That is going to be $40,000 next year per 
family that comes through the Federal Government, of which almost 50 
percent will be borrowed.
  We can't continue to do what this bill purports to do. It is not only 
unconscionable that we would not make the tough choices, and the reason 
we don't make the tough choices is politicians don't want to offend 
anybody. It is not only unconscionable that we will not make the tough 
choices; what we are doing is immoral. We are stealing opportunity. We 
are stealing the potential American dream of our children and 
grandchildren because we are going to shackle them with a debt they 
cannot get out of.
  I delivered babies for a living before I came up here. I have 
delivered thousands of babies. When I deliver a baby now, it is a mixed 
blessing. It is a wonderful thing to see that new life come into the 
world, to look at the parents' faces, to see the glow and to think 
about all their hopes and dreams for that young child. But the downside 
is, if you are born today, you have the responsibility to pay off the 
interest of over $480,000 of expenditures that are coming that we 
haven't provided the revenues for.
  Now, think about your grandchildren and your children. Do you really 
want to load them down with that kind of number? Just paying the 
interest--if interest is 5 percent--you are talking about they have to 
make up $20,000, at least, before they are even just carrying the debt 
service on that kind of load.
  We are destroying this country through the lack of discipline and the 
cowardice of not making the hard choices that need to be made right 
now--not tomorrow, not next week, right now.
  For us to bring a bill to the Senate floor that increases the 
Interior spending by 16 percent, in a time when we have 1.6 percent 
inflation, and to not make the hard choices about priorities and 
getting it to where we do not spend any more right now so we start 
creating that hope of opportunity for our next generations, I do not 
understand.
  I walk off this floor and beat my head against the wall because I do 
not think the Senate gets it. They do not understand what the average 
family is doing today in terms of making these hard choices. They are 
making the hard choices at home, only to see us not make the hard 
choices, and to offset the tremendous difficulties you have in making 
those hard choices by making sure your kids are going to have to make 
even tougher ones.
  Even when the economy turns around, this does not go away. America is 
the longest surviving Republic in the history of the world. If we look 
at the history of the republics--all of them that have ever been 
created--what happened to them? They all collapsed. Do you know why 
they collapsed? Some of them were defeated externally, but the reason 
they were defeated externally is because they became a fiscal mess, 
much like we are, and they all ultimately collapsed over the lack of 
fiscal discipline and limiting the size of the government's take in 
terms of the size of the economy.
  It is projected that in America, in 10 years--if things keep going 
the way they are--the Federal Government will consume 40 percent of our 
GDP. When it gets to 50 percent, we are over, we are gone. What we have 
today is a situation that is not irreversible. But all prophetic 
indications would say, if we keep doing this, it is going to be 
irreversible.
  I know those are tough things, but let me tell you how Senators 
think. Senators think in the short term because it seems too often the 
most important thing is getting to the next election. So we do the 
short-term, expedient things that make us look good to a group of 
people in one State by sacrificing the greater good of the country.
  What is needed today in America is people with long-term visionary 
thought, combined with the courage to lose an election to do what is 
best for the American public in the long run. What is best is for us to 
get back to the roots and our oath that is outlined in the Constitution 
of the United States.
  This bill strays a long way from that, and my amendments will show 
some of that. We no longer have a limited Federal Government. We have 
an overly expansive Federal Government. It is not going to be long when 
we will not need States because the Federal Government is going to be 
involved in everything and telling the States what to do on everything 
anyway--and there comes the collapse of our Republic.
  These are just little warning symptoms that say we do not have our 
eye on the ball, that we have our eye on the wrong ball, that we do not 
believe in the oath we took to honor the Constitution and its 
prescribed method of maintaining a limited Federal Government, with 
everything else, as depicted in the 10th amendment, left and reserved 
for the States and the people of this country.
  When we are growing the Department of Interior by 16 percent, what we 
are doing is abandoning that. There is no justification. If you read 
this appropriations bill and the report that goes along with it--if the 
American people were to read it, they would throw up. They would throw 
up at the lack of priorities. They would throw up at the tremendous 
parochialism that says we put our State ahead of our country. They 
would throw up at the waste, and they would throw up at the earmarks. 
They would be literally sick.
  So we find ourselves with multiple appropriations bills that are 
inexcusable, given the situation we find ourselves in, and, more 
importantly, the sacrifices that American families are having to make 
now in their own budgets. But, more importantly, it is inexcusable to 
steal the hope and future from the next two generations, and this bill 
does that, and so do the rest of them.
  We are stealing. We are selfish. We are saying: I would rather be 
reelected to the Senate than do what is best for America. I would 
rather protect my parochial interests than do what is better for 
America. I would rather not have to make the hard choices of 
eliminating

[[Page 22355]]

some things that are not a priority rather than do what is in the best 
long-term vision for this country.
  It is discouraging. It is disappointing. The only way it changes is 
if the American people demand that it start changing. There should not 
be 10 votes for this bill, but it will get 60 or 70 because there is no 
backbone. There is no backbone to do the right, best thing for the 
country, even if it costs us. Serving your country means sacrificing. 
Service without sacrifice is not service at all. If it is not costing 
you something, you are not doing anything, and we shun the 
responsibility of doing the best and the right thing for America.
  Let me talk for a minute, if I may, about the amendments I have. I 
will preview those amendments and will not spend a lot more of the 
chairman's and ranking member's time. I have a total of seven 
amendments--actually eight. Let me talk about them since I cannot call 
them up.
  One amendment is on transparency. My friend, President Obama, wants 
us to be a transparent government. Throughout this bill are tons of 
reports that you, as American citizens, will never get to see. As a 
matter of fact, I will not even get to see them because they are 
directed only to the Appropriations Committee. What is that all about? 
As a Member of the Senate I cannot see reports that are committed by 
this bill in terms of reporting back from agencies. Yet only the 
Appropriations Committee can see them? More importantly, you cannot see 
them to be able to hold us accountable to see whether we are doing our 
job? So one of the amendments just says, if there are reports required, 
and they do not compromise national security interests, everybody in 
America ought to get to see them.
  In the last appropriations bill that amendment was accepted. But I 
will tell you what will happen to it. They will take it out in 
conference. They will say: Oh, it did not make it through conference. 
The American people cannot see this. They will not come out and say it. 
I will have to publicize it. But they will deny the ability for you to 
see the very reports they are asking for in this bill.
  There is an earmark in this bill for a building less than two blocks 
from here called the Sewall-Belmont House. That house is used for a 
multitude of things. They have $4 million cash in the bank right now, 
and we are going to give them another $1 million. They have money in 
the bank, but we are going to give it to them anyway. Mostly what 
happens over there is fundraisers for Members of Congress, for which 
they charge $5,000 to use. They make money. Yet we have decided we are 
going to give them $1 million. Tell me that is a priority right now in 
this country.
  So what we do is we take that $1 million and send that $1 million to 
the National Park Service because right now we have an $11 billion 
backlog in our national parks, and they are falling down. But we refuse 
to fund them because we are doing things like this.
  There is another amendment I have. We now have a conflict between 
agencies where the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of 
Interior will not allow Homeland Security to protect our southern 
border because they are afraid it will mess up the environment. So what 
we have done is we have said protecting wilderness areas is more 
important than protecting our border.
  This amendment says none of the funds in this bill can be used to 
prohibit or impede the Department of Homeland Security from protecting 
us on the southern border. Yet it is happening every day. We have 
testimony. We have internal documents that show the Department of 
Interior is limiting the ability of Homeland Security to protect our 
southern border. It makes sense that we should not do that. We should 
protect the environment, but we will not have that environment if we do 
not protect our southern border.
  What we do know is, those areas where our Border Patrol cannot get to 
are where all the infiltration is coming today. It is where the drug 
trafficking is coming today. It is where multiple, multiple people are 
being raped by the people who are transporting illegal aliens through 
those wilderness and fish and wildlife areas.
  So what this amendment says is, you cannot use money in the 
Department of Interior to preclude Homeland Security and the Border 
Patrol from doing their job, which is to protect us from the illegal 
transport of people and drugs and weapons into this country.
  I have another amendment. We want to try to become more energy 
independent. We have all the renewable we are trying to do--whether it 
is wind or solar--yet the Department of the Interior is blocking the 
ability to create the transmission lines from where we have renewable 
sources. They will not allow the transmission lines to go across those 
areas. We want to get off foreign oil. We want to decrease our carbon 
use. Now we have started to develop alternative, renewable sources, and 
we have an agency that is blocking the ability to get that power to us. 
It makes no sense.
  We can do that in an environmentally friendly way. So we cannot allow 
the Department of the Interior to block that and the ultra-
environmentalists, who say they want us to have renewable energy but, 
by the way, they do not want us to be able to use it. So we will 
develop it and not have a way to use it.
  There is several hundred million dollars in this bill to be used for 
the Federal Government to acquire more land. The Federal Government 
owns about 35 percent of all the land in the country today, but we 
cannot take care of the land we have. I mentioned earlier the backlog 
at the national parks. The National Mall has a backlog. The Statue of 
Liberty has a $600 million backlog. Some of our biggest and best 
parks--the Grand Canyon, Mount Rushmore, several others--have hundreds 
of millions of dollars in backlog.
  All the national park backlog grew $400 million last year. In other 
words, we are letting what we have crumble as we go and spend almost 
$360 million more on buying more land. This amendment says: Do not buy 
the land. Put the money in fixing our national parks, bringing them up. 
They are falling down. We actually have testimony where we are putting 
visitors at risk because our maintenance backlog is so great.
  Third from the last is an amendment to require a report so we know 
what we actually own. We don't know what we own. The last time we had 
any estimate it was of 658 million acres and that was 2005. Nobody has 
done anything to know what we own, prioritize what we own, or say what 
is important. What do we need to protect the most? What do we need to 
get the backlogs straight on? How do we manage what we own? You can't 
manage what you own if you don't know what you own. All it does is 
require a report on the total land owned by the Federal Government and 
the cost to maintain the land so we can make coherent judgments about 
how to make priorities of what is important and what is not. This 
appropriations bill shoots from the hip, because they don't have the 
facts with which to make the decisions on how to prioritize.
  Finally, we have this idea of national heritage areas. We now have 
four times more than was ever authorized in the original bill. What 
happens is we create a national heritage area and pretty soon you are 
out there on your farm or in your neighborhood and because it is a 
national heritage declaration, we fund special interest groups that 
come in to lobby to make sure what happens to your land is what they 
want to happen, not what you want to happen with your land. So what we 
say with this amendment is if we are going to create a national 
heritage area, all the landowners ought to be notified. If they want to 
be included in that, allow them to opt in. Allow them to choose to be 
in the national heritage area. But if they don't want to be, their 
property rights ought to be secure. So what we say is allow them to 
decide whether they want in or out and they have to opt in if they want 
in.
  Our Bill of Rights guarantees our right to our property, an 
unfettered right. The national heritage areas destroy that and allow 
groups with an interest that is funded by the Federal Government--you 
didn't get any of the

[[Page 22356]]

money--to come in and have the power and the money to lobby to change 
the restrictions and land codes against your will. Most people who have 
found themselves in a heritage area don't know it until they get ready 
to do something with their own land and find out that: Oh, my goodness, 
the Federal Government has caused somebody to change my ability to do 
what I want to do with my land. I am not talking crazy; I am talking 
responsible action by a landowner. So what we are doing is denying a 
fundamental right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights as we create all 
of these heritage areas.
  It is fine if you want to be in one, but if you don't want to be in 
one, you ought to have the ability to not be in it and it shouldn't be 
assumed you are in it because we in Washington say you should. You 
ought to be able to say you should and you ought to have the knowledge 
with which to make that decision. That is called real transparency. 
That is called protecting freedom. That is called letting people be 
responsible for their property rather than us mandating from Washington 
what will and won't happen with our property.
  Then, finally, an amendment I offer on every appropriations bill. It 
comes from what President Obama said he wanted to do, and that is to 
mandate competitive bidding on everything we buy--no more well-
connected, well-heeled inside deals but competitively bid so that the 
American taxpayers truly get value for the dollars they are sending 
here and, even more importantly, the 43 percent our kids are going to 
be paying for, that they get value. Since we are borrowing their money, 
we are borrowing their future, at least when we borrow it, we ought 
to--and we are going to do misguided priorities and we are going to 
overspend and we are going to grow the government and double it in the 
next 5 years--the least we could do is to get real value when we go to 
spend your money and your kids' money.
  As my colleagues can see, I am not a very big fan of this bill. As a 
matter of fact, I am not a big fan of any of the appropriations bills, 
because the whole premise under which they operate is: Here is what we 
had last year and we are going to start from there, without ever 
looking at: Here are how many billions we are spending and is it being 
spent properly? Is there great oversight? No, there is not. There is 
terrible oversight. Is there duplication? We don't even care; we don't 
even look. We don't make the hard choices that the next two generations 
need us to make.
  The most powerful committee in the Senate and the most powerful 
committee in the House is the Appropriations Committee, and $400 
billion of your money will be appropriated this year that is not even 
authorized. The appropriators don't even pay attention to the 
authorizing language because they are going to appropriate $400 billion 
of things that aren't authorized. So then we have this parliamentary 
rule that says you can't legislate on an appropriations bill. Yet they 
legislate all the time by funding things that have never been 
authorized or have expired authorizations for spending. So we can 
eliminate $400 billion tomorrow by following the rules of the Senate 
and the rules of the Constitution, but we play the game and people come 
to kiss the rings, to get what they want at home, to look good at home. 
Consequently, we are extorted to pay with a vote for a bill that is 
like this one--this big 16.28 percent increase--so we can look good at 
home.
  I want to tell my colleagues the American people are waking up. There 
is a rumble out there like I have never seen. It is a rumble I have 
been praying for. This country needs to be taken back by the people. 
This country needs to hold the Members of this body absolutely 
accountable. The only way that happens is if the citizens stay 
informed.
  I will end with this. There was a President named Ronald Reagan. My 
little 3-year-old daughter at the time called him President Raisin 
because she couldn't say Reagan. He said one of the most profound 
things I have ever heard said. He said: Freedom is a precious thing. It 
is not ours by inheritance. It is never guaranteed to us. It has to be 
fought for and defended by each and every generation.
  I am telling you in the last 20 years, our generations haven't come 
up to defend it. He wasn't talking about our military; he was talking 
about us being well informed citizens, holding us accountable, creating 
the pressure for us to be transparent so that you can, in fact, know 
and count on us doing the right, best thing every time and that we put 
ourselves second and the country first. That is what he was talking 
about.
  The rumble that is occurring in this country can't come soon enough 
or big enough to change both the Senate and the Congress. It is not 
partisan. It is sick on both sides of the aisle. What we need is a real 
revolt against the status quo and an engagement and an enlistment by 
the average American to speak out, to come out and hold us accountable 
to do what is best for the generations that follow and cause us to 
reembrace what built this country, which is a heritage of sacrifice 
today to create opportunity for the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senate is on H.R. 2996.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for up to 18 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Financial Market Innovation

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, Wall Street has undergone a radical 
transformation in recent years. We saw the rise of high-frequency 
trading where buy and sell orders move in milliseconds. We saw the 
emergence of so-called dark pools which permit confidential trading in 
growing volumes to take place away from the public eye. We now see some 
trading firms' computer servers enjoying the advantage of onsite 
location, a practice known as colocation. We have seen the creation of 
flash orders which allow certain traders to see orders before anyone 
else. There have been new developments in payments for order flow, a 
practice that permits market centers to pay a broker to route a trade 
its way. These and myriad other practices, almost too complicated to 
describe, have fundamentally changed how our markets operate. We now 
have a high-tech, profit-driven arms race, which continues to escalate 
every day, that has transformed the ways and the places and the speeds 
in which stocks and other securities are traded.
  There are at least two questions that must be posed--questions we 
must look to the markets' regulators to answer. First, have these 
opaque, complex, increasingly sophisticated trading mechanisms been 
beneficial for retail investors, helping them to buy at the lowest 
possible price and sell at the highest price with the lowest possible 
transaction costs or have they left them as second-class investors, 
pushed aside by powerful trading companies able to take advantage of 
small but statistically and financially significant advantages? And 
second, do these high-tech practices and their ballooning daily volumes 
pose a systemic risk? To take just one example, is anyone examining the 
leverage these traders use in committing their capital in such huge 
daily volumes? What do we really know about the cumulative effect of 
all these changes on the stability of our capital markets?
  The proponents of these technological developments tell us this 
transformation has benefited all investors. But how can we know--truly, 
how can we know that--when so much of the market is opaque to the 
public and to the regulators? How can we be confident when the 
measurement and enforcement techniques used by regulators for ensuring 
best execution seem

[[Page 22357]]

stuck in the past and when so many trade in milliseconds across 
fragmented markets to take advantage of so-called market latencies? And 
why should we assume it all operates in the public interest when these 
changes have not been fully analyzed, individually or collectively, to 
determine and protect the interests of long-term investors?
  That is why, on August 21, I wrote to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro 
calling for ``a comprehensive, independent, `zero-based regulatory 
review' of a broad range of market structure issues, analyzing the 
current market structure from the ground up before piecemeal changes 
built on the current structure increase the potential for execution 
unfairness.'' I told her then that ``we need a thorough review . . . so 
that our laws and regulations can keep pace with market developments.'' 
In a written response to me on September 10, Chairman Schapiro 
announced that not only was the SEC reviewing dark pools and flash 
orders, studies it had begun earlier this year, but that it would 
broaden its review to include regulation ATS threshold levels, direct 
market access, high-frequency trading, and colocation, which I 
explained earlier.
  Adding action to these words, last week the SEC unanimously approved 
a proposal to ban the use of flash orders in our financial markets. 
Flash orders undermine the credibility of our markets by giving a 
select group of market participants a sneak peek at stock quotes. As 
Chairman Schapiro noted, ``Flash orders provide a momentary head start 
in the trading arena that can produce inequities in the market.'' I 
applaud the SEC for this action. The proposal must be put out for 
public comment which the SEC will review before making a final 
decision.
  I am hopeful that last week's action was a true beginning. Banning 
flash orders is only a small, though significant--very significant--
step in the review of recent market developments.
  Accordingly, I was also very pleased last week to hear Chairman 
Schapiro, the Commissioners, and the SEC staff voice their support not 
just for a flash order ban but also for the need for a comprehensive, 
ground-up review at the Commission of current market structure issues.
  Chairman Schapiro asserted last Thursday that ``other market 
practices may have . . . opaque features'' and that she expects the 
Commission to ``consider initiatives in the near future'' that address 
``forms of dark trading that lack market transparency.''
  James Brigagliano, Co-Acting Director, Division of Trading and 
Markets, added:

       I want to emphasize that today's recommended proposal is a 
     first step in an ongoing review of market structure issues. 
     The securities markets have experienced extraordinary changes 
     over the last few years in trading technology and practices. 
     Some of these changes have led to serious concerns about 
     whether the regulatory structure remains up to date. The 
     division is examining a wide range of market structure 
     issues, including certain practices with respect to 
     undisplayed or ``dark trading interests'' in addition to 
     flash orders that are the subject of today's proposal. We 
     anticipate making additional recommendations to the 
     Commission in the coming months for proposals to address 
     discreet issues, such as flash orders, that warrant prompt 
     attention. There is also a spectrum of broader market issues 
     and practices that affect the interests of investors and need 
     to be examined closely.

  I cannot tell you how pleased I am to hear that the Commission is 
taking the review seriously. I say bravo to the SEC. The agency tasked 
with upholding the integrity of our markets should actively review the 
rapid technological developments of the past few years and analyze 
their costs and benefits to long-term investors.
  Eugene Ludwig, former Comptroller of the Currency, recently reminded 
us that each of the financial crises of the past 25 years--the collapse 
of the savings and loan industry, the Internet stock bust a decade 
later, and last year's credit market meltdown--was the result of 
inadequate regulation.
  Another former regulator, Brooksley Born, a former Chairman of the 
CFTC, warned us of the opaqueness of the derivatives markets at a time 
when they were becoming big enough to cause trouble. Earlier this year, 
she recalled her warnings:

       I was very concerned about the dark nature of these 
     markets.

  And further:

       I didn't think we knew enough about them. I was concerned 
     about the lack of transparency and the lack of any tools for 
     enforcement and the lack of prohibitions against fraud and 
     manipulation.

  Unfortunately, history proved Brooksley Born right--unchecked, 
unexamined innovation severely weakened our markets and, as we all 
know, ultimately led to our financial disaster. Sometimes small, 
apparently technical innovations in our vast and complicated financial 
system can generate great benefits for all, and other times they can 
generate disastrous unintended consequences.
  It is also fair to say that well-intentioned regulation in a complex 
market can also have unintended consequences. That is why we need 
regulators on the job, undertaking a thoughtful and reasoned analysis 
so we can have a clear view of where innovations may be taking us and 
whether wise regulations can help curb abuses. Regulators must keep 
pace with the latest market developments, and we in Congress must give 
regulators the tools they need to observe and stay abreast of the 
sophisticated financial players they are charged with regulating. I say 
that again. We in the Congress must give regulators the tools they need 
to observe and stay abreast of the sophisticated financial players they 
are charged with regulating.
  Three examples from the current debate are especially illustrative of 
this need: colocation of servers at the exchanges, flash orders, and 
direct market access.
  When the exchanges first began to permit traders to place computers 
onsite, giving these traders a few microseconds' advantage, the SEC did 
not insist on regulatory approval. The Commission simply let it occur. 
There was no active consideration then, as I have called for now, of 
the means by which fair access can be preserved.
  The same is true for flash orders. In May, the SEC permitted the 
NASDAQ and BATS exchanges to introduce flash-order offerings even 
though both admitted that the practice was of dubious value and that 
they simply were being driven to adopt it by the loss of market share 
to competitors. Both exchanges later reversed those decisions 
voluntarily, which is commendable, but let's not forget that this was a 
telling example of rote, piecemeal review by the SEC staff applying 
outdated floor-based precedents to electronic-age developments.
  Direct market access is another practice that deserves closer 
examination. Such agreements allow high-frequency traders to use their 
broker's market participant identification to interact directly with 
market centers. In order to maximize speed of execution, many sponsored 
access participants may neglect important pretrade credit and 
compliance checks that ensure faulty algorithms cannot send out 
erroneous trades.
  According to John Jacobs, chief operations officer at Lime Brokerage, 
this risk is quite significant. He says:

       At 1,000 shares per order and an average price of $20 per 
     share, $2.4 billion of improper trades could be executed in 
     this short timeframe . . . The next long term capital 
     meltdown would happen in a five-minute time period.

  When did direct access begin, and has the SEC ever considered its 
ramifications from a comprehensive standpoint?
  Some are now saying that colocation and flash orders are very old-
fashioned concepts and perhaps colocation, for its part, will 
ultimately be practiced better in the automated environment than it has 
been on the floors. I am sure some old hands can tell hair-raising 
stories about the old days and floor space out of the Chicago pits.
  But that is the point: Colocation and flash are two of many 
transformational changes this decade that have been considered 
piecemeal and only in the context of existing policies. Like direct 
access, these changes may have been found equal or even superior to 
their floor-based antecedents, but in an automated age these changes 
need to

[[Page 22358]]

be subjected to a holistic analysis of their collective impact on the 
markets and our regulatory infrastructure.
  The same is true for high-frequency trading, dark pools, payment for 
order flow, liquidity rebates, and other market structure issues.
  The rapid rise of high-frequency trading and dark execution venues 
has quite simply left our regulatory agencies playing catch-up. High-
frequency traders can execute over 1,000 trades in a single second. Let 
me say that again--1,000 trades in a single second. According to the 
TAB Group, these traders are now responsible for over 70 percent of all 
daily U.S. equity trades--70 percent; that is 7-0 percent.
  We are learning more about high-frequency trading every day. 
According to one industry expert:

       Most high-frequency shops have huge volumes but few 
     transactions. About 95 to 97 percent of trades are orders 
     sent and canceled.

  What does all this mean for the long-term investor? Trading is not 
only faster, it is also quickly becoming less transparent. Twelve 
percent of trades are now conducted in dark pools, compared to less 
than 1 percent 6 years ago, and substantial percentages of trades are 
internalized at broker-dealers, never reaching a public exchange.
  Maybe in the old days there were block trades happening in the dark 
too. I don't doubt it. But many commentators have raised concerns about 
whether the darkening trends today truly threaten to undermine public 
price discovery. The strength of a free market is in its public display 
of price quotes to all market participants.
  These recent developments quite simply need to be better understood.
  Yet still, after all the disasters, the billions of dollars lost, the 
homes foreclosed, the jobs lost--after all the pain that has been 
caused across this country--some on Wall Street reject even the notion 
of regulatory scrutiny.
  They become defensive about the politicization of the process when 
Congress asks basic questions. They say Congress and the media can 
never understand high-frequency trading. They point to the benefits of 
high-frequency trading--narrowed spreads, added liquidity, and faster 
executions--and ask everyone to trust there will be no side effects, no 
unintended consequences. Some still argue that the market operates best 
without any regulation; that changes in market structure are the 
natural consequence of the innovative and competition and there is 
nothing good to be gained from regulators or Congress studying possible 
sources of inequity.
  To their credit, not everyone on Wall Street has reacted this way. 
Others have said that now is the right time for a comprehensive review 
of market structure developments. These Wall Street leaders--true 
leaders--acknowledge there are indeed many valid questions being raised 
about dark pools, payment for order flow, other market innovations, and 
enforcement of best execution.
  Indeed, some high-frequency traders have said they welcome a 
regulatory examination of high-frequency trading because they are 
confident high-frequency trading will pass the test with flying colors. 
That is the correct attitude. We need a regulatory review with Wall 
Street's cooperation.
  It is in the nature of our financial markets to push the envelope, to 
take on more and more risk, and to exploit any crack in the wall when 
there are profits to be won. There is nothing wrong with this. But to 
have a full accounting, we also need to add up the costs to the long-
term investor, to financial stability, to innocent bystanders of each 
new generation of innovation.
  In years past, without a sufficient regulatory presence, an aura of 
invincibility developed at many financial institutions. We failed to 
ask questions, we failed to ensure regulators were on the field with 
the tools they need to do their jobs, and the results are clear: 
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, and their 
savings. We must not repeat that mistake. We must be sure that when 
financial markets push the envelope, take on more and more risk, and 
exploit any crack in the wall, they are monitored and regulated to 
assure it is in the public good.
  It is time for Congress and the regulators to ask questions and for 
Wall Street to step forward responsibly and answer them with the data 
to back up those answers. We cannot simply react to problems after they 
have occurred. We need the information and resources to identify 
problems before they arise and stop them in their tracks.
  Our goal is not to stop high-frequency trading. We don't want to slow 
it down. Liquidity, innovation, and competition are critical components 
of our financial markets. But at the same time, we cannot allow 
liquidity to trump fairness, and we cannot permit the need for speed to 
blind us to the potentially devastating risks inherent in effectively 
unregulated transactions.
  We cannot forget that fair and transparent markets are the 
cornerstones of our American system. As I have said before, fairness in 
the financial markets may be an elusive and ever-evolving concept, but 
it must be defined and then vigorously defended by our regulators. The 
credibility of the markets and investor confidence simply demand that 
regulators be ever watchful, sophisticated, and tough against those who 
would breach the rules.
  I am not demanding an immediate, wide-ranging regulatory overhaul. I 
will not place symbolic action over prudent investigation. That would 
be impulsive and irresponsible. But it is only prudent, given the risks 
of the past, that I will not allow potentially risky market practices 
to go on unexamined. I will ask questions and strive to improve my 
understanding of these opaque market practices and, if necessary, push 
appropriate reforms. I am very pleased the SEC has agreed to do the 
same.
  If we fail to learn from past mistakes, we can be sure history will 
repeat itself.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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 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 the time 
until 4:15 p.m. be for debate with respect to the Vitter motion to 
recommit and McCaskill amendment No. 2514, with the time divided as 
follows: 5 minutes each, Senators Feinstein, Alexander, Vitter, and 
McCaskill or their designees, with no amendments in order to the motion 
or the amendment prior to the vote in relation thereto; that prior to 
the second vote there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and 
controlled; that once this consent is granted, the majority manager be 
recognized to call up the McCaskill amendment; further, that the votes 
occur in the order listed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2514

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2514.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for Mrs. 
     McCaskill, proposes an amendment numbered 2514.

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

   (Purpose: To strike the earmarks for the Save America's Treasure 
 program and to provide criteria for the distribution of grants under 
                             that program)

       On page 135, line 2, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``, of which, notwithstanding the chart under 
     the heading `Save America's Treasures' on page 30 of Senate 
     Report 111-38, the entire amount shall be distributed by the 
     Secretary of the Interior in the form of competitive grants 
     on the basis of the following criteria: (1) the collection or 
     historic property must be nationally significant; (2) the 
     collection or historic property must be threatened or 
     endangered;

[[Page 22359]]

     (3) the application must document the urgent preservation or 
     conservation need; (4) projects must substantially mitigate 
     the threat and must have a clear public benefit; (5) the 
     project must be feasible; and (6) the application must 
     document adequately the required non-Federal match''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
proposed by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill. 
This amendment would eliminate 16 congressionally directed spending 
items in the National Park Service's Save America's Treasures Program. 
I would like to say what these are: in Alabama, Swayne Hall, Talladega; 
in California, Mission Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara; in Florida, 
Freedom Tower, Miami; Iowa, Des Moines Art Center, Des Moines; Kansas, 
Colonial Fox Theater, Pittsburgh; Michigan, Big Sable Lighthouse, 
Luddington; Madison County Courthouse, Mississippi; Mississippi, Medgar 
Evers site, Jackson; Nevada, the Lincoln County Courthouse, Pioche; New 
York, the Strand Theater, Plattsburgh; New York, the Richard Olmstead 
Complex, Buffalo; Oregon, the Wallowa County Courthouse, Enterprise; 
Rhode Island, the Warwick City Hall, Warwick; the State Theater, Sioux 
Falls, SD; the Blount Mansion, Knoxville, TN, and the Capitol Theater, 
Wheeling, WV.
  Those are the 16 that would be eliminated.
  The underlying argument is that this bill continues business as usual 
when it comes to earmarking funds, and this is hardly the case. The 
Senate leadership and the chairman and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee have built on the reforms established by the 
last Congress when it comes to congressionally directed spending. To 
offer more opportunity for public scrutiny of Member requests, Members 
are now required to post detailed information concerning their earmark 
requests on their official Web sites at the time the request is made. 
Each Senator must explain the purpose of the earmark and why it is a 
valuable use of taxpayer funds.
  A list of every congressionally directed spending item in this bill 
has been on the Internet for public scrutiny since June 17, 2009, when 
it was first marked up by the Interior Subcommittee. For every 
congressionally directed spending item contained in this bill, the 
Senator has certified that he or she or his or her immediate family has 
no financial interest in the item requested. These letters of 
certification are available to the public on the Internet.
  These reforms are not the status quo. They represent significant 
improvements in the transparency and accountability for the spending 
decisions contained in the various appropriations measures being 
brought before this body.
  Let me now explain the process used to evaluate these specific Save 
America's Treasures earmarks. As Senator Alexander and I have reviewed 
each of the 128 funding requests the Interior Subcommittee has 
received, we applied the same criteria that has been applied for the 
past 10 years and that has been codified in the program's 
authorization. When we did that, only 16 projects passed muster.
  For example, if the project received funding in the past it was 
ineligible for a grant this year. If the project was a building and the 
building was not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 
then it was ineligible for a grant this year. If the local authorities 
did not have the required one-to-one matching funding in hand, then it 
was ineligible for a grant this year.
  Then, even if the project cleared those hurdles, we still set aside 
those requests that were not considered the highest priority by the 
requesting Members.
  When that process was complete, what we ended up with were the 16 
very good and credible projects that I have just read. So I urge a 
``no'' vote on the McCaskill amendment.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The motion will be in order at 
the appropriate time.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe there is a time agreement so 
I cannot move to table at this time. I withdraw my motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.


               Motion to Recommit with Amendment No. 2508

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is 2 
minutes equally divided on the Vitter motion to recommit. I ask 
unanimous consent to speak for 1\1/2\ minutes on the amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent to 
have equal time on the amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have no objection to equal time.
  Mr. VITTER. I have no objection to the modified request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose this motion to recommit 
because it would prevent the Obama administration from presenting its 
oil and gas development plan in favor of a draft plan issued by the 
Bush administration on its last business day in office. The amendment 
would overturn Interior Secretary Salazar's decision to extend the 
public comment period over a 5-year plan for oil and gas development on 
the Outer Continental Shelf by 180 days. The amendment would make the 
last-minute Bush draft binding. The Bush plan only allowed for a 60-day 
deadline for public comment. That is not enough time. The Interior 
Department received 350,000 public comments during the extended comment 
period. The Department should not be prevented from studying these 
comments and proposing the best plan it can.
  In addition, there is currently insufficient data on available 
resources for the Atlantic seaboard where the Bush plan would extend 
drilling.
  We should not make decisions to sell off taxpayer resources based on 
old information.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, of course, nothing in my amendment 
prevents the Interior Department from reading all those comments, from 
digesting them. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It says: 
Remember last summer where almost all of America said this is 
ridiculous, drill here, drill now, let's use our own resources and not 
be held captive to foreign interests. Remember that. My amendment is 
about whether we listen to that or whether we will ignore it. Right now 
this administration and this Interior Department have pledged to ignore 
that and have pledged to forestall and put off the OCS development plan 
previously developed that is on the books and about to move forward. 
This question is simple: Did we listen to the American people when they 
spoke so loudly, so clearly, or is Congress going to ignore the clear 
will of the American people yet again?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to recommit 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the motion to 
recommit.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 22360]]

  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 293 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The motion to table was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2514

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided between each side to discuss the McCaskill amendment No. 2514.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, this amendment is a very small step. 
It restores a competitive grant program--a small competitive grant 
program. Over the last decade, competitive and formula grant programs 
have been decimated by earmarking. Earmarks have become more 
transparent under reforms that have been made, and that is great. Is 
the process still fair? No, probably not. The lion's share of the 
earmarks in this bill, in this program, and in all of the 
appropriations bills go to the very few Members who serve on one 
committee. This will allow us to put this money back into a competitive 
process so all the States in the Nation have an equal opportunity to 
participate.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, regrettably, I wish to speak against 
the amendment. There has been a rigorous vetting process of these 
projects. We looked at 128 requests. Only 16 of those passed muster. 
Earlier, I outlined the criteria which were strictly observed in 
selecting these projects. I outlined what the projects are. We applied 
the same criteria that is in the law. These are all excellent projects. 
I urge my colleagues to support the committee bill and oppose this 
amendment.
  I move to table the McCaskill amendment, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     LeMieux
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     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

                                NAYS--26

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kaufman
     Kyl
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Risch
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

                                  Byrd
                                     
                                     

  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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.
  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, it is my understanding that we have to 
vacate the Chamber at 5:30 p.m. so the room can be swept for the 
ceremony. I know Senator Ensign wishes to speak. I have stated to him 
that he could speak, so I would like to have the floor open to him to 
speak for the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, tomorrow, from what I understand, I will 
have a motion to recommit this bill with instructions that hopefully 
will be part of the unanimous consent agreement. Let me describe 
exactly what my motion to recommit says.
  Last week, I did a similar motion to recommit on the T-HUD 
appropriations bill because that bill was dramatically increased. And 
this week's appropriations bill on Interior has yet another huge 
increase. In 2008 to 2009, the increase was 4 percent. This year, the 
increase is 16.28 percent.
  Every local government, State government, probably almost everyone in 
the United States is cutting their budgets. Almost every business is 
cutting its budget. Most households in America are cutting their 
budgets because of these difficult economic times. But what do we do in 
Washington, DC? We print money and we dramatically increase spending.
  The National Taxpayers Union has agreed with me, and they are asking 
the Senate to vote ``YES'' on my motion to recommit, which I will be 
offering tomorrow. They are saying we need to have fiscal discipline at 
this time. And we just cannot keep running up spending around here. 
That is what we are doing.
  If we look at each one of the appropriations bills so far this year, 
Legislative Branch, last year was an 11-percent increase, this year it 
is about a 5-percent increase; Homeland Security, almost 10-percent 
last year, and it is going up by 7 percent this year; Energy and Water 
had the smallest increase; Agriculture had about a 13-percent increase 
last year and about the same percentage increase this year; T-HUD, 
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations, had a 
13-percent increase last year and almost a 23-percent increase this 
year; and, of course, the bill we have before us now, which is 
Interior, a 4-percent increase last year, and over a 16-percent 
increase this year.
  By the way, here is the inflation rate. Last year was negative 
inflation. This year, there is almost no inflation. Yet around here we 
keep running up our deficits.
  So far this year we have $1.56 trillion in deficits. This says it 
pretty well: 43

[[Page 22361]]

percent of every dollar we are spending this year is deficit spending. 
We are borrowing from future generations so we can give us what we 
want, so we can get reelected, so we can go back home and pass out the 
goodies. That is what a lot of these appropriations bills are--they are 
passing out the goodies, they are increasing spending on the backs of 
future generations.
  When are we going to get serious in this body about fiscal restraint? 
The other side of the aisle criticized us during the last 7-8 years for 
spending too much money. In some regards, they were right. But compared 
to what they are doing right now, we were fiscal conservatives by a 
large degree. What they are doing is dramatically raising Federal 
spending.
  The problem with this increase we have before us today in this 
spending bill, over 16 percent, is if we keep these kinds of spending 
increases up, it will double the spending within 5 to 6 years. What 
happens this year is we spend more money. That gets put in the baseline 
budget for next year, so any increase next year is on top of the 
increase this year. And so each year is increased and increased and 
then increased some more. We never seem to go backward or reduce 
spending in this body. We only go higher and higher as far as spending 
levels are concerned. It seems there is no limit to our appetite for 
spending around here.
  The American people have woken up. And I am actually the most 
encouraged I have been, I think, in my entire political career, 
watching people getting involved, hearing from them from all over my 
State of Nevada, and seeing them all over the country getting involved, 
saying: It is time that we think about the greater good in America; 
that we do not think about pet projects or pet programs or any of these 
massive spending increases. It is time we show fiscal responsibility 
and we start getting back to what the Framers of our Constitution 
envisioned when they saw a limited Federal Government, not this 
expansive Federal Government.
  Tomorrow, when we vote, I urge hope this Chamber will say: Now is the 
time that we are going to start showing some fiscal restraint. We are 
going to say: Yes, we will tighten our belts. We will snug it up a 
little bit. We will make some of the tougher votes. We will say NO to 
some of the special interest groups around the country that come to our 
offices every year for more and more money. Let's make priorities. 
Let's look at things that are working and some that are not. Let's take 
the money away from the ones that are not and reduce the deficit. That 
is what we need to be thinking about in this body.
  I hope my words do not fall on deaf ears. I hope people in this body 
will actually start thinking about future generations instead of just 
thinking about their favorite projects that they want to fund and their 
special interest groups to whom they want to pay attention.
  Mr. President, I have concluded my remarks. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about 3 amendments. The 
first provides funding of an environmental impact statement important 
to the future of residents of my State.
  On March 30, 2009, the President signed the Omnibus Public Lands Act, 
Public Law 111-11. That bill enacted many important conservation 
provisions including the first major new wilderness areas in many 
years.
  That bill also provides a path for a major land exchange in Alaska 
which would lead to the designation of the first new wilderness in 
Alaska in a generation. A part of the act directs the Secretary of 
Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to perform an 
environmental analysis and then for the Secretary to determine if the 
land exchange tentatively approved in the Omnibus Public Lands Act 
should be executed.
  My amendment provides necessary funding, in the amount of $1 million, 
for the EIS which this Congress has ordered. Because the bill was only 
enacted in March, there was no time for the regular budget process to 
take into account the requirements of this important study.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service is also seeking funding in the fiscal 
year 2010 budget process, but Alaskans have waited long enough for 
resolution on this issue. Not only is the land exchange critical to 
provide key new wilderness and refuge additions, it is the path for a 
group of my Alaska Native constituents, 800 residents of the village of 
King Cove, to get safe access to the Cold Bay Airport.
  Because this issue was debated in the Halls of Congress for a number 
of years, I will not go into great detail here. In short, however you 
feel about this land exchange, whether you favor the interests of the 
indigenous people with roots in the area going back 4,000 years or more 
or if you do not approve of the land exchange and the road corridor it 
facilitates, the people of King Cove deserve the answer that the 
government has promised them.
  They suffer from some of the worst weather on the planet. Anytime of 
the year, residents with emergency medical needs can risk their lives 
either flying over or crossing Cold Bay to get to Alaska's third 
largest airport at Cold Bay, AK. Over the last 20 years, a number of my 
constituents have been killed trying to make this trip. The only safe 
alternative is a road.
  The land exchange to be studied is of monumental importance. It 
provides 61,723 acres of new wilderness and refuge lands for a mere 206 
acres to be used as a road corridor.
  Ultimately, the decision on whether this exchange is to be executed 
rests with Secretary Salazar after completion of the EIS. All my 
amendment does is fund that EIS and keep the Congress's promise to the 
Aleut residents of King Cove that this process will move forward 
expeditiously.
  Mr. President, I have drafted this amendment so it will have no 
budget impact. It will not add new spending. Instead, it provides that 
funding should come from the overall bill. This should not be subject 
to any budget point of order.
  The next amendment would allow the Chugach National Forest, in the 
Alaska region of the U.S. Forest Service, to retain receipts from a 
proposed sale of gravel and other minerals further development of a 
popular hiking and tourism enhancement program.
  It has become a tired cliche to say that we should run government 
like a business. But in the best sense of the phrase we imply that, 
like the private sector, we should reward individual management 
decisions that creatively solve problems and make good use of limited 
resources. The amendment in front of you does just that.
  The National Forest System is based on a theory of managing for 
multiple uses. The gravel resource at Spencer Mountain is sought after 
commodity for building projects around Southcentral Alaska and can be 
easily developed and sent to market via the Alaska Railroad. This 
amendment proposes to allow the Chugach National Forest System to 
retain the revenue from that gravel operation to enhance the wildly 
popular Chugach Whistle Stop Project, a joint initiative of the Forest 
Service and the Alaska Railroad.
  The Whistle Stop Partnership uses efficient self-propelled railcars 
called DMUs--diesel multiple unit--to transport smaller groups of 
passengers to track side destinations developed by the Chugach National 
Forest. These destinations include hiking trails, picnic grounds, 
rental cabins and no-fee campgrounds, and guided rafting and canoeing 
operations run by private outfitters.
  Begun in 2007, the program has proved overwhelming popular and 
provides unique and appropriate access to backcountry destinations, 
allowing residents and tourist alike to enjoy remote parts of the 
Chugach National Forest. When complete, the experience will allow hut-
to-hut hiking and other personalized recreational opportunities. The 
estimated remaining cost to complete the project is $13 million. This 
includes an additional self-propelled rail car, 4 additional Whistle 
Stop locations, 30 miles of trail with associated bridges, 6 public-use 
cabins, and 24 backcountry campsites.
  Despite the combination of mineral resource development and tourism 
promotion into one project, the Whistle Stop Project and this budget 
request

[[Page 22362]]

have no significant opposition. At a time when the tourism industry in 
Alaska is suffering a 25-percent drop in visitors, this project would 
immediately provide an important, if targeted, shot in the arm.
  Mr. President, I ask for your assistance in rewarding good 
management, allowing residents and visitors to enjoy the Alaska 
backcountry, and promoting an important industry in Alaska.
  The third amendment provides full and adequate funding for the 
subsistence management budget for the Alaska region of the U.S. Forest 
Service.
  The United States settled its lands claims agreement with the Native 
people of Alaska with the passing of the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act, ANCSA, by Congress in 1971. Through ANCSA, Congress 
promised Alaska Natives that they would retain their right to 
subsistence harvest of the fish and game in Alaska. Congress made good 
on that promise through title VIII of the 1980 Alaska National Interest 
Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA. Title VIII provides rural Alaskan 
residents a subsistence priority to harvest fish and wildlife on 
Federal lands over sport and commercial uses.
  That Federal statute is now in direct conflict with the Alaska State 
Constitution, which does not allow a priority based on residency. As a 
result, the Federal Government assumed responsibility for subsistence 
management on Federal public lands in 1990 and expanded its 
responsibility to federally reserved navigable waters in 1999. Federal 
subsistence is a joint effort of the Departments of the Interior and 
Agriculture, with management on National Forest System lands the 
responsibility of the Forest Service.
  Three main aspects of the Federal program are regulatory, law 
enforcement and education, and information gathering. The regulatory 
program includes establishing the basic rules for fish and wildlife 
harvest and seasonal and in-season adjustments to address immediate 
conservation issues. Information gathering includes the fish and 
wildlife monitoring necessary for regulatory purposes. This generally 
consists of stock assessments that are often contracted out to local 
groups, primarily Alaska tribal organizations. The final general 
category is law enforcement and education to make subsistence hunters 
and fishers aware of the regulations and enforce them.
  In fiscal year 2009, the Alaska Region Forest Service funding level 
for subsistence management activities in the two largest forests in the 
National Forest System--the 17 million acre Tongass National Forest--an 
area roughly the size of West Virginia--and the 5.6 million acre 
Chugach National Forest--totaled $5 million. The current bill before 
you would only fund half this amount, $2,582,000.
  The need has not suddenly changed, and I hope Congress has not 
suddenly forgotten its obligation to the Alaska Native people. I can 
only hope that the fiscal year 2010 amount resulted from the innocent 
ignorance of an incoming administration about the obligation the 
Federal Government has to the Alaska Native people.
  Subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering is about more than simple 
economics. It is about the survival of a way of life and identity of 
Alaska's Native peoples. However, its economic importance is central to 
rural Alaska life and cannot be overstated. Rural Alaska residents 
harvest approximately 44 million pounds of fish and wildlife for food, 
the replacement value of which is $220 million.
  Subsistence is a major source of employment and sustenance for 
families in rural Alaska; subsistence participants work to feed and 
clothe their families. Wild foods supply one-third of the caloric 
requirements of rural Alaskans, in many remote communities it can total 
75 percent or more.
  One in every five Alaskans lives in a rural area, about 125,000 
people in more than 250 communities. Most rural settlements are off the 
road network and are comprised of fewer than 500 people, the majority 
made up of Native villages. In a State where approximately 15 percent 
of the population is Alaska Native, nearly half of all rural Alaskans 
are Alaska Native.
  Of subsistence foods taken by Alaskans, 60 percent of the catch is 
made up of fish, land mammals make up 20 percent, marine mammals make 
up 14 percent, birds, shellfish, plants, and berries make up the 
remaining 6 percent of the rural harvest of wild food.
  Mr. President, I ask for your assistance in helping the Federal 
Government honor its commitment to the Alaska Native people and fully 
fund the Alaska Region Forest Service subsistence management budget.

                          ____________________