[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22582-22627]
[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.
       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.


  AMENDMENTS NOS. 2492, 2501, 2505, 2509, 2518, 2519, 2522, 2534, AS 
  MODIFIED; 2491, AS MODIFIED; 2495, 2507, 2493, AS MODIFIED, EN BLOC

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as part of the unanimous consent 
agreement entered into this morning by the leader, a managers' package 
of amendments to the Interior bill is in order.
  I would like to proceed to that business now because of yesterday's 
filing deadline for all first-degree amendments. Each of these 
amendments which constitute the managers' package have been filed at 
the desk.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set

[[Page 22583]]

aside, and that the following amendments be called up and considered en 
bloc, and where modifications are noted, that those modifications be 
agreed to: Bingaman amendment No. 2492; Risch amendment No. 2501; 
Carper amendment No. 2505; Roberts amendment No. 2509; Feinstein 
amendment No. 2518; Feinstein amendment No. 2519; Feingold amendment 
No. 2522; Whitehouse amendment No. 2534, as modified; Bingaman 
amendment No. 2491, as modified; Schumer/Durbin amendment No. 2495; 
Tester/Crapo amendment No. 2507; and, Bingaman amendment No. 2493, as 
modified.
  Let me make one note with respect to Carper amendment No. 2505. The 
amendment being included in the managers' package is very similar to 
pending Carper amendment No. 2456. But the version we are adopting now 
is the version that has been agreed to by both sides. At the proper 
time, then, I believe we will be in a position to withdraw the pending 
Carper amendment No. 2456.
  In order to comply with Senate rule XLIV, which requires Members to 
certify that they have no financial interest in congressionally 
designated spending items, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record financial disclosure letters associated with amendments 
Nos. 2501 and 2518.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2009.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, 
         Environment, and Related Agencies, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, 
         Environment, and Related Agencies, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: I am writing to request 
     your assistance in making a technical correction to the below 
     projects in House Report 107-272, House Report 108-10, and 
     House Report 108-401 so that the funds referenced may be made 
     available to the City of Thomasville, Alabama. The awards in 
     question are:
       $2,500,000 STAG award to the Southwest AL/Rural Municipal 
     Water System in FY02; $1,000,000 STAG award to the Southeast 
     Alabama Regional Water Authority in FY02; $450,000 STAG award 
     to the Southwest Alabama Regional Water Authority in FY03; 
     $450,000 STAG award to the Southwest Alabama Regional Water 
     Supply District in FY04.
       I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a 
     pecuniary interest in the congressionally directed spending 
     item(s) that I have requested for Fiscal Year 2010, 
     consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV 
     of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
           Very Truly Yours,
                                                    Jeff Sessions,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____

     Hon. Diane Feinstein,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 
         Related Agencies, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman: I am writing to seek your assistance 
     in a technical correction for the City of Thomasville in the 
     Fiscal Year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations bill.
       The City of Thomasville is constructing a water treatment 
     facility. The project began under the auspices of the 
     Southwest Regional Water Authority and was composed of the 
     City of Thomasville and the City of Jackson. Therefore, funds 
     were appropriated in 2002, 2003, and 2004 under this name.
       2002--AL Regional Water Authority for AAL/Rural Municipal 
     Water System, $2.425M; 2002--Southeast Alabama Regional Water 
     Authority, $970,000; 2003--Southwest Alabama Regional Water 
     Authority, $433,700; 2004--Southwest Alabama Regional Water 
     Supply District, $433,900.
       Since that time, the City of Jackson has withdrawn from the 
     authority and the City of Thomasville remains the only active 
     partner. To meet eligibility qualifications of USDA/Rural 
     Development and EPA to proceed with the development of the 
     Thomasville water supply project, we were told that the 
     earmarks from 2002-2004 would need to be amendment and 
     replaced with the name ``City of Thomasville.''
       Finally, I certify that neither I nor my immediate family 
     has a pecuniary interest, consistent with the requirements of 
     Paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     in any congressionally directed spending item I requested 
     that is contained in the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill or 
     accompanying report. I further certify that I have posted a 
     description of the items requested on my official website, 
     along with the accompanying justification.
       I greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. As 
     always, please do not hesitate to contact me or Laura Friedel 
     in my office should you or your staff have any questions.
           Sincerely,
     Richard Shelby.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 2009.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 
         Agencies, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Feinstein: I am writing to request your 
     support for the enclosed amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 
     Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     bill.
       Furthermore, I certify that neither I nor my immediate 
     family has a pecuniary interest consistent with the 
     requirements of Paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of the Standing 
     Rules of the Senate, in this or any other congressionally 
     directed spending item I requested that is contained in the 
     Fiscal Year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations bill or accompanying report. I further certify 
     that I have posted a description of the amendment requested 
     on my official website, along with the accompanying 
     justification.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request, As always, 
     please do not hesitate to contact me or Laura Friedel in my 
     office should you or your staff have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Richard Shelby.
       Enclosure.


                               Amendment

  (Purpose: To provide for the use of certain funds for water system 
                  upgrades in Fayette County, Alabama)

       On page 190, line 10, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     House Report 108-401, the amount of $2,000,000 made available 
     to the Tom Bevill Reservoir Management Area Authority for 
     construction of a drinking water reservoir in Fayette County, 
     Alabama, shall be made available to Fayette County, Alabama, 
     for water system upgrades''.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2009.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Subcommittee on Interior, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Subcommittee on Interior, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members, I am offering three 
     amendments regarding congressionally directed spending items 
     on the Senate floor to the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
       Consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of Rule 
     XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I certify that 
     neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in 
     the congressionally directed spending items that I have 
     requested for Fiscal Year 2010. I further certify that I have 
     posted a description of the items requested on my official 
     website, along with the accompanying justification.
     Project Title: Lake County, California, for wastewater system 
         improvements
     Recipient: Lake County, CA
     Location: 230 A Main Street, Lakeport, CA 95453
     Amount Requested: $500,000
       Lake County is upgrading the Kelseyville wastewater system 
     to eliminate effluent and high nutrient pollution from 
     entering Clear Lake. The facility, which is located on the 
     south shore of Clear Lake, is under cease and desist orders 
     to meet clean water standards, and requires expansion 
     overflows into Clear Lake. This important project will 
     improve sanitation and water quality for County residents by 
     limiting sewage overflow.
     Project Title: Tahoe Basin Vessel Inspection Station
     Recipient: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     Location: Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada
     Amount Requested: $800,000
       The requested funding will be used for study, construction, 
     staffing, and other expenses necessary to conduct water 
     vessel inspection and decontamination at stations located 
     away from boat and vessel ramps at Lake Tahoe and Echo Lake 
     and Fallen Leaf Lake in California. The Tahoe Basin is under 
     threat of Quagga and zebra mussel infestations because of its 
     high-use by recreational boaters. An infestation could have 
     devastating impacts on the regional economy,

[[Page 22584]]

     including recreation, tourism, property values, and other 
     infrastructure equaling approximately $22 million a year. If 
     introduced, Quagga and zebra mussels could destroy the 
     region's fisheries, alter the food web and ecosystem, 
     jeopardize the public drinking supply, and ruin the shoreline 
     and public access points. An infestation would also 
     jeopardize more than $1.43 billion that has already been 
     invested in environmental restoration and water clarity 
     improvements in Lake Tahoe, including $424 million from the 
     Federal government.
     Project Title: Inland Empire Alternative Water Supply
     Recipient: City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
     Location: 300 North ``D'' Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
     Amount Requested: Technical Correction
       The Rialto-Colton Basin is seriously contaminated by 
     perchlorate, and the cities and water districts in the area 
     have had to abandon wells or install wellhead treatment 
     equipment to use their groundwater. Local water providers 
     have found a temporary source of 20,000-30,000 acre-feet in 
     the Bunker Hill Basin, within the incorporated limits of the 
     City of San Bernardino, which will use this water source in 
     the long-term. I secured $500,000 in the Fiscal Year 2009 
     Omnibus Appropriations Act, but the San Bernardino Municipal 
     Water Department has been unable to access these funds and 
     this technical correction will clarify that the city is the 
     recipient of this funding.
       Thank you for your consideration of my requests. If you 
     have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, or 
     have your staff contact Ryan Hunt in my office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dianne Feinstein,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2009.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 
         Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations, The 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 
         Related Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran, Chairman 
     Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: As the Fiscal Year 
     2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations bill moves to the floor, I respectfully 
     request your consideration of the technical corrections for 
     projects from previous bills listed in this letter. These 
     technical corrections are also listed on my website. I look 
     forward to working with you through enactment of this bill.
       I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a 
     pecuniary interest in any of the congressionally directed 
     spending item(s) that I have requested, consistent with the 
     requirements of paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of the Standing 
     Rules of the Senate. I further certify that I have posted a 
     description of the items requested on my official website, 
     along with the accompanying justification.
       Line 96 of the list of STAG Infrastructure Grants/
     Congressional Priorities in the Explanatory Statement for 
     Title II of Division F of Public Law 110-161 is revised to 
     read ``The City of Prescott for wastewater treatment plant 
     construction project, $170,800; and The City of Wichita for 
     storm water technology pilot project, $129,200.''
       Line 108 of the list of STAG Infrastructure Grants/
     Congressional Priorities in the Explanatory Statement for 
     Title II of Division E of Public Law 111-8 is revised to read 
     ``City of Manhattan for water mainline extension project, 
     $185,000.''
       Line 111 of the list of STAG Infrastructure Grants/
     Congressional Priorities in the Explanatory Statement for 
     Title II of Division E of Public Law 111-8 is revised to read 
     ``City of Manhattan for Konza water main extension project, 
     $290,000.''
           Sincerely,
                                                    Sam Brownback,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____

     Hon. Daniel Inouye,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Vice Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 
         Agencies, Appropriations.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 
         Related Agencies, Appropriations.
       Dear Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, Chairman 
     Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: I write to 
     respectfully request a technical correction to my requests 
     for congressionally directed appropriations in the Fiscal 
     Year 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill. I 
     have attached the legislative language for my amendment, 
     which would provide for the use of certain funds for certain 
     water projects to be carried out by the cities of Prescott, 
     Wichita, and Manhattan. I know that this year's budget 
     situation is extremely tight, and I appreciate your 
     consideration of these requests.
       In addition, I certify that neither I nor my immediate 
     family has a pecuniary interest in the congressionally 
     directed spending items that I have requested, consistent 
     with the requirements of paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate. I further certify that I have 
     posted a description of the items requested on my official 
     website, along with the accompanying justification.
       Again, I thank you for your consideration of these 
     requests. Should you have an questions, please do no hesitate 
     to contact my Legislative Director Mike Seyfert.
       With every best wish,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Pat Roberts.


                               Amendment

  (Purpose: To provide for the use of certain funds for certain water 
  projects to be carried out by the cities of Prescott, Wichita, and 
                               Manhattan)

       On page 190, line 10, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     the joint explanatory statement of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying 
     the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-
     161; 121 Stat. 1844), from funds made available by that Act 
     for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants program, $170,800 
     shall be made available to the city of Prescott for a 
     wastewater treatment plant construction project and $129,200 
     shall be made available to the city of Wichita for a storm 
     water technology pilot project: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding the joint explanatory statement of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 
     111-8; 123 Stat. 524), the amount of $185,000 made available 
     to the city of Manhattan for the sewer mainline extension 
     project (as described in the table entitled `Congressionally 
     Designated Spending' contained in section 430 of that joint 
     explanatory statement) shall be made available to the city of 
     Manhattan for a water mainline extension project: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding the joint explanatory 
     statement of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 
     2009 (Public Law 111-8; 123 Stat. 524), the amount of 
     $290,000 made available to the Riley County Board of 
     Commissioners for the Konza Sewer Main Extension project (as 
     described in the table entitled `Congressionally Designated 
     Spending' contained in section 430 of that joint explanatory 
     statement) shall be made available to the city of Manhattan 
     for the Konza Water Main Extension project''.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2009.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Chairman,
     Hon. Thad Cochran, Ranking Member,
     Senate Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Capitol, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Chairman,
     Hon. Lamar Alexander, Ranking Member,
     Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 
         and Related Agencies, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members, Please find enclosed 
     amendments I will offer to the FY 2010 Interior 
     appropriations bill making technical changes to previously 
     enacted provisions. All changes are a result of requests by 
     the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for clarification on 
     the specific funds recipient, and none involve appropriation 
     of additional funds.
       I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a 
     pecuniary interest in these items, consistent with the 
     requirements of paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of the Standing 
     Rules of the Senate.
       Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                              Christopher S. Bond.


                               AMENDMENT

 (Purpose: To provide for the use of certain funds for Johnson County, 
  Missouri for a drinking water and wastewater infrastructure project)

       On page 190, line 10, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: Providing further, That, notwithstanding the 
     joint explanatory statement of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying 
     Public Law 111-8 (123 Stat. 524), the amount of $1,300,000 
     made available to the City of Warrensburg, Missouri for a 
     drinking water and wastewater infrastructure project (as 
     described in the table entitled `Congressionally Designated 
     Spending' contained in section 430 of that joint explanatory 
     statement) shall be made available to Johnson County, 
     Missouri for that project''.


                               AMENDMENT

 (Purpose: To provide for the use of certain funds for the Gravois Arm 
        Sewer District for a wastewater infrastructure project)

       On page 190, line 10, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Providing

[[Page 22585]]

     further, That, notwithstanding the joint explanatory 
     statement of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives accompanying Public Law 111-8 (123 Stat. 
     524), the amount of $1,000,000 made available to the City of 
     Gravois Mills for wastewater infrastructure (as described in 
     the table entitled `Congressionally Designated Spending' 
     contained in section 430 of that joint explanatory statement) 
     shall be made available to the Gravois Arm Sewer District for 
     that project''.


                               AMENDMENT

   (Purpose: To provide for the use of certain funds for PWSD #1 of 
   McDonald County, Missouri for a wastewater infrastructure project)

       On page 190, line 10, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Providing further, That, notwithstanding 
     the joint explanatory statement of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying 
     Public Law 111-8 (123 Stat. 524), the amount of $500,000 made 
     available to McDonald County, Missouri for a wastewater 
     infrastructure expansion project (as described in the table 
     entitled `Congressionally Designated Spending' contained in 
     section 430 of that joint explanatory statement) shall be 
     made available to PWSD #1 of McDonald County, Missouri for 
     that project''.


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 2009.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Chairman,
     Hon. Thad Cochran, Ranking Member,
     Senate Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Capitol, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Chairman,
     Hon. Lamar Alexander, Ranking Member,
     Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment 
         and Related Agencies, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: Please find enclosed an 
     amendment I will offer to the FY 2010 Interior appropriations 
     bill making a technical change to a previously enacted 
     provision. The change retains the drinking water 
     infrastructure purpose of the project, does not increase the 
     amount of funds appropriated and does not change the funding 
     recipient.
       I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a 
     pecuniary interest in this item, consistent with the 
     requirements of paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of the Standing 
     Rules of the Senate.
       Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,

                                              Christopher S. Bond.


                               AMENDMENT

  (Purpose: To provide for the use of certain funds for the Pemiscot 
   Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 for a drinking water 
               source protection infrastructure project)

       On page 190, line 10, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Providing further, That, notwithstanding 
     the joint explanatory statement of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying 
     Public Law 110-161 (121 Stat. 1844), the amount of $150,000 
     made available to the City of Hayti, Pemiscot Consolidated 
     Public Water Supply District #1 for a water storage tank (as 
     described in the section entitled `STAG Infrastructure 
     Grants/Congressionally Priorities' on page 1264 of the joint 
     explanatory statement) shall be made available to Pemiscot 
     Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 for a drinking 
     water source protection infrastructure project''.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2009.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 
         Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 
         Related Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: I am 
     writing to request your assistance in making a technical 
     correction to the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying 
     the Interior portion of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2009. The Joint Explanatory Statement mistakenly 
     directs $400,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     (EPA) State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account to 
     the City of Lake Norden in South Dakota for wastewater 
     infrastructure improvements. I request your assistance in 
     correcting this description to reflect the fact that the Lake 
     Norden project involves drinking water infrastructure.
       I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a 
     pecuniary interest, consistent with the requirements of 
     Paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     in any congressionally directed spending item that I 
     requested from the Committee on Appropriations for Fiscal 
     Year 2009.
       Thank you for consideration of this request, and please 
     contact me if you require any additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Tim Johnson,
     United States Senate.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2009.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, 
         Environment and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on The Interior, 
         Environment and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: I 
     certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a 
     pecuniary interest in any of the congressionally directed 
     spending items that I have requested, including Senate 
     Amendment # 2501, consistent with the requirements of 
     paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
     for the FY 2010 Department of Interior, Environment, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James E. Risch,
                                            United States Senator.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, all of these amendments have been 
cleared on both sides, and I believe we are in a position to voice vote 
the package.
  Before voting, through, I would yield to my distinguished ranking 
member for any comments he may wish to make.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks of the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I believe these are good 
amendments. We are able to clear them with the relevant members and 
their staffs. I support their adoption.
  Beyond that, I would like to say to the chairman, I appreciate her 
willingness to accommodate the amendments and the positions of a large 
number of Republican Senators who have important issues that we will 
have a chance to vote on, and for including us in the process. I thank 
her for that, and we look forward to the rest of the day and concluding 
work on the bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the managers' 
package of amendments en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2492

   (Purpose: To provide funds for the Collaborative Forest Landscape 
                   Restoration Fund, with an offset)

       On page 197, line 11, strike ``$2,586,637,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,576,637,000''.
       On page 198, line 10, strike ``$350,285,000'' and insert 
     ``$340,285,000''.
       On page 200, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

            collaborative forest landscape restoration fund

       For expenses authorized by section 4003(f) of the Omnibus 
     Public Land Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 7303(f)), 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                           Amendment No. 2501

 (Purpose: To provide for the use of certain funds for the Upper Snake/
               South Fork River Area of Critical Concern)

       On page 122, line 11, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Provided, That, notwithstanding the joint 
     explanatory statement of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives accompanying Public Law 111-8 
     (123 Stat. 524), the amount of $2,000,000 made available for 
     the Henry's Lake ACEC in the State of Idaho (as described in 
     the table entitled ``Congressionally Designated Spending'' 
     contained in section 430 of that joint explanatory statement) 
     shall be made available for the Upper Snake/South Fork River 
     ACEC/SRMA in the State of Idaho''.


                           Amendment No. 2505

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

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

          General Provisions, Environmental Protection Agency


                              black carbon

       Sec. 201.  (a) Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with other Federal agencies, may carry out and submit to 
     Congress the results of a study to define black carbon, 
     assess the impacts of black carbon on global and regional 
     climate, and identify the most cost-effective ways to reduce 
     black carbon emissions--
       (1) to improve global and domestic public health; and
       (2) to mitigate the climate impacts of black carbon.
       (b) In carrying out the study, the Administrator shall--
       (1) identify global and domestic black carbon sources, the 
     quantities of emissions from those sources, and cost-
     effective mitigation technologies and strategies;

[[Page 22586]]

       (2) evaluate the public health, climate, and economic 
     impacts of black carbon;
       (3) identify current and practicable future opportunities 
     to provide financial, technical, and related assistance to 
     reduce domestic and international black carbon emissions; and
       (4) identify opportunities for future research and 
     development to reduce black carbon emissions and protect 
     public health in the United States and internationally.
       (c) Of the amounts made available under this title under 
     the heading ``Environmental Programs and Management'' for 
     operations and administration, up to $2,000,000 shall be--
       (1) transferred to the account used to fund the Office of 
     Air Quality Planning and Standards of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency; and
       (2) used by the Administrator to carry out this section.


                           Amendment No. 2509

     (Purpose: To encourage the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to reassess the cost-effectiveness of the buyout and 
    relocation of residents of certain properties in Treece, Kansas)

       At the end of title IV, add the following:


                         buyout and relocation

       Sec. 4__.  (a) As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Administrator'') is encouraged to consider all appropriate 
     criteria, including cost-effectiveness, relating to the 
     buyout and relocation of residents of properties in Treece, 
     Kansas, that are subject to risk relating to, and that may 
     endanger the health of occupants as a result of risks posed 
     by, chat (as defined in section 278.1(b) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act)).
       (b) For the purpose of the remedial action under the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) that includes 
     permanent relocation of residents of Treece, Kansas, any such 
     relocation shall not be subject to the Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 
     (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).
       (c) Nothing in this section shall in any way affect, 
     impede, or change the relocation or remediation activities 
     pursuant to the Record of Decision Operable Unit 4, Chat 
     Piles, Other Mine and Mill Waste, and Smelter Waste, Tar 
     Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma (OKD980629844) 
     issued by the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 on 
     February 20, 2008, or any other previous Record of Decision 
     at the Tar Creek, Oklahoma, National Priority List Site, by 
     any Federal agency or through any funding by any Federal 
     agency.


                           Amendment No. 2518

  (Purpose: To make technical corrections to certain State and tribal 
                           assistance grants)

       On page 190, line 10, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     House Report 107-272, the amount of $1,000,000 made available 
     to the Southeast Alabama Regional Water Authority for a water 
     facility project and the amount of $2,500,000 made available 
     to the Alabama Regional Water Authority for the Southwest 
     Alabama Rural/Municipal Water System may, at the discretion 
     of the Administrator, be made available to the city of 
     Thomasville for those projects: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding House Report 108-10, the amount of $450,000 
     made available to the Southwest Alabama Regional Water 
     Authority for water infrastructure improvements may, at the 
     discretion of the Administrator, be made available to the 
     city of Thomasville for that project: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding House Report 108-401, the amount of $450,000 
     made available to the Southwest Alabama Regional Water supply 
     District for regional water supply distribution in 
     Thomasville, Alabama, may, at the discretion of the 
     Administrator, be made available to the city of Thomasville 
     for that project: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     House Report 108-401, the amount of $2,000,000 made available 
     to the Tom Bevill Reservoir Management Area Authority for 
     construction of a drinking water reservoir in Fayette County, 
     Alabama, may, at the discretion of the Administrator, be made 
     available to Fayette County, Alabama, for water system 
     upgrades: Provided further, That, notwithstanding the joint 
     explanatory statement of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives accompanying Public Law 111-8 
     (123 Stat. 524), the amount of $500,000 made available to the 
     San Bernardino Municipal Water District for the Inland Empire 
     alternative water supply project (as described in the table 
     entitled `Congressionally Designated Spending' contained in 
     section 430 of that joint explanatory statement) may, at the 
     discretion of the Administrator, be made available to the 
     city of San Bernardino municipal water department for that 
     project: Provided further, That, notwithstanding the joint 
     explanatory statement of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives accompanying the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 
     1844), from funds made available by that Act for the State 
     and Tribal Assistance Grants program, $170,800 may, at the 
     discretion of the Administrator, be made available to the 
     city of Prescott for a wastewater treatment plant 
     construction project and $129,200 may, at the discretion of 
     the Administrator, be made available to the city of Wichita 
     for a storm water technology pilot project: Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding the joint explanatory statement of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 
     111-8; 123 Stat. 524), the amount of $185,000 made available 
     to the city of Manhattan for the sewer mainline extension 
     project (as described in the table entitled `Congressionally 
     Designated Spending' contained in section 430 of that joint 
     explanatory statement) may, at the discretion of the 
     Administrator, be made available to the city of Manhattan for 
     a water mainline extension project: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding the joint explanatory statement of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 
     111-8; 123 Stat. 524), the amount of $290,000 made available 
     to the Riley County Board of Commissioners for the Konza 
     Sewer Main Extension project (as described in the table 
     entitled `Congressionally Designated Spending' contained in 
     section 430 of that joint explanatory statement) may, at the 
     discretion of the Administrator, be made available to the 
     city of Manhattan for the Konza Water Main Extension project: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding the joint explanatory 
     statement of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives accompanying Public Law 111-8 (123 Stat. 
     524), the amount of $1,300,000 made available to the City of 
     Warrensburg, Missouri for a drinking water and wastewater 
     infrastructure project (as described in the table entitled 
     `Congressionally Designated Spending' contained in section 
     430 of that joint explanatory statement) may, at the 
     discretion of the Administrator, be made available to Johnson 
     County, Missouri for that project: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding the joint explanatory statement of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     accompanying Public Law 111-8 (123 Stat. 524), the amount of 
     $ 1,000,000 made available to the City of Gravois Mills for 
     wastewater infrastructure (as described in the table entitled 
     `Congressionally Designated Spending' contained in section 
     430 of that joint explanatory statement) may, at the 
     discretion of the Administrator, be made available to the 
     Gravois Arm Sewer District for that project: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding the joint explanatory 
     statement of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives accompanying Public Law 111-8 (123 Stat. 
     524), the amount of $500,000 made available to McDonald 
     County, Missouri for a wastewater infrastructure expansion 
     project (as described in the table entitled `Congressionally 
     Designated Spending' contained in section 430 of that joint 
     explanatory statement) may, at the discretion of the 
     Administrator, be made available to PWSD #1 of McDonald 
     County, Missouri for that project: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding the joint explanatory statement of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     accompanying Public Law 110-161 (121 Stat. 1844), the amount 
     of $150,000 made available to the City of Hayti, Pemiscot 
     Consolidated Public Water Supply District 1 for a Water 
     Storage Tank (as described in the section entitled `STAG 
     Infrastructure Grants/Congressional Priorities' on page 1264 
     of the joint explanatory statement) may, at the discretion of 
     the Administrator, be made available to Pemiscot Consolidated 
     Public Water Supply District 1 for a drinking water source 
     protection infrastructure project: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding the joint explanatory statement of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     accompanying Public Law 111-8 (123 Stat. 524), the amount of 
     $400,000 made available to the City of Lake Norden, South 
     Dakota, for wastewater infrastructure improvements (as 
     described in the table entitled `Congressionally Designated 
     Spending' contained in section 430 of that joint explanatory 
     statement) may, at the discretion of the Administrator, be 
     made available to the City of Lake Norden, South Dakota, for 
     drinking water infrastructure improvements''.


                           Amendment No. 2519

 (Purpose: To extend a special use permit for Drake's Estero at Point 
                  Reyes National Seashore, California)

       On page 179, strike line 7 and all that follows through 
     page 180, line 9, and insert the following:
       Sec. 120.  Prior to the expiration on November 30, 2012 of 
     the Drake's Bay Oyster Company's Reservation of Use and 
     Occupancy and associated special use permit (``existing 
     authorization'') within Drake's Estero at Point Reyes 
     National Seashore, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue a 
     special use permit with the same terms and conditions as the 
     existing authorization, except as provided herein, for a 
     period of 10 years from November 30, 2012: Provided, That 
     such extended authorization is subject to annual payments to 
     the United States based on

[[Page 22587]]

     the fair market value of the use of the Federal property for 
     the duration of such renewal. The Secretary shall take into 
     consideration recommendations of the National Academy of 
     Sciences Report pertaining to shellfish mariculture in Point 
     Reyes National Seashore before modifying any terms and 
     conditions of the extended authorization.


                           Amendment No. 2522

  (Purpose: To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture 
       regarding the coordination of biobased product activities)

       On page 240, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       Sec. 4__.  Section 404(c) of the Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 
     7624(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Agricultural Research 
     Service'' and inserting ``Department of Agriculture''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Authority of secretary.--To carry out a cooperative 
     agreement with a private entity under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may rent to the private entity equipment, the title 
     of which is held by the Federal Government.''.


                    Amendment No. 2534, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . (a) It is the sense of the Senate that the Senate--
       (1) Supports the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery 
     Program as an effective way to reduce mercury pollution from 
     electric arc furnaces used by the steel industry to melt 
     scrap metal from old vehicles; and
       (2)Urges the founders of the Program to secure private 
     sector financial support so that the successful efforts of 
     the Program to reduce mercury pollution may continue.


                    Amendment No. 2491, as modified

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

     SEC. 423. NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION.

       Section 403(a) of the National Forest Foundation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 583j-1(a)) is amended, in the first sentence, by 
     striking ``fifteen Directors'' and inserting ``not more than 
     30 Directors''.


                           amendment no. 2495

     (Purpose: To support the Pest and Disease Revolving Loan Fund)

       On page 193, line 13, insert before ``: Provided'' the 
     following: ``and of which $2,000,000 may be made available to 
     the Pest and Disease Revolving Loan Fund established by 
     section 10205(b) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (16 U.S.C. 2104a(b))''.


                           amendment no. 2507

  (Purpose: To limit the increase in cabin user fees, with an offset)

       On page 193, line 9, strike ``$1,556,329,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,552,429,000''.
       On page 193, line 20, insert before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Provided further, that $282,617,000 shall 
     be made available for recreation, heritage, and wilderness''.
       On page 240, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 423. CABIN USER FEES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds made available by this Act shall be used to increase 
     the amount of cabin user fees under section 608 of the Cabin 
     User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6207) to an amount 
     beyond the amount levied on December 31, 2009.


                    amendment no. 2493, as modified

       On page 159, line 25, strike ``$979,637,000'' and insert 
     ``$904,637,000''.
       On page 197, line 11, strike ``$2,576,637,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,817,637,000''.
       On page 240, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 423. FLAME FUND FOR EMERGENCY WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
       (A) public land, as defined in section 103 of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702);
       (B) units of the National Park System;
       (C) refuges of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
       (D) land held in trust by the United States for the benefit 
     of Indian tribes or members of an Indian tribe; and
       (E) land in the National Forest System, as defined in 
     section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
     Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
       (2) Flame fund.--The term ``Flame Fund'' means the Federal 
     Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Fund established 
     by subsection (b).
       (3) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     acting jointly.
       (4) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means--
       (A) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to Federal 
     land described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of 
     paragraph (1); and
       (B) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National 
     Forest System land.
       (b) Establishment of Flame Fund.--There is established in 
     the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the 
     ``Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement 
     Fund'', consisting of--
       (1) such amounts as are appropriated to the Flame Fund; and
       (2) such amounts as are transferred to the Flame Fund under 
     subsection (d).
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--
       (A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Flame Fund such amounts as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (B) Congressional intent.--It is the intent of Congress 
     that the amounts appropriated to the Flame Fund for each 
     fiscal year should be not less than the combined average 
     amount expended by each Secretary concerned for emergency 
     wildfire suppression activities over the 5 fiscal years 
     preceding the fiscal year for which amounts are appropriated.
       (C) Availability.--Amounts appropriated to the Flame Fund 
     shall remain available until expended.
       (2) Appropriation.--There is appropriated to the Flame 
     Fund, out of funds of the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, $834,000,000.
       (3) Sense of congress on designation of flame fund 
     appropriations as emergency requirement.--It is the sense of 
     Congress that further amounts appropriated to the Flame Fund 
     should be designated as amounts necessary to meet emergency 
     needs.
       (4) Notice of insufficient funds.--The Secretaries shall 
     notify the congressional committees described in subsection 
     (h)(2) if the Secretaries estimate that only 60 days worth of 
     funding remains in the Flame Fund.
       (d) Transfer of Excess Wildfire Suppression Amounts Into 
     Flame Fund.--At the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     concerned shall transfer to the Flame Fund amounts that--
       (1) are appropriated to the Secretary concerned for 
     wildfire suppression activities for the fiscal year; but
       (2) are not obligated for wildfire suppression activities 
     before the end of the fiscal year.
       (e) Use of Flame Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), 
     amounts in the Flame Fund shall be available to the Secretary 
     concerned to pay the costs of emergency wildfire suppression 
     activities that are separate from amounts annually 
     appropriated to the Secretary concerned for routine wildfire 
     suppression activities.
       (2) Declaration required.--
       (A) In general.--Amounts in the Flame Fund shall be made 
     available to the Secretary concerned only after the 
     Secretaries issue a declaration that a wildfire suppression 
     activity is eligible for funding from the Flame Fund.
       (B) Declaration criteria.--A declaration by the Secretaries 
     under subparagraph (A) may be issued only if--
       (i) in the case of an individual wildfire incident--

       (I) the fire covers 300 or more acres; and
       (II) the Secretaries determine that the fire has required 
     an emergency Federal response based on the significant 
     complexity, severity, or threat posed by the fire to human 
     life, property, or resources; or

       (ii) the cumulative costs of wildfire suppression 
     activities for the Secretary concerned have exceeded the 
     amounts appropriated to the Secretary concerned for those 
     activities (not including funds deposited in the Flame Fund).
       (3) Transfer of amounts to secretary concerned.--After 
     issuance of a declaration under paragraph (2) and on request 
     of the Secretary concerned, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall transfer from the Flame Fund to the Secretary concerned 
     such amounts as the Secretaries determine are necessary for 
     wildfire suppression activities associated with the 
     declaration.
       (4) State, private, and tribal land.--Use of the Flame Fund 
     for emergency wildfire suppression activities on State land, 
     private land, and tribal land shall be consistent with any 
     existing agreements in which the Secretary concerned has 
     agreed to assume responsibility for wildfire suppression 
     activities on the land.
       (f) Treatment of Anticipated and Predicted Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (e)(2)(B)(ii), the 
     Secretary concerned shall continue to fund routine wildfire 
     suppression activities within the appropriate agency budget 
     for each fiscal year.
       (2) Congressional intent.--It is the intent of Congress 
     that funding made available through the Flame Fund be used--
       (A) to supplement the funding otherwise appropriated to the 
     Secretary concerned; and
       (B) only for purposes in, and instances consistent with, 
     this section.
       (g) Prohibition on Other Transfers.--Any amounts in the 
     Flame Fund and any amounts appropriated for the purpose of 
     wildfire suppression on Federal land shall be obligated 
     before the Secretary concerned may transfer funds from non-
     fire accounts for wildfire suppression.
       (h) Accounting and Reports.--
       (1) Accounting and reporting system.--The Secretaries shall 
     establish an accounting and reporting system for the Flame 
     Fund that is compatible with existing National Fire Plan 
     reporting procedures.

[[Page 22588]]

       (2) Annual report.--Annually, the Secretaries shall submit 
     to the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committee on 
     Agriculture, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources, the Committee on Indian Affairs, and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and make available to the 
     public a report that--
       (A) describes the use of amounts from the Flame Fund; and
       (B) includes any recommendations that the Secretaries may 
     have to improve the administrative control and oversight of 
     the Flame Fund.
       (3) Estimates of wildfire suppression costs to improve 
     budgeting and funding.--
       (A) In general.--Consistent with the schedule provided in 
     subparagraph (C), the Secretaries shall submit to the 
     committees described in paragraph (2) an estimate of 
     anticipated wildfire suppression costs for the applicable 
     fiscal year and the subsequent fiscal year.
       (B) Peer review.--The methodology for developing the 
     estimates under subparagraph (A) shall be subject to periodic 
     peer review to ensure compliance with subparagraph (D).
       (C) Schedule.--The Secretaries shall submit an estimate 
     under subparagraph (A) during--
       (i) the first week of February of each year;
       (ii) the first week of April of each year;
       (iii) the first week of July of each year; and
       (iv) if a bill making appropriations for the Department of 
     the Interior and the Forest Service for the following fiscal 
     year has not been enacted by September 1, the first week of 
     September of each year.
       (D) Requirements.--An estimate of anticipated wildfire 
     suppression costs shall be developed using the best 
     available--
       (i) climate, weather, and other relevant data; and
       (ii) models and other analytic tools.
       (i) Termination of Authority.--The authority under this 
     section shall terminate at the end of the third fiscal year 
     in which no appropriations to or withdrawals from the Flame 
     Fund have been made for a period of 3 consecutive fiscal 
     years.

     SEC. 424. COHESIVE WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.

       (a) Strategy Required.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture, acting jointly, shall 
     submit to Congress a report that contains a cohesive wildfire 
     management strategy, consistent with the recommendations 
     described in recent reports of the Government Accountability 
     Office regarding management strategies.
       (b) Elements of Strategy.--The strategy required by 
     subsection (a) shall provide for--
       (1) the identification of the most cost-effective means for 
     allocating fire management budget resources;
       (2) the reinvestment in non-fire programs by the Secretary 
     of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (3) employing the appropriate management response to 
     wildfires;
       (4) assessing the level of risk to communities;
       (5) the allocation of hazardous fuels reduction funds based 
     on the priority of hazardous fuels reduction projects;
       (6) assessing the impacts of climate change on the 
     frequency and severity of wildfire; and
       (7) studying the effects of invasive species on wildfire 
     risk.
       (c) Revision.--At least once during each 5-year period 
     beginning on the date of the submission of the cohesive 
     wildfire management strategy under subsection (a), the 
     Secretaries shall revise the strategy submitted under that 
     subsection to address any changes affecting the strategy, 
     including changes with respect to landscape, vegetation, 
     climate, and weather.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, Senator Carper successfully offered an 
amendment to this act that would authorize the EPA to conduct a study 
on black carbon emissions to ``improve global and domestic public 
health'' and ``to mitigate the climate impacts of black carbon.''
  A similar bill, S. 849, was also introduced by Senator Carper and 
approved recently by the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public 
Works.
  While I did not object to the purpose of the bill, I did object to 
the bill because the cost of the study--$2 million according to the 
Congressional Budget Office--was not offset.
  As I wrote in a letter to Minority Leader McConnell and Senator 
Carper outlining my objections to this bill, ``At a time when our 
national debt is greater than $11.6 trillion, we cannot afford to add 
to this debt that will be inherited by our children and grandchildren. 
Even our best intentions need to be paid for with offsets from lower 
priorities or wasteful spending.''
  I also requested the opportunity to modify this legislation if no 
offsets were made.
  I intended to offer a second-degree amendment to offset the expected 
cost increase in spending as a result of the Carper amendment by 
capping the amount of funds EPA can spend on conference travel. 
According to EPA, $17.296 million was spent on conference travel in 
2006--the last year for which we have records. This amendment would 
have capped conference travel spending at $15 million, thus assuring 
that the full cost of the study will be offset.
  In the past couple of years, as Americans were tightening their belts 
and travelling less, EPA was growing its conference budget and 
travelling more. This is reflected in its annual costs for conference 
participation and related expenses, which increased from $10.781 
million in fiscal year 2000 to $17.296 million in fiscal year 2006.
  Conference attendance for Federal employees in many, if not most, 
cases is discretionary, meaning that it is up to Federal agencies to 
determine to what conferences agency employees should go and how many 
employees should go. Some conferences provide valuable educational or 
agency-related information in a format unavailable in a normal office 
setting. Many conferences, by the sponsors' design, are held in 
locations chosen to attract attendees.
  That being said, it is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress and 
the managers within Federal agencies to exercise due diligence in 
performing oversight over an area of Federal spending that has cost 
taxpayers over $2 billion on conferences from 2000-2006. This spending 
has increased over 95 percent, from over $200 million a year in fiscal 
year 2000 to almost $400 million a year in fiscal year 2006. In 
addition to the financial cost of these trips, oversight hearings I 
held as the chair of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee 
highlighted the lost productivity of government employees when they are 
out of the office on nonessential travel.
  The EPA is just one among many Federal agencies that I believe has 
overspent on nonessential conferences and travel. In my research I 
found numerous instances where EPA showed questionable judgment in this 
regard.
  In September 2006, EPA sent 23 employees to Paris, France, for the 
International Society of Exposure Analysis Meeting, at a cost of 
$56,000. This conference featured a gala dinner cruise on the River 
Seine and a cast of presenters that consisted primarily of Americans.
  The agency's employees attended an annual National Beaches Conference 
in Niagara Falls, NY. The 2006 conference was attended by at least 
seven EPA employees, at a cost to taxpayers of $52,500.
  One EPA employee attended a December 2006 GSA Small Business 
Conference in Palm Springs, CA, at a cost of $4,100, with his or her 
travel costs alone listed at $1,800.
  A Cancun, Mexico, meeting attended by two EPA employees cost $4,200, 
with travel costs listed at $2,900.
  A March 2007 Waste-to-Energy Conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico cost 
taxpayers $48,000 for nine EPA employees and two taxpayer-funded 
nonemployees to attend.
  A 2006 ``Beyond Translation Forum'' sponsored by the EPA in Texas to 
``engage the Hispanic community in becoming environmental stewards'' 
costs $52,100 for the attendance of 20 EPA employees and 85 taxpayer-
funded nonemployees.
  Over 2 years, EPA also spent $2.6 million in grants and contracts and 
over $300,000 in travel and related expenses for brownfields 
conferences in Oregon and Missouri.
  EPA spent $235,000 in grants and $25,000 in travel costs for the 
National Tank Conference in Memphis. Costs included events at BB King's 
and seeing the Memphis Grizzlies basketball team play.
  EPA spent $355,000 in grants and contracts and $167,000 in travel 
costs for the Community Involvement Conference in Milwaukee.
  In February of 2007, EPA spent $150,000 to sponsor the ``Measuring 
Program Results'' Conference, to which it sent one EPA employee and 
paid for the attendance of four nonemployees.

[[Page 22589]]

  Instead of specifically capping the amount EPA could spend on 
conference travel, Senator Carper has graciously modified his amendment 
to transfer $2 million from the EPA's Environmental Programs and 
Management account to fund this study of black carbon emissions. This 
EPA account ``provides personnel compensation, benefits, and travel and 
other administrative expenses for all agency programs.''
  It is my hope that this transfer in funds will help EPA better manage 
the funds it is entrusted with by Congress and limit questionable 
expenditures and unnecessary conference travel and related expenses.
  I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to this offset and hope that 
Congress can begin to prioritize funds for its priorities with real 
offsets.


                Amendments Nos. 2456 and 2522 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 2456 
and 2522 are withdrawn.
  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.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2522

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the clarification of the Senate, amendment 
2522 was not withdrawn. It was part of the managers' package.
  The majority leader.


                           Health Care Debate

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this past April, as the health care debate 
was getting underway, I sent my Republican counterpart, Senator 
McConnell, a letter outlining our priorities for the debate. I wrote, 
of course, that Democrats are committed to lowering health care costs, 
expanding access, and improving the quality of care. I said that we 
look forward to a dialog about how to prevent diseases, reduce health 
disparities, and encourage both early detection and effective 
treatments that save lives. But in that letter of 5 months ago, I also 
said that in order to help struggling Americans, we cannot drown in 
distractions and distortions. I made clear that bipartisanship depended 
on Republicans demonstrating a sincere interest in legislating. It 
depends on their joining us to offer concrete and constructive 
proposals, even if we disagree on the content of those ideas. It 
depends on us working together in our common interests rather than 
against each other and against the interests of the American people.
  I stand by that assessment as strongly today as I did this spring. It 
is painfully clear to everyone who has seen this debate's disturbing 
turns and dishonest tactics that more than ever, we now need people 
willing to work together in good faith. If we have learned anything 
from the recent rhetoric, both in our respective States and here in the 
Senate, it is that we need honest debate. It is regrettable that we 
have seen far too little of that lately.
  Today, I want to talk about one area of the debate that has seen 
particularly reckless rumors and scare tactics--what health insurance 
reform will mean to seniors.
  A Republican Congresswoman recently claimed that our plan to improve 
health care would ``put seniors in a position of being put to death by 
their government.'' That was wrong when it was said, and it is wrong 
now. A Republican Senator made a similar statement to mislead his 
constituents. He actually accused Democrats of proposing a plan that 
would kill Americans. Others pretend our reforms will cut benefits 
when, in fact, the only thing they cut is waste. Is this any way to 
have an honest debate? I don't think so. Is this what our constituents 
sent us here to do? I don't think so. Some of our friends on the other 
side may not want to let reality get in the way of a good sound bite, 
but I think it is crucial that we get the facts straight.
  The fact is, ever since a Democratic Congress and Democratic 
President created Medicare, Democrats have spent the past 40 years 
protecting seniors.
  I know a little bit about Medicare. My first elective job in Nevada 
was on a countywide hospital board. It was then called the Southern 
Nevada Memorial Hospital. It is now called the University Medical 
Center. When I started my job, 40 percent of seniors who came into that 
hospital had no insurance. We had an aggressive plan to go after their 
fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, whoever signed for them. That is 
no longer the case with Medicare. Virtually every senior who comes into 
that institution and all institutions has insurance to cover their 
hospitalizations. It is called Medicare. By the time I left that job, 
Medicare had come into existence.
  The fact is, ever since Republicans opposed the creation of Medicare, 
they have spent the past 40 years on the wrong side of history when it 
comes to helping seniors. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
  I don't carry much in my wallet. I have three credit cards. I have a 
few dollars. One thing I always carry with me is something I think is 
pretty important. I have carried this for years. You can see how wilted 
it is. I have done it for many years because I want to be able to quote 
accurately what I am talking about here. Republicans have hated 
Medicare from the very beginning, and they still hate it.

       I was there fighting the fight, one of twelve voting 
     against Medicare because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.

  Robert Dole, former leader of the Republicans in the Senate, 
candidate for President on the Republican ticket, that is what he said.

       Now, we didn't get rid of it in round one because we don't 
     think it is politically smart, but we believe Medicare is 
     going to wither on the vine.

  Newt Gingrich. I am not making this up. This is what they said.
  Dick Armey, majority leader a few years ago in the House of 
Representatives:

       Medicare has no place in a free world.

  When I say that since Democrats created Medicare, we have spent 40 
years protecting America's seniors, the fact is, ever since the 
Republicans opposed the creation of Medicare, they have spent the past 
40 years on the wrong side of history when it comes to helping seniors. 
They were wrong then. They are wrong now. They conveniently ignore 
facts such as that in 1965, only half the Nation's seniors had health 
insurance. Today, virtually every senior has health insurance. It is 
called Medicare. Is it a perfect program? Of course, it is not. But it 
is a pretty good program. Seniors' life expectancy has gone up and the 
number of seniors living in poverty has gone down. Those on Medicare 
universally like it.
  People complain about this program. Do you know what the overhead is 
on this program? It is less than 3 percent. It is one of the most 
effective programs in the history of the country. But that hasn't 
stopped Republicans from bragging about trying to kill Medicare. It 
hasn't stopped them from looking out for insurance companies instead of 
their constituents. And in the past 10 years, it hasn't stopped 
Republicans from voting against protecting and strengthening Medicare 
59 times. Look at this. These are the votes by year. Just last year, 
these are the votes. I hope this year's reform will not be No. 60 
because this bill will also protect and strengthen Medicare.
  There will be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to offer 
amendments to whatever bill comes out of the Finance Committee and out 
of the HELP Committee, and they will be melded together. What our 
legislation does is lower the cost of medicine. It provides a free 
yearly checkup, makes preventive care for seniors free. It will give 
doctors who treat seniors a raise, and it will cut waste from Medicare. 
For seniors, health insurance reform will mean all of that.
  Rather than having a serious and real debate about a serious and real 
crisis, some would prefer to deploy tactics to frighten the American 
people. But what really frightens them is that under the status quo, 
they live just one illness, one accident, one pink slip away from 
losing everything they have.
  This is no time to let partisanship get the best of us. This is no 
time to

[[Page 22590]]

obsess over rumors or oppose ideas simply because they were proposed by 
people who sit on a different side of this Chamber. This is no time to 
instill unfounded fears or incite hope that our Nation's leaders fail.
  This is the time to get serious about making it easy for American 
citizens to afford and live healthy lives. When it comes to 
Republicans' attacks on Medicare, the messenger has no credibility and 
the message is nothing more than an excuse. At the end of the day, the 
other side's insistence on spreading fear above all else is what will 
truly hurt seniors and all Americans.
  Our opponents' claims this time around are as disingenuous as they 
have been and phony at worst--disingenuous because they have a long 
track record of standing in the way of giving America's seniors what 
they need, phony because they completely and willfully misrepresent 
what the bills we are considering will actually do for seniors. Our 
bill will lower the cost of medicine, provide a free yearly checkup, 
make preventive care free, give doctors who treat seniors a raise, and 
cut waste from Medicare. That is what it is all about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the majority leader, Mr. President, because a lot 
has been said in this health care debate that needs to be clarified. I 
have been on the floor--how many times--when the Republican leadership 
has come to the floor and told us that if we are not careful in health 
care reform, we will end up with a government-run health insurance 
program. They have warned us: Be careful. Government run health 
insurance, it is socialism, too much government. I am waiting for the 
first Republican Senator to come to the floor and say: So we should 
abolish Medicare; we ought to get rid of Medicaid, which is for the 
poorest people, and we ought to get rid of veterans health care, 
another government program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program 
that makes health insurance affordable all across the United States. If 
one follows the Republican logic, they are all government health 
insurance programs.
  Traditionally, the Republican Party has not embraced the concept. 
Let's be honest about it. They have a different view. They would like 
government to step aside and let the market work its will. Have you 
noticed what the market is working? The market is working its will in 
health insurance, and we are seeing private, for-profit health 
insurance companies making a fortune, denying one out of five people 
the coverage they thought they had, raising their costs every single 
year. That is the reality of the private market.
  When it comes to Medicare, a program created under President Lyndon 
Johnson more than 40 years ago, 45 million Americans have the peace of 
mind to know they have basic health insurance protection. Do you know 
who these people are? They are folks who worked their whole lives, paid 
money out of their paychecks to be part of Medicare so that they would 
have not only the peace of mind but quality health care in their 
retirement years. It is not just the peace of mind of having access to 
good health care, it is the peace of mind of knowing that all the money 
you worked for your entire life to save, the money you wanted to live 
on in comfort after retirement would not disappear because of medical 
bills. Medicare gives people peace of mind and protects their assets so 
they can live independently, comfortably, in the kind of style most of 
us dream of for all Americans who have worked so hard for many years.
  We hear the other side tell us how bad those government health 
insurance programs are. The administrative costs of Medicare are 
dramatically lower than the cost of private health insurance. It is 
obvious. Medicare is a not-for-profit entity. It is managed at a cost 
of about 3 percent. Do you know what happens with health insurance 
companies? They load up with costs for profit. They load up with costs 
for advertising and marketing.
  They load up with people who get on the telephone to say: No--no to 
your doctor. You know what I am talking about. When the doctor says: I 
think the best thing for you is this procedure, and you are under 
private health insurance, that last stop in that medical decision is 
not at the hospital or in the doctor's office; the last stop is a long-
distance phone call to some clerk sitting out in Omaha, NE, with a 
manual in front of him or her, and the first words at the top of the 
page say: Say no. Raise questions. Tell them you will get back to them.
  Am I making this up? I am not. I have example after example from my 
home State of Illinois, from people I have met during the course of my 
service in the Senate and the House, and people I met this last summer 
who will verify that.
  So when the Republicans come to the floor to criticize us and say 
they are the guardians of Medicare, it does not square with their 
traditional position of opposing Medicare, with their efforts to cut 
Medicare over the years and the fact that when we talk about Medicare 
and its future, they are nowhere to be found.
  This is a critical health care debate we are facing. I admit the 
President has stuck his neck out a mile. It takes some courage to do it 
because he knows it is a controversial issue. President Obama said to 
us in a joint session of Congress: If this were easy somebody would 
have done it a long time ago. But he is going to take this on, and he 
said to us publicly and privately he will spend every penny of 
political capital he has to get it done. It means that much to him and 
to our Nation.
  So for seniors this is a critical debate. A lot of seniors are being 
misled by things that are downright awful. I saw the videotape. This 
Republican Congresswoman went to the floor of the U.S. House of 
Representatives and said that: Oh, these Democrats want to create death 
panels. Sarah Palin said that those death panels would take the life of 
one of her children or something. That is an outrageous statement and 
not true.
  Do you know what they are talking about? They are talking about an 
amendment offered by a Georgia Senator--a Republican Georgia Senator--
Johnny Isakson--a reasonable amendment. Do you know what it said? Under 
our health care reform, people should be allowed to go to a doctor and, 
in privacy and in confidence, sit down and say the words that need to 
be said--words like: Listen, I don't want to be hooked up to some 
machine. When the time comes, I want to go peacefully. I don't want 
extraordinary things done for me. That is my wish and, doctor, I want 
you to know that wish. I am going to tell my family, but I want you to 
know.
  Is that an important conversation? Any one of us--and so many of us 
fit in this category, who have been through one of those situations 
with a parent, a member of our family, or someone we love--wants to 
know what they want.
  So Senator Isakson proposed that amendment. It was a thoughtful, 
reasonable amendment that we brought into this debate. What happened to 
it? You know what happened: death panels. Oh, they are going in there. 
They are going to mandate that they pull the plug on Granny. That is 
sad. It is unfortunate. It shows a lack of maturity and judgment by 
those who are making those charges. And we have heard them from the 
halls of Congress and outside. What we are talking about here is health 
care reform this country needs but health care reform that will 
actually benefit Medicare beneficiaries.
  As shown on this chart, this is basically what we hope to do for 
seniors when it comes to health insurance reform.
  First, we want to lower the cost of medicine. Ask seniors about 
Medicare's prescription drug plan, and they will tell you: Well, it is 
good, but if you have a lot of drugs and they are very expensive--
somehow or other Congress dreamed up something called the ``doughnut 
hole.'' What it basically means is, for some period of time each year, 
those seniors who need drug protection the most are on their own. They 
have to start spending out of their pocket. We close the doughnut hole, 
lowering the cost of medicine for seniors under Medicare.

[[Page 22591]]

  We provide for that free yearly checkup that can make all the 
difference in the world. A senior who gets to go in and check up with 
the doctor regularly is one who is likely going to spot something 
before it becomes serious where it can be treated successfully. That 
makes good sense. Seniors across America will appreciate that. That is 
part of our plan.
  Preventive care is free. We are talking about mammograms, 
colonoscopies, blood tests for prostate cancer. These things will be 
free under the health care reform we are talking about for senior 
citizens and for virtually everyone in America.
  Giving doctors who treat seniors compensation for the care they are 
providing. We want doctors who are professional enough to include 
Medicare patients in their practice to be compensated fairly.
  Finally, cut waste from Medicare. I want to say a word about this. I 
got on this ``Meet The Press'' program. I get on there once in a while 
on Sunday mornings. I think they put me on because I am free. But for 
whatever reason, I was on there, and I was in debate with Newt 
Gingrich. You know Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, the spokesman for many parts of his party 
today.
  I said: It bothers me when people say health care reform is going to 
cut Medicare. Let me tell you what we have in mind. A few years ago, 
the private insurance companies came to us and said: We can do a better 
job at a lower cost in providing Medicare benefits. Well, some people 
were skeptical.
  They said: Let us prove it. The government is doing this all wrong. 
Let the private health insurance companies do it. We will show you, and 
we will call it Medicare Advantage.
  Off they went providing these Medicare Advantage programs that were 
to match the benefits under Medicare. The jury came in a few years 
later, and, do you know what, many of these plans cost up to 14 percent 
more than Medicare. They did not save us money. It ended up these 
private health insurance companies not only did not make their point 
about being cheaper, they cost the taxpayers more money than we should 
have paid out. They did not provide additional benefits for Medicare 
recipients that they needed.
  They want us to continue to subsidize these private health insurance 
companies that have failed in their offer to beat Medicare at its own 
game. So when we say, and the President says, we want to cut the 
subsidy to health insurance companies under Medicare, that is what he 
and we are talking about. If they did not keep their end of the bargain 
to provide medical care at the same cost or less cost than Medicare, 
why should we continue to subsidize them? I do not think we should.
  I said that on the show, and the next person to speak was former 
Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said: Well, that proves our point. Durbin 
wants to cut Medicare.
  Well, fortunately for me, Dr. Howard Dean, the former Governor of 
Vermont, was on the panel, and he corrected him. He said: Mr. Gingrich, 
he didn't say cut Medicare. He said cut the subsidy to the health 
insurance companies that are taking advantage of Medicare to profiteer, 
take that extra money and provide the kind of care we need for seniors, 
and make sure, in the process, we save the Medicare Program.
  Untouched, our Medicare Program is going to suffer from the same 
thing everybody else suffers from in America: the escalating cost of 
health care. We have to do something. We have to keep our promise, not 
only to the seniors today, but to the many who will come after them, 
that Medicare will be there when they need it, that when they reach the 
age of 65, they will have the peace of mind of knowing they can still 
go to their doctor, still go to their hospital, get quality care, and 
not have a catastrophic illness that wipes out their savings.
  This is a debate which is worth getting into. I hope those who follow 
it understand this party on this side of the aisle fought to create 
Medicare, fought to protect Medicare, and now is fighting to save 
Medicare. Do not let those who come before us, misleading us about what 
we are trying to achieve here, mislead the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am not so sure, given what is happening 
in the country these days, it would be very easy to enact the Medicare 
Program, had we not done so previously. The Medicare Program was 
enacted at a time when one-half of the senior citizens in this country 
had no health care--none. That is not surprising because the fact is, 
insurance companies do not go running after elderly people to say: Can 
we provide health insurance coverage to you? We know you are in your 
seventies or eighties, and we know you are probably going to need 
coverage for various things in the years ahead. We would like to 
provide that coverage.
  In the mid-1960s, this country and the Congress said: People in their 
elderly years should not have to lay their head on their pillow at 
night and wonder whether tomorrow might be the day when they become 
ill, have a disease, have an accident, and go to a hospital with no 
health insurance to cover their needs.
  This Congress did something very important, and, as is usually the 
case, when it created Medicare, there were plenty of people saying: 
Don't do it. It won't work. It is socialism. It shouldn't happen. But 
it did happen.
  There is a health care bill being written in the Finance Committee 
now. I am not part of a gang of two or a gang of six or a gang of 
eight. I am part of a gang of 99 Senators, as of today, who will 
consider the bill they come up with. I do not know what it will look 
like, and I wish to see all of it before I make a judgment about its 
merits, but I will say this: Even as it is being written, we hear of 
efforts to cold call into homes of senior citizens to tell them that 
what is happening is an attempt to injure and take away services from 
Medicare for senior citizens. It is not true. It is false.
  It is hard to make the case, it seems to me, but some are trying, 
that if you try to reduce the cost of Medicare by getting rid of waste 
and fraud and abuse, somehow that results in less health care services 
for senior citizens, yet that is exactly what is being represented by 
some.
  I have watched very carefully and been very concerned about the issue 
of waste and fraud and abuse in Medicare.
  There should be aggressive oversight, with respect to those who are 
providing Medicare benefits to senior citizens. There is too much 
fraud. My hope is--and my understanding from what is being written with 
respect to preventing fraud--it is going to be a new day. If you want 
to sign up as a provider and get reimbursement from Medicare for 
helping senior citizens, you better be providing the service. All too 
often that has not been the case.
  So when we decide we are going to try to cut waste and fraud and 
abuse in a very serious and relentless and aggressive way, we have 
people who say: Aha, what they are going to do will harm senior 
citizens. It is not going to harm senior citizens in the delivery of 
health care to those who are entitled to it if we take on the waste and 
the fraud and the abuse and start putting the crooks in jail. That is 
not going to hurt senior citizens. That is going to help America's 
elderly.
  Let me describe what I am talking about. In 2007, the Department of 
Justice randomly visited 1,600 durable medical equipment suppliers that 
bill Medicare for services. They found that one-third of the businesses 
did not exist. Think of that. They randomly visited 1,600 durable 
medical equipment suppliers that provide services to beneficiaries, we 
are told--they are billing the government for it--and they found out 
that one-third of them did not exist. They were mailboxes to collect 
fraudulent checks. They billed Medicare, combined, $237 million in 
2007.
  Putting those people in jail and stopping that kind of fraud does not 
injure Medicare. It strengthens it. It does not hurt senior citizens.
  A man named Mr. Alcides Garcia was sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
Here is a picture of him, so we can give him a little credit for what 
he did. He was

[[Page 22592]]

sentenced to 8 years in prison after his medical equipment company made 
millions in false Medicare claims.
  Mr. Thomas Fiore, as shown in this picture, was indicted with 10 
others on racketeering charges in south Florida for identity theft and 
Medicare fraud and much more.
  In April of this year, just months ago, officials in Oregon wrapped 
up a lengthy fraud case. Again, to give credit where credit's due, this 
is a man named Richard Vanderschuere. He faked disability. His wife 
Karen and son Richard, Jr. claimed to be full-time care providers. His 
mother claimed to be a weekend backup assistant. The so-called 
caretakers received payments for providing home health care while he 
received Social Security disability benefits. His mother was employed. 
By the way, this person's mother was employed as a fraud investigator 
for a State agency in the State of Oregon at the time. Here is his 
wife, to make sure she gets proper credit. We don't want to leave out 
the kid because they were all involved in this--trying to fleece the 
American taxpayers and defraud the American Government.
  My point is very simple. My point is that when we take on waste, 
fraud, and abuse--and this is a new day; this is not part of the lost 
decade when we had a whole lot of people fleecing this program--when we 
do that, when we cut down on the waste, fraud and abuse and reduce the 
costs of Medicare, it is not about reducing Medicare for senior 
citizens.
  I was in a little ice cream shop about 6 weeks ago in a little town 
in North Dakota. Two elderly women came up to me and said: Byron, 
please don't let them take my Medicare benefits away. I understand that 
is what they are going to try to do.
  I said: Well, they are not going to do that, but who told you that?
  They said: We got telephone calls from some organization that said 
you have to be aware they are trying to take your Medicare Program 
away.
  I said: Well, that is not true.
  They said: Well, we got the telephone calls.
  I said: You might have gotten the calls, but it is not true. It is 
false.
  But what is happening around here--again, I don't know what the 
health care plan will be that comes out of the Finance Committee, but I 
will guarantee this: Whatever it is, it would not have a ghost of a 
chance of passing this Chamber if it begins to harm Medicare Programs 
for the elderly in this country. This is a very important program. We 
are the ones who created Medicare. We believe it is important. Those 
naysayers, those people who have always opposed everything--and there 
are plenty of them, by the way--they are the ones who are saying: If 
you cut waste, fraud, and abuse, you are going to cut X billions of 
dollars of costs; therefore, you are cutting health care for senior 
citizens. That is false. I think it ought to stop. We have groups out 
there that are making cold calls into homes trying to scare senior 
citizens.
  The fact is Medicare is a very important program. It has enriched the 
lives of the elderly in this country. Would we want to go back to a 
time when half the senior citizens reached the point in their lives 
where they were finished with their work life, didn't have much in 
assets, and then sat around thinking: Oh, my God, I hope I don't get 
sick because I don't have health care, and I can't find an insurance 
company that wants to cover me because they know what I know; that when 
you get older, sometimes you have those health issues that are most 
acute.
  In North Dakota, I recently met a 111-year-old woman named Mary--111 
years old. She is acutely aware of everything; she can visit with you 
about everything. She described to me when the barn burned down in 1904 
when she was 6 years old. This is a wonderful, remarkable woman. She is 
certainly the oldest person in my State and I assume one of the oldest 
people in our country. But think of what she has experienced in 111 
years. Unbelievable things: the automobile, the airplane, walking on 
the Moon, you name it. But then think of this: In the middle of all 
this, after she was well into her sixties, Medicare was provided to say 
to America's senior citizens: You don't have to be frightened anymore. 
We are going to provide health care coverage in your older years.
  Now 99 percent of the senior citizens in this country have health 
care. They are our parents, our grandparents, those who raised us, 
those who loved us, those who cared about us. This country then 
provided a program called Medicare which said: You don't have to be 
afraid in your older years. You are going to be able to get health 
care. That is what Medicare is about. Is it perfect? No, it is not 
perfect. Is there waste, fraud, and abuse? Yes, there is, and we are 
determined to shut it down. It will be shut down with the right kinds 
of programs to prevent fraud. And if you try to cheat the Medicare 
Program, we are going to aggressively prosecute.
  Again, I wish to make sure everybody understands, when we hear people 
say: If you reduce the cost of Medicare by getting rid of waste, fraud, 
and abuse you are hurting senior citizens and you are trying to cut 
senior citizens' benefits, that is false and it ought to stop. It is 
going on right now and it ought to stop. Organizations doing cold calls 
into homes of senior citizens ought to stop. And it is parroted by 
politicians and others who think it is an interesting message to scare 
senior citizens and it ought to stop.
  Let me finish as I started. I don't know what kind of health care 
bill is going to come to the Senate, and I want to see it before I 
evaluate it. It is important. It is important to everybody. But I do 
know this: The Medicare Program is something that has very substantial 
support in this Chamber. I don't believe there is anything being 
written in any one of the committees in the Senate that would begin to 
diminish or in any other way weaken Medicare coverage for America's 
senior citizens. If that was the case, it wouldn't have a ghost of a 
chance of getting through this Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
previously agreed to list of amendments to be considered in order to 
include my amendment No. 2530 and to set aside the pending amendment so 
mine may be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. On behalf of the majority leader, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe it is truly unfortunate that 
we are not allowed to consider this amendment. The amendment I was 
hoping to be able to bring up and consider is one that would prohibit 
the use of funds that has the effect of making carbon dioxide a 
pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act for any source 
other than a mobile source.
  It is unfortunate that the majority will not allow us to consider 
this amendment. The problem it seeks to address is significant. I don't 
believe it is going to go away if we choose to ignore it. As 
disappointed as I am, this amendment has clearly received considerable 
attention, so I wish to take this time this afternoon to fully explain 
its intent, my efforts to ensure its bipartisan nature, as well as the 
reasons I believe it is so incredibly important for the Senate to be 
given an opportunity to vote in favor of its adoption, if not now, then 
at some other point.
  In writing this amendment over this past week, I have listened to the 
concerns of many of my colleagues and the concerns of the environmental 
community, as well as the concerns expressed by the administration. My 
colleagues don't have to take my word for this. Look at the text of the 
amendment and see how it reflects--I think it so reflects--very 
seriously the comments and the criticisms from those who have weighed 
in. All I ask, at this time, is that for the next few minutes, my 
colleagues and my critics return the favor and listen to what I have to 
say.
  For context, let's start back at the beginning. Back in April of 
2007, the Supreme Court declared, in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, 
that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that can be regulated under the 
Clean Air Act. The

[[Page 22593]]

Court held that the EPA must regulate emissions from mobile sources--
meaning vehicles--if the Agency determined that carbon dioxide posed a 
threat to public health and welfare.
  In the wake of that decision, EPA began to lay the groundwork for 
Federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Through its proposed 
``endangerment finding,'' the Agency has sought to confirm that 
greenhouse gas emissions are, indeed, a threat to the public health and 
welfare. That proposal is now under review and most expect that it will 
be finalized in the very near future.
  The EPA has also released its draft rule to regulate mobile source 
emissions as required by the Supreme Court, and this will be 
accomplished through a dual standard that includes increased vehicle 
fuel economy and reduced tailpipe emissions.
  I am not putting the brakes on that proposal, despite some assertions 
to the contrary, but I am deeply concerned about the reach it may 
ultimately have. Under the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' 
provisions within the Clean Air Act, anything found to be a pollutant 
under one section will be subject to regulation under all other 
sections of the statute.
  So what exactly does this mean in plain English? The EPA's decision 
to regulate carbon dioxide legally covers not only mobile sources but 
also stationary sources. We tend to think of powerplants when we think 
of stationary sources, but also we think of office buildings, 
hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings. If you follow along those 
lines, you get the right idea. Very clearly, stationary sources must 
reduce emissions in order to bring our Nation to its climate goals, but 
forcing them to do so through the Clean Air Act would be one of the 
least efficient and most damaging ways to pursue that goal. It would be 
rife with unintended consequences and, I believe, potentially 
devastating for our economy.
  Under the Clean Air Act, any stationary source that emits more than 
250 tons of pollutants each year is subject to regulation. Unlike other 
pollutants, pretty much every form of economic activity generates some 
level of carbon dioxide emissions. So these add up relatively quickly. 
In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has looked at this very closely. 
They believe that more than 1.2 million buildings that have never 
before been regulated under the Clean Air Act would come under this 
regulation if Congress does not intervene and if EPA moves forward.
  The 250-ton threshold would encompass more than just our major 
emitters. Caught in the same net would be dry cleaners, restaurants, 
the local Barnes & Noble bookstore. Realistically, we are probably 
talking about any facility that is heated or cooled by conventional 
means that is more than 65,000 square feet in size.
  I think there are some very grave concerns about the path the EPA 
would lead us down. I think they are apparent. I think others are 
seeing this as well and are expressing their concerns. Just this week, 
I received letters from over 11 different agricultural groups, 
including the American Farm Bureau Federation. I have received letters 
from the American Council of Engineering Companies; NFIB, the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses; the National Association of 
Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these organizations be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               National Federation


                                     of Independence Business,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2009.
     Senator Lisa Murkowski,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski, On behalf of the National 
     Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's 
     leading small business advocacy organization, I am writing to 
     support your amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior/
     Environment Appropriations bill to prohibit the Environmental 
     Protection Agency for one year from using federal funds to 
     regulate stationary sources of carbon dioxide (CO2).
       As you know, the EPA proposed that six greenhouse gasses 
     (GHGs), including CO2, endanger public health and welfare. 
     These findings would trigger stringent new regulations under 
     the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would disproportionately affect 
     small entities that are not major polluters and least able to 
     handle or even understand new restrictions. Regulation of 
     GHGs under the CAA will create new burdens such as federal 
     permitting requirements, restrictions on fuel choices and 
     energy use, and requirements for installation of new energy 
     efficient equipment.
       Small business routinely cites unreasonable government 
     regulations as a top problem, ranking number six on the 2008 
     NFIB Small Business Problems and Priorities publication. 
     Regulatory costs are significant and small businesses pay 
     disproportionately more than larger businesses. According to 
     the 2001 NFIB study on Coping with Regulation, small 
     businesses cite many reasons for being frustrated by 
     government regulations, including dealing with the extra 
     paperwork, understanding what is needed to be in compliance, 
     and the dollars spent to comply with government regulations.
       The cost of regulation for small business has risen by 10 
     percent, to $7,647 per employee per year (according to the 
     Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy). This 
     means that for the average member at NFIB with ten employees, 
     the cost of regulation now exceeds $75,000 annually. Adding 
     more regulatory costs would be a serious blow to already 
     overburdened small business owners, who according to the 
     September 2009 NFIB Small Business Economic Trends survey, 
     are still suffering from weak sales and profits numbers.
       NFIB supports the Murkowski amendment because it would 
     delay for one year the use of federal funds by the EPA to 
     regulate stationary sources of CO2. As the 111th Congress 
     continues, I look forward to working with you to address 
     energy issues in a way that is not disruptive to the small 
     business community.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Eckerly,
     Senior Vice President, Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                               September 23, 2009.
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned agricultural organizations 
     urge your support for an amendment to be offered by Senator 
     Murkowski that would prevent unintended and unwanted 
     consequences from regulation by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
       The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, held that EPA 
     was not precluded from regulating greenhouse gases under 
     section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, which addresses new 
     motor vehicle emission standards. This amendment would not 
     affect the rulemaking since the rulemaking is still pending.
       We do not believe it is sound policy for the EPA to extend 
     this pending regulation beyond motor vehicles into activities 
     like the production of crops, livestock and poultry. We urge 
     your support for the Murkowski amendment.
       Sincerely,
         American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean 
           Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, 
           National Barley Growers Association, National 
           Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cotton Council, 
           National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Public Lands 
           Council, United Egg Producers, US Dry Pea and Lentil 
           Council, USA Rice Federation.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2009.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The National Association of Manufacturers 
     (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade association 
     representing small and large manufacturers in every 
     industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges, you to support 
     the Murkowski Amendment to H.R. 2996, the Department of the 
     Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2010.
       At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from 
     the most severe recession since the 1930s, Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, with no guidance from 
     Congress, will establish disincentives for the long-term 
     investments that would be necessary to grow jobs and expedite 
     economic recovery. The Murkowski Amendment seeks to ensure a 
     healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing 
     our nation's energy, environmental and economic needs before 
     the EPA starts regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) 
     emissions from stationary sources, including manufacturing 
     facilities.
       Manufacturers support a comprehensive, federal climate 
     policy within a framework that will cause no economic harm 
     while granting sufficient time to deploy low-carbon 
     technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, 
     renewable energy and a renewed and large-scale deployment of 
     nuclear power plants.
       Prior to the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, energy 
     inflation and price volatility were major contributors to a 
     loss of approximately 3.7 million high-wage manufacturing

[[Page 22594]]

     jobs. As you may know, manufacturers use one-third of our 
     nation's energy. Because of the impact a federal climate 
     policy will have on the nation's energy future, this is an 
     issue that must be debated by Congress without preemption 
     from a federal agency.
       Supporting the Murkowski Amendment does not convey 
     opposition to climate change policy; it merely allows 
     Congress to do its job. We concur with the sentiment in a 
     Washington Post September 21 editorial, ``Regulating 
     Carbon.'' It noted that the EPA ``is preparing to regulate 
     carbon under the Clean Air Act,'' which ``is breathtakingly 
     unsuited to the great task of battling global warming. . . . 
     Yet if Congress does not act, it's likely that the EPA will. 
     It won't be pretty.''
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes on the Murkowski Amendment, including potential 
     procedural motions, may be considered for designation as Key 
     Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Jay Timmons.
                                  ____

                                                  American Council


                                     of Engineering Companies,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2009.
     Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: The American Council of Engineering 
     Companies (ACEC) is pleased to support your amendment to the 
     FY 2010 Interior Appropriations bill disallowing for one year 
     the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 
     regulating under the Clean Air Act greenhouse gas (GHG) 
     emissions from stationary sources. Without taking an overall 
     position on comprehensive climate change legislation, we 
     agree that Clean Air Act regulation of GHGs for stationary 
     sources is not the appropriate way to manage carbon 
     emissions.
       ACEC is the business association of America's engineering 
     industry, representing more than 5,000 independent 
     engineering companies throughout the United States engaged in 
     the development of America's infrastructure. ACEC member 
     firms represent the broad spectrum of the industry, from very 
     large firms to small, family-owned businesses.
       We think it is wise public policy to delay for one year 
     potentially premature EPA regulatory actions under the Clean 
     Air Act before the Congress decides on its course of action. 
     The breadth of the issues in a comprehensive climate change-
     energy bill requires thoughtful debate with ample time to 
     negotiate differences between senators from all regions of 
     the country, which has just begun in the Senate and should 
     not be hindered by concerns that EPA could be developing a 
     regulatory program for stationary sources that may be 
     entirely inappropriate for GHG emissions. Even the EPA 
     Administrator has indicated that she would prefer that the 
     Congress work its will on a climate change bill rather than 
     ceding authority to EPA.
       It is also important to note that your amendment does not 
     permanently take away any authority from EPA, but simply asks 
     for a one-year delay in stationary source regulations. Given 
     that the House-passed climate change bill makes it clear that 
     stationary sources are subject only to the provisions of the 
     legislation and not to Clean Air Act regulations, your 
     amendment is eminently reasonable as the debate continues.
       At the same time, we are hopeful that the amendment can be 
     carefully tailored to limit EPA's GHG regulatory authority 
     under the Clean Air Act to only mobile sources. We thank you 
     for the opportunity to express our views. If you have any 
     questions or would like to discuss our comments, please feel 
     free to contact me or our environment and energy director, 
     Diane S. Shea.
           Sincerely,
                                                 David A. Raymond,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                               Chamber of Commerce


                              of the United States of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2009.
       To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing more than three million businesses and 
     organizations of every size, sector and region, strongly 
     supports an amendment expected to be offered by Sen. 
     Murkowski and strongly opposes an amendment expected to be 
     offered by Sen. Feinstein to the FY2010 Interior, Environment 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, both related to 
     greenhouse gas emissions. The Murkowski amendment would 
     ensure that should the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     seek to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act 
     absent specific authorization from Congress, that EPA limit 
     such regulation to mobile sources. This was the issue decided 
     by the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. The 
     Feinstein amendment would seek to ``tailor'' a small subset 
     of EPA regulations, but in a manner far less comprehensive 
     than the Murkowski amendment.
       The House has approved climate change legislation, and the 
     Senate may take up the matter this Congress. It would be 
     inappropriate for EPA to usurp ongoing congressional action 
     on a major policy decision and regulate the very same sources 
     (and the very same emissions) that would be covered by 
     greenhouse gas legislation. Yet that is precisely what would 
     happen if EPA were allowed to proceed.
       Since the Massachusetts v. EPA decision, EPA has issued 
     regulations implementing a federal greenhouse gas registry, 
     has proposed ``endangerment'' for the motor vehicle sector, 
     and has proposed a rule to regulate motor vehicle greenhouse 
     gas emissions.
       EPA is also likely to issue and enforce as early as spring 
     2010 a suite of regulations applying to stationary sources, 
     New Source Performance Standards for equipment, Prevention of 
     Significant Deterioration construction permits, and Title V 
     operating permits.
       EPA asserts it can use the Clean Air Act to ``tailor'' its 
     rules to large industrial sources, despite the Act's clear 
     language. The Chamber disagrees, believing only Congress can 
     determine the scope of the Clean Air Act. As raised 
     repeatedly in correspondence from the Chamber, EPA could 
     cripple the economy if it opens greenhouse gas regulation 
     beyond mobile sources. EPA should remain within the bounds of 
     the Massachusetts v. EPA decision, which dealt with mobile, 
     not stationary, sources.
       The Murkowski amendment would allow EPA to move forward 
     with its greenhouse gas registry and to take public comment 
     on its motor vehicle rule, but it would hold in abeyance 
     EPA's efforts to regulate stationary sources while Congress 
     considers greenhouse gas legislation and the Obama 
     administration negotiates an international accord. If 
     enacted, the Murkowski amendment would allow Congress to 
     consider meaningful and pragmatic greenhouse gas legislation 
     free from any EPA-imposed threat of a regulatory cascade.
       The Chamber opposes the Feinstein amendment, which would 
     only exempt farms and other small stationary sources from 
     Clean Air Act Title V regulation. While the Chamber has long 
     argued that the Clean Air Act is a poor tool to address 
     greenhouse gas emissions because it would trigger regulation 
     of smaller sources, like farms, hospitals and small 
     businesses, it would be unwise policy for Congress to react 
     to an attempt by EPA to assert jurisdiction over greenhouse 
     gas emissions from stationary sources with piecemeal, 
     temporary, and wholly incomplete fixes.
       The Chamber reiterates its call for Congress to approve 
     bipartisan, comprehensive greenhouse gas legislation in a 
     manner that adequately addresses environmental, energy 
     security, economic, and international aspects of the issue. 
     The Murkowski amendment would facilitate a bipartisan, 
     sensible framework for greenhouse gas legislation and ensure 
     that EPA does not exceed the Court's Massachusetts v. EPA 
     decision.
           Sincerely,

                                              R. Bruce Josten,

                                         Executive Vice President,
                                               Government Affairs.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. To its credit, the EPA realized that regulations at 
the 250-ton level are simply not feasible. So to try and resolve this 
issue, the Agency is apparently considering what they are calling a 
tailoring proposal. This would lift the Clean Air Act's regulatory 
threshold to 25,000 tons. That is a hundredfold increase.
  I shared the Agency's concern about a 250-ton carbon dioxide limit, 
but this 250-ton proposal moving up to a 25,000-ton proposal, this 
tailoring issue, is simply not going to hold. It has no legal basis. I 
think we expect it would be swiftly rejected by the courts. The EPA 
cannot constitutionally legislate a major change in the Clean Air Act. 
Ultimately, once this has all played out, the Agency's carbon dioxide 
regulations would remain in effect, but the threshold would be 
triggered at a level 100 times lower than the Agency had planned.
  That brings us to the tremendous consequences we can expect as a 
result. There is widespread agreement that the regulation of carbon 
dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act would be absolutely 
unworkable and, at the same time, economically devastating. In the 
words of a long-term Democrat over in the House, it will create a 
``glorious mess.'' Another observed it could result in ``one of the 
largest and most bureaucratic nightmares that the U.S. economy and 
Americans have ever seen.''
  Just this week, the editors of the Washington Post argued that the 
Clean Air Act is ``breathtakingly unsuited to the great task of 
battling global warming.'' The Wall Street Journal's editors cast it as 
``reckless endangerment.'' They went on to assert that the regulation 
would be like putting ``a gun to the head of Congress'' to ``play cap 
and trade roulette with the U.S. economy.''
  That may sound over the top, but even some members of the 
environmental community have agreed with

[[Page 22595]]

the metaphor, as one clean air advocate affirmed this by saying this 
regulation is ``the legal equivalent of a .44 magnum.''
  This regulation is a train that could wreck our fragile economy. It 
is our own creation, and it is barreling toward us at full speed. I 
recently saw an ironic motivational poster that said: ``Government--if 
you think the problems we create are bad, wait until you see our 
solutions.'' It is fair to say that this issue, the regulation of 
carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, is one of the many examples of 
why that poster was created and, sadly, it occasionally rings true.
  Today, however, the Senate can choose another course for the debate 
over energy and climate policy. The Clean Air Act is one of our worst 
options to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but it is not our only 
option for that cause.
  Those of us in Congress can and should step up and pass workable, 
intellectually honest climate legislation--whether it is a system of 
cap and trade, a carbon tax, or something else that removes the Clean 
Air Act from the equation. Nearly every participant in this debate, 
from elected officials to businesses and the environmental community, 
has stated their preference for legislation over regulation.
  That is where my amendment comes in. For exactly 1 year, it would 
limit the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions to just 
the mobile sources that were the subject of the 2007 Massachusetts v. 
EPA lawsuit. This is nothing more than a temporary timeout that will 
give us the breathing room in an already heated debate. It will give us 
the time we need to develop a sensible, effective policy that achieves 
the same result at a much lower cost.
  Anyone who takes the time to read my amendment will see I have gone 
to great lengths here to ensure it does not lead to any unintended or 
adverse consequences. It has been drafted and redrafted to limit one 
action by the EPA for 1 year, and nothing else. I have been responsive 
to bipartisan requests, even from Members who I knew would not be able 
to support this amendment, because I am committed to avoiding any 
overreach.
  So the result we have is an amendment that will not interfere or 
conflict with any other regulation or action that EPA is obliged to 
complete. That goes for the preparatory work for the regulation of 
carbon dioxide emissions. It holds true for the rule to expand the 
renewable fuel standard, for construction permits, and for regulations 
to foster the development of clean coal technologies.
  My amendment will not in any way impact EPA's authority relating to 
the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, its ability to develop a 
voluntary carbon offset program, to issue permits for energy 
infrastructure on or near Federal land, permit carbon sequestration 
projects, or to move forward with very important work of both exploring 
for and producing the vast reserves of domestic energy on our Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  All of these concerns have been raised over the past several days, 
before this amendment was even introduced. All of these concerns are 
explicitly addressed within it. Some of our Nation's leading Clean Air 
Act attorneys--among the best and brightest legal minds--have assisted 
us in its preparation. They agree it will do exactly as it says, and 
that leaves very little ground for the claims that have been made 
against it.
  Given how devastating the EPA's regulation of carbon dioxide 
emissions could be, many casual viewers are probably left wondering 
why, exactly, my amendment has drawn such fierce opposition. Well, 
again, let me be clear. As much as anything else, the regulation of 
carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is being used as a thinly veiled 
threat to force the Senate to act on climate legislation, regardless of 
where we are in what remains an ongoing and incredibly important 
debate.
  The possibility that our worst option to reduce emissions will move 
forward, despite its consequences, is supposed to somehow compel us to 
move faster. We are expected to push through a climate bill, perhaps 
regardless of its content, in order to stave off this regulation. If 
the House debate is any indication of how our own will proceed, we will 
be asked to rush to judgment, cut off debate on one of the greatest 
challenges of our time, and to pass a bill--any bill--that purports to 
reduce emissions.
  In my mind, this situation has created a false dilemma, a proverbial 
Morton's Fork on Capitol Hill--meaning between a rock and a hard place. 
Right now, those of us in the Senate are clearly left with two bad 
choices--the EPA's endangerment regulation or the House's energy and 
climate bill--neither of which will end well for the American people. 
Making matters worse, we are told there isn't enough time to consider 
our options and develop a more viable path forward.
  By voting ``yes'' on my amendment, we could easily change this 
unfortunate dynamic. But we will not halt or hinder progress on climate 
legislation, as some have suggested. Not one of the climate bills that 
has been introduced so far would take effect until 2012--2 full years 
after the limitation imposed by my amendment would expire.
  If my amendment were to be accepted, the EPA will continue its work 
to regulate emissions from mobile sources. The agency and its employees 
will go about their business exactly as normal. They can even continue 
developing regulations for carbon dioxide emissions from stationary 
sources. For the next year, they simply cannot put those regulations 
into effect. One year after this bill is signed into law, that 
limitation would expire, and the EPA would have every authority to 
proceed if Congress has still not acted.
  For those who have expressed concern that my amendment would become a 
long-term fixture in appropriations legislation, be assured that I will 
work with you to ensure that the climate debate not only proceeds but 
reaches a conclusion in the form of a responsible bill that a majority 
of us can support. As an elected representative of the State that has 
been hit hardest by climate change, I will work in good faith with all 
who want to address climate change in an effective way, while 
protecting our fragile economy from further harm.
  To those who have claimed I am trying to put the brakes on climate 
legislation, I simply remind you of my long-standing support for 
renewable, nuclear, and alternative energies as part of the solution. 
There is a right way and there is a wrong way to moving forward in 
addressing climate change. EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions 
is simply the wrong way. We must reduce emissions, but it is 
unacceptable to do so at any cost and by any means. While Congress has 
not yet developed a workable bill, I will continue to work as hard as I 
can to make sure that, in fact, we do.
  Unlike many Members of the Senate, I have also cosponsored cap-and-
trade legislation. I cosponsored the Low Carbon Economy Act that was 
offered last Congress by Senator Bingaman and Senator Specter. This 
year, recognizing that our work is far from finished, Senator Bingaman 
and I worked together, very cooperatively and collaboratively, on 
another comprehensive measure--the American Clean Energy Leadership 
Act. We reported that bill from the Energy Committee more than 3 months 
ago. It would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, without 
causing economic harm, and yet it is still waiting to be heard on the 
Senate floor.
  The 23 members of the Energy Committee produced a bipartisan energy 
bill in the first 6 months of Congress. I have every reason to believe 
that the full Senate can, over a time period twice as long, develop an 
effective climate policy that will further reduce greenhouse emissions, 
without disrupting our economy. But that will require us to base our 
decisions more than on vote counts and special requests. It will 
require us to set aside politics and focus on substance. It will force 
us to cross the aisle instead of closing ranks, and it will mean acting 
on behalf of the American people, in their best interests, rather than 
our own or our party's.
  With regard to my amendment, the majority has again objected to 
calling

[[Page 22596]]

it up. They have done everything they can to prevent a vote from 
occurring on the amendment, culminating in the objection that we not 
even have debate on the matter today. I want my colleagues to know, 
however, that this issue will not go away. Neither will my commitment 
to seeing it addressed head-on in a responsible and, if at all 
possible, bipartisan way.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Barrasso, Johanns, and 
Chambliss be added as cosponsors to my amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johanns) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know Senator Boxer, the chairman of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, has an hour reserved to 
come and speak.
  First, I will respond to the comments of the distinguished Senator 
from Alaska. I hope she will understand there are many of us who have 
viewed her amendment with substantial alarm, for reasons that I thought 
I might spend a few moments speaking about.
  Essentially, as I understood the amendment, which was blocked from 
coming to the floor, it attempted to prohibit the EPA from using any 
funds to enforce the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
from stationary sources.
  The proponents have argued that their only goal was to protect small 
family-owned farms and businesses from overly burdensome regulations. 
Yet the amendment would have gone much further. In fact, it would 
actually exempt some of the Nation's largest commercial emitters from 
climate change regulation, including huge industrial facilities, such 
as powerplants and refineries.
  I am very pleased that this amendment is not before us today. The 
underlying rationale, as I understand it from the amendment, is 
groundless. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has made it clear that the 
agency will not use the Clean Air Act to regulate either small 
businesses or family-owned farms. I was prepared, should the amendment 
have come up, to put down a side-by-side amendment that would have 
clearly exempted any farm, as well as any business, that emits under 
25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
  Let me point this out. Stationary industrial sources account for over 
half of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to EPA. These are 
the leading cause of climate change, and they must be reduced if we 
have any hope of containing the worst impact of climate change. The 
amendment would have hampered the administration's effort to tackle one 
of the biggest pieces of the emissions puzzle: large industrial 
facilities. It would have been a major setback.
  Thirdly, the amendment would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's 
landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that decision, the Court 
found that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to determine whether the 
emissions of greenhouse gases may be reasonably anticipated to endanger 
public health or welfare and then comply with the Clean Air Act 
requirements designed to protect public health from dangerous 
pollution.
  Upon completion of an endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act 
requires EPA to control greenhouse gases from both stationary and 
mobile sources.
  Many argue--and I happen to agree--that regulating the largest 
greenhouse gas emitters through new legislation, establishing a cap-
and-trade system, would be more efficient and less expensive than 
regulating these sources under the existing Clean Air Act.
  But until Congress enacts climate change legislation, EPA has a legal 
obligation to follow the Clean Air Act. So if one does not want EPA to 
take action under the Clean Air Act, then this body should want to pass 
a cap-and-trade bill.
  The chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator Boxer, has been working 
very hard to put together a bill which has an opportunity to pass this 
Senate.
  The point is, if we do not want the Clean Air Act to prevail, then 
the cap-and-trade bill is the only way to go. That is a clear incentive 
for the Senate and the House to pass a bill.
  EPA has released a draft endangerment finding which it is going to 
soon finalize. Yet the amendment would have blocked EPA from completing 
the endangerment finding and from complying with its legal obligations 
to protect public health. The repercussions would have been major. It 
means EPA would not be able to complete a joint rulemaking with the 
Department of Transportation to increase corporate average fuel 
economy, which we call CAFE, and create a tailpipe emissions standard 
for automobiles.
  That would have been a major problem. It would block implementation 
of the 2007 fuel economy law which I authored with Senator Snowe and 
which took us a long time to get passed and enacted.
  By undermining the negotiated agreement between States and the Obama 
administration, the Murkowski amendment would also have likely resulted 
in States moving forward with their own tailpipe emissions standards 
which automakers have fought for years as too onerous. This would have 
stopped California and 14 other States and the District of Columbia 
from moving forward with implementing tailpipe emissions standards.
  This amendment is vigorously opposed by the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, which includes General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, the 
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the United 
Auto Workers. To that end, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a letter from the Auto 
Alliance and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, finally, the amendment would send the 
wrong signal to the rest of the world about the Senate's intentions on 
climate change. It would suggest that we want to ignore the clear 
imperative to act, despite the efforts of the administration to 
motivate the international community in advance of the Copenhagen 
summit.
  There is some concern also about small emitters. EPA is not planning 
to regulate small emitters. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has clearly 
stated on several occasions that the agency will not regulate small 
emitters. She said it in her confirmation hearings, she said it again 
at Senate budget hearings, and she reiterated that comment when she 
appeared before the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing 
on EPA's fiscal year 2010 budget just a few months ago.
  In fact, Administrator Jackson has sent a draft deregulatory rule to 
the Office of Management and Budget for review which would establish 
clearly that all but the very largest sources of greenhouse gas will be 
preemptively exempted from the stationary source permitting 
requirements in the Clean Air Act.
  She has no intention of regulating small sources that emit under 
25,000 tons of carbon dioxide or any small farm.
  Mr. President, 25,000 metric tons is a very high threshold. According 
to EPA, it is equivalent to the emissions from burning 131 trainloads 
of coal per year--these would be exempted--or burning 2.8 million 
gallons of gasoline annually.
  The 25,000-ton threshold would exempt every small source, focusing 
only on 13,000 of the largest emitters in the United States.
  Let me say that again. The 25,000-ton threshold which EPA intends to 
proceed with, and which my side-by-side amendment would have had as one 
of the two criteria, would exempt every small source, focusing only on 
the 13,000 largest emitters in the United States.
  EPA intends to only regulate the largest facilities, and these 
facilities are, almost without exception, already regulated under the 
Clean Air Act for emissions of other pollutants such as soot, smog-
forming nitrous oxides, or acid-rain-inducing sulfur dioxide.

[[Page 22597]]

  Let me now explain why the Murkowski Amendment would impact the joint 
EPA-Department of Transportation rulemaking on automobile greenhouse 
gas emissions.
  This rulemaking is of critical importance, and the regulation 
implementing this law was negotiated by the White House in cooperation 
with automakers, the States, and labor.
  But according to a letter I received from EPA Administrator Lisa 
Jackson last night, the impact of the Murkowski amendment ``would be to 
make it impossible for the EPA to promulgate the light-duty vehicle 
greenhouse-gas emissions standards that the agency proposed on 
September 15, 2009.''
  She writes:

       Because of the way the Clean Air Act is written, 
     promulgation of the proposed light-duty vehicle rule will 
     automatically make carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to 
     regulation under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources, as 
     well as for light-duty vehicles. The only way that EPA could 
     comply with the prohibition in Senator Murkowski's amendment 
     would be to not promulgate the light-duty vehicle standards.

  These standards are something Senator Snowe and I have worked on for 
at least 7 years now, beginning with the SUV loophole and ending with 
the bill that became law, would be totally undermined. By undermining 
the negotiated agreement between States, the amendment would also 
likely result in States moving forward with their own tailpipe 
emissions standards.
  As I indicated before, in 2002 California enacted a landmark law to 
reduce tailpipe emissions standards by 30 percent for all new sedans, 
trucks, and SUVs by 2016.
  I also stated that 14 other States--namely, Arizona, Connecticut, 
Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New 
York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the 
District of Columbia--have adopted or announced their intention to 
adopt California's greenhouse gas emissions controls.
  The amendment would have been a major roadblock in efforts to improve 
fuel economy standards for vehicles.
  I don't think we can bury our head in the sand when it comes to 
climate change.
  I would like to conclude by reminding my colleagues that it makes no 
sense at this particular point in time to put on the floor a major 
amendment which well could have devastated both the EPA and any effort 
to get to cap-and-trade legislation when, in fact, the EPW Committee is 
struggling to write a comprehensive bill which has an opportunity to 
pass this body.
  Again I say, if people do not want the Clean Air Act prevailing, then 
the only way you can do that is with a cap-and-trade bill. That is the 
way the committee of this body is proceeding. I believe it is the 
correct way.
  I believe our Nation is in serious jeopardy, as is the rest of planet 
Earth, with global warming. I believe it is real. Just this week, the 
Journal Nature published a new paper that found rapid deterioration of 
the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. Yesterday on this floor, I 
showed the deterioration in the Arctic. I showed the deterioration in 
Greenland. I showed the deterioration in the Chukchi Sea. I showed the 
deterioration off Barrow, AK. It is happening all over the world.
  The Flat Earth Society cannot prevail. I think there is a real danger 
signal out there for planet Earth. We know we cannot reverse it. We 
know that greenhouse gases do not dissipate and go away after a period 
of time in the atmosphere. We now know these gases that began during 
the Industrial Revolution are still present in the atmosphere, and we 
know that the Earth is not immutable, that it can change. We look at 
other planets and we see that they have changed over the millennia. 
What we do here to protect our planet Earth for the next generations is 
so key and critical.
  This discussion has to be joined in an appropriate way, and an 
appropriate way is when a cap-and-trade bill is produced by the 
Environment and Public Works Committee and the chairman of that 
committee is on this floor and the bill is open for amendments and 
there is a free flow of debate and discussion.
  I believe the science is real. I pointed out yesterday we have a 
project in intelligence whereby the satellites are tracking 
deterioration in the ice shelves of the world. I hope to present more 
of that information when there is a bill on the Senate floor.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Administrator 
Lisa Jackson's letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       United States Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2009.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter about 
     Senator Lisa Murkowski's Amendment Number 2530 to H.R. 2996, 
     the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act. As you noted in your letter, 
     Senator Murkowski's amendment would prohibit the 
     Environmental Protection Agency from using any funds made 
     available under the Act to take any action that would have 
     the effect of making carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to 
     regulation under the Clean Air Act for any source other than 
     a mobile source.
       You asked me what the practical impact would be if Congress 
     enacted Senator Murkowski's amendment. Perhaps the most 
     striking impact would be to make it impossible for the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate the light-duty 
     vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions standards that the agency 
     proposed on September 15, 2009. Because of the way the Clean 
     Air Act is written, promulgation of the proposed light-duty 
     vehicle rule will automatically make carbon dioxide a 
     pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act for 
     stationary sources, as well as for light-duty vehicles. The 
     only way that EPA could comply with the prohibition in 
     Senator Murkowski's amendment would be to not promulgate the 
     light-duty vehicle standards.
       As you know, promulgation of EPA's light-duty vehicle 
     greenhouse-gas emissions standards is an essential part of 
     the historic agreement that President Obama announced earlier 
     this year with the nation's auto-makers, the State of 
     California, the Department of Transportation, and EPA. That 
     agreement attracted broad, bi-partisan support. The joint 
     DOT-EPA standards are projected to save 1.8 billion barrels 
     of oil over the life of the program, which is twice the 
     amount of oil (crude oil and products) imported in 2008 from 
     the Persian Gulf countries, according to the Department of 
     Energy's Energy Information Administration Office. 
     Additionally, the standards are projected to help save 
     consumers more than $3,000 over the lifetime of a model year 
     2016 vehicle and reduce approximately 900 million metric tons 
     of greenhouse gas emissions. Enactment of Senator Murkowski's 
     amendment would pull the plug on those extraordinary 
     accomplishments.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lisa P. Jackson,
                                                    Administrator.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               September 24, 2009.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: We are writing regarding Senator 
     Murkowski's Amendment Number 2530 to H.R. 2996, the 
     Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act. As manufacturers, we are sympathetic to 
     the thrust of Senator Murkowski's amendment that the 
     Congress--and not simply EPA acting under the provisions of 
     the current Clean Air Act--should determine how best to 
     reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide.
       However, the amendment raises additional issues that must 
     be considered where complicated and interconnected 
     environmental and legal issues are at stake. We are concerned 
     that due to the complex interactions among regulations under 
     the various sections of the Clean Air Act, the amendment may 
     impact significantly pending regulations in the mobile source 
     sector--despite language in the amendment that would appear 
     to leave the sector unaffected. In a letter to Senator 
     Feinstein dated September 23, Administrator Jackson stated 
     EPA's interpretation that the Murkowski amendment as filed 
     would ``make it impossible for the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to promulgate the light-duty vehicle greenhouse-gas 
     emissions standards that the agency proposed on September 15, 
     2009.''
       While the author of the amendment appears not to intend 
     this outcome, we feel compelled to express our concerns. It 
     is critical that the national program for regulating 
     greenhouse gas emissions from autos be finalized early next 
     year. Failure to do so would subject automakers to a 
     patchwork of conflicting state and federal regulations.
       Therefore, we respectfully oppose the adoption of the 
     Murkowski amendment as written to H.R. 2996.
           Sincerely,
     Dave McCurdy,
       President & CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

[[Page 22598]]


     Michael Stanton,
       President & CEO, Association of International Automobile 
     Manufacturers.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, 
I apparently had 30 minutes. Can the Chair tell me if I have time 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma had 
wanted to make a couple comments, but I would like to take a couple 
extra minutes before I turn to him in response to my friend and 
colleague from California.
  In many ways, she has made my point or supported the argument. I 
would agree that, in fact, in order to deal with this very timely 
issue, this very significant issue, we must act. I just do not believe 
that utilizing the regulation, moving a climate change regulation 
through the EPA, is the best instrument, the most effective instrument.
  The people I represent back home are very concerned about this, as I 
have indicated, and are expecting their Congress to act. But they do 
not feel very comfortable with unelected bureaucrats in the 
Environmental Protection Agency telling them that, in fact, this is the 
road we are going to be going down, with no real appreciation or 
sensitivity to the environmental factors that we in this body assess as 
we are trying to advance policy. We need to be driving forward good, 
thoughtful, considered, reasonable policy on the issue of climate 
change.
  I am not disagreeing we stop on this issue. I am simply suggesting we 
need to make sure it is Congress, it is through the legislative process 
that we advance these very important policy initiatives.
  I do want to also make a comment about the concern that somehow or 
another my legislation would pull back on what the EPA is currently 
doing with mobile sources, the emissions from tailpipes. I don't think 
we could have drafted the amendment any more clear to ensure that it is 
specific as to the stationary sources.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to make sure they are looking at the 
draft of the amendment we have proposed and not some previous 
initiatives.
  One final point before I turn to Senator Inhofe. The point has been 
made by my colleague from California that the Administrator for EPA has 
said it is not her intention to be regulating the small emitters--the 
farms, the small businesses. She has made those statements, and I 
appreciate that, but the problem we face is the Clean Air Act, which 
doesn't give her that flexibility to change the Clean Air Act. She is 
obligated to regulate those entities that emit in excess of 250 tons. 
These are our smaller emitters. So even though she may have suggested 
or stated this is not her intention to go down that road--she can 
perhaps move forward with this tailoring proposal, but as I stand 
before you, I can almost bet that will be challenged in court and it 
will not pass the test and we will be stuck with what we are all 
attempting to avoid, which is capturing the smaller businesses--the 
restaurants, the drycleaners, et cetera--into this net as we try to 
provide for the regulation of the major emitters.
  I am sure we will have plenty of opportunity on this floor to 
continue this debate, but at this time, Mr. President, I yield the 
remainder of my time to my colleague from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I only want to be here to thank the 
Senator from Alaska and Senator Thune for trying to bring to our 
attention the issue of the endangerment findings. I have been 
discussing the incoming economic train wreck that can result from these 
regulations since the case of Massachusetts v. EPA was decided back in 
2007. The EPA's regulatory reach could go everywhere. It could go into 
schools, hospitals, assisted-living facilities, and just about any 
activity that meets the minimum thresholds of the Clean Air Act.
  Despite the attempts to draft an exemption for small businesses by 
the senior Senator from California, this effort would be hollow at 
best. Upon issuance of mobile source regulations the EPA has proposed 
in its light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, the 
farmers and small sources still retain the obligation under the Clean 
Air Act, and this obligation is enforceable through citizen suits which 
we have confirmed through environmental groups will follow. So we know 
that is going to happen.
  I would have to say, as the ranking member on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, the more we get into this, the more 
complications we find. In the process of coming up with some type of an 
endangerment finding, we find that the information science has been 
suppressed. We know of the case of Dr. Alan Carlin, who claims his 
assessment of the latest science on global warming wasn't considered in 
the endangerment proposal. So we have the endangerment proposal. And 
some people are not aware of how this process works; that ultimately, 
if the findings are there, that is when they reach into every life in 
America. However, this Dr. Carlin has been with the EPA for a long 
period of time, and he was upset that his information was intentionally 
suppressed.
  Then we find out that information concerning the economics, such as 
we found through the U.S. Treasury's assessment when they were trying 
to say, during the consideration of, perhaps this modified bill that it 
would be the cost of a postage stamp a day, that in fact it would have 
been some $1,761 per family every year--we tried to relate that back to 
what kind of a tax increase this is. If you remember back in the year 
1993, we had the Clinton-Gore tax increase--the largest tax increase in 
decades. It was the inheritance tax, marginal rates, capital gains, and 
every kind of tax imaginable. If you add all that up, that was a $32 
billion tax increase. This would be almost 10 times that much.
  So I think, as we progress along the lines of the endangerment 
finding, we know how it will be life changing for every element of our 
society. So I appreciate the efforts of both Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Thune to bring this issue of endangerment findings to the 
forefront. I am not sure it is the best idea to try to get a 1-year 
moratorium because in a way that might suppress some of the activity 
that is going on to expose how bad this is to the public.
  Having said that, I appreciate being yielded a small amount of time, 
and I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2549

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand to briefly discuss my amendment, 
No. 2549, which is about the so-called czar issue that has a number of 
Members on both sides of the aisle very concerned.
  As I introduce this amendment, Mr. President, let me ask unanimous 
consent to add Senators Grassley, Bunning, Roberts, and Brownback as 
coauthors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, at this point, I call up amendment No. 
2549.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself and 
     Mr. Grassley, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Brownback, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2549.

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

(Purpose: To ensure that the Assistant to the President for Energy and 
  Climate Change (commonly known as the ``White House Climate Change 
Czar'') is not directing actions of departments and agencies funded by 
                               this Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


                           funding limitation

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated for the purpose

[[Page 22599]]

     of departments or agencies funded by this Act and lead by 
     Senate-confirmed appointees implementing policies of the 
     Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change 
     (commonly known as the ``White House Climate Change Czar'').

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I did just waive reading of the amendment, 
but I am going to read it. It is very short and very to the point, and 
I think simply reading the language is the best way to introduce the 
concept.
  The language is very clear:

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded 
     by this Act and led by Senate-confirmed appointees 
     implementing policies of the Assistant to the President for 
     Energy and Climate Change (commonly known as the ``White 
     House Climate Change Czar'').

  That is the entire amendment, and the amendment is, again, very 
simple and straightforward. The point it is making is that we have 
Cabinet-level appointees. They come before the Senate for vetting and 
they come before the Senate for confirmation. After they are confirmed, 
they come before the House and Senate on a regular basis as part of our 
oversight responsibilities. This constitutional structure should not be 
superceded by these so-called czars which have grown enormously under 
this administration.
  In making this argument, let me say that this argument has nothing to 
do with Carol Browner and her qualifications. It is not an attack on 
her. It is an attack, quite frankly, on the concept of these multitude 
of czars and the fact that they are an end run around the 
constitutional process by which top Cabinet and other officials of any 
administration are confirmed by the Senate and regularly come before 
the House and Senate as part of our oversight process.
  We all know this particular administration has developed an 
unprecedented number of these so-called czars. We have seen a dramatic 
increase in this phenomenon. Politico wrote that President Obama ``is 
taking the notion of a powerful White House staff to new heights'' and 
that he is creating ``perhaps the most powerful staff in modern 
history.'' Specifically, the President has created 18 new czar 
positions, and I want to focus on those 18 positions.
  This czar concept is obviously very general and somewhat undefined. 
What I am talking about are those 18 positions because none of those 
positions are established by statute. Congress has not authorized or 
established any of those positions, No. 1; No. 2, none of those 
individuals have come before the Senate for confirmation; and No. 3, 
none of those positions preexisted this administration. As I said a 
while ago, this has raised concerns among a number of Senators and 
certainly among the American people.
  As I began my remarks, I added as coauthors of this amendment 
Senators Grassley, Bunning, Roberts, and Brownback. In addition, the 
distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who chairs the relevant 
authorization committee, has expressed grave concern about this same 
phenomenon and, in fact, has another amendment about this very issue. 
Unfortunately, that amendment is going to be struck down as legislating 
on an appropriations bill. But she has expressed concern. She 
spearheaded a letter signed by herself and Senator Alexander and others 
which she sent to the President.
  In addition, and this is very important, this has been a bipartisan 
concern. Going back to February of this year, the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, wrote the administration expressing 
strong and grave concern about the constitutional implications of all 
of these czars. Again, the 18 I am talking about are not created by 
statute, have not been confirmed by the Senate, and never existed prior 
to this administration. Also, within the last 2 weeks, Senator 
Feingold, in addition, has expressed strong and serious concern about 
exactly the same issue and has written to the administration.
  The purpose of my amendment is to say quite simply that when we have 
an agency, when we have a department that is led by a Senate-confirmed 
appointee, we shouldn't have a so-called White House czar ordering that 
appointee or ordering that agency or that department to do things, 
particularly when that White House czar is not an office created by law 
through Congress, is not a Senate-confirmed position, and did not exist 
in any form or fashion prior to this administration.
  In terms of my specific amendment, I have chosen to focus on the 
Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, commonly 
known as the White House climate change czar, for one simple reason: 
First, she is among this 18 never created by statute, never confirmed 
by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration, and she is 
clearly in a very powerful position--apparently giving orders to 
Senate-confirmed appointees such as the head of EPA. Of course, the EPA 
is governed by this appropriations bill now on the floor, so that is 
why I chose to focus on this particular czar position.
  Clearly, this particular czar meets all of those criteria which give 
rise to my concerns. The President himself, when he appointed this 
czar, said, ``She will be indispensable in implementing an ambitious 
and complex energy policy.''
  In addition, there have been several media reports about her dominant 
stature and dominant role in these sorts of considerations. The Wall 
Street Journal, for instance, on September 11 of this year, reported:

       Ms. Browner helped broker a fuel-standards deal between the 
     administration and automakers earlier this year and has been 
     a conspicuous presence in climate negotiations with Congress. 
     Energy Secretary Steven Chu, meanwhile, has been largely tied 
     up administering billions of dollars in stimulus projects. 
     Ms. Browner, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

  Also, Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, 
and Carol Browner were key in crafting a plan to impose the first-ever 
national carbon limits on cars and trucks.
  On May 20, the New York Times reported the following:

       In an interview yesterday, Nichols said Browner quietly 
     orchestrated private discussions from the White House with 
     auto industry officials.

  The obvious question this gives rise to is, What about the head of 
the Senate-confirmed Energy Department? What about the head of the EPA, 
Senate confirmed? Those folks seem to be shoved to the side, and this 
new super agency head, a super Cabinet Member seems to be playing a far 
more dominant role in key issues that are clearly under the purview of 
the Energy Department and the EPA. Again, this gives rise to serious 
constitutional concerns. A number of Senators, Republicans and 
Democrats, have expressed these concerns--Senator Collins, Senator 
Byrd, Senator Feinstein, Senator Alexander. So this is a germane 
limitation amendment that goes absolutely to the heart of the matter: 
Should these czars, positions never created by Congress or by statute, 
never confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this 
administration--should these czars have a role that is more significant 
than Senate-confirmed Cabinet Secretaries or agency heads?
  Again, I have very carefully crafted an amendment to go specifically 
to this point. Let me read it word for word. It is not long.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded 
     by this Act and led by Senate-confirmed appointees 
     implementing policies of the Assistant to the President for 
     Energy and Climate Change (commonly known as the ``White 
     House Climate Change Czar'').

  It does not say you cannot implement policies of the President of the 
United States. Obviously, the President is elected by the people and 
the President obviously ranks higher than the head of EPA or anyone 
else. But it does say the head of EPA, a Senate-confirmed position, 
should not be ranked below some so-called czar, a position never before 
created by Congress, never confirmed by the Senate, never existing 
prior to this administration.
  I encourage all my colleagues to stand up for the rights and the 
proper constitutional role of the Senate. We play a vital role, 
particularly with regard to Presidential appointments because only the 
Senate has advice and consent powers. I urge my colleagues

[[Page 22600]]

to stand up for that constitutional role, to preserve that vital 
constitutional role, and not to allow so-called White House czars to be 
an end-run around it and to minimize that role in a significant way.
  This is a significant constitutional issue, it is a significant 
bipartisan issue, and I urge support of my amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Louisiana. Over the past several weeks we have seen 
issues raised with increasing frequency and volume around the use of 
the word ``czar'' by the Obama administration.
  I do believe it is unfair to suggest that the White House has a 
climate czar directing EPA's actions behind the scenes. I do not 
believe that is true. Effectively, the title ``czar,'' as we all know, 
does not exist. The current Assistant to the President for Energy and 
Climate is there to serve as an adviser to the President and to 
Administrator Jackson on energy and environmental issues. She also 
coordinates the work of multiple Cabinet level agencies on one of 
President Obama's key policy priorities--clean energy and jobs that are 
essential for long-term economic growth.
  In a way, this is becoming quite political because it is not unusual 
for a President to have high-level staff members in the White House who 
help to coordinate policy issues that touch a number of Federal 
agencies. We have heard a lot about it. What we do not hear is that 
President Bush had 47 such advisers for other issues. We Democrats did 
not make a huge issue about it. So I have a hard time understanding, 
with all of the concern over climate change and the rapidity with which 
it is moving, that a Special Assistant to the President who was head of 
the EPA during the Clinton administration is somebody who is spurious. 
She is steeped in this. She can give the President good advice. He 
wants her to be an assistant. So I do not understand quite why she is 
being picked on.
  I still believe the day-to-day work of protecting the environment is 
very much driven by Administrator Jackson and the EPA staff. I have met 
with the Administrator. I spoke with her on the phone this morning. I 
read into the Record a letter she wrote yesterday. She is very much 
hands-on. So I think all of the energy going into these attacks ought 
to be put into perspective, and that perspective is that the former 
President of the United States had 47 special assistants. We didn't 
make a big deal of it. So I do not understand why this one position is 
now taken and an amendment is there to eliminate it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Vitter amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I want to very briefly rebut some of the 
arguments of the distinguished Senator from California. First of all, 
in her last sentence she characterized the amendment as an amendment to 
eliminate the position. Of course it does not eliminate the position in 
any way.
  She said earlier that Carol Browner does not tell EPA what to do. If 
that is the case, then this amendment will not have to change anything 
she does or how she operates and we should all come together to support 
the amendment to help allay concerns of the public. The amendment does 
not prohibit her from advising the President. The amendment does not 
prohibit her from coordinating multiagency meetings. The amendment is 
very clear, and it simply prohibits her from ordering around the EPA, 
which has its own Senate-confirmed head.
  Again, I underscore the fact that this amendment is very carefully 
and narrowly written and does not prevent any of the legitimate 
advisory responsibilities that Senator Feinstein has discussed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Perhaps I can engage the Senator from Louisiana. 
Candidly, I do not understand the wording of the amendment. Let me read 
it. You have read it, and I appreciate that. It does not make sense to 
me. Here is how it reads.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded 
     by this Act--

  So none of the funds may be obligated for the purpose of departments 
or agencies funded by this act--

     and lead--

  It says ``lead'' but led, I think that is a misspelling--

     by Senate-confirmed appointees, implementing policies of the 
     Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.

  I don't know what that means on its face.
  Mr. VITTER. I would be happy to explain through the Chair what it 
means. The agency I have in mind, which is funded by this act and led 
by a Senate-confirmed position, is EPA. So it simply means that EPA 
cannot use any of its funds to implement orders, policies, from Carol 
Browner--the White House czar's policies. If the President wants to 
direct them, obviously the President outranks the head of EPA. But a 
White House czar, in a position not created by Congress, not confirmed 
by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration, should not 
be giving orders to a Senate-confirmed Cabinet Member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Carol Brown's title is not czar, it is 
Assistant to the President. The President has chosen to appoint an 
assistant to assist him in evaluating, I assume, various issues 
pertaining to climate change. It is a complicated subject. She has 
experience. She has been in government. She has served as head of a 
department. But the actual policies come over the signature of the 
Administrator of the EPA.
  What you are saying is, essentially, then, the President cannot have 
any special assistant for the purpose of coordination, asking 
questions, informing, helping produce--it does not make sense to me. I 
think on its face it is not clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, to wrap up, my amendment says none of 
that. My amendment does not prevent this climate change czar from 
informing and assisting the President. My amendment does not prevent 
her from convening multiagency and multidepartment meetings. My 
amendment doesn't say any of that and doesn't prevent any of that. It 
simply prevents her from ordering the EPA, headed by a Senate-confirmed 
appointee, to do certain things.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, I would like to respond to that. Let me 
give an example. The CIA is headed by a Senate-confirmed Director, Leon 
Panetta. He carries on policies from the National Security Council led 
by General Jones, a nonconfirmed official. Does the Senator from 
Louisiana believe that the National Security Adviser to the President 
should not have any role in intelligence and national security matters? 
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  Mr. VITTER. Through the Chair, my answer is no, I don't believe that. 
My amendment has nothing to do with that, and, by the way, that 
position is created by statute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may, I know the Senator from Missouri is waiting 
to speak because he has an important meeting to go to. But if I could 
take 2 minutes, I think the Senator from Louisiana is making a point 
that concerns not just him but a number of us in the Senate on both 
sides of the aisle. Maybe the best way to suggest that is this way.
  No. 1, the focus should be on the 18 new czars appointed by this 
President who were not confirmed, never have existed before, and the 
number of them.
  No. 2, it was not the Republican side of the aisle that raised these 
concerns first. Perhaps this would best express the concern that many 
of us have. It was offered by Senator Byrd, senior Member of the 
Senate, the constitutional conscience of the Senate, who in

[[Page 22601]]

a letter on February 23 said--this was a letter to President Obama--

       The rapid easy accumulation of power by White House staff 
     can threaten the constitutional system of checks and 
     balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken 
     direction and control of problematic areas that are the 
     statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.

  That would be exactly the point in terms of an environment or energy 
czar and energy or environment Secretary.

       As Presidential assistants and advisers,

  Senator Byrd goes on to say--

     these White House staffers are not accountable for their 
     actions to Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually 
     anyone but the President. They rarely testify before 
     Congressional committees--

  Et cetera.
  Then, Senator Collins, on behalf of six Senators, wrote the President 
a very respectful letter focusing on the 18 new czars who had been 
appointed by the President simply asking what their authorities and 
duties are, how they are appointed, whether they are willing to 
testify, whether they would consult with us. Senator Feingold, the 
Democratic chairman on the constitution subcommittee, has expressed his 
concern and indicated he might hold hearings.
  I think Senator Vitter is selecting a single example of this unusual 
number of new czars and raising the question of the constitutional 
checks and balances that is the same issue that Senator Byrd and 
Senator Feingold and many of the rest of us raised.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, through the Chair, I thank my colleague from 
South Dakota, Senator Thune, for allowing me to speak for a minute. We 
agreed to do that rather than to offer amendments that I intended to 
propose to this bill. I want to make sure everybody understands a 
concern that Senator Thune, many others, and I have; that is, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's potential efforts to push through 
back-door carbon regulations which they cannot achieve legislatively on 
the Senate floor.
  EPA, over the next several years, may attempt to impose trillions of 
dollars in new energy taxes that will kill millions of jobs. Of course 
they will say that is not their intent. They want to control climate. 
But that will be the impact of regulations they could issue over the 
next few years to control carbon emissions.
  Experts have told us the House-passed Waxman-Markey legislation would 
kill 2.4 million American jobs and impose new energy taxes on the 
American people. Even President Obama has previously confirmed that 
under his plan for carbon emission mandates, electricity prices will 
``necessarily skyrocket.''
  ``Necessarily skyrocket''. Those are the President's words. In the 
EPW Committee, I presented information from the Missouri University 
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute which determined that 
the Waxman-Markey legislation would raise farm production for an 
average family-run commercial production farmer who grows corn and 
soybeans by about $11,000 in 2020 and rising to over $30,000 by 2050.
  In this time of suffering, when so many people are out of work and so 
many family budgets are stretched thin, I cannot, in good conscience, 
stand by and remain quiet when there is a potential that such new 
energy taxes would be imposed on American families, farmers, and 
workers. It is no wonder the Senate is pausing before we jump off the 
cliff.
  Senators, especially from manufacturing and the coal-dependent 
heartland where I am from, know how much this bill will punish the 
Midwest, South, and Great Plains. This spring, EPA began the process to 
start limiting carbon emissions through regulations, and they will do 
it through expensive plant-by-plant command-and-control regulations, 
not a cap-and-trade system.
  Some say we could limit this problem by not regulating small 
emitters. But that is no different than Waxman-Markey, which already 
exempts small emitters. Thus, similar to Waxman-Markey's national 
energy tax, regulations that exempt small emitters would still impose a 
national energy tax and kill millions of jobs. Every family will be hit 
by higher electricity prices when they go after the large electricity-
producing companies.
  They will face more money for heating, more money for gasoline, more 
money for diesel fuel--if you are on the farm--more money for almost 
everything they buy that is produced with energy, which is just about 
everything that is not in the IT world, although there will be costs 
there too.
  Businesses will face large increases in backdoor costs put on them by 
higher prices they must pay, even if they fall below the threshold. 
These costs, the backdoor impact of these costs, will be felt on 
families, on workers who can lose their jobs.
  That is why I proposed two amendments to prevent EPA from imposing 
backdoor carbon regulations when they result in lost American jobs or 
raise costs unacceptably for farmers. I was gratified when the Senate 
earlier passed a version of my jobs amendment during the budget debate. 
But the leaders on the majority side stripped the job protection out of 
the bill, leaving workers vulnerable again.
  They again, during this debate, will not allow us to protect workers 
from job-killing carbon proposals, but we will continue to educate the 
American people on how much they will suffer under proposed carbon 
legislation and regulation.
  I have to add one last word about my friends and majority colleagues, 
Senators Kerry and Boxer. There continue to be reports that their bill 
will not include, in writing, before anybody votes on it, crucial 
sections on how they would distribute their program carbon allowances.
  This, regrettably, would hide, not only from us but from the American 
people, the true costs of the energy tax they propose to impose.
  If my Senator friends from Massachusetts and California believe truly 
in what they are doing, they should not hide the provisions from us. 
They should give us the time and the American people the time they need 
to determine the bill's impact.
  With millions of jobs on the line and trillions of dollars in tax 
increases at stake, the American people deserve no less. I call on my 
colleagues to stand for the suffering people of America who are 
burdened already by energy costs and could pay much more. I call on 
people who may be affected to let their Members of Congress know how 
they feel.
  Nobody is going to put out a mandate saying we cannot encourage them 
to speak. Nobody, no czar is going to come down and say: You cannot 
express your opinion. I have expressed mine. I have found a lot of 
people--almost everybody I talk to who raised the subject in my State 
of Missouri agrees.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to table the Vitter amendment No. 2549. I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. President, I withdraw that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of an amendment 
that was offered earlier today, actually it was filed, I think it was 
attempted to be called up by Senator Murkowski. The Democratic majority 
objected to getting a vote on that amendment, which, I think, suggests 
they do not want to have a vote on that amendment. Frankly, I can see 
why.
  From what I hear about the whole debate on climate change and cap-
and-trade legislation that has passed in the House, it will not be 
voted on in the Senate this year. The reason it will not be voted on is 
because there are a lot of people in this Chamber who, I think, do not 
want to have that vote because they know it is a bad vote for them to 
make.
  Fear not, EPA has come to the rescue of people who want to see a lot 
of this stuff accomplished but do not want to have to make a tough 
political vote on it. So what we are now faced with is the 
Environmental Protection Agency deciding they are going to regulate 
carbon emissions under the Clean

[[Page 22602]]

Air Act and moving forward with the regulations to do that.
  The Murkowski amendment would essentially prevent funds from being 
used to do that. It weighs in favor of having Congress deal with this 
very complex, very weighty, very consequential, and very costly issue 
to the American people.
  This legislation, as we all know, would increase energy prices, cost 
us jobs, be unfair to entire regions of the country, mine included, 
enlarge an already bloated bureaucracy in Washington, DC, and put our 
Nation at a certain economic disadvantage.
  I have been skeptical of that controversial legislation that has 
passed the House, the cap-and-trade bill over there, for some time, for 
the reasons I have mentioned.
  Additionally, I think it is fair to say there would be very little 
environmental benefit derived from that legislation, were it enacted, 
without binding, enforceable commitments by China, by India, and other 
developing countries that are now significant sources of carbon 
emissions.
  I find it disappointing that in the middle of this important debate 
the administration wants to use the back door--issuing regulations to 
cap carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act because they cannot get a 
Waxman-Markey type climate bill through the front door.
  Instead, the relevant committees of this body and the Senate as a 
whole should be able to consider whether now is the right time for a 
new massive energy tax disguised as an EPA regulation.
  During the previous administration, the EPA had published an Advanced 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that showed just how impractical it would 
be to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the 
Clean Air Act.
  These onerous regulations covered homes, schools, churches, 
hospitals, small businesses and potentially even small farms with 
livestock.
  Under the Clean Air Act, the primary mechanism for regulating carbon 
emissions would be a fee placed on each ton of covered pollutant 
emitted above a certain threshold.
  This fee, if applied to carbon emissions, is nothing more than a tax 
on energy that would have severe consequences as our economy struggles 
to recover from a long recession.
  While the Bush administration regulations never made it past an 
initial draft, the Obama EPA is moving quickly to finalize an 
endangerment finding and regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
  In April 2009, the EPA issued a draft endangerment finding that 
linked emissions from motor vehicles to an endangerment of human 
health.
  The comment period has closed on this draft endangerment finding, and 
when the EPA issues a final ruling it will trigger an array of 
regulations under the Clean Air Act.
  These command and control regulations will have far reaching 
consequences for our economy at a time when we can least afford it.
  According to media reports, EPA will eventually propose regulations 
for not just mobile sources, but stationary sources that emit over 
25,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
  The first round of regulations on stationary sources would cover 
approximately 13,000 facilities in the United States.
  These include powerplants, large manufacturing facilities, 
refineries, fertilizer manufacturers, and a long list of other 
facilities that are critical to the health of our economy.
  In South Dakota, these regulations would place a tax on powerplants, 
ethanol refineries, and even our largest public university.
  And we need to remember that these companies will pass these new 
costs on to you and me. Now is an especially bad time to saddle the 
American people with what is in effect a gigantic new energy tax that 
would cause electricity, gasoline, and home heating costs to skyrocket.
  Additionally, pending the outcome of the final endangerment finding, 
the EPA might be legally bound to regulate all sources that emit over 
250 tons of carbon dioxide.
  If this statutory threshold of the Clean Air Act is enforced, over 1 
million carbon-emitting entities would be faced with a new tax, 
including commercial buildings, churches, homes, schools, restaurants, 
and manufacturing facilities both big and small.
  Regulation of carbon dioxide is far too important for EPA and the 
administration to craft expensive, cumbersome, top-down regulations 
under the Clean Air Act.
  Republicans in the Senate know this, Democrats in the Senate know 
this, the EPA knows this and the White House knows this.
  Last year, Congressman John Dingell said that EPA greenhouse gas 
regulations would lead to ``a glorious mess.'' He continued by stating 
that ``As a matter of national policy, it seems . . . insane that we 
would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment, which everybody 
tells us has to be addressed with great immediacy, to a long and 
complex process of regulatory action.''
  Congressman Dingell said it best when he concluded that carbon 
regulation under EPA had ``the potential for shutting down or slowing 
down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.''
  According to an OMB memo associated with EPA's endangerment finding, 
``Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air 
Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences 
for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small 
businesses and small communities.''
  Representative Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agriculture 
Committee, noted in a recent op-ed that EPA regulations of greenhouse 
gas emissions would result ``in one of the largest and most 
bureaucratic nightmares that the U.S. economy and Americans have ever 
seen.''
  Senator Murkowski and I have filed an amendment to the fiscal year 
2010 Interior and Environment appropriations bill that would prohibit 
the EPA from moving forward with regulations on carbon dioxide emitted 
from stationary sources for 1 year.
  This amendment is not intended to impact the recent announcement from 
EPA and the Department of Transportation regarding new tailpipe 
emission requirements for new cars and light trucks.
  Additionally, this amendment is not intended to impact the regulation 
of other greenhouse gasses, such as hydrofloural carbons, which are 
also included in the proposed endangerment finding.
  This amendment would simply delay the expensive, top-down regulation 
of carbon emissions from thousands if not 1 million stationary sources 
in the United States.
  For those Senators who wish to regulate carbon emissions through a 
cap-and-trade system, I encourage you to support this amendment as well 
. You should be supporting this amendment.
  This amendment is not about whether carbon dioxide emissions should 
be regulated or whether the Federal Government should take any action 
to reduce carbon emissions. Rather, this amendment is about the process 
of regulating carbon dioxide emissions.
  Should regulations as far reaching and expensive as taxing carbon 
dioxide be determined by EPA bureaucrats behind closed doors? Or should 
carbon regulations be openly debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
  The Murkowski amendment gives the Senate a clear choice.
  Constituents, through their elected representatives, should have a 
voice in that debate. If carbon dioxide regulations moved through the 
EPA unchanged, the American people would be deprived of their 
opportunity to be heard on this very important subject. Meanwhile the 
cost of gasoline, food, and manufactured goods will skyrocket. I urge 
colleagues on both sides to acknowledge the extremely dangerous 
consequences of allowing the administration to unilaterally regulate 
carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. I understand the Murkowski 
amendment will not be allowed to be voted on. I believe the regulations 
that amendment addresses should be delayed until Congress has the 
opportunity to debate the consequences. I

[[Page 22603]]

will continue to work with Senator Murkowski and other colleagues, 
families, and small business, to make them aware of what the EPA 
intends to do by regulation.
  In addition to speaking on the Murkowski amendment, as I have filed 
an amendment which is similar, I ask unanimous consent to call up my 
amendment and ask that it be made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. THUNE. Let me briefly speak to the amendment because it simply 
addresses this subject in a slightly different way. It is clear the 
majority does not want to have a vote on either the Murkowski amendment 
or my amendment because they get at the fundamental issue which is 
whether we are going to have a debate in Congress about regulating 
CO2 emissions or whether we will allow an administrative 
agency, the EPA, to do that for us. I understand my amendment, which 
has now been objected to, will not have a vote. We know where the votes 
are on this. But like the Murkowski amendment, what my amendment is 
designed to do is to shed daylight on harmful regulations that are 
taking shape behind the closed doors of the EPA. My amendment is 
designed to give our constituents a greater say in climate change 
regulations.
  The amendment is also designed to force the EPA to consider the 
dramatic impact these new Clean Air Act regulations on carbon dioxide 
will have on electricity and gasoline prices. If these regulations move 
forward, I am concerned that many families, especially those who rely 
on coal-generated electricity, will see skyrocketing electricity bills. 
I am also concerned for families and truckdrivers who could see 
gasoline and diesel prices go up. EPA regulation of CO2 
would amount to a tax on millions of working-class families.
  During debate on the climate change bill, proponents of cap and trade 
claimed that lower income families will be made whole by giving local 
distribution companies free allowances to meet the new carbon 
regulations. Aside from whether this mechanism would actually limit the 
impact on working families, it is clear such a safeguard is simply not 
possible under the Clean Air Act. Carbon regulations under the Clean 
Air Act would effectively be a huge new tax on electricity and gasoline 
prices paid by families and small businesses.
  Additionally, new taxes under the Clean Air Act would apply to oil 
and ethanol refineries. In South Dakota, we produce approximately a 
billion gallons annually of ethanol. If the EPA moves forward with 
carbon caps under the Clean Air Act, 12 ethanol plants in South Dakota 
will be subject to this new tax. Additionally, we have a large soybean 
processing facility hoping to soon produce biodiesel that would also be 
covered. Not only will these costs be passed on to consumers in the 
form of higher prices at the pump, but the new regulations will be a 
major setback to renewable fuel production. In the end, the energy 
security benefits of domestic renewable fuel production will be 
negatively impacted by these new regulations.
  My amendment 2540 asks EPA to consider the costs and the adverse 
impacts these regulations will have on the economy before moving 
forward with an endangerment finding.
  It is clear that neither the Murkowski amendment nor mine will be 
voted on. This issue is not going away. The EPA is moving forward. The 
House has acted on this issue. The Senate doesn't want to take the hard 
votes on this so they have punted it to the EPA. The EPA is now moving 
forward by regulation to do what Congress doesn't have the courage or 
the will to do, and that is to have a debate about the relative costs 
and, perhaps, benefits of climate change legislation. It is wrong for 
us to allow the bureaucracy at the EPA to move forward with these 
regulations that could be so harmful to our economy, so harmful to 
jobs, so disastrous when it comes to the energy prices paid by families 
and small businesses.
  This issue will be back. Senator Murkowski will bring it back. I will 
bring it back. Others of my colleagues who care about the impact of 
this particular regulation on small businesses and families will be 
back to debate the issue even though the Democratic majority will not 
allow us to get a vote today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Louisiana 
wishes to speak in morning business, which is fine. I wonder if I could 
make one brief announcement. Members are interested in bringing this 
bill to a conclusion. There are a number of amendments that were listed 
in the consent order. I ask that Members come to the floor to call up 
their amendments shortly. Senator Coburn has a number, Senator Reid, 
Senator Collins. Senator Ensign has a motion to recommit. If these 
Members could come to the floor and call up their amendments, it would 
be appreciated. We would be able to, hopefully, conclude the bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am here to make a few comments addressing the points 
raised by Senator Thune and Senator Murkowski. They were going to offer 
an amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator has an hour.
  Mrs. BOXER. I won't be taking that. At what point would the Senator 
like me to use the time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think directly following Senator Landrieu.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is fine. And how long is Senator Landrieu speaking?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Ten minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following 
Senator Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate the leadership of the Senators from 
California and Tennessee, trying to move this important appropriations 
bill through the process. As we heard this morning, there are lots of 
important issues pending. I came to speak for a few minutes not about a 
pending amendment but about an issue bubbling up and brewing in a 
fairly significant way that we will have to address sometime soon, not 
necessarily on this bill today, not necessarily through an amendment 
process to the Interior appropriations, but a program that is in the 
Interior appropriations bill that is screaming for attention. That is 
the program having to do with the management of wild horses. It is not 
a major issue in all 50 States, but it is a big issue to a handful of 
western States and of interest to several of us in this body.
  Let me thank Senator Feinstein and her staff for the leadership they 
are providing in helping us shape policy. She has been extremely 
attentive over the last several months. I thank her. I acknowledge the 
interest of former Senator Salazar, now Secretary of Interior, and his 
top leadership. They have a tremendous amount of issues before them, 
issues that will take a lot of their time. For them to make this a 
priority because some of us have asked them to, I acknowledge that and 
thank them, all the assistant secretaries and staff from the Interior 
Department who are working on this.
  There are two aspects to this important issue. One involves the 
fiscal element which taxpayers are alarmed about. The wild horse 
program, because of its mismanagement and poor, old-fashioned way of 
operating, is chewing up or taking up about three-quarters of the 
budget of the Bureau of Land Management. From a fiscal perspective and 
a financial management perspective, it is crying out for reform.
  On the other hand, there is the view of the inhumaneness of some of 
the practices going on that also cries out for attention. I come to 
speak briefly about both.
  As to the big picture, at the turn of the century, we had about a 
million wild horses in the territory of the United States. It is sad, 
from the perspective of most people, that we are

[[Page 22604]]

now down to 66,000 wild horses and burros basically forced, through 
policies developed in the 1970s, to stay in relatively small places, 
grouped in a few States, most notably the States of Nevada, Wyoming, 
and California, and a few other western States. We also are down to a 
few herds of horses. The reason I believe this is important not only to 
western States or ranchers or landowners or humane societies and others 
is because for the American people generally, the idea of wild spaces 
with wild horses is something that is part of our heritage. We want to 
make sure that heritage is not lost, that we are being responsible in 
terms of the way the land is being used for multiple purposes and, from 
the perspective of horse advocates, that the horses themselves are 
being treated well.
  None of that is now being done in the way that most people would 
appreciate or would be satisfied with. There have been any number of 
studies I will submit for the record. Most recently, the Congressional 
Research Service, as well as the Government Accounting Office, 
suggested major changes to the program. I am going to go through a few 
possible options. One is the creation of several public/private 
sanctuaries. This has been suggested by a few fairly high-profile 
individuals. The idea has merit. We are working with a variety of 
groups, along with the Department, to think about the possibility of 
creating public/private partnerships, large sanctuaries, maybe 500,000 
or a million acres, where thousands of wild horses could not only roam 
freely in a healthy way but could potentially become ecotourist 
opportunities for some of the States and communities, as it would be an 
attraction that could potentially make money and attract people to some 
of the western areas or, for that matter, rural areas in other parts of 
the country.
  There is the possibility of making some smart investments to step up 
some of the adoption programs that might work. There are any number of 
scientific and new technologies that can be brought to bear in terms of 
breed management, reproductive issues that could help us to get a much 
more cost-effective, sane, and humane approach to this problem.
  I wanted to let the managers of this legislation know that while we 
will not have an amendment at this time on the Interior bill, I am 
looking forward to working with members of the Energy Committee who 
have jurisdiction over this matter to review in detail a bill that has 
come over from the House, the ROAM Act, by the chairman of that 
subcommittee, whom I commend for taking the committee's time, 
Congressman Rahall, who sent the bill over here to the Senate. As we 
begin to discuss the ways that bill could potentially be modified, 
working with the Department of Interior to find a long-term solution, 
one that is cost effective, one that is humane, and one that honors the 
great history of wild horses, not just pleasant to look at but helped 
us to settle the West, helped us to open transport and commerce for the 
Nation, have carried us into war, into battle, helped to feed and 
clothe this Nation in our history, needs a bit more attention than what 
they are getting right now.
  In conclusion, there was a disturbing roundup conducted not too long 
ago--just a few weeks ago--and I thank the advocates who brought this 
to my attention and commit to them to continue to work until we find a 
better way forward; again, a way that is good for the wild horses, that 
honors our heritage but is also very respectful of these Western lands 
and the ranchers who have multiple uses of this property.
  I am certain in the Nation God has bequeathed to us we can find 
enough space for everyone if we keep an open mind. I know the Senator 
from Tennessee would agree with that; that if we work hard enough, we 
can find some common ground solutions to this issue.
  I thank the Chair and yield the time. I understand my colleague from 
California is here to speak on a different issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I am on the floor, along with Senator Whitehouse--there may be some 
others--to respond to the remarks made by Senators Murkowski and Thune 
regarding an amendment they very much wanted to put before this body. 
That amendment, simply stated, would stop the Environmental Protection 
Agency from enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to the pollutant 
carbon.
  Some of the things they said are so reminiscent of what was said 
before the Clean Air Act passed, that: Oh, this is going to be a 
terrible thing for our people; and the same thing that was said when 
the Clean Water Act was passed: Oh, this is going to be a burden on 
business. I have to say to this body, the day we turn our back on these 
landmark environmental laws is the day the health of our people will 
suffer. We do not want that to happen.
  I wish to be clear, I know this amendment will come back again and 
again. I know there will be attacks on the Clean Air Act and the Clean 
Water Act. That is an attack on our families. It is particularly an 
attack on our children and on our vulnerable senior citizens and our 
citizens who may have disabilities and who are ill. I will fight it 
with every ounce of my strength every time it rears its ugly head in 
this Chamber.
  The interesting thing is, most of these environmental laws started 
with a Republican President named Richard Nixon. What happened to the 
days when environmental laws were supported on both sides? Those days 
appear to be gone.
  What I would like to do is--I am going to yield up to 20 minutes to 
the Senator from Rhode Island. He is so eloquent on this point. Before 
I do, I wish to place some letters in the Record.
  One letter is from the Environmental Protection Agency, saying they 
would have a very difficult time making sure the air was clean if that 
Murkowski amendment had been offered and passed and become law.
  Interestingly, we have a letter from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, also opposing that Murkowski amendment.
  We have two more letters to put in the Record--and this just happened 
in 24 hours--one from a coalition made up of the Alliance for Climate 
Protection, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Auto 
Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, the Clean Air Task Force, 
Clean Water Action, the Defenders of Wildlife, Environment America, the 
Environmental Defense Fund, League of Women Voters of the United 
States, National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Oceana, the Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, 
Southern Environmental Law Center, and Union of Concerned Scientists--
all saying they oppose this amendment, which concerns not enforcing the 
Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon dioxide.
  Lastly, we have a very well put together letter by the National 
Wildlife Federation, in which they quote a poll that says 75 percent of 
Americans believe our government should, in fact, regulate global 
warming pollution, which, of course, is mostly carbon.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent those letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       United States Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2009.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter about 
     Senator Lisa Murkowski's Amendment Number 2530 to H.R. 2996, 
     the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act. As you noted in your letter, 
     Senator Murkowski's amendment would prohibit the 
     Environmental Protection Agency from using any funds made 
     available under the Act to take any action that would have 
     the effect of making carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to 
     regulation under the Clean Air Act for any source other than 
     a mobile source.
       You asked me what the practical impact would be if Congress 
     enacted Senator Murkowski's amendment. Perhaps the most 
     striking impact would be to make it impossible for the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate the light-duty 
     vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions standards that the

[[Page 22605]]

     agency proposed on September 15, 2009. Because of the way the 
     Clean Air Act is written, promulgation of the proposed light-
     duty vehicle rule will automatically make carbon dioxide a 
     pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act for 
     stationary sources, as well as for light-duty vehicles. The 
     only way that EPA could comply with the prohibition in 
     Senator Murkowski's amendment would be to not promulgate the 
     light-duty vehicle standards.
       As you know, promulgation of EPA's light-duty vehicle 
     greenhouse-gas emissions standards is an essential part of 
     the historic agreement that President Obama announced earlier 
     this year with the nation's auto-makers, the State of 
     California, the Department of Transportation, and EPA. That 
     agreement attracted broad, bi-partisan support. The joint 
     DOT-EPA standards are projected to save 1.8 billion barrels 
     of oil over the life of the program, which is twice the 
     amount of oil (crude oil and products) imported in 2008 from 
     the Persian Gulf countries, according to the Department of 
     Energy's Energy Information Administration Office. 
     Additionally, the standards are projected to help save 
     consumers more than $3,000 over the lifetime of a model year 
     2016 vehicle and reduce approximately 900 million metric tons 
     of greenhouse gas emissions. Enactment of Senator Murkowski's 
     amendment would pull the plug on those extraordinary 
     accomplishments.
           Sincerely,
     Lisa P. Jackson.
                                  ____

                                               September 24, 2009.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: We are writing regarding Senator 
     Murkowski's Amendment Number 2530 to H.R. 2996, the 
     Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act. As manufacturers, we are sympathetic to 
     the thrust of Senator Murkowski's amendment that the 
     Congress--and not simply EPA acting under the provisions of 
     the current Clean Air Act--should determine how best to 
     reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide.
       However, the amendment raises additional issues that must 
     be considered where complicated and interconnected 
     environmental and legal issues are at stake. We are concerned 
     that due to the complex interactions among regulations under 
     the various sections of the Clean Air Act, the amendment may 
     impact significantly pending regulations in the mobile source 
     sector--despite language in the amendment that would appear 
     to leave the sector unaffected. In a letter to Senator 
     Feinstein dated September 23, Administrator Jackson stated 
     EPA's interpretation that the Murkowski amendment as filed 
     would ``make it impossible for the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to promulgate the light-duty vehicle greenhouse-gas 
     emissions standards that the agency proposed on September 15, 
     2009.''
       While the author of the amendment appears not to intend 
     this outcome, we feel compelled to express our concerns. It 
     is critical that the national program for regulating 
     greenhouse gas emissions from autos be finalized early next 
     year. Failure to do so would subject automakers to a 
     patchwork of conflicting state and federal regulations.
       Therefore, we respectfully oppose the adoption of the 
     Murkowski amendment as written to H.R. 2996.
           Sincerely,
     Dave McCurdy,
       President & CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
     Michael Stanton,
       President & CEO, Association of International Automobile 
     Manufacturers.
                                  ____

                                               September 24, 2009.
       Dear Senator: We are writing in opposition to Senator 
     Murkowski's revised appropriations amendment (No. 2350) to 
     the FY 2010 Interior Appropriations bill, H.R. 2996, which 
     concerns carbon dioxide pollution and the Clean Air Act.
       The filed amendment's spending limitation would go well 
     beyond blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
     from curbing carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, 
     refineries, and other big ``stationary sources.'' It also 
     would block EPA from implementing the Supreme Court's 
     landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA by curbing carbon 
     pollution from cars and trucks. If this amendment passes, EPA 
     could not issue the historic consensus standards that the 
     President announced in May with the support of the auto 
     makers, the UAW, states, and the environmental community. 
     Here is why:
       The first sentence of the amendment says: ``No action taken 
     by the Environmental Protection Agency using funds made 
     available under this Act shall have the effect of making 
     carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulation under the 
     Clean Air Act . . . for any source other than a mobile 
     source. . . .'' This is a reference to Section 169 of the 
     Act, which says that every new or modified major stationary 
     source needs to install best available control technology 
     (BACT), considering costs, for each pollutant ``subject to 
     regulation under this chapter,'' i.e., under the Clean Air 
     Act.
       When EPA issues final vehicle carbon dioxide standards 
     under Section 202 of the Act as planned next March, carbon 
     dioxide will automatically become a pollutant ``subject to 
     regulation'' under Section 169. From that point on, new or 
     modified major stationary sources will need to install BACT 
     for carbon dioxide, just as they currently do for other 
     dangerous pollutants. This is automatic; there is no way 
     around it without blocking the vehicle rules. Since the 
     Murkowski amendment would bar any action that has the effect 
     of making carbon dioxide ``subject to regulation'' under 
     Section 169, EPA would be barred from issuing the vehicle 
     standards.
       This is why EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday 
     that the amendment would be ``a death knell to the historic 
     agreement between the President and auto-makers to increase 
     gas mileage and reduce emissions from cars and trucks.''
       Congress should not take any action that would undo the 
     progress already made on carbon pollution from motor 
     vehicles.
       Later paragraphs of the revised amendment attempt to limit 
     other collateral damage done by the amendment. But those 
     provisions cannot overcome the effect of the amendment's 
     first sentence.
       We believe common ground can be found to ensure that the 
     Clean Air Act's stationary source requirements apply only to 
     power plants and other big sources, not smaller sources, and 
     to incorporate this approach in comprehensive energy and 
     climate legislation. But it cannot be accomplished through 
     this rider.
       The Murkowski amendment would only move us farther from, 
     not closer to, a bipartisan consensus on comprehensive clean 
     energy and climate legislation that the Senator says she 
     seeks. We strongly urge you to oppose Senator Murkowski's 
     amendment as well as any other amendments to the Interior 
     Appropriations bill that would delay America's progress 
     toward a clean energy economy that would create jobs, 
     increase America's energy security, and cut pollution.
         Alliance for Climate Protection, Center for American 
           Progress Action Fund, Center for Auto Safety, Center 
           for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean 
           Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment 
           America, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Women 
           Voters of the United States, National Audubon Society, 
           Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Sierra Club, 
           Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern 
           Environmental Law Center, Union of Concerned 
           Scientists.
                                  ____

                                     National Wildlife Federation,


                                     National Advocacy Center,

                                Washington DC, September 24, 2009.
       Dear Senator: National Wildlife Federation asks you to 
     oppose Amendment 2530, sponsored by Sen. Murkowski, on HR 
     2996 (the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior and Environment 
     appropriations bill).
       America and the world are poised to take long overdue 
     action to reduce global warming pollution. As President Obama 
     said this week in a climate address to the United Nations, 
     there are ``no excuses for inaction. . . . we don't have much 
     time left.'' At this historic juncture, Senators should not 
     hit the ``snooze button'' to delay enforcement of the Clean 
     Air Act and extend the government's long nap on global 
     warming. Year after year, Congress has debated whether or not 
     to act on global warming, but little has been done. Over the 
     past two decades, as the impacts of warming became 
     increasingly severe and the scientific warnings increasingly 
     urgent, U.S. emissions of global warming pollution increased 
     17%.
       National Wildlife Federation, which represents over four 
     million members and supporters, and Americans across the 
     nation strongly and overwhelmingly support action by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency. A recent Washington Post 
     poll found that 75% of Americans believe the government 
     should regulate global warming pollution from power plants 
     and factories.
       Amendment 2530 has been revised from earlier drafts and now 
     has a fatal flaw that would extend the amendment's damage 
     beyond what is intended, undoing the recent progress made by 
     automakers, environmental groups and the Obama administration 
     to reach agreement on reducing vehicle emissions. The 
     regulation of a pollutant under the Clean Air Act for 
     vehicles automatically triggers regulation of stationary 
     sources. By blocking action on stationary sources, the 
     amendment would block the Environmental Protection Agency 
     from implementing the new vehicle tailpipe standards as well.
       The Clean Air Act has a strong and proven track record of 
     cleaning the air we breathe while allowing our economy to 
     prosper. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on the 
     government's neglected responsibility to address global 
     warming under the Clean Air Act. And the Environmental 
     Protection Agency is already taking commonsense steps to meet 
     the requirements of the Clean Air Act, focusing on the 
     biggest corporate polluters and limiting the reach of any new 
     regulations.
       We appreciate Sen. Murkowski's commitment to advance global 
     warming legislation

[[Page 22606]]

     in Congress, and look forward to pursuing that common effort 
     with her and other Senators this year. But we strongly oppose 
     this amendment.
       Please support action on global warming and vote ``no'' on 
     Murkowski Amendment 2530.
           Sincerely,
                                               Larry J. Schweiger,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mrs. BOXER. So here we had a situation where I am very pleased the 
rules of this Senate did not allow this very dangerous amendment to be 
brought before the body. We would have talked about it for days 
because, before I would allow a vote on that, I would want to make sure 
every single Senator understood it is a repeal of the Clean Air Act 
through the backdoor, even after the Bush Supreme Court said the Clean 
Air Act covers carbon and greenhouse gases.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first, let me thank my distinguished 
Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, Senator Boxer, for her 
passionate defense of this statute, which has improved the quality of 
life and the quality of our air for a generation now of Americans 
against this assault. I appreciate that she has given me a few moments 
to discuss the amendment the Senator from Alaska wanted to offer. I 
know it was not offered, but, nevertheless, I feel we need to respond, 
given the message that amendment sends to this body, to the Nation, and 
to the world regarding America's position on the need to curb global 
warming and our move toward a clean energy economy.
  This amendment would have tied the hands of the Environmental 
Protection Agency at the very time we need its help to protect the 
American public from the dangers of climate change--dangers to 
America's public health, to our national security, and to our economy.
  A little history is in order here.
  In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the Bush administration and 
ruled, in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, that the Clean Air Act 
requires the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas 
emissions as pollutants, if the Agency determined that greenhouse gases 
posed a danger to public health, and the Court further obliged the EPA 
to go ahead and make that determination, yes or no.
  The Bush administration, of course, did everything in its power to 
avoid the duty ordered by the Supreme Court, and it was only this April 
that the EPA, under Administrator Jackson, finally issued its proposed 
endangerment finding. The finding, unsurprisingly, acknowledged what 
every reasonable scientist--in fact, every reasonable person--has known 
for years: That carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gas 
emissions cause our planet's atmosphere to warm and pose a threat to 
the public health.
  The conclusion that these gases should be regulated under the Clean 
Air Act logically and inevitably followed, as required by law, from the 
determination that these pollutants threaten public health. Thankfully, 
this administration has already begun this important work. Senator 
Murkowski's amendment would have required EPA to take what is called a 
timeout while Congress crafted a legislative solution to global 
warming. Unfortunately, time is not on our side as we race to protect 
our planet from the effects of carbon pollution.
  Just yesterday, our President spoke before the United Nations about 
the challenges to all nations from unchecked global climate change and 
the opportunities we have to revive the world economy through the 
advancement of clean energy and clean energy jobs. The world community 
needs the United States to be a leader in this effort, and the world is 
watching our actions closely.
  President Obama pledged that our steps so far--investments in 
alternative energy, efficiency measures, tougher fuel standards--and 
our steps to come ``represent an historic recognition on behalf of the 
American people and their government.'' He said:

       We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are 
     determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to 
     future generations.

  Forcing the EPA to take a timeout now would have sent exactly the 
opposite message; would tell the world we do not truly care about 
climate change; that we are not ready to step up, let alone lead; would 
say we would prefer to leave a polluted world to our children and 
grandchildren, a world far worse off than the world our parents and 
grandparents left to us. Any timeout now would have damaged our 
international progress and our leadership.
  Moreover, a timeout of the sort proposed in the Murkowski amendment 
would have hurt our legislative efforts. Supporters of the timeout idea 
profess to want a legislative solution to address climate change. Well, 
maybe. But doing so would have set back that very goal.
  To the extent some of the big polluters are working with us in this 
legislative process, it is because they feel the hot breath of the 
future on their necks, and they know they had better participate or be 
left to their fate. Give them an artificial reprieve from those 
consequences--real consequences of science, of fact, of law, and of 
nature--and their motivations would change. Delay would become their 
friend, indeed their purpose, because of the artificial, false status 
quo that a timeout would create for them.
  Let me tell you how these polluters affect Rhode Island, my home.
  Let's start back in 1972, when EPA authorized the use of tall 
smokestacks instead of emissions limits. By the mid-1970s, four 
different circuit courts of appeal had ruled that the Clean Air Act 
required real emissions controls and not just increased stack heights. 
A tall smokestack only curbs local emissions, but it spreads the 
poisons widely.
  In 1977, Congress enacted section 123 of the Clean Air Act, which 
barred the construction of smokestacks taller than called for by good 
engineering practice. Notwithstanding, Midwestern powerplants continued 
to increase the height of their stacks. The average smokestack height 
increased from 200 feet tall in 1956 to over 500 feet tall in 1978. In 
1970, there were two smokestacks in the United States taller than 500 
feet. By 1985, 180 smokestacks stood taller than 500 feet. Twenty-three 
of these were over 1,000 feet. Once you get over 1,000 feet tall, you 
actually have to put that smokestack on the aviation safety maps 
because it becomes a hazard to aviation. Local interests, of course, 
were happy because less of the smokestack-emitted poisons fell locally 
and more were spread abroad.
  What did this mean for downwind States, such as my State of Rhode 
Island? Well, all other things being equal, the taller the stack, the 
farther the poisons travel. According to a 2001 report by the Clean Air 
Act Task Force entitled ``Power to Kill: Death and Disease from Power 
Plants Charged with Violating the Clean Air Act,'' pollution spewed 
from just 51 plants has shortened the lives of as many as 9,000 people 
nationwide annually, including about 1,500 to 2,100 people in our 
downwind States such as Rhode Island.
  These plants have also caused tens of thousands of asthma attacks 
each year and hundreds just in Rhode Island. This is just from 51 
plants. Physicians for Social Responsibility has estimated that all 
coal plants in the United States together cause about 23,600 premature 
deaths and 554,000 asthma attacks each year.
  The Centers for Disease Control tells us that between 1980 and 1995 
the incidence of childhood asthma increased over 100 percent--the 
increase of childhood asthma more than doubled--from 3.6 percent to 7.5 
percent of all children.
  By 2005, nearly 9 percent of all children were reported to have 
asthma. In African-American children, the rate soared to 19.2 percent--
nearly one in five African-American children.
  Massachusetts, Maryland, and my State of Rhode Island--all downwind 
States--were among the five States with the highest incidence of 
asthma. The Rhode Island Lung Association estimates that 15,000 
children--15,000

[[Page 22607]]

children in my State of less than 1 million population--have asthma. 
Nationally, every year more than 40 kids 4 years old and under will die 
from asthma. Another 115 kids 5 to 15 years old will die, and nearly 
400 more age 15 to 34 will die every year. This is what upwind 
polluters have helped cause.
  When I was attorney general for the State of Rhode Island, I joined 
EPA's lawsuit against American Electric Power for its illegal 
modification of 16 plants. In 2008, the utility company settled the 
lawsuit by installing billions of dollars of pollution-control 
equipment which slashed NOX and SO2 emissions by 
813,000 tons each year--813,000 tons of pollution each year. American 
Electric Power also paid a $15 million penalty, nearly five times what 
ExxonMobil has paid so far for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1990, and 
it invested another $60 million in environmental mitigation projects. 
So don't tell me things can't be done.
  But in Rhode Island, the danger continues, and still every summer in 
Rhode Island the morning radio announces several days that are unsafe 
air days, when infants and seniors and people with breathing 
difficulties are told they should stay home, that they should stay 
indoors because the summer air in Rhode Island is not safe, and one of 
the prime reasons it isn't safe is because we are downwind. So don't 
expect a lot of sympathy from me for these polluters, with their 
belching smokestacks, that want a free pass to endanger the public, 
timeout or not.
  Here is a little description of how tall some of these stacks go. The 
tallest building is Willis Tower in Chicago. A lot of its radio towers 
are on the top, but it is still a heck of a big building. The Empire 
State Building is 1,250 feet. The Washington Monument is 555 feet. The 
Statue of Liberty is 305 feet. In Marshall, WV, there is a smokestack 
1,204 feet tall. In Rockport, IN, there is a smokestack 1,038 feet 
tall. In Jefferson, OH, there is a smokestack exactly 1,000 feet tall. 
I don't know whether that has to go on the aviation safety maps. That 
is just at the boundary. What these things do is they solve the local 
problem of pollution by pushing the poisons so far up into the 
atmosphere that they don't fall in West Virginia, in Indiana, and in 
Ohio, but they move elsewhere and they land often in Rhode Island, and 
we face the health consequences every day. So if anybody is looking for 
a sympathetic ear for these powerplants, they have come to the wrong 
place if they have come to Rhode Island.
  Today, we are facing perhaps the greatest environmental threat of our 
time: Global climate change triggered by increased concentrations of 
carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. We have supersaturated the atmosphere 
with carbon dioxide, and it is having an effect. Coal-fired powerplants 
share much of the blame. Forty percent of all carbon dioxide emissions 
come from coal powerplants. And the polluters will fight--they are 
fighting--any effort to control their carbon dioxide emissions. The 
polluter opponents of climate change who are resisting our change to a 
clean energy economy are strong and wealthy, and they will stop at 
nothing. We have even recently seen forged letters to Congress opposing 
climate change legislation in the names of groups that never authorized 
the letters.
  Just like the polluters fought the Clean Air Act in the past, just 
like the polluters built taller stacks rather than making what comes 
out of the stacks cleaner, just like the polluters manipulated their 
flunkies in the Bush administration, today the polluters wanted a 
timeout. They may say they support a legislative solution to climate 
change, but if they could fool us so that we defunded and stopped and 
weakened all of the other available tools for pollution control, that 
would not help in passing a climate bill. That would give those 
polluters every incentive in the world to defect, to delay, and 
ultimately to defeat our efforts to move this country toward a clean 
energy economy, to stop subsidizing their pollution of our air, and our 
efforts to start solving this great problem of our day. To protect 
ourselves, we have to keep all of our tools available, all options for 
curbing greenhouse gas emissions working to protect us.
  I thank the chairman very much for yielding me this time, and I look 
forward to working with her as we continue to find ways to support this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Rhode 
Island. He gets us to where we need to be, which is focusing on what 
happens to our people when we walk away from protecting them from 
pollution.
  I know Senator Brown is in the chair. I wanted to share with him the 
fact that he knows well that after the Cuyahoga River caught fire in 
Ohio in 1969 and many of our lakes and rivers appeared to be more like 
sewers, the committee, which I now chair so proudly and on which 
Senator Whitehouse sits, responded by enacting the Clean Water Act. 
That was 1972. I don't know if Senator Brown was born yet. The fact is, 
that incident of a river catching fire really caught the attention of 
the people of this Nation. Whether it was our water or our air or 
endangered species, we decided to take control of our communities, of 
our health, of our environment.
  There is a lot about America that makes us proud. There is a lot 
about America that makes us great. I believe one of our values is 
caring about the health of our families. I thought Senator Whitehouse 
was very clear that we are not just debating a regulation on page 4 or 
5 or 20 or 50. We are talking about the ability of our kids to breathe 
the air. We are talking about the ability of this planet to survive 
without the ravages of global warming, which the Bush administration's 
CDC told us would have unbelievable effects on the health and safety of 
our people.
  The laws we passed are the landmark laws. So therefore I just want to 
be put on record, along with Senator Whitehouse, that if this amendment 
that wasn't offered today comes back in any other form, we are going to 
have to open up the debate pretty wide--pretty wide--because a repeal 
of an environmental law can't be done on an appropriations bill. In 
essence, when you don't enforce a law--that is what the Murkowski 
amendment would have done--when you don't enforce it, it is the same as 
not really having it. But you don't have to look in the eyes of your 
constituents and say: Oh, by the way, today I repealed the Clean Air 
Act. What you say instead is: Today I fought to have a pause--no 
enforcement. Well, let me tell my colleagues, when that child gets 
asthma, she is not going to ask her mom: Did I get asthma because there 
was a pause in the Clean Air Act or because they repealed the Clean Air 
Act? That child will get asthma. I swear to my colleagues that I am not 
going to let more kids get asthma, not on my watch. It is wrong. It is 
wrong.
  Here is the great news. The great news is, if we decide to be the 
leader in this clean energy revolution, we will see our people get 
healthy. We will see millions of jobs created. We will move off of 
these dirty energy sources. We will create American jobs, 21st-century 
jobs, building wind turbines, installing solar panels, producing a new 
fleet of electric cars, hybrid vehicles. We see it in Ohio already 
where they are building solar panels. This is the one area of growth.
  We are having a tough time in our State--people laid off, terribly 
high unemployment rate. The stimulus is helping us. We are getting some 
jobs back, but we are suffering. The one area of growth, I say to the 
Chair, 125,000 new green jobs that can't be taken away. You can't take 
a job of putting a solar rooftop on a home in Los Angeles or Riverside 
or San Bernardino or San Diego or Akron, OH--you can't have that person 
in China putting on a solar rooftop. They have to be here. These are 
good jobs. That is what we ought to be doing, not repealing the laws 
that protect the health of our citizens but trying to figure out a way 
to work together to have a bill that will create these new clean energy 
jobs, that will protect our kids from carbon pollution, and that will 
make sure the ravages of global warming won't occur.

[[Page 22608]]

  At the end of the day, our competitiveness depends on how we face 
this challenge. I believe Thomas Friedman got it right. If you haven't 
read his book ``Hot, Flat, and Crowded,'' I think you should read it 
because he is so eloquent on the point. He is not on the defense on 
this, he is on the offense. He says that if we don't grab this mantle 
of leadership on clean energy, then other countries will grab it and 
they will create the technologies, they will create the jobs, and we 
will fall behind.
  America is a leader. We are not a follower. We will have many more 
opportunities to debate this in the future, but, my goodness, if we are 
facing legislation that does not move us forward but takes us back to 
before Richard Nixon was President by not enforcing the Clean Air Act--
I have heard of the party of no, but this is the party of yesterday if 
those are the kinds of amendments we are going to face, dangerous 
amendments that will hurt the health of our children.
  So I wanted to make sure that America takes control of its energy 
future and that it doesn't cower in the corner and repeal laws that 
protect our citizens, landmark laws such as the Clean Air Act. I am so 
glad that today we avoided having to have this long debate. I am glad 
this amendment was disallowed because it doesn't belong on an 
appropriations bill. It is a repeal of the Clean Air Act. Let's face 
it, you don't do that in 15 minutes on the floor of the Senate and call 
it a timeout. Call it whatever you want, but when you tell an agency: 
Don't enforce the law that protects the health of our children and our 
families, that is a repeal through the back door.
  So I thank you very much for the time. I know I have additional time. 
I will not be using it. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in just a few minutes, the Senator from 
Maine will have the floor. Senator Feinstein has asked those Senators 
who have amendments which are part of the unanimous consent agreement 
to come on over and call them up. I think Senator Coburn is probably 
coming following Senator Collins from Maine.
  I listened carefully to Senator Whitehouse and to the distinguished 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I wish to make 
an observation, if I may, which will take only 3 or 4 minutes, not to 
prolong the debate.
  First, what Senator Thune and Senator Murkowski were saying is that 
the question of climate change is so important that we in the Congress 
ought to deal with it, not the Environmental Protection Agency. That is 
the point of the amendment.
  Second, I am one Senator who believes we need to deal with climate 
change and who believes humans are contributing to it, and we need to 
stop stuffing so much carbon into the atmosphere. But while my friends 
on the other side often speak in great rhetorical flourishes about the 
inconvenient problem of climate change that my friend and fellow 
Tennessean Al Gore talks about, they are conspicuously silent about the 
inconvenient solution, which is nuclear power.
  Even the President of the United States went to New York this week 
and made an entire speech talking about our commitment to climate 
change and lecturing the developing countries of the world about 
climate change when they are ahead of us on nuclear power and the 
President, in his entire remarks, didn't mention it once. I simply 
think that ought to be noted in the midst of this debate.
  The largest contributors to carbon in the air are China, the United 
States, Russia, India, and Japan. There are 44 nuclear reactors under 
construction this minute, almost all of them in Asia. China has 4 
reactors under construction and has announced plans for 130 more 
reactors. Why? Because nuclear power is carbon free. The United States 
hasn't built a new nuclear plant in 30 years. Russia intends to build 2 
reactors a year in order to replace the 30 percent of electricity they 
get from natural gas so they can sell that gas to Europe at a big 
profit.
  Japan is building two nuclear reactors a year. They derive 36 percent 
of their electricity from nuclear. South Korea gets nearly 40 percent 
of its electricity from nuclear, and they are planning 8 more reactors 
by 2015. India is developing thorium reactors instead of uranium. 
France is 80 percent nuclear and is selling electricity to Germany, 
which is the only major European country still renouncing nuclear 
power. And here we sit worried about climate change, having 104 
reactors that we built before 30 years ago, which produce 20 percent of 
our electricity, but 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity, and the 
President goes to New York and doesn't say one word about nuclear 
power. He wants to build 186 50-story wind turbines, which will operate 
about a third at a time, and not at all in our part of the country, 
instead of taking the greatest technological advance of the last 
century, which we already use to produce 70 percent of our carbon-free 
electricity, and say let's do more of that.
  I am hopeful that as this debate proceeds, the President will say 
let's double our nuclear production and build 100 new nuclear plants in 
the next 20 years. We should be able to agree on 100 new nuclear plants 
and electrifying our cars and trucks. If we do those two things alone, 
we would meet the Kyoto Protocol by 2030. But we don't hear a word 
about it.
  Let's bring up the inconvenient problem of climate change and let's 
deal with it here. But let's bring up the inconvenient solution of 
nuclear power. As far as science goes, the chief scientist in the Obama 
administration, a Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Chu, says nuclear power is 
safe and nuclear waste--used nuclear fuel--can be safely dealt with for 
the next 40 to 60 years by having it stored onsite, while we have a 
mini Manhattan Project over the next 20 years to find the best way to 
recycle used nuclear fuel that doesn't produce plutonium.
  This is a good debate. I am glad Senators have come to the floor to 
talk about this, and this is an appropriate amendment on which to have 
the discussion. The point of the Republican amendments were, let's do 
it in Congress, not the agency. If we are going to talk about the 
inconvenient problem, climate change--and I agree it is a problem and 
we need to deal with it--let's talk about the inconvenient solution, 
nuclear power, which today provides 70 percent of our carbon-free 
electricity, which is what we are debating.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The majority leader is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2531

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment No. 2531, and I ask that 
it be brought before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2531.

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

 (Purpose: To make funds available for preliminary planning and design 
   of a high-performance green building to consolidate the multiple 
offices and research facilities of the Environmental Protection Agency 
                         in Las Vegas, Nevada)

       On page 183, line 14, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided, That, at the discretion of the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, from 
     the funds included under this heading, $500,000 may be made 
     available for preliminary planning and design of a high-
     performance green building to consolidate the multiple 
     offices and research facilities of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency in Las Vegas, Nevada''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend from Maine allowing 
me to speak for a couple minutes prior to her being recognized.
  The amendment I have called up allows, not directs, the EPA 
Administrator to use $500,000 of the funds provided in the bill for 
preliminary planning and design to work to consolidate the many agency 
offices and labs in Las Vegas into one high-performance green building.
  It doesn't make a lot of sense to continue spending money on aging 
facilities spread across several buildings in

[[Page 22609]]

need of repair and rehabilitation, particularly with the leases that 
are not far from ending. Current costs associated with these 
facilities' leases and their operation cost over $5.5 million annually.
  Consolidation would improve administrative efficiencies and reduce 
agency energy, water, and other costs over time. Developing a more 
precise estimate of total savings would be part of the preliminary 
planning effort my amendment authorizes.
  The people in the offices and labs I think could be consolidated 
would also greatly benefit from their being able to work more closely 
together, given their mission and activities. These include the 
agency's National Exposure Research Laboratory, the Emergency Response 
Team--when something bad happens with a nuclear device, they are able 
to move on that--the Radiation and Indoor Environments National 
Laboratory, the Financial Management Center, the Human Resources 
Office, the National Environmental Research Center, and the 
Environmental Services Division's various laboratories and Technical 
Reference Center.
  As we know, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the 
Recovery Act strongly direct the Federal Government to be a leader, not 
a follower, in adopting green building technologies. EPA should be at 
the top of the list, given its important role, and I think its labs and 
facilities in Las Vegas should serve as a shining example of 
environmental leadership that saves the Federal Government and 
taxpayers money.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my 
statement a letter to the Appropriations Committee regarding this 
request, in compliance with paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2009.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 
         Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Vice Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 
         Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, Chairwoman 
     Feinstein, and Ranking Member Alexander: I am writing to 
     request that the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
     2010 include the discretion for the Administrator of the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency to use up to $500,000 from 
     the amounts identified for buildings and facilities for the 
     purpose of preliminary planning and design work to 
     consolidate the Agency's Las Vegas offices into one high-
     performance green building.
       Such a consolidation would save taxpayers money, reduce 
     energy and water use, and improve administrative efficiency. 
     The current facilities used by the EPA offices and 
     laboratories are in need of rehabilitation and repair and 
     their leases expire in the near future, so it is essential 
     that the Agency begin making plans for their future use.
       Consistent with paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of the 
     requirements of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I certify 
     that neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary 
     interest in the congressionally directed spending items I 
     have requested. I further certify that I have posted a 
     description of the items requested on my official website, 
     along with the accompanying justification.
       Thank you for your attention to this request
           Sincerely,
                                                       Harry Reid,
                                            United States Senator.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the University of Nevada-Las Vegas campus 
we have EPA buildings. They are so old. We have been talking about 
doing something about them for decades. They have been so terribly 
important over the years with what has been going on at the Nevada Test 
Site and Yucca Mountain. The leases are about to run out. It is not 
fair to the Federal Government or the university. It would save the 
government huge amounts of money and it would be the right thing to do. 
This would be the beginning of accomplishing what EPA wanted to do for 
decades. I hope that Senators will look favorably on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Reid amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2498

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, prior to Senator Reid offering his 
proposal, the pending business before the Senate was an amendment I 
offered earlier this week, which was designed to promote better 
transparency, accountability, and oversight within our government.
  I am deeply disappointed that a procedural tactic will be invoked to 
prevent an up-or-down vote on my amendment, which is designed to bring 
the proliferation of czars under the normal process.
  The amendment I proposed would have ensured that the 18 new czar 
positions appointed by this administration could be held accountable to 
Congress and to the American people. The proliferation of czars under 
the current administration to manage some of the most complex and 
important issues facing our country has created serious problems in 
oversight, accountability, and transparency. It is of great concern to 
me that these positions circumvent the congressional requirements for 
oversight. They circumvent the constitutional process by which the 
Senate is supposed to give advice and consent to major policy positions 
within our government.
  I have a list of the 18 new czar positions that have been created by 
this administration. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Czars


        Positions in the Executive Office of the President (10)

       Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross. Official Title. Special 
     Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the 
     Central Region. Reports to: National Security Adviser Gen. 
     James L. Jones.
       Cybersecurity Czar: TBD. Reported Duties: Will have broad 
     authority to develop strategy to protect the nation's 
     government-run and private computer networks. Reports to: 
     National Security Advisor Gen. James L. Jones and Larry 
     Summers, the President's top economic advisor.
       Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal. Official Title: 
     White House Advisor on Violence Against Women. Reported 
     Duties: Will advise the President and Vice President on 
     domestic violence and sexual assault issues. Reports to: 
     President Obama and Vice President Biden.
       Economic Czar: Paul Volcker. Official Title: Chairman of 
     the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Reported 
     Duties: Charged with offering independent, nonpartisan 
     information, analysis and advice to the President as he 
     formulates and implements his plans for economic recovery. 
     Reports to: President Obama.
       Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner. Official Title: 
     Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. 
     Reported Duties: Coordinate energy and climate policy, 
     emphasizing regulation and conservation. Reports to: 
     President Obama.
       Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle. Official Title: Counselor 
     to the President and Director of the White House Office of 
     Health Reform. Reported Duties: Coordinates the development 
     of the Administration's healthcare policy agenda. Reports to: 
     President Obama.
       Senior Director for Information Sharing Policy: Mike 
     Resnick. Reported Duties: Lead a comprehensive review of 
     information sharing and lead an interagency policy process to 
     identify information sharing and access priorities going 
     forward. (Perhaps performing functions statutorily assigned 
     to the Program Manager for the Information Sharing 
     Environment). Reports to: Unknown.
       Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr. Official Title: 
     White House Director of Urban Affairs. Reported Duties: 
     Coordinating transportation and housing initiatives, as well 
     as serving as a conduit for federal aid to economically hard-
     hit cities. Reports to: President Obama.
       WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore. Official Title: White House 
     Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and 
     Arms Control. Reported Duties: Will coordinate issues related 
     to weapons of mass destruction across the government, 
     including: proliferation, nuclear and conventional arms 
     control, threat reduction, and terrorism involving weapons of 
     mass destruction. Reports to: National Security Advisor Gen. 
     James L. Jones.
       Green Jobs Czar: TBD (Van Jones--Resigned). Official Title: 
     Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation at 
     the White House Council on Environmental

[[Page 22610]]

     Quality. Reported Duties: Will focus on environmentally-
     friendly employment within the administration and boost 
     support for the idea nationwide. Reports to: Head of Council 
     on Environmental Quality.


                Positions in a Department or Agency (8)

       Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke. Official Title: 
     Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reported 
     Duties: Will work with CENTCOM head to integrate U.S. 
     civilian and military efforts in the region. Reports to: 
     Secretary of State (position is within the Department of 
     State).
       Auto Recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery. Official Title: Director 
     of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers. Reported 
     Duties: Will work to leverage government resources to support 
     the workers, communities, and regions that rely on the 
     American auto industry. Reports to: Labor Secretary and Larry 
     Summers, the President's top economic advisor (position is 
     within the Department of Labor).
       Car Czar (Manufacturing Policy): Ron Bloom. Official Title: 
     Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury. Reported Duties: 
     Leader of the White House task force overseeing auto company 
     bailouts; worked on the restructuring of General Motors and 
     Chrysler LLC. Reports to: Treasury Secretary and Larry 
     Summers, the President's top economic advisor (position is 
     within the Department of Treasury).
       Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis. Official Title: Special 
     advisor to the U.S. EPA overseeing its Great Lakes 
     restoration plan Reported Duties: Oversees the 
     Administration's initiative to restore the Great Lakes' 
     environment. Reports to: Environmental Protection Agency 
     Administrator (position is within the Environmental 
     Protection Agency).
       Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg. Official Title: Special Master 
     on executive pay. Reported Duties: Examines compensation 
     practices at companies that have been bailed out more than 
     once by the federal government. Reports to: Treasury 
     Secretary (position is within the Department of the 
     Treasury).
       Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried. Official Title: 
     Special Envoy to oversee the closure of the detention center 
     at Guantanamo Bay. Reported Duties: Works to get help of 
     foreign governments in moving toward closure of Guantanamo 
     Bay. Reports to: Secretary of State (position is within the 
     Department of State).
       International Climate Czar: Todd Stern. Official Title: 
     Special Envoy for Climate Change. Reported Duties: 
     Responsible for developing international approaches to reduce 
     the emission of greenhouse gases. Reports to: Secretary of 
     State (position is within the Department of State).
       Special Representative for Border Affairs and Assistant 
     Secretary for International Affairs (dubbed ``Border Czar''): 
     Alan Bersin. Official Title: Assistant Secretary for 
     International Affairs. Reported Duties: Will coordinate all 
     of the Department's border security and law-enforcement 
     efforts. Reports to: Homeland Security Secretary (position is 
     within the Department of Homeland Security).

  Ms. COLLINS. Many of the czars on the list seem to either duplicate 
or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities that Congress 
has already conferred upon Cabinet level officials and other senior 
executive branch officials who go through the normal constitutional 
process whereby the Senate gives its consent to these nominees.
  As I said when I first introduced this amendment, I do not consider 
every position that has been identified as a czar in various media 
reports to be problematic. Some of those positions are established by 
law. Some of them are subject to Senate confirmation. Rather, my 
amendment is carefully tailored so it would not cover and would not 
apply to positions recognized in law or subject to Senate confirmation.
  For example, the proposal I have would not apply to the Director of 
National Intelligence, to the National Security Advisor, to the 
Homeland Security Advisor, to the Chairman of the Recovery 
Accountability and Transparency Board, or to the so-called information 
or regulatory czar within OMB. These positions, because they are 
recognized in law, or they are subject to Senate confirmation, simply 
do not raise the same kinds of concerns about accountability, 
transparency, oversight, and vetting.
  Instead, my amendment has been carefully tailored to cover officials 
that the President has unilaterally designated as responsible for 
significant policy matters. It would not have covered the President's 
Chief of Staff, for example, and it would not cover less senior White 
House officials, despite some misinformation to the contrary.
  Because the White House has raised so many objections to my 
amendment, I have offered to sit down with the White House counsel and 
narrow the scope of the amendment further, to address any concerns the 
White House might have. Unfortunately, the White House has failed to 
provide any modification to the text of my amendment. Instead, they 
said they did not want any of these officials to be called to testify 
before Congress.
  Let me explain exactly what my amendment would have done, so you can 
see how modest indeed the amendment was.
  The amendment simply would have required that the President certify 
to Congress that officials in these important positions would respond 
to all reasonable requests to testify before or provide information to 
congressional committees with jurisdiction over the issues involved.
  Second, it simply would have required these officials to submit a 
biannual report to the congressional committee with jurisdiction, 
describing the activities of the official and his or her office, and 
any rule, regulation, or policy that the official participated in or 
assisted in the development of.
  That is it. How can we possibly be against that kind of 
accountability, transparency, and oversight? It is our job as Members 
of Congress to conduct such oversight.
  We cannot do so when the administration sets up a structure where 
there is an energy czar, an urban affairs czar, an environmental czar, 
a cyber-security czar--the list goes on and on. It creates confusion 
over who is in charge, who is making policy.
  Let's take the area of health care. Is the top policy position in 
this administration Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is the health care czar 
within the Executive Office of the President--a person, by the way, for 
whom I have the greatest respect--or is it Senate-confirmed Kathleen 
Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services? Who is in charge? 
Whom do we hold accountable?
  What the President has done by creating so many czar positions within 
the White House that appear to duplicate the executive branch officials 
who are subject to Senate confirmation is to blur the lines of 
authority. That is not good for our system of government, and it is not 
in keeping with this administration's pledge to be the most transparent 
administration ever--a pledge for which I salute the President.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator about her 
amendment. The first thing I would like to ask is, her amendment does 
not specify how many czars--I think that is the term she used on the 
floor--how many czars she thinks there are in the administration or 
what their titles are. Could the Senator from Maine tell me how many 
czars we are going to try to impact with her amendment?
  Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to. Mr. President, I say to my friend 
that I have a list of 18 positions which I have talked repeatedly about 
and which I have inserted into the Record. As I have said, I am not one 
who has used this term in the way some have to include individuals with 
broad authority across various agencies, such as the Director of 
National Intelligence. But that is the position that is established or 
recognized in law and is subject to Senate confirmation. I did not 
include those. In fact, in the language of my amendment, I specifically 
say it does not apply to positions established in law.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield and share a copy 
of that list with me, I would appreciate it. But in the meantime, I ask 
the Senator, it seems that the czar watchers on her side of the aisle, 
Senator Hutchison, for example, found 32 czars when she went looking. 
One of the advisers to some politicians--and I will not include the 
Senator from Maine; she can speak for herself--the noted guru Glenn 
Beck has identified 32 czars as well.
  I ask the Senator from Maine before we get into the propriety of her 
amendment under Senate rules, who is going to define who is covered by 
her amendment, if her colleague from Texas found 32, Glenn Beck found 
32, and she found 18?

[[Page 22611]]


  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will be glad to respond to the question 
of my colleague. My colleague did not have the benefit of being on the 
Senate floor when I first presented my amendment, and I addressed this 
very issue.
  I was very careful in drafting this amendment to make clear that I 
was not talking about positions that are recognized in law. Some of my 
colleagues legitimately have taken a different approach. But that is 
not the approach that is before the Senate now. Rather, I have taken 
into account the issues that have been raised by my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, such as Senator Byrd--who certainly knows more 
about the Constitution than I think any of us who are serving at the 
present time--who has expressed concerns about the proliferation of 
czars. I have taken into account concerns expressed by Senator 
Feingold, by Senator Feinstein. I have done a careful, narrowly 
tailored amendment that does not attempt to sweep in positions that are 
recognized in law, nor does it sweep in positions that are subject to 
Senate confirmation.
  That is why it is so disappointing to me that my colleagues are not 
unanimously adopting my amendment, which it looked like they were going 
to do earlier this week before the White House weighed in, because I 
did not take a broad sweeping approach. I took a very narrow, careful 
approach that aimed at the promise the President talked about, the lack 
of oversight, transparency, and accountability.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield further for a question, I would 
like to ask the Senator--I have been told that using the definition of 
``czar'' that Mr. Beck, political adviser to some, and Senator 
Hutchison, and even you use, that under President George W. Bush, the 
previous Republican administration, one could characterize his 
officials and advisers in the Executive Office of the President and 
other agencies as an Afghanistan czar, an AIDS czar, a drug czar, a 
faith-based czar, an intelligence czar, a Mideast peace czar, a 
regulatory czar, a science czar, a Sudan czar, a TARP bailout czar, a 
terrorism czar, and a weapons czar, under the previous administration. 
I ask the Senator from Maine if she proposed this amendment under a 
Republican President who clearly had his own stable of Muscovite czars 
of a lot of different versions?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, again, will be happy to attempt to 
clarify this issue for my colleague and friend--and he is my friend--
from Illinois. I realize he has his role to play in this debate. But 
the fact is, he has just listed several positions that are established 
by law. The intelligence czar is the Director of National Intelligence, 
Dennis Blair. Joe Lieberman and I wrote the law that established that 
position in 2004, and he is confirmed by the Senate.
  The regulatory czar--he is referring to Cass Sunstein in this 
administration and John Graham in the previous one--it is established 
by law. It is part of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
within OMB. I am not talking about those positions no matter in whose 
administration it is. I am talking about perhaps other positions on his 
list. Regardless of whose administration they are in, I would apply the 
same standards.
  The Senator may say why didn't I offer this amendment in the previous 
administration. The answer is, we did not have this proliferation of 
czar positions in the previous administration. But I would say to my 
colleagues, regardless of whether it is a Democratic President or a 
Republican President, a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, I 
think this is an institutional issue, and I think all of us as Members 
of Congress should be very concerned about organizational structures 
that make it impossible for us to conduct effective congressional 
oversight; that insulate these officials who have significant policy 
responsibilities from ever coming to testify, from going through the 
vetting and the confirmation process.
  I think that is a problem regardless of who the President is, and I 
am not the only one who thinks it. That is why Senator Robert C. Byrd 
wrote to the White House, wrote to the President, as this press release 
says, questioning the Obama administration on the role of White House 
czar positions because, as he says:

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

  I am not saying this is part of a plot to obscure information, but 
what I am saying is we have an obligation to exercise our 
constitutional duties, and the proliferation of these unaccountable 
positions in any administration makes that impossible for us to do so.
  Mr. President, if I may complete the end of my statement--before we 
got into this good little colloquy. And I do appreciate the opportunity 
to clarify whom my amendment would cover, who would be covered by it 
and who would not. As I said, I was willing to work with the White 
House to make this even clearer. My staff was here many hours last 
night. I had conversations with White House officials and, 
unfortunately, at the last moment, they decided not to try to propose 
revisions to the text.
  I am not going to seek to overturn the Chair's ruling on this 
amendment which will be forthcoming, and I know how it will go. But I 
do think it is unfortunate that a procedural tactic is being used to 
block a vote on this amendment. I do want to tell my colleagues that I 
think this is a real issue. I am very pleased the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, under Chairman Lieberman, is going to 
hold a hearing to explore this issue because it does have 
constitutional ramifications and it does involve the balance of power 
between the executive and legislative branches. The ruling the Chair is 
going to make is not going to be the last word on this subject.
  The administration needs--any administration--to fully explain the 
responsibilities and authorities of these czars. Until all of these 
czars are made available to testify before and provide information to 
Congress, until Congress is fully consulted on the decisions to create 
these positions in the first place, I will continue to press forward on 
this issue.
  I believe the amendment I drafted is a very reasonable, balanced one, 
and it would have been a significant step toward establishing an 
oversight structure for these positions that would provide the 
transparency, accountability, and oversight our Nation expects from its 
leaders. I am dismayed the Senate is about to choose a point of order 
over these principles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me point out at the outset my 
friendship and respect for Senator Collins. These are terms tossed 
around on the Senate floor sometimes in meaningless context, but this 
is meaningful. We have worked together on many issues. I respect her 
very much and believe when she was chairman of the then Governmental 
Affairs Committee, later to be the Homeland Security Committee, that 
she did extraordinary work with Senator Lieberman, particularly when it 
came to the creation of a new intelligence agency. After 9/11, it was 
one of the toughest political assignments ever given, and Senator 
Collins handled it with professionalism, in a bipartisan way. I commend 
her for it. I think she is exceptionally talented, and I am happy to 
have her as my ranking member on the Financial Services and General 
Government Appropriations Subcommittee where we continue to work 
closely together.
  She raises a legitimate inquiry. The legislative branch should ask 
whether the executive branch has gone beyond its constitutional 
authority. I think it is a legitimate question. Unfortunately, before 
she came to the Senate floor, the waters had been muddied by statements 
made by our colleague, Senator Hutchison, in the Washington Post on 
September 13 as to when she went searching for czars in the Obama 
administration, she found 32 of them. The political wise man, Glenn 
Beck, found 32 as well but went on to say on his Web site--he is a 
major champion on this issue, incidentally--``since czar isn't an 
official job title, the number

[[Page 22612]]

[of czars in the Obama administration] is somewhat in the eye of the 
beholder.''
  That is why this becomes a pretty difficult amendment to consider at 
this moment in time. The Senator from Maine has been kind enough to add 
a page in the Record that lists her findings of 18 of these so-called 
czars. I don't know if others would find the same number, more or less. 
Whether there are 57 known czars or whether there are 18, I just don't 
know.
  This amendment would prohibit funds for the administrative expenses 
of White House advisers--and that is a term usually used by those not 
partial to Russian history--unless those positions were created through 
express statutory authorization.
  Further, the amendment requires the President to certify to Congress 
that the adviser will respond to all reasonable requests to testify 
before or provide information to any congressional committee with 
jurisdiction over such matter.
  The adviser must give a report every 6 months, kind of a work-in-
progress report, a diary of what they are doing. So in addition to 
working on issues such as health care reform, they need to prepare a 
report sent to Congress every 6 months to let us know they are showing 
up on time at their desks and actually doing what they are supposed to 
do. The President doesn't need statutory authority to appoint advisers, 
and it doesn't make sense to require an assistant to the President, who 
has an otherwise pretty serious workload, to fill out these reports to 
Congress every 6 months to make sure they are showing up as promised.
  But the amendment does touch on accountability in a way that I agree 
with. Public officials, including those who serve at the pleasure of 
the President, should be responsive to congressional inquiries. That is 
why Senator Collins and I, through our appropriations subcommittee, 
bring in leaders from the administration. And I can't say for certain, 
but I am virtually certain we have not been turned down by any at this 
point. The committee expects officials employed in whole or in part by 
the Executive Office of the President and designated by the President 
to coordinate policy agendas across executive departments and agencies 
to keep Congress fully and currently informed. We ask that of them, and 
so far we have received their cooperation.
  Over the past several weeks, there has been this new interest in the 
czars and czarinas in the Obama administration, according to Mr. Beck 
and others. Some Members have asked serious questions about the makeup 
of the White House staff. The bulk of the noise being heard right now 
began with partisan commentators like Mr. Beck, suggesting this is 
somehow a new and sinister development that threatens our democracy.
  Unfortunately, this czar issue didn't start with the Obama 
administration. It goes back much further in history, and it certainly 
includes the previous Bush administration, which was not subjected to 
an amendment such as is being offered at this moment. Many of the 
officials cited by conservative commentators--and I don't include 
Senator Collins because I haven't seen her list of 18--are Senate-
confirmed appointees or advisory roles carried over from the Bush White 
House. Many are advisers to the President's Cabinet Secretaries. Many 
hold policy jobs that existed in the Bush administration. Some hold 
jobs that involve coordinating the work of agencies on President 
Obama's key policy priorities: health insurance reform, energy and 
green jobs, and building a new foundation for a longlasting economic 
growth.
  I might say that in the past the same concern and furor hasn't 
arisen. Darrell Issa, a Congressman from California, was recently on 
FOX News and was asked what kind of investigation he had made into the 
Bush administration about czars, and he said he hadn't done so. He 
hadn't raised any objection, although he now thought it was a pretty 
important issue under President Obama. In fact, if you adhere to the 
definition of czar held by many Members--and I won't include Senator 
Collins in this group but other Members in the Senate--the Bush 
administration had 47 czars--budget czars, faith czars, manufacturing 
czars, to name a few.
  Many of the Members who now decry the practice have called on 
Presidents in the past to appoint czars. Senator Robert Bennett of 
Utah, a friend and recognized colleague who worked hard on the Y2K 
concern, asked for a czar to be appointed, and he said he had worked 
with that person to maintain ``bipartisan and across-the-government 
communication.'' Even the ranking member of the Appropriations Interior 
Subcommittee, Senator Alexander of Tennessee, has had words said about 
czars in this administration. But during remarks delivered on the 
Senate floor in 2003, captured in the Congressional Record, Senator 
Alexander said, ``I would welcome [President Bush's] manufacturing job 
czar.'' That same day in the Senate, he also expressed support for 
President Bush's AIDS czar, Randall Tobias.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished assistant 
Democratic leader if he is aware that the manufacturing czar in 
President Bush's time was appointed by the President and confirmed by 
the Senate and testified before the Senate? And I wonder if he is also 
aware that the AIDS czar was appointed by the President and confirmed 
by the Senate and testified before the Senate?
  Senator Collins has been careful--I believe he is aware; I wonder if 
he is aware--that she is not talking about any czars whom we confirm 
and the President appoints and who testify, and she is only talking 
about the 18 new czars under the Obama administration, just as Senator 
Byrd did in February.
  I wonder if the Senator is aware of those things?
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for the question, and 
I am aware of that fact, and I would respond to him, that is why I was 
trying to clarify how many czars are in this Muscovite conspiracy 
because one of his colleagues from Texas, Senator Hutchison, identified 
32, as did Mr. Glenn Beck, and they included 16--pardon me, 7 of these 
so-called czars are people who have--pardon me, 9 have been confirmed 
by the Senate. So it appears that some of your colleagues do not share 
your definition that Senator Collins referred to on the floor.
  The point I am trying to make is that this is a legitimate inquiry, 
it is an important inquiry, but it has been muddled by statements made 
by some Members of Congress and certainly by those in the political 
commentary realm.
  The good news for Senator Alexander and Senator Collins and everyone 
else concerned about this issue is that a trusted friend and colleague, 
Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has 
promised a hearing on this issue. I know he will engage Senator 
Collins, as ranking Republican member, on it, and serious questions 
which have been presented will be considered by Senator Lieberman. We 
respect him in that capacity.
  So the reason I am objecting to this amendment isn't because I don't 
think Senator Collins has at least a legitimate inquiry, but I think it 
should be taken in the greater order of things rather than considered 
in this fashion on an appropriations bill.
  So, Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Collins 
amendment, No. 2498, violates rule XVI, paragraph 4, legislating on an 
appropriations bill.
  Excuse me, Mr. President, I missed one procedural step.
  I call for regular order on the pending Collins amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I now make a point of order that the 
Collins amendment, No. 2498, violates rule XVI, paragraph 4, in that it 
legislates on an appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.

[[Page 22613]]

  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader 
for his comments, and I want to especially thank the Senator from 
Maine.
  The Senator from Illinois suggested that the waters had gotten 
muddied because some of us didn't count very well in terms of the 
number of czars who might exist in the Obama administration. That is 
why we are so fortunate to have the Senator from Maine, who is always 
careful, always thoughtful, and always experienced. What she has done 
is gone back to Senator Byrd's first letter in February, in which he 
expressed his concern about the constitutional issues here, and then 
she has counted 18 new czars in the Obama administration. Her letter of 
September 14 to the President is limited, thoughtful and respectful, 
and she simply asks that the President identify the specific 
authorities and responsibilities of those positions, the process by 
which the administration examines these people, and whether they are 
willing to testify before us. She is the ranking member of the 
committee Senator Lieberman chairs and will have an opportunity during 
the hearings to explore this.
  Some of us are concerned that the administration is too dedicated to 
too many Washington takeovers, and the unusual number of new czars is 
the most visible symbol of the large number of Washington takeovers. I 
think we are fortunate that we have as thoughtful a Senator as the 
Senator from Maine and an independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe 
Lieberman, who will look into it. I am sure Senator Byrd will want to 
weigh in. Senator Feingold may want to have a hearing. So we will have 
an opportunity to have a thoughtful resolution.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for her amendment and her leadership 
on this issue, and I look forward to hearing more from her on it.
  Madam Chairman, if I could say to the Senator from California, the 
Senator from New Mexico has been waiting and the Senator from Louisiana 
has been waiting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of 
recognition before we move away from this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will be brief. I wish to compliment my 
distinguished colleague from Maine on her amendment. It was very well 
tailored and very carefully put together. I do think it is a shame that 
it won't be able to come to any vote because of this procedural move by 
the assistant majority leader.
  I want to underscore three points:
  No. 1, maybe we can talk about some other universe when we debate the 
Beck amendment, but we are not debating the Glenn Beck amendment, we 
are talking about the Collins amendment, and we will get to vote on the 
Vitter amendment. What all of us have been talking about are appointees 
of the President whose offices were not created by statute in any way 
and who were never Senate confirmed.
  No. 2, I also want to underscore the point that this is clearly a 
bipartisan concern, as evidenced by Senator Byrd's letter of February 
and the recent comments of Senator Russ Feingold. It is a very serious 
and very bipartisan concern.
  No. 3, we will have an opportunity to vote on this issue today under 
my amendment. The climate change czar is one of those 18, and she 
clearly threatens to supercede and overshadow Senate-confirmed Cabinet 
members such as the head of EPA. My amendment is very simple. It says 
EPA shouldn't have to carry out orders of the climate change czar when 
it is supposed to be headed by a Cabinet member, a Senate-confirmed 
appointee, directly at EPA.
  So again I compliment the Senator from Maine on her efforts. I will 
certainly pledge ongoing support on the issue, including through my 
amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the 
Murkowski amendment. The Murkowski amendment would prohibit the EPA 
from using funds under the Clean Air Act to deal with climate change.
  I listened earlier today, and I heard the Senator from California, 
the chairman of the Appropriations Interior, Environment Subcommittee, 
speaking about the issue, and she spoke eloquently. I heard Senator 
Boxer, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
speaking about this issue. She also made the very strong point that 
this amendment would be ill-advised and irresponsible. And I rise today 
to speak to this amendment and to oppose it.
  America and the world are face-to-face with a perfect storm--an 
energy crisis and a climate crisis that require a do-it-all energy 
policy. These two crises are closely linked, and today I would like to 
raise one facet of the solution: clean energy incentives.
  I strongly believe we should resist efforts to block the Obama 
administration actions on clean energy on the fiscal year 2010 Interior 
and Environment Appropriations Act or other legislation, for that 
matter. If that were to happen, American families and the men and women 
in our Armed Forces would be stuck with the bill.
  Concerns about the cost of the administration's actions to address 
our energy and climate crisis have it exactly backward. The biggest 
cost is the cost of inaction--costs families pay at the pump in energy 
bills every day; money from their hard-earned paychecks that end up in 
the treasuries of foreign countries or foreign oil companies, some of 
which are hostile to the United States. In the end, the only people who 
will benefit from efforts to block clean energy solutions are members 
of OPEC and other special interests in the fossil fuel industry.
  To put it simply, our dependence on fossil fuels is a huge drag on 
families' pocketbooks and a clear and present danger to our national 
security. In 2008, American families and businesses sent $475 billion 
overseas to pay for foreign oil. That works out to over $4,000 per 
household in America--a massive transfer of wealth from hard-working 
families in New Mexico and the other 49 States to the treasuries of 
foreign nations. The largest consumer of foreign oil is the U.S. 
military, which is engaged in two major conflicts in the Middle East--
an area of strategic importance largely due to its massive oil 
reserves.
  Making matters worse, this same reliance on fossil fuels pollutes our 
atmosphere with toxic compounds such as sulfur dioxide, soot, and 
mercury, alongside greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The global 
climate crisis is real. Strong scientific evidence shows unless we 
transition to clean energy sources, our home States will pay a heavy 
price.
  In New Mexico, scientific evidence indicates more devastating forest 
fires, droughts, and invasive species caused by climate change.
  Luckily, we have numerous cost-effective solutions at hand to address 
the energy and climate crisis. My home State of New Mexico and many 
other States across the Nation are rich in much cleaner domestic 
sources of energy, sources such as wind and solar, geothermal and 
natural gas. Several years ago, wind energy was unusual but today these 
projects are quite common. Wind projects create thousands of U.S. jobs 
in the steel, manufacturing, and construction sectors.
  The United States is now installing over a gigawatt of solar power 
each year and there are six other gigawatts of concentrated solar power 
projects planned nationally, particularly in the Southwest.
  U.S. natural gas reserves have also increased by 35 percent in 1 
year, an increase that gives our Nation a century's worth of supply. 
While natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is significantly cleaner than 
either coal or oil, and much more abundant.
  Despite these improvements, we continue to waste tremendous amounts 
of energy. Government and industry studies have found that the right 
investments could save energy and more than

[[Page 22614]]

$1 trillion at the same time. Energy efficiency does not mean turning 
down the heater in the winter. Rather, efficiency means investments in 
building technologies such as advanced windows, insulation, and smart 
electric grids that do not waste energy or money. Improving our 
efficiency on a major scale would also save more than 1 billion tons of 
greenhouse gases, proving we can address the global climate crisis 
without increasing costs on families.
  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration was 
required by the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution that is causing 
our climate crisis, but the Bush administration failed to act. Congress 
should not put the Obama administration in handcuffs when the President 
is trying to change course and follow the law. To those who worry that 
the administration action could short circuit debate on these issues in 
Congress, nothing could be further from the truth. I agree that 
Congress should act and set a comprehensive clean energy incentive 
policy. Numerous Cabinet Secretaries from the administration have 
testified that they welcome congressional action to create a path 
forward on clean energy. For Congress to block the administration and 
to fail to act itself would be the height of irresponsibility.
  Our energy and climate crisis have the same root cause. The Senate 
should address both challenges with the same cost-effective solutions--
incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. That is why 
efforts to block the Obama administration from acting on climate change 
are so dangerous. Such efforts continue our reliance on fossil fuels 
that hurt family budgets, threaten our national security, and pollute 
our atmosphere.
  The bottom line is America needs a ``do it all'' energy policy, one 
that includes all the tools in our energy toolbox--more alternative 
energies and a commitment to conservation; increased domestic oil 
production, including offshore; investments in clean coal research and 
technology; and nuclear power has to be part of the mix. Energy and 
climate change are one of the defining challenges of our time--our 
perfect storm. We have the tools to fix the problem. Now we need the 
will to act, not to obstruct.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to make some comments based on 
the comments the Senator from New Mexico raised.
  He talked about $4,000 a year in terms of imported oil into this 
country and then he talked about we needed to do offshore exploration, 
but I note for the Record he voted against an opportunity to expand 
offshore exploration yesterday. You can't have it both ways. If we are 
going to get off oil and hydrocarbons, it is going to take us 25 years. 
But when we have an opportunity to decrease that cost of $4,000 per 
family and use American oil, we do not have the same consistency as the 
rhetoric when it comes to the votes. I think the Record needs to show 
that although the Senator claims that, when he had the opportunity 
yesterday to vote in a way to expand domestic offshore exploration, he 
voted against that opportunity.
  I wish to take this time to bring up several amendments and make them 
pending. I thank the chairman of the committee and staff for working 
with us. We will try to make this as painless as possible and do it in 
as short a period of time as possible, but I have been down here for 
the last 4 days, every day, trying to get things done and unable to get 
them done. So I am going to take adequate time to explain these 
amendments and also explain a couple of amendments I agreed not to 
offer but I think it pertinent the American people hear about.


                           Amendment No. 2463

  First, I ask the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 
2463 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2463.

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

       (Purpose: To require public disclosure of certain reports)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act and except as provided in subsection (b), any report 
     required to be submitted by a Federal agency or department to 
     the Committee on Appropriations of either the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives in this Act shall be posted on the 
     public website of that agency upon receipt by the committee.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
       (1) the public posting of the report compromises national 
     security; or
       (2) the report contains proprietary information.


                           Amendment No. 2523

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 2523 be called up.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2523.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 secure our borders and protect our environment)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPEDE OPERATIONAL 
                   CONTROL.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     impede, prohibit, or restrict activities of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security on public lands to achieve operational 
     control (as defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act 
     of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109-367)) over the 
     international land and maritime borders of the United States.


                           Amendment No. 2483

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 2483 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2483.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 help preserve America's national parks and other public 
   land treasures by reducing maintenance backlogs that threaten the 
                     health and safety of visitors)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MAINTENANCE BACKLOG.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any funds 
     provided from the land and water conservation fund 
     established under section 2 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-5) to an agency 
     under this Act for federal land acquisition shall be used by 
     the agency for maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation 
     projects for constructed assets.


                           Amendment No. 2482

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 2482 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2482.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 protect property owners from being included without their 
    knowledge or consent in the Federal preservation and promotion 
               activities of any National Heritage Area)

       Beginning on page 173, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 174, line 5, and insert the following:

[[Page 22615]]



                northern plains heritage area, amendment

       Sec. 115. (a) In General.--Section 8004 of the Omnibus 
     Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 
     Stat. 1240) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (g) through (i) as 
     subsections (h) through (j), respectively;
       (2) in subsection (h)(1) (as redesignated by paragraph 
     (1)), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``subsection (i)'' and inserting ``subsection (j)''; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) Requirements for Inclusion and Removal of Property in 
     a National Heritage Area.--
       ``(1) Private property inclusion.--No privately owned 
     property shall be included in a National Heritage Area unless 
     the owner of the private property provides to the management 
     entity a written request for the inclusion.
       ``(2) Property removal.--
       ``(A) Private property.--At the request of an owner of 
     private property included in a National Heritage Area 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the private property shall be 
     immediately withdrawn from the National Heritage Area if the 
     owner of the property provides to the management entity a 
     written notice requesting removal.
       ``(B) Public property.--
       ``(i) Inclusion.--Only on written notice from the 
     appropriate State or local government entity may public 
     property be included in a National Heritage Area.
       ``(ii) Withdrawal.--On written notice from the appropriate 
     State or local government entity, public property shall be 
     immediately withdrawn from a National Heritage Area.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--None of the funds made 
     available by this Act shall be made available for a Heritage 
     Area that does not comply with section 8004(g) of the Omnibus 
     Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 
     Stat. 1240) (as amended by subsection (a)).


                           Amendment No. 2511

  Mr. COBURN. I ask it be set aside and amendment No. 2511 be called 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, if the Senator would be good 
enough to mention the subject of the amendment as he reads the number, 
it would be appreciated. We could keep it straight that way.
  Mr. COBURN. This is the last one. These are all in the agreement the 
Senator and I had that I would bring up and this is the last one.
  Mr. FEINSTEIN. Good. I just want to know about which one the Senator 
is speaking when he is speaking.
  Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to do that. No. 2511.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. This amendment is as modified without the second degree, 
with agreement of the chairman of the committee, and you should have 
the modified amendment at the desk.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2511.

  The amendment is as follows:

           (Purpose: To prohibit no-bid contracts and grants)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON NO-BID CONTRACTS AND GRANTS.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act may be--
       (1) used to make any payment in connection with a contract 
     not awarded using competitive procedures in accordance with 
     the requirements of section 303 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253), section 
     2304 of title 10, United States Code, and the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation; or
       (2) awarded by grant not subjected to merit-based 
     competitive procedures, needs-based criteria, and other 
     procedures specifically authorized by law to select the 
     grantee or award recipient.
       (b) This prohibition shall not apply to the awarding of 
     contracts or grants with respect to which--
       (1) no more than one applicant submits a bid for a contract 
     or grant; or
       (2) Federal law specifically authorizes a grant or contract 
     to be entered into without regard for these requirements, 
     including formula grants for States.


                    Amendment No. 2511, As Modified

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent this amendment be as modified, 
and I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, with respect to amendment No. 2511, 
Senator Coburn and I have come to an agreement. Therefore, there is no 
need for me to offer a second degree.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment No. 2511 be 
modified with the changes at the desk, and that the amendment, as 
modified, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2511), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

           (Purpose: To prohibit no-bid contracts and grants)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON NO-BID CONTRACTS AND GRANTS. (A) 
                   NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS 
                   ACT, NONE OF THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED OR 
                   OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE BY THIS ACT MAY BE--

       (1) used to make any payment in connection with a contract 
     not awarded using competitive procedures in accordance with 
     the requirements of section 303 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253), section 
     2304 of title 10, United States Code, and the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation; or
       (2) awarded by grant not subjected to merit-based 
     competitive procedures, needs-based criteria, or other 
     procedures specifically authorized by law to select the 
     grantee or award recipient.
       (b) This prohibition shall not apply to the awarding of 
     contracts or grants with respect to which--
       (1) no more than one applicant submits a bid for a contract 
     or grant; or
       (2) Federal law specifically authorizes a grant or contract 
     to be entered into without regard for these requirements, 
     including formula grants for States, or Federally recognized 
     Indian tribes; or
       (3) Such contracts or grants are authorized by the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education and Assistance Act (P.L. 93-
     638, 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq., as amended) or by any other 
     Federal laws that specifically authorize a grant or contract 
     with an Indian tribe as defined in section 4(e) of that Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will try to do this, to save some time, 
in the shortest amount of time I can. I also thank the chairman of this 
committee for working with me.
  There are several amendments I did not offer. I want to spend a 
couple of minutes talking about those because I think the American 
people need to hear about them.
  Less than a block from this building is the Belmont House. It is a 
foundation. It is a beautiful building. It has $4 million in the bank, 
the foundation does. There is an earmark in this bill at this time of a 
$1.8 trillion deficit, of a 16-percent increase in this bill. The 
Senator, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, is sending $1 million to that 
building. They have the money in the bank but we are still going to 
take $1 million from our grandkids and send it there. I am not offering 
that amendment in conjunction with having the pleasure of the chairman 
consider my other amendments. But the American people need to know that 
kind of thing is going on. It is absolutely not indicated. Who uses 
that building? We do, for fundraisers. We do for events. We do for 
social events. In fact, there is a high price paid when you rent it. 
But what we are going to do, without regard to what our fiscal 
situation is, is we are going to send another $1 million as though it 
is a peanut and send it to that building. That is all I will say on it, 
but to me it is one of the reasons why this Congress, and we in 
particular as Members of the Senate, lack the respect of the American 
people.
  The other amendment I am not going to offer that was objected to by 
the chairman of the Resources Committee is for us to know what kind of 
land we own. We don't know, since 2005, how much land we have or where 
we own it.
  Supposedly the BLM puts out something. Supposedly the Geological 
Survey puts something out. But there is not a concise list of the land 
that the Federal Government owns--and it is somewhere in excess of a 
third of all the land of this country--and it is 650 million acres. In 
this bill is another $300 million--almost $400 million--to buy more 
land. At the same time, the National Park Service has a backlog of $11 
billion. We do not have one national park that does not have 
significant factors of erosion and dilapidation that is now putting 
both the employees and park visitors at risk. Yet we are going

[[Page 22616]]

to spend $400 million to buy more land, to require more of their 
services to take care of, rather than to take care of what we have. It 
does not fit with common sense.
  There is no way the American people as a whole would embrace that 
kind of stupidity. Yet that is in this bill. We are going to buy more 
land, we are going to take more land off the tax rolls, we are going to 
hurt the States, we are going to limit the ability of property owners, 
and we are going to continue--the Park Service, this year, their 
backlog grew by over $400 million.
  We have the Carlsbad Caverns where we had sewage leaking into the 
cavern. I won't spend the time to go through the hundreds of examples 
the Park Service has given us, that they cannot maintain the parks 
because we will not send them the money to do it. We would rather spend 
it on an earmark or buy more land. The priorities here are amazing.
  Let me talk about amendment No. 2511. I will spend a short period on 
it. That is the competitive bidding amendment. We have carefully 
crafted that with the concerns of both staff and the chairman and 
ranking member of this committee. What it says is we are going to use 
competitive bidding, much like the President campaigned, when we go to 
buy things that are approved in this bill. We very carefully exempted 
the sections of the Native Americans where their sovereignty reigns, 
where we would not step on their sovereignty--although I am not sure we 
should not require them to competitively bid, but we agreed not to do 
that.
  Here is what we do know. If you take different branches of the 
Federal Government, about 5 percent of the costs are excessive because 
we do not have competitive bidding. If you take the Pentagon, it is 
about $20 billion a year because we do not have competitive bidding. In 
the Interior it is much smaller. But any penny we can save, in terms of 
enhancing the value of the American taxpayers' dollars by saying what 
we buy is going to be competitively bid, we ought to do that. We ought 
to get the best value we can. We may not always get great value but at 
least we are going to have a competitive bid and we are at least going 
to have everybody in that who is qualified to have a shot at some of 
that business. So it is a ``two-fer.'' It is, No. 1, better value for 
the American people but also opening up all this to everybody who has a 
opportunity to offer a service when the Federal Government buys it.
  With that, we have an agreement and I appreciate the chairman 
accepting that amendment.
  Amendment No. 2463 is an amendment for the public to see all the 
reports required by this bill if, in fact, that will not in any way 
compromise national security. I think we have worked out an agreement 
on that amendment to where that is going to be accepted. It is about 
transparency.
  We ought to make sure the American people see what we are doing, and 
if we ask for a report that will not in any way endanger the security 
of this country that comes back to us, there is no reason the American 
people should not be able to see that and we make it available to them 
so they can make a judgment to judge us on what we are doing and 
whether we are responding properly to problems identified in such 
reports.
  So I am very thankful for the chairman in terms of accepting this 
amendment. I look forward to her comments on it. We should do the same 
thing with this amendment as we did with the last one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to do the same thing. 
If I may, Senator Coburn's amendment No. 2463, he and I have come to an 
agreement.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment be agreed to and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2463) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2523

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I switch now to amendment No. 2523, 
which is a prohibition on funds being spent in this act that would 
actually limit the effectiveness of the Homeland Security Department in 
terms of securing our borders and protecting us.
  This amendment basically ensures that the wilderness areas and other 
public lands are protected from crime and pollution. I know it is not 
seen that way, but what is happening is a very big and sad story about 
what is happening in our wilderness areas.
  Border violence and trafficking is at an all-time high. Our public 
lands along the border are being exploited by drug and human smugglers. 
Wilderness concerns hinder law enforcement efforts. How do we balance 
properly our concerns for the environment and still secure our borders 
and still protect our population from both drug smuggling and human 
trafficking?
  Wilderness areas also are being destroyed by these very smugglers 
because we do not allow the enforcement agencies access to be able to 
make a difference. We have not acted on it; we have not acted on it in 
this bill. We have to make sure there is the proper balance between 
protecting our wilderness areas and protecting our country and our 
citizens.
  We have sought to address in the last couple of years our border 
security concerns by appropriating a large increase in Federal funds 
for law enforcement and for significant legislation to construct 
infrastructure along the southern border.
  In the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Congress sought to ensure that the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security was able to take the 
actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain the 
operational control over the entire international land and maritime 
borders of the United States.
  The goal of the act was to prevent all unlawful entries into the 
United States, including entries by terrorists, narcotics, and other 
contraband, except it has not had the desired impact, and in large 
part, to the unwelcome increase of illegal human and drug trafficking 
through public lands, along our southern border. So we have a conflict 
of desires by agencies to do their jobs.
  Amendment No. 2523 would prohibit any funds from within the Interior 
appropriations bill to be used to prohibit or restrict the activities 
of Homeland Security on public lands to secure our borders. The effect 
of this amendment would be to ensure that DHS is able to further secure 
our borders from terrorists and other national security threats and 
protect the environment of these lands.
  I know there is some concern on the other side with the language, the 
way we have written it. I am more than willing to work with the 
chairman of both the Resources Committee, Interior Committee, and the 
Appropriations Committee to try to put that in a way that properly 
balances it. I know this is a tough amendment. I do not deny that.
  But when you hear the testimony--and I am going to ask that this be 
printed in the Record. This is former Border Patrol officers and field 
supervisory Border Patrol agents who testified in Congress last April 
about what is going on in our wilderness areas.
  Do you realize that these people, because we do not have law 
enforcement in there, they are setting fires in our wilderness areas to 
distract us to the fire so they can smuggle contraband and humans while 
we are addressing the fire?
  Our wilderness areas are being defiled near McAllen, TX. It relates: 
When a wilderness area or refuge is established near the border, the 
criminal element moves in and trashes it because the restrictive 
wilderness or refuge status accorded to these lands effectively 
prevents all law enforcement from effectively working the area.
  This is Border Patrol:

       In other words, refuge or wilderness designation actually 
     serves to put the environment at a greater risk of being 
     seriously damaged and defaced. Law enforcement must have 
     common, unrestricted, free access to all lands near the U.S. 
     border.


[[Page 22617]]


  He goes on to clarify that it needs to be at least 50 miles. The 
other thing that was especially telling and which is horrific is the 
comments about what is going on along Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 in 
Arizona: numerous reported ``rape trees'' have been identified in and 
near the current Pajarita Wilderness near the U.S.-Mexican border.

       Rape trees mark the location where drug and alien smugglers 
     habitually sexually assault and rape illegal alien females 
     that are being brought into the United States across the 
     Mexican border. These locations are marked by the 
     perpetrators who prominently display and hang--

  I will not use the words that he does.

       the underwear of their victims on a particular tree. I 
     visited one such reported tree on March 27, 2008, and noticed 
     30 sets of underwear. These rape-tree trails begin at the 
     Mexican border and travel all of the way through the Pajarita 
     Wilderness.

  In southern Arizona we are experiencing increased incidents of 
wildfires from two primary sources. The first source is illegal aliens 
who cross into the United States illegally and start fires through 
carelessness. The second is from illegal aliens engaged in other 
criminal enterprises who start wildfires intentionally to create a 
diversion so they can smuggle things into or out of the United States.
  You cannot deny the fact that we are having a conflict between the 
Department of Interior and the Department of Homeland Security in terms 
of law enforcement along our border. The tragedy is that the very 
intent of the Department of Interior to protect the environment is 
actually being made worse by their policy of not allowing law 
enforcement efforts, i.e., the Border Patrol, into those areas.
  So this amendment is intended to do a couple of things. Let me talk 
about what the claims against this amendment are first, and that I am 
more than willing to try to work out a sensible agreement. What is 
driving me nuts is those two Departments have not worked out a sensible 
agreement themselves, which we ought to have significant oversight 
hearings on the fact that we are having to do something that they 
should be taking care of.
  The claim is that if this amendment passes it will devastate the 
environment and give the Department of Homeland Security the mandate to 
show no regard for the environment. Nothing can be further from the 
truth. The interpretation of congressional intent that we currently 
have has led to the destruction of much of our wilderness area because 
human and drug smugglers have been able to use these lands as major 
thoroughfares without fear of law enforcement.
  Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security will still be 
obligated to conduct its law enforcement activities in a manner that 
seeks to minimize or mitigate any negative environmental impact. Do you 
realize in Arizona they are cutting down 150-year-old cactuses to block 
the road to inhibit anybody following them? And the fact that we do not 
have significant law enforcement, i.e., Border Patrol there, these 
majestic, 100-year-old cactuses, which are protected, are intentionally 
being destroyed to protect the smugglers.
  In the past, when the Secretary of Homeland Security waived 30 
environmental and other laws and regulations associated with the 
construction of tactical infrastructure along the southwest border in 
compliance with the Federal law, he still required the Department to 
practice responsible stewardship of natural and cultural resources.
  The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is also committed to do that. I 
will stop with this: I do want to have printed in the Record a letter 
from the National Border Patrol Council, which is the AFL-CIO 
representative of our Border Patrol agents who fully endorse this 
amendment because they are the people actually on the ground seeing the 
problem, and we are not allowing them to do their job.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Eagle Forum,

                                               September 23, 2009.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the many thousands of American 
     families we represent, I urge you to support Senator Tom 
     Coburn's (R-OK) Secure Our Borders and Protect the 
     Environment amendment (#2523) to the Interior Appropriations 
     bill, H.R. 2996, currently being debated on the Senate floor.
       The Coburn amendment would simply prevent any funds in this 
     bill from going to any Department of the Interior efforts or 
     activities to impede or stall the Department of Homeland 
     Security's progress of the border fence or to prevent the 
     enforcement of U.S. law on public lands near the border. 
     Yesterday, the House passed a motion to recommit to the Santa 
     Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act (H.R. 324) by a vote 
     of 259 to 167 that included this same amendment language.
       In 2006, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed the Secure 
     Fence Act of 2006 by a vote of 80 to 19 to construct 700 
     miles of border fence between the U.S. and Mexico--even then-
     Senator, President Barack Obama, voted in favor of the fence. 
     Despite the enactment of this law and billions of taxpayer 
     dollars for law enforcement efforts, our border remains 
     vulnerable and the increase in violence in Mexico has begun 
     to spill over into the United States. Even worse, our 
     national parks and other federal public lands are being 
     easily targeted by and used as sanctuaries for illegal drug 
     smugglers because environmental concerns limit the range of 
     U.S. Border Patrol agents and also complicate efforts to 
     build the barrier ordered by Congress.
       Not only do these restrictions on enforcement endanger our 
     border guards, but the increased illegal activity as a result 
     of reduced law enforcement has led to adverse environmental 
     impacts on these lands, including contamination of pristine 
     areas with bio-hazardous waste and communicable diseases, 
     contamination of water supplies for animals and local 
     ranchers, and an increase in wildfires.
       We need the Coburn amendment because it is a common-sense 
     step in our fight against the illegal drug and human trade, 
     to secure our border, and to restore our wilderness areas 
     that border Mexico. I urge you to vote in favor of the Coburn 
     amendment when it comes up for a floor vote today. Eagle 
     Forum will score this vote, which will appear in our 
     scoreboard, published annually, for the 1st session of the 
     111th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Suzanne Bibby,
     Legislative Director, Eagle Forum.
                                  ____

         National Border Patrol Council of the American Federation 
           of Government Employees, Affiliated With AFL-CIO,
                                               September 24, 2009.
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coburn: The United States Border Patrol is 
     charged with the formidable task of securing our Nation's 
     borders, and confronts numerous obstacles that hinder the 
     accomplishment of that goal, including rugged terrain, 
     extreme climatic conditions, an overwhelming number of people 
     crossing the border illegally, and violence perpetrated by 
     smugglers and other criminals. Bureaucratic regulations that 
     prevent Border Patrol agents from utilizing vehicles and 
     technology on public lands should be the least of their 
     concerns, but unfortunately are not.
       Your amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations bill 
     for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies that would 
     preclude the use any of those funds to impede, prohibit, or 
     restrict any activities of the Department of Homeland 
     Security on public lands that are undertaken to achieve 
     operational control of our borders is therefore greatly 
     appreciated by the dedicated men and women of the U.S. Border 
     Patrol.
           Sincerely,
                                                      T.J. Bonner,
                                                        President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, if I may say through the Chair to 
the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, the manager of the amendment 
and I are prepared to take the amendment. Moreover, we are prepared to 
convene a meeting between the two Department heads, have you present, 
and sit down and see what we can work out.
  Mr. COBURN. Well, that is perfectly acceptable to me. I want the 
problem solved. I think security is just as important as protecting our 
environment. We are not going to allow one to trump the other.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We will accept the amendment on both sides with the 
stricture I just added to it on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2523) was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam President.

[[Page 22618]]




                           Amendment No. 2483

  Mr. COBURN. I would next like to talk about amendment No. 2483. This 
is the amendment that moves the Federal Land Acquisition Fund to 
backlog.
  There is no question my colleagues in this body know of my concern 
about an ever-expanding, ever-enlarging Federal role in terms of land 
ownership. In fact, I have had a lot of conflicts with the chairmen, 
whether it was a Republican chairman or a Democratic chairman, in terms 
of expanding the amount of property the Federal Government owns.
  It is not just about expanding. When we expand it costs more money. 
It costs our kids more money. But in this bill, we have almost $400 
million that is going to be put in to buy more land where we cannot 
take care of the land that we have today.
  What we know is the following: Federal land management agencies 
across all these different branches of government, as well as within 
this bill, are responsible for a large and aging number of structures. 
As we have continued, through the Federal Government, to consume more 
private land nationwide, Federal agencies have increasingly been unable 
to maintain the existing land holdings.
  All one has to do is talk to any park ranger. Go up to the Statue of 
Liberty, they have an $800 million backlog. Go to the Washington Mall, 
well over $1 billion in maintaining some of our most significant 
structures. If you go to the Grand Canyon National Park, people are 
continually being limited because we can't maintain the trails and 
because we don't put the money in to do it. The National Park Service, 
which receives most of the money to buy more land in this bill, faces 
an $11 billion backlog.
  When I first started talking about the issue, the backlog was $6 
billion. In 4 years, we have seen the backlog with the National Park 
Service almost double. Although I am thankful for the increase in 
maintenance funds this bill does add to the national parks, it does not 
come sufficiently close.
  What is the priority? Is the priority for the Federal Government to 
consume more land, restrict more access, limit the freedom of people 
around that land and on that land, or is it to let Americans own the 
land and take care of the land the Federal Government already has? It 
owns a third of the land. How much land is enough for the Federal 
Government to own? How much is enough, especially when most of the land 
we own we are not taking care of. We are letting it fall down. The 
question has to be: What are the priorities?
  The committee says the priority is to buy more land. This amendment 
says the priority is to repair and take care of the land we have. It 
specifically directs this money to the National Park Service to help 
with a backlog of falling down structures and the increased risk of 
safety for both park employees and visitors.
  I obviously don't have all the information the committee has, but as 
the Senator from New Mexico knows, I have been looking at land 
acquisition and land bills for the last few years. I have not been 
successful in slowing them down, but I think the American people need 
to know about this. They need to recognize that our priorities are 
screwed up and that, in fact, we ought to be about taking care of what 
we have before we add to it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, regretfully, I have to oppose this 
amendment. The fact is, we would lose opportunities to conserve 
valuable lands because within national parks there are inholdings, and 
inholdings, when they become available--these are private properties 
that people own--the Federal Government buys them and adds to the 
public land. Let me name a few: In Georgia, I am told the Chattahoochee 
National Recreation Area would be involved; in many States, Civil War 
battlefield sites; in Ohio, the Cuyahoga Valley National Park; in the 
State of Washington, Mount Rainier, Olympic, and San Juan National 
Parks; in Texas, Big Thicket National Preserve; in Indiana, the Hoosier 
National Forest; in Utah, Dixie National Forest; in South Dakota, the 
Black Hills National Forest.
  The point I wish to make is, on occasion, there are families who have 
large land holdings, and these are valuable, pristine land holdings. 
Their first preference might be to have the Federal Government buy 
these lands to hold them for the future and to conserve the lands. If 
the Federal Government can't do that, the lands go on the market, 
generally, for the highest and best use. With some of our prized and 
treasured possessions, that is not the way to go.
  I will oppose this amendment. I am sure it will be in line for a 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. The chairman makes my point for me. Yes, we might miss an 
opportunity. But we don't have the courage to put the priorities right. 
We are going to miss an opportunity while structures fall down at 
Yellowstone. That is what the choice is. We are going to take large, 
valuable land segments that are now paying property taxes and, because 
they are up for sale, we are going to spend that money rather than 
repair Carlsbad Caverns. That is the choice. The chairman made my 
argument for me. We are not going to do the sensible thing.
  Many of these things will come back. They are not gone forever. What 
we are saying is, because we don't have any limitation on what we spend 
or how we spend it, we therefore have no limitation in worrying about 
whether things fall down. The fact is, now an $11 billion backlog, 
which grew $400 million last year alone in the Forest Service, 
documented by the Forest Service--those are not my numbers--we are 
going to say these are more important now than putting back in proper 
order things that relate to safety or security in the national parks. I 
will end with the fact that if we don't do this, what we have done is 
earned the reputation we are garnering, that we refuse to make tough 
choices. Life is about tough choices. Maybe we don't get to add to one 
of these parks right now. But how about taking care of what we have? 
Why not make that a priority?
  It is kind of like when your front porch is falling down and that is 
the only entrance to your house, you start building a garage rather 
than fix your front porch or you buy an extra five acres so you can 
have a big garden. We wouldn't do that. The American people wouldn't do 
that. We need to respond with some commonsense solutions. Instead, we 
are adding to the cost as the backlog grows.
  I am uncomfortable with the fact that that is how we think here. I 
know the American people are uncomfortable with that fact. I am 
disappointed we will not have the support of the committee. I look 
forward to the vote.
  The next amendment I will call up is pending, but I will discuss 
amendment No. 2482.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield? I know he is a gentleman.
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, when we did the stimulus, we put in 
the maximum amount that the departments could use for maintenance and 
rehabilitation. I have the breakdown. It is hard to add it all up 
quickly, but I can give some idea. Bureau of Land Management deferred 
maintenance, $35 million; recreation maintenance, 25; trail 
maintenance, 20; abandoned mine site remediation, $30 million; habitat 
restoration, 25. It goes on. I recall as we did this, what we were told 
by our staffs is that was the maximum amount these departments could 
absorb in the length of time covered by the stimulus. I will leave my 
colleagues with that.
  Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to have a UC on this amendment that 
would exclude the inholdings, if that would satisfy the chairman.
  In fact, the inholdings are a very small amount of the $400 million. 
A very small amount of the money for land acquisitions is inholdings. I 
would be happy to accept a second degree that would exclude the 
inholdings from this.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that, but I cannot accept that. We 
believe the Land and Water Conservation Fund is working as it is 
supposed to. If anything, it has been underfunded. This

[[Page 22619]]

bill proposes to appropriate $420 million of the $900 million that is 
authorized. That is less than 50 percent. The Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, we believe, is extraordinarily important. We would 
try to get it higher if we could, but we cannot.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman for her comments on that. I am sure 
it is important. It is important to preserve what we have. You can't go 
to one national park and talk to the park rangers and talk to the 
person in charge without hearing them talk about the declining status 
of their individual parks. We have to start making some choices. We are 
going to refuse to do that. So next year, instead of it being $11 
billion, it is going to be $11.6 billion, and then it is going to grow. 
What is happening right now is, we are shutting off parts of our parks. 
We are saying, since it is dangerous or it is in disrepair, we cannot 
let people experience it.
  I will put in the Record hundreds of examples where that is happening 
right now. We have researched and the parks have told us where they are 
limiting access because of the lack of maintenance funds and funds for 
repair of required things in the parks.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2504, as Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2504, as modified, be 
called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment, as modified, is pending.


                Amendment No. 2504, as Further Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, there is a further modification at 
the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be further 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further 
modified.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

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

       On page 135, line 2, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``of which $200,000 may be made available by the 
     Secretary of the Interior to develop, in conjunction with 
     Morehouse College, a program to catalogue, preserve, provide 
     public access to and research on, develop curriculum and 
     courses based on, provide public access to, and conduct 
     scholarly forums on the important works and papers of Dr. 
     Martin Luther King, Jr. to provide a better understanding of 
     the message and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.;''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this modification, which has been 
agreed to on both sides, allows the Secretary of the Interior to make 
$200,000 available for preservation of the Martin Luther King papers. 
It is an amendment offered by Senator Isakson. I fully support the 
amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment as 
further modified, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2504), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2535

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 2535.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for Mr. 
     Barrasso, proposes an amendment numbered 2535.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the use of certain funds for an Indian estate 
                      planning assistance program)

       In the matter under the heading ``Federal trust programs 
     (including transfer of funds)'' under the heading ``Office of 
     the special trustee for american indians'' under the heading 
     ``Department of the Interior'' of title I, insert ``, and of 
     which $1,500,000 shall be available for the estate planning 
     assistance program under section 207(f) of the Indian Land 
     Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2206(f))'' after ``historical 
     accounting''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this amendment has been accepted by 
both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2535) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2527

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 2527.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for Mr. 
     Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 2527.

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

   (Purpose: To modify the definition of the term ``Beaver Dam Wash 
                   National Conservation Area Map'')

       On page 240, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       Sec. 4__.  Section 1971(1) of the Omnibus Public Land 
     Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 460www note; Public Law 
     111-11) is amended by striking ``December 18, 2008'' and 
     inserting ``September 20, 2009''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2527) was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I come to the floor because we were 
looking at an amendment earlier today that would have stopped the EPA 
from exercising its obligation to combat global warming pollution. 
There are those here who would choose to defer taking action to deal 
with this enormous threat where future generations' lives and well-
being would be at risk. But the time for delay is a luxury we don't 
have. We can't afford to wait any longer and we cannot afford to limit 
our options.
  Every day the science makes it more clear we are on a dangerous 
course. In fact, the scientific community has recently had to revise 
its own estimates because rising temperatures are destabilizing our 
planet far faster than originally expected. For instance, 2 years ago, 
scientists warned us that summers in the Arctic would be completely ice 
free by 2050. Now they are saying summers in the Arctic will be 
completely ice free in 3 years. Two years ago they said sea levels 
would rise less than 2 feet by the end of this century and now it is 
being said sea levels will rise by 6 feet. The risks of inaction are 
too great.
  We have to look also at the national security risks we face by 
continuing to do nothing about climate change. According to the CIA's 
National Intelligence Council, if we fail to act, nearly 1 billion 
people may face water and food shortages in the next 15 years. These 
shortages will set the stage for conflict and breed conditions for 
terrorism. At the same time, with 20 percent of the world's population 
living in

[[Page 22620]]

 coastal zones, rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes could 
displace more than 150 million people by 2050. When it is expressed in 
percentages such as that and talking about numbers that are almost 
beyond the imagination, it sometimes loses its impact. But what we are 
talking about are people seeking higher-level places to take themselves 
and their families so they are not overwhelmed by floods.
  Border pressures created by these mass migrations will increase 
tensions and lay the groundwork for armed conflict. The U.S. Navy has 
looked at this problem in the past and issued a report that in the last 
half of the 21st century we could be looking at a different structure 
for naval engagements with smaller boats, higher speeds, and so forth 
to keep people from flooding our shores because they are trying to get 
away from higher water. Nations will look to us, to the United States, 
as a first responder in the aftermath of these major natural 
emergencies and humanitarian disasters.
  Retired GEN Anthony Zinni put it this way, that if we don't begin 
reducing carbon emissions now, we will ``pay the price later in 
military terms and that will involve human lives.''
  Delay is not a substitute for confronting this growing problem. It is 
no surprise that many of those who want to shelve the Clean Air Act and 
stop EPA from doing its duty are the same ones who close their eyes to 
the overwhelming scientific evidence that says, Wake up, hear the 
alarm. They have dismissed the ominous forecasts of life changes for 
plants, animals, and humans. They called global warming ``the greatest 
hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'' A hoax is a joke. That 
is a bad joke.
  Let's not forget, the EPA's power to curb greenhouse gas emissions 
under the Clean Air Act was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court. The 
Clean Air Act has been one of the great success stories of our lifetime 
and it is one of the few tools we have to overcome climate change. For 
the last 40 years, this law has led to cleaner skies and healthier 
children. If it weren't for the Clean Air Act, 225,000 Americans would 
have died prematurely, according to an EPA study. Imagine, we would 
have lost 225,000 people if it weren't for the Clean Air Act.
  While the gains have been enormous, the cost to polluters has been 
minimal. In fact, the total benefits to our economy have been 
identified as high as $49 trillion, putting the benefit at 100 times 
greater than the cost for action. Even so, history shows that opponents 
often dramatically overstate the costs of environmental improvement. 
The last time we strengthened the Clean Air Act, our adversaries rang 
the alarm that these changes would cost too much and damage the 
economy. But as it turned out, the actual costs were less than one-
fifth of what these opponents estimated. Today, even though EPA has a 
proven track record of producing trillions in benefits for our economy 
and our country under the Clean Air Act, we are hearing the same kinds 
of warnings. It makes no sense.
  There is no doubt our opponents prefer to endorse inaction and will 
reward failure. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up to the 
special interests and stand for the public interest. It is time to say 
from our hearts that we are willing to stand firm against those who 
claim the overstated cost of change outweighs the risk of disappearing 
species, poor health, and international unrest.
  With that, I yield the floor and 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. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I wish to put my colleagues on notice 
that we are trying to work out an amendment so it can be acceptable to 
all parties concerned. It has to do with the heritage areas. If, in 
fact, you are a landowner in this country or you are a farmer or you 
are a rancher or you happen to have 20 acres in the country, you ought 
to be very worried about the implications and the consequences of those 
who come in and change the zoning laws on heritage areas.
  Most people in this country have no idea they are in a heritage area. 
They have no knowledge that they are in a heritage area. As a matter of 
fact, the whole State of Tennessee is a heritage area. So what we are 
attempting to do is to create a mechanism where anybody in the country 
who is in a heritage area who doesn't want to be in it can be out of it 
with their property.
  We also want to respectfully protect some efforts in North Dakota on 
one specifically where they would have to opt in. So we are working on 
an agreement. We will come back and talk about this when this is 
finished. Hopefully, this is the start of restoring property rights to 
Americans that have been trampled, in my opinion, by those who are 
empowered through the heritage area name.
  My hope is we are going to make good progress on this with this bill. 
It is important. If you are a farmer or a rancher, if you are a farm 
bureau member, if you are a cattleman or if you are a dairy farmer, it 
is time to make sure this stays--whatever agreement we come to--in this 
bill as it goes to conference. Because real property rights are at 
risk. They have been at risk. They have been trampled on. This is a 
great solution in terms of solving it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from 
Oklahoma, the Senator from California, the Senator from North Dakota, 
and the Senator from New Mexico for their work on this amendment. The 
Senator from Oklahoma stated it exactly right, and that is our 
intention. I wish to thank the Senators involved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am in support of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Oklahoma. I also offered an amendment which I 
understand will be accepted. It allows for something called an ``opt 
in'' for private property. It means that for the Northern Plains 
Heritage Area, private property would be involved only if someone 
wishes to be included. My understanding is, after having worked with 
the Senators from Tennessee and Oklahoma, and the Senator from 
California, who is managing this bill, my amendment will also be 
accepted by unanimous consent.
  My amendment is amendment No. 2441 which has previously been filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, in the interest of moving things 
along--Members are impatient. We have been on this bill for a long 
time. We wish to conclude. It is my understanding both sides are 
agreeable to take the Dorgan amendment No. 2441, so I ask for unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma has asked 
to be present when we do that, so I wonder if it might not be possible 
to take up other amendments at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I withdraw my prior request and I ask 
unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock tonight, the Senate proceed to vote 
in relation to the following amendments and motion to recommit 
remaining in order to H.R. 2996, the Interior Appropriations Act, and 
in the following order:
  The Vitter amendment, No. 2549; the Ensign motion to recommit; the 
Coburn amendment No. 2482; the Coburn amendment No. 2483; and the Reid 
amendment No. 2531; that the remaining provisions of the previous order 
are still in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the exercise of governmental authority 
by White House advisers, sometimes called ``czars,'' is a serious issue 
that deserves serious consideration by the Senate. Our ability to 
conduct meaningful oversight of those who hold the

[[Page 22621]]

levers of power and to evaluate whether they have the qualifications 
and character to carry out their duties may be undermined by the 
centralization of power in the White House. That is why I wrote to the 
President recently and plan to chair a hearing in the Constitution 
Subcommittee on this topic in the very near future. We need to know 
more about the role of these advisers and what powers they have. There 
is a core issue here that concerns me. At this point, however, it is 
premature to pass legislation on this topic before fully understanding 
the constitutional and policy ramifications. I am also uncomfortable 
with singling out a single policy adviser, the Assistant to the 
President for Energy and Climate Change, particularly since I am not 
aware of any evidence that she is acting inappropriately. Therefore, I 
will vote against the Vitter amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield back the time remaining on the 
Vitter amendment No. 2549, and I move to table it. I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll. `
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     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
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     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
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] moves to recommit H.R. 
     2996 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back to the Senate with changes that reduce 
     the aggregate level of discretionary appropriations in the 
     Act for fiscal year 2010 by $4,270,000,000 from the level 
     currently in the Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this is a very simple motion. It just says 
that at this time of runaway deficits, of out-of-control Federal 
spending, we are going to try to do a little something. We are just 
going to take this appropriations bill and say with regard to last 
year's level, which was increased fairly substantially, we are going to 
freeze it to last year's level.
  As State budgets, local budgets, and family budgets are all being 
cut, trimmed, and tightened around the country, Washington says: You 
know what, we are going to print money. We are just going to borrow 
from our children and grandchildren and continue to print money and 
print money and push it off onto the next generation.
  It is time for this body to show some fiscal restraint. So let's cut 
$4 billion out of this spending bill and bring it back to last year's 
level. Let the Appropriations Committee determine where that spending 
is, but let's actually show some fiscal responsibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote. I am going to 
move to table at the appropriate time. If we adopt the Ensign motion, 
we cut Park Service dollars, Indian health dollars, particularly water 
infrastructure. Mr. President, $2.5 billion in this bill is for sewer 
grants; $1.8 billion is for fire suppression. It is the first time we 
have met the fire suppression need fully so that they do not have to 
take from other accounts to fight fires.
  I move to table the motion to recommit.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the motion to 
recommit.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative 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 64, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

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

                                NAYS--34

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The motion to table the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 2482, As Modified

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I think we can dispense with two fairly 
quickly, one with a vote and one without. We have worked out an 
agreement on amendment No. 2482. I believe the modification is at the 
desk. We have an agreement between the chairman and ranking member of 
the committee and the Senator from New Mexico, who is chair of the 
appropriate authorizing committee, which allows private property owners 
to opt out of heritage areas. I ask for its consideration now, rather 
than spending more time on it, and ask unanimous consent it be 
accepted.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is correct. We are prepared to accept the 
amendment.

[[Page 22622]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment will 
be modified and agreed to as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2482), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Any owner of private property within an existing or new 
     National Heritage Area may opt out of participating in any 
     plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the 
     National Heritage Area if the property owner provides written 
     notice to the local coordinating entity.


                           Amendment No. 2441

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. A corollary part of this is Dorgan amendment No. 
2441, which also moves along with this. So we are prepared to accept 
Dorgan No. 2441 as well.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say I think this has been cleared 
by both sides. It does have a connection to the previous amendment. I 
appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from California, the Senator 
from Tennessee, and the Senator from Oklahoma.
  I ask for its immediate consideration and approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     and Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment No. 2441.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for the inclusion of property in, or removal of 
           property from, the Northern Plains Heritage Area)

       Beginning on page 173, strike line 12 and all that follows 
     through page 174, line 5, and insert the following:
       ``(g) Requirements for Inclusion and Removal of Property in 
     Heritage Area.--
       ``(1) Private property inclusion.--No privately owned 
     property shall be included in the Heritage Area unless the 
     owner of the private property provides to the management 
     entity a written request for the inclusion.
       ``(2) Property removal.--
       ``(A) Private property.--At the request of an owner of 
     private property included in the Heritage Area pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), the private property shall be immediately 
     withdrawn from the Heritage Area if the owner of the property 
     provides to the management entity a written notice requesting 
     removal.
       ``(B) Public property.--On written notice from the 
     appropriate State or local government entity, public property 
     included in the Heritage Area shall be immediately withdrawn 
     from the Heritage Area.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be 
accepted.
  The amendment (No. 2441) was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2483

  Mr. COBURN. We are on amendment No. 2483, which was not agreed to. We 
could not work out an agreement. I want to take a minute or two--we 
don't have a time agreement on this--to talk about this amendment, what 
amendment No. 2483 will do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on this 
amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. I am not sure I was present. Do we have a unanimous 
consent in that regard?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. I should have been here to object.
  We have an $11 billion backlog in the national parks. It grew by $400 
million this year. The Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 was not 
meant just to buy land. It was meant to take care of the backlogs and 
the problems associated with outdoor recreation enjoyment by the 
American people. There is almost $400 million in this bill to buy more 
land rather than take care of the things we have today. This amendment 
simply moves that to take care of the backlog at every national park we 
have. If we do not do that, we are soon going to be at $12 billion, 
soon at $13 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. COBURN. The fact is, it is common sense. Every American knows you 
do not build a garage when your front porch is falling down and that is 
the only way to get into your house. That is what is happening to our 
parks. I know there is some increased funding for the parks but the 
fact is they are falling down, whether it is Yellowstone--I don't care 
where it is, there are significant maintenance problems in the parks. 
That ought to be a priority before we add 1 more acre to 650 million 
acres we already own.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we oppose this amendment. We oppose it 
because it takes $420 million out of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. We oppose it because the committee in the stimulus bill put in as 
many dollars as these departments could absorb in the period of time 
for maintenance.
  I move to table. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

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

                                NAYS--19

     Barrasso
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Risch
     Thune
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

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


                           Amendment No. 2531

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Reid 
amendment No. 2531.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield back all time on the Reid amendment. It has 
been cleared on both sides. I ask for its adoption by unanimous 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2531) was agreed to.


                            tahoe rim trail

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to provide additional 
clarification regarding a congressionally directed spending items 
included in the fiscal year 2010 Senate Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee. At Senator Reid's request, the committee included 
$100,000 for the U.S. Forest Service to fund trail improvements in 
Nevada. It is my understanding that Senator Reid intended those funds 
to be used for improvements for the Tahoe Rim Trail, to be conducted 
through a partnership with the Tahoe Rim Trail Association. Due to a 
clerical error, the project is not listed correctly in the committee 
report, and I would like to ensure that the Record clearly reflects 
Senator Reid's intended use for these funds.

[[Page 22623]]

Through the chair, I would like to ask my colleague from Nevada, the 
distinguished majority leader, if my understanding of his intent is 
correct?
  Mr. REID. I would like to thank the chairman for her efforts to 
clarify this matter Chairman Feinstein is correct, I do intend that the 
funds recommended by the committee be used by the U.S. Forest Service 
for improvements to the Tahoe Rim Trail through their partnership with 
the Tahoe Rim Trail Association. I would also note for the record that 
my request complies fully with all disclosure requirements relating to 
congressionally directed spending.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
clarification and I look forward to working with him to support his 
project as we move through the annual appropriations process.


                             FUNDING RCAPs

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Chair knows, I have long been a 
supporter of improving the quality of drinking water in rural America. 
There is a lot of work to be done. While small rural communities are 
home to fewer than 20 percent of America's population, they account for 
more than 85 percent of the Nation's community water systems, and are 
more likely than larger systems to report major drinking water 
violations. According to EPA data, 93 percent of the maximum 
contaminant level, MCL, and treatment technique, TT, violations 
reported in 2002 affected community water systems serving fewer than 
10,000 people. MCL and TT violations include higher than allowable 
levels of organic and inorganic contaminants such as arsenic, benzene, 
atrazine, lead, copper and nitrate.
  One significant reason for these high numbers is the lack of capacity 
among local elected officials to deal with the complexities of 
maintaining a safe and clean supply of drinking water. For this reason 
I have supported funding for RCAPs--six regional nonprofit 
organizations that help rural communities with facilities needs.
  The technical assistance and training activities the RCAPs provide 
focus on helping communities comply with the Clean Water Act and the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. Last year alone, the RCAPs assisted more than 
2,000 communities, leveraged over $200,000,000 in funding, conducted 78 
training sessions for almost 2,000 community water officials, and 
assisted nearly 3 million people to access safe and clean water. Most 
of the communities the RCAPs work with have populations of less than 
1,500.
  Funding for the RCAPs has been included in this bill for more than 20 
years. I understand that the committee was limited by rules regarding 
earmarks, and I note that funding for the RCAPs is not included in the 
fiscal year 2010 Senate bill. However, I understand that the House bill 
includes funding for the RCAPs at the current rate and it my hope that 
in conference the Senate will move toward the House position on this.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for his comments on this. I 
appreciate the difficulties faced by rural communities in gaining and 
maintaining access to adequate drinking water. I also know well the 
good work of the RCAPs in assisting those communities. As we move into 
conference on this legislation I look forward to working with my 
colleague to see if we can maintain funding for this important program.


                          White Nose Syndrome

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to discuss with the Senator a serious 
issue that deserves our attention. White nose syndrome, WNS, is a 
fungus that is causing an extraordinary number of bat deaths, 
particularly in the Northeast. This disease has the potential to 
inflict widespread ecological, agricultural, and economic damage 
throughout our country. More than 1 million bats have died from New 
Hampshire to Virginia over the last two winters, and scientists report 
mortality rates as high as 100 percent in some affected caves. Experts 
fear that WNS could lead to the extinction of many bat species as the 
disease spreads across the country.
  WNS not only has ecological effects, but it also has severe economic 
and environmental implications. Bats consume vast quantities of 
insects, protecting crops and reducing pesticide use. A single bat can 
easily eat more than 3,000 insects a night and an entire colony will 
consume hundreds of millions of insects per year. Bats prey on 
mosquitoes, which spread disease, and moths and beetles, which damage 
agriculture.
  With the Senator's leadership, the fiscal year 2010 Interior 
appropriations bill has included $500,000 for research to prevent the 
spread of WNS, and I thank the Senator for that.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Senator Lautenberg. Our offices have worked 
together on efforts to provide funding to fight WNS, and I share his 
concerns about this issue.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. As the Senator knows, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, FWS, is spearheading efforts to better understand this deadly 
disease and learn how to control its spread. FWS is working in 
conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, and 
U.S. Forest Service and with State and local partners, scientists, and 
conservation organizations. Due to the high mortality rate and the 
rapid spread of the disease, time is of the essence.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree with the Senator. We must tackle this issue 
head-on and make sure all stakeholders are working together to combat 
this challenge.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Experts estimate that much more funding is needed for 
research on WNS. Accordingly, I filed an important amendment to this 
bill, amendment No. 2476, to shift $1.4 million in additional funding 
to WNS research. My amendment would not put any other projects or 
programs at risk, and it would provide critical resources to fight this 
disease. I ask for the chairman's assurance that she will work in 
conference to implement my amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As I mentioned earlier, I share the Senator's 
concerns and agree that we need to focus more attention and resources 
on WNS. I commit to work in conference to increase funding for this 
disease as called for in his amendment.


                      Clean Automotive Technology

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the 
distinguished chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, 
Environment and Related Agencies a very important program in my State. 
The Environmental Protection Agency's National Vehicle and Fuel 
Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI, leads EPA's Clean Automotive 
Technology Program by facilitating collaboration with the automotive 
industry through innovative research to achieve ultra low-pollution 
emissions, increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases.
  One of the programs that has been developed collaboratively through 
the Ann Arbor laboratory and its industry partners is the hydraulic 
hybrid technology which has come out of the laboratory's focus areas in 
hydraulic hybrid research, engine research, alternative fuels research 
and technical and analytical support. This technology offers potential 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.
  The President's fiscal year 2010 budget increases the Climate 
Protection Program line in EPA's budget, which includes this facility, 
and I appreciate the subcommittee's concurrence with the request in the 
bill before the Senate.
  It is my understanding that the version of the bill adopted by the 
House of Representatives provides an additional $1.6 million over the 
fiscal year 2010 budget request. Is that also the understanding of the 
Senator from California?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is correct. The President's budget 
proposed $18.975 million for the Climate Protection Program, and that 
is the same amount proposed in this bill. The House of Representatives 
approved $20.575 million.
  Mr. LEVIN. I hope to provide additional funding for this program in 
order to fund a demonstration program to deploy hybrid hydraulic 
technology in larger fleet vehicles, such as school buses. 
Demonstration of this hybrid hydraulic technology, through its 
incorporation into a fleet of school buses,

[[Page 22624]]

would not only bring these fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly 
technologies closer to wide-scale viability and acceptance but also 
provide EPA with important data to support its work in developing 
achievable standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.
  As the conference committee considers the differences between the 
House and Senate bills, I am hopeful that the additional $1.6 million 
included in the House bill will be maintained and that serious 
consideration will be given to directing this funding to demonstration 
of the hybrid hydraulic technology I have described.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the Senator from Michigan bringing this 
to my attention and I assure him that I will keep his suggestions in 
mind as this bill progresses.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished Senator.


      New York's Northeastern States Research Cooperative Funding

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my 
colleague from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I thank the chairman for entering into a colloquy 
with me and for her hard work on this bill. I want to discuss the need 
to add New York to the list of States included for Northeastern States 
Research Cooperative Funding.
  The Northeastern States Research Cooperative, NSRC, was originally 
authorized by Congress in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
Research Act of 1978 and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The 
clear intent of Congress in creating the NSRC was to fund a competitive 
grants research program shared by the four states of the cooperative, 
New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York.
  The original intent of Congress was to have all four States jointly 
funded by the enacted authorization of this act. Unfortunately, New 
York has been left out of the Forest Service budget requests this year.
  Funding through this cooperative will maintain critical forestry 
research programs in New York State. For instance, the State University 
of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry has received 
funding through this program in the past that has provided research, 
technology transfer and outreach to coordinate and improve ecological 
and economic vitality of the northeastern forests of New York, Vermont, 
New Hampshire and Maine.
  The NSRC's research is critical to the economic vitality of and 
quality-of-life in the 18.5 million acres of the New York's forested 
land.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this 
to my attention and I will certainly look into this matter during 
conference negotiations.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I thank the chairman for her help and for her 
leadership.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I would like to correct the 
record regarding some recent remarks of Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma 
regarding offshore drilling. Senator Coburn stated in today's debate 
that I ``voted against an opportunity to expand offshore exploration 
yesterday.''
  First, the Senator's comments are somewhat confusing because there 
were no votes yesterday that would have opened up even one acre of our 
offshore public lands to oil exploration. Instead, I believe that 
Senator Coburn may have been referring to yesterday's motion to 
recommit by Senator Vitter of Louisiana.
  I opposed the Vitter motion yesterday because it was counter-
productive. By using political interference in offshore permitting, it 
would have actually created serious delays. Supporters of the Vitter 
motion talked about their desire to expand offshore oil drilling, but 
the motion set up major legal obstacles to developing our natural 
resources.
  The motion was vaguely drafted, but it could have blocked funding 
from being used to review the over 300,000 public comments received. 
The motion also could have blocked the Secretary from considering facts 
and scientific evidence regarding the decision he needs to make.
  I opposed the Vitter motion because the only way that we can legally 
access our public lands for natural resources is by due process. If we 
block the Department of Interior from following due process, that only 
serves to delay the process with litigation.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I 
filed to the Interior appropriations bill, and in doing so, I hope to 
remind my colleagues about their responsibility as federally elected 
representatives of the citizens of the United States. The U.S. 
Constitution, the document written by the people to empower and limit 
government, specifically gives the Congress the power to make the laws 
that direct this government. The first section of the first article of 
the Constitution states ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall 
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
Senate and House of Representatives.'' The people also established an 
executive power and a judicial power, but put the lawmaking power 
specifically into the hands of Congress
  I would invite my colleagues to consider for a moment, and to remind 
themselves, why the people put the control of the Nation's laws into 
the hands of Congress, and not to the other branches of government. It 
is because Congress is directly answerable to the people. For members 
of Congress, there is no escape from the people. Our founding document 
ensures that we routinely have elections whereby lawmakers face the 
citizens who sent them here. By limiting legislative powers to 
Congress, the people have secured this power to themselves. So we see 
that the people are willing to live under laws, but only to the extent 
that those laws are their own.
  This is a principle upon which our Nation was founded. This is a 
principle upon which we have achieved our status as a great nation. It 
is a principle that has made our government an inspiration to 
generations of free minds throughout the world. And I believe it is a 
principle that is being weakened on our watch during the 111th 
Congress.
  In April of 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA, by 
a 5 to 4 margin, that the Environmental Protection Agency could act to 
regulate carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant from vehicles under 
the Clean Air Act without further authorization from Congress. And it 
is widely believed that this decision allows the EPA to also regulate 
carbon dioxide emissions from all other sources, as well, without 
further action from Congress.
  I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA 
and even consider it ill-informed in some respects. However, I don't 
question the role of the Court to make such a decision. After all, the 
people did, in fact, give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to 
interpret the laws of Congress.
  Furthermore, I disagree with the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide 
poses an endangerment to humans and that it is a pollutant. Unlike 
conventional pollutants, CO2 does not normally cause direct 
harm to our environment or to our bodies. It is considered an 
endangerment only because it has the potential as a greenhouse gas to 
warm the planet. What seems to be completely lost by the EPA, is that 
most scientists will tell you that a warming climate is a net benefit, 
while a cooling climate is a net detriment to life on Earth.
  If greenhouse gases and warming are detrimental to life, then why 
doesn't the EPA propose to regulate water vapor? Water vapor makes up 
95 percent of all greenhouse gases, and a cubic foot of water vapor has 
a much stronger warming factor than a cubit foot of carbon dioxide?
  Those are just a couple questions that haven't been answered 
sufficiently, in my view. And so I disagree with the EPA's finding that 
carbon dioxide is an endangerment. In spite of that, I do recognize 
that the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Clean Air Act 
in a way that allows the EPA to make this finding.
  However, I doubt that any of my colleagues can honestly say that when 
Congress voted for the Clean Air Act in

[[Page 22625]]

1970, that we intended that carbon dioxide should be regulated as a 
pollutant. But now we are witnessing the EPA initiating a process to 
that end which will lead to the most sweeping, and probably most 
expensive set of regulations in our nation's history, with no specific 
authorization from Congress to do so.
  Is it the proper role of Congress to sit by and allow an independent 
agency, with nary an elected official within its walls to take over 
every single energy producing activity in the Nation? Could there be a 
more dramatic and sweeping centralization of government power than the 
move to control all carbon dioxide emissions? And are we, as the 
elected body representing the people going to hide behind a decision by 
a Supreme Court and just watch it happen? While technically, the 
Supreme Court and the EPA are acting within their jurisdictions and 
authority. Certainly, though, with such far reaching regulations, 
Congress has a responsibility to put these actions back under the 
direct authority of Congress, and thus back into the hands of the 
people.
  My amendment would do just that. It would bar the EPA from moving 
forward with these far reaching regulations until Congress has 
expressly authorized such an action. I urge my colleagues to restore 
Congress and the people to their proper role over laws that relate to 
the regulation of carbon dioxide, and support my amendment.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
fiscal year 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act. I wish to thank subcommittee Chairman 
Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander, as well as committee Chairman 
Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, for their work on this bill.
  This bill will fund important programs at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, Indian Health Service, 
Forest Service, Smithsonian Institution, National Endowment for the 
Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities. Consequently, it 
addresses critical needs related to public lands management, 
environmental protection, Indian Country, and cultural education. I am 
pleased with the inclusion of a number of initiatives for which I 
requested funding and that I believe will be of great benefit to Hawaii 
and our Nation. Therefore, I am very thankful that my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee recognized the need of these programs and 
backed them with unanimous committee approval. I would like to take 
this opportunity to discuss these important initiatives.
  The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, which was signed 
into law earlier this year, includes a bill I introduced in the 110th 
Congress to authorize appropriations for the National Tropical 
Botanical Garden, NTBG. Chartered by Congress in 1964, the NTBG 
collects, cultivates, and preserves tropical flora and conducts 
research in tropical botany. The NTBG's work has advanced disease 
treatment, world hunger prevention, and medical education. Funding in 
this appropriations bill will allow the NTBG to continue to help 
protect, propagate, and study tropical species that could permit 
additional scientific advances but are threatened with extinction.
  The bill will also fund the establishment and construction of a 
research and education center for the Hawaii Experimental Tropical 
Forest, HETF. The Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act, which I 
sponsored and became law in 1992, authorized the establishment of the 
HETF to be managed as a site for research and education on tropical 
forestry, conservation biology, and natural resource management. HETF 
has been home to dozens of research projects since its establishment, 
and it has been selected as one of the National Science Foundation's 20 
core wildland sites of the National Ecological Observatory Network and 
a site of the Forest Service's Experimental Forest and Range Synthesis 
Network. Construction of the center will further HETF's mission to 
improve the conservation and scientific understanding of tropical 
forests, a natural resource of global significance.
  The James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge will receive funding in 
this bill to help provide for the acquisition of the remaining parcels 
on Oahu's northern shore to complete the expansion of the Refuge. The 
expansion would add approximately 1,100 acres and ensure protection of 
the largest natural coastal wetland and last remaining natural coastal 
dune ecosystem on Oahu. It is a premier endangered Hawaiian waterbird 
recovery area and supports four endangered Hawaiian waterbirds and a 
variety of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. I was pleased to be an 
original cosponsor of the 2005 legislation that authorized such 
expansion and believe that securing the remaining parcels will aid in 
preserving the wetland's natural floodwater retention function.
  In addition, the invasive species management project in Hawaii 
included in this bill will help to reduce the impact of established 
invasive species in the State and support ongoing efforts to prevent 
the introduction of new ones. Hawaii's delicate insular ecosystems are 
home to over 300 endangered species, which is more than any other 
State, and the primary factor limiting their recovery and contributing 
to their decline in Hawaii is the continued presence of ecologically 
harmful invasive species. Thus, continued vigilance and action is 
needed to safeguard these species and their habitats, which are so 
important both nationally, in terms of biodiversity, and locally, in 
terms of agriculture, tourism, and culture.
  I am also pleased the funding in this appropriations bill that will 
support the Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts Program, NHCAP, which 
preserves, supports, revitalizes, and develops Native Hawaiian arts and 
culture. NHCAP's efforts are focused on assisting Native Hawaiians to 
be practitioners of their culture and to share knowledge of and 
celebrate Hawaiian art and culture. NHCAP projects include educational 
programs, exhibits, publications, and increased access to the Bishop 
Museum's vast cultural collections of artifacts, documents, and images. 
These projects foster Native Hawaiian cultural preservation, create 
important educational opportunities for youth, and promote the sort of 
understanding necessary in a multicultural nation and increasingly 
interconnected world.
  As population grows on islands with limited freshwater resources, 
information to evaluate the sustainability of water resources is needed 
to make informed decisions that balance environmental protection with 
economic opportunity. The resources that this bill supports for well 
monitoring and water assessment in my State will enable continued work 
with stakeholders to provide information on water resources so that 
they can be managed in a sustainable and legally compliant basis. It 
will also provide for the operation of stream gauges, which supply data 
important to signaling flood conditions, improving long-term planning, 
examining climate change, and measuring water availability and quality.
  In all, funding for our national priorities in such areas as 
environmental protection, Federal lands, and cultural education is 
complemented in this bill by these six Hawaii programs that drive 
progress on research, education, planning, and preservation related to 
natural and cultural resources across my home state for the benefit of 
my constituents and the country as a whole. Again, I thank my 
colleagues for their support of these initiatives and urge continued 
support in conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for this bill to provide $32 
billion in funding for a variety of important environmental and 
infrastructure purposes. This bill would provide clean drinking water, 
prevent pollution from contaminating our precious natural resources, 
clean up hazardous waste sites, protect lands for habitat preservation 
and recreation, improve vehicle efficiency, and help restore the Great 
Lakes.
  I am pleased this bill includes $400 million for Great Lakes 
restoration and protection efforts through a new effort called the 
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI. The GLRI is a

[[Page 22626]]

multiagency effort to address the array of current and historic threats 
facing the Great Lakes including invasive aquatic species, nonpoint 
source pollution, and contaminated sediment.
  While I appreciate the significant investment in the Great Lakes, I 
have encouraged the bill managers to provide the full funding requested 
for the GLRI. The President requested $475 million for the GLRI, and 
the Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a spending plan for 
the full funding. Full funding is needed now and would be well spent.
  A 2003 GAO report on Great Lakes federal restoration programs stated: 
``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes 
Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased 
threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with 
toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, 
scientists report that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress 
due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive 
species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and 
changes to how water flows. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes 
scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have 
combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which 
ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the 
traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected 
ecosystem response.''
  The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We must recognize 
that we are only their temporary stewards. If Congress does not act to 
keep pace with the needs of the lakes, and the tens of millions of 
Americans dependent upon them and affected by their condition, the 
problems will continue to build and we may start to undo some of the 
important work that has already been done and is underway. We must be 
good stewards by providing the resources that the Federal Government 
needs to meet its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great 
Lakes. This bill will help us meet that great responsibility to future 
generations.
  Importantly, the bill would provide $1.4 billion to capitalize the 
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and $2.1 billion for the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund for wastewater projects. The funding in the 
Senate bill more than doubles the amount provided in the fiscal year 
2009 bill. I had urged appropriators to provide this increase because 
Michigan's water infrastructure needs are sizable. Michigan would 
receive about $41 million for drinking water and $88 million for 
wastewater projects, protecting public health, improving the 
environment, and creating a stronger economic climate.
  I am also pleased this bill provides $2.7 billion for our National 
Park Service, an increase of $200 million from last year's level, which 
I supported. Michigan has six national park units, and this funding 
would help ensure these resources are adequately maintained and 
protected. The national parks have been struggling for years with 
inadequate funding and large maintenance and construction backlogs. 
This funding would help meet these needs so that our Nation's natural 
and cultural heritage is preserved. Over a million people visited 
Michigan's national parks last year, and it is important that visitors 
find our parks in good condition and that we do the same for future 
generations.
  I am pleased to see this bill includes the President's fiscal year 
2010 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency's Climate 
Protection Program, which includes the Clean Automotive Technology 
Program. EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann 
Arbor, MI, leads the Clean Automotive Technology Program by 
facilitating collaboration with the automotive industry through 
innovative research to achieve ultra low-pollution emissions, increase 
fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases. An example of the work 
done collaboratively through this program at the Ann Arbor laboratory 
with its industry partners is development of hydraulic hybrid 
technology that offers potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 
50 percent. The House bill includes an additional $1.6 million for the 
Climate Protection Program, and I am hopeful this additional funding 
will be maintained in conference and that serious consideration will be 
given to directing this funding to deployment of hybrid hydraulic 
technology in larger fleet vehicles, such as schoolbuses.
  Mr. President, this appropriations bill would protect our natural 
resources and the Great Lakes in particular, provide communities with 
safe drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, improve fuel 
efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases, and protect and improve public 
lands and parks, and I support its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my understanding is that the next vote will 
be final passage on the Interior appropriations bill. I want to alert 
all Members and give them kind of a suggestion of what the schedule is 
going to be.
  First of all, people are asking about the Finance Committee. I have 
spoken to Chairman Baucus. The Finance Committee is going to work late 
tonight. They are going to come in in the morning and work, and then 
they will make a decision how long they are going to work tomorrow and 
whether they go into the weekend.
  The next item of business will be the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill. Tonight will be debate only. There will be no 
votes on Friday. The Defense appropriations managers will be here for 
amendments and debate.
  This is one of the most important bills we deal with every year. 
There will be no votes on Monday. It is one of the high holidays, Yom 
Kippur. The Defense managers will be here to continue consideration of 
the bill. We are not going to be in session on Monday, not on the 
holiday. I do not think that would be appropriate. People are traveling 
that day. I do not think it is fair.
  There will be votes on Tuesday. It will be like a regular Monday. 
There will be no votes before 5:30. I would hope if people have 
amendments on this Defense bill they will lay them down. We want to 
move on this as quickly as possible. We know there are lots of 
important subjects people want to talk about.
  Wednesday, September 30, is the end of the fiscal year. We have a 
number of things we must do before the end of the fiscal year. We are 
going to have a CR. We have to extend FAA authority and other issues. 
All of the chairmen and ranking members know what they are and we have 
discussed them on the Senate floor.
  Next week will be an extremely busy week. I am hopeful in the next 
few days the Finance Committee will complete their work on the Finance 
health care bill, and I hope we do not have to do anything dealing with 
reconciliation on that. We have made progress this week.
  Members this week working on this bill have been very cooperative. We 
have two wonderful managers on this Interior appropriations bill. They 
have worked well together and done a good job.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Before you call the roll, I just want to thank the 
distinguished ranking member. A lot of cooperation went into this bill 
or it would have taken a lot longer.
  I thank particularly the staff: Peter Kiefhaber, Virginia James, 
Scott Dalzell, Rachael Taylor, Chris Watkins; on the Republican side, 
Lee Fonnesbeck, Rachelle Schroeder, and Rebecca Benn. We thank you very 
much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. In 60 seconds I would like to thank Chairman Feinstein 
for being so accommodating working with Republican Members. I would 
like to thank my colleagues for moving this bill along. Senators 
Cochran, Inouye, Reid, and McConnell have been terrific. The staff 
members, Peter and Rachael and Scott; on our side, Leif and Rachelle 
and Rebecca. We thank you for your hard work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the committee 
substitute, as amended, is agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 22627]]

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


                           Amendment No. 2445

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Inhofe 
amendment No. 2445 be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Notwithstanding the adoption of the 
substitute, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2445.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask 
unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2445) was agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2445

    (Purpose: To provide for the expedited cleanup of the Tar Creek 
                            Superfund Site)

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

     SEC. 423. TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE.

       (a) In General.--To expedite the cleanup of the Federal 
     land and Indian land at the Tar Creek Superfund Site 
     (referred to in this section as the ``site''), any purchase 
     of chat (as defined in section 278.1(b) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)), from the 
     site shall be--
       (1) counted at twice the purchase price of the chat; and
       (2) eligible to be counted toward meeting the federally 
     required disadvantaged business enterprise set-aside on 
     federally funded projects.
       (b) Restricted Indian Owners.--Subsection (a) shall only 
     apply if the purchase of chat is made from 1 or more 
     restricted Indian owners or an Indian tribe.
       (c) Applicable Law.--The use of chat acquired under 
     subsection (a) shall conform with applicable laws (including 
     the regulations for the use of chat promulgated by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, and 
third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there are other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

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

                                NAYS--21

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The bill (H.R. 2996), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Senators Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, 
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reed, 
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Tester, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Alexander, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Collins, and Mr. 
Bond conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________