[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26252-26268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next matter before the Senate is the 
Interior appropriations bill conference report, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the 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, 
     having met, have agreed that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the 
     same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of Wednesday, October 28, 2009.)

[[Page 26253]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I have an important announcement to 
make on another subject which is of interest to the American people. 
The era of the thousand-page bill is over. We now have a 2,000-page 
bill, a new health care bill introduced in the House of Representatives 
today by Speaker Pelosi. What we will do on the Republican side, and 
what I hope our friends on the Democratic side will do as well, and 
what every American expects us to do, is read all 2,000 pages and know 
exactly what it costs before we begin to vote on the congressional 
Democrats' health care bill.
  For example, while we know just a few things about the bill, we know 
the price tag is likely to be more than $1 trillion. So it is 2,000 
pages, more than $1 trillion.
  We know the physicians Medicare reimbursement rate, which is 
important to all of us to be included, is scheduled to be treated 
separately there. Well, it wasn't treated separately here. On what was 
the first vote on health care a week ago, 13 Democrats joined with 40 
Republicans to say we are not going to begin the health care debate by 
increasing the deficit by $\1/4\ trillion. That was an important 
statement to the American people.
  One of the questions we will be asking is how is the physician 
Medicare reimbursement plan, which is an essential part of any plan for 
health care over the next 10 years, how is it paid for? Does it add to 
the debt? We will be looking--and I know the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire who is the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee 
already is looking--at not just what happens in the first 5 years of 
this proposed bill but in the second 5 years and the 10 years after 
that, because our goal is to reduce the cost of health care, the cost 
of premiums to each of us and to our government. A preliminary look 
suggests that while the cost may go down to the government in the first 
5 years, it might go up in the second 5 years as the plan is 
implemented.
  Third, we want to look at the new taxes on small businesses we have 
been told about.
  Next, we want to look at the provision in the bill which seems to say 
that an employer might have to pay 8 percent of his payroll as a 
penalty if the employer does not provide health care to his employees. 
Does that mean all employees? Does that mean full-time employees? Does 
that mean part-time employees? We want to read the bill. We want to 
know exactly what it says. We want to see a Congressional Budget Office 
estimate--a formal estimate--of what it costs.
  There is in the bill a new government-run insurance plan. We have 
said before that our view on the Republican side--and I know some 
Democrats have concern about this as well--is the effect of a 
government-run insurance company--some call it the government option--
is no option because if you are one of the 170 million or 180 million 
Americans who have health insurance through your employer, the 
combination of a bill such as this is you are more likely to lose your 
insurance and the government option is likely to be your only option. 
We will be asking that question and see what it costs.
  There is a provision in the bill that expands Medicaid. This is the 
government-run program for the low-income we already have that has 60 
million Americans in it. The State and the Federal Government share the 
cost of it. My preliminary understanding of this provision is, it 
increases the cost of the Medicaid expansion, which Governors all 
across the country are deeply concerned about, and it adds a provision 
to require that physicians be reimbursed for Medicaid services at the 
same level as Medicare, which would basically double the cost of the 
Medicaid expansion. How much of this will the States pay?
  There are a number of questions to be asked, but the news of the day 
is this: The era of the 1,000-page bill is over. We have a new 2,000-
page health care bill. We will be reading the bill, and we will be 
trying to understand exactly what it costs.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Tennessee yield for a question, 
Madam President?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. A 1,000-page bill is pretty big. It is about this big, and 
a 2,000-page bill is about this big. We are going to find out when we 
see it printed. That probably weighs a lot, 4 or 5 bricks, 10 bricks 
maybe?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I don't know. The Senator from New Hampshire has a 
wide variety of experiences and may understand the weight of bricks 
better than I do. I just know the era of the 1,000-page bill is over. 
We have a 2,000-page bill, and we will need to read it.
  I ask the Senator from New Hampshire how long should it take the 
Congressional Budget Office to provide a formal estimate of a 2,000-
page bill, based upon his experience--I ask through the Chair--as 
former chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking Republican 
member.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I 
presume it would be at least a week or maybe 10 days. I understand they 
are going to do an informal sort of ``on the back of an envelope'' 
estimate quickly. But the implications of this bill, 2,000 pages--it is 
akin to dropping 10 bricks on our seniors, isn't it? Doesn't this 
basically wipe out Medicare Advantage and massively impact Medicare 
benefits and move those savings over to fund a brandnew entitlement?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Our concern 
has been, with the bills we have seen so far, that a bill that is 
supposed to reduce costs actually raises the cost of premiums, cuts 
Medicare, and raises taxes. The new government insurance plan will 
cause millions to lose their employer-based insurance and become a part 
of the government option and, unless the physicians Medicare 
reimbursement payment is a part of the plan, it also adds to the debt.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will entertain one other question. The 
Senator, in his comments on this new 2,000-page piece of legislation, 
which started out at significantly less, made a point that I believe 
the last 5 years of this bill--it is a 10-year bill and, of course, it 
is going to go on forever. They basically start the taxes at day one, 
but they don't start the expenditures until year five. It turns out, as 
I believe the Senator said, the expenditures in the last 5 years exceed 
the income. So if you were to logically put this bill in a 10-year 
timeframe, where you had all the expenditures and income matched up, 
this bill is going to add a lot to the deficit. This is a $1 trillion 
to $2 trillion bill, and the deficit is going to go up a lot. That is 
common sense; is it not?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. It seems to me it will.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I am always glad to yield for a question by the 
assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Since we are dealing with health care reform that 
addresses one-sixth of the American economy, does the Senator from 
Tennessee believe there should be a maximum number of pages the bill 
would entail?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. That is a very good question. I saw the Senator from 
Illinois on the floor the other day saying: A 1,000-page bill, who 
cares about a 1,000-page bill?
  I don't think Americans like the idea of a 1,000-page bill. I think 
they will like even less a 2,000-page bill. I don't think we do 
comprehensive very well here.
  I think what the American people want us to do, if I can say to the 
Senator from Illinois, is not have a comprehensive bill full of higher 
premiums, taxes, and surprises but to focus on reducing the cost of 
health care premiums and reducing the cost to the government and go 
step by step on things----
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I am trying to answer his excellent question. Go step 
by step to meet that goal, such as a provision that would allow small 
businesses

[[Page 26254]]

to combine resources and offer their employees insurance, such as 
provisions that would get rid of junk lawsuits against doctors, which 
virtually everyone agrees drives up the costs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator recall--and perhaps the Senator from 
Illinois recalls--does the Senator recall, during the last Presidential 
campaign, when the President of the United States said there will be 
Republicans and Democrats sitting down together and there will be C-
SPAN cameras? I wonder if the Senator knows the C-SPAN cameras are 
still waiting outside this room over there. Does the Senator recall 
that commitment? I wonder--I wonder--whatever happened to that campaign 
promise that the American people would know who is on the side of the 
pharmaceutical companies and who is on the side of the American people. 
If they came in now, it would be too late because they already cut a 
deal with the pharmaceutical companies in return for $80 billion. They 
got $100 million in positive ads for reform.
  I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee recalls that commitment on the 
part of the President of the United States. I wonder if he might urge 
his colleague, the other Senator from Illinois, to get the C-SPAN 
cameras in there while these negotiations are going on.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his excellent 
question. I am sure there is no one in this Chamber who more vividly 
remembers that promise than the Senator from Arizona. We all would like 
to know what is in this bill and what is going on behind closed doors.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question, a very 
short question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Only if----
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Before he does, Madam President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Tennessee has 
the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Without yielding the floor, I certainly would be 
glad--if I may reclaim the floor. I have the floor. I will be glad to 
allow the Senator from California to say whatever she would like, if I 
can have consent to have the floor back.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. The Senator from Tennessee is the 
ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I alert the 
Senate that time is running on the bill. It is 2 hours, equally 
divided.
  Let me ask the Parliamentarian this question: How much time remains 
on the Interior appropriations bill, and how much time has the 
Republican side used to this moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority still has 1 hour, and the 
minority has used 12 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Just so you know.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the chairman. I look forward to moving over 
there and working on the Interior appropriations bill. I think Senator 
McCain is here to speak about it. I was only, in an extravagant gesture 
of courtesy, trying to answer the question of the distinguished 
assistant Democratic leader from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question? Will the 
Senator yield for one short question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Knowing the Senator is a very able trial lawyer, it is 
only because I am courteous that I will do that. Of course I do.
  Mr. DURBIN. Very good. Can the Senator from Tennessee tell me how 
many pages the Republican health care reform bill is?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Republican health care reform bill, Madam 
President, if I may talk about it, has been offered in a series of 
proposals. The proposal for a small business health insurance program 
is less than 1,000 pages, by several hundred pages.
  What I think I will do is not take so much more of the Senator's 
time, but I will enumerate the proposals and give him the number of 
pages. While he is reading our proposals, I will read his, and we will 
see who gets through first. Of course, we will have to wait until they 
come out from behind closed doors with their bill.
  I will get the small business proposal. I will get the proposal to 
end junk lawsuits against doctors. I will get the proposal to allow 
people to buy insurance across State lines, which will reduce the cost 
of insurance. I will get the proposal that would adjust tax incentives. 
There is a proposal that would also expand technology on which we have 
proposals on both sides of the aisle. So I will get five or six of the 
Republican proposals, most of which we hope will gain bipartisan 
support.
  I see the assistant Democratic leader every day at the beginning of 
the day. Maybe we can even read them together, and then whenever his 
bill comes out from behind closed doors and we get the House bill, we 
can all read that 2,000-page bill.
  I am going to accede to the wishes of the chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, because I am her ranking minority member, 
and cease talking about the end of the era of the 1,000-page bill and 
let us get to Interior appropriations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am very pleased to be at this 
moment. I join with my distinguished colleague, Senator Alexander, as 
we begin consideration of the conference report on the fiscal year 2010 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
  This is the first year Senator Alexander and I have worked together 
as chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and I am happy to say it has been a very good experience. 
We consulted on several occasions and worked through several different 
issues as we crafted the original Senate bill and then again as we went 
to conference with the House, which I must say was a difficult 
conference. As a result, though, I think we have produced a bill that 
is fair, balanced, and workable. I personally thank him for all his 
work and cooperation.
  The Interior conference report totals $32.2 billion in nonemergency 
discretionary spending. That amount is $4.6 billion above the 
equivalent 2009 level but $60 million below the President's request. It 
is consistent with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for both budget 
authority and outlays.
  As everybody knows, each appropriations subcommittee receives an 
amount within which they must produce an appropriations bill. We met 
our allocation. The problem was, the allocation for the House committee 
was $200 million bigger than our allocation. Then with some other items 
the House put in which raised it about $300 million, it was very 
difficult to reconcile the two bills.
  I will not go through each and every line item, but I would like to 
emphasize the great strides we have been able to make in five specific 
areas: water and sewer infrastructure; wildfire suppression and 
prevention of fire on public lands; bolstering our public land 
management agencies; investment in the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund; and helping the most vulnerable in Indian country.
  First, this conference report provides $3.6 billion for water and 
sewer infrastructure projects. That is a very significant increase over 
last year's level of $1.6 billion. In fact, this is the largest single 
commitment of funds that has ever been provided in an annual 
appropriations bill for these necessary and very basic infrastructure 
projects. And as you will hear, we are infrastructure short in this 
Nation.
  I am a former mayor. I remember the day before bottled water. I 
remember the day when you could drink water right out of the tap. What 
we have seen is a deterioration in this infrastructure all throughout 
this great country. And when you factor in the $6 billion that was 
included in the stimulus, we are providing nearly $10 billion this 
calendar year to our State and local water authorities. That is a major 
investment, and one I believe both of us are very pleased to have 
achieved. Senator Alexander was a Governor, I was a

[[Page 26255]]

mayor, and we know the importance of water and sewers. This money will 
allow our State and local water authorities to begin to tackle 1,479 
wastewater and drinking water projects across this Nation.
  For those of you who might not be aware, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, which administers these grants, has estimated that over a 20-
year period our communities will need to spend over $660 billion for 
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure repair and renovation. 
Obviously, we can't provide that level of funding during tough 
budgetary times. But what we were able to provide will go a long way 
toward helping our communities tackle their crumbling infrastructure 
and provide their residents with more reliable and cleaner water.
  Secondly, the bill provides $1.8 billion for wild land fire 
suppression activities--a very big deal. It is very important that we 
are providing that level of funding because that is the amount that was 
actually spent, on average, in each of the last 3 fiscal years. The 
problem is it wasn't budgeted for. So these big roaring fires take 
place and then everybody has to scramble to transfer funds to be able 
not only to fight the fires but to replace the money.
  The conference report includes critical firefighting budget reform as 
part of the FLAME Act of 2009, which was championed by Senator 
Bingaman. This act will help create a dedicated, steady, predictable 
funding stream for wildfire suppression activities.
  As part of the $1.8 billion provided for fire suppression, the bill 
contains $474 million for the FLAME Fund reserve accounts for the 
Forest Service and Department of Interior. These FLAME Funds have been 
established to cover the costs of large or complex wildfire events and 
as a reserve when amounts of firefighting funds from the agencies' 
regular fire appropriations accounts are exhausted. So it is a reserve 
fund for big fires, of which we are having plenty in the West.
  In addition to fully funding fire suppression, the conference report 
also includes $110 million in grants to help States fund their own 
firefighting and fuels reduction efforts. That is a 22-percent increase 
over the 2009 level. It provides $556 million for hazardous fuels 
reduction projects on Federal lands nationwide. That is a 7-percent 
increase over last year. These funds together will allow the Forest 
Service and the Department of the Interior to treat 3\1/2\ million 
acres of fire-prone Federal lands.
  One of the things we know is that the past policy of suppressing 
fires--letting everything grow until they become a combustible mix that 
burns hotter, heavier, and longer--has to change. So to work these 
lands, to manage these lands, to remove hazardous fuels, is a real 
effort to protect our forests and our wild lands.
  Third, the bill shores up our public land management agencies by 
providing a total of $6 billion for basic operations and backlog 
maintenance at our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and on 
Bureau of Land Management lands. For too long we have neglected these 
agencies and forced program cuts on them by underfunding the fixed 
costs they incur this year. That is not done this year. Both the 
ranking member and I are very proud of that.
  Included in these funds are $2.3 billion for basic operations of 391 
national parks, an increase of $130 million. I think all of us would 
agree that our national parks are the crown jewels of this Nation. 
People go there by the tens of millions. For many, it is the only 
vacation they have. For most, it is a revelation of the amazing beauty 
of this great country. These monies will allow the Park Service to 
continue utilizing the 3,000 seasonal employees who have made a real 
difference in the condition and enjoyment of our parks. Additional 
maintenance personnel, law enforcement officers, park rangers will all 
be brought back as a way of enhancing the visitor experience now and 
preparing our parks for the centennial in 2016.
  In particular, I want to point out that the funding being provided in 
this bill will allow the Park Service to continue the drug eradication 
program started last year. This is a huge problem. In our vast national 
parks, Mexican nationals have come in. They are armed, they are 
dangerous, and they essentially grow acres upon acres of marijuana and 
then protect that marijuana. It is a real problem. So task forces have 
been put together--state, Federal, and local--to go into these parks 
and essentially roust the growers and arrest them.
  This effort isn't limited to the Park Service. Included in the $1.56 
billion that this bill provides for operations of the national forests 
is a new $10 million increase for the Forest Service's law enforcement 
program. These funds mean that the service will be able to hire up to 
50 new law enforcement officers to battle the epidemic of marijuana in 
our parks and on public lands.
  Fourth, the bill increases the protection and conservation of 
sensitive lands by providing $450 million through the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund--and that is an important fund for all of us--
consisting of $278 million set aside for the four Federal land 
management agencies for conservation of sensitive lands that provide 
habitat to wildlife and recreation to visitors; $76 million for 
conservation easements through the forest legacy program; $56 million 
for acquisitions associated with habitat conservation plans; and $40 
million for State grants through the Park Service's State assistance 
program.
  Finally, the bill helps some of the most vulnerable among us by 
providing a total of $6.7 billion for the Indian Health Service and the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs. That is an 11-percent increase over the 2009 
level and includes increases of $471 million in direct health care 
services; $81 million in K-12 and college education programs; and $58 
million in law enforcement programs, which will allow for additional 
police officer staffing on streets and in detention centers.
  With these funds, more than 10,000 additional doctor visits will take 
place that would otherwise not happen. This means additional well baby 
care to prevent problems before they happen. It means additional 
alcohol and substance abuse treatment, which is truly a plague in 
Indian country. It means additional public health nursing visits to 
those in the rural areas.
  Funding provided through the Bureau of Indian Affairs will improve 
programs and infrastructure at the Bureau's 183 schools. Interestingly 
enough, the $81 million increase in education programs will allow the 
Bureau to substantially increase the number of schools that meet the 
adequate yearly progress goals spelled out in the No Child Left Behind 
Act. For the first time, nearly half of all schools will meet this 
milestone. Half. That is very good.
  Additional funding for law enforcement programs will allow the Bureau 
to increase staffing throughout Indian country. The bill makes a major 
increase in funds for repair and rehabilitation of detention 
facilities, and funds will allow the Bureau to repair several local 
facilities so that officers spend less time in transit and more time on 
the streets.
  Let me speak of some of the problem areas. The first one was Davis-
Bacon. Davis-Bacon is prevailing rate standards for, in this case, 
water and sewer projects. The second area is emission control 
requirements for the Great Lakes. And third is restrictions on the 
reporting of emissions from, of all things, manure management systems.
  Let me speak about Davis-Bacon. The House put in their bill a 
permanent extension of Davis-Bacon. That was clearly a problem. 
Therefore, the agreement--and thanks to the ranking member--was that 
the bill simply would contain a 1-year extension. In other words, 
Davis-Bacon would be included for water and sewer infrastructure for 
the fiscal year 2010. We compromised on that. I have always supported 
Davis-Bacon. I believe that prevailing rates should apply to these 
programs. But I also believe this is very much a necessary compromise, 
and it will serve as a bridge to allow the House and Senate authorizing 
committees--which is, after all, the proper

[[Page 26256]]

place for this--to enact the necessary legislation.
  The conference report also includes language that would exempt 13 
steamships on the Great Lakes from certain marine fuel requirements. 
This was language that was included at the insistence of the House. 
Frankly, it was not my preference to include this language, but I 
understand Members from the Great Lakes States are very concerned about 
the economic impact of pending EPA emission control regulations on 
these 13 older ships.
  After substantial negotiation and discussion with EPA, we have 
crafted a narrowly tailored compromise that recognizes these concerns 
in report language but will not impact air quality in California or any 
other seaboard city, or interfere with the ability of EPA to negotiate 
international controls on emissions from other oceangoing vessels.
  I must say, this is a very important thing to California. In the L.A. 
port area--this is the area where 40 percent of all of the Nation's 
container ships come in--there is a real and growing asthma problem. 
Being able to regulate these ships is critical to pollution. Not only 
that, the L.A. basin is one of the two worst nonattainment areas in the 
Nation and in a few years will have sanctions on them because they 
cannot meet attainment standards. Therefore, being able to improve the 
emissions on these ships is important.
  Third, the conference report includes language proposed by the House 
that exempts all manure management systems from reporting greenhouse 
gas emissions to the EPA for 1 year. I believe the Senate version, 
which requires 90 of the Nation's largest factory farms to report on 
their greenhouse gas emissions while protecting family farmers from 
reporting, was a better approach. But in the interest of moving this 
bill we had to agree to the House language.
  There is, however, one important point that must be made. The 
language contained in the conference report will still allow EPA to 
implement its underlying reporting rule and get good data on greenhouse 
gas emissions from nonagricultural sectors of the economy.
  Finally, let me mention the CR, contained in division B of this 
conference agreement. As Members know, the current CR expires at 
midnight on Friday, which is why it is critical that we pass this 
conference report and get it to the White House to be signed into law. 
Without passage of the CR, the government shuts down. It is that 
simple. And no one believes this is an option.
  When the Social Security checks don't go out, Medicare and everything 
else stops, it is a real problem.
  As agreed to by the House and Senate leadership--not the ranking 
member and I, but the House and Senate leadership--this new CR will 
provide funding through December 18. That should allow enough time for 
the remaining appropriations bills to be completed--we hope.
  All in all, this is a good bill. It is the product of a lot of hard 
work by Members in both the Senate and the House. I sincerely hope we 
could adopt what has been agreed to by the House and get this bill to 
the President.
  I again thank my distinguished colleague from Tennessee for his 
cooperation and his work on this bill. Without him it would not have 
happened. So I thank him very much and it is now his turn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, if I had to choose an appropriations 
subcommittee to serve on, this would be it. It includes the things I 
care the most about: the great American outdoors, clean air, our 
national parks. I couldn't have the privilege of working with a finer 
chairman than Senator Feinstein. I like her especially because she says 
what she thinks. She was a mayor. A former Governor, as the Presiding 
Officer was, appreciates that. She can make a decision, and she sticks 
to it. She cares about the great outdoors. She has a long record of 
work on clean air and the environment, about our forests, about our 
deserts, so we see eye-to-eye about a great many things.
  Senator McCain is here to speak on our side in a few minutes. I think 
Senator Sessions would like 5 minutes. I would say to my Republican 
colleagues, I don't plan to take but 3 or 4 minutes. After they speak, 
I don't have any other remarks to make. We may be able to give back 
some of our time.
  I thank the full committee, Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran 
and Senators Reid and McConnell for their allowing us to move forward. 
I am glad this bill will not be part of the omnibus. That is not the 
way to do business. There were lots of differences of opinion, both in 
the Senate and with the House--the chairman outlined those and talked 
about those. My preference, if I were the king, I wouldn't spend this 
much money on this bill this year. This is a tough time. But I doubt 
Americans will begrudge spending on national parks, on clean water, and 
on firefighting.
  This is the 75th anniversary of the Great Smoky Mountain National 
Park that was created in the midst of the Great Depression. Each State 
appropriated $2 million, and then schoolchildren gave their pennies. 
Even in tough times--maybe especially in tough times--we care about our 
national parks. President Bush set us on the road with the Centennial 
Initiative to properly fund them by the time we get to 2016, and this 
bill continues that.
  It is also good it includes within the budget the firefighting costs 
which were outside the budget as emergency appropriations. That is a 
good way to do business. We do not want the U.S. Forest Service to 
become the U.S. Fire Service, even though we greatly value its work in 
firefighting. We want it to also be able to perform other important 
functions.
  I am glad to see the support for Land and Water Conservation Funds. 
Local parks, city parks, are our most popular parks, the ones down the 
street.
  The Senator mentioned the Davis-Bacon State revolving funds. I 
strongly object to that being in the bill. This is the first time it 
has ever been in. We have applied the Davis-Bacon Act to these state 
revolving funds. This will mean fewer jobs, higher costs, fewer 
projects. The States provide 20 percent of the match. They should be 
able to decide what the wage rates are in their States.
  The bottom line is that we are appropriating $3.5 billion to get done 
what last year would have only cost us $2.6 billion to do. We are 
making a mistake. I fought hard to change that. I appreciate the fact 
that the conference committee supported my effort to move this from a 
permanent change to a 1-year change. This is appropriately being 
considered by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 
which I serve. I will make my views known there.
  I thank the chairman again for her courtesies. I see the Senator from 
Arizona is here. I will yield the floor and give him and other Senators 
a chance to speak on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, what little time remains to this side of 
the debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 41 minutes left.
  Mr. McCAIN. Forty-one minutes?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Arizona may take as much time as he 
wishes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Tennessee, and I thank you, Madam 
Chairman.
  As we know, we are considering the conference agreement for the 
fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill. I was deeply touched and moved by both the manager 
of the bill and the ranking minority member's lamentations about the 
budgetary constraints in which we are suffering--deeply moved, almost 
to tears, until I saw that this bill provides approximately $32.2 
billion, a 17-percent increase over last year's levels, and $4.66 
billion more.
  You know, the bill comes after we already gave $10.95 billion in the 
stimulus bill. It is remarkable, remarkable.
  When the distinguished manager talked about how the budgetary 
constraints did not allow for us to have the necessary water 
infrastructure

[[Page 26257]]

projects which are so vital, particularly to those of us in the West, 
we somehow found room for 542 earmarks totaling $341.3 million.
  I believe we might be able to find some more projects that are very 
badly needed for water infrastructure and even for firefighting if 
maybe we shifted those 542 earmarks totaling $341.3 million over to the 
needed projects. As far as I know, not one of these earmarks was 
requested by the administration, authorized, or competitively bid in 
any way. No hearing was held to judge whether these were national 
priorities worthy of scarce taxpayers' dollars.
  When I read some of these, I think it would be hard to argue that 
they would withstand any scrutiny, any competition. For example, 
$500,000 for a tropical botanical garden in Hawaii. Not in Arizona, not 
in California--Hawaii--$500,000 for a tropical botanical garden in 
Hawaii.
  There is $150,000 to renovate an opera house in Connecticut--renovate 
an opera house. The real unemployment in my State is now 17 percent. It 
is listed as less than 10 percent, but including those who have given 
up looking for work--17 percent of the people in my State are without a 
job, and we are going to spend $150,000 to renovate an opera house in 
Connecticut.
  We are going to spend $500,000 for a native Hawaiian arts program in 
Hawaii.
  We are going to spend $1 million for improvements in the Sewall-
Belmont House in Washington, DC. That is what I call a cozy 
relationship. The Sewall-Belmont House is next to the Hart Building--$1 
million. Couldn't this museum raise private money for these 
improvements?
  There is $2 million for an interpretive center at the California 
National Historic Trail in Nevada and another $100,000 for the Tahoe 
Rim Trail in Nevada to build a 15-mile hiking trail from Reno, NV, to 
the Mount Rose Ski Resort near Lake Tahoe.
  I get favorites every once in a while, but this is probably one of my 
favorites recently. If we Twitter the top 10, I guarantee you this will 
make the top 10: $1.2 million for rat eradication at the Palmyra Atoll 
National Wildlife Refuge; $1.2 million worth of rat traps. This $1.2 
million in rat traps is for a 5-square-mile island, U.S. territory that 
is not occupied except for a few scientists from the Nature Conserve 
studying the island's coral reef, according to the Interior Department.
  There is $750,000 for a conservation training center in West 
Virginia. I am sure over the years my colleagues have gotten to hear 
certain States named--Hawaii, West Virginia, Nevada, California. I am 
sure all of those are strictly coincidental.
  There is $200,000 for historic preservation of the Richardson-
Olmstead Complex in Buffalo, NY. I am not making this up. The 
Richardson-Olmstead Complex is actually the former Buffalo State Insane 
Asylum which was decommissioned in the 1970s. According to Richardson 
Center Corporation, which is a nonprofit managing the complex for 
historic preservation, this funding would go toward maintaining the 
former hospital as ``an example of the humane treatment of the mentally 
ill.''
  There is $750,000 for the Hudson Quadricentennial Commission in New 
York to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Dutch explorer Henry 
Hudson sailing the Hudson River; $500,000 to the Vermont Wood Products 
Collaborative, which provides grants to promote the development and 
marketing of wood products businesses in the State of Vermont. 
According to the Office of Management and Budget, Vermont Woods 
Products Collaborative is a continuing earmark that has received over 
$780,000 from Congress over the past 4 years.
  That is for the Vermont Wood Products Collaborative when my State has 
a 17-percent unemployment rate.
  Some of these that I just described may have merit. There are 542 of 
them. Some of them may have merit, but we will not know that. We will 
not know whether or not they have merit. They have never been 
authorized, never been subjected to competition, they have never been 
scrutinized. But what has been done is they have been put in because of 
the relative power of certain Members of Congress.
  I had intended today to bring over recent articles concerning the 
investigations that are being conducted on Members of Congress because 
of this practice of earmarking and porkbarrel spending.
  One more example of this is the Environmental Protection Agency State 
and Tribal Assistance Grants Program, which funds wastewater and 
drinking water infrastructure projects throughout the country. Local 
communities that request assistance under this program have to do so 
under Federal and State systems for prioritizing the most important 
projects from a health and environmental standpoint.
  But all it takes to sidestep the entire process is for a Member to 
slip an earmark into an appropriations bill that benefits a special 
interest in their home State. Inevitably, communities that are worthy 
of EPA's help are left empty handed because they were not connected 
well enough in Washington.
  The President's 2010 budget calls for terminating all of these 
earmarks. The President's budget asks that they should be eliminated. 
The administration says, the President says, these earmarks are 
``duplicative'' and ``not subject to the State priority-setting process 
which typically funds cost-effective and higher priority activities 
first.''
  Moreover, the administration points out these earmarks ``single out 
projects and communities for a greater subsidy than otherwise available 
through existing programs,'' and ``that these types of projects require 
more oversight and assistance than standard grants because many of the 
recipients are unprepared to spend or manage such funds.'' In other 
words, some communities are receiving earmarks so large that they do 
not know how to handle them.
  Let's look at a few of these infrastructure earmarks. For the town of 
Moorefield, WY, $2.5 million is earmarked for a wastewater treatment 
plant. The town of Moorefield has a population of 2,375. That is a 
subsidy of over $1,000 per person.
  Six million dollars goes to construct a drinking water reservoir in 
Fayette County, AL. Estimated population of Fayette County: 18,000.
  There is $1.2 million for sewer improvements in Plattsmouth, NE; 
population: 6,900. Finally, $15 million for water infrastructure in 
remote Alaska Native villages, which exceeds the administration's 
request by $5 million. In its budget submission, the administration 
proposed reducing spending for Alaska Native villages to $10 million 
because:

       Audits conducted by the EPA Office of the Inspector General 
     identified several financial management problems, including 
     improperly charging labor costs to grants and disbursing 
     funds that were not tied to the actual project costs.

  I am for helping our neediest and most rural communities. Some of 
these projects may be truly needed. But it is disregard for the 
procedure that should be followed that concerns me.
  Last month the House and the Senate Democratic leadership airdropped 
a continuing resolution into the legislative branch appropriations bill 
to keep the government running until this Sunday. It is not the way to 
do business. There is nothing that prohibits the majority leader from 
calling up a continuing resolution as a stand-alone piece of 
legislation.
  I want to say that I intend to raise a point of order. But, more 
importantly, if this bill passes the Senate, as it did the House 
earlier today, the President of the United States, if he is serious 
about eliminating waste and unnecessary spending, should eliminate a 
bill that has a 17-percent increase over last year's levels, which is 
$4.66 billion more, in addition to the $10.95 billion that was 
appropriated to these accounts in the stimulus bill, and contains 542 
earmarks totaling $341.3 million. If that is not enough to earn the 
President's veto, I do not know what is.
  I raise a point of order that the conference report violates the 
provisions of rule XXVIII, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

[[Page 26258]]


  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I move to waive the relevant 
provisions of rule XXVIII. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Can the Chair state when the vote on the motion to 
waive will occur this evening?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive will occur after all time 
is used or yielded back.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 40\1/2\ minutes, the minority 
has 28 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My understanding is that the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee is here if you have no objection, Mr. Ranking 
Member.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I certainly have no objection at all. The Senator from 
Alabama is here. As far as I know, he is the only other Republican 
Senator who wishes to speak at this time. I have no further comments. 
So if any other Republican Senator wishes to speak, they should come 
over. After Senator Sessions speaks, we will waive the rest of our 
time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the conference report before the Senate 
provides funding for the Department of the Interior and related 
programs. While the funds in this measure represent a significant 
increase over the funding levels provided in fiscal year 2009 they are 
greatly needed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest 
Service, our national parks, and other agencies which provide critical 
support to all Americans.
  I would also note that the increase is within the amounts approved by 
the Senate in the budget resolution. In fact, each bill and conference 
agreement that the Appropriations Committee has forwarded to the Senate 
has been within the amounts approved by the Congress. Those who object 
to the spending in these bills ignore that the Congress approved these 
funding levels earlier this year.
  I would share my colleagues' concern with spending if the 
Appropriations Committee were exceeding the amounts approved in the 
budget, but in point of fact we are not. Moreover, in total the amounts 
that are in this bill when combined with the other 11 appropriations 
bills are below the amounts requested by the administration.
  That is only one reason, but an important consideration in why these 
bills have received nearly unanimous support from Senator Cochran and 
the other Republican members of the committee. Once again, this 
Interior conference report saw nearly unanimous support from the Senate 
conferees.
  Over the past few months we have heard the repeated cries that we are 
spending too much. But to reiterate, the facts are we are spending less 
than requested by the administration and the same amount or less than 
was approved by the Congress.
  Included in the conference agreement is a short term extension of the 
continuing resolution. Regrettably, an additional extension of the CR 
is necessary because we are still unable to complete action on all 12 
bills. I want to remind my colleagues that upon assuming the 
chairmanship of the committee last January I vowed that we would strive 
to end the process of tying all 12 bills into an omnibus bill which 
affords all members less opportunity to debate and amend these 
important measures.
  I was extremely pleased to learn last spring that every one of our 
Republican colleagues signed a letter to the majority leader urging him 
to provide ample floor time to consider these bills. And, I must thank 
the leader, and the minority leader as well for allowing these bills to 
be considered.
  No one can accuse the majority of not trying to return to regular 
order. We have passed seven appropriations bills to date, and today the 
Senate is considering our fifth appropriations conference report. We 
hope to complete Senate action on two or more measures next week.
  This has not been easy. Each time an appropriations bill has been 
called up a handful of Members have used their rights to slow down the 
process. Our managers have been forced to wait 2 and even 3 days before 
the same Members, time after time, are willing to call up amendments.
  The Senate has been in session about 153 days this year. On 56 days, 
so far, the body has been considering an appropriations measure. That 
is more than 11 weeks. We have tried to elicit cooperation on these 
measures, but once again a few members, who seem to oppose the 
appropriations process, must believe that we are better off under a 
continuing resolution in which the executive branch makes all spending 
decisions than allowing the Congress to do its work. Because of this 
approach, we find ourselves in need of passing another CR.
  Division A of this conference report represents the hard work of 
Senators Feinstein and Alexander along with all the members of the 
subcommittee and their staffs. It contains critical funding that is 
needed today. I support the compromise that Chairman Feinstein and 
Senator Alexander brokered on a bipartisan fashion. I commend them for 
their fine work.
  Division B of the conference agreement extends the current continuing 
resolution until Friday December 18. There are also two technical 
corrections in the bill that fix problems in the original CR. In 
addition, three new issues are added which generally have the support 
of the administration and should be noncontroversial.
  First, the Small Business Administration will be allowed to use $80 
million to continue Small Business 7(a) loans during the CR period. 
Without this authority, SBA expects to have to turn off its loan 
program in November.
  Second, up to $200,000,000 of funds made available in the Omnibus 
bill will be allowed to be used to adjust allocations for public 
housing agencies to prevent cutting off assistance to poor families. 
Without this authority the administration believes up to 10,000 
families would lose their housing assistance.
  Third, the bill allows for government-sponsored mortgage holders to 
continue to loan funds at higher level loans so that high cost areas 
are still covered. The current law expires in December. The Department 
of Housing and Urban Development expects that in anticipation of the 
expiration of the authority lenders will start to stop credit for these 
high-cost loans as early as November.
  The House has already approved this provision in its 2010 THUD 
Appropriations bill, but since that bill has not yet been completed, 
this action is necessary at this time.
  Some of my colleagues may be concerned that we have attached the CR 
to this bill. It is clear as I have pointed out that we cannot expedite 
passage of appropriations bills this year because of a small number of 
opponents. Each bill has taken nearly a week to pass all because of a 
few Members wanting to delay.
  For example, the Energy Water conference report which passed with 
nearly 80 votes took 3 days of delay before we were allowed to vote.
  As such, regrettably this approach is necessary. I urge all my 
colleagues to support the swift passage of this bill to avoid a 
devastating shut down of government operations.
  And, finally I urge my colleagues to cooperate with the managers of 
our appropriations bills in the coming weeks as we seek to pass our 
remaining bills. Without cooperation, we will no doubt be forced to 
return to an omnibus-type of approach which limits all Members' right 
to debate and amend the measures that the committee has recommended.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote to approve this conference 
agreement and continuing appropriation resolution to provide over $32 
billion for a variety of important environmental, forest and land, 
national parks and infrastructure purposes; as well as to extend 
funding for other Federal programs through December 18.
  I am pleased this bill includes the full $475 million for Great Lakes 
Restoration Initiative, GLRI, as requested

[[Page 26259]]

in the President's budget. The GLRI is a multi-agency effort to address 
the array of current and historic threats facing the Great Lakes, such 
as invasive species, habitat loss, and pollution. The Environmental 
Protection Agency has prepared a spending plan for this money based on 
years of research and cooperative work with other Federal, State, 
tribal, and local partners, and the EPA will measure results to ensure 
accountability. This bill includes language, which I supported, to 
ensure that steamships in the Great Lakes are able to continue to 
operate. The compromise included in this bill allows the EPA to move 
forward with a proposed air emission regulation for maritime vessels 
operating on the coasts while the EPA works with the Great Lakes 
shipping community on compliance. Additionally, the EPA will conduct 
additional economic analysis for the Great Lakes region.
  This bill provides $2.7 billion for our National Park Service, an 
increase of $200 million from last year's level, which I support. That 
increase would help maintain and protect the natural, historic and 
recreational resources of the six National Park units in Michigan. I am 
pleased conferees favorably responded to my request to waive the match 
requirement for Quincy Smelter funding, located within Keweenaw 
National Historical Park in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The bill 
includes $1 million to stabilize the deteriorating buildings at the 
Quincy smelting complex, which is the best remaining example of a 
copper smelter of its era in the country, and possibly the world. The 
smelter has been identified by the Park Service as a core resource in 
the park, yet its structures have deteriorated significantly since the 
smelter closed in 1971. Over the past couple of years, some parts of 
the smelter buildings have collapsed and last year, a smokestack, which 
is a critical part of the landscape, had to be removed because it was 
in danger of imminent collapse. With the waiver language included, this 
funding can be used to stabilize the buildings to prevent additional 
structural failures, saving one of the most important resources of the 
park.
  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 this 
conference agreement more than doubles the amount provided in the 
fiscal year 2009 omnibus. Michigan would receive about $41 million for 
drinking water and $90 million for wastewater projects, protecting 
public health, improving the environment, and creating a stronger 
economic climate.
  This appropriations conference agreement would provide a significant 
boost to protect and clean up the Great Lakes, protect the environment, 
improve Michigan's parks and lands, provide communities with safe 
drinking water and improved wastewater infrastructure, and I support 
its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, is there a time limit on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority still has 28 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to be notified after 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, a number of appropriations bills, as 
Senator Inouye has said, have moved forward this year, and I do not 
think it is obstructive or an effort to delay to try to make sure those 
bills spend the taxpayers' money at a reasonable level and for things 
that serve the national interest.
  Let me talk about the bill before us today. It is stunning in its 
increase in spending at a time when we are not able to spend at this 
level. Some people dismiss the persons at the tea parties who have been 
ringing our phones and sending us messages and e-mails about the 
reckless rate of spending. I believe, unfortunately, that as a body 
this Senate is in denial. The Senate is of the belief that it is 
business as usual, that we will get together and have these meetings in 
these committees and bills will be dropped on the floor, with 
unprecedented rates of spending increases, and everybody will vote for 
it and it is OK because that is what we always do.
  Actually, what we are doing today is worse than what we have been 
doing in the past. The spending increase levels are at rates that are 
breathtaking. I have to talk about it.
  I would like to support the Interior bill. I know the Environmental 
Protection Agency is an important agency. We are not trying to 
eliminate them. But let's take a look at a few things. The Senate bill 
this year for Interior and EPA has a 16.9-percent increase. At this 
rate, spending for the Interior-EPA would double in only 4 to 5 years, 
the whole budget would double in 4 to 5 years at this rate of increase. 
Inflation today is less than 1 percent. The Environmental Protection 
Agency spending increase is 37.7 percent in this legislation, a 37-
percent increase. At that rate, the whole EPA budget would double in 2 
to 3 years.
  You say, surely you are considering some of the stimulus money we 
passed, the $800 billion stimulus package that was supposed to create 
jobs, which was passed in February of this year. No, I am not. This is 
the baseline budget bill. If you add the stimulus for fiscal year 2010, 
we would have a 57-percent increase. The 2-year increase from 2008 to 
fiscal year 2010 would be 62-percent, assuming we are adding stimulus 
spending to FY2010. But that does not include the emergency funding 
that may occur for fires or floods or storms.
  Some Senators have the gumption to come down here and ask: What are 
we doing? How can we continue to spend like this? Aren't we being 
irresponsible? Are you listening, fellow colleagues, to your phone 
calls, to your e-mails, to your letters and your townhall meetings? Are 
you listening to them or do you think this is just business as usual? 
We make a few deals and we pass a bill. Everybody is happy, and we pat 
everybody on the back.
  Let me show a few charts that relate to that issue. This is the 
Environment and Interior appropriations history for the last several 
years. A lot of my colleagues say President Bush spent so badly. Well, 
sometimes he did. But from calendar year 2001 through 2009, the 
spending increases averaged only 1 percent in these departments. Look 
at this year. It was an actual reduction. Now we have a 16-, 17-percent 
increase, and that does not include the $11 billion from the stimulus 
package. That totals, then, a 57-percent increase in this Interior 
bill.
  I can't vote for this. How can I go back home and tell my people, 
when I said I am concerned about spending and we have to do better, 
yes, constituents, I know we have to do better and then waltz into the 
Senate and vote for a bill such as this? No matter how much good people 
say is in it, we don't have the money.
  This year the budget deficit hit, as of September 30, about four 
times the highest budget deficit we have ever had in the history of the 
Republic, $1.4 trillion.
  Look at the Ag bill. The Agriculture bill, we were waltzing along 
with a 2-percent average annual increase from 2001 through 2009. That 
includes 2009. We end up with another 14 percent increase in 
Agriculture. That does not count the stimulus package. Agriculture got 
a good bit out of the $800 billion stimulus package.
  What about the THUD? Boy, it is a thud in terms of what impact there 
will be on the deficit for the Nation. Discretionary appropriations 
from 1995 to 2009 averaged an increase of 5.2 percent. What about 2010? 
A 23-percent increase. That is budget baseline spending.
  I ask my colleagues, is anybody listening to their constituents or 
are Alabama constituents the only ones who care about the financial 
future of this country? Are they the only ones who care about their 
grandchildren? I don't think so. I think my colleagues are hearing some 
of the same thing.
  So how do we come up with these increases? Here is the State 
Department and the Foreign Operations bill. As I said, from 1995 
through 2009, over 14 years, all our discretionary spending averaged an 
increase of 5.2 percent.

[[Page 26260]]

What do we get today? Look at this, a 32 percent increase in 1 year. In 
3 years, that doubles the whole foreign ops budget.
  What does it mean? These are not exaggerations. I hope my colleagues 
and the American people look at this chart. We ended fiscal year 2008 
with a $5.8 trillion total American debt. That is how much we owed to 
the public. In 2013, according to our own Congressional Budget Office, 
based on President Obama's spending plan, it will double to $11.8 
trillion, doubling the entire national debt in 5 years. By 2019, the 
10-year budget window the President has submitted to us, his budget for 
that period, it would triple the debt to $17.3 trillion. This takes us 
too close to having a debt equal to 100 percent of America's gross 
domestic product.
  According to the Heritage Foundation, there are gimmicks in these 
numbers. They estimate it will be closer to $20 trillion, and that is 
going to be about 100 percent of the entire gross domestic product, 
which is considered very bad in international circles and historically 
has always resulted in adverse economic ramifications.
  One more thing. The numbers get so large. You talk about trillions 
and billions, and it is hard to get a grip on what we are talking 
about. Most of us can understand what interest is on our debt. We can 
understand that. We pay a mortgage. You take out a mortgage and most of 
the money you pay the mortgage company goes to interest until it begins 
to go down over a period. If we look at this chart, we will see what 
would happen to the government's interest payment. Despite these 
surging increases, the Interior budget for parks and the EPA budget 
combined for all this year is $32 billion. That is a huge sum of money. 
Alabama's total budget, including education and general funds, is about 
$7 billion, the whole State of Alabama. So we are spending 32 
nationally on Interior and EPA. This past year, fiscal year 2009, we 
spent $170 billion just to pay the interest on the money we borrowed 
for the $5.8 trillion in debt we had when the year started. So we paid 
$170 billion in interest. That is more than five times the Interior 
budget we are passing today, as big as it is and much as it has 
expanded. Look how it increases in only 10 years. According to the CBO, 
which is by far the most conservative analysis, it ends up at $799 
billion in interest in 1 year. That is not paid to some other 
government agency, it is paid to people who hold our Treasury bills 
because, during this period, instead of paying interest on $5 trillion, 
we will be paying interest on $17 trillion, and the interest rates are 
unusually low today. CBO experts expect those interest rates to 
increase.
  The result is, we are talking about $800 billion in interest. If 
there are higher rates of interest, as the blue chip outside economists 
project, they project it would be $865 billion in interest in 1 year on 
the public debt, much of it interest paid to people in foreign 
countries, countries, states who own our treasury bills and buy our 
debt, leaving us weakened economically, politically, strategically, our 
security weakened, when we are that much in debt to people around the 
globe.
  I believe Americans are getting it. That is why they are writing us. 
They would like to see us do better. Are we doing better? The charts I 
showed indicate we are doing worse. It is time to say: No, we don't 
have the money. The average household income for an American citizen 
fell 3.6 percent. So the average household is seeing a 3.6-percent 
reduction, and States all over America are reducing their spending and 
making improvements in efficiency and taking other tough steps to 
contain spending. We are spending like crazy. Remember, we passed an 
$800 billion stimulus package in February. That is such a huge number. 
It is the largest spending bill this Republic has ever passed, $800 
billion in one fell swoop after a few weeks of being in session. It had 
to pass supposedly. Unemployment was going to go up if we didn't pass 
it. So in panic--not with my vote--this Congress passed that stimulus 
bill, and we have seen very little stimulus results from it.
  Unemployment in my State is about twice what it was before this 
recession started. So we have a problem, and we are not going to just 
borrow our way out of it. In the long run, I am concerned about this 
spending level and the debt level because there is no plan to make it 
better. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2019, what 
will the deficit be? Will it be going down? Will we be beginning to pay 
off the debt, the money we have borrowed? No. In 2019, they project the 
annual deficit that year to be over $1 trillion--in 1 year, over $1 
trillion--in 1 year to add to the total national debt.
  This is irresponsible. There was an article in today's Washington 
Times by one of their economists who pointed out the tremendous--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator asked to be notified after 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I will wrap up.
  He just noted the severe risk this kind of surging debt--the likes of 
which the country has never before seen or participated in. Those risks 
are real. He emphasized our national security. But many people are 
emphasizing the risk to our economy and our future growth. We are going 
to have to pay, in 2019, $800 billion, at least, in interest before we 
start buying the things America needs for its government to operate. 
Instead of $170 billion, we are going to be spending $800 billion.
  Why? Because we cannot say no. Why? Because we are addicted to higher 
and higher spending. I think it is irresponsible. I certainly believe 
our colleagues who produce these bills think they are doing well and 
operate within reality, and it is hard, they think, to make any 
changes. But why can't we? States are making changes. People in their 
homes are making changes. Why can't we make changes?
  I think we can. I do not think it is a little bitty matter. It is not 
a political matter. I keep hearing Democratic colleagues also 
expressing great concern about this debt. They try to blame it on 
President Bush and other things. But at some point it is our spending. 
President Bush did not propose to increase the Interior spending by 17 
percent. The Democratic leadership proposed that, and all these other 
bills we have.
  So we have to do better. I will be voting no, regretfully, and I hope 
more of my colleagues will join me because we need to begin to say: No, 
we cannot continue on this road. We are not in denial. We do believe 
our constituents have valid concerns about reckless spending, and we 
are going to try to act in a way that again wins their trust.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes of our time to 
the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me thank Senator Feinstein and also 
Senator Alexander for the work they have done on this bill. I used to 
be the ranking member of this subcommittee, and I understand many of 
the issues in this bill. The breadth and scope of it is very 
substantial, and I think they have done a good job.
  I want to mention two things that are very small parts of this bill 
but, nonetheless, I think important. One is the issue of something 
called hydraulic fracturing. The reason I mention it is, there is a lot 
of discussion about how important it is for us to become less dependent 
on foreign energy. We need to become less dependent on oil from places 
like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela and so on.
  Madam President, about 70 percent of our oil comes from overseas. The 
fact is, we use a prodigious amount of oil.
  The U.S. has about 5 percent of the world's population, but we use 
almost 25 percent of the oil. Seventy percent of it comes from off our 
shores from other countries, and 70 percent of all the oil we use is 
used for transportation. So we need to continue to develop resources at 
home if we are going to become less dependent on foreign energy.
  There is a provision included in the Interior conference report 
related to

[[Page 26261]]

hydraulic fracturing. This small provision requires a study by the EPA 
of hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. What I want to mention is 
this: In the subcommittee I chair on Energy and Water Development, I 
have continued to include research and development funding for oil and 
natural gas programs. We lead the world in unconventional oil and gas 
production, in part, because of this funding.
  We are now discovering new fields in shale and tight sands reservoirs 
because we can use technologies that we could not benefit from 5 and 10 
years ago. Just think we now explore 2 miles beneath the surface of the 
Earth areas of shale and go into seams 100-foot thick. We have the 
ability to drill down 2 miles, make a big curve, and drill out 2 miles 
to reach the resource. So you have a 4-mile circuit with this one 
drilling rig and you go into a shale deposit more than out 2 miles out. 
To exploit the resource, companies use hydraulic fracturing by using 
water under high pressure. It allows them to break down that shale, and 
you have oil production.
  The U.S. Geological Survey did a survey in North Dakota in an area 
called the Bakken shale. It is an area about 100-foot thick 2 miles 
down. They said using today's technology--today's technology--there is 
up to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in place. That is the 
largest assessment of recoverable oil they have ever found in the Lower 
48 States. Think of that. But none of that resource would be available 
without the use of hydraulic fracturing.
  By the way, this issue of hydraulic fracturing--water under high 
pressure to break that shale--we have been doing that for 60 years. 
There has been many studies, and there is simply no problem with it 
when properly applied. These studies show that it does not contaminate 
groundwater. In fact, the EPA itself did a study in 2004 and concluded 
there is no problem.
  Well, some of our colleagues are concerned, and they have legislation 
to regulate hydraulic fracturing on a federal level. In the House 
Interior Appropriations bill, there was a requirement for the EPA to do 
a study. I would say the Senate did not have that requirement in its 
bill. I worked with other Senators and, but we requested that certain 
guidelines be in the study. Those requests were included in the 
conference report. I do not mind there being a study because I believe 
that it will demonstrate what we already know and what the EPA has 
previously discovered in their study. This issue of hydraulic 
fracturing is not a problem. We do need to continue to produce more 
energy in this country to make us less dependent on foreign oil and 
find ways to use more domestic natural gas. It is just a fact, and it 
will not continue unless we can continue the hydraulic fracturing that 
unleashes the opportunity of these oil and natural gas fields.
  So that is a small piece of this very big bill, but I think one that 
is very important. I wanted to make that point.
  I want to make one additional point, and this actually relates to the 
success of something we took out of this bill. I want to just describe 
it for a moment. Some things just sort of drive you batty about the way 
government works. Government gets big, and somehow it just leaves 
common sense behind from time to time. This was a circumstance where in 
a national park in North Dakota, the Badlands--the Theodore Roosevelt 
National Park--they have to thin the elk herd. There are too many elk--
about 900 elk. It can only handle about 250 or 300 elk. So you have to 
get rid of some elk; you have to thin the herd.
  Like a lot of government solutions, the solution was, well, maybe we 
should hire Federal sharpshooters and then have helicopters we would 
hire to haul the meat out of the national park.
  I said: I don't understand at all how you could think about that. 
There are plenty of people who are qualified hunters who would be happy 
to volunteer their time to thin the elk herd. You do not need Federal 
sharpshooters. You do not need helicopters. All you need is a barrel 
full of common sense.
  So because we could not get that done, I put a piece in this Interior 
appropriations bill when we did it in the subcommittee, and all of a 
sudden everyone got serious about negotiating on how to do this. Kudos 
to the Interior Secretary and his staff. We have reached an agreement 
in principle now, and the Park Service has a proposal that it has set 
forth. My expectation is that this going to be solved in the right way. 
So we withdrew this provision from because we do not need it.
  We have an agreement in principle, to use qualified North Dakota 
volunteers, deputized by the National Park Service, who will, under the 
guidance of the Park Service, thin the elk herd. We do not need to 
spend a lot of money doing it. All we need to do is just use some 
common sense, and that is exactly what we are doing.
  I understand we have a circumstance where there is not quote, 
hunting, unquote, in national parks. So the first blush on all this 
was: Well, we can't do what you suggest, Senator Dorgan. We just can't 
do it. We are restricted.
  Well, the fact is, we are going to use volunteers in a way that is 
consistent with both the law and common sense. We are not going to 
spend your money hiring sharpshooters. We are not going to spend your 
money hiring helicopters. We are going to do this the right way. It is 
not opening up a hunting season. It is just empowering qualified 
hunters, under the guidance of the Park Service, with the coordination 
of the State's game and fish department, to work as volunteers and do 
what we should just do. It is just a deep reservoir of common sense.
  I am proud we have finally gotten that done. I know it is not the 
biggest issue in the world, but do you know what. There are a whole lot 
of folks in North Dakota who read about these ``sharpshooters'' and 
``helicopters'' who said: Are you nuts? What are you thinking about? 
That is what got me involved. I understand, this does not meet the test 
at all. But now we have gotten it done, and we have the right solution.
  So I want to thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander. I thank 
the Interior Department for seeing a way to do this. There is a right 
way and a wrong way. They saw the right way to do it, and I think it 
will be helpful to the American taxpayer. It will get the job done by 
thinning that elk herd and saving some money and giving some folks an 
opportunity to volunteer to serve their government.
  So I wanted to mention that today and thank the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from 
North Dakota, and tell him that misery loves company because in 
California we had a similar situation with the Point Reyes National 
Seashore Park, where there were growing numbers of whitetail deer, and 
the Park Service proceeded to do a somewhat similar thing, shoot them, 
and I believe in helicopters shoot them. All the residents got very 
upset because this is not an isolated community, and they began to 
call, and we worked out a solution--to use contraception, actually, to 
cull the herd.
  But I do not know whether that is going to work. I think the Senator 
pointed out a good situation where the Park Service has to be more 
sensitive when it does some of these things.
  I thank the Senator for the efforts he has made--and successful ones.
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, Madam President, I would only say that we have not 
discussed contraception for elk in the national park, but contraception 
was once suggested for skunks in a wildlife refuge, and the question 
was who was going to get close enough to the skunks.
  But I think we have solved this issue in a way that is satisfactory 
and especially beneficial to the taxpayer. I appreciate the work of the 
Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator, thank you. I 
appreciated his work.
  Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

[[Page 26262]]




                  Commending Senator Edward W. Brooke

  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
California and the Senator from Tennessee for allowing me to make a 
brief statement on a very important event that took place in this 
Capitol just yesterday.
  I was privileged and deeply moved to witness a ceremony in the 
Rotunda of this building at which Edward W. Brooke, the distinguished 
former Republican Senator from Massachusetts, was honored with the 
Congressional Gold Medal.
  This award, as you know, is the highest bipartisan award that 
Congress can bestow. The award to Republican Senator Brooke was the 
result of legislation sponsored by two history-conscious Democrats: 
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, DC, and Senator Ted 
Kennedy of Massachusetts, who served with Ed Brooke in the Senate for 
many years.
  Senator Brooke was a trailblazer, a bridge builder, and a statesman. 
The grandson of a slave, he grew up in a segregated neighborhood not 
far from this Chamber. But he rose to become the first African American 
elected to the Senate.
  I am proud, and the citizens of Massachusetts are proud, to have sent 
Ed Brooke to Washington. We saw yesterday what our State saw in him 
long ago: his strength, his wisdom, his decency, and his deep 
commitment to meeting the needs of the American people.
  Ed Brooke was elected as a Republican, but the people of 
Massachusetts did not see him as a strident party man. They saw him as 
a great American and a model politician. They supported him because 
they understood that difficult times require statesmen who can work 
across party lines.
  Returning to the Capitol yesterday, at the age of 90, Senator Brooke 
spoke powerfully about this Senate as a place where Members of both 
parties can and must work together for the common good. That was the 
spirit of the Senate in which Ed Brooke served. That was the spirit of 
the Senate that Ted Kennedy embraced, and the spirit that led to 
countless bipartisan accomplishments. It is a spirit we desperately 
need to revitalize as we work our way through the needed reform and 
repair of our broken health care system.
  As an elder statesman of the Republican Party, this is what Senator 
Brooke said yesterday:

       I'm here to tell you that politics is not an evil thing. 
     It's a good thing, and when used properly, it does good 
     things. I think of the awesome responsibilities of the House 
     of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in these years of 
     crisis. Three wars that we're in, and an economy that has 
     taken such a long time to turn around, and the lack of 
     adequate safe housing that we promised the Nation back in 
     1949, clear air and clear water, a health care bill.

  Speaking to the Senate and to the House he went on:

       You have awesome responsibilities. Not only this country, 
     but this world looks to you. When Republicans and Democrats 
     get together, they can do anything! And the country is 
     waiting for you to do anything. They just want relief. You 
     have that responsibility. You have that authority. You are 
     the people on Earth who are going to save this country and 
     save this world. Think about that. We have got to get 
     together. We have no alternative. There is nothing left. It 
     is time for politics to be put aside on the back burner.

  With those words, the several hundred people in the Chamber came to 
their feet and cheered and applauded.
  Like Senator Brooke, I have the perspective of someone who has spent 
the last few decades in private life. I can report that American 
families are deeply troubled by the economic hardship of the present 
and by the uncertainty of the future. It gives them no comfort to see 
the Senate so politically polarized and unwilling to come together in 
common cause without regard to politics to solve the critical problems 
before us.
  As I said in my maiden speech in this Chamber 2 days ago, as the 
health care debate moves forward, we who are privileged to serve in 
this historic body on both sides of the aisle have the opportunity and 
the obligation to take the long view, to put partisan politics aside, 
and come together to seize this unique and critical moment in our 
history.
  I have had the privilege in the past to serve as chairman of the 
Democratic Party of the United States, so I am no stranger to partisan 
politics. But I like to think I also know when it is time to put 
partisanship aside and work together.
  As President Obama said yesterday, while we grace Senator Brooke with 
this honor today, perhaps a better tribute to him would be to embrace 
that spirit: to compete aggressively at the polls, but then work 
selflessly together to serve the Nation we love.
  No words could serve as a better summons to the historic debate on 
health care that lies ahead of us. We are poised to enact the most 
significant domestic legislation since the civil rights era. I know 
each and every Senator has deeply held beliefs about how we can best 
reform our health care system and that those deeply held beliefs will 
sometimes collide. We should and we will have a vigorous debate in this 
Chamber. But that debate should reflect a level of cooperation that is 
equal to the magnitude of what is at stake for American families. It 
should reflect a spirit of teamwork and collaboration that we always 
saw in statesmen such as Ed Brooke and Ted Kennedy. Our times, and our 
Nation, demand nothing less.
  I offer my sincere congratulations to Senator Brooke. I thank him for 
his service to this country and his wise counsel to those of us who are 
serving in the Senate today.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the remarks of 
Senator Brooke at yesterday's Congressional Gold Medal ceremony printed 
in the Record. I commend them to my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Thank you for your very warm welcome. I want the record to 
     show that I have turned on the sun since you came. 
     Politicians sometimes take credit for things they had 
     absolutely nothing to do with. But I'm proud, that after a 
     rainy entry into Washington, that the sun is shining and that 
     you will be able to enjoy this very beautiful city and this 
     magnificent structure, the Capitol of the greatest country in 
     the world. Majority Leader--Steny, how are you?
       Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader John 
     Boehner, and Minority Leader . . . oh you're back, thank you 
     for coming back, my dear friend, the Speaker of the House. 
     What a wonderful thing, to have the Speaker of the great 
     House of Representatives, a lady.
       I think that's progress, and I don't think it will be long 
     before a lady will be the President of the United States.
       Patrick, thank you for your kind words. It is very 
     wonderful that you came to share in this great moment of my 
     life. You know how I feel about your family, you know how 
     saddened I am that he's not on this platform today. In case 
     you didn't know it, he started this together with Eleanor 
     Holmes Norton. He called me one day and he said, Ed, come to 
     my office, I'd like to see you. I went to his office and he 
     said, we are introducing a bill to have you awarded the 
     Congressional Gold Medal. I was shocked, I was in awe, but 
     you can be sure I was pleased. Ted said don't you worry about 
     a thing, you don't have to talk to anybody, you don't have to 
     do a thing. I will do the Senate side, and Eleanor Holmes 
     Norton will do the House side. And it happened. He had to get 
     76 United States Senators as co-sponsors of the bill, and 
     poor Eleanor had to get only 290 Representatives to get it in 
     the House of Representatives. But they were dauntless, and 
     they went out and did their work, and before I knew it the 
     Senate had passed the bill, the House had passed the bill, 
     and I just got a call the other day that there was a debate 
     on the floor, Madam Speaker, in order to use the rotunda of 
     the Capitol for this occasion. And she said if you turn on C-
     SPAN, you'll see it. It will be a very spirited debate, and 
     it was, and the vote was 417 to nothing. And if that isn't 
     the way to win an election, I don't know what is. It's never 
     been very easy.
       This would be a perfect day for me in my life, if it 
     weren't for the fact that my friend, my senior Senator, 
     though he was much younger than I, would be here on this 
     occasion. We don't control life and death, and we couldn't 
     control Ted, or he would still be with us. But I am really 
     honored to have with us on this occasion his wonderful wife 
     Vicki, who has been such a wonderful person.
       And to have my family, and my wife of 37 years, who's given 
     me the best years of my life. My son and daughters, step-
     daughters, and grandchildren, so many aunts and cousins, I 
     can't even begin to name you because it would take too long 
     and the time the Speaker has given to this and the time the 
     other members of the Senate and the House, I can't intrude 
     upon their job.

[[Page 26263]]

       This is a heady thing for me, it would be for anybody. I 
     love this country, since the day I was born. And I was born 
     here in the nation's capital, on October the 26th, 1919. Most 
     of you weren't there at that time. And I'm here to tell you 
     that politics is not an evil thing. It's a good thing and 
     when used properly it does good things. I think of the 
     awesome responsibilities of the House of Representatives and 
     the United States Senate in these years of crisis. Three wars 
     that we're in, and an economy that has taken such a long time 
     to turn around, and the lack of adequate safe housing that we 
     promised the nation back in 1949. Clear air and clear water, 
     a health care bill--which I'm sure none of you want to hear 
     about on this occasion. I'll give you at least a break from 
     it. And I would not be presumptuous to tell you what to do, 
     because I'm sure you don't know what you're going to do 
     yourselves. You have awesome responsibilities. Not only this 
     country, but this world looks to you. I was happy when you 
     told me just a few minutes ago, Madam Speaker, that the 
     Republicans and the Democrats played ball last night, and 
     they played the Capitol Police. That was an awesome 
     responsibility in and of itself. And that you won! It only 
     meant to me that when Republicans and Democrats get together 
     they can do anything!
       And the country is waiting for you to do anything. They 
     just want relief. You have that responsibility, you have that 
     authority. You are the people on earth that are going to save 
     this country and save this world. Think about that. Now we 
     can worry about discouragement, what is it, when you can't 
     stand the heat, get out of the kitchen? We can't worry about 
     that, Mitch McConnell, we can't worry about those things. We 
     can't worry that you all can't get to that. We've got to get 
     to it. There's nothing left. It's time for politics to be put 
     aside on the back burner.
       And we must lead by example and not by force. Security is 
     foremost. This nation must always be strong militarily, if 
     for no other reason than to protect itself. It's got to come 
     first. And we've got to know how to use it. We got to use our 
     diplomacy more and more and more. We've got to avoid these 
     perils before they come before us, and then it takes too 
     long. We can't keep fighting wars. We've got hungry people to 
     feed, homeless people, homeless and ill-housed people to 
     shelter, and young people to be educated. And so, on this 
     occasion, I applaud the Congress for what it has done. Our 
     three branches of government, as wonderfully founded by our 
     Founding Fathers, our legislative branch is as strong as it 
     wants to be. There is nothing that Congress can do that it 
     can't correct. They have the power to do it. The President is 
     powerful, but he has oversight of the Congress of the United 
     States. We are part of that. And the judiciary must never 
     politicize the Supreme Court and the Judiciary system. As 
     Eleanor Holmes said, and I don't want to minimize this honor 
     at all, but when she first told me that I got it I said 
     Eleanor, I'll exchange the honor if the Congress will pass 
     the voting rights act for the District of Columbia.
       You know, Eleanor said one day, she called me when I turned 
     80. I was still playing tennis and riding horses in Virginia 
     and living the life. My mother, bless her heart, lived to 
     100. She said to me, ``keep moving, don't stop.'' But I 
     wasn't feeling too well. Eleanor called me one day when I 
     wasn't feeling too good. And I told her I didn't feel so well 
     and didn't know if I would make it. And she said to me, 
     ``Senator, you can't die before the Congressional Gold 
     Medal.'' So I kept my political promise to her.
       Thank all of you. I wish I could call all of you by name 
     and give you a hug and kiss you. You are all my friends and 
     you are a part of my family and I love all of you. And I wish 
     all of that could happen, but obviously it can't. I want you 
     to know I am appreciative that you have come these distances 
     to be with me on this occasion.
       I'm going to conclude with the words of Him that I recite. 
     My staff will tell you, and I had the best staff in the 
     world, I know all of you think so, but they've been 
     wonderful. ``God of justice save the people from the wars of 
     race and creed, from the strife of class and friction, make 
     our nation free indeed. Keep her faith in the simple man 
     stronger than when she became, until she finds her full 
     fruition in the brotherhood of man.''
       Madam Speaker, Leaders of the Congress, Members of the 
     Congress, my old colleagues, family and friends, I accept 
     this honor with the deepest humility and everlasting 
     gratitude.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise in support of the Department of 
the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2010 and to speak on the conference report language 
regarding hydraulic fracturing.
  America's oil and natural gas industry is an important driver for the 
national economy. A recent study reveals this industry supports more 
than 9 million jobs and accounts for roughly 7.5 percent of the U.S. 
gross domestic product.
  Developing untapped resources could add further value to the U.S. 
economy and aid in economic recovery. According to a recent ICF 
international study, developing areas that are currently or were 
recently off limits could generate $1.7 trillion for Federal, State, 
and local governments over the life of the resource, as well as 
contribute 160,000 jobs by 2030.
  As our country moves towards a new energy future, oil and natural gas 
will continue to play a key role in our Nation's energy supply for 
years to come. According to the Energy Information Administration, 
energy demand will grow by 9 percent between 2007 and 2030. More than 
half of this demand is expected to be met by oil and natural gas, as is 
the case today.
  How will the U.S. meet this growing demand? There are significant 
resources available to recover here at home. The Bakken formation in 
North Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota is estimated by USGS to contain 
up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil--a 25-fold increase compared to 
government estimates from 30 years ago.
  In my home State of Louisiana, the recent development of the 
Haynesville shale formation will also contribute to supply the growing 
demand. Experts estimate that there is 250 Tcf of recoverable gas in 
the Haynesville shale. Last year, the U.S. consumed 23 Tcf, which means 
there is enough gas in just the Haynesville shale to supply the U.S. 
population for 11 years.
  On July 28, 2009, the New York Times reported: ``Nobody knows for 
certain how big an area the Haynesville Shale covers--no government 
entity has mapped it. But energy companies and experts say it is large, 
possibly the largest in the lower 48 states, with an estimated 250 
trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas. It is up to 13,000 feet 
underground, extending into East Texas.''
  In addition, a recent study estimates that primarily due to the 
recent shale gas developments across the country, the U.S. has roughly 
a 100-year supply of natural gas reserves. The study was conducted by 
the Potential Gas Committee--a group of academics and industry experts 
supported by the Colorado School of Mines. This represents a 35 percent 
increase in reserves versus a couple years ago--the largest increase in 
the history of reports from the Committee.
  However, these resources are not a guaranteed supply for the U.S. 
economy. Both the Bakken formation and the large new natural gas shale 
deposits--found in the Marcellus, Barnett, Haynesville, and other shale 
plays across the country--are developed using a combination of 
production technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal 
drilling.
  Unfortunately, some opponents of oil and natural gas production are 
attempting to prevent the use of hydraulic fracturing. This could have 
significant impacts on the future of shale gas and oil production. A 
2006 government-industry study found that 60-80 percent of the wells to 
be drilled in the next decade will require hydraulic fracturing.
  This technology can be used safely in an environmentally responsible 
manner. Hydraulic fracturing has been around for roughly 60 years. 
Current industry well design practices provide multiple levels of 
protection between any sources of drinking water and the production 
zone of an oil and gas well.
  The conference report to H.R. 2996 proposes an EPA study of hydraulic 
fracturing's impacts on drinking water supplies. It is important to 
note that EPA studied this issue in 2004 and concluded ``the injection 
of hydraulic fracturing fluids . . . pose little or no threat to 
(underground drinking water).'' Any new study must be conducted in a 
comprehensive, scientific, credible, and transparent manner. It should 
include a review of other existing studies regarding hydraulic 
fracturing and its potential impacts, and it should involve interested 
stakeholders during key stages of the study.
  Hydraulic fracturing can play a major role in our energy future, and 
this technology can continue to be used in a responsible manner. I urge 
EPA to undertake this study in a responsible manner.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise in support of the Department 
of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
for 2010.

[[Page 26264]]

This legislation will help our Nation perform a variety of vital 
functions that serve to protect the Nation's environment, properly 
manage its natural resources and provide funding for critical water 
infrastructure projects. The bill will fund the activities of a number 
of important initiatives such as the Clean Water and Drinking Water 
State Revolving Loan Fund, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and 
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. This bill will help to ensure that 
we wisely spend our Federal monies in the most effective and efficient 
manner possible.
  In particular, I would like to address the specific language in the 
conference report addressing the request for a study regarding the use 
of hydraulic fracturing, an extremely important tool that will help us 
unlock the vast potential of our own domestic oil and gas supplies. As 
we all know, it is in the best interests of our Nation to become more 
energy secure and to reduce our reliance on foreign oil supplies. 
Harmful reliance on foreign supplies can certainly have adverse 
national security and economic implications for our country. No country 
can remain a leading player in the community of nations if it must 
increasingly rely on other nations for one of the bedrock elements of 
its economy. Current events compel us to proceed forward with the 
efficient development of our own domestic energy resources. Our 
continued economic prosperity, as well as the national security of the 
country itself, depends on the development of clean, secure and 
affordable energy supplies such as natural gas.
  One of the most significant ways to help us tap our natural gas is 
through the use of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a 
technique that has been commonly used in industry for many decades to 
allow our gas reserves below ground to move freely from the rock pores 
where it is trapped to a producing well that can readily bring the gas 
to the surface. This technique is particularly used to help us tap the 
vast potential of our unconventional gas supplies in the United States, 
including tight geological formations like some coalbeds, sandstones 
and shales where huge amounts of gas presently are located. To obtain 
this gas, a well is drilled into this area and a fracturing fluid, 
usually consisting primarily of water and sand. This highly-reliable 
and cost-effective technology was developed in the late 1940s and has 
been continuously improved and applied since that time.
  Hydraulic fracturing will undoubtedly play an important role in our 
future energy plans. Hydraulic fracturing will help us to develop our 
vast potential of oil and gas supplies more efficiently and will allow 
us to develop many resources that we would not otherwise be able to 
retrieve. Application of hydraulic fracturing to increase recovery is 
estimated to account for 30 percent of U.S. recoverable oil and gas 
reserves and has been responsible for the addition of more than 7 
billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to 
meet the Nation's energy needs. The National Petroleum Council 
estimates that 60 to 80 percent of all the wells drilled in the next 
decade to meet natural gas demand will require fracturing.
  In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a report on 
hydraulic fracturing which the Agency characterized as the most 
extensive study of the technique ever performed. That study focused on 
hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells, which was viewed as a 
``worst case'' scenario in terms of the potential impacts on drinking 
water aquifers because hydraulic fracturing of these coalbed methane 
wells tends to take place at shallower depths than hydraulic fracturing 
of shales or other types of formations. This study carefully 
investigated all of the facts of hydraulic fracturing and was 
extensively reviewed by numerous EPA offices, other Federal agencies, a 
panel of technical experts and members of the public. Based on its 
investigation, this study again confirmed that there is no evidence 
that hydraulic fracturing has resulted in the contamination of drinking 
water supplies and that this technique poses little threat to human 
health and the environment.
  In light of this work, the Congress reaffirmed in the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 that hydraulic fracturing should not be regulated as 
underground injection under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act except 
in very limited circumstances. Federal regulation would not result in 
any additional environmental benefits and could impose unnecessary 
burdens on the use of this critical technology that would impede 
development of our domestic energy resources.
  This new study that Congress is requesting of the Environmental 
Protection Agency is intended to review the risks, if any, that 
hydraulic fracturing poses to drinking water sources. Just like the 
Agency's prior study, this study should be conducted using a 
systematic, scientific approach that assures transparency, validity, 
and accuracy. The study should be based on accepted quality assurance 
guidelines to ensure that the information on which the study is based 
is of sufficient quality to support the study's conclusions. It should 
be properly peer-reviewed by qualified experts in accordance with 
standard practices, and should also draw on the expertise of those both 
inside and outside the Federal Government who can contribute relevant 
information to a high quality study. These contributors should include 
other appropriate Federal agencies as well as the State regulators who 
have many years of experience with hydraulic fracturing. This study 
should eventually be made available for review and comment by 
interested members of the public prior to being finalized.
  At the same time, since we have already studied hydraulic fracturing, 
it would be prudent for any proposed study to fully take into account 
other studies that have already been undertaken by Federal or State 
governmental agencies, councils, commissions, or advisory committees. 
For example, given the significant effort associated with the Agency's 
prior 2004 study, it would certainly be prudent to fully consider this 
study in undertaking any further examination of hydraulic fracturing. 
The 2004 study spent a considerable amount of time examining the 
hydraulic fracturing process, including the depth at which hydraulic 
fracturing activities take place as compared to the much shallower 
depths of drinking water aquifers, the physical characteristics of the 
rock formations that separate the zones targeted for oil and gas 
production and the drinking water aquifers and the creation of 
fractures during the hydraulic fracturing process.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the study should be based on 
well-recognized principles of risk assessment to determine whether 
there is any realistic risk that individuals may be exposed to 
substances used in the hydraulic fracturing process at levels that 
could possibly be considered harmful.
  I believe that a targeted study of hydraulic fracturing is the most 
efficient way to use our resources to accomplish the goals of this 
study. We need to continue to develop our domestic energy resources, 
including clean-burning natural gas. A focused approach to the study 
will allow us to address concerns about hydraulic fracturing while 
facilitating the continued use of this critical technology.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I want to thank Chairman Feinstein for her 
work on this bill.
  I appreciate the attention that she has given to a number of key 
investments, particularly funding for the State revolving funds for 
sewer and drinking water infrastructure, which I have strongly 
supported. These investments are not just a matter of improving public 
health and environmental quality; they are a matter of job creation, 
which is all important at this time.
  I am concerned, however, about a provision that was included at the 
insistence of the House of Representatives that will exempt certain 
vessels on the Great Lakes from regulation under a proposed EPA rule 
designed to limit emissions from marine diesel engines. I know that 
this provision is not one that was advanced by Chairman

[[Page 26265]]

Feinstein, and I appreciate her efforts to prevent a larger exemption 
than is in this bill.
  Although the exemption included in this bill is limited to 13 
vessels, the impact on public health has not been explained. In 
addition, the conference report includes language that encourages EPA 
to adopt additional exemptions for vessels on the Great Lakes in its 
final rule. As a result, I am alarmed about the potential impact on air 
quality in downwind States, like Rhode Island, which, I must note, will 
be required to comply with EPA's regulations on marine diesel engines.
  Representing a State that has an unfortunately high unemployment 
rate, I have great sympathy for those who called for this exemption on 
the basis of potential economic impact on a local industry. On the 
other hand, my constituents bear the environmental and health burdens 
that come from pollution that originates from the Midwest.
  Last week, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, 
NESCAUM, which represents air quality agencies in Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, wrote to 
express its deep concern about any effort to delay or limit EPA's 
regulations on marine diesel engines based on the potential 
environmental impacts and the impacts on international efforts to 
reduce emissions from marine engines. I will ask that this letter be 
printed in the Record.
  I would hope that after a more thorough deliberation we will have a 
chance to revisit this issue and provide appropriate protection to 
downwind States.
  Again, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman to limit the reach of 
this provision and for the important investments she has made in this 
bill. I am grateful for her leadership and am honored to serve with 
her.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the letter to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management,
                                     Boston, MA, October 21, 2009.
     Sen. Jack Reed,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reed: The Northeast States for Coordinated Air 
     Use Management (NESCAUM) has recently learned of an effort to 
     attach a rider to the FY 2010 Interior and Environment 
     Appropriations Bill that would have the effect of delaying or 
     limiting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
     ability to reduce air pollution from large marine vessels 
     that operate in domestic waterways. NESCAUM is the 
     association of eight northeastern state air pollution 
     programs that includes Rhode Island along with Connecticut, 
     Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
     and Vermont. Consistent with our mission to protect and 
     enhance air quality in the Northeast, NESCAUM opposes 
     attempts to use the federal appropriations process to 
     obstruct EPA's efforts to reduce emissions from large marine 
     vessels.
       Air pollution is not confined to state boundaries. Through 
     long-range transport in the atmosphere, pollutants emitted in 
     domestic waters, such as the Great Lakes, affect air quality 
     in the Northeast. We point out that one of our member states, 
     New York, has the third longest shoreline among the Great 
     Lakes states. The fuel controls proposed by EPA will 
     significantly reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 
     oxides (NOX), which contribute to ground-level 
     ozone (smog), particulate matter, and acid rain. As a result, 
     the Northeast will realize significant public health and 
     other environmental benefits from implementing EPA's proposed 
     rule not only in the Northeast's local waters, but in upwind 
     waters as well.
       In addition to the negative public health and environmental 
     implications, a special exclusion for vessels predominantly 
     operating in domestic waters sends the wrong message to the 
     international community regarding the U.S. commitment to 
     reduce emissions from ocean going vessels. The governments of 
     the United States and Canada have applied to the 
     International Maritime Organization (IMO) for designation of 
     their coasts as an Emission Control Area (ECA). The ECA 
     designation establishes stringent controls for fuel sulfur 
     and engine NOX emissions for all ships, foreign 
     and domestic, operating in coastal waterways. A significant 
     change in U.S. policy at this critical juncture of the ECA 
     application process, as signaled by such a rider to an 
     appropriations bill, could jeopardize the standing of U.S.-
     Canadian application before the IMO. We should approach the 
     IMO with ``clean hands'' by demonstrating our commitment to 
     do for ourselves what we are asking others to do for us as 
     well.
       For these reasons, we urge you to oppose the impending 
     rider to the FY 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations 
     Bill. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Arthur N. Marin,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I support many of the provisions in 
the Interior appropriations conference report, including the amendment 
I passed to allow the Federal Government to partner with private 
entities to develop new biofuels technologies. This provision is part 
of my E4 Initiative to promote the economy, employment, education and 
energy, and it will help us to find ways to break our addiction to oil, 
while also spurring job creation and enhancing rural development. The 
bill also includes funding for many other important programs that I 
support, including full funding for the new Great Lakes Restoration 
Initiative, as well as money for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
State wildlife grants, national wildlife refuges, and the Clean Water 
and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and funding to assist 
American Indian tribes through the Indian Health Services and tribal 
law enforcement programs.
  I cannot vote for the bill, however, because it includes a continuing 
resolution, added in conference, that provides money to continue the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I am pleased that the President has 
committed to withdrawing our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, this 
redeployment schedule is too long and may undermine our ability to 
combat al-Qaida while straining our Armed Forces unnecessarily. In 
addition, while the President is right to focus on Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, I remain concerned that his strategy for those countries does 
not adequately address, and may even exacerbate, the global threats to 
our national security posed by al-Qaida.
  We need to keep the Federal Government operating and make sure our 
brave troops get all the equipment and supplies they need, but we 
should not be providing funds to continue those wars without, at a 
minimum, engaging in a serious debate about their effects on our 
national security.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I regret that I must vote in opposition to 
the fiscal year 2010 Interior Appropriations conference report. There 
are too many objectionable provisions--and spending levels are too 
high--for me to vote yes.
  The Interior appropriations in this bill total 17 percent more than 
last year's level. That compares to an increase of 5 percent for 
Homeland Security functions and approximately 3.7 percent for Defense. 
At that level, the military will not even be able to recapitalize 
equipment used during the wars, or procure new modern equipment.
  Consider some of the other spending increases provided in this bill: 
the Environmental Protection Agency will receive a 35 percent increase 
for fiscal year 2010. The National Gallery of Art will receive a 36 
percent increase, for a total funding level for fiscal year 2010 of 
$167 million.
  Another concern I have involves wildland fire funding. During 
consideration of the fiscal year 2010 Interior bill, Senator Barrasso 
and I offered an amendment to prohibit $2.8 million in wildland fire 
funds from being spent in the District of Columbia for festivals and 
the Mayor's Green Job Corps program. Clearly, neither of these programs 
is fire related. The amendment was adopted, yet the Interior 
Appropriations conference report does not include the amendment. 
Instead, it allows these much needed fire dollars to go to a city that 
has never experienced a wildfire and does not have any national forest 
land.
  While sensible provisions like the Barrasso/Kyl wildland fire 
amendment were struck from this conference report, other problematic 
provisions, that were not part of either the House or the Senate bill, 
were airdropped in. The Interior conference report now includes Davis-
Bacon requirements for projects funded through the Clean Water Act and 
the Drinking Water Act

[[Page 26266]]

Revolving Fund. EPA has not applied Davis-Bacon requirements to 
infrastructure projects funded through the State revolving funds since 
its authorization expired in 1995. In addition, the Act made it clear 
that Davis Bacon was limited in its application to water infrastructure 
projects constructed in whole or in part before October 1, 1994 with 
funds ``directly made available by'' capitalization grants. Davis-Bacon 
requirements have been found to increase the cost of these projects 
dramatically. This is a major policy issue that should be fully debated 
on the floor instead of being added to an appropriations bill behind 
closed doors.
  Another provision of concern is the newly added exemption from Clean 
Air standards for steamships operating on Great Lakes. Whether or not 
it is a good idea to exempt the steamships, it is just another example 
of provisions being added in conference even though no similar 
provisions were included in either the House or the Senate bill.
  I do support the continuing resolution that is included. For my part, 
I would have extended the CR beyond December 18. It would hold spending 
to fiscal year 2009 levels.
  The bill also allows the limit on loans backed by the Federal Housing 
Administration, FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to remain as high as 
$729,750 in high cost markets through 2010. While the intent is to 
ensure that homebuyers can get government-backed financing, there are 
unintended consequences that we have to consider. By increasing the 
number of homebuyers who can qualify for government loans, we are in 
effect exposing these government entities and taxpayers to more 
liabilities. The FHA's loss reserve fund, for instance, is estimated to 
cover only 3 percent of all FHA loans. If delinquencies continue at the 
current rate and cause the reserve fund to fall below the 2-percent 
threshold set by Congress, another government bail-out may be on the 
horizon.
  This bill also contains a provision that purports to prohibit the use 
of funds for the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United 
States or its territories. The problem with the restriction is that it 
contains a rather significant loophole: It would permit the use of 
funds appropriated by this bill to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the 
United States for the purposes of trial. We do not need to bring 
detainees to the United States for trial. Congress has established 
military commissions for the express purpose of prosecuting these 
detainees, and these military commissions can be convened in the place 
of detention.
  There are very good reasons why this bill should deny funding for 
pre-trial transfer and require instead that detainees be tried in 
military commissions outside the country. First, if detainees are 
brought to the United States, even for detention and trial, it 
increases the chance they may be released into the country. Officials 
from the Obama administration have acknowledged that detainees present 
in the United States likely have more rights including constitutional 
rights than those held outside the country. Second, past public 
criminal trials of terrorists, namely the Blind Sheikh and Ramzi Yousef 
trials, have compromised U.S. intelligence information on al Qaeda. 
Third, importing al Qaeda terrorists into U.S. domestic prison 
facilities would provide them access to a prisoner population that FBI 
Director Mueller has identified as particularly vulnerable to extremist 
recruitment. And finally, the logistics of the Zacarias Moussaoui 
criminal trial are not something we should foist upon local officials 
numerous times over. During his trial in Alexandria, VA, the Washington 
Post described the city as a ``virtual encampment.''
  Military commissions are fair to the accused and they are the 
appropriate forum for prosecuting detainees who are being held at 
Guantanamo. Indeed, in the defense authorization bill, the Senate went 
on record that the appropriate forum for bringing to justice combatants 
is military commissions, not civilian courts. By permitting the 
transfer of detainees to the United States for trial, this bill ignores 
not only the clear import of legislative enactments, but also the 
significant practical problems of prosecuting terrorists in the United 
States.
  Finally, I would caution that including $382 million for climate 
change-related activities seems premature, given that the Senate has 
not yet even taken up climate legislation.
  There are some good items in the bill that I should mention. First, 
the forest provisions. The bill includes $2 million for the Southwest 
Ecological Restoration Institutes, with $1.5 million going to the 
Ecological Restoration Institute, ERI, as is authorized by law and 
included in the President's budget. The Institute's program is 
important to providing the best available science to restore western 
forests and protect communities from unnaturally severe wildfires on a 
landscape scale.
  In addition, the bill tries to address the Forest Service and 
Department of the Interior wildfire cost overruns that have led to 
borrowing from their other programs to cover wildfire costs. Of note is 
the instruction to the agencies to develop new methods that consider 
actual prior year expenditures for formulating fire suppression funding 
estimates as part of their fiscal 2011 budget request, instead of just 
using the agency 10-year average. It also includes $474 million for two 
funds that will cover the costs of the largest and most expensive 
wildfires.
  Second, the bill includes language that begins to address 
environmental concerns raised about the administration's push for 
renewable energy development on public lands. Specifically, the bill 
language expresses concern about the effect renewable energy projects 
will have on water resources. In addition, the language requires a 
report from the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service 
outlining a strategic plan for renewable energy project development, 
and requires in that plan that impact on water resources be a part of 
any recommendation for specific project areas. These provisions are 
particularly important in western states where there are large amounts 
of public land and water supplies are limited.
  It is unfortunate that I must cast a ``no'' vote today. As many know, 
Interior-related funds are critical to Arizona. But, too much spending, 
and too many ill-considered authorizing provisions, as I have outlined, 
forces me to vote no.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to talk about an issue 
of great importance to our Nation's energy supply and our ability to 
continue producing affordable and reliable domestic energy. In 
particular, I would like to speak about a provision in the fiscal year 
2010 Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act conference report which pertains to a study on the 
use of hydraulic fracturing, an extremely important tool that will 
enable us to unlock the vast potential of our domestic oil and gas 
supplies.
  Hydraulic fracturing is a critical technique used in producing 
domestic oil and gas resources. Across the country, leaders are 
recognizing the growing importance of natural gas to our Nation's 
energy supply. Natural gas is the most abundant form of clean energy in 
the United States. Natural gas, including gas from coal beds and other 
unconventional sources, is becoming an increasingly important energy 
source for the United States. Most experts predict that demand for 
natural gas is likely to increase dramatically in the next decade. The 
increased production of natural gas will both enhance our energy 
security and help us address the problem of carbon reduction.
  The Interior appropriations conference report includes a provision to 
study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. 
It is imperative that we ensure that any study conducted is based 
strictly on facts and science. Specifically, any study must be 
conducted in a comprehensive, scientific, credible and transparent 
manner. It must be based upon the best available science as well as 
independent sources of information. Additionally, it should allow for 
stakeholder participation and should be conducted in coordination with 
states and interstate regulatory agencies. Finally, the study should 
seek input and participation from industry and be peer

[[Page 26267]]

reviewed. This will ensure that the study is credible and useful.
  I am confident that if properly conducted, the proposed study will 
clarify that the use of hydraulic fracturing will help to increase our 
domestic resource potential while posing no environmental harm.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, pursuant to rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, all congressionally directed spending 
items contained in the Interior appropriations conference report are to 
be disclosed. The Statement of Managers that accompanies this 
conference report does, in fact, contain tables which disclose the 
required information. In an effort, however, to go well beyond the 
letter of the rule and provide an additional level of transparency, I 
would like to include in the Record supplemental information that will 
serve as further clarification with respect to some of these items. 
Because of the way the information is presented at the request of the 
House of Representatives, the full amount of funding specified for a 
particular project could, to some, be difficult to discern in those 
instances where the item of congressionally directed spending is in 
addition to the amount contained in the President's budget request. The 
list of items that I will place in the Record will make it easier for 
Members to make the distinction between what was in the President's 
budget and what is subject to disclosure under the rules of the Senate.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following material 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

        Clarification of Congressionally Directed Spending Table

       Bureau of Land Management--Land Acquisition: $1,000,000 
     over budget, California Desert Wilderness (CA), Senator 
     Feinstein.
       Fish and Wildlife Service--Land Acquisition: $6,900,000 
     over budget, James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge (HI), 
     Senators Akaka and Inouye; $500,000 over budget, Red River 
     National Wildlife Refuge (LA), Senator Landrieu; $250,000 
     over budget, Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge (CT, 
     MA, NH, VT), Senators Dodd, Gregg, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, and 
     Lieberman; $250,000 over budget, Cherry Valley National 
     Wildlife Refuge (PA), Senators Casey and Specter; $800,000 
     over budget, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (UT), Senators 
     Bennett and Hatch.
       Environmental Protection Agency--Environmental Programs and 
     Management: $1,000,000 over budget, San Francisco Bay 
     competitive grant program (CA), Senator Feinstein; $1,566,000 
     over budget, Lake Champlain environmental improvement program 
     (VT), Senator Leahy.
       Environmental Protection Agency--State and Tribal 
     Assistance Grants: $3,000,000 over budget, Alaska Native 
     Villages water infrastructure program (AK), Senator 
     Murkowski.
       U.S. Forest Service--Forest and Rangeland Research: 
     $400,000 over budget, Center for Bottomlands Hardwood 
     Research (MS), Senator Cochran.
       U.S. Forest Service--State and Private Forestry: $1,000,000 
     over budget, Wood Education and Resource Center, Princeton 
     (WV), Senator Byrd.
       U.S. Forest Service--National Forest System: $1,250,000 
     over budget, Tongass National Forest timber pipeline program 
     (AK), Senators Begich and Murkowski.
       U.S. Forest Service--Capital Improvement and Maintenance: 
     $800,000 over budget, Pacific Southwest, Hawaii Research 
     Field Stations (HI), Senators Akaka and Inouye.
       U.S. Forest Service--Land Acquisition: $750,000 over 
     budget, Angeles National Forest (CA), Senator Feinstein; 
     $500,000 over budget, Los Padres National Forest (CA), 
     Senator Feinstein; $200,000 over budget, Chattahoochee-Oconee 
     National Forest (GA), Senator Chambliss; $575,000 over 
     budget, Hoosier National Forest (IN), Senator Lugar; $150,000 
     over budget, Chippewa and Superior National Forests (MN), 
     Senator Klobuchar; $1,000,000 over budget, Gallatin and 
     Custer National Forests (MT), Senators Baucus and Tester; 
     $2,000,000 over budget, Gila National Forest (NM), Senators 
     Bingaman and Udall; $640,000 over budget, Black Hills 
     National Forest (SD), Senator Johnson; $3,000,000 over 
     budget, Cherokee National Forest (TN, NC), Senators 
     Alexander, Burr, and Corker; $2,000,000 over budget, Green 
     Mountain National Forest (VT), Senator Leahy; $1,125,000 over 
     budget, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (WI), Senator 
     Kohl.
       U.S. Forest Service Wildland Fire Management: $2,000,000 
     over budget, California Fire Safe Councils (CA), Senator 
     Feinstein; $4,000,000 over budget, Lake Tahoe Community Fire 
     Protection Project (CA), Senators Boxer and Feinstein.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I see no other Republican Senators 
who wish to speak, so I yield back our time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I think we can wrap this up. I see 
no other Senators on the Democratic side, so I yield back our time.
  Madam President, if I may, I wish to take a moment to thank the staff 
for their work. On the Democratic side: Peter Kiefhaber, Virginia 
James, Scott Dalzell, Rachael Taylor, and Chris Watkins. On the 
minority staff: Leif Fonnesbeck, Rebecca Benn, and Rachelle Schroeder. 
Everybody worked together. It was a very special effort and I thank 
them very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, could I add my thanks to the staff. 
They have worked hard. This hasn't been a very easy bill to do. Senator 
Feinstein mentioned all of their names. I add my thanks to her thanks.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the relevant provisions of rule XXVIII.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays, 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 330 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

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

                                NAYS--40

     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
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the next vote will be the last vote this 
week. When we complete the next vote, that will be the last vote for 
the week. When we come in Monday, we are going to come in half an hour 
early; that is, we are going to have a vote at 5 o'clock on Monday. We 
have to do it at 5 o'clock so we can complete work before midnight the 
next day. So everyone should be here no later than a quarter to 6 
because we are going to have to close the vote at a quarter to 6. We 
hope we can work something out between now and then, that we will not 
have to go the way we are planning on going.
  The way things are now lined up, we are going to have unemployment 
compensation that will have the amendment of Senator Isakson and the 
amendment of Senator Bunning in it. We hope we can complete that 
business and move on to other things next week.
  I don't want to sound like the proverbial boy calling wolf, but there 
is a strong possibility--much more than 50 percent--that we will be in 
next weekend. Remember, we only work 2 days, the 9th and 10th, and then 
we are off the 11th, 12th, and 13th. I hope everyone will understand 
that. There has been full notice given to everyone. I hope we can work 
something out and that will not be necessary. I will work with the 
Republican leader to give everyone as much notice as possible.

[[Page 26268]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The question is on agreeing to 
the conference report.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 331 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     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
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
and that following my remarks Senator Casey be recognized for 10 
minutes, followed by Senator Sessions, who would control up to 40 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am going to spend a few minutes talking 
about the bill we just passed. I decided to save my remarks so my 
colleagues wouldn't miss their planes and trains and could get out of 
here and not delay them prior to the vote.
  I listened intently to Senator Sessions and his discussion prior to 
the vote, and I wish to raise a word of caution for the American 
public. What we just did in the Senate was to set the government on a 
course to double in 5 years. The size of the Federal Government will 
double in 5 years if we keep doing what we have been doing on 
appropriations bills. There is a 16.9-percent increase in this bill, 
with a truly negative inflation rate as far as the basket for American 
people and how we look at that.
  I had several amendments in the bill. All but one of them became 
compromised after it came out. That is not necessarily the problem of 
Senator Alexander or Senator Feinstein. But what we have done in this 
bill is prioritize the environment over the violation of our borders. 
We have hamstrung our Border Patrol, and the consequence of that is we 
are going to continue to see drugs, we are going to continue to see 
these ``rape trees,'' through the bringing in illegally of people and 
then the people being brought in illegally to the country being raped.
  This bill had 540 earmarks--71 pages of earmarks. We had an amendment 
in the bill for competitive bidding. The language came out of the 
conference report that competitive bids would be applied to everybody 
except people with earmarks. The American people need to understand 
what that means. That means the well-heeled in this country who have a 
connection to a Member of this body get a benefit, and so it doesn't 
even have to be competitively bid. That doesn't even address the 
question of whether it is a priority for the country. It addresses the 
question of whether we may be paying two or three times what we should 
be paying, even if it is a good project.
  So I raise the question, for the people who are listening, and I say 
that what we are doing is wrapping a cord around ourselves and then 
tying the knot so we get to a point where we cannot fix what ails us. 
If you look at the U.S. dollar and the lack of confidence, and you look 
at the meetings that have been going on by people who purchase our 
debt, they are trying to create a new reserve currency. That is 
ongoing. They do not deny it. What will happen to us is, we will be on 
an unsustainable course, where we can't pay the $800 billion of 
interest in 10 years. That interest is based on an interest rate of 4 
percent, not at zero percent today.
  It could very well be that in 2019, the largest portion of the 
expenditures of the Federal Government--well over 45 percent--will be 
interest. What does that mean?
  What does that mean to the average family in this country? What does 
that mean to your children, Mr. President? What does that mean to my 
grandchildren? What are the consequences?
  Let me explain the conservative consequences and then I will finish. 
If you take everybody alive in this country today who is under 20 and 
you add everybody who is going to be born over the next 20 years--so we 
have everybody who is under 40, 20 years from now--here is what they 
are going to owe. These are not my numbers. These are actuarial numbers 
that have been certified. Every one of them is going to owe $1.119 
million. They are either going to be responsible for that portion of 
the real debt or that portion of the unfunded liabilities for which 
they will never gain any benefit.
  So ask yourself: If we keep doing what we just did in this body, what 
are we doing to our kids and our grandkids?
  We are absolutely abandoning the heritage of this country, and we do 
it cavalierly. I mean, there were 28 votes against this 16-percent 
increase on one bill. Only 28 votes. Only 28 Senators said a 16.9-
percent increase in spending is too much, when most families' income 
has declined by 3.7 percent this year.
  We don't get it. I don't understand why we continue to do it. I am as 
frustrated as the people outside this body. But I can tell you, there 
is a day of reckoning coming and not just for our country financially 
but for the Members of this body. The American people are going to wake 
up, they are going to see we have mortgaged their future, their 
children's future, and their grandchildren's future, and they are going 
to say: Enough. The hope would be it will not be too late.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________