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

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

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

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

Pending:

Carper amendment No. 2456, to require the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study on
black carbon emissions.
Collins amendment No. 2498, to provide that no funds may be
used for the administrative expenses of any official
identified by the President to serve in a position without
express statutory authorization and which is responsible for
the interagency development or coordination of any rule,
regulation, or policy unless the President certifies to
Congress that such official will respond to all reasonable
requests to testify before, or provide information to, any
congressional committee with jurisdiction over such matters,
and such official submits certain reports biannually to
Congress.
Isakson modified amendment No. 2504, to encourage the
participation of the Smithsonian Institution in activities
preserving the papers and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., under the Civil Rights History Project Act of
2009.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as part of the unanimous consent
agreement entered into this morning by the leader, a managers' package
of amendments to the Interior bill is in order.
I would like to proceed to that business now because of yesterday's
filing deadline for all first-degree amendments. Each of these
amendments which constitute the managers' package have been filed at
the desk.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside, and that the following amendments be called up and considered en
bloc, and where modifications are noted, that those modifications be
agreed to: Bingaman amendment No. 2492; Risch amendment No. 2501;
Carper amendment No. 2505; Roberts amendment No. 2509; Feinstein
amendment No. 2518; Feinstein amendment No. 2519; Feingold amendment
No. 2522; Whitehouse amendment No. 2534, as modified; Bingaman
amendment No. 2491, as modified; Schumer/Durbin amendment No. 2495;
Tester/Crapo amendment No. 2507; and, Bingaman amendment No. 2493, as
modified.
Let me make one note with respect to Carper amendment No. 2505. The
amendment being included in the managers' package is very similar to
pending Carper amendment No. 2456. But the version we are adopting now
is the version that has been agreed to by both

[[Page S9770]]

sides. At the proper time, then, I believe we will be in a position to
withdraw the pending Carper amendment No. 2456.
In order to comply with Senate rule XLIV, which requires Members to
certify that they have no financial interest in congressionally
designated spending items, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record financial disclosure letters associated with amendments
Nos. 2501 and 2518.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

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

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

U.S. Senate,

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

Amendment

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

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

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2009.
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Subcommittee on Interior, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Subcommittee on Interior, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members, I am offering three
amendments regarding congressionally directed spending items
on the Senate floor to the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
Consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of Rule
XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I certify that
neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in
the congressionally directed spending items that I have
requested for Fiscal Year 2010. I further certify that I have
posted a description of the items requested on my official
website, along with the accompanying justification.
Project Title: Lake County, California, for wastewater system
improvements
Recipient: Lake County, CA
Location: 230 A Main Street, Lakeport, CA 95453
Amount Requested: $500,000
Lake County is upgrading the Kelseyville wastewater system
to eliminate effluent and high nutrient pollution from
entering Clear Lake. The facility, which is located on the
south shore of Clear Lake, is under cease and desist orders
to meet clean water standards, and requires expansion
overflows into Clear Lake. This important project will
improve sanitation and water quality for County residents by
limiting sewage overflow.
Project Title: Tahoe Basin Vessel Inspection Station
Recipient: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Location: Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada
Amount Requested: $800,000
The requested funding will be used for study, construction,
staffing, and other expenses necessary to conduct water
vessel inspection and decontamination at stations located
away from boat and vessel ramps at Lake Tahoe and Echo Lake
and Fallen Leaf Lake in California. The Tahoe Basin is under
threat of Quagga and zebra mussel infestations because of its
high-use by recreational boaters. An infestation could have
devastating impacts on the regional economy, including
recreation, tourism, property values, and other
infrastructure equaling approximately $22 million a year. If
introduced, Quagga and zebra mussels could destroy the
region's fisheries, alter the food web and ecosystem,
jeopardize the public drinking supply, and ruin the shoreline
and public access points. An infestation would also
jeopardize more than $1.43 billion that has already been
invested in environmental restoration and water clarity
improvements in Lake Tahoe, including $424 million from the
Federal government.
Project Title: Inland Empire Alternative Water Supply
Recipient: City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Location: 300 North ``D'' Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
Amount Requested: Technical Correction
The Rialto-Colton Basin is seriously contaminated by
perchlorate, and the cities and water districts in the area
have had to abandon wells or install wellhead treatment

[[Page S9771]]

equipment to use their groundwater. Local water providers
have found a temporary source of 20,000-30,000 acre-feet in
the Bunker Hill Basin, within the incorporated limits of the
City of San Bernardino, which will use this water source in
the long-term. I secured $500,000 in the Fiscal Year 2009
Omnibus Appropriations Act, but the San Bernardino Municipal
Water Department has been unable to access these funds and
this technical correction will clarify that the city is the
recipient of this funding.
Thank you for your consideration of my requests. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, or
have your staff contact Ryan Hunt in my office.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senator.
____

U.S. Senate,

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

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

Amendment

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

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

U.S. Senate,

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

AMENDMENT

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

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

AMENDMENT

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

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

AMENDMENT

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

On page 190, line 10, insert before the period at the end
the following: ``: Providing further, That, notwithstanding
the joint explanatory statement of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying
Public Law 111-8 (123 Stat. 524), the amount of $500,000 made
available to McDonald County, Missouri for a

[[Page S9772]]

wastewater infrastructure expansion project (as described in
the table entitled `Congressionally Designated Spending'
contained in section 430 of that joint explanatory statement)
shall be made available to PWSD #1 of McDonald County,
Missouri for that project''.

U.S. Senate,

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

Christopher S. Bond.

AMENDMENT

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

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

U.S. Senate,

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

U.S. Senate,

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

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

Amendment No. 2492

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

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

collaborative forest landscape restoration fund

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

Amendment No. 2501

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

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

Amendment No. 2505

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

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

General Provisions, Environmental Protection Agency

black carbon

Sec. 201.  (a) Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with other Federal agencies, may carry out and submit to
Congress the results of a study to define black carbon,
assess the impacts of black carbon on global and regional
climate, and identify the most cost-effective ways to reduce
black carbon emissions--
(1) to improve global and domestic public health; and
(2) to mitigate the climate impacts of black carbon.
(b) In carrying out the study, the Administrator shall--
(1) identify global and domestic black carbon sources, the
quantities of emissions from those sources, and cost-
effective mitigation technologies and strategies;
(2) evaluate the public health, climate, and economic
impacts of black carbon;
(3) identify current and practicable future opportunities
to provide financial, technical, and related assistance to
reduce domestic and international black carbon emissions; and
(4) identify opportunities for future research and
development to reduce black carbon emissions and protect
public health in the United States and internationally.
(c) Of the amounts made available under this title under
the heading ``Environmental Programs and Management'' for
operations and administration, up to $2,000,000 shall be--
(1) transferred to the account used to fund the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards of the Environmental
Protection Agency; and
(2) used by the Administrator to carry out this section.

Amendment No. 2509

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

At the end of title IV, add the following:

buyout and relocation

Sec. 4__.  (a) As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the
``Administrator'') is encouraged to consider

[[Page S9773]]

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

Amendment No. 2518

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

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

Amendment No. 2519

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

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

Amendment No. 2522

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

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

Amendment No. 2534, as modified

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

Amendment No. 2491, as modified

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

[[Page S9774]]

SEC. 423. NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION.

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

amendment no. 2495

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

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

amendment no. 2507

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

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

SEC. 423. CABIN USER FEES.

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

amendment no. 2493, as modified

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

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

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

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

(ii) the cumulative costs of wildfire suppression
activities for the Secretary concerned have exceeded the
amounts appropriated to the Secretary concerned for those
activities (not including funds deposited in the Flame Fund).
(3) Transfer of amounts to secretary concerned.--After
issuance of a declaration under paragraph (2) and on request
of the Secretary concerned, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall transfer from the Flame Fund to the Secretary concerned
such amounts as the Secretaries determine are necessary for
wildfire suppression activities associated with the
declaration.
(4) State, private, and tribal land.--Use of the Flame Fund
for emergency wildfire suppression activities on State land,
private land, and tribal land shall be consistent with any
existing agreements in which the Secretary concerned has
agreed to assume responsibility for wildfire suppression
activities on the land.
(f) Treatment of Anticipated and Predicted Activities.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (e)(2)(B)(ii), the
Secretary concerned shall continue to fund routine wildfire
suppression activities within the appropriate agency budget
for each fiscal year.
(2) Congressional intent.--It is the intent of Congress
that funding made available through the Flame Fund be used--
(A) to supplement the funding otherwise appropriated to the
Secretary concerned; and
(B) only for purposes in, and instances consistent with,
this section.
(g) Prohibition on Other Transfers.--Any amounts in the
Flame Fund and any amounts appropriated for the purpose of
wildfire suppression on Federal land shall be obligated
before the Secretary concerned may transfer funds from non-
fire accounts for wildfire suppression.
(h) Accounting and Reports.--
(1) Accounting and reporting system.--The Secretaries shall
establish an accounting and reporting system for the Flame
Fund that is compatible with existing National Fire Plan
reporting procedures.
(2) Annual report.--Annually, the Secretaries shall submit
to the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committee on
Agriculture, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, the Committee on Indian Affairs, and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate and make available to the
public a report that--
(A) describes the use of amounts from the Flame Fund; and
(B) includes any recommendations that the Secretaries may
have to improve the administrative control and oversight of
the Flame Fund.
(3) Estimates of wildfire suppression costs to improve
budgeting and funding.--
(A) In general.--Consistent with the schedule provided in
subparagraph (C), the Secretaries shall submit to the
committees described in paragraph (2) an estimate of
anticipated wildfire suppression costs for the applicable
fiscal year and the subsequent fiscal year.
(B) Peer review.--The methodology for developing the
estimates under subparagraph (A) shall be subject to periodic
peer review to ensure compliance with subparagraph (D).
(C) Schedule.--The Secretaries shall submit an estimate
under subparagraph (A) during--
(i) the first week of February of each year;
(ii) the first week of April of each year;
(iii) the first week of July of each year; and
(iv) if a bill making appropriations for the Department of
the Interior and the Forest Service for the following fiscal
year has not been enacted by September 1, the first week of
September of each year.
(D) Requirements.--An estimate of anticipated wildfire
suppression costs shall be developed using the best
available--
(i) climate, weather, and other relevant data; and
(ii) models and other analytic tools.
(i) Termination of Authority.--The authority under this
section shall terminate at the end of the third fiscal year
in which no appropriations to or withdrawals from the Flame
Fund have been made for a period of 3 consecutive fiscal
years.

SEC. 424. COHESIVE WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.

(a) Strategy Required.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act,

[[Page S9775]]

the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting jointly, shall submit to Congress a
report that contains a cohesive wildfire management strategy,
consistent with the recommendations described in recent
reports of the Government Accountability Office regarding
management strategies.
(b) Elements of Strategy.--The strategy required by
subsection (a) shall provide for--
(1) the identification of the most cost-effective means for
allocating fire management budget resources;
(2) the reinvestment in non-fire programs by the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture;
(3) employing the appropriate management response to
wildfires;
(4) assessing the level of risk to communities;
(5) the allocation of hazardous fuels reduction funds based
on the priority of hazardous fuels reduction projects;
(6) assessing the impacts of climate change on the
frequency and severity of wildfire; and
(7) studying the effects of invasive species on wildfire
risk.
(c) Revision.--At least once during each 5-year period
beginning on the date of the submission of the cohesive
wildfire management strategy under subsection (a), the
Secretaries shall revise the strategy submitted under that
subsection to address any changes affecting the strategy,
including changes with respect to landscape, vegetation,
climate, and weather.

Amendments Nos. 2456 and 2522 Withdrawn

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 2456
and 2522 are withdrawn.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2522

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

Health Care Debate

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare has no place in a free world.

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

[[Page S9776]]

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

[[Page S9777]]

spot something before it becomes serious where it can be treated
successfully. That makes good sense. Seniors across America will
appreciate that. That is part of our plan.
Preventive care is free. We are talking about mammograms,
colonoscopies, blood tests for prostate cancer. These things will be
free under the health care reform we are talking about for senior
citizens and for virtually everyone in America.
Giving doctors who treat seniors compensation for the care they are
providing. We want doctors who are professional enough to include
Medicare patients in their practice to be compensated fairly.
Finally, cut waste from Medicare. I want to say a word about this. I
got on this ``Meet The Press'' program. I get on there once in a while
on Sunday mornings. I think they put me on because I am free. But for
whatever reason, I was on there, and I was in debate with Newt
Gingrich. You know Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the spokesman for many parts of his party
today.
I said: It bothers me when people say health care reform is going to
cut Medicare. Let me tell you what we have in mind. A few years ago,
the private insurance companies came to us and said: We can do a better
job at a lower cost in providing Medicare benefits. Well, some people
were skeptical.
They said: Let us prove it. The government is doing this all wrong.
Let the private health insurance companies do it. We will show you, and
we will call it Medicare Advantage.
Off they went providing these Medicare Advantage programs that were
to match the benefits under Medicare. The jury came in a few years
later, and, do you know what, many of these plans cost up to 14 percent
more than Medicare. They did not save us money. It ended up these
private health insurance companies not only did not make their point
about being cheaper, they cost the taxpayers more money than we should
have paid out. They did not provide additional benefits for Medicare
recipients that they needed.
They want us to continue to subsidize these private health insurance
companies that have failed in their offer to beat Medicare at its own
game. So when we say, and the President says, we want to cut the
subsidy to health insurance companies under Medicare, that is what he
and we are talking about. If they did not keep their end of the bargain
to provide medical care at the same cost or less cost than Medicare,
why should we continue to subsidize them? I do not think we should.
I said that on the show, and the next person to speak was former
Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said: Well, that proves our point. Durbin
wants to cut Medicare.
Well, fortunately for me, Dr. Howard Dean, the former Governor of
Vermont, was on the panel, and he corrected him. He said: Mr. Gingrich,
he didn't say cut Medicare. He said cut the subsidy to the health
insurance companies that are taking advantage of Medicare to profiteer,
take that extra money and provide the kind of care we need for seniors,
and make sure, in the process, we save the Medicare Program.
Untouched, our Medicare Program is going to suffer from the same
thing everybody else suffers from in America: the escalating cost of
health care. We have to do something. We have to keep our promise, not
only to the seniors today, but to the many who will come after them,
that Medicare will be there when they need it, that when they reach the
age of 65, they will have the peace of mind of knowing they can still
go to their doctor, still go to their hospital, get quality care, and
not have a catastrophic illness that wipes out their savings.
This is a debate which is worth getting into. I hope those who follow
it understand this party on this side of the aisle fought to create
Medicare, fought to protect Medicare, and now is fighting to save
Medicare. Do not let those who come before us, misleading us about what
we are trying to achieve here, mislead the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am not so sure, given what is happening
in the country these days, it would be very easy to enact the Medicare
Program, had we not done so previously. The Medicare Program was
enacted at a time when one-half of the senior citizens in this country
had no health care--none. That is not surprising because the fact is,
insurance companies do not go running after elderly people to say: Can
we provide health insurance coverage to you? We know you are in your
seventies or eighties, and we know you are probably going to need
coverage for various things in the years ahead. We would like to
provide that coverage.
In the mid-1960s, this country and the Congress said: People in their
elderly years should not have to lay their head on their pillow at
night and wonder whether tomorrow might be the day when they become
ill, have a disease, have an accident, and go to a hospital with no
health insurance to cover their needs.
This Congress did something very important, and, as is usually the
case, when it created Medicare, there were plenty of people saying:
Don't do it. It won't work. It is socialism. It shouldn't happen. But
it did happen.
There is a health care bill being written in the Finance Committee
now. I am not part of a gang of two or a gang of six or a gang of
eight. I am part of a gang of 99 Senators, as of today, who will
consider the bill they come up with. I do not know what it will look
like, and I wish to see all of it before I make a judgment about its
merits, but I will say this: Even as it is being written, we hear of
efforts to cold call into homes of senior citizens to tell them that
what is happening is an attempt to injure and take away services from
Medicare for senior citizens. It is not true. It is false.
It is hard to make the case, it seems to me, but some are trying,
that if you try to reduce the cost of Medicare by getting rid of waste
and fraud and abuse, somehow that results in less health care services
for senior citizens, yet that is exactly what is being represented by
some.
I have watched very carefully and been very concerned about the issue
of waste and fraud and abuse in Medicare.
There should be aggressive oversight, with respect to those who are
providing Medicare benefits to senior citizens. There is too much
fraud. My hope is--and my understanding from what is being written with
respect to preventing fraud--it is going to be a new day. If you want
to sign up as a provider and get reimbursement from Medicare for
helping senior citizens, you better be providing the service. All too
often that has not been the case.
So when we decide we are going to try to cut waste and fraud and
abuse in a very serious and relentless and aggressive way, we have
people who say: Aha, what they are going to do will harm senior
citizens. It is not going to harm senior citizens in the delivery of
health care to those who are entitled to it if we take on the waste and
the fraud and the abuse and start putting the crooks in jail. That is
not going to hurt senior citizens. That is going to help America's
elderly.
Let me describe what I am talking about. In 2007, the Department of
Justice randomly visited 1,600 durable medical equipment suppliers that
bill Medicare for services. They found that one-third of the businesses
did not exist. Think of that. They randomly visited 1,600 durable
medical equipment suppliers that provide services to beneficiaries, we
are told--they are billing the government for it--and they found out
that one-third of them did not exist. They were mailboxes to collect
fraudulent checks. They billed Medicare, combined, $237 million in
2007.
Putting those people in jail and stopping that kind of fraud does not
injure Medicare. It strengthens it. It does not hurt senior citizens.
A man named Mr. Alcides Garcia was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Here is a picture of him, so we can give him a little credit for what
he did. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison after his medical
equipment company made millions in false Medicare claims.
Mr. Thomas Fiore, as shown in this picture, was indicted with 10
others on racketeering charges in south Florida for identity theft and
Medicare fraud and much more.
In April of this year, just months ago, officials in Oregon wrapped
up a lengthy fraud case. Again, to give credit where credit's due, this
is a man

[[Page S9778]]

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

[[Page S9779]]

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

National Federation

of Independence Business,

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

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

National Association

of Manufacturers,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2009.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The National Association of Manufacturers
(NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade association
representing small and large manufacturers in every
industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges, you to support
the Murkowski Amendment to H.R. 2996, the Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2010.
At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from
the most severe recession since the 1930s, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, with no guidance from
Congress, will establish disincentives for the long-term
investments that would be necessary to grow jobs and expedite
economic recovery. The Murkowski Amendment seeks to ensure a
healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing
our nation's energy, environmental and economic needs before
the EPA starts regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
stationary sources, including manufacturing facilities.
Manufacturers support a comprehensive, federal climate
policy within a framework that will cause no economic harm
while granting sufficient time to deploy low-carbon
technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration,
renewable energy and a renewed and large-scale deployment of
nuclear power plants.
Prior to the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, energy
inflation and price volatility were major contributors to a
loss of approximately 3.7 million high-wage manufacturing
jobs. As you may know, manufacturers use one-third of our
nation's energy. Because of the impact a federal climate
policy will have on the nation's energy future, this is an
issue that must be debated by Congress without preemption
from a federal agency.
Supporting the Murkowski Amendment does not convey
opposition to climate change policy; it merely allows
Congress to do its job. We concur with the sentiment in a
Washington Post September 21 editorial, ``Regulating
Carbon.'' It noted that the EPA ``is preparing to regulate
carbon under the Clean Air Act,'' which ``is breathtakingly
unsuited to the great task of battling global warming. . . .
Yet if Congress does not act, it's likely that the EPA will.
It won't be pretty.''
The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that
votes on the Murkowski Amendment, including potential
procedural motions, may be considered for designation as Key
Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Jay Timmons.
____

American Council

of Engineering Companies,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2009.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: The American Council of Engineering
Companies (ACEC) is

[[Page S9780]]

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

Chamber of Commerce

of the United States of America,

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

R. Bruce Josten,

Executive Vice President,
Government Affairs.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. To its credit, the EPA realized that regulations at
the 250-ton level are simply not feasible. So to try and resolve this
issue, the Agency is apparently considering what they are calling a
tailoring proposal. This would lift the Clean Air Act's regulatory
threshold to 25,000 tons. That is a hundredfold increase.
I shared the Agency's concern about a 250-ton carbon dioxide limit,
but this 250-ton proposal moving up to a 25,000-ton proposal, this
tailoring issue, is simply not going to hold. It has no legal basis. I
think we expect it would be swiftly rejected by the courts. The EPA
cannot constitutionally legislate a major change in the Clean Air Act.
Ultimately, once this has all played out, the Agency's carbon dioxide
regulations would remain in effect, but the threshold would be
triggered at a level 100 times lower than the Agency had planned.
That brings us to the tremendous consequences we can expect as a
result. There is widespread agreement that the regulation of carbon
dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act would be absolutely
unworkable and, at the same time, economically devastating. In the
words of a long-term Democrat over in the House, it will create a
``glorious mess.'' Another observed it could result in ``one of the
largest and most bureaucratic nightmares that the U.S. economy and
Americans have ever seen.''

Just this week, the editors of the Washington Post argued that the
Clean Air Act is ``breathtakingly unsuited to the great task of
battling global warming.'' The Wall Street Journal's editors cast it as
``reckless endangerment.'' They went on to assert that the regulation
would be like putting ``a gun to the head of Congress'' to ``play cap
and trade roulette with the U.S. economy.''
That may sound over the top, but even some members of the
environmental community have agreed with the metaphor, as one clean air
advocate affirmed this by saying this regulation is ``the legal
equivalent of a .44 magnum.''
This regulation is a train that could wreck our fragile economy. It
is our own creation, and it is barreling toward us at full speed. I
recently saw an ironic motivational poster that said: ``Government--if
you think the problems we create are bad, wait until you see our
solutions.'' It is fair to say that this issue, the regulation of
carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, is one of the many examples of
why that poster was created and, sadly, it occasionally rings true.
Today, however, the Senate can choose another course for the debate
over energy and climate policy. The Clean Air Act is one of our worst
options to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but it is not our only
option for that cause.
Those of us in Congress can and should step up and pass workable,
intellectually honest climate legislation--whether it is a system of
cap and trade, a carbon tax, or something else that removes the Clean
Air Act from the equation. Nearly every participant in this debate,
from elected officials to businesses and the environmental community,
has stated their preference for legislation over regulation.
That is where my amendment comes in. For exactly 1 year, it would
limit the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions to just
the mobile

[[Page S9781]]

sources that were the subject of the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA lawsuit.
This is nothing more than a temporary timeout that will give us the
breathing room in an already heated debate. It will give us the time we
need to develop a sensible, effective policy that achieves the same
result at a much lower cost.
Anyone who takes the time to read my amendment will see I have gone
to great lengths here to ensure it does not lead to any unintended or
adverse consequences. It has been drafted and redrafted to limit one
action by the EPA for 1 year, and nothing else. I have been responsive
to bipartisan requests, even from Members who I knew would not be able
to support this amendment, because I am committed to avoiding any
overreach.
So the result we have is an amendment that will not interfere or
conflict with any other regulation or action that EPA is obliged to
complete. That goes for the preparatory work for the regulation of
carbon dioxide emissions. It holds true for the rule to expand the
renewable fuel standard, for construction permits, and for regulations
to foster the development of clean coal technologies.
My amendment will not in any way impact EPA's authority relating to
the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, its ability to develop a
voluntary carbon offset program, to issue permits for energy
infrastructure on or near Federal land, permit carbon sequestration
projects, or to move forward with very important work of both exploring
for and producing the vast reserves of domestic energy on our Outer
Continental Shelf.
All of these concerns have been raised over the past several days,
before this amendment was even introduced. All of these concerns are
explicitly addressed within it. Some of our Nation's leading Clean Air
Act attorneys--among the best and brightest legal minds--have assisted
us in its preparation. They agree it will do exactly as it says, and
that leaves very little ground for the claims that have been made
against it.
Given how devastating the EPA's regulation of carbon dioxide
emissions could be, many casual viewers are probably left wondering
why, exactly, my amendment has drawn such fierce opposition. Well,
again, let me be clear. As much as anything else, the regulation of
carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is being used as a thinly veiled
threat to force the Senate to act on climate legislation, regardless of
where we are in what remains an ongoing and incredibly important
debate.
The possibility that our worst option to reduce emissions will move
forward, despite its consequences, is supposed to somehow compel us to
move faster. We are expected to push through a climate bill, perhaps
regardless of its content, in order to stave off this regulation. If
the House debate is any indication of how our own will proceed, we will
be asked to rush to judgment, cut off debate on one of the greatest
challenges of our time, and to pass a bill--any bill--that purports to
reduce emissions.
In my mind, this situation has created a false dilemma, a proverbial
Morton's Fork on Capitol Hill--meaning between a rock and a hard place.
Right now, those of us in the Senate are clearly left with two bad
choices--the EPA's endangerment regulation or the House's energy and
climate bill--neither of which will end well for the American people.
Making matters worse, we are told there isn't enough time to consider
our options and develop a more viable path forward.
By voting ``yes'' on my amendment, we could easily change this
unfortunate dynamic. But we will not halt or hinder progress on climate
legislation, as some have suggested. Not one of the climate bills that
has been introduced so far would take effect until 2012--2 full years
after the limitation imposed by my amendment would expire.
If my amendment were to be accepted, the EPA will continue its work
to regulate emissions from mobile sources. The agency and its employees
will go about their business exactly as normal. They can even continue
developing regulations for carbon dioxide emissions from stationary
sources. For the next year, they simply cannot put those regulations
into effect. One year after this bill is signed into law, that
limitation would expire, and the EPA would have every authority to
proceed if Congress has still not acted.
For those who have expressed concern that my amendment would become a
long-term fixture in appropriations legislation, be assured that I will
work with you to ensure that the climate debate not only proceeds but
reaches a conclusion in the form of a responsible bill that a majority
of us can support. As an elected representative of the State that has
been hit hardest by climate change, I will work in good faith with all
who want to address climate change in an effective way, while
protecting our fragile economy from further harm.
To those who have claimed I am trying to put the brakes on climate
legislation, I simply remind you of my long-standing support for
renewable, nuclear, and alternative energies as part of the solution.
There is a right way and there is a wrong way to moving forward in
addressing climate change. EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions
is simply the wrong way. We must reduce emissions, but it is
unacceptable to do so at any cost and by any means. While Congress has
not yet developed a workable bill, I will continue to work as hard as I
can to make sure that, in fact, we do.
Unlike many Members of the Senate, I have also cosponsored cap-and-
trade legislation. I cosponsored the Low Carbon Economy Act that was
offered last Congress by Senator Bingaman and Senator Specter. This
year, recognizing that our work is far from finished, Senator Bingaman
and I worked together, very cooperatively and collaboratively, on
another comprehensive measure--the American Clean Energy Leadership
Act. We reported that bill from the Energy Committee more than 3 months
ago. It would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, without
causing economic harm, and yet it is still waiting to be heard on the
Senate floor.
The 23 members of the Energy Committee produced a bipartisan energy
bill in the first 6 months of Congress. I have every reason to believe
that the full Senate can, over a time period twice as long, develop an
effective climate policy that will further reduce greenhouse emissions,
without disrupting our economy. But that will require us to base our
decisions more than on vote counts and special requests. It will
require us to set aside politics and focus on substance. It will force
us to cross the aisle instead of closing ranks, and it will mean acting
on behalf of the American people, in their best interests, rather than
our own or our party's.
With regard to my amendment, the majority has again objected to
calling it up. They have done everything they can to prevent a vote
from occurring on the amendment, culminating in the objection that we
not even have debate on the matter today. I want my colleagues to know,
however, that this issue will not go away. Neither will my commitment
to seeing it addressed head-on in a responsible and, if at all
possible, bipartisan way.
I ask unanimous consent that Senators Barrasso, Johanns, and
Chambliss be added as cosponsors to my amendment.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johanns) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know Senator Boxer, the chairman of
the Environment and Public Works Committee, has an hour reserved to
come and speak.
First, I will respond to the comments of the distinguished Senator
from Alaska. I hope she will understand there are many of us who have
viewed her amendment with substantial alarm, for reasons that I thought
I might spend a few moments speaking about.
Essentially, as I understood the amendment, which was blocked from
coming to the floor, it attempted to prohibit the EPA from using any
funds to enforce the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from stationary sources.
The proponents have argued that their only goal was to protect small
family-owned farms and businesses from overly burdensome regulations.
Yet the amendment would have gone much further. In fact, it would
actually exempt some of the Nation's largest commercial emitters from
climate

[[Page S9782]]

change regulation, including huge industrial facilities, such as
powerplants and refineries.
I am very pleased that this amendment is not before us today. The
underlying rationale, as I understand it from the amendment, is
groundless. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has made it clear that the
agency will not use the Clean Air Act to regulate either small
businesses or family-owned farms. I was prepared, should the amendment
have come up, to put down a side-by-side amendment that would have
clearly exempted any farm, as well as any business, that emits under
25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Let me point this out. Stationary industrial sources account for over
half of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to EPA. These are
the leading cause of climate change, and they must be reduced if we
have any hope of containing the worst impact of climate change. The
amendment would have hampered the administration's effort to tackle one
of the biggest pieces of the emissions puzzle: large industrial
facilities. It would have been a major setback.

Thirdly, the amendment would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's
landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that decision, the Court
found that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to determine whether the
emissions of greenhouse gases may be reasonably anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare and then comply with the Clean Air Act
requirements designed to protect public health from dangerous
pollution.
Upon completion of an endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act
requires EPA to control greenhouse gases from both stationary and
mobile sources.
Many argue--and I happen to agree--that regulating the largest
greenhouse gas emitters through new legislation, establishing a cap-
and-trade system, would be more efficient and less expensive than
regulating these sources under the existing Clean Air Act.
But until Congress enacts climate change legislation, EPA has a legal
obligation to follow the Clean Air Act. So if one does not want EPA to
take action under the Clean Air Act, then this body should want to pass
a cap-and-trade bill.
The chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator Boxer, has been working
very hard to put together a bill which has an opportunity to pass this
Senate.
The point is, if we do not want the Clean Air Act to prevail, then
the cap-and-trade bill is the only way to go. That is a clear incentive
for the Senate and the House to pass a bill.
EPA has released a draft endangerment finding which it is going to
soon finalize. Yet the amendment would have blocked EPA from completing
the endangerment finding and from complying with its legal obligations
to protect public health. The repercussions would have been major. It
means EPA would not be able to complete a joint rulemaking with the
Department of Transportation to increase corporate average fuel
economy, which we call CAFE, and create a tailpipe emissions standard
for automobiles.
That would have been a major problem. It would block implementation
of the 2007 fuel economy law which I authored with Senator Snowe and
which took us a long time to get passed and enacted.
By undermining the negotiated agreement between States and the Obama
administration, the Murkowski amendment would also have likely resulted
in States moving forward with their own tailpipe emissions standards
which automakers have fought for years as too onerous. This would have
stopped California and 14 other States and the District of Columbia
from moving forward with implementing tailpipe emissions standards.
This amendment is vigorously opposed by the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, which includes General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, the
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the United
Auto Workers. To that end, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a letter from the Auto
Alliance and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, finally, the amendment would send the
wrong signal to the rest of the world about the Senate's intentions on
climate change. It would suggest that we want to ignore the clear
imperative to act, despite the efforts of the administration to
motivate the international community in advance of the Copenhagen
summit.
There is some concern also about small emitters. EPA is not planning
to regulate small emitters. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has clearly
stated on several occasions that the agency will not regulate small
emitters. She said it in her confirmation hearings, she said it again
at Senate budget hearings, and she reiterated that comment when she
appeared before the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing
on EPA's fiscal year 2010 budget just a few months ago.
In fact, Administrator Jackson has sent a draft deregulatory rule to
the Office of Management and Budget for review which would establish
clearly that all but the very largest sources of greenhouse gas will be
preemptively exempted from the stationary source permitting
requirements in the Clean Air Act.
She has no intention of regulating small sources that emit under
25,000 tons of carbon dioxide or any small farm.
Mr. President, 25,000 metric tons is a very high threshold. According
to EPA, it is equivalent to the emissions from burning 131 trainloads
of coal per year--these would be exempted--or burning 2.8 million
gallons of gasoline annually.
The 25,000-ton threshold would exempt every small source, focusing
only on 13,000 of the largest emitters in the United States.
Let me say that again. The 25,000-ton threshold which EPA intends to
proceed with, and which my side-by-side amendment would have had as one
of the two criteria, would exempt every small source, focusing only on
the 13,000 largest emitters in the United States.
EPA intends to only regulate the largest facilities, and these
facilities are, almost without exception, already regulated under the
Clean Air Act for emissions of other pollutants such as soot, smog-
forming nitrous oxides, or acid-rain-inducing sulfur dioxide.
Let me now explain why the Murkowski Amendment would impact the joint
EPA-Department of Transportation rulemaking on automobile greenhouse
gas emissions.
This rulemaking is of critical importance, and the regulation
implementing this law was negotiated by the White House in cooperation
with automakers, the States, and labor.
But according to a letter I received from EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson last night, the impact of the Murkowski amendment ``would be to
make it impossible for the EPA to promulgate the light-duty vehicle
greenhouse-gas emissions standards that the agency proposed on
September 15, 2009.''
She writes:

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

These standards are something Senator Snowe and I have worked on for
at least 7 years now, beginning with the SUV loophole and ending with
the bill that became law, would be totally undermined. By undermining
the negotiated agreement between States, the amendment would also
likely result in States moving forward with their own tailpipe
emissions standards.
As I indicated before, in 2002 California enacted a landmark law to
reduce tailpipe emissions standards by 30 percent for all new sedans,
trucks, and SUVs by 2016.
I also stated that 14 other States--namely, Arizona, Connecticut,
Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the
District of Columbia--have adopted or announced their intention to
adopt California's greenhouse gas emissions controls.
The amendment would have been a major roadblock in efforts to improve
fuel economy standards for vehicles.

[[Page S9783]]

I don't think we can bury our head in the sand when it comes to
climate change.
I would like to conclude by reminding my colleagues that it makes no
sense at this particular point in time to put on the floor a major
amendment which well could have devastated both the EPA and any effort
to get to cap-and-trade legislation when, in fact, the EPW Committee is
struggling to write a comprehensive bill which has an opportunity to
pass this body.
Again I say, if people do not want the Clean Air Act prevailing, then
the only way you can do that is with a cap-and-trade bill. That is the
way the committee of this body is proceeding. I believe it is the
correct way.
I believe our Nation is in serious jeopardy, as is the rest of planet
Earth, with global warming. I believe it is real. Just this week, the
Journal Nature published a new paper that found rapid deterioration of
the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. Yesterday on this floor, I
showed the deterioration in the Arctic. I showed the deterioration in
Greenland. I showed the deterioration in the Chukchi Sea. I showed the
deterioration off Barrow, AK. It is happening all over the world.
The Flat Earth Society cannot prevail. I think there is a real danger
signal out there for planet Earth. We know we cannot reverse it. We
know that greenhouse gases do not dissipate and go away after a period
of time in the atmosphere. We now know these gases that began during
the Industrial Revolution are still present in the atmosphere, and we
know that the Earth is not immutable, that it can change. We look at
other planets and we see that they have changed over the millennia.
What we do here to protect our planet Earth for the next generations is
so key and critical.
This discussion has to be joined in an appropriate way, and an
appropriate way is when a cap-and-trade bill is produced by the
Environment and Public Works Committee and the chairman of that
committee is on this floor and the bill is open for amendments and
there is a free flow of debate and discussion.
I believe the science is real. I pointed out yesterday we have a
project in intelligence whereby the satellites are tracking
deterioration in the ice shelves of the world. I hope to present more
of that information when there is a bill on the Senate floor.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Administrator
Lisa Jackson's letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

United States Environmental

Protection Agency,

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

Exhibit 1

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement,
I apparently had 30 minutes. Can the Chair tell me if I have time
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 11 minutes
remaining.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma had
wanted to make a couple comments, but I would like to take a couple
extra minutes before I turn to him in response to my friend and
colleague from California.
In many ways, she has made my point or supported the argument. I
would agree that, in fact, in order to deal with this very timely
issue, this very significant issue, we must act. I just do not believe
that utilizing the regulation, moving a climate change regulation
through the EPA, is the best instrument, the most effective instrument.
The people I represent back home are very concerned about this, as I
have indicated, and are expecting their Congress to act. But they do
not feel very comfortable with unelected bureaucrats in the
Environmental Protection Agency telling them that, in fact, this is the
road we are going to be going down, with no real appreciation or
sensitivity to the environmental factors that we in this body assess as
we are trying to advance policy. We need to be driving forward good,
thoughtful, considered, reasonable policy on the issue of climate
change.
I am not disagreeing we stop on this issue. I am simply suggesting we
need to make sure it is Congress, it is through the legislative process
that we advance these very important policy initiatives.
I do want to also make a comment about the concern that somehow or
another my legislation would pull back on what the EPA is currently
doing with mobile sources, the emissions from tailpipes. I don't think
we could have drafted the amendment any more clear to ensure that it is
specific as to the stationary sources.
Again, I urge my colleagues to make sure they are looking at the
draft of

[[Page S9784]]

the amendment we have proposed and not some previous initiatives.
One final point before I turn to Senator Inhofe. The point has been
made by my colleague from California that the Administrator for EPA has
said it is not her intention to be regulating the small emitters--the
farms, the small businesses. She has made those statements, and I
appreciate that, but the problem we face is the Clean Air Act, which
doesn't give her that flexibility to change the Clean Air Act. She is
obligated to regulate those entities that emit in excess of 250 tons.
These are our smaller emitters. So even though she may have suggested
or stated this is not her intention to go down that road--she can
perhaps move forward with this tailoring proposal, but as I stand
before you, I can almost bet that will be challenged in court and it
will not pass the test and we will be stuck with what we are all
attempting to avoid, which is capturing the smaller businesses--the
restaurants, the drycleaners, et cetera--into this net as we try to
provide for the regulation of the major emitters.
I am sure we will have plenty of opportunity on this floor to
continue this debate, but at this time, Mr. President, I yield the
remainder of my time to my colleague from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I only want to be here to thank the
Senator from Alaska and Senator Thune for trying to bring to our
attention the issue of the endangerment findings. I have been
discussing the incoming economic train wreck that can result from these
regulations since the case of Massachusetts v. EPA was decided back in
2007. The EPA's regulatory reach could go everywhere. It could go into
schools, hospitals, assisted-living facilities, and just about any
activity that meets the minimum thresholds of the Clean Air Act.
Despite the attempts to draft an exemption for small businesses by
the senior Senator from California, this effort would be hollow at
best. Upon issuance of mobile source regulations the EPA has proposed
in its light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, the
farmers and small sources still retain the obligation under the Clean
Air Act, and this obligation is enforceable through citizen suits which
we have confirmed through environmental groups will follow. So we know
that is going to happen.
I would have to say, as the ranking member on the Environment and
Public Works Committee, the more we get into this, the more
complications we find. In the process of coming up with some type of an
endangerment finding, we find that the information science has been
suppressed. We know of the case of Dr. Alan Carlin, who claims his
assessment of the latest science on global warming wasn't considered in
the endangerment proposal. So we have the endangerment proposal. And
some people are not aware of how this process works; that ultimately,
if the findings are there, that is when they reach into every life in
America. However, this Dr. Carlin has been with the EPA for a long
period of time, and he was upset that his information was intentionally
suppressed.
Then we find out that information concerning the economics, such as
we found through the U.S. Treasury's assessment when they were trying
to say, during the consideration of, perhaps this modified bill that it
would be the cost of a postage stamp a day, that in fact it would have
been some $1,761 per family every year--we tried to relate that back to
what kind of a tax increase this is. If you remember back in the year
1993, we had the Clinton-Gore tax increase--the largest tax increase in
decades. It was the inheritance tax, marginal rates, capital gains, and
every kind of tax imaginable. If you add all that up, that was a $32
billion tax increase. This would be almost 10 times that much.
So I think, as we progress along the lines of the endangerment
finding, we know how it will be life changing for every element of our
society. So I appreciate the efforts of both Senator Murkowski and
Senator Thune to bring this issue of endangerment findings to the
forefront. I am not sure it is the best idea to try to get a 1-year
moratorium because in a way that might suppress some of the activity
that is going on to expose how bad this is to the public.
Having said that, I appreciate being yielded a small amount of time,
and I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2549

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

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

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

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

funding limitation

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

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

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

That is the entire amendment, and the amendment is, again, very
simple and straightforward. The point it is making is that we have
Cabinet-level appointees. They come before the Senate for vetting and
they come before the Senate for confirmation. After they are confirmed,
they come before the House and Senate on a regular basis as part of our
oversight responsibilities. This constitutional structure should not be
superceded by these so-called czars which have grown enormously under
this administration.
In making this argument, let me say that this argument has nothing to
do with Carol Browner and her qualifications. It is not an attack on
her. It is an attack, quite frankly, on the concept of these multitude
of czars and the fact that they are an end run around the
constitutional process by which top Cabinet and other officials of any
administration are confirmed by the Senate and regularly come before
the House and Senate as part of our oversight process.
We all know this particular administration has developed an
unprecedented number of these so-called czars. We have seen a dramatic
increase in this phenomenon. Politico wrote that President Obama ``is
taking the notion of a powerful White House staff to new heights'' and
that he is creating ``perhaps the most powerful staff in modern
history.'' Specifically, the President has created 18 new czar
positions, and I want to focus on those 18 positions.
This czar concept is obviously very general and somewhat undefined.
What I am talking about are those 18 positions because none of those
positions are established by statute. Congress has not authorized or
established any of those positions, No. 1; No. 2, none of those
individuals have come before the

[[Page S9785]]

Senate for confirmation; and No. 3, none of those positions preexisted
this administration. As I said a while ago, this has raised concerns
among a number of Senators and certainly among the American people.
As I began my remarks, I added as coauthors of this amendment
Senators Grassley, Bunning, Roberts, and Brownback. In addition, the
distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who chairs the relevant
authorization committee, has expressed grave concern about this same
phenomenon and, in fact, has another amendment about this very issue.
Unfortunately, that amendment is going to be struck down as legislating
on an appropriations bill. But she has expressed concern. She
spearheaded a letter signed by herself and Senator Alexander and others
which she sent to the President.
In addition, and this is very important, this has been a bipartisan
concern. Going back to February of this year, the distinguished Senator
from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, wrote the administration expressing
strong and grave concern about the constitutional implications of all
of these czars. Again, the 18 I am talking about are not created by
statute, have not been confirmed by the Senate, and never existed prior
to this administration. Also, within the last 2 weeks, Senator
Feingold, in addition, has expressed strong and serious concern about
exactly the same issue and has written to the administration.
The purpose of my amendment is to say quite simply that when we have
an agency, when we have a department that is led by a Senate-confirmed
appointee, we shouldn't have a so-called White House czar ordering that
appointee or ordering that agency or that department to do things,
particularly when that White House czar is not an office created by law
through Congress, is not a Senate-confirmed position, and did not exist
in any form or fashion prior to this administration.
In terms of my specific amendment, I have chosen to focus on the
Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, commonly
known as the White House climate change czar, for one simple reason:
First, she is among this 18 never created by statute, never confirmed
by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration, and she is
clearly in a very powerful position--apparently giving orders to
Senate-confirmed appointees such as the head of EPA. Of course, the EPA
is governed by this appropriations bill now on the floor, so that is
why I chose to focus on this particular czar position.
Clearly, this particular czar meets all of those criteria which give
rise to my concerns. The President himself, when he appointed this
czar, said, ``She will be indispensable in implementing an ambitious
and complex energy policy.''
In addition, there have been several media reports about her dominant
stature and dominant role in these sorts of considerations. The Wall
Street Journal, for instance, on September 11 of this year, reported:

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

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

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

The obvious question this gives rise to is, What about the head of
the Senate-confirmed Energy Department? What about the head of the EPA,
Senate confirmed? Those folks seem to be shoved to the side, and this
new super agency head, a super Cabinet Member seems to be playing a far
more dominant role in key issues that are clearly under the purview of
the Energy Department and the EPA. Again, this gives rise to serious
constitutional concerns. A number of Senators, Republicans and
Democrats, have expressed these concerns--Senator Collins, Senator
Byrd, Senator Feinstein, Senator Alexander. So this is a germane
limitation amendment that goes absolutely to the heart of the matter:
Should these czars, positions never created by Congress or by statute,
never confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this
administration--should these czars have a role that is more significant
than Senate-confirmed Cabinet Secretaries or agency heads?

Again, I have very carefully crafted an amendment to go specifically
to this point. Let me read it word for word. It is not long.

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

It does not say you cannot implement policies of the President of the
United States. Obviously, the President is elected by the people and
the President obviously ranks higher than the head of EPA or anyone
else. But it does say the head of EPA, a Senate-confirmed position,
should not be ranked below some so-called czar, a position never before
created by Congress, never confirmed by the Senate, never existing
prior to this administration.
I encourage all my colleagues to stand up for the rights and the
proper constitutional role of the Senate. We play a vital role,
particularly with regard to Presidential appointments because only the
Senate has advice and consent powers. I urge my colleagues to stand up
for that constitutional role, to preserve that vital constitutional
role, and not to allow so-called White House czars to be an end-run
around it and to minimize that role in a significant way.
This is a significant constitutional issue, it is a significant
bipartisan issue, and I urge support of my amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered
by the Senator from Louisiana. Over the past several weeks we have seen
issues raised with increasing frequency and volume around the use of
the word ``czar'' by the Obama administration.
I do believe it is unfair to suggest that the White House has a
climate czar directing EPA's actions behind the scenes. I do not
believe that is true. Effectively, the title ``czar,'' as we all know,
does not exist. The current Assistant to the President for Energy and
Climate is there to serve as an adviser to the President and to
Administrator Jackson on energy and environmental issues. She also
coordinates the work of multiple Cabinet level agencies on one of
President Obama's key policy priorities--clean energy and jobs that are
essential for long-term economic growth.
In a way, this is becoming quite political because it is not unusual
for a President to have high-level staff members in the White House who
help to coordinate policy issues that touch a number of Federal
agencies. We have heard a lot about it. What we do not hear is that
President Bush had 47 such advisers for other issues. We Democrats did
not make a huge issue about it. So I have a hard time understanding,
with all of the concern over climate change and the rapidity with which
it is moving, that a Special Assistant to the President who was head of
the EPA during the Clinton administration is somebody who is spurious.
She is steeped in this. She can give the President good advice. He
wants her to be an assistant. So I do not understand quite why she is
being picked on.
I still believe the day-to-day work of protecting the environment is
very much driven by Administrator Jackson and the EPA staff. I have met
with the Administrator. I spoke with her on the phone this morning. I
read into the Record a letter she wrote yesterday. She is very much
hands-on. So I think all of the energy going into these attacks ought
to be put into perspective, and that perspective is that the former
President of the United States had 47 special assistants. We didn't
make a big deal of it. So I do not understand why this one position is
now taken and an amendment is there to eliminate it.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Vitter amendment.
I yield the floor.

[[Page S9786]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I want to very briefly rebut some of the
arguments of the distinguished Senator from California. First of all,
in her last sentence she characterized the amendment as an amendment to
eliminate the position. Of course it does not eliminate the position in
any way.
She said earlier that Carol Browner does not tell EPA what to do. If
that is the case, then this amendment will not have to change anything
she does or how she operates and we should all come together to support
the amendment to help allay concerns of the public. The amendment does
not prohibit her from advising the President. The amendment does not
prohibit her from coordinating multiagency meetings. The amendment is
very clear, and it simply prohibits her from ordering around the EPA,
which has its own Senate-confirmed head.
Again, I underscore the fact that this amendment is very carefully
and narrowly written and does not prevent any of the legitimate
advisory responsibilities that Senator Feinstein has discussed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Perhaps I can engage the Senator from Louisiana.
Candidly, I do not understand the wording of the amendment. Let me read
it. You have read it, and I appreciate that. It does not make sense to
me. Here is how it reads.

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

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

and lead--

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

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

I don't know what that means on its face.
Mr. VITTER. I would be happy to explain through the Chair what it
means. The agency I have in mind, which is funded by this act and led
by a Senate-confirmed position, is EPA. So it simply means that EPA
cannot use any of its funds to implement orders, policies, from Carol
Browner--the White House czar's policies. If the President wants to
direct them, obviously the President outranks the head of EPA. But a
White House czar, in a position not created by Congress, not confirmed
by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration, should not
be giving orders to a Senate-confirmed Cabinet Member.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Carol Brown's title is not czar, it is
Assistant to the President. The President has chosen to appoint an
assistant to assist him in evaluating, I assume, various issues
pertaining to climate change. It is a complicated subject. She has
experience. She has been in government. She has served as head of a
department. But the actual policies come over the signature of the
Administrator of the EPA.
What you are saying is, essentially, then, the President cannot have
any special assistant for the purpose of coordination, asking
questions, informing, helping produce--it does not make sense to me. I
think on its face it is not clear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, to wrap up, my amendment says none of
that. My amendment does not prevent this climate change czar from
informing and assisting the President. My amendment does not prevent
her from convening multiagency and multidepartment meetings. My
amendment doesn't say any of that and doesn't prevent any of that. It
simply prevents her from ordering the EPA, headed by a Senate-confirmed
appointee, to do certain things.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, I would like to respond to that. Let me
give an example. The CIA is headed by a Senate-confirmed Director, Leon
Panetta. He carries on policies from the National Security Council led
by General Jones, a nonconfirmed official. Does the Senator from
Louisiana believe that the National Security Adviser to the President
should not have any role in intelligence and national security matters?
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Mr. VITTER. Through the Chair, my answer is no, I don't believe that.
My amendment has nothing to do with that, and, by the way, that
position is created by statute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may, I know the Senator from Missouri is waiting
to speak because he has an important meeting to go to. But if I could
take 2 minutes, I think the Senator from Louisiana is making a point
that concerns not just him but a number of us in the Senate on both
sides of the aisle. Maybe the best way to suggest that is this way.
No. 1, the focus should be on the 18 new czars appointed by this
President who were not confirmed, never have existed before, and the
number of them.
No. 2, it was not the Republican side of the aisle that raised these
concerns first. Perhaps this would best express the concern that many
of us have. It was offered by Senator Byrd, senior Member of the
Senate, the constitutional conscience of the Senate, who in a letter on
February 23 said--this was a letter to President Obama--

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

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

As Presidential assistants and advisers,

Senator Byrd goes on to say--

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

Et cetera.
Then, Senator Collins, on behalf of six Senators, wrote the President
a very respectful letter focusing on the 18 new czars who had been
appointed by the President simply asking what their authorities and
duties are, how they are appointed, whether they are willing to
testify, whether they would consult with us. Senator Feingold, the
Democratic chairman on the constitution subcommittee, has expressed his
concern and indicated he might hold hearings.
I think Senator Vitter is selecting a single example of this unusual
number of new czars and raising the question of the constitutional
checks and balances that is the same issue that Senator Byrd and
Senator Feingold and many of the rest of us raised.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, through the Chair, I thank my colleague from
South Dakota, Senator Thune, for allowing me to speak for a minute. We
agreed to do that rather than to offer amendments that I intended to
propose to this bill. I want to make sure everybody understands a
concern that Senator Thune, many others, and I have; that is, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's potential efforts to push through
back-door carbon regulations which they cannot achieve legislatively on
the Senate floor.
EPA, over the next several years, may attempt to impose trillions of
dollars in new energy taxes that will kill millions of jobs. Of course
they will say that is not their intent. They want to control climate.
But that will be the impact of regulations they could issue over the
next few years to control carbon emissions.
Experts have told us the House-passed Waxman-Markey legislation would
kill 2.4 million American jobs and impose new energy taxes on the
American people. Even President Obama has previously confirmed that
under his plan for carbon emission mandates, electricity prices will
``necessarily skyrocket.''
``Necessarily skyrocket''. Those are the President's words. In the
EPW Committee, I presented information from the Missouri University
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute which determined that
the Waxman-Markey legislation would raise farm production for an
average family-run

[[Page S9787]]

commercial production farmer who grows corn and soybeans by about
$11,000 in 2020 and rising to over $30,000 by 2050.
In this time of suffering, when so many people are out of work and so
many family budgets are stretched thin, I cannot, in good conscience,
stand by and remain quiet when there is a potential that such new
energy taxes would be imposed on American families, farmers, and
workers. It is no wonder the Senate is pausing before we jump off the
cliff.
Senators, especially from manufacturing and the coal-dependent
heartland where I am from, know how much this bill will punish the
Midwest, South, and Great Plains. This spring, EPA began the process to
start limiting carbon emissions through regulations, and they will do
it through expensive plant-by-plant command-and-control regulations,
not a cap-and-trade system.
Some say we could limit this problem by not regulating small
emitters. But that is no different than Waxman-Markey, which already
exempts small emitters. Thus, similar to Waxman-Markey's national
energy tax, regulations that exempt small emitters would still impose a
national energy tax and kill millions of jobs. Every family will be hit
by higher electricity prices when they go after the large electricity-
producing companies.
They will face more money for heating, more money for gasoline, more
money for diesel fuel--if you are on the farm--more money for almost
everything they buy that is produced with energy, which is just about
everything that is not in the IT world, although there will be costs
there too.
Businesses will face large increases in backdoor costs put on them by
higher prices they must pay, even if they fall below the threshold.
These costs, the backdoor impact of these costs, will be felt on
families, on workers who can lose their jobs.
That is why I proposed two amendments to prevent EPA from imposing
backdoor carbon regulations when they result in lost American jobs or
raise costs unacceptably for farmers. I was gratified when the Senate
earlier passed a version of my jobs amendment during the budget debate.
But the leaders on the majority side stripped the job protection out of
the bill, leaving workers vulnerable again.
They again, during this debate, will not allow us to protect workers
from job-killing carbon proposals, but we will continue to educate the
American people on how much they will suffer under proposed carbon
legislation and regulation.
I have to add one last word about my friends and majority colleagues,
Senators Kerry and Boxer. There continue to be reports that their bill
will not include, in writing, before anybody votes on it, crucial
sections on how they would distribute their program carbon allowances.
This, regrettably, would hide, not only from us but from the American
people, the true costs of the energy tax they propose to impose.
If my Senator friends from Massachusetts and California believe truly
in what they are doing, they should not hide the provisions from us.
They should give us the time and the American people the time they need
to determine the bill's impact.
With millions of jobs on the line and trillions of dollars in tax
increases at stake, the American people deserve no less. I call on my
colleagues to stand for the suffering people of America who are
burdened already by energy costs and could pay much more. I call on
people who may be affected to let their Members of Congress know how
they feel.
Nobody is going to put out a mandate saying we cannot encourage them
to speak. Nobody, no czar is going to come down and say: You cannot
express your opinion. I have expressed mine. I have found a lot of
people--almost everybody I talk to who raised the subject in my State
of Missouri agrees.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to table the Vitter amendment No. 2549. I ask
for the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I withdraw that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of an amendment
that was offered earlier today, actually it was filed, I think it was
attempted to be called up by Senator Murkowski. The Democratic majority
objected to getting a vote on that amendment, which, I think, suggests
they do not want to have a vote on that amendment. Frankly, I can see
why.
From what I hear about the whole debate on climate change and cap-
and-trade legislation that has passed in the House, it will not be
voted on in the Senate this year. The reason it will not be voted on is
because there are a lot of people in this Chamber who, I think, do not
want to have that vote because they know it is a bad vote for them to
make.
Fear not, EPA has come to the rescue of people who want to see a lot
of this stuff accomplished but do not want to have to make a tough
political vote on it. So what we are now faced with is the
Environmental Protection Agency deciding they are going to regulate
carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act and moving forward with the
regulations to do that.
The Murkowski amendment would essentially prevent funds from being
used to do that. It weighs in favor of having Congress deal with this
very complex, very weighty, very consequential, and very costly issue
to the American people.
This legislation, as we all know, would increase energy prices, cost
us jobs, be unfair to entire regions of the country, mine included,
enlarge an already bloated bureaucracy in Washington, DC, and put our
Nation at a certain economic disadvantage.
I have been skeptical of that controversial legislation that has
passed the House, the cap-and-trade bill over there, for some time, for
the reasons I have mentioned.
Additionally, I think it is fair to say there would be very little
environmental benefit derived from that legislation, were it enacted,
without binding, enforceable commitments by China, by India, and other
developing countries that are now significant sources of carbon
emissions.
I find it disappointing that in the middle of this important debate
the administration wants to use the back door--issuing regulations to
cap carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act because they cannot get a
Waxman-Markey type climate bill through the front door.
Instead, the relevant committees of this body and the Senate as a
whole should be able to consider whether now is the right time for a
new massive energy tax disguised as an EPA regulation.
During the previous administration, the EPA had published an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that showed just how impractical it would
be to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the
Clean Air Act.
These onerous regulations covered homes, schools, churches,
hospitals, small businesses and potentially even small farms with
livestock.
Under the Clean Air Act, the primary mechanism for regulating carbon
emissions would be a fee placed on each ton of covered pollutant
emitted above a certain threshold.
This fee, if applied to carbon emissions, is nothing more than a tax
on energy that would have severe consequences as our economy struggles
to recover from a long recession.
While the Bush administration regulations never made it past an
initial draft, the Obama EPA is moving quickly to finalize an
endangerment finding and regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
In April 2009, the EPA issued a draft endangerment finding that
linked emissions from motor vehicles to an endangerment of human
health.
The comment period has closed on this draft endangerment finding, and
when the EPA issues a final ruling it will trigger an array of
regulations under the Clean Air Act.
These command and control regulations will have far reaching
consequences for our economy at a time when we can least afford it.
According to media reports, EPA will eventually propose regulations
for not just mobile sources, but stationary sources that emit over
25,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
The first round of regulations on stationary sources would cover
approximately 13,000 facilities in the United States.

[[Page S9788]]

These include powerplants, large manufacturing facilities,
refineries, fertilizer manufacturers, and a long list of other
facilities that are critical to the health of our economy.
In South Dakota, these regulations would place a tax on powerplants,
ethanol refineries, and even our largest public university.
And we need to remember that these companies will pass these new
costs on to you and me. Now is an especially bad time to saddle the
American people with what is in effect a gigantic new energy tax that
would cause electricity, gasoline, and home heating costs to skyrocket.
Additionally, pending the outcome of the final endangerment finding,
the EPA might be legally bound to regulate all sources that emit over
250 tons of carbon dioxide.
If this statutory threshold of the Clean Air Act is enforced, over 1
million carbon-emitting entities would be faced with a new tax,
including commercial buildings, churches, homes, schools, restaurants,
and manufacturing facilities both big and small.
Regulation of carbon dioxide is far too important for EPA and the
administration to craft expensive, cumbersome, top-down regulations
under the Clean Air Act.
Republicans in the Senate know this, Democrats in the Senate know
this, the EPA knows this and the White House knows this.
Last year, Congressman John Dingell said that EPA greenhouse gas
regulations would lead to ``a glorious mess.'' He continued by stating
that ``As a matter of national policy, it seems . . . insane that we
would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment, which everybody
tells us has to be addressed with great immediacy, to a long and
complex process of regulatory action.''

Congressman Dingell said it best when he concluded that carbon
regulation under EPA had ``the potential for shutting down or slowing
down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.''
According to an OMB memo associated with EPA's endangerment finding,
``Making the decision to regulate CO<inf>2</inf> under the [Clean Air
Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences
for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small
businesses and small communities.''
Representative Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee, noted in a recent op-ed that EPA regulations of greenhouse
gas emissions would result ``in one of the largest and most
bureaucratic nightmares that the U.S. economy and Americans have ever
seen.''
Senator Murkowski and I have filed an amendment to the fiscal year
2010 Interior and Environment appropriations bill that would prohibit
the EPA from moving forward with regulations on carbon dioxide emitted
from stationary sources for 1 year.
This amendment is not intended to impact the recent announcement from
EPA and the Department of Transportation regarding new tailpipe
emission requirements for new cars and light trucks.
Additionally, this amendment is not intended to impact the regulation
of other greenhouse gasses, such as hydrofloural carbons, which are
also included in the proposed endangerment finding.
This amendment would simply delay the expensive, top-down regulation
of carbon emissions from thousands if not 1 million stationary sources
in the United States.
For those Senators who wish to regulate carbon emissions through a
cap-and-trade system, I encourage you to support this amendment as well
. You should be supporting this amendment.
This amendment is not about whether carbon dioxide emissions should
be regulated or whether the Federal Government should take any action
to reduce carbon emissions. Rather, this amendment is about the process
of regulating carbon dioxide emissions.
Should regulations as far reaching and expensive as taxing carbon
dioxide be determined by EPA bureaucrats behind closed doors? Or should
carbon regulations be openly debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
The Murkowski amendment gives the Senate a clear choice.
Constituents, through their elected representatives, should have a
voice in that debate. If carbon dioxide regulations moved through the
EPA unchanged, the American people would be deprived of their
opportunity to be heard on this very important subject. Meanwhile the
cost of gasoline, food, and manufactured goods will skyrocket. I urge
colleagues on both sides to acknowledge the extremely dangerous
consequences of allowing the administration to unilaterally regulate
carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. I understand the Murkowski
amendment will not be allowed to be voted on. I believe the regulations
that amendment addresses should be delayed until Congress has the
opportunity to debate the consequences. I will continue to work with
Senator Murkowski and other colleagues, families, and small business,
to make them aware of what the EPA intends to do by regulation.
In addition to speaking on the Murkowski amendment, as I have filed
an amendment which is similar, I ask unanimous consent to call up my
amendment and ask that it be made pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. THUNE. Let me briefly speak to the amendment because it simply
addresses this subject in a slightly different way. It is clear the
majority does not want to have a vote on either the Murkowski amendment
or my amendment because they get at the fundamental issue which is
whether we are going to have a debate in Congress about regulating
CO<inf>2</inf> emissions or whether we will allow an administrative
agency, the EPA, to do that for us. I understand my amendment, which
has now been objected to, will not have a vote. We know where the votes
are on this. But like the Murkowski amendment, what my amendment is
designed to do is to shed daylight on harmful regulations that are
taking shape behind the closed doors of the EPA. My amendment is
designed to give our constituents a greater say in climate change
regulations.
The amendment is also designed to force the EPA to consider the
dramatic impact these new Clean Air Act regulations on carbon dioxide
will have on electricity and gasoline prices. If these regulations move
forward, I am concerned that many families, especially those who rely
on coal-generated electricity, will see skyrocketing electricity bills.
I am also concerned for families and truckdrivers who could see
gasoline and diesel prices go up. EPA regulation of CO<inf>2</inf>
would amount to a tax on millions of working-class families.
During debate on the climate change bill, proponents of cap and trade
claimed that lower income families will be made whole by giving local
distribution companies free allowances to meet the new carbon
regulations. Aside from whether this mechanism would actually limit the
impact on working families, it is clear such a safeguard is simply not
possible under the Clean Air Act. Carbon regulations under the Clean
Air Act would effectively be a huge new tax on electricity and gasoline
prices paid by families and small businesses.
Additionally, new taxes under the Clean Air Act would apply to oil
and ethanol refineries. In South Dakota, we produce approximately a
billion gallons annually of ethanol. If the EPA moves forward with
carbon caps under the Clean Air Act, 12 ethanol plants in South Dakota
will be subject to this new tax. Additionally, we have a large soybean
processing facility hoping to soon produce biodiesel that would also be
covered. Not only will these costs be passed on to consumers in the
form of higher prices at the pump, but the new regulations will be a
major setback to renewable fuel production. In the end, the energy
security benefits of domestic renewable fuel production will be
negatively impacted by these new regulations.
My amendment 2540 asks EPA to consider the costs and the adverse
impacts these regulations will have on the economy before moving
forward with an endangerment finding.
It is clear that neither the Murkowski amendment nor mine will be
voted on. This issue is not going away. The EPA is moving forward. The
House has acted on this issue. The Senate

[[Page S9789]]

doesn't want to take the hard votes on this so they have punted it to
the EPA. The EPA is now moving forward by regulation to do what
Congress doesn't have the courage or the will to do, and that is to
have a debate about the relative costs and, perhaps, benefits of
climate change legislation. It is wrong for us to allow the bureaucracy
at the EPA to move forward with these regulations that could be so
harmful to our economy, so harmful to jobs, so disastrous when it comes
to the energy prices paid by families and small businesses.
This issue will be back. Senator Murkowski will bring it back. I will
bring it back. Others of my colleagues who care about the impact of
this particular regulation on small businesses and families will be
back to debate the issue even though the Democratic majority will not
allow us to get a vote today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Louisiana
wishes to speak in morning business, which is fine. I wonder if I could
make one brief announcement. Members are interested in bringing this
bill to a conclusion. There are a number of amendments that were listed
in the consent order. I ask that Members come to the floor to call up
their amendments shortly. Senator Coburn has a number, Senator Reid,
Senator Collins. Senator Ensign has a motion to recommit. If these
Members could come to the floor and call up their amendments, it would
be appreciated. We would be able to, hopefully, conclude the bill.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.
Mrs. BOXER. I am here to make a few comments addressing the points
raised by Senator Thune and Senator Murkowski. They were going to offer
an amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator has an hour.
Mrs. BOXER. I won't be taking that. At what point would the Senator
like me to use the time?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think directly following Senator Landrieu.
Mrs. BOXER. That is fine. And how long is Senator Landrieu speaking?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Ten minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following
Senator Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate the leadership of the Senators from
California and Tennessee, trying to move this important appropriations
bill through the process. As we heard this morning, there are lots of
important issues pending. I came to speak for a few minutes not about a
pending amendment but about an issue bubbling up and brewing in a
fairly significant way that we will have to address sometime soon, not
necessarily on this bill today, not necessarily through an amendment
process to the Interior appropriations, but a program that is in the
Interior appropriations bill that is screaming for attention. That is
the program having to do with the management of wild horses. It is not
a major issue in all 50 States, but it is a big issue to a handful of
western States and of interest to several of us in this body.
Let me thank Senator Feinstein and her staff for the leadership they
are providing in helping us shape policy. She has been extremely
attentive over the last several months. I thank her. I acknowledge the
interest of former Senator Salazar, now Secretary of Interior, and his
top leadership. They have a tremendous amount of issues before them,
issues that will take a lot of their time. For them to make this a
priority because some of us have asked them to, I acknowledge that and
thank them, all the assistant secretaries and staff from the Interior
Department who are working on this.
There are two aspects to this important issue. One involves the
fiscal element which taxpayers are alarmed about. The wild horse
program, because of its mismanagement and poor, old-fashioned way of
operating, is chewing up or taking up about three-quarters of the
budget of the Bureau of Land Management. From a fiscal perspective and
a financial management perspective, it is crying out for reform.
On the other hand, there is the view of the inhumaneness of some of
the practices going on that also cries out for attention. I come to
speak briefly about both.
As to the big picture, at the turn of the century, we had about a
million wild horses in the territory of the United States. It is sad,
from the perspective of most people, that we are now down to 66,000
wild horses and burros basically forced, through policies developed in
the 1970s, to stay in relatively small places, grouped in a few States,
most notably the States of Nevada, Wyoming, and California, and a few
other western States. We also are down to a few herds of horses. The
reason I believe this is important not only to western States or
ranchers or landowners or humane societies and others is because for
the American people generally, the idea of wild spaces with wild horses
is something that is part of our heritage. We want to make sure that
heritage is not lost, that we are being responsible in terms of the way
the land is being used for multiple purposes and, from the perspective
of horse advocates, that the horses themselves are being treated well.
None of that is now being done in the way that most people would
appreciate or would be satisfied with. There have been any number of
studies I will submit for the record. Most recently, the Congressional
Research Service, as well as the Government Accounting Office,
suggested major changes to the program. I am going to go through a few
possible options. One is the creation of several public/private
sanctuaries. This has been suggested by a few fairly high-profile
individuals. The idea has merit. We are working with a variety of
groups, along with the Department, to think about the possibility of
creating public/private partnerships, large sanctuaries, maybe 500,000
or a million acres, where thousands of wild horses could not only roam
freely in a healthy way but could potentially become ecotourist
opportunities for some of the States and communities, as it would be an
attraction that could potentially make money and attract people to some
of the western areas or, for that matter, rural areas in other parts of
the country.
There is the possibility of making some smart investments to step up
some of the adoption programs that might work. There are any number of
scientific and new technologies that can be brought to bear in terms of
breed management, reproductive issues that could help us to get a much
more cost-effective, sane, and humane approach to this problem.
I wanted to let the managers of this legislation know that while we
will not have an amendment at this time on the Interior bill, I am
looking forward to working with members of the Energy Committee who
have jurisdiction over this matter to review in detail a bill that has
come over from the House, the ROAM Act, by the chairman of that
subcommittee, whom I commend for taking the committee's time,
Congressman Rahall, who sent the bill over here to the Senate. As we
begin to discuss the ways that bill could potentially be modified,
working with the Department of Interior to find a long-term solution,
one that is cost effective, one that is humane, and one that honors the
great history of wild horses, not just pleasant to look at but helped
us to settle the West, helped us to open transport and commerce for the
Nation, have carried us into war, into battle, helped to feed and
clothe this Nation in our history, needs a bit more attention than what
they are getting right now.
In conclusion, there was a disturbing roundup conducted not too long
ago--just a few weeks ago--and I thank the advocates who brought this
to my attention and commit to them to continue to work until we find a
better way forward; again, a way that is good for the wild horses, that
honors our heritage but is also very respectful of these Western lands
and the ranchers who have multiple uses of this property.
I am certain in the Nation God has bequeathed to us we can find
enough space for everyone if we keep an open mind. I know the Senator
from Tennessee would agree with that; that if we work hard enough, we
can find some common ground solutions to this issue.

[[Page S9790]]

I thank the Chair and yield the time. I understand my colleague from
California is here to speak on a different issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much.
I am on the floor, along with Senator Whitehouse--there may be some
others--to respond to the remarks made by Senators Murkowski and Thune
regarding an amendment they very much wanted to put before this body.
That amendment, simply stated, would stop the Environmental Protection
Agency from enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to the pollutant
carbon.
Some of the things they said are so reminiscent of what was said
before the Clean Air Act passed, that: Oh, this is going to be a
terrible thing for our people; and the same thing that was said when
the Clean Water Act was passed: Oh, this is going to be a burden on
business. I have to say to this body, the day we turn our back on these
landmark environmental laws is the day the health of our people will
suffer. We do not want that to happen.
I wish to be clear, I know this amendment will come back again and
again. I know there will be attacks on the Clean Air Act and the Clean
Water Act. That is an attack on our families. It is particularly an
attack on our children and on our vulnerable senior citizens and our
citizens who may have disabilities and who are ill. I will fight it
with every ounce of my strength every time it rears its ugly head in
this Chamber.
The interesting thing is, most of these environmental laws started
with a Republican President named Richard Nixon. What happened to the
days when environmental laws were supported on both sides? Those days
appear to be gone.
What I would like to do is--I am going to yield up to 20 minutes to
the Senator from Rhode Island. He is so eloquent on this point. Before
I do, I wish to place some letters in the Record.
One letter is from the Environmental Protection Agency, saying they
would have a very difficult time making sure the air was clean if that
Murkowski amendment had been offered and passed and become law.
Interestingly, we have a letter from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, also opposing that Murkowski amendment.
We have two more letters to put in the Record--and this just happened
in 24 hours--one from a coalition made up of the Alliance for Climate
Protection, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Auto
Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, the Clean Air Task Force,
Clean Water Action, the Defenders of Wildlife, Environment America, the
Environmental Defense Fund, League of Women Voters of the United
States, National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Oceana, the Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy,
Southern Environmental Law Center, and Union of Concerned Scientists--
all saying they oppose this amendment, which concerns not enforcing the
Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon dioxide.
Lastly, we have a very well put together letter by the National
Wildlife Federation, in which they quote a poll that says 75 percent of
Americans believe our government should, in fact, regulate global
warming pollution, which, of course, is mostly carbon.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent those letters be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

United States Environmental

Protection Agency,

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

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

September 24, 2009.
Dear Senator: We are writing in opposition to Senator
Murkowski's revised appropriations amendment (No. 2350) to
the FY 2010 Interior Appropriations bill, H.R. 2996, which
concerns carbon dioxide pollution and the Clean Air Act.
The filed amendment's spending limitation would go well
beyond blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
from curbing carbon dioxide pollution from power plants,
refineries, and other big ``stationary sources.'' It also
would block EPA from implementing the Supreme Court's
landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA by curbing carbon
pollution from cars and trucks. If this amendment passes, EPA
could not issue the historic consensus standards that the
President announced in May with the support of the auto
makers, the UAW, states, and the environmental community.
Here is why:
The first sentence of the amendment says: ``No action taken
by the Environmental Protection Agency using funds made
available under this Act shall have the effect of making
carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act . . . for any source other than a mobile
source. . . .'' This is a reference to Section 169 of the
Act, which says that every new or modified major stationary
source needs to install best available control technology
(BACT), considering costs, for each pollutant ``subject to
regulation under this chapter,'' i.e., under the Clean Air
Act.
When EPA issues final vehicle carbon dioxide standards
under Section 202 of the Act as

[[Page S9791]]

planned next March, carbon dioxide will automatically become
a pollutant ``subject to regulation'' under Section 169. From
that point on, new or modified major stationary sources will
need to install BACT for carbon dioxide, just as they
currently do for other dangerous pollutants. This is
automatic; there is no way around it without blocking the
vehicle rules. Since the Murkowski amendment would bar any
action that has the effect of making carbon dioxide ``subject
to regulation'' under Section 169, EPA would be barred from
issuing the vehicle standards.
This is why EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday
that the amendment would be ``a death knell to the historic
agreement between the President and auto-makers to increase
gas mileage and reduce emissions from cars and trucks.''
Congress should not take any action that would undo the
progress already made on carbon pollution from motor
vehicles.
Later paragraphs of the revised amendment attempt to limit
other collateral damage done by the amendment. But those
provisions cannot overcome the effect of the amendment's
first sentence.
We believe common ground can be found to ensure that the
Clean Air Act's stationary source requirements apply only to
power plants and other big sources, not smaller sources, and
to incorporate this approach in comprehensive energy and
climate legislation. But it cannot be accomplished through
this rider.
The Murkowski amendment would only move us farther from,
not closer to, a bipartisan consensus on comprehensive clean
energy and climate legislation that the Senator says she
seeks. We strongly urge you to oppose Senator Murkowski's
amendment as well as any other amendments to the Interior
Appropriations bill that would delay America's progress
toward a clean energy economy that would create jobs,
increase America's energy security, and cut pollution.
Alliance for Climate Protection, Center for American
Progress Action Fund, Center for Auto Safety, Center
for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean
Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment
America, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Women
Voters of the United States, National Audubon Society,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Sierra Club,
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern
Environmental Law Center, Union of Concerned
Scientists.
____

National Wildlife Federation,

National Advocacy Center,

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

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

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

Forcing the EPA to take a timeout now would have sent exactly the
opposite message; would tell the world we do not truly care about
climate change; that we are not ready to step up, let alone lead; would
say we would prefer to leave a polluted world to our

[[Page S9792]]

children and grandchildren, a world far worse off than the world our
parents and grandparents left to us. Any timeout now would have damaged
our international progress and our leadership.
Moreover, a timeout of the sort proposed in the Murkowski amendment
would have hurt our legislative efforts. Supporters of the timeout idea
profess to want a legislative solution to address climate change. Well,
maybe. But doing so would have set back that very goal.
To the extent some of the big polluters are working with us in this
legislative process, it is because they feel the hot breath of the
future on their necks, and they know they had better participate or be
left to their fate. Give them an artificial reprieve from those
consequences--real consequences of science, of fact, of law, and of
nature--and their motivations would change. Delay would become their
friend, indeed their purpose, because of the artificial, false status
quo that a timeout would create for them.
Let me tell you how these polluters affect Rhode Island, my home.
Let's start back in 1972, when EPA authorized the use of tall
smokestacks instead of emissions limits. By the mid-1970s, four
different circuit courts of appeal had ruled that the Clean Air Act
required real emissions controls and not just increased stack heights.
A tall smokestack only curbs local emissions, but it spreads the
poisons widely.
In 1977, Congress enacted section 123 of the Clean Air Act, which
barred the construction of smokestacks taller than called for by good
engineering practice. Notwithstanding, Midwestern powerplants continued
to increase the height of their stacks. The average smokestack height
increased from 200 feet tall in 1956 to over 500 feet tall in 1978. In
1970, there were two smokestacks in the United States taller than 500
feet. By 1985, 180 smokestacks stood taller than 500 feet. Twenty-three
of these were over 1,000 feet. Once you get over 1,000 feet tall, you
actually have to put that smokestack on the aviation safety maps
because it becomes a hazard to aviation. Local interests, of course,
were happy because less of the smokestack-emitted poisons fell locally
and more were spread abroad.
What did this mean for downwind States, such as my State of Rhode
Island? Well, all other things being equal, the taller the stack, the
farther the poisons travel. According to a 2001 report by the Clean Air
Act Task Force entitled ``Power to Kill: Death and Disease from Power
Plants Charged with Violating the Clean Air Act,'' pollution spewed
from just 51 plants has shortened the lives of as many as 9,000 people
nationwide annually, including about 1,500 to 2,100 people in our
downwind States such as Rhode Island.
These plants have also caused tens of thousands of asthma attacks
each year and hundreds just in Rhode Island. This is just from 51
plants. Physicians for Social Responsibility has estimated that all
coal plants in the United States together cause about 23,600 premature
deaths and 554,000 asthma attacks each year.
The Centers for Disease Control tells us that between 1980 and 1995
the incidence of childhood asthma increased over 100 percent--the
increase of childhood asthma more than doubled--from 3.6 percent to 7.5
percent of all children.
By 2005, nearly 9 percent of all children were reported to have
asthma. In African-American children, the rate soared to 19.2 percent--
nearly one in five African-American children.
Massachusetts, Maryland, and my State of Rhode Island--all downwind
States--were among the five States with the highest incidence of
asthma. The Rhode Island Lung Association estimates that 15,000
children--15,000 children in my State of less than 1 million
population--have asthma. Nationally, every year more than 40 kids 4
years old and under will die from asthma. Another 115 kids 5 to 15
years old will die, and nearly 400 more age 15 to 34 will die every
year. This is what upwind polluters have helped cause.

When I was attorney general for the State of Rhode Island, I joined
EPA's lawsuit against American Electric Power for its illegal
modification of 16 plants. In 2008, the utility company settled the
lawsuit by installing billions of dollars of pollution-control
equipment which slashed NO<inf>X</inf> and SO<inf>2</inf> emissions by
813,000 tons each year--813,000 tons of pollution each year. American
Electric Power also paid a $15 million penalty, nearly five times what
ExxonMobil has paid so far for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1990, and
it invested another $60 million in environmental mitigation projects.
So don't tell me things can't be done.
But in Rhode Island, the danger continues, and still every summer in
Rhode Island the morning radio announces several days that are unsafe
air days, when infants and seniors and people with breathing
difficulties are told they should stay home, that they should stay
indoors because the summer air in Rhode Island is not safe, and one of
the prime reasons it isn't safe is because we are downwind. So don't
expect a lot of sympathy from me for these polluters, with their
belching smokestacks, that want a free pass to endanger the public,
timeout or not.
Here is a little description of how tall some of these stacks go. The
tallest building is Willis Tower in Chicago. A lot of its radio towers
are on the top, but it is still a heck of a big building. The Empire
State Building is 1,250 feet. The Washington Monument is 555 feet. The
Statue of Liberty is 305 feet. In Marshall, WV, there is a smokestack
1,204 feet tall. In Rockport, IN, there is a smokestack 1,038 feet
tall. In Jefferson, OH, there is a smokestack exactly 1,000 feet tall.
I don't know whether that has to go on the aviation safety maps. That
is just at the boundary. What these things do is they solve the local
problem of pollution by pushing the poisons so far up into the
atmosphere that they don't fall in West Virginia, in Indiana, and in
Ohio, but they move elsewhere and they land often in Rhode Island, and
we face the health consequences every day. So if anybody is looking for
a sympathetic ear for these powerplants, they have come to the wrong
place if they have come to Rhode Island.
Today, we are facing perhaps the greatest environmental threat of our
time: Global climate change triggered by increased concentrations of
carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. We have supersaturated the atmosphere
with carbon dioxide, and it is having an effect. Coal-fired powerplants
share much of the blame. Forty percent of all carbon dioxide emissions
come from coal powerplants. And the polluters will fight--they are
fighting--any effort to control their carbon dioxide emissions. The
polluter opponents of climate change who are resisting our change to a
clean energy economy are strong and wealthy, and they will stop at
nothing. We have even recently seen forged letters to Congress opposing
climate change legislation in the names of groups that never authorized
the letters.
Just like the polluters fought the Clean Air Act in the past, just
like the polluters built taller stacks rather than making what comes
out of the stacks cleaner, just like the polluters manipulated their
flunkies in the Bush administration, today the polluters wanted a
timeout. They may say they support a legislative solution to climate
change, but if they could fool us so that we defunded and stopped and
weakened all of the other available tools for pollution control, that
would not help in passing a climate bill. That would give those
polluters every incentive in the world to defect, to delay, and
ultimately to defeat our efforts to move this country toward a clean
energy economy, to stop subsidizing their pollution of our air, and our
efforts to start solving this great problem of our day. To protect
ourselves, we have to keep all of our tools available, all options for
curbing greenhouse gas emissions working to protect us.
I thank the chairman very much for yielding me this time, and I look
forward to working with her as we continue to find ways to support this
legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Rhode
Island. He gets us to where we need to be, which is focusing on what
happens to our people when we walk away from protecting them from
pollution.
I know Senator Brown is in the chair. I wanted to share with him the
fact that he knows well that after the Cuyahoga River caught fire in
Ohio in 1969 and many of our lakes and rivers

[[Page S9793]]

appeared to be more like sewers, the committee, which I now chair so
proudly and on which Senator Whitehouse sits, responded by enacting the
Clean Water Act. That was 1972. I don't know if Senator Brown was born
yet. The fact is, that incident of a river catching fire really caught
the attention of the people of this Nation. Whether it was our water or
our air or endangered species, we decided to take control of our
communities, of our health, of our environment.
There is a lot about America that makes us proud. There is a lot
about America that makes us great. I believe one of our values is
caring about the health of our families. I thought Senator Whitehouse
was very clear that we are not just debating a regulation on page 4 or
5 or 20 or 50. We are talking about the ability of our kids to breathe
the air. We are talking about the ability of this planet to survive
without the ravages of global warming, which the Bush administration's
CDC told us would have unbelievable effects on the health and safety of
our people.
The laws we passed are the landmark laws. So therefore I just want to
be put on record, along with Senator Whitehouse, that if this amendment
that wasn't offered today comes back in any other form, we are going to
have to open up the debate pretty wide--pretty wide--because a repeal
of an environmental law can't be done on an appropriations bill. In
essence, when you don't enforce a law--that is what the Murkowski
amendment would have done--when you don't enforce it, it is the same as
not really having it. But you don't have to look in the eyes of your
constituents and say: Oh, by the way, today I repealed the Clean Air
Act. What you say instead is: Today I fought to have a pause--no
enforcement. Well, let me tell my colleagues, when that child gets
asthma, she is not going to ask her mom: Did I get asthma because there
was a pause in the Clean Air Act or because they repealed the Clean Air
Act? That child will get asthma. I swear to my colleagues that I am not
going to let more kids get asthma, not on my watch. It is wrong. It is
wrong.
Here is the great news. The great news is, if we decide to be the
leader in this clean energy revolution, we will see our people get
healthy. We will see millions of jobs created. We will move off of
these dirty energy sources. We will create American jobs, 21st-century
jobs, building wind turbines, installing solar panels, producing a new
fleet of electric cars, hybrid vehicles. We see it in Ohio already
where they are building solar panels. This is the one area of growth.
We are having a tough time in our State--people laid off, terribly
high unemployment rate. The stimulus is helping us. We are getting some
jobs back, but we are suffering. The one area of growth, I say to the
Chair, 125,000 new green jobs that can't be taken away. You can't take
a job of putting a solar rooftop on a home in Los Angeles or Riverside
or San Bernardino or San Diego or Akron, OH--you can't have that person
in China putting on a solar rooftop. They have to be here. These are
good jobs. That is what we ought to be doing, not repealing the laws
that protect the health of our citizens but trying to figure out a way
to work together to have a bill that will create these new clean energy
jobs, that will protect our kids from carbon pollution, and that will
make sure the ravages of global warming won't occur.
At the end of the day, our competitiveness depends on how we face
this challenge. I believe Thomas Friedman got it right. If you haven't
read his book ``Hot, Flat, and Crowded,'' I think you should read it
because he is so eloquent on the point. He is not on the defense on
this, he is on the offense. He says that if we don't grab this mantle
of leadership on clean energy, then other countries will grab it and
they will create the technologies, they will create the jobs, and we
will fall behind.
America is a leader. We are not a follower. We will have many more
opportunities to debate this in the future, but, my goodness, if we are
facing legislation that does not move us forward but takes us back to
before Richard Nixon was President by not enforcing the Clean Air Act--
I have heard of the party of no, but this is the party of yesterday if
those are the kinds of amendments we are going to face, dangerous
amendments that will hurt the health of our children.
So I wanted to make sure that America takes control of its energy
future and that it doesn't cower in the corner and repeal laws that
protect our citizens, landmark laws such as the Clean Air Act. I am so
glad that today we avoided having to have this long debate. I am glad
this amendment was disallowed because it doesn't belong on an
appropriations bill. It is a repeal of the Clean Air Act. Let's face
it, you don't do that in 15 minutes on the floor of the Senate and call
it a timeout. Call it whatever you want, but when you tell an agency:
Don't enforce the law that protects the health of our children and our
families, that is a repeal through the back door.
So I thank you very much for the time. I know I have additional time.
I will not be using it. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in just a few minutes, the Senator from
Maine will have the floor. Senator Feinstein has asked those Senators
who have amendments which are part of the unanimous consent agreement
to come on over and call them up. I think Senator Coburn is probably
coming following Senator Collins from Maine.
I listened carefully to Senator Whitehouse and to the distinguished
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I wish to make
an observation, if I may, which will take only 3 or 4 minutes, not to
prolong the debate.
First, what Senator Thune and Senator Murkowski were saying is that
the question of climate change is so important that we in the Congress
ought to deal with it, not the Environmental Protection Agency. That is
the point of the amendment.
Second, I am one Senator who believes we need to deal with climate
change and who believes humans are contributing to it, and we need to
stop stuffing so much carbon into the atmosphere. But while my friends
on the other side often speak in great rhetorical flourishes about the
inconvenient problem of climate change that my friend and fellow
Tennessean Al Gore talks about, they are conspicuously silent about the
inconvenient solution, which is nuclear power.
Even the President of the United States went to New York this week
and made an entire speech talking about our commitment to climate
change and lecturing the developing countries of the world about
climate change when they are ahead of us on nuclear power and the
President, in his entire remarks, didn't mention it once. I simply
think that ought to be noted in the midst of this debate.
The largest contributors to carbon in the air are China, the United
States, Russia, India, and Japan. There are 44 nuclear reactors under
construction this minute, almost all of them in Asia. China has 4
reactors under construction and has announced plans for 130 more
reactors. Why? Because nuclear power is carbon free. The United States
hasn't built a new nuclear plant in 30 years. Russia intends to build 2
reactors a year in order to replace the 30 percent of electricity they
get from natural gas so they can sell that gas to Europe at a big
profit.
Japan is building two nuclear reactors a year. They derive 36 percent
of their electricity from nuclear. South Korea gets nearly 40 percent
of its electricity from nuclear, and they are planning 8 more reactors
by 2015. India is developing thorium reactors instead of uranium.
France is 80 percent nuclear and is selling electricity to Germany,
which is the only major European country still renouncing nuclear
power. And here we sit worried about climate change, having 104
reactors that we built before 30 years ago, which produce 20 percent of
our electricity, but 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity, and the
President goes to New York and doesn't say one word about nuclear
power. He wants to build 186 50-story wind turbines, which will operate
about a third at a time, and not at all in our part of the country,
instead of taking the greatest technological advance of the last
century, which we already use to produce 70 percent of our carbon-free
electricity, and say let's do more of that.
I am hopeful that as this debate proceeds, the President will say
let's double our nuclear production and build

[[Page S9794]]

100 new nuclear plants in the next 20 years. We should be able to agree
on 100 new nuclear plants and electrifying our cars and trucks. If we
do those two things alone, we would meet the Kyoto Protocol by 2030.
But we don't hear a word about it.
Let's bring up the inconvenient problem of climate change and let's
deal with it here. But let's bring up the inconvenient solution of
nuclear power. As far as science goes, the chief scientist in the Obama
administration, a Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Chu, says nuclear power is
safe and nuclear waste--used nuclear fuel--can be safely dealt with for
the next 40 to 60 years by having it stored onsite, while we have a
mini Manhattan Project over the next 20 years to find the best way to
recycle used nuclear fuel that doesn't produce plutonium.
This is a good debate. I am glad Senators have come to the floor to
talk about this, and this is an appropriate amendment on which to have
the discussion. The point of the Republican amendments were, let's do
it in Congress, not the agency. If we are going to talk about the
inconvenient problem, climate change--and I agree it is a problem and
we need to deal with it--let's talk about the inconvenient solution,
nuclear power, which today provides 70 percent of our carbon-free
electricity, which is what we are debating.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The majority leader is
recognized.

Amendment No. 2531

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend from Maine allowing
me to speak for a couple minutes prior to her being recognized.
The amendment I have called up allows, not directs, the EPA
Administrator to use $500,000 of the funds provided in the bill for
preliminary planning and design to work to consolidate the many agency
offices and labs in Las Vegas into one high-performance green building.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to continue spending money on aging
facilities spread across several buildings in need of repair and
rehabilitation, particularly with the leases that are not far from
ending. Current costs associated with these facilities' leases and
their operation cost over $5.5 million annually.
Consolidation would improve administrative efficiencies and reduce
agency energy, water, and other costs over time. Developing a more
precise estimate of total savings would be part of the preliminary
planning effort my amendment authorizes.
The people in the offices and labs I think could be consolidated
would also greatly benefit from their being able to work more closely
together, given their mission and activities. These include the
agency's National Exposure Research Laboratory, the Emergency Response
Team--when something bad happens with a nuclear device, they are able
to move on that--the Radiation and Indoor Environments National
Laboratory, the Financial Management Center, the Human Resources
Office, the National Environmental Research Center, and the
Environmental Services Division's various laboratories and Technical
Reference Center.
As we know, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the
Recovery Act strongly direct the Federal Government to be a leader, not
a follower, in adopting green building technologies. EPA should be at
the top of the list, given its important role, and I think its labs and
facilities in Las Vegas should serve as a shining example of
environmental leadership that saves the Federal Government and
taxpayers money.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my
statement a letter to the Appropriations Committee regarding this
request, in compliance with paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

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

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

Amendment No. 2498

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, prior to Senator Reid offering his
proposal, the pending business before the Senate was an amendment I
offered earlier this week, which was designed to promote better
transparency, accountability, and oversight within our government.
I am deeply disappointed that a procedural tactic will be invoked to
prevent an up-or-down vote on my amendment, which is designed to bring
the proliferation of czars under the normal process.
The amendment I proposed would have ensured that the 18 new czar
positions appointed by this administration could be held accountable to
Congress and to the American people. The proliferation of czars under
the current administration to manage some of the most complex and
important issues facing our country has created serious problems in
oversight, accountability, and transparency. It is of great concern to
me that these positions circumvent the congressional requirements for

[[Page S9795]]

oversight. They circumvent the constitutional process by which the
Senate is supposed to give advice and consent to major policy positions
within our government.
I have a list of the 18 new czar positions that have been created by
this administration. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Czars

Positions in the Executive Office of the President (10)

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

Positions in a Department or Agency (8)

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

Ms. COLLINS. Many of the czars on the list seem to either duplicate
or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities that Congress
has already conferred upon Cabinet level officials and other senior
executive branch officials who go through the normal constitutional
process whereby the Senate gives its consent to these nominees.
As I said when I first introduced this amendment, I do not consider
every position that has been identified as a czar in various media
reports to be problematic. Some of those positions are established by
law. Some of them are subject to Senate confirmation. Rather, my
amendment is carefully tailored so it would not cover and would not
apply to positions recognized in law or subject to Senate confirmation.
For example, the proposal I have would not apply to the Director of
National Intelligence, to the National Security Advisor, to the
Homeland Security Advisor, to the Chairman of the Recovery
Accountability and Transparency Board, or to the so-called information
or regulatory czar within OMB. These positions, because they are
recognized in law, or they are subject to Senate confirmation, simply
do not raise the same kinds of concerns about accountability,
transparency, oversight, and vetting.
Instead, my amendment has been carefully tailored to cover officials
that the President has unilaterally designated as responsible for
significant policy matters. It would not have covered the President's
Chief of Staff, for example, and it would not cover less senior White
House officials, despite some misinformation to the contrary.
Because the White House has raised so many objections to my
amendment, I have offered to sit down with the White House counsel and
narrow the scope of the amendment further, to address any concerns the
White House might have. Unfortunately, the White House has failed to
provide any modification to the text of my amendment. Instead, they
said they did not want any of these officials to be called to testify
before Congress.
Let me explain exactly what my amendment would have done, so you can
see how modest indeed the amendment was.
The amendment simply would have required that the President certify
to Congress that officials in these important positions would respond
to all reasonable requests to testify before or provide information to
congressional committees with jurisdiction over the issues involved.
Second, it simply would have required these officials to submit a
biannual report to the congressional committee with jurisdiction,
describing the activities of the official and his or her office, and
any rule, regulation, or policy that the official participated in or
assisted in the development of.
That is it. How can we possibly be against that kind of
accountability, transparency, and oversight? It is our job as Members
of Congress to conduct such oversight.
We cannot do so when the administration sets up a structure where
there is an energy czar, an urban affairs czar, an environmental czar,
a cyber-security czar--the list goes on and on. It creates confusion
over who is in charge, who is making policy.
Let's take the area of health care. Is the top policy position in
this administration Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is the

[[Page S9796]]

health care czar within the Executive Office of the President--a
person, by the way, for whom I have the greatest respect--or is it
Senate-confirmed Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services? Who is in charge? Whom do we hold accountable?
What the President has done by creating so many czar positions within
the White House that appear to duplicate the executive branch officials
who are subject to Senate confirmation is to blur the lines of
authority. That is not good for our system of government, and it is not
in keeping with this administration's pledge to be the most transparent
administration ever--a pledge for which I salute the President.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator about her
amendment. The first thing I would like to ask is, her amendment does
not specify how many czars--I think that is the term she used on the
floor--how many czars she thinks there are in the administration or
what their titles are. Could the Senator from Maine tell me how many
czars we are going to try to impact with her amendment?
Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to. Mr. President, I say to my friend
that I have a list of 18 positions which I have talked repeatedly about
and which I have inserted into the Record. As I have said, I am not one
who has used this term in the way some have to include individuals with
broad authority across various agencies, such as the Director of
National Intelligence. But that is the position that is established or
recognized in law and is subject to Senate confirmation. I did not
include those. In fact, in the language of my amendment, I specifically
say it does not apply to positions established in law.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield and share a copy
of that list with me, I would appreciate it. But in the meantime, I ask
the Senator, it seems that the czar watchers on her side of the aisle,
Senator Hutchison, for example, found 32 czars when she went looking.
One of the advisers to some politicians--and I will not include the
Senator from Maine; she can speak for herself--the noted guru Glenn
Beck has identified 32 czars as well.
I ask the Senator from Maine before we get into the propriety of her
amendment under Senate rules, who is going to define who is covered by
her amendment, if her colleague from Texas found 32, Glenn Beck found
32, and she found 18?
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will be glad to respond to the question
of my colleague. My colleague did not have the benefit of being on the
Senate floor when I first presented my amendment, and I addressed this
very issue.
I was very careful in drafting this amendment to make clear that I
was not talking about positions that are recognized in law. Some of my
colleagues legitimately have taken a different approach. But that is
not the approach that is before the Senate now. Rather, I have taken
into account the issues that have been raised by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, such as Senator Byrd--who certainly knows more
about the Constitution than I think any of us who are serving at the
present time--who has expressed concerns about the proliferation of
czars. I have taken into account concerns expressed by Senator
Feingold, by Senator Feinstein. I have done a careful, narrowly
tailored amendment that does not attempt to sweep in positions that are
recognized in law, nor does it sweep in positions that are subject to
Senate confirmation.
That is why it is so disappointing to me that my colleagues are not
unanimously adopting my amendment, which it looked like they were going
to do earlier this week before the White House weighed in, because I
did not take a broad sweeping approach. I took a very narrow, careful
approach that aimed at the promise the President talked about, the lack
of oversight, transparency, and accountability.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield further for a question, I would
like to ask the Senator--I have been told that using the definition of
``czar'' that Mr. Beck, political adviser to some, and Senator
Hutchison, and even you use, that under President George W. Bush, the
previous Republican administration, one could characterize his
officials and advisers in the Executive Office of the President and
other agencies as an Afghanistan czar, an AIDS czar, a drug czar, a
faith-based czar, an intelligence czar, a Mideast peace czar, a
regulatory czar, a science czar, a Sudan czar, a TARP bailout czar, a
terrorism czar, and a weapons czar, under the previous administration.
I ask the Senator from Maine if she proposed this amendment under a
Republican President who clearly had his own stable of Muscovite czars
of a lot of different versions?
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, again, will be happy to attempt to
clarify this issue for my colleague and friend--and he is my friend--
from Illinois. I realize he has his role to play in this debate. But
the fact is, he has just listed several positions that are established
by law. The intelligence czar is the Director of National Intelligence,
Dennis Blair. Joe Lieberman and I wrote the law that established that
position in 2004, and he is confirmed by the Senate.
The regulatory czar--he is referring to Cass Sunstein in this
administration and John Graham in the previous one--it is established
by law. It is part of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within OMB. I am not talking about those positions no matter in whose
administration it is. I am talking about perhaps other positions on his
list. Regardless of whose administration they are in, I would apply the
same standards.
The Senator may say why didn't I offer this amendment in the previous
administration. The answer is, we did not have this proliferation of
czar positions in the previous administration. But I would say to my
colleagues, regardless of whether it is a Democratic President or a
Republican President, a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, I
think this is an institutional issue, and I think all of us as Members
of Congress should be very concerned about organizational structures
that make it impossible for us to conduct effective congressional
oversight; that insulate these officials who have significant policy
responsibilities from ever coming to testify, from going through the
vetting and the confirmation process.

I think that is a problem regardless of who the President is, and I
am not the only one who thinks it. That is why Senator Robert C. Byrd
wrote to the White House, wrote to the President, as this press release
says, questioning the Obama administration on the role of White House
czar positions because, as he says:

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

I am not saying this is part of a plot to obscure information, but
what I am saying is we have an obligation to exercise our
constitutional duties, and the proliferation of these unaccountable
positions in any administration makes that impossible for us to do so.
Mr. President, if I may complete the end of my statement--before we
got into this good little colloquy. And I do appreciate the opportunity
to clarify whom my amendment would cover, who would be covered by it
and who would not. As I said, I was willing to work with the White
House to make this even clearer. My staff was here many hours last
night. I had conversations with White House officials and,
unfortunately, at the last moment, they decided not to try to propose
revisions to the text.
I am not going to seek to overturn the Chair's ruling on this
amendment which will be forthcoming, and I know how it will go. But I
do think it is unfortunate that a procedural tactic is being used to
block a vote on this amendment. I do want to tell my colleagues that I
think this is a real issue. I am very pleased the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, under Chairman Lieberman, is going to
hold a hearing to explore this issue because it does have
constitutional ramifications and it does involve the balance of power
between the executive and legislative branches. The ruling the Chair is
going to make is not going to be the last word on this subject.
The administration needs--any administration--to fully explain the
responsibilities and authorities of these

[[Page S9797]]

czars. Until all of these czars are made available to testify before
and provide information to Congress, until Congress is fully consulted
on the decisions to create these positions in the first place, I will
continue to press forward on this issue.
I believe the amendment I drafted is a very reasonable, balanced one,
and it would have been a significant step toward establishing an
oversight structure for these positions that would provide the
transparency, accountability, and oversight our Nation expects from its
leaders. I am dismayed the Senate is about to choose a point of order
over these principles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me point out at the outset my
friendship and respect for Senator Collins. These are terms tossed
around on the Senate floor sometimes in meaningless context, but this
is meaningful. We have worked together on many issues. I respect her
very much and believe when she was chairman of the then Governmental
Affairs Committee, later to be the Homeland Security Committee, that
she did extraordinary work with Senator Lieberman, particularly when it
came to the creation of a new intelligence agency. After 9/11, it was
one of the toughest political assignments ever given, and Senator
Collins handled it with professionalism, in a bipartisan way. I commend
her for it. I think she is exceptionally talented, and I am happy to
have her as my ranking member on the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Subcommittee where we continue to work
closely together.
She raises a legitimate inquiry. The legislative branch should ask
whether the executive branch has gone beyond its constitutional
authority. I think it is a legitimate question. Unfortunately, before
she came to the Senate floor, the waters had been muddied by statements
made by our colleague, Senator Hutchison, in the Washington Post on
September 13 as to when she went searching for czars in the Obama
administration, she found 32 of them. The political wise man, Glenn
Beck, found 32 as well but went on to say on his Web site--he is a
major champion on this issue, incidentally--``since czar isn't an
official job title, the number [of czars in the Obama administration]
is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.''
That is why this becomes a pretty difficult amendment to consider at
this moment in time. The Senator from Maine has been kind enough to add
a page in the Record that lists her findings of 18 of these so-called
czars. I don't know if others would find the same number, more or less.
Whether there are 57 known czars or whether there are 18, I just don't
know.
This amendment would prohibit funds for the administrative expenses
of White House advisers--and that is a term usually used by those not
partial to Russian history--unless those positions were created through
express statutory authorization.
Further, the amendment requires the President to certify to Congress
that the adviser will respond to all reasonable requests to testify
before or provide information to any congressional committee with
jurisdiction over such matter.
The adviser must give a report every 6 months, kind of a work-in-
progress report, a diary of what they are doing. So in addition to
working on issues such as health care reform, they need to prepare a
report sent to Congress every 6 months to let us know they are showing
up on time at their desks and actually doing what they are supposed to
do. The President doesn't need statutory authority to appoint advisers,
and it doesn't make sense to require an assistant to the President, who
has an otherwise pretty serious workload, to fill out these reports to
Congress every 6 months to make sure they are showing up as promised.

But the amendment does touch on accountability in a way that I agree
with. Public officials, including those who serve at the pleasure of
the President, should be responsive to congressional inquiries. That is
why Senator Collins and I, through our appropriations subcommittee,
bring in leaders from the administration. And I can't say for certain,
but I am virtually certain we have not been turned down by any at this
point. The committee expects officials employed in whole or in part by
the Executive Office of the President and designated by the President
to coordinate policy agendas across executive departments and agencies
to keep Congress fully and currently informed. We ask that of them, and
so far we have received their cooperation.
Over the past several weeks, there has been this new interest in the
czars and czarinas in the Obama administration, according to Mr. Beck
and others. Some Members have asked serious questions about the makeup
of the White House staff. The bulk of the noise being heard right now
began with partisan commentators like Mr. Beck, suggesting this is
somehow a new and sinister development that threatens our democracy.
Unfortunately, this czar issue didn't start with the Obama
administration. It goes back much further in history, and it certainly
includes the previous Bush administration, which was not subjected to
an amendment such as is being offered at this moment. Many of the
officials cited by conservative commentators--and I don't include
Senator Collins because I haven't seen her list of 18--are Senate-
confirmed appointees or advisory roles carried over from the Bush White
House. Many are advisers to the President's Cabinet Secretaries. Many
hold policy jobs that existed in the Bush administration. Some hold
jobs that involve coordinating the work of agencies on President
Obama's key policy priorities: health insurance reform, energy and
green jobs, and building a new foundation for a longlasting economic
growth.
I might say that in the past the same concern and furor hasn't
arisen. Darrell Issa, a Congressman from California, was recently on
FOX News and was asked what kind of investigation he had made into the
Bush administration about czars, and he said he hadn't done so. He
hadn't raised any objection, although he now thought it was a pretty
important issue under President Obama. In fact, if you adhere to the
definition of czar held by many Members--and I won't include Senator
Collins in this group but other Members in the Senate--the Bush
administration had 47 czars--budget czars, faith czars, manufacturing
czars, to name a few.
Many of the Members who now decry the practice have called on
Presidents in the past to appoint czars. Senator Robert Bennett of
Utah, a friend and recognized colleague who worked hard on the Y2K
concern, asked for a czar to be appointed, and he said he had worked
with that person to maintain ``bipartisan and across-the-government
communication.'' Even the ranking member of the Appropriations Interior
Subcommittee, Senator Alexander of Tennessee, has had words said about
czars in this administration. But during remarks delivered on the
Senate floor in 2003, captured in the Congressional Record, Senator
Alexander said, ``I would welcome [President Bush's] manufacturing job
czar.'' That same day in the Senate, he also expressed support for
President Bush's AIDS czar, Randall Tobias.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished assistant
Democratic leader if he is aware that the manufacturing czar in
President Bush's time was appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate and testified before the Senate? And I wonder if he is also
aware that the AIDS czar was appointed by the President and confirmed
by the Senate and testified before the Senate?
Senator Collins has been careful--I believe he is aware; I wonder if
he is aware--that she is not talking about any czars whom we confirm
and the President appoints and who testify, and she is only talking
about the 18 new czars under the Obama administration, just as Senator
Byrd did in February.
I wonder if the Senator is aware of those things?
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for the question, and
I am aware of that fact, and I would respond to him, that is why I was
trying to clarify how many czars are in this Muscovite conspiracy
because one of his colleagues from Texas, Senator Hutchison, identified
32, as did Mr.

[[Page S9798]]

Glenn Beck, and they included 16--pardon me, 7 of these so-called czars
are people who have--pardon me, 9 have been confirmed by the Senate. So
it appears that some of your colleagues do not share your definition
that Senator Collins referred to on the floor.
The point I am trying to make is that this is a legitimate inquiry,
it is an important inquiry, but it has been muddled by statements made
by some Members of Congress and certainly by those in the political
commentary realm.
The good news for Senator Alexander and Senator Collins and everyone
else concerned about this issue is that a trusted friend and colleague,
Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has
promised a hearing on this issue. I know he will engage Senator
Collins, as ranking Republican member, on it, and serious questions
which have been presented will be considered by Senator Lieberman. We
respect him in that capacity.
So the reason I am objecting to this amendment isn't because I don't
think Senator Collins has at least a legitimate inquiry, but I think it
should be taken in the greater order of things rather than considered
in this fashion on an appropriations bill.
So, Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Collins
amendment, No. 2498, violates rule XVI, paragraph 4, legislating on an
appropriations bill.
Excuse me, Mr. President, I missed one procedural step.
I call for regular order on the pending Collins amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I now make a point of order that the
Collins amendment, No. 2498, violates rule XVI, paragraph 4, in that it
legislates on an appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader
for his comments, and I want to especially thank the Senator from
Maine.
The Senator from Illinois suggested that the waters had gotten
muddied because some of us didn't count very well in terms of the
number of czars who might exist in the Obama administration. That is
why we are so fortunate to have the Senator from Maine, who is always
careful, always thoughtful, and always experienced. What she has done
is gone back to Senator Byrd's first letter in February, in which he
expressed his concern about the constitutional issues here, and then
she has counted 18 new czars in the Obama administration. Her letter of
September 14 to the President is limited, thoughtful and respectful,
and she simply asks that the President identify the specific
authorities and responsibilities of those positions, the process by
which the administration examines these people, and whether they are
willing to testify before us. She is the ranking member of the
committee Senator Lieberman chairs and will have an opportunity during
the hearings to explore this.
Some of us are concerned that the administration is too dedicated to
too many Washington takeovers, and the unusual number of new czars is
the most visible symbol of the large number of Washington takeovers. I
think we are fortunate that we have as thoughtful a Senator as the
Senator from Maine and an independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe
Lieberman, who will look into it. I am sure Senator Byrd will want to
weigh in. Senator Feingold may want to have a hearing. So we will have
an opportunity to have a thoughtful resolution.
I thank the Senator from Maine for her amendment and her leadership
on this issue, and I look forward to hearing more from her on it.
Madam Chairman, if I could say to the Senator from California, the
Senator from New Mexico has been waiting and the Senator from Louisiana
has been waiting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of
recognition before we move away from this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will be brief. I wish to compliment my
distinguished colleague from Maine on her amendment. It was very well
tailored and very carefully put together. I do think it is a shame that
it won't be able to come to any vote because of this procedural move by
the assistant majority leader.
I want to underscore three points:
No. 1, maybe we can talk about some other universe when we debate the
Beck amendment, but we are not debating the Glenn Beck amendment, we
are talking about the Collins amendment, and we will get to vote on the
Vitter amendment. What all of us have been talking about are appointees
of the President whose offices were not created by statute in any way
and who were never Senate confirmed.
No. 2, I also want to underscore the point that this is clearly a
bipartisan concern, as evidenced by Senator Byrd's letter of February
and the recent comments of Senator Russ Feingold. It is a very serious
and very bipartisan concern.
No. 3, we will have an opportunity to vote on this issue today under
my amendment. The climate change czar is one of those 18, and she
clearly threatens to supercede and overshadow Senate-confirmed Cabinet
members such as the head of EPA. My amendment is very simple. It says
EPA shouldn't have to carry out orders of the climate change czar when
it is supposed to be headed by a Cabinet member, a Senate-confirmed
appointee, directly at EPA.
So again I compliment the Senator from Maine on her efforts. I will
certainly pledge ongoing support on the issue, including through my
amendment.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the
Murkowski amendment. The Murkowski amendment would prohibit the EPA
from using funds under the Clean Air Act to deal with climate change.
I listened earlier today, and I heard the Senator from California,
the chairman of the Appropriations Interior, Environment Subcommittee,
speaking about the issue, and she spoke eloquently. I heard Senator
Boxer, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
speaking about this issue. She also made the very strong point that
this amendment would be ill-advised and irresponsible. And I rise today
to speak to this amendment and to oppose it.
America and the world are face-to-face with a perfect storm--an
energy crisis and a climate crisis that require a do-it-all energy
policy. These two crises are closely linked, and today I would like to
raise one facet of the solution: clean energy incentives.
I strongly believe we should resist efforts to block the Obama
administration actions on clean energy on the fiscal year 2010 Interior
and Environment Appropriations Act or other legislation, for that
matter. If that were to happen, American families and the men and women
in our Armed Forces would be stuck with the bill.
Concerns about the cost of the administration's actions to address
our energy and climate crisis have it exactly backward. The biggest
cost is the cost of inaction--costs families pay at the pump in energy
bills every day; money from their hard-earned paychecks that end up in
the treasuries of foreign countries or foreign oil companies, some of
which are hostile to the United States. In the end, the only people who
will benefit from efforts to block clean energy solutions are members
of OPEC and other special interests in the fossil fuel industry.
To put it simply, our dependence on fossil fuels is a huge drag on
families' pocketbooks and a clear and present danger to our national
security. In 2008, American families and businesses sent $475 billion
overseas to pay for foreign oil. That works out to over $4,000 per
household in America--a massive transfer of wealth from hard-working
families in New Mexico and the other 49 States to the treasuries of
foreign nations. The largest consumer of foreign oil is the U.S.
military, which is engaged in two major conflicts in the Middle East--
an area of strategic importance largely due to its massive oil
reserves.

[[Page S9799]]

Making matters worse, this same reliance on fossil fuels pollutes our
atmosphere with toxic compounds such as sulfur dioxide, soot, and
mercury, alongside greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The global
climate crisis is real. Strong scientific evidence shows unless we
transition to clean energy sources, our home States will pay a heavy
price.
In New Mexico, scientific evidence indicates more devastating forest
fires, droughts, and invasive species caused by climate change.
Luckily, we have numerous cost-effective solutions at hand to address
the energy and climate crisis. My home State of New Mexico and many
other States across the Nation are rich in much cleaner domestic
sources of energy, sources such as wind and solar, geothermal and
natural gas. Several years ago, wind energy was unusual but today these
projects are quite common. Wind projects create thousands of U.S. jobs
in the steel, manufacturing, and construction sectors.
The United States is now installing over a gigawatt of solar power
each year and there are six other gigawatts of concentrated solar power
projects planned nationally, particularly in the Southwest.
U.S. natural gas reserves have also increased by 35 percent in 1
year, an increase that gives our Nation a century's worth of supply.
While natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is significantly cleaner than
either coal or oil, and much more abundant.
Despite these improvements, we continue to waste tremendous amounts
of energy. Government and industry studies have found that the right
investments could save energy and more than $1 trillion at the same
time. Energy efficiency does not mean turning down the heater in the
winter. Rather, efficiency means investments in building technologies
such as advanced windows, insulation, and smart electric grids that do
not waste energy or money. Improving our efficiency on a major scale
would also save more than 1 billion tons of greenhouse gases, proving
we can address the global climate crisis without increasing costs on
families.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration was
required by the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution that is causing
our climate crisis, but the Bush administration failed to act. Congress
should not put the Obama administration in handcuffs when the President
is trying to change course and follow the law. To those who worry that
the administration action could short circuit debate on these issues in
Congress, nothing could be further from the truth. I agree that
Congress should act and set a comprehensive clean energy incentive
policy. Numerous Cabinet Secretaries from the administration have
testified that they welcome congressional action to create a path
forward on clean energy. For Congress to block the administration and
to fail to act itself would be the height of irresponsibility.
Our energy and climate crisis have the same root cause. The Senate
should address both challenges with the same cost-effective solutions--
incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. That is why
efforts to block the Obama administration from acting on climate change
are so dangerous. Such efforts continue our reliance on fossil fuels
that hurt family budgets, threaten our national security, and pollute
our atmosphere.
The bottom line is America needs a ``do it all'' energy policy, one
that includes all the tools in our energy toolbox--more alternative
energies and a commitment to conservation; increased domestic oil
production, including offshore; investments in clean coal research and
technology; and nuclear power has to be part of the mix. Energy and
climate change are one of the defining challenges of our time--our
perfect storm. We have the tools to fix the problem. Now we need the
will to act, not to obstruct.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to make some comments based on
the comments the Senator from New Mexico raised.
He talked about $4,000 a year in terms of imported oil into this
country and then he talked about we needed to do offshore exploration,
but I note for the Record he voted against an opportunity to expand
offshore exploration yesterday. You can't have it both ways. If we are
going to get off oil and hydrocarbons, it is going to take us 25 years.
But when we have an opportunity to decrease that cost of $4,000 per
family and use American oil, we do not have the same consistency as the
rhetoric when it comes to the votes. I think the Record needs to show
that although the Senator claims that, when he had the opportunity
yesterday to vote in a way to expand domestic offshore exploration, he
voted against that opportunity.
I wish to take this time to bring up several amendments and make them
pending. I thank the chairman of the committee and staff for working
with us. We will try to make this as painless as possible and do it in
as short a period of time as possible, but I have been down here for
the last 4 days, every day, trying to get things done and unable to get
them done. So I am going to take adequate time to explain these
amendments and also explain a couple of amendments I agreed not to
offer but I think it pertinent the American people hear about.

Amendment No. 2463

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

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

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

(Purpose: To require public disclosure of certain reports)

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

Amendment No. 2523

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

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

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

(Purpose: To secure our borders and protect our environment)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

Amendment No. 2483

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

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

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

[[Page S9800]]

(Purpose: To help preserve America's national parks and other public
land treasures by reducing maintenance backlogs that threaten the
health and safety of visitors)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. MAINTENANCE BACKLOG.

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

Amendment No. 2482

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

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

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

(Purpose: To protect property owners from being included without their
knowledge or consent in the Federal preservation and promotion
activities of any National Heritage Area)

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

northern plains heritage area, amendment

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

Amendment No. 2511

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

Amendment No. 2511, As Modified

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

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will try to do this, to save some time,
in the shortest amount of time I can. I also thank the chairman of this
committee for working with me.
There are several amendments I did not offer. I want to spend a
couple of minutes talking about those because I think the American
people need to hear about them.
Less than a block from this building is the Belmont House. It is a
foundation. It is a beautiful building. It has $4 million in the bank,
the foundation does. There is an earmark in this bill at this time of a
$1.8 trillion deficit, of a 16-percent increase in this bill. The
Senator, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, is sending $1 million to that
building. They have the money in the bank but we are still going to
take $1 million from our grandkids and send it there. I am not offering
that amendment in conjunction with having the pleasure of the chairman
consider my other amendments. But the American people need to know that
kind of thing is going on. It is absolutely not indicated. Who uses
that building? We do,

[[Page S9801]]

for fundraisers. We do for events. We do for social events. In fact,
there is a high price paid when you rent it. But what we are going to
do, without regard to what our fiscal situation is, is we are going to
send another $1 million as though it is a peanut and send it to that
building. That is all I will say on it, but to me it is one of the
reasons why this Congress, and we in particular as Members of the
Senate, lack the respect of the American people.
The other amendment I am not going to offer that was objected to by
the chairman of the Resources Committee is for us to know what kind of
land we own. We don't know, since 2005, how much land we have or where
we own it.
Supposedly the BLM puts out something. Supposedly the Geological
Survey puts something out. But there is not a concise list of the land
that the Federal Government owns--and it is somewhere in excess of a
third of all the land of this country--and it is 650 million acres. In
this bill is another $300 million--almost $400 million--to buy more
land. At the same time, the National Park Service has a backlog of $11
billion. We do not have one national park that does not have
significant factors of erosion and dilapidation that is now putting
both the employees and park visitors at risk. Yet we are going to spend
$400 million to buy more land, to require more of their services to
take care of, rather than to take care of what we have. It does not fit
with common sense.
There is no way the American people as a whole would embrace that
kind of stupidity. Yet that is in this bill. We are going to buy more
land, we are going to take more land off the tax rolls, we are going to
hurt the States, we are going to limit the ability of property owners,
and we are going to continue--the Park Service, this year, their
backlog grew by over $400 million.
We have the Carlsbad Caverns where we had sewage leaking into the
cavern. I won't spend the time to go through the hundreds of examples
the Park Service has given us, that they cannot maintain the parks
because we will not send them the money to do it. We would rather spend
it on an earmark or buy more land. The priorities here are amazing.
Let me talk about amendment No. 2511. I will spend a short period on
it. That is the competitive bidding amendment. We have carefully
crafted that with the concerns of both staff and the chairman and
ranking member of this committee. What it says is we are going to use
competitive bidding, much like the President campaigned, when we go to
buy things that are approved in this bill. We very carefully exempted
the sections of the Native Americans where their sovereignty reigns,
where we would not step on their sovereignty--although I am not sure we
should not require them to competitively bid, but we agreed not to do
that.
Here is what we do know. If you take different branches of the
Federal Government, about 5 percent of the costs are excessive because
we do not have competitive bidding. If you take the Pentagon, it is
about $20 billion a year because we do not have competitive bidding. In
the Interior it is much smaller. But any penny we can save, in terms of
enhancing the value of the American taxpayers' dollars by saying what
we buy is going to be competitively bid, we ought to do that. We ought
to get the best value we can. We may not always get great value but at
least we are going to have a competitive bid and we are at least going
to have everybody in that who is qualified to have a shot at some of
that business. So it is a ``two-fer.'' It is, No. 1, better value for
the American people but also opening up all this to everybody who has a
opportunity to offer a service when the Federal Government buys it.
With that, we have an agreement and I appreciate the chairman
accepting that amendment.
Amendment No. 2463 is an amendment for the public to see all the
reports required by this bill if, in fact, that will not in any way
compromise national security. I think we have worked out an agreement
on that amendment to where that is going to be accepted. It is about
transparency.
We ought to make sure the American people see what we are doing, and
if we ask for a report that will not in any way endanger the security
of this country that comes back to us, there is no reason the American
people should not be able to see that and we make it available to them
so they can make a judgment to judge us on what we are doing and
whether we are responding properly to problems identified in such
reports.
So I am very thankful for the chairman in terms of accepting this
amendment. I look forward to her comments on it. We should do the same
thing with this amendment as we did with the last one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to do the same thing.
If I may, Senator Coburn's amendment No. 2463, he and I have come to an
agreement.
I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment be agreed to and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2463) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.

Amendment No. 2523

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

[[Page S9802]]

Border Patrol officers and field supervisory Border Patrol agents who
testified in Congress last April about what is going on in our
wilderness areas.
Do you realize that these people, because we do not have law
enforcement in there, they are setting fires in our wilderness areas to
distract us to the fire so they can smuggle contraband and humans while
we are addressing the fire?
Our wilderness areas are being defiled near McAllen, TX. It relates:
When a wilderness area or refuge is established near the border, the
criminal element moves in and trashes it because the restrictive
wilderness or refuge status accorded to these lands effectively
prevents all law enforcement from effectively working the area.
This is Border Patrol:

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

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

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

I will not use the words that he does.

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

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

Eagle Forum,

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

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, if I may say through the Chair to
the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, the manager of the amendment
and I are prepared to take the amendment. Moreover, we are prepared to
convene a meeting between the two Department heads, have you present,
and sit down and see what we can work out.

[[Page S9803]]

Mr. COBURN. Well, that is perfectly acceptable to me. I want the
problem solved. I think security is just as important as protecting our
environment. We are not going to allow one to trump the other.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We will accept the amendment on both sides with the
stricture I just added to it on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2523) was agreed to.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam President.

Amendment No. 2483

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

[[Page S9804]]

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

Amendment No. 2504, as Modified

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

Amendment No. 2504, as Further Modified

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2535

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2527

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2527) was agreed to.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I come to the floor because we were
looking at an amendment earlier today that would have stopped the EPA
from exercising its obligation to combat global warming pollution.
There are those here who would choose to defer taking action to deal
with this enormous threat where future generations' lives and well-
being would be at risk. But the time for delay is a luxury we don't
have. We can't afford to wait any longer and we cannot afford to limit
our options.

Every day the science makes it more clear we are on a dangerous
course. In fact, the scientific community has recently had to revise
its own estimates because rising temperatures are destabilizing our
planet far faster than originally expected. For instance, 2 years ago,
scientists warned us that summers in the Arctic would be completely ice
free by 2050. Now they are saying summers in the Arctic will be
completely ice free in 3 years. Two years ago they said sea levels
would rise less than 2 feet by the end of this century and now it is
being said sea levels will rise by 6 feet. The risks of inaction are
too great.
We have to look also at the national security risks we face by
continuing to do nothing about climate change. According to the CIA's
National Intelligence Council, if we fail to act, nearly 1 billion
people may face water and food shortages in the next 15 years. These
shortages will set the stage for conflict and breed conditions for
terrorism. At the same time, with 20 percent of the world's population
living in

[[Page S9805]]

coastal zones, rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes could displace
more than 150 million people by 2050. When it is expressed in
percentages such as that and talking about numbers that are almost
beyond the imagination, it sometimes loses its impact. But what we are
talking about are people seeking higher-level places to take themselves
and their families so they are not overwhelmed by floods.
Border pressures created by these mass migrations will increase
tensions and lay the groundwork for armed conflict. The U.S. Navy has
looked at this problem in the past and issued a report that in the last
half of the 21st century we could be looking at a different structure
for naval engagements with smaller boats, higher speeds, and so forth
to keep people from flooding our shores because they are trying to get
away from higher water. Nations will look to us, to the United States,
as a first responder in the aftermath of these major natural
emergencies and humanitarian disasters.
Retired GEN Anthony Zinni put it this way, that if we don't begin
reducing carbon emissions now, we will ``pay the price later in
military terms and that will involve human lives.''
Delay is not a substitute for confronting this growing problem. It is
no surprise that many of those who want to shelve the Clean Air Act and
stop EPA from doing its duty are the same ones who close their eyes to
the overwhelming scientific evidence that says, Wake up, hear the
alarm. They have dismissed the ominous forecasts of life changes for
plants, animals, and humans. They called global warming ``the greatest
hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'' A hoax is a joke. That
is a bad joke.
Let's not forget, the EPA's power to curb greenhouse gas emissions
under the Clean Air Act was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court. The
Clean Air Act has been one of the great success stories of our lifetime
and it is one of the few tools we have to overcome climate change. For
the last 40 years, this law has led to cleaner skies and healthier
children. If it weren't for the Clean Air Act, 225,000 Americans would
have died prematurely, according to an EPA study. Imagine, we would
have lost 225,000 people if it weren't for the Clean Air Act.
While the gains have been enormous, the cost to polluters has been
minimal. In fact, the total benefits to our economy have been
identified as high as $49 trillion, putting the benefit at 100 times
greater than the cost for action. Even so, history shows that opponents
often dramatically overstate the costs of environmental improvement.
The last time we strengthened the Clean Air Act, our adversaries rang
the alarm that these changes would cost too much and damage the
economy. But as it turned out, the actual costs were less than one-
fifth of what these opponents estimated. Today, even though EPA has a
proven track record of producing trillions in benefits for our economy
and our country under the Clean Air Act, we are hearing the same kinds
of warnings. It makes no sense.
There is no doubt our opponents prefer to endorse inaction and will
reward failure. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up to the
special interests and stand for the public interest. It is time to say
from our hearts that we are willing to stand firm against those who
claim the overstated cost of change outweighs the risk of disappearing
species, poor health, and international unrest.
With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I wish to put my colleagues on notice
that we are trying to work out an amendment so it can be acceptable to
all parties concerned. It has to do with the heritage areas. If, in
fact, you are a landowner in this country or you are a farmer or you
are a rancher or you happen to have 20 acres in the country, you ought
to be very worried about the implications and the consequences of those
who come in and change the zoning laws on heritage areas.
Most people in this country have no idea they are in a heritage area.
They have no knowledge that they are in a heritage area. As a matter of
fact, the whole State of Tennessee is a heritage area. So what we are
attempting to do is to create a mechanism where anybody in the country
who is in a heritage area who doesn't want to be in it can be out of it
with their property.
We also want to respectfully protect some efforts in North Dakota on
one specifically where they would have to opt in. So we are working on
an agreement. We will come back and talk about this when this is
finished. Hopefully, this is the start of restoring property rights to
Americans that have been trampled, in my opinion, by those who are
empowered through the heritage area name.

My hope is we are going to make good progress on this with this bill.
It is important. If you are a farmer or a rancher, if you are a farm
bureau member, if you are a cattleman or if you are a dairy farmer, it
is time to make sure this stays--whatever agreement we come to--in this
bill as it goes to conference. Because real property rights are at
risk. They have been at risk. They have been trampled on. This is a
great solution in terms of solving it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from
Oklahoma, the Senator from California, the Senator from North Dakota,
and the Senator from New Mexico for their work on this amendment. The
Senator from Oklahoma stated it exactly right, and that is our
intention. I wish to thank the Senators involved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am in support of the amendment offered
by the Senator from Oklahoma. I also offered an amendment which I
understand will be accepted. It allows for something called an ``opt
in'' for private property. It means that for the Northern Plains
Heritage Area, private property would be involved only if someone
wishes to be included. My understanding is, after having worked with
the Senators from Tennessee and Oklahoma, and the Senator from
California, who is managing this bill, my amendment will also be
accepted by unanimous consent.
My amendment is amendment No. 2441 which has previously been filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, in the interest of moving things
along--Members are impatient. We have been on this bill for a long
time. We wish to conclude. It is my understanding both sides are
agreeable to take the Dorgan amendment No. 2441, so I ask for unanimous
consent.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma has asked
to be present when we do that, so I wonder if it might not be possible
to take up other amendments at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I withdraw my prior request and I ask
unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock tonight, the Senate proceed to vote
in relation to the following amendments and motion to recommit
remaining in order to H.R. 2996, the Interior Appropriations Act, and
in the following order:
The Vitter amendment, No. 2549; the Ensign motion to recommit; the
Coburn amendment No. 2482; the Coburn amendment No. 2483; and the Reid
amendment No. 2531; that the remaining provisions of the previous order
are still in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the exercise of governmental authority
by White House advisers, sometimes called ``czars,'' is a serious issue
that deserves serious consideration by the Senate. Our ability to
conduct meaningful oversight of those who hold the levers of power and
to evaluate whether they have the qualifications and character to carry
out their duties may be undermined by the centralization of power in
the White House. That is why I wrote to the President recently and plan
to chair a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee on this topic in
the very near future. We need to know

[[Page S9806]]

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]

YEAS--57

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

NAYS--41

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

NOT VOTING--1

Byrd

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

Motion to Recommit

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

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

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]

YEAS--64

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

NAYS--34

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

NOT VOTING--1

Byrd

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

Amendment No. 2482, As Modified

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

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

[[Page S9807]]

Amendment No. 2441

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2483

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]

YEAS--79

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

NAYS--19

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

NOT VOTING--1

Byrd

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

Amendment No. 2531

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

tahoe rim trail

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to provide additional
clarification regarding a congressionally directed spending items
included in the fiscal year 2010 Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee. At Senator Reid's request, the committee included
$100,000 for the U.S. Forest Service to fund trail improvements in
Nevada. It is my understanding that Senator Reid intended those funds
to be used for improvements for the Tahoe Rim Trail, to be conducted
through a partnership with the Tahoe Rim Trail Association. Due to a
clerical error, the project is not listed correctly in the committee
report, and I would like to ensure that the Record clearly reflects
Senator Reid's intended use for these funds. Through the chair, I would
like to ask my colleague from Nevada, the distinguished majority
leader, if my understanding of his intent is correct?
Mr. REID. I would like to thank the chairman for her efforts to
clarify this matter Chairman Feinstein is correct, I do intend that the
funds recommended by the committee be used by the U.S. Forest Service
for improvements to the Tahoe Rim Trail through their partnership with
the Tahoe Rim Trail Association. I would also note for the record that
my request complies fully with all disclosure requirements relating to
congressionally directed spending.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his
clarification and I look forward to working with him to support his
project as we move through the annual appropriations process.

[[Page S9808]]

FUNDING RCAPs

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

White Nose Syndrome

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

Clean Automotive Technology

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the
distinguished chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies a very important program in my State.
The Environmental Protection Agency's National Vehicle and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI, leads EPA's Clean Automotive
Technology Program by facilitating collaboration with the automotive
industry through innovative research to achieve ultra low-pollution
emissions, increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases.
One of the programs that has been developed collaboratively through
the Ann Arbor laboratory and its industry partners is the hydraulic
hybrid technology which has come out of the laboratory's focus areas in
hydraulic hybrid research, engine research, alternative fuels research
and technical and analytical support. This technology offers potential
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget increases the Climate
Protection Program line in EPA's budget, which includes this facility,
and I appreciate the subcommittee's concurrence with the request in the
bill before the Senate.
It is my understanding that the version of the bill adopted by the
House of Representatives provides an additional $1.6 million over the
fiscal year 2010 budget request. Is that also the understanding of the
Senator from California?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is correct. The President's budget
proposed $18.975 million for the Climate Protection Program, and that
is the same amount proposed in this bill. The House of Representatives
approved $20.575 million.
Mr. LEVIN. I hope to provide additional funding for this program in
order to fund a demonstration program to deploy hybrid hydraulic
technology in larger fleet vehicles, such as school buses.
Demonstration of this hybrid hydraulic technology, through its
incorporation into a fleet of school buses, would not only bring these
fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly technologies closer to
wide-scale viability and acceptance but also provide EPA with important
data to support its work in developing achievable standards for fuel
economy and greenhouse gas emissions.
As the conference committee considers the differences between the
House and Senate bills, I am hopeful that the additional $1.6 million
included in the House bill will be maintained and that serious
consideration will be given to directing this funding to demonstration
of the hybrid hydraulic technology I have described.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the Senator from Michigan bringing this
to my attention and I assure him that I will keep his suggestions in
mind as this bill progresses.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished Senator.

New York's Northeastern States Research Cooperative Funding

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my
colleague from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I thank the chairman for entering into a colloquy

[[Page S9809]]

with me and for her hard work on this bill. I want to discuss the need
to add New York to the list of States included for Northeastern States
Research Cooperative Funding.
The Northeastern States Research Cooperative, NSRC, was originally
authorized by Congress in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Research Act of 1978 and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The
clear intent of Congress in creating the NSRC was to fund a competitive
grants research program shared by the four states of the cooperative,
New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York.
The original intent of Congress was to have all four States jointly
funded by the enacted authorization of this act. Unfortunately, New
York has been left out of the Forest Service budget requests this year.
Funding through this cooperative will maintain critical forestry
research programs in New York State. For instance, the State University
of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry has received
funding through this program in the past that has provided research,
technology transfer and outreach to coordinate and improve ecological
and economic vitality of the northeastern forests of New York, Vermont,
New Hampshire and Maine.
The NSRC's research is critical to the economic vitality of and
quality-of-life in the 18.5 million acres of the New York's forested
land.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this
to my attention and I will certainly look into this matter during
conference negotiations.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I thank the chairman for her help and for her
leadership.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I would like to correct the
record regarding some recent remarks of Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
regarding offshore drilling. Senator Coburn stated in today's debate
that I ``voted against an opportunity to expand offshore exploration
yesterday.''
First, the Senator's comments are somewhat confusing because there
were no votes yesterday that would have opened up even one acre of our
offshore public lands to oil exploration. Instead, I believe that
Senator Coburn may have been referring to yesterday's motion to
recommit by Senator Vitter of Louisiana.
I opposed the Vitter motion yesterday because it was counter-
productive. By using political interference in offshore permitting, it
would have actually created serious delays. Supporters of the Vitter
motion talked about their desire to expand offshore oil drilling, but
the motion set up major legal obstacles to developing our natural
resources.
The motion was vaguely drafted, but it could have blocked funding
from being used to review the over 300,000 public comments received.
The motion also could have blocked the Secretary from considering facts
and scientific evidence regarding the decision he needs to make.
I opposed the Vitter motion because the only way that we can legally
access our public lands for natural resources is by due process. If we
block the Department of Interior from following due process, that only
serves to delay the process with litigation.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I
filed to the Interior appropriations bill, and in doing so, I hope to
remind my colleagues about their responsibility as federally elected
representatives of the citizens of the United States. The U.S.
Constitution, the document written by the people to empower and limit
government, specifically gives the Congress the power to make the laws
that direct this government. The first section of the first article of
the Constitution states ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives.'' The people also established an
executive power and a judicial power, but put the lawmaking power
specifically into the hands of Congress
I would invite my colleagues to consider for a moment, and to remind
themselves, why the people put the control of the Nation's laws into
the hands of Congress, and not to the other branches of government. It
is because Congress is directly answerable to the people. For members
of Congress, there is no escape from the people. Our founding document
ensures that we routinely have elections whereby lawmakers face the
citizens who sent them here. By limiting legislative powers to
Congress, the people have secured this power to themselves. So we see
that the people are willing to live under laws, but only to the extent
that those laws are their own.
This is a principle upon which our Nation was founded. This is a
principle upon which we have achieved our status as a great nation. It
is a principle that has made our government an inspiration to
generations of free minds throughout the world. And I believe it is a
principle that is being weakened on our watch during the 111th
Congress.
In April of 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA, by
a 5 to 4 margin, that the Environmental Protection Agency could act to
regulate carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant from vehicles under
the Clean Air Act without further authorization from Congress. And it
is widely believed that this decision allows the EPA to also regulate
carbon dioxide emissions from all other sources, as well, without
further action from Congress.
I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA
and even consider it ill-informed in some respects. However, I don't
question the role of the Court to make such a decision. After all, the
people did, in fact, give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to
interpret the laws of Congress.
Furthermore, I disagree with the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide
poses an endangerment to humans and that it is a pollutant. Unlike
conventional pollutants, CO<inf>2</inf> does not normally cause direct
harm to our environment or to our bodies. It is considered an
endangerment only because it has the potential as a greenhouse gas to
warm the planet. What seems to be completely lost by the EPA, is that
most scientists will tell you that a warming climate is a net benefit,
while a cooling climate is a net detriment to life on Earth.
If greenhouse gases and warming are detrimental to life, then why
doesn't the EPA propose to regulate water vapor? Water vapor makes up
95 percent of all greenhouse gases, and a cubic foot of water vapor has
a much stronger warming factor than a cubit foot of carbon dioxide?
Those are just a couple questions that haven't been answered
sufficiently, in my view. And so I disagree with the EPA's finding that
carbon dioxide is an endangerment. In spite of that, I do recognize
that the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Clean Air Act
in a way that allows the EPA to make this finding.
However, I doubt that any of my colleagues can honestly say that when
Congress voted for the Clean Air Act in 1970, that we intended that
carbon dioxide should be regulated as a pollutant. But now we are
witnessing the EPA initiating a process to that end which will lead to
the most sweeping, and probably most expensive set of regulations in
our nation's history, with no specific authorization from Congress to
do so.
Is it the proper role of Congress to sit by and allow an independent
agency, with nary an elected official within its walls to take over
every single energy producing activity in the Nation? Could there be a
more dramatic and sweeping centralization of government power than the
move to control all carbon dioxide emissions? And are we, as the
elected body representing the people going to hide behind a decision by
a Supreme Court and just watch it happen? While technically, the
Supreme Court and the EPA are acting within their jurisdictions and
authority. Certainly, though, with such far reaching regulations,
Congress has a responsibility to put these actions back under the
direct authority of Congress, and thus back into the hands of the
people.
My amendment would do just that. It would bar the EPA from moving
forward with these far reaching regulations until Congress has
expressly authorized such an action. I urge my colleagues to restore
Congress and the people to their proper role over laws that relate to
the regulation of carbon dioxide, and support my amendment.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
fiscal

[[Page S9810]]

year 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. I wish to thank subcommittee Chairman Feinstein and
Ranking Member Alexander, as well as committee Chairman Inouye and Vice
Chairman Cochran, for their work on this bill.
This bill will fund important programs at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, Indian Health Service,
Forest Service, Smithsonian Institution, National Endowment for the
Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities. Consequently, it
addresses critical needs related to public lands management,
environmental protection, Indian Country, and cultural education. I am
pleased with the inclusion of a number of initiatives for which I
requested funding and that I believe will be of great benefit to Hawaii
and our Nation. Therefore, I am very thankful that my colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee recognized the need of these programs and
backed them with unanimous committee approval. I would like to take
this opportunity to discuss these important initiatives.
The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, which was signed
into law earlier this year, includes a bill I introduced in the 110th
Congress to authorize appropriations for the National Tropical
Botanical Garden, NTBG. Chartered by Congress in 1964, the NTBG
collects, cultivates, and preserves tropical flora and conducts
research in tropical botany. The NTBG's work has advanced disease
treatment, world hunger prevention, and medical education. Funding in
this appropriations bill will allow the NTBG to continue to help
protect, propagate, and study tropical species that could permit
additional scientific advances but are threatened with extinction.
The bill will also fund the establishment and construction of a
research and education center for the Hawaii Experimental Tropical
Forest, HETF. The Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act, which I
sponsored and became law in 1992, authorized the establishment of the
HETF to be managed as a site for research and education on tropical
forestry, conservation biology, and natural resource management. HETF
has been home to dozens of research projects since its establishment,
and it has been selected as one of the National Science Foundation's 20
core wildland sites of the National Ecological Observatory Network and
a site of the Forest Service's Experimental Forest and Range Synthesis
Network. Construction of the center will further HETF's mission to
improve the conservation and scientific understanding of tropical
forests, a natural resource of global significance.
The James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge will receive funding in
this bill to help provide for the acquisition of the remaining parcels
on Oahu's northern shore to complete the expansion of the Refuge. The
expansion would add approximately 1,100 acres and ensure protection of
the largest natural coastal wetland and last remaining natural coastal
dune ecosystem on Oahu. It is a premier endangered Hawaiian waterbird
recovery area and supports four endangered Hawaiian waterbirds and a
variety of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. I was pleased to be an
original cosponsor of the 2005 legislation that authorized such
expansion and believe that securing the remaining parcels will aid in
preserving the wetland's natural floodwater retention function.
In addition, the invasive species management project in Hawaii
included in this bill will help to reduce the impact of established
invasive species in the State and support ongoing efforts to prevent
the introduction of new ones. Hawaii's delicate insular ecosystems are
home to over 300 endangered species, which is more than any other
State, and the primary factor limiting their recovery and contributing
to their decline in Hawaii is the continued presence of ecologically
harmful invasive species. Thus, continued vigilance and action is
needed to safeguard these species and their habitats, which are so
important both nationally, in terms of biodiversity, and locally, in
terms of agriculture, tourism, and culture.
I am also pleased the funding in this appropriations bill that will
support the Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts Program, NHCAP, which
preserves, supports, revitalizes, and develops Native Hawaiian arts and
culture. NHCAP's efforts are focused on assisting Native Hawaiians to
be practitioners of their culture and to share knowledge of and
celebrate Hawaiian art and culture. NHCAP projects include educational
programs, exhibits, publications, and increased access to the Bishop
Museum's vast cultural collections of artifacts, documents, and images.
These projects foster Native Hawaiian cultural preservation, create
important educational opportunities for youth, and promote the sort of
understanding necessary in a multicultural nation and increasingly
interconnected world.
As population grows on islands with limited freshwater resources,
information to evaluate the sustainability of water resources is needed
to make informed decisions that balance environmental protection with
economic opportunity. The resources that this bill supports for well
monitoring and water assessment in my State will enable continued work
with stakeholders to provide information on water resources so that
they can be managed in a sustainable and legally compliant basis. It
will also provide for the operation of stream gauges, which supply data
important to signaling flood conditions, improving long-term planning,
examining climate change, and measuring water availability and quality.
In all, funding for our national priorities in such areas as
environmental protection, Federal lands, and cultural education is
complemented in this bill by these six Hawaii programs that drive
progress on research, education, planning, and preservation related to
natural and cultural resources across my home state for the benefit of
my constituents and the country as a whole. Again, I thank my
colleagues for their support of these initiatives and urge continued
support in conference.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for this bill to provide $32
billion in funding for a variety of important environmental and
infrastructure purposes. This bill would provide clean drinking water,
prevent pollution from contaminating our precious natural resources,
clean up hazardous waste sites, protect lands for habitat preservation
and recreation, improve vehicle efficiency, and help restore the Great
Lakes.
I am pleased this bill includes $400 million for Great Lakes
restoration and protection efforts through a new effort called the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI. The GLRI is a multiagency
effort to address the array of current and historic threats facing the
Great Lakes including invasive aquatic species, nonpoint source
pollution, and contaminated sediment.
While I appreciate the significant investment in the Great Lakes, I
have encouraged the bill managers to provide the full funding requested
for the GLRI. The President requested $475 million for the GLRI, and
the Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a spending plan for
the full funding. Full funding is needed now and would be well spent.
A 2003 GAO report on Great Lakes federal restoration programs stated:
``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes
Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased
threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with
toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently,
scientists report that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress
due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive
species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and
changes to how water flows. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes
scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have
combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which
ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the
traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected
ecosystem response.''
The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We must recognize
that we are only their temporary stewards. If Congress does not act to
keep pace with the needs of the lakes, and the tens of millions of
Americans dependent upon them and affected by their condition, the
problems will continue

[[Page S9811]]

to build and we may start to undo some of the important work that has
already been done and is underway. We must be good stewards by
providing the resources that the Federal Government needs to meet its
ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This bill
will help us meet that great responsibility to future generations.
Importantly, the bill would provide $1.4 billion to capitalize the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and $2.1 billion for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund for wastewater projects. The funding in the
Senate bill more than doubles the amount provided in the fiscal year
2009 bill. I had urged appropriators to provide this increase because
Michigan's water infrastructure needs are sizable. Michigan would
receive about $41 million for drinking water and $88 million for
wastewater projects, protecting public health, improving the
environment, and creating a stronger economic climate.
I am also pleased this bill provides $2.7 billion for our National
Park Service, an increase of $200 million from last year's level, which
I supported. Michigan has six national park units, and this funding
would help ensure these resources are adequately maintained and
protected. The national parks have been struggling for years with
inadequate funding and large maintenance and construction backlogs.
This funding would help meet these needs so that our Nation's natural
and cultural heritage is preserved. Over a million people visited
Michigan's national parks last year, and it is important that visitors
find our parks in good condition and that we do the same for future
generations.
I am pleased to see this bill includes the President's fiscal year
2010 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency's Climate
Protection Program, which includes the Clean Automotive Technology
Program. EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann
Arbor, MI, leads the Clean Automotive Technology Program by
facilitating collaboration with the automotive industry through
innovative research to achieve ultra low-pollution emissions, increase
fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases. An example of the work
done collaboratively through this program at the Ann Arbor laboratory
with its industry partners is development of hydraulic hybrid
technology that offers potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
50 percent. The House bill includes an additional $1.6 million for the
Climate Protection Program, and I am hopeful this additional funding
will be maintained in conference and that serious consideration will be
given to directing this funding to deployment of hybrid hydraulic
technology in larger fleet vehicles, such as schoolbuses.
Mr. President, this appropriations bill would protect our natural
resources and the Great Lakes in particular, provide communities with
safe drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, improve fuel
efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases, and protect and improve public
lands and parks, and I support its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my understanding is that the next vote will
be final passage on the Interior appropriations bill. I want to alert
all Members and give them kind of a suggestion of what the schedule is
going to be.
First of all, people are asking about the Finance Committee. I have
spoken to Chairman Baucus. The Finance Committee is going to work late
tonight. They are going to come in in the morning and work, and then
they will make a decision how long they are going to work tomorrow and
whether they go into the weekend.
The next item of business will be the Department of Defense
appropriations bill. Tonight will be debate only. There will be no
votes on Friday. The Defense appropriations managers will be here for
amendments and debate.
This is one of the most important bills we deal with every year.
There will be no votes on Monday. It is one of the high holidays, Yom
Kippur. The Defense managers will be here to continue consideration of
the bill. We are not going to be in session on Monday, not on the
holiday. I do not think that would be appropriate. People are traveling
that day. I do not think it is fair.
There will be votes on Tuesday. It will be like a regular Monday.
There will be no votes before 5:30. I would hope if people have
amendments on this Defense bill they will lay them down. We want to
move on this as quickly as possible. We know there are lots of
important subjects people want to talk about.
Wednesday, September 30, is the end of the fiscal year. We have a
number of things we must do before the end of the fiscal year. We are
going to have a CR. We have to extend FAA authority and other issues.
All of the chairmen and ranking members know what they are and we have
discussed them on the Senate floor.
Next week will be an extremely busy week. I am hopeful in the next
few days the Finance Committee will complete their work on the Finance
health care bill, and I hope we do not have to do anything dealing with
reconciliation on that. We have made progress this week.
Members this week working on this bill have been very cooperative. We
have two wonderful managers on this Interior appropriations bill. They
have worked well together and done a good job.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Before you call the roll, I just want to thank the
distinguished ranking member. A lot of cooperation went into this bill
or it would have taken a lot longer.
I thank particularly the staff: Peter Kiefhaber, Virginia James,
Scott Dalzell, Rachael Taylor, Chris Watkins; on the Republican side,
Lee Fonnesbeck, Rachelle Schroeder, and Rebecca Benn. We thank you very
much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. In 60 seconds I would like to thank Chairman Feinstein
for being so accommodating working with Republican Members. I would
like to thank my colleagues for moving this bill along. Senators
Cochran, Inouye, Reid, and McConnell have been terrific. The staff
members, Peter and Rachael and Scott; on our side, Leif and Rachelle
and Rebecca. We thank you for your hard work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the committee
substitute, as amended, is agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2445

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

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

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

amendment no. 2445

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On Page S9811, September 24, 2009, the Record reads: amendment
no. 604

The online Record has been corrected to read: amendment no. 2445

========================= END NOTE =========================

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

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

SEC. 423. TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
committee amendment in the nature of

[[Page S9812]]

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]

YEAS--77

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

NAYS--21

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

NOT VOTING--1

Byrd

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

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On Page S9812, September 24, the following appears in the
Record: The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Senators Feinstein, Byrd,
Leahy, Dorgan, Mikulski, Kohl, Johnson, Reed, Nelson of Nebraska,
Tester, Inouye, Alexander, Cochran, Bennett, Gregg, Murkowski, and
Collins . . .

The online Record has been corrected to read: The PRESIDING
OFFICER appointed Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, Mr. Tester, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Bond . . .

========================= END NOTE =========================

____________________