Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act

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

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.

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.

I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I know Senator Boxer, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has an hour reserved to come and speak.

First, I will respond to the comments of the distinguished Senator from Alaska. I hope she will understand there are many of us who have viewed her amendment with substantial alarm, for reasons that I thought I might spend a few moments speaking about.

Essentially, as I understood the amendment, which was blocked from coming to the floor, it attempted to prohibit the EPA from using any funds to enforce the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources.

The proponents have argued that their only goal was to protect small family-owned farms and businesses from overly burdensome regulations. Yet the amendment would have gone much further. In fact, it would actually exempt some of the Nation's largest commercial emitters from climate

change regulation, including huge industrial facilities, such as powerplants and refineries.

I am very pleased that this amendment is not before us today. The underlying rationale, as I understand it from the amendment, is groundless. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has made it clear that the agency will not use the Clean Air Act to regulate either small businesses or family-owned farms. I was prepared, should the amendment have come up, to put down a side-by-side amendment that would have clearly exempted any farm, as well as any business, that emits under 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.

Let me point this out. Stationary industrial sources account for over half of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to EPA. These are the leading cause of climate change, and they must be reduced if we have any hope of containing the worst impact of climate change. The amendment would have hampered the administration's effort to tackle one of the biggest pieces of the emissions puzzle: large industrial facilities. It would have been a major setback.

Thirdly, the amendment would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that decision, the Court found that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to determine whether the emissions of greenhouse gases may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and then comply with the Clean Air Act requirements designed to protect public health from dangerous pollution.

Upon completion of an endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to control greenhouse gases from both stationary and mobile sources.

Many argue--and I happen to agree--that regulating the largest greenhouse gas emitters through new legislation, establishing a cap- and-trade system, would be more efficient and less expensive than regulating these sources under the existing Clean Air Act.

But until Congress enacts climate change legislation, EPA has a legal obligation to follow the Clean Air Act. So if one does not want EPA to take action under the Clean Air Act, then this body should want to pass a cap-and-trade bill.

The chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator Boxer, has been working very hard to put together a bill which has an opportunity to pass this Senate.

The point is, if we do not want the Clean Air Act to prevail, then the cap-and-trade bill is the only way to go. That is a clear incentive for the Senate and the House to pass a bill.

EPA has released a draft endangerment finding which it is going to soon finalize. Yet the amendment would have blocked EPA from completing the endangerment finding and from complying with its legal obligations to protect public health. The repercussions would have been major. It means EPA would not be able to complete a joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation to increase corporate average fuel economy, which we call CAFE, and create a tailpipe emissions standard for automobiles.

That would have been a major problem. It would block implementation of the 2007 fuel economy law which I authored with Senator Snowe and which took us a long time to get passed and enacted.

By undermining the negotiated agreement between States and the Obama administration, the Murkowski amendment would also have likely resulted in States moving forward with their own tailpipe emissions standards which automakers have fought for years as too onerous. This would have stopped California and 14 other States and the District of Columbia from moving forward with implementing tailpipe emissions standards.

This amendment is vigorously opposed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the United Auto Workers. To that end, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a letter from the Auto Alliance and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.

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.

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.

I yield the floor.

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.

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. 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.

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.

I move to table the Vitter amendment No. 2549. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I withdraw that request.

I object.

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.

I certainly will.

The Senator has an hour.

I think directly following Senator Landrieu.

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.

Good. I just want to know about which one the Senator is speaking when he is speaking.

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.

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.

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.

We will accept the amendment on both sides with the stricture I just added to it on the pending amendment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Amendment No. 2483

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.

Will the Senator yield? I know he is a gentleman.

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.

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2504, as modified, be called up.

Madam President, there is a further modification at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be further modified.

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.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2535.

Madam President, this amendment has been accepted by both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2527.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2523 be called up.

The clerk will report.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2483 be called up.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2482 be called up.

I ask it be set aside and amendment No. 2511 be called up.

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.

I will be happy to do that. No. 2511.

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.

I ask unanimous consent this amendment be as modified, and I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. President, I will try to do this, to save some time, in the shortest amount of time I can. I also thank the chairman of this committee for working with me.

There are several amendments I did not offer. I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about those because I think the American people need to hear about them.

Less than a block from this building is the Belmont House. It is a foundation. It is a beautiful building. It has $4 million in the bank, the foundation does. There is an earmark in this bill at this time of a $1.8 trillion deficit, of a 16-percent increase in this bill. The Senator, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, is sending $1 million to that building. They have the money in the bank but we are still going to take $1 million from our grandkids and send it there. I am not offering that amendment in conjunction with having the pleasure of the chairman consider my other amendments. But the American people need to know that kind of thing is going on. It is absolutely not indicated. Who uses that building? We do,

for fundraisers. We do for events. We do for social events. In fact, there is a high price paid when you rent it. But what we are going to do, without regard to what our fiscal situation is, is we are going to send another $1 million as though it is a peanut and send it to that building. That is all I will say on it, but to me it is one of the reasons why this Congress, and we in particular as Members of the Senate, lack the respect of the American people.

The other amendment I am not going to offer that was objected to by the chairman of the Resources Committee is for us to know what kind of land we own. We don't know, since 2005, how much land we have or where we own it.

Supposedly the BLM puts out something. Supposedly the Geological Survey puts something out. But there is not a concise list of the land that the Federal Government owns--and it is somewhere in excess of a third of all the land of this country--and it is 650 million acres. In this bill is another $300 million--almost $400 million--to buy more land. At the same time, the National Park Service has a backlog of $11 billion. We do not have one national park that does not have significant factors of erosion and dilapidation that is now putting both the employees and park visitors at risk. Yet we are going 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.

Madam President, I switch now to amendment No. 2523, which is a prohibition on funds being spent in this act that would actually limit the effectiveness of the Homeland Security Department in terms of securing our borders and protecting us.

This amendment basically ensures that the wilderness areas and other public lands are protected from crime and pollution. I know it is not seen that way, but what is happening is a very big and sad story about what is happening in our wilderness areas.

Border violence and trafficking is at an all-time high. Our public lands along the border are being exploited by drug and human smugglers. Wilderness concerns hinder law enforcement efforts. How do we balance properly our concerns for the environment and still secure our borders and still protect our population from both drug smuggling and human trafficking?

Wilderness areas also are being destroyed by these very smugglers because we do not allow the enforcement agencies access to be able to make a difference. We have not acted on it; we have not acted on it in this bill. We have to make sure there is the proper balance between protecting our wilderness areas and protecting our country and our citizens.

We have sought to address in the last couple of years our border security concerns by appropriating a large increase in Federal funds for law enforcement and for significant legislation to construct infrastructure along the southern border.

In the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Congress sought to ensure that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security was able to take the actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain the operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.

The goal of the act was to prevent all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, narcotics, and other contraband, except it has not had the desired impact, and in large part, to the unwelcome increase of illegal human and drug trafficking through public lands, along our southern border. So we have a conflict of desires by agencies to do their jobs.

Amendment No. 2523 would prohibit any funds from within the Interior appropriations bill to be used to prohibit or restrict the activities of Homeland Security on public lands to secure our borders. The effect of this amendment would be to ensure that DHS is able to further secure our borders from terrorists and other national security threats and protect the environment of these lands.

I know there is some concern on the other side with the language, the way we have written it. I am more than willing to work with the chairman of both the Resources Committee, Interior Committee, and the Appropriations Committee to try to put that in a way that properly balances it. I know this is a tough amendment. I do not deny that.

But when you hear the testimony--and I am going to ask that this be printed in the Record. This is former

Border Patrol officers and field supervisory Border Patrol agents who testified in Congress last April about what is going on in our wilderness areas.

Do you realize that these people, because we do not have law enforcement in there, they are setting fires in our wilderness areas to distract us to the fire so they can smuggle contraband and humans while we are addressing the fire?

Our wilderness areas are being defiled near McAllen, TX. It relates: When a wilderness area or refuge is established near the border, the criminal element moves in and trashes it because the restrictive wilderness or refuge status accorded to these lands effectively prevents all law enforcement from effectively working the area.

This is Border Patrol:

In other words, refuge or wilderness designation actually

serves to put the environment at a greater risk of being

seriously damaged and defaced. Law enforcement must have

common, unrestricted, free access to all lands near the U.S.

border.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am happy to.

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.

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.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

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?

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?

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?

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.

I would be happy to yield.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee for the question, and I am aware of that fact, and I would respond to him, that is why I was trying to clarify how many czars are in this Muscovite conspiracy because one of his colleagues from Texas, Senator Hutchison, identified 32, as did Mr.

Glenn Beck, and they included 16--pardon me, 7 of these so-called czars are people who have--pardon me, 9 have been confirmed by the Senate. So it appears that some of your colleagues do not share your definition that Senator Collins referred to on the floor.

The point I am trying to make is that this is a legitimate inquiry, it is an important inquiry, but it has been muddled by statements made by some Members of Congress and certainly by those in the political commentary realm.

The good news for Senator Alexander and Senator Collins and everyone else concerned about this issue is that a trusted friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has promised a hearing on this issue. I know he will engage Senator Collins, as ranking Republican member, on it, and serious questions which have been presented will be considered by Senator Lieberman. We respect him in that capacity.

So the reason I am objecting to this amendment isn't because I don't think Senator Collins has at least a legitimate inquiry, but I think it should be taken in the greater order of things rather than considered in this fashion on an appropriations bill.

So, Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Collins amendment, No. 2498, violates rule XVI, paragraph 4, legislating on an appropriations bill.

Excuse me, Mr. President, I missed one procedural step.

I call for regular order on the pending Collins amendment.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, I apparently had 30 minutes. Can the Chair tell me if I have time remaining?

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma had wanted to make a couple comments, but I would like to take a couple extra minutes before I turn to him in response to my friend and colleague from California.

In many ways, she has made my point or supported the argument. I would agree that, in fact, in order to deal with this very timely issue, this very significant issue, we must act. I just do not believe that utilizing the regulation, moving a climate change regulation through the EPA, is the best instrument, the most effective instrument.

The people I represent back home are very concerned about this, as I have indicated, and are expecting their Congress to act. But they do not feel very comfortable with unelected bureaucrats in the Environmental Protection Agency telling them that, in fact, this is the road we are going to be going down, with no real appreciation or sensitivity to the environmental factors that we in this body assess as we are trying to advance policy. We need to be driving forward good, thoughtful, considered, reasonable policy on the issue of climate change.

I am not disagreeing we stop on this issue. I am simply suggesting we need to make sure it is Congress, it is through the legislative process that we advance these very important policy initiatives.

I do want to also make a comment about the concern that somehow or another my legislation would pull back on what the EPA is currently doing with mobile sources, the emissions from tailpipes. I don't think we could have drafted the amendment any more clear to ensure that it is specific as to the stationary sources.

Again, I urge my colleagues to make sure they are looking at the draft of

the amendment we have proposed and not some previous initiatives.

One final point before I turn to Senator Inhofe. The point has been made by my colleague from California that the Administrator for EPA has said it is not her intention to be regulating the small emitters--the farms, the small businesses. She has made those statements, and I appreciate that, but the problem we face is the Clean Air Act, which doesn't give her that flexibility to change the Clean Air Act. She is obligated to regulate those entities that emit in excess of 250 tons. These are our smaller emitters. So even though she may have suggested or stated this is not her intention to go down that road--she can perhaps move forward with this tailoring proposal, but as I stand before you, I can almost bet that will be challenged in court and it will not pass the test and we will be stuck with what we are all attempting to avoid, which is capturing the smaller businesses--the restaurants, the drycleaners, et cetera--into this net as we try to provide for the regulation of the major emitters.

I am sure we will have plenty of opportunity on this floor to continue this debate, but at this time, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this legislation raises serious concerns about border security and the private property rights of private landowners by establishing an over 3,300-square-mile--let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker--3,300-square-mile national heritage area that includes land along the Arizona and Mexico border.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support the wise and responsible stewardship of Federal lands. We also strongly believe the protection and conservation of natural areas is important. Yet it need not be done at the expense of our homeland security or the private property rights of U.S. citizens.

On the issue of homeland security, some of the most heavily trafficked drug smuggling and human trafficking routes in the United States would be designated as a national heritage area under this bill. To make matters worse, the bill lacks sufficient protections to ensure that border security enforcement, drug interdiction and illegal immigration control is not restricted, is not hindered, and is not impeded by this legislation.

At a time when our borderlands are far from secure, now is simply not the time to place yet another layer of Federal interference in these areas. It is critical that policies meant to conserve natural areas or to preserve or promote unique areas in our Nation do not become corridors for illegal activities that threaten the safety and security of United States citizens.

This Congress must ensure that the responsibilities of the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security are not undercut by the actions of another agency or Department. This is especially true with the Department of the Interior, which, Mr. Speaker, controls 40 percent of the lands along the southern border.

In response to concerns raised about the lack of border security protections in this bill, the Democrat majority has used their power on the Rules Committee to automatically add meager text to this bill that falls far short of meaningful protection of our border security. This meager text simply states that no border enforcement authority is being modified, altered, or amended.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this leaves the barn door open to the reality that this heritage area designation could restrict, could hinder or impede border enforcement or security authority, including drug interdiction and illegal immigration control.

It also completely fails to address the effects that other existing laws are having over the ability of the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security to achieve operational control of the border.

Instead of addressing the hurdles to border security that exist on public land, this bill, frankly, Mr. Speaker, exacerbates them.

On the issue of property rights, this legislation does include language that expresses support for property protection. I will acknowledge that. However, the bill omits stronger protections that have been included in many of the other recently established heritage areas.

What should be included in this bill is an assurance that the written consent of property owners be acquired before their property is included into the planning activities of the heritage area's management entities. Property owners should also be permitted the choice to opt out of the heritage area's boundaries if they choose.

Now, as I noted, the bill does include language related to private property, and it does say that property owners are allowed to ``refrain from participation.'' Yet, Mr. Speaker, nothing changes the fact that this bill places property owners within a new Federal designation.

It would allow a basis for ambitious Federal land managers to claim that now they have a mandate and millions of Federal dollars to interfere with local decisions affecting the private property of others.

The reality is that there are likely a great number of property owners who have no idea that they are being included in this heritage area designation. After all, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about over 3,300 square miles. This House should insist that the weak and ineffectual provisions of the bill are strengthened with real and meaningful protections that protect all landowners with the choice to opt out of this designation.

With deep concern, Mr. Speaker, across the country over the growing intrusion of the Federal Government into our daily lives, as evidenced by the debate on health care in this country and private choices of American citizens, great caution and care should be taken to protect the property rights of the thousands and thousands of property owners located within the over 3,300 square-mile heritage area that is being proposed by this legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, without sufficient protections for private property rights and the security of our southern border from drug smuggling and illegal immigration, I must oppose this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall, spoke at length about private property rights, and, as is not unusual, there are differing opinions of that.

I have before me, Mr. Speaker, an article from the North Dakota Farm Bureau written by an individual, Mr. Harold Maxwell, who belongs to the Arizona Farm Bureau. He lives in Yuma. He was involved in a heritage designation in that area and he worked very hard to get private property rights protection included in that area of Arizona. But he has an article that I think spells out a lot of what we were talking about on our side of the need to further protect private property rights.

Get Involved To Protect Property Rights

(By Harold Maxwell)

Arizona, February 27, 2008--Recently, there has been

extensive discussion in Arizona about the proposed Little

Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area. As one of the

individuals that worked to resolve some of the issues that

arose from the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, I have a

unique view on the potential pitfalls and benefits of having

a National Heritage Area (NHA).

First, let me state that the Yuma Crossing National

Heritage Area in its final form has been a benefit to our

community. That being said, two main issues exist that must

be addressed to ensure that a National Heritage Area truly is

a benefit to the local community, rather than a threat.

First let's tackle the issue of individual property rights.

Proponents of another proposed NHA, the Little Colorado River

Valley National Heritage Area (LCRVNHA), cite two main

reasons why the local populous should not be concerned about

their property rights. The authors of the proposed Heritage

Area bill like to point to specific language in the bill that

they included in an attempt to afford property owners some

protection.

They also like to cite a 2004 study by the GAO that found

no issues affecting property values or use. Let me address

both of those issues.

Most legislation that designates a NHA and its subsequent

management plan includes language that prohibits the National

Park Service and/or the Heritage Board from using eminent

domain to acquire property. These management plans also

prohibit the use of the Federal funds obtained under the bill

from being used to acquire land. Unfortunately, these

``protections'' are limited.

The proposed LCRVNHA bill does not prohibit local

governments from changing zoning ordinances to conform to the

land use plans suggested by the Heritage Area Board. Local

governments find themselves in a difficult situation: either

adopt the new land use plans and put local property owners at

risk, or reject the land use plans and put their federal

funding at risk.

This is not just idle conjecture. The Wheeling National

Heritage Area, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor, Essex National Heritage Area, Erie Canalway

National Heritage Corridor, and the Journey Through Hallowed

Ground NHAs are just a few examples of where local zoning was

changed to accommodate the management plan and those changes

did negatively impact local land owners' property rights.

The other statement, that no federal funds obtained under

the bill can be used to acquire land, is also misleading.

This statement only applies to funds authorized by Congress

for a Heritage Area. Any matching funds that are raised are

free to be spent however the Heritage Area Board sees fit.

This is not an insignificant problem. Heritage Areas on

average receive $8 in matching funds for every $1 that is

provided under the Heritage Area Act. Far and away the

majority of the funds generated by a Heritage Area are

eligible to purchase private property, or issue conservation

or historical easements. This is of particular significance

in Arizona, as only 13% of our land is privately owned. Any

acquisition that removes land from the tax rolls has the

potential for a huge negative impact on the amount of

property tax collected for our local communities.

Even a more serious issue is the potential of a Heritage

Area to acquire land and then donate the land to the National

Park Service (NPS). This is what happened with the Shenandoah

Valley Battlefield Foundation. The Cedar Creek and Belle

Grove National Historical Park as it is now known was created

in 2003 by using a combination of donated lands and

conservation easements. Though National Heritage Areas do not

impose direct restrictions on property this is not the case

for the NPS. Federal law grants the National Parks the right

to impose specific land use restrictions on properties

adjacent to their boundaries.

A March 2004 Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) study on

heritage areas is the Holy Grail for the National Heritage

Areas' claim that Heritage Areas do not impact property

rights. The GAO study claims to have found no issues

affecting property values or use. This has always been

perplexing to me as I know of three separate incidences

involving property rights and the Yuma Crossing National

Heritage Area.

Having read the GAO report, I now believe that I can shed

some light on the subject. In regard to the Yuma events, the

GAO report was published in March 2004. The meeting held in

Yuma concerning property rights, with an attendance of more

than 600 Yuma County residents, was held the end of February

2004. One of the reasons that the GAO did not find any

incidents in Yuma was that the publication had gone to press

by the time of the Yuma meeting.

It was also noted in the GAO's report that the survey was

limited to ``national groups'' and apparently did not include

a survey of individual property owners in the more than

three-dozen NHAs already in existence. It is also evident

that the GAO was only concerned about the immediate impact of

the bill and not the consequences from the land

use planning that was encouraged by the National Heritage

Areas. When one reviews the literature looking for cases

where NHAs have influenced local zoning ordinances, it

becomes apparent even to the casual observer that NHAs can

and do have the ability to affect property rights.

Local control

The second major concern involving National Heritage Areas

is local control. No clearer example of the benefit of local

control can be found than the Yuma experience. After the Yuma

Crossing Heritage Area Bill passed Congress designating 22-

square miles of Yuma as a National Heritage Area, the local

agencies responsible for zoning started to interpret what it

meant to own property in and around the boundaries of the new

Heritage Area. It was these decisions made by bureaucrats

that caused the local population to become concerned about

their property rights. Local pressure was brought to bear on

the County Board of Supervisors and the City of Yuma to pass

resolutions instructing staff not to use the boundaries of

the New Heritage Area in determining zoning issues. This

solved the immediate issue, but the community realized that

the Yuma Crossing Heritage Act was a federal law that would

become more difficult to change as federal monies were

invested.

We also understood that the local resolutions could be

lifted at some time in the future after the Heritage area was

well established. The local community decided, for their own

protection, to reduce the scope of the project back to what

was originally proposed: 4 square miles or 2,560 acres of

downtown Yuma and the Colorado River inside the levee system.

Even with strong local support it took Yuma over 3 years to

change the original legislation. The Yuma community now

believes that this new boundary is focused enough that even

if the local ordinances are changed the community will be

protected from their impact. One of the benefits of such a

focused area is that we have enough money to effect change.

If one assumes that their Heritage Area will get all of the

potential $10 million from the federal government, and no

project has, then the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area

has the potential of receiving a little more than $3,900 per

acre for our project, as compared to the $710 per acre it

could have received under the original scope.

The proposed Little Colorado River Valley National Heritage

Area is too large. At over 23,000 square miles or 14,720,000

acres, it falls into the trap that some of the other Heritage

Areas have fallen into: On a per acre basis the Little

Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area will at a

maximum receive only 68 cents per acre under the bill. When a

Heritage area is too large the funds are insufficient to get

the project up and running on a self-sustaining basis. One of

the goals for all Heritage areas is to be self-sustaining at

the sunset of their authorization bill in 15 years.

Yuma learned that local control is critical. When issues

arose it was relatively easy to convince our County Board of

Supervisors and the Yuma City Council to pass resolutions

protecting our citizens. The proposed Little Colorado River

Valley National Heritage Area covers parts of four states,

seven Native American Nations, and 27 counties. How do you

have local control in such a large entity? The only effective

control is on a county, sovereign nation, or city basis. When

a project covers so many different governing agencies the

only way for the project to work is for the local governments

to cede local control to the Heritage Area. After having

looked at some of the major pitfalls with the Little

Colorado River Valley Heritage Area, these are the changes

I would recommend in the plan if your community chooses to

go forward.

First, maintain local control. One 23,000 square mile

heritage area managed out of Tucson with some local people

appointed to the board is not local control. The Little

Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area includes parts

of 4 states, 7 Native American nations, and 27 counties. At

the very least there should be 34 separate Heritage Areas

divided along county and Native American nation lines. This

would give control down to the county or nation level. A side

benefit would be that each heritage area would be eligible

for $10 million in government funds on their own. That is a

potential of $340 million dollars in federal funds vs. the

current proposal of $10 million. Learn from the Yuma

experience. If Yuma reduced the size of its Heritage Area

from 22 square miles to 4 square miles due to concerns over

property rights, one can only imagine the potential issues

with the 23,000 square mile Heritage Area that is being

proposed.

Secondly, be very focused. One of the ways that you can

protect yourselves against property rights abuse is to make

certain that the areas that are included are well defined and

include cultural, historical and environmental areas that can

be developed into self sustaining economic zones. Vast

expanses of the current proposal would not fit these

criteria. Heritage Areas are intended to be self-sustaining

after the first 15 years of existence.

Finally, the legislation authorizing the Heritage Area

should prohibit the Heritage Area from using any of the funds

raised to buy private property or to purchase any form of

easement (conservation, historical etc.). This would ensure

that private property stays on the tax rolls and is not

retired. It also would ensure that land is not ``donated'' by

the Heritage Area to create a new or expanded National Park.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the distinguished ranking member on the Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and I ask unanimous consent that he control the time after he uses his time for his debate.