North Korea Sanctions Act of 2009

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Alexander, in presenting the fiscal year 2010 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. This is the first year Senator Alexander and I have worked together as chairmen and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I am very pleased to report that it could not have been a better experience. We have consulted on several occasions and worked through several different issues. As a result, I think we have produced a fair, balanced, and workable bill. I thank him very much, and his able staff, for all their hard work and cooperation.

In total, the fiscal year 2010 Interior appropriations bill provides $32.1 billion in nonemergency discretionary spending. That amount is $4.5 billion above the equivalent 2009 enacted level but $225 million below the President's request. I wish to stress that. This bill is $225 million below the President's request.

The reason is to make it consistent with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. Our allocation is substantially lower than that of the House of Representatives. Therefore, our bill is necessarily constrained. We cannot spend above our allocation. So there are going to be several items that will be conferenced in that regard.

Because the committee's report, which spells out all of the funding details, has been publicly available for more than 2 months, I won't go through each and every line item. But I would like to emphasize the great strides we have been able to make in five critical areas: water and sewer infrastructure, wildfire suppression and prevention on public land, bolstering our public land management agencies, investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and helping the most vulnerable in Indian Country.

First, in these five key areas, the bill provides $3.6 billion for water and sewer infrastructure projects. I am proud of this. That is a significant increase over last year's level of $1.6 billion. In fact, this is the largest single commitment of funds that has ever been provided in an annual appropriations bill.

Let me say something about this. When we look at America's infrastructure, I can say that I am old enough, regretfully--I guess I am delighted I have survived--to remember when everyone could drink water out of every tap anywhere in America. You can imagine what I thought when I saw the front of the New York Times with the young lad from West Virginia with fillings all over his mouth because he couldn't drink water properly out of the tap, when there was other evidence of people in that great State bathing in water that created skin lesions. That should not be the case in the United States. Therefore, this significant increase in water and sewer infrastructure is extraordinarily important.

Additionally, I hope we will have report language in our bill in consultation with the ranking member that will instruct EPA to put much more regulatory authority in the area of water quality so we don't run into these areas. This is something I have not yet had a chance to talk with the ranking member about, but I do intend to do that.

When we factor in the $6 billion included in the stimulus bill in February, we are providing nearly $10 billion this calendar year to State and local water authorities. This is a major investment in public infrastructure and one that, as a former mayor, I strongly support and am very pleased to be able, along with my ranking member, to accomplish.

This money will allow State and local water authorities to begin to tackle 1,327 wastewater and drinking water projects all across the Nation. For those who may not be aware, the Environmental Protection Agency, which administers these grants, has estimated that over a 20- year period communities will need to spend $660 billion--not million-- for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure repairs and renovations. Obviously, we can't provide that level of funding during these tough budgetary times. But what we were able to provide, with a reduced allocation, will go a long way toward helping communities tackle their crumbling infrastructure and provide residents with more reliable and cleaner water. It will also have the benefit of creating thousands of construction jobs to put more Americans back to work.

Secondly, the bill provides $1.8 billion for wildland fire suppression activities. It is very important that we are providing that level of funding because that is the same amount that has been spent on average in each of the last 3 fiscal years. So for the first time in more than 10 years, we will be providing Federal firefighters the resources they need well before they run out of money. The fact that we are providing this level of funding is extremely important. By appropriating up front what we know is actually going to be needed based on prior experience, we allow the Forest Service and the Interior Department to break the cycle of borrowing from other accounts and then hoping Congress agrees to repay that money. We have been criticized for doing it. It is good, solid criticism. In this bill, it has been remedied.

The bill also includes $107 million in grants to help State and local cooperators fund their own firefighting and fuels reduction efforts. That is a 2-percent increase over the 2009 level, and it provides $556 million for hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal lands nationwide, a 7-percent increase over last year. That is critical.

My State is burning up, as are other States in the West. We lost 1.5 million acres last year from fire. Hazardous mitigation of fuels becomes very critical.

As important as it is to provide our Federal firefighters with the funds they need for suppression, it is just as important that we make these fuel reduction funds available so these agencies can begin to get in front of the problem and prevent these catastrophic wildland fires or at least reduce their catastrophic potential.

The money provided in this bill will allow the Forest Service and the Interior Department to treat 3.5 million acres of fire-prone Federal lands. That is 3.5 million acres of fire-prone Federal land. This will reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires such as the one being fought right now in southern California.

Let me say something about that fire. The Station fire in southern California is still burning in the foothills of Los Angeles. The fire has swept through canyons that are drowning under decades' worth of dense vegetation. As of Tuesday, the fire has burned 160,000 acres, destroyed 183 homes and other buildings, and cost more than $90 million to fight. More than 8,000 firefighters have battled the blaze, and, tragically, two firefighters have lost their lives.

The Station fire is now the largest fire in Los Angeles County history. It is also a reminder of how important it is to increase funding for fuels reduction and fire suppression. I am very proud this bill accomplishes both.

Third, the bill shores up our public land management agencies by providing a total of $6 billion for basic operations and backlog maintenance of our national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and on Bureau of Land Management land.

For too long we have neglected these agencies and forced program cuts on them by underfunding the fixed costs they incur every year. In this bill, fixed costs are fully funded. That is important. Included in these funds are $2.2 billion for basic operations of our 391 national parks, an increase of $130 million. These funds will allow the Park Service to continue utilizing the 3,000 seasonal employees who have made a real difference in the condition and enjoyment of our parks. Additional maintenance personnel, additional law enforcement officers, and additional park rangers will all be brought back as a way of enhancing the visitor experience now and preparing our parks for the centennial in 2016.

Our national parks are jewels throughout the United States of America. They cannot be allowed to grow into poor condition. They must be maintained, and they must be operated properly.

Also, I wish to point out that the funding being provided in this bill will

allow the Park Service to continue the drug eradication program started last year. I can tell you, in California, this has become a major problem, with literally hundreds of thousands of acres in our national parks taken over by Mexican cartels that have moved into the back areas and set up marijuana production facilities. They are armed. They are dangerous. It has taken the resources of combined task forces--of local, Federal, and State officers--to go in and root out these areas and also to eradicate the planting that has been done. More than $10 million is being made available so law enforcement personnel can work with other Federal and State agencies to extricate the illegal drug operations that are increasingly invading our national parks.

This effort is not just limited to the Park Service. Included in the $1.56 billion that this bill provides for operations of the national forests is a new $10 million increase for the Forest Service's law enforcement program. These funds mean the Service will be able to hire up to 50 new law enforcement officers to battle the epidemic of these marijuana gardens on our public lands.

The bill also contains a $5 million increase to begin cleaning up more than 25,000 acres of forest lands nationwide that have suffered environmental damage because of these drug--the word is ``gardens.'' I hate that word applied to these drug projects, so I will say ``drug projects.''

Fourth, the bill increases the protection and conservation of sensitive lands by providing $419 million through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Of that amount, $262 million is set aside for four Federal land management agencies for conservation of sensitive lands that provide habitat to wildlife and recreation to visitors; $55 million is for conservation easements through the Forest Legacy Program; $54 million is for acquisitions associated with habitat conservation plans; and $35 million is for State grants through the Park Service's State Assistance Program.

Finally, the bill helps some of the most vulnerable among us by providing a total of $6.6 billion for the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That is an 11-percent increase over the 2009 enacted level. The bill includes increases of $450 million in direct health care services; $81 million in K-12 and college education programs; and $83 million in law enforcement programs, which will allow for additional police officer staffing on the streets and in detention centers.

With these funds, more than 10,000 additional doctor visits will take place that would not otherwise happen. This means additional well-baby care to prevent problems before they happen. It means additional alcohol and substance abuse treatment, which is truly a plague in Indian Country. It means additional public health nursing visits so those rural areas are not left out.

Funding provided through the Bureau of Indian Affairs will improve programs and infrastructure at the Bureau's 183 schools. The $81 million increase in education programs will allow the Bureau to substantially increase the number of schools that meet the Adequate Yearly Progress goals spelled out in No Child Left Behind. For the first time--and I am proud of this--nearly half of all schools will meet this milestone. Additional funding for law enforcement programs will allow the Bureau to increase staffing throughout Indian Country.

But it is not just funding for staff that is going to make a real difference. The bill includes a threefold increase in funds for repair and rehabilitation of detention facilities. Too often, Bureau police officers are forced to spend useless time transporting detainees, sometimes hundreds of miles, to be incarcerated in adequate detention facilities. These funds will allow the Bureau to repair several local facilities so less time is spent in transit.

All in all, I believe Senator Alexander and I have been fair and conscientious in crafting this bill. I urge my colleagues to let us move forward with this measure as soon as possible.

I want my ranking member to know I am very proud of this bill, not only because it is a good bill, it is the first start we have had together. I look forward to more years where we can build our fire suppression, our care and concern for our national parks, the Smithsonian, all the 19 institutions it represents, the Kennedy Center, and all the various Departments we are concerned with in this appropriations bill.

It is necessarily dull to put forward figures, but as both of us have learned from our prior lives, budgets and appropriations condition policy. So I think this is not only a good appropriations bill, but it is a very good policy bill for the Departments that are included within the bill.

It has been a sheer delight for me to work with you, I say to Senator Alexander. Now I would like to defer to the Senator for any comments he might care to make.

Madam President, if I may, I wish to thank the ranking member for those very gracious remarks. They are reciprocated in whole. I think his expressions about the bill are very well taken, and we will just proceed from there.

I would like Senators to be fully aware that any amendment which proposes to increase spending in one area of the bill will need to be offset with a commensurate cut in another area. The bill is at its allocation level, and the overall effect of the bill's bottom line must remain neutral. Not to do so is to create a 60-vote point of order against the amendment. So everyone who wishes to offer an amendment should bear that in mind. I think both of us will fight vociferously to see that the financial integrity of our bill is continued.

I very much appreciate Senator Alexander pointing out that this is the first time since 2005 that the full Senate has had an opportunity to consider this bill. Considering the landmarks, the vital aspects of this American government of which people are singularly proud--I mean, we don't hear much criticism about the Federal Government providing national parks or a forest service or an environmental protection agency. So this is a bill of which we are very proud.

I, too, wish to encourage Senators to come to the floor now. We wish to pass this bill as quickly as we can. The floor should be open to amendments.

With that in mind, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will respond to the Senator from Nebraska. My belief is that we had an amendment yesterday that was passed overwhelmingly by this body, prohibiting the use of Federal funds for ACORN, period. The staff has been researching this bill. We do not believe there are any Federal funds in this bill. I believe if there were a rollcall vote, it would come out essentially the same as it did yesterday.

So I say to the distinguished Senator, both the ranking member and I would be prepared to take this amendment by unanimous consent.

If I may, through the Chair to the Senator, to the best of our knowledge, there is no funding in this bill for ACORN. The staff is looking and has found no funding in the bill for ACORN. Therefore, there is a redundancy, and this will have to be done on every single appropriations bill, which doesn't seem to me to make very good sense. I think an 80-plus vote yesterday is a very substantial vote. I think everybody who is interested has access to know--we are trying very hard--and I hope the Senator will not be upset by what I am saying, but we are trying to move our bill, and we will take the Senator's amendment so that the amendment--if there is any funding, it still cannot be used, even without this amendment. So the Senator is covered.

Madam President, I wish to signal to all Members that the floor is open. Amendments will be received to this bill. I say to my colleagues, if you have an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill, please come to the floor.

Order of procedure

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the September 16 order with respect to H.R. 3288 be modified to provide that the Senate resume consideration of the bill at 2:30 p.m., with the remaining provisions still in effect. That is the housing and transportation bill. Further, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Gerard E. Lynch to be a U.S. Circuit Court judge for the Second Circuit; that there be 2 hours of debate with respect to the nomination, with the time equally divided and controlled by Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the nomination be set aside to recur upon passage of H.R. 3288; that prior to the vote on confirmation of the nomination and the Senate resuming executive session,

there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider the vote be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Johanns amendment No. 2394 occur upon disposition of the nomination of Gerard Lynch and that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I note that no colleagues are on the Senate floor. The floor is open for amendments, and I would like to urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you have an amendment, please bring it to the floor.

I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from California.

It is a joy for me to work on this legislation because, first, I care so much about it, as she does--this is about the great American outdoors, which is an essential part of our American character--and because of the privilege of working with Senator Feinstein. She has the great advantage of having been a mayor of a big city and she is capable of making a decision and she is results oriented, so we are able to work easily together. It is the way I liked to work when I was Governor. She is broad-gauged and cares about this country and about its environment and its outdoors and about not only protecting and conserving the outdoors but making it possible for Americans--300 million of us--and the people who visit us to enjoy that great American outdoors.

It is always a privilege to be in the Senate, but it is a special privilege to work on the outdoors--the great American outdoors--with Senator Feinstein from California.

Last week, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. I am not objective at all about the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. I grew up there, went hiking there, and I live 2 miles from its border. One reason I care about the trails so much is because I have hiked them. One reason I care about the quality of the air so much is because I breathe it. One reason I care about having enough rangers and making sure their salaries are paid is because I know them. So that helps in my objective.

But there was also a reminder. It was a beautiful day up on Newfound Gap, right on the border of North Carolina and Tennessee. Our mountains in the East are not as big as the mountains in the West. They are older, more mature. But the largest of the mountains in the Eastern United States are along the North Carolina and Tennessee border, 71 miles along the Appalachian Trail, in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

So there we were, at about 5,500 feet, at the place where President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on the same day in 1940, a few years after the park was formed, dedicated the Great Smokies. But among other things on that beautiful day--and the Secretary of the Interior was there, Ken Salazar. It is good for our Western Secretary to get a good look at the Eastern park. Dolly Parton was there. She grew up in the next county, so she is our special ambassador for the Great Smokies, and there were all the Members of the Congress who were there from the area.

But when we look back 75 years, what did we see? It was 1934. So here we were, in the middle of the greatest depression in our country's history, and what were we doing? Well, in Tennessee, we had the State legislature appropriating $2 million to buy land from families and from lumber companies to create a park. In North Carolina, they did the same thing. That only made $4 million. Madam President, $10 million was needed. So they collected another million dollars from the people of the area.

Schoolchildren put pennies in jars. It is a wonderful story of how they got up to $5 million. Then one of the early leaders of the group organizing the Great Smoky Mountains National Park convinced John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,--who, I guess, is the grandfather of our Senator Rockefeller--to come; and the Rockefellers gave $5 million in honor of Laura Spelman Rockefeller, to match the $5 million the two States and all the people had contributed.

That $10 million bought the park and gave it to the country. This was not like almost every other park. It was

not just carved out of land the people already owned. It was given to the country in the midst of the Great Depression.

The reason I bring up that today is because it is a reminder that even in difficult times we kept our priorities right. India has its Taj Mahal. Rome has its art. England has its history. But we have the great American outdoors. If, as Ken Burns has said, our national parks are America's best idea, we in Tennessee and North Carolina think that must mean the Great Smoky Mountains are the very best idea because so many more people visit it than visit any other park in America.

But what those people did--whether it was the schoolchildren with the pennies, the Governors of the States, the legislators, the people in Asheville, NC, and Knoxville, TN, the civic leaders, whether it was the Rockefeller family--what they did also shows us the foresight of thinking ahead for the benefit of future generations.

In 1934, the assistant chief ranger of this big, new park wrote a memo to the superintendent outlining the wildlife he found there. There were 100 black bears in 1934. There are 1,600 today. There were 315 wild turkeys in 1934. The other day I saw 21 outside my window 2 miles from the park.

Seventy-five years ago in the Park, there were 12 whitetail deer in Tennessee and only 6 in North Carolina. They are all over the place today. There were no peregrine falcons, no river otters, no elk. They are there today. Twenty-five years ago, when as Governor of Tennessee I spoke at the 50th anniversary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, there was no Federal law controlling acid rain, there was no organization called Friends of the Smokies, but both are great successes today. Those Federal laws were passed and Friends of the Smokies has contributed $30 million. So that celebration two weeks ago reminded us of the foresight 75 years ago. Those examples are everywhere in our culture today.

I am reading Douglas Brinkley's book about Teddy Roosevelt called ``The Wilderness Warrior.'' It is so thick, it will break your back if you carry it around, but it is a wonderful story of how our President, Teddy Roosevelt, during his relatively short term in office, had the foresight to make sure we have many of the wildlife refuges, the national parks, the national forests, and the others we enjoy today. This bill Senator Feinstein so ably described is the responsibility we have as stewards of that great tradition today, to look ahead to the future about preserving and protecting the great American outdoors; looking to the future as Teddy Roosevelt did, as the schoolchildren did in Tennessee, as John Muir did when Yosemite was created, as Lady Bird Johnson did half a century ago. As we look ahead, we should remember that we are custodians of that tradition.

What should we hope for as we work on this bill and we plan ahead? My hope of the future is that we finish cleaning up the air, so in the Great Smokies, we can celebrate the gray haze about which the Cherokee sang instead of seeing smog. I hope we do more to use our nearly 400 national park properties to teach about what it means to be an American so our children and our immigrants can know that story. I hope we can become better students of the remarkable environmental diversity of our country. Just within our Great Smoky Mountains National Park, we have 128 species of trees, as many as they have in all of Europe. I hope we do a better job of creating picturesque entrances and conservation easements to protect the wildlife and the stunning viewscapes that are not only in our parks but near our parks.

I am going to do my best--and Senator Feinstein and I have talked about our concern about this, and I have shared that concern with Secretary Salazar on many occasions, including last week when he visited Tennessee--I am going to make sure we pay attention to the perils of what some conservationists are calling energy sprawl, so that in our enthusiasm for renewable energy and alternative energy, which we need, we don't place 50-story wind turbines and acres of square miles of solar thermal plants in areas that damage the treasured landscapes we have spent a century trying to protect. It doesn't make sense to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment.

I hope we can build on the legislation, too, that Congress enacted in 2007 when we expanded exploration for natural gas and oil in the Gulf of Mexico and for the first time created what I like to call a conservation royalty that contributes one-eighth of the revenues that are collected from that drilling. One-eighth of those revenues go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In this case, it goes to the State side portion, which is used by communities for local parks and local greenways. Suffice it to say, the most popular parks in America are not the Great Smokies and Yosemite; the most popular parks are the city parks and the community parks and the suburban parks, the parks down the street. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is the source of funding for many of those parks and much of that open space.

In the 1960s, Congress, as a result of a report by the first Commission on American Outdoors that was chaired by Lawrence Rockefeller, recommended that we take some of the money we receive from offshore drilling and exploration and use it for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We had never really done that, but it makes good sense. It is good stewardship. Where there is an environmental burden, which we sometimes have to authorize, we should pay for it with an environmental benefit. That is the trade between offshore exploration and money for land and water conservation funding to create city parks.

One other thing. I hope we find additional ways, through increased private contributions as well as the kinds of Federal appropriations we talk about today, to support and care for the nearly 400 different national parks properties we have, as well as our other public lands and treasured landscapes and national forests and along our coastlines and our ridgelines in this country.

The Senator from California gave a very thorough statement of the various programs in our bill. I won't repeat all of those numbers, but I do have a handful of observations I wish to make. Obviously, we don't agree on every detail. But we are not here to agree on every detail, we are here to see whether we can produce a result. I believe we have done that. In the process, I thank Senator Feinstein for addressing a number of the concerns I and many of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have. She has been terrific to work with in that respect.

As she said, this bill is $225 million below the President's budget request, even though it is substantially higher than last year's funding levels. I suppose if I were doing this all by myself, I would have spent less money, but that is not the way our system works. We each make our arguments, fight our spending battles, decide on a budget resolution, and we go from there. So I believe Chairman Inouye and the vice chairman, Thad Cochran, have allocated the funds made available to the Appropriations Committee by the Senate in a fair and responsible way.

Similarly, with the funds we have had to work with on the Interior bill, Chairman Feinstein and I have made our best judgment and done our best to meet the many competing priorities for the varied programs here. She mentioned some of the good things in the bill, and I wish to underscore just a few.

We have continued the Centennial Initiative started under President Bush by adding over $130 million to increase park operations in preparation for the national park centennial in 2016. This is a good time to think about the condition of our national parks. Many of us visit them, so we are familiar with their maintenance needs and their personnel needs.

Some are reading the book I mentioned about Teddy Roosevelt, and millions more, starting September 27, will see Ken Burns' film about the national parks called ``The National Parks: America's Best Idea.'' I am confident the film will remind us of how important those parks are to our national character and how determined we are to make sure that over the next several years, as we approach the centennial, we support them properly. That includes the law enforcement rangers who ensure the safety of the public in our parks, the interpreters who explain

its history and America's history, and the biologists and scientists who teach us about the plants and animals that live there. This bill helps to expand and improve that experience.

We have also provided necessary increases to pay for the rangers who keep visitors to all of our national forests, wildlife refuges, and other public lands safe; health care professionals who provide medical care; the Indian Health Service teachers who provide education in the Indian community--Senator Feinstein described that. Simply keeping pace with the inflationary pay costs and health benefits for park and forest rangers, Indian health care professionals, and other critical personnel required a $540 million increase in funding over the last year.

Senator Feinstein talked about fires. It seems as though when we read about fires or see them on television they are all in California, and our hearts go out to the families who have lost their homes and, a few, their lives as a result of these fires.

But the fires are not all in California. The national Forest Service is busy spending too much of its time on fire protection. It has an effective fire protection unit that is part of its job, but what we have been doing is paying for firefighting the way we used to pay for the Iraq war. We did it off budget. We did it a little later. I congratulate the administration and Senator Feinstein for putting into this budget the amount of money we think we will actually need to fight fires this year. We have added over $570 million compared to last year for firefighting and fire prevention programs. I hope that is enough. I hope we have made a budget that allows us to deal with that so we don't find ourselves coming back with supplementary appropriations and so we don't disrupt all of the other important programs in the Forest Service and in the Department of the Interior. As important as the firefighting function is to the U.S. Forest Service, we don't want to turn the U.S. Forest Service into the U.S. fire service.

Let me make one comment about our process. One of the major criticisms of the appropriations process in recent years has been the failure of the Senate to take up each bill individually. This denies the Members of this body an opportunity to offer amendments and help shape the final bill.

It is important to note that this is the first time in 4 years that the Interior bill has been brought to the floor of the Senate as a stand-alone measure for purposes of examination and amendment by all Senators. This is a tribute to Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, and I thank Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for the fact that we are here today and Senators should now come forward to offer their amendments.

This is the sixth appropriations bill to complete Senate floor action. We are nearly halfway through the process. I believe all of my colleagues share my desire that we are able to complete all 12 individual appropriations bills through the normal order and send them to the President for his signature. It is a much fairer way to operate. It gives those of us who are elected a chance to have our say, and it saves the taxpayer a lot of money by permitting the efficient operation of the government on an orderly, budgeted basis.

Let me close by saying again how much I have enjoyed working with Senator Feinstein and how much I look forward to that privilege in the future.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I have just checked with the manager of the bill, Senator Feinstein, and asked to speak for 5 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, the other day when our colleagues were talking about our departed colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, I was not able to be on the Senate floor, and I did want to say just a few words about my friend Ted Kennedy.

I had the pleasure of serving in this Chamber with him for 16 years. He sat back at that desk in the row behind me, and I had many opportunities to spend time and swap stories and talk about public policy with him. I knew him before I came to the Senate. As a very young man, I worked on his brother Robert Kennedy's campaign for the Presidency, and I met Ted Kennedy then. And, I supported Ted Kennedy in his 1980 Presidential campaign and met him then.

When I came to the Senate, from time to time I was invited to go to Hyannis Port to the Kennedy compound and visited there with Senator Kennedy and his family and went sailing with him. To sail with Senator Ted Kennedy was an extraordinary experience. He was a wonderful sailor.

Many things have been said and written about Ted Kennedy over the years, and especially in recent weeks since his death. I don't need to repeat his many accomplishments here in the Senate; my colleagues have done a great job doing that. Those accomplishments spanned 47 years and would take far too long and too much time to detail, and many have done it, as I said.

I will not repeat his love of all things Irish. Everyone understood that. He was a great Irish storyteller. No prouder Irishman in the world, I daresay, than Ted Kennedy.

I don't need to tell of his many acts of thoughtfulness and kindness, large and small, for the powerful and the powerless. They are well- known already as well and, already, much missed.

Many have talked about his wit and his love of storytelling and a good joke. That, too, was Ted Kennedy. Laughing and making people laugh was part of the hallmark of his character. Often when I think of him I think of a booming laughter that filled the entire room when he was full of joy.

I need not talk about his doggedness or his tireless work ethic or his determination, for they, too, were well-known to all of us who worked with him. Those were the pillars upon which he built success after success, often small, but then building and building, step by step, until it was consequential and often big.

Those were also the pillars on which he built decades of relationships. I think those relationships were the keys to understanding the man with whom we served--Ted Kennedy.

It didn't matter whether you were a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. It didn't matter if you were a businessman or a janitor, young or old, White or Black, rich or poor, powerful or powerless. Ted Kennedy wanted to work with you to try to reach a compromise and see what could be achieved together. He just never, ever stopped; never gave up.

The great American essayist and author, Ralph Waldo Emerson, once said:

The characteristic of heroism is in its persistency. All

men have wandering impulses, fits and starts of generosity.

But when you have chosen your part, abide by it, and do not

weakly try to reconcile yourself with the world.

No one I know in this Chamber was more persistent than Ted Kennedy. He chose his part; he abided by it; he didn't try to reconcile his principles to the moment or to the world; and, he fought and fought for what he believed in and what he thought was right. Sometimes it was very controversial, but he was persistent and fought long and hard until the end.

Even when he was sick and tired and worn out he fought on because he loved his country and he knew his colleagues and others loved this country as much as he did. He knew there was always that common ground, love of country, and he knew that people of good faith, regardless of party and regardless of position, could achieve great things for the country they all loved.

When he was done, he had cast more than 15,000 votes, more than 300 laws bear the name of Senator Ted Kennedy, and he cosponsored more than 2,000 others. That doesn't include the thousands of laws he merely influenced. Much of that work was done on the Senate floor. It was his life's work.

If the Senate was his home, this Senate floor surely was his front porch, where he would let everyone know what was on his mind. When Senator Ted Kennedy, at that desk, was on the Senate floor, you may not have agreed with him, you might not have even cared about the subject before he began to speak, but you had to listen, you had to respond, and you had to take sides.

He was called the lion of the Senate by many. When he was on the floor roaring, it was quite a sight and sound to behold, a sound that moved hearts. It moved minds. It moved this very institution and, indeed, the country itself. He could be quietly persuasive, but on the Senate floor his passion literally poured out of him.

It was said long ago of Daniel Webster, another famous Senator from Massachusetts, that he was ``a great cannon loaded to the lips.'' Well, Senator Kennedy was a great cannon loaded to the lips, and this institution will long miss that passion, those words, his spirit, his love of life, and his love of this institution and our country.

There is an old saying that all men die, but not all men live. Well, surely Ted Kennedy lived. Senator Ted Kennedy lives in our hearts and in his good works and in his life's work, and I just wanted today to join my colleagues in saying: Ted, Godspeed, rest in peace, and all Members of this Senate miss you dearly.

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

Madam President, we are on another spending bill, one of the spending bills we must address during

this Congress. I compliment Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander for their work on this very important bill.

I also want to comment on something that was in the news today, stemming from a comment I made yesterday about some spending issues. I will do it very briefly.

This deals with the issue of the economic recovery or the stimulus package. I voted for that. I didn't vote for the TARP funds, $700 billion for the financial bailout last fall. But I did vote for the economic recovery or the stimulus program early this year because I believed it was necessary to give the economy a boost.

Frankly, I think this economy is showing signs of beginning to recover, and that is going to be good for all Americans. There are a lot of important investments being made in this economic recovery program, investments in building and repairing roads and bridges and many other investments in infrastructure around this country that at the end of the day will both put people to work and result in important assets for this country.

Yesterday, I made a point about one particular project that is being funded with stimulus funds, and I want to make sure everyone understands the point I made. Part of some stimulus funds were dedicated to the northern border ports of entry, smaller ports of entry between the United States and Canada. The specifications for these ports of entry were developed in 2002 and 2006, under the previous administration, by the Department of Homeland Security. So when money began to be allowed under the stimulus program to invest in the northern border ports of entry, the specifications created by the previous administration were going to drive how much was spent.

As I looked into it, I realized that these requirements were completely out of balance. The requirements would create a common footprint at small ports of entry and require the expenditure of, on average, $15 million for a small port of entry in circumstances where, on average, only five vehicles an hour were coming through the port of entry. I believed that was excessive.

That was not Secretary Napolitano's call. That was not something she did. That comes from the requirements from that agency that were developed in 2002 and 2006. So I asked Secretary Napolitano to take a look at that, and suspend the projects pending a review, and she immediately said, yesterday, let's review that, let's do a 30-day review.

First of all, I want to say thanks to the Secretary. I think that is exactly the right action. I didn't know these were the set of requirements that were going to drive that kind of funding. But, frankly, waste is waste.

Of the 22 northern border ports of entry that are slated to be demolished and rebuilt, 9 of them are in my State. Much of this money would be spent in my State. But I do not think that much of this spending is justified because I believe those requirements must change.

I agree that we should ensure that small port of entry have adequate security. I will support investment to upgrade those facilities where it is really necessary to do so. But I do not believe it is appropriate, nor do I believe Secretary Napolitano nor my colleagues here in the Congress believe it will be appropriate upon review, to spend $15 million on average at ports of entry where you have five vehicles an hour coming through the port. That is way out of balance. It makes no sense to me.

My comments were portrayed in some press accounts as some sort of criticism of the Congress for passing stimulus legislation aimed at economic recovery. It is not a criticism of that. A lot of that stimulus spending is necessary and is lifting the economy and creating an asset and people in jobs or putting people back to work. I think that makes sense. But it also makes a lot of sense for all of us to very carefully scrutinize how this is done, where it is done, whether it is a good investment, and whether it is fair to the taxpayers.

I will say again, I appreciate the fact that the Secretary is doing this review. I give her credit for doing that. My hope is that at the end of the review, she will conclude, as I do, that we cannot spend money that way. Those requirements that were created in 2002 or 2006 were excessive. You can have adequate security at these small ports that have five vehicles coming through per hour, without spending $15 million to demolish and rebuild each of these facilities. It is simply too much money.

I understand that perhaps some people in my State will be a little upset if they stood to gain from nine of those ports being upgraded. I am all for making investments that are the right kinds of investments, to upgrade ports at the northern border. But I do not believe we ought to waste money, and I think that is what would happen with the requirements that were created in 2002 and 2006.

Let me make one final point. I can understand, perhaps, why someone might be tempted to create extraordinary requirements. In 2002, we were in the shadow of the terrorist attacks of 2001. I understand how that might have made somebody create a set of requirements that now seem to be way out of whack.

The fact is that we need to have a secure Northern border, but we also have to use common sense. If in 2002 and 2006 there were design specifications drawn up that today would cost $15 million per port of entry, at facilities that receive only a few vehicles per day, I say this needs to be carefully reviewed. Let's now review those judgments and make sure that we are truly increasing border security, and that we are not wasting the taxpayers' money.

I wanted to reiterate that my statements yesterday were not a general comment on the Economic Recovery Act. A lot of good, important investments are being made that create jobs and create real assets for this country. But I think all of us should be vigilant and look at situations such as this and where change is necessary, to require and make those changes. In this case, I believe the right kind of change could save a couple of hundred million dollars, and I think that is important. Even if that saving and less spending comes in my State, I believe that is important.

Years and years ago, a Federal courthouse was to be built in my State. I believed the amount of money that was proposed to build it was twice as much as was necessary, and here in Congress I cut the money in half. In the end, they built a perfectly good courthouse for slightly less than half of the funds that had been originally proposed. I think all of us have stewardship requirements to the taxpayer, and that is why I wanted to amplify on what I talked about yesterday.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Am I correct that at 12:30 we will go to the nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit?

Mr. President, prior to going to that, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember one of Vermont's greatest citizens, dairy farmer, and American, my good friend, Harold Howrigan.

Harold passed away at the age of 85 at his home in Fairfield, VT, on September 7, 2009. He was surrounded by his loving family, long and extended and wonderful family.

Harold was a family man. This large extended family included his wife of 56 years, Ann, and three sons and two daughters, 12 grandchildren. He had an optimist's outlook on life. He had a knack for storytelling that cast a spell over everyone in his presence.

Many of his stories were about growing up in a family with nine other siblings, reared by William and Margaret

Howrigan on their hillside farm in Vermont. I can think of more than one occasion when Marcelle and I would be there. We would be listening to one of these stories, and I knew that we might be late for the next thing, but I didn't want it to end. I wanted to hear what else he had to say.

Harold was a man who seemed to accomplish more each year than most of us do in a lifetime. He built his Fairfield, VT farm to over 1,000 acres, including the land that had been worked by his family since the mid 1800s.

It is now tended by the next generation of Howrigans. I remember him as a dynamic man, as genuinely comfortable in his public duties as he was in the dairy parlor or out splitting wood. In addition to running the farm and tending to the family he loved so much, he accepted leadership roles in dozens of civic and agricultural organizations from local to national in scope. He moderated the Fairfield town meeting right up to this year. The town meeting is a sacred institution in Vermont. A town wants to make sure they have the very best and the fairest and the most knowledgeable to be their moderator. It also helps when you have somebody with an Irish sense of humor. This is a position of distinction in any Vermont town.

He was director of the St. Alban's Cooperative Creamery for 25 years and president for another 20. He was appointed by three Governors, both parties, to the Vermont Milk Commission. He was also a local and national leader among maple sugar makers. He served on University of Vermont advisory boards and on county commissions. All the while he tended the fire in the Fairfield sugar house each year and he got the cows milked each day and sang for 60 years on the choir at church. The church, of course, is named, as you would expect in a town full of Irish immigrants and descendants, St. Patrick's.

Nationally, he was a director of the National Milk Producers Federation for 20 years and chairman of the National Dairy Board. In addition to his work on dairy, he was a local and national leader for the maple industry, a prolific sugar maker. I know Marcelle and I and our children, when we were having something at the farm that called for maple syrup--and in our family, that is just about anything from English muffins to pancakes--everybody's eyes would light up if we knew it was Howrigan syrup.

Notwithstanding his prodigious service to his community, his profession and his country, his greatest impact was probably felt through his personal relationships with his family and what he considered, I think, all of Vermont, his extended family. As a friend, he was a trusted adviser on agricultural issues over several decades. I know Senator Jeffords also valued his friendship and advice and Governors consulted him regularly. But as dad and grandpa to a large, active family, he cultivated two new generations of Vermont dairy farmers and maple sugar makers.

We could talk about all the different things he did, but it still does not give a picture of the man. He was known for a deep and spirited Irish pride, a sentiment I obviously share. I find myself comparing that other great Irish American and dear friend, Teddy Kennedy, whose recent loss I also mourn. But I also treasure the trip my wife Marcelle and I took with Harold to Ireland. There he felt he was truly in the Promised Land. We would walk about the streets of Dublin or small towns nearby. He was so proud of his family's Irish heritage, he never stopped smiling throughout his visit.

The day of his funeral, last week, Marcelle wore an Irish pin we purchased with him in Ireland. I, of course, wore a green tie in his honor. I watched his grandsons wearing some of the Irish ties Harold had owned. I listened to his son and daughter and grandchildren talk about him, capturing him in his stories and his nature. I think about the very last conversation I had with him just weeks before he died. In all these things, he never asked for anything for himself. He always asked me to watch out for other people. He led by quiet example and hard work and kindness and love.

I, along with the State of Vermont and many across the United States and across the Atlantic, will miss Harold. He was a dear friend, truly a great American. Similar to all Vermonters, I express my sympathy to his family and I say: Goodbye, Harold, my dear friend.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2394.

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

Madam President, I compliment both Senators who just spoke, the Senator from California and the Senator from Tennessee. You underscore why we are so proud to live in this great country and the importance of these resources.

Also, as a former Secretary of Agriculture, I know the importance of adequate funding for firefighting. Without it, our forests are in serious jeopardy. I wanted to express that.

I rise today to talk about something that is enormously important. Three days ago, I was here on the Senate floor urging my colleagues to vote in favor of an amendment I offered to another appropriations bill, the Transportation and Housing Appropriations bill. The amendment had a very specific purpose. The purpose was to prohibit funds from going to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as

Madam President, this is such an important issue. This is an issue that people all across the country are watching on the Senate floor. Therefore, I feel very strongly that if there were ever an opportunity for Senators to come to the floor and cast a vote in a rollcall fashion, this is one to make a very strong statement again about ACORN not receiving this funding.

I appreciate the offer of the Senator from California, but I must insist, because of the nature of what we are dealing with--the claims of alleged wrongdoing, the history of wrongdoing with employees from this organization, the videotapes, the potential to access the funding--that we need a rollcall vote on this issue.

Madam President, speaking to my colleague from California, let me say that I appreciate the Senator's offer of accepting this by unanimous consent. I appreciate the Senator's claim that she believes there is no way they can access funding. But I will tell you that I have operated a Federal Department myself--a very large department--where we administered millions and billions of dollars of grants and loans, et cetera. Once that appropriations bill is passed, the Senator knows and I know that unless there is some real trouble, we are free at the departmental level to pretty much administer the money. So there cannot be a guarantee that they won't get money out of this program.

The second thing I will offer here is this: This is not one of those issues that just comes along. This involves an organization that has had a history of very serious problems. I could not feel more strongly that the American people want us to come to the floor and cast a vote on this issue.

The final thing I want to say is this: I feel this is an important issue. There is a way to solve this problem so that I don't have to come down on every appropriations bill. We will be introducing a bill today--and we have reached out in a very bipartisan way to Democrats and Republicans, asking for people to join in this bill--that says simply that across the entire Federal Government no money for ACORN. My hope is we can pass that bill expeditiously and we can get that into effect.

I would like nothing more than to avoid having to come down here on each and every appropriations bill. Again, I appreciate the offer, but this is an important vote to constituents all across the United States. I think we owe it to them to show how we are going to vote on this issue.