Security Clearance Modernization and Reporting Act of 2009

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Robert Casey, Herb Kohl, and Tom Udall to introduce the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009.

Health care reform is a national priority--far too many Americans do not have access to meaningful, affordable health insurance. But even if every person in the U.S. had health insurance, we do not have a cohesive or coordinated strategy to address health workforce emergencies and shortages, and problems with reliable access to quality, affordable care. Over 20 percent of Americans are living in health professions shortage areas without access to adequate medical, dental, and mental and behavioral health services. This workforce deficiency will worsen as the population ages and grows by an estimated 25 million individuals per decade and, could be severely exacerbated by epidemics and disasters. It is estimated that without intervention, the United States will experience shortages of as many as 200,000 physicians and one million nurses by 2020. It takes many years to create a pipeline of health professionals. I am introducing the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 to coordinate our health workforce strategy, to build and maintain this pipeline, so that health and safety of every American is protected. The legislation is based on the most recent recommendations developed by Council on Graduate Medical Education and other health workforce experts.

This legislation addresses these issues in an unprecedented and comprehensive manner. It creates a Permanent National Health Workforce Commission to assure that the Federal investment in the education of health professionals is a public good that address the needs of the American people. The Commission is tasked to design, revise, implement and evaluate programs, grants, and regulations related to the nation's health workforce.

The Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 expands the Medicare medical home demonstration project. This pilot program would include 1,000 medical home primary care providers working in interdisciplinary teams. These clinicians will provide the highest quality medical care using the best health information technology, and personalized, coordinated, and accessible care.

But new models are not enough. We have allowed our primary care educational infrastructure to crumble. Without intervention, the decline will likely continue, and access to care in underserved areas will rapidly deteriorate. Family physicians represent 58 percent of the rural physician workforce, 70 percent of non-federal physicians in whole-county health professional shortage areas, and 78 percent of primary care physician full-time equivalents in the National Health Service Corps. Yet, the number of graduates from medical school in the U.S. who choose to practice family medicine has plummeted 50 percent in less than 10 years. Currently, less than 5 percent of graduates from medical school specialize in primary care. This is despite the fact that one of the most significant measures of the effectiveness and efficiency of a healthcare system is the degree to which the population has access to meaningful and coordinated primary care.

Experts tell us that the dearth of primary care providers may be attributed to many factors including low reimbursement levels and a lack of federal incentives to teaching institutions to promote primary care. My legislation would allow the National Health Workforce Commission to analyze these issues and recommend solutions including changes in Federal reimbursement systems. For example, this bill calls for improved transparency and accountability for Federal dollars spent for medical education through direct Graduate Medical Education, GME, and Indirect Medical Education, IME, and money paid in Disproportionate Share, DSH, support for safety net services provided under the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

This legislation also substantially increases funding for the National Health Service Corps. This will help provide healthcare access to the areas of our country that are in most desperate need. Also, included are expanded loan forgiveness and grant programs to develop new training programs in rural and other underserved communities to help us train health professionals in areas where they are needed.

The Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 establishes a U.S. Public Health Sciences Track to train physicians, dentists, nurses, physician assistants, mental and behavior health specialists, pharmacists, and public health professionals emphasizing team-based service, public health, epidemiology, and emergency preparedness and response in affiliated institutions. Students in this program are accepted as Commission Corps officers in the U.S. Public Health Service and will receive tuition remission and a stipend with a two year service commitment for each year of school covered. This group will form an elite cadre of healthcare professionals that can be deployed when epidemics, natural or other disasters strike.

I am introducing the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 with the understanding that our health workforce shortfall cannot be solved using a piecemeal approach. We must address health workforce issues in health care reform to guarantee access to quality care for all Americans but we must also ensure that taxpayer dollars used to support health professions education are spent wisely.

This legislation has received widespread support and is endorsement by the: National Association of Community Health Centers, National Rural Health Association, American Medical Students Association, Trust for America's Health, American Psychological Association, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American Academy of Physician Assistants, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, National Rural Recruitment and Retention Network, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, New Mexico Health Resources, New Mexico Medical Society, New Mexico Chapter of the American College of Physicians, and the Santa Fe Project Access.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in support of the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009. This legislation would reform the antiquated Mining Law of 1872, a law that governs the mining of hardrock minerals, such as gold, silver, and copper, from our Federal lands.

When the Mining Law was enacted in 1872, in the aftermath of the California gold rush, Congress sought to encourage settlement of the West. Congress did this by offering free minerals and land to those who were willing to go West and mine. Congress put in place a system whereby miners could enter the public lands and locate claims for valuable mineral deposits, and mine the minerals with no further payment to the government. In the 1872 law, Congress also provided that the Federal Government would patent, or transfer title in fee simple, to the mining claims on the public domain for $2.50 or $5.00 an acre.

In 1920, Congress enacted the Mineral Leasing Act, and removed oil, gas, coal, and certain other minerals from the operation of the Mining Law. In so doing, Congress enacted a management regime that requires the leasing of these minerals. In addition, Congress required payment of per-acre rentals and ad valorem royalties based on the value of production of the oil, gas and coal, providing a return to the public for the production of publicly-owned resources.

However, as we all know, the Mining Law of 1872 continues to govern the disposition of hardrock minerals from Federal lands. While Congress has stepped in and prevented the patenting of lands through annual appropriations riders, patenting provisions allowing the transfer of mineralized Federal lands for $2.50 or $5.00 per acre are still on the books. In addition, to this day under the Mining Law, billions of dollars of hardrock minerals can be mined from Federal lands without payment of a royalty. General land management and environmental laws apply, but there are no specific statutory provisions under the Mining Law setting surface management or environmental standards.

Efforts to comprehensively reform the Mining Law have been ongoing literally for decades, but results have thus far been elusive. Congress came close to enacting comprehensive reform in 1994, and Congress has enacted moratoria on patent issuance and has imposed claim maintenance fees through the appropriations process. The House passed reform legislation last Congress and several of us in the Senate had discussions regarding how we could address this issue.

There is a growing number of people saying that finally this Congress may be the time to achieve this long-awaited reform. Chairman Rahall, a champion of reform in the House of Representatives, has again introduced mining reform legislation. The bill that I introduce today differs in many significant ways from the House legislation, and builds on discussions in the Senate last Congress. My bill, like other reform proposals, reflects a view that the law needs to be amended to ensure that the public gets a fair return for its resources, that environmental and land use requirements are modernized, and that certainty is provided to the mining industry.

I note that my bill includes a range for both the royalty rate and the reclamation fee which will be set by the Secretary through a rulemaking process. This ensures that the Secretary will have the benefit of comments and information from interested parties and the public in setting the royalty and fee. We must look comprehensively at the subject of royalties and fees to ensure that we continue to maintain a healthy domestic hardrock mining industry with the benefits that the nation derives from that industry, including jobs and strategic minerals. At the same time, we want to ensure that the public gets the fair return on these resources that the American people deserve. I hope to receive additional input on this issue of royalties and fees during consideration of the bill.

Another part of this legislation warrants special attention--that is the provisions relating to abandoned hardrock mine reclamation. While estimates vary, a recent survey of States indicated that there are as many as 500,000 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide with most of these in the West. These abandoned mines pose serious public health and safety risks. They also degrade our environment and pose special threats to our most precious resource: water.

As we discuss the size and shape of legislation to reform the 1872 law, there appears to be substantial support for enacting a robust hardrock abandoned mine land program. My legislation would enact a reclamation fee to fund this effort. In 1977, Congress enacted a coal AML program as part of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to address the serious problem of abandoned coal mines. This program was funded by a fee levied on coal production. We are overdue to enact a similar program to deal with abandoned hardrock mines.

Mr. President, the bill I introduce today reforms the Mining Law of 1872 in important ways. The key provisions of this bill are outlined.

The bill eliminates patenting of Federal lands, but grandfathers patent applications filed and meeting all requirements by September 30, 1994.

The bill makes modest increases in the annual claim maintenance fee, from $125 to $150, and claim location fee, from $30 to $50. The legislation requires the mine operator to pay a fee in exchange for the use of Federal land that is included within the mine permit area. The bill provides that fees collected are to be used for the administration of hardrock mining on Federal lands. Any excess funds are deposited into the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund.

The bill provides that the production of all locatable minerals is subject to a royalty to be determined by the Secretary by regulation of not less than 2 percent and not more than 5 percent of the value of production, not including reasonable transportation, beneficiation, and processing costs. The royalty may vary based on the particular mineral concerned. No royalty will be collected from lands under permit that are producing in commercial quantities on the date of enactment. Royalty revenues will be deposited into the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund.

The bill includes a provision for royalty reductions for all or part of a mining operation where the person conducting the mineral activities shows by clear and convincing evidence that without the reduction, production would not occur.

The bill states that permits are required for all mineral activities on Federal land except for ``casual use'' that ordinarily results in no or negligible disturbance. Mining permits are for a term of 30 years and so long thereafter as production occurs in commercial quantities. The operator must provide evidence of approved financial assurances sufficient to ensure completion of reclamation if performed by the Secretary concerned.

Financial assurances attributable to the cost of water treatment will not be released until the discharge has ceased for at least 5 years or the operator has met all applicable water quality standards for at least 5 years. The operator may be required to establish a trust fund or other long-term funding mechanism to provide financial assurances for long-term treatment of water or other long-term post-mining maintenance or monitoring requirements.

The Secretary of Agriculture must take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation in administering mineral activities on National Forest System land. The bill directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to jointly issue regulations.

The bill requires within 3 years a review of certain lands to determine whether they will be available for future mining claim location. The Governor of a state, Chairman of an Indian tribe, or appropriate local official may petition the Secretary to undertake a review of an area.

The bill establishes a program for the reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines in 14 western states. Creates a Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund comprised of hardrock royalties, fees, and donations. Each operator of a hardrock mining operation on Federal, state, tribal or private land, must pay a reclamation fee established by the Secretary of not less than 0.3 percent, and not more than 1.0 percent, of the value of the production of the hardrock minerals for deposit into the Fund. The bill provides grant programs for all states for hardrock reclamation projects and for public entities and nonprofit organizations for collaborative restoration projects to improve fish and wildlife habitat affected by past hardrock mining.

Reform of the Mining Law of 1872 is a matter that has come before the Congress repeatedly and that we simply must address. I ask that my colleagues

join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the School Day Factor Act of 2009.

This bill would encourage States to provide students with the time they need to master knowledge and skills they will need to succeed in the 21st century, and to provide teachers with sufficient time to deliver effective instruction.

Twenty-first century learners, and their teachers, are faced with educational demands that simply did not exist decades ago. Right now, our economy is struggling. But we have a plan to get it back on track by investing aggressively in scientific R&D, and the deployment of new technologies. If we are to maintain and increase our Nation's competitiveness in the global economy for decades to come, we must allow every child the opportunity for a quality 21st century education. Today's students need to master mathematics, science, and technology, language arts and social studies, and they must also have opportunities to study foreign languages, the arts, and physical education. No one of these subject areas should be sacrificed at the expense of another. But that is the choices that teachers and students are faced with in schools across the United States. Teachers are being asked to cover more material than before, without being given more time. Students are expected to master more material than students of decades ago, without being given more time. Meanwhile, researchers have demonstrated that reducing instructional time hinders learning. As summarized by the National Research Council, in its report on How People Learn, ``. . . significant learning takes major investments of time.''

How can a quality, well rounded education be achieved when the average school year in this country includes only 180 days--less than half the number of days in a calendar year? Children today are spending only 20 percent to 30 percent of their waking hours in school, even if they have a record of perfect attendance. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, by the time American students finish high school, they will have spent more time watching television than in the classroom.

In 1991, Congress established the National Education Commission on Time and Learning, an independent advisory group charged with studying the relationship between instructional time and student learning in American schools. Members of the commission visited schools in the U.S. and abroad, and interviewed teachers, administrators, parents, and students. The Commission concluded that students and teachers in American schools are ``prisoners of time,'' captives of an agrarian- based school calendar that robs them of the opportunity for a quality education. To quote from their report, ``we have been asking the impossible of our students--that they learn as much as their foreign peers while spending only half as much time in core academic subjects.'' I add that this means we have also been asking the impossible of our teachers--to deliver effective instruction, without sufficient time. Clearly, our school calendars have not moved forward along with our societal and technological advances.

The Commission's 1994 report was not the first to recommend lengthening the school year. In 1983, the Nation at Risk report recommended increasing the school day to 7 hours per day, and the school year to 200 to 220 days per year, as a means to strengthen our nation's grip on global competitiveness. Well, it has been 25 years since that report, and I believe the time has come to give students and teachers the time they need for a quality education.

The School Day Factor Act will support efforts to expand the school year, by coordinating school funding with the length of the school year, and by encouraging schools to add five days to their calendar each year, for the next 4 years. This bill introduces a variable, the ``School Day Factor,'' that will reflect the number of mandatory full days included in a state's school year, and it may be adjusted to reflect any increases in instructional hours per day. This variable will be added to existing Title I allocation formulas that determine education grants to States.

The existing funding allocation formulas would be essentially unchanged for States whose school calendars meet a base level number of days per school year. By raising the base level school year length by 5 school days per year, over a 4 year period, the average school year calendar would reach the target of 200 school days per year by 2014. Inclusion of the School Day Factor will result in higher grants to states with school years that exceed the base level number of school days per year, and smaller grants to states with school years that fall below the base level.

I believe that schools are not only ready for this change, but that they are setting the pace for this movement. Some States and school districts have

already taken the initiative to expand their school year by 20 days per year. In my own State of New Mexico, a State initiated pilot program to extend kindergarten by 20 to 25 days per year led to such positive outcomes that the program was recently extended to third grade. Requests to participate have increased, as more school districts understand the benefits afforded by expanding students' and teachers' educational time. The School Day Factor Act is an investment that will support the efforts to dramatically increase this participation rate such that the 200 day school year is the norm, not an expanded calendar.

Clearly, more time alone is not sufficient to insure quality learning. By including the School Day Factor Act in the reauthorization of ESEA, it will be paired with actions designed to enhance and support quality instruction delivered by highly qualified teachers. I hope that this legislation will be included in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Burr, Kennedy, Hatch and Murray to introduce the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation, ATTAIN, Act of 2009.

This bill would amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to rename part D, Achievement through Technology and Innovation, and reauthorize it through FY2014. I am very pleased that ATTAIN is supported by the Consortium for School Networking, International Society for Technology and Education, Software and Information Industry Association, State Educational Technology Directors Association, and many other education groups.

In 2002, Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act to close the achievement gap between low-income, underperforming students and their more affluent peers. Without a renewed dedication to the quality of programs used in our schools, this goal, as well as providing an excellent education for students, will be difficult to achieve. While there is no question that we have made progress in recent years in advancing educational opportunity, I remain concerned about the number of schools that are failing to meet the performance criteria set out in the No Child Left Behind Act.

The bill I am introducing represents a critical step forward in advancing learning technologies for millions of students across the country. Many schools lack the resources necessary for the 21st century classroom and to meet the needs and expectations of today's students. Furthermore, technology and e-learning in our schools are a must if we are to meet our Nation's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education needs and to provide students with the skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century knowledge-based, global economy.

By authorizing the Enhancing Education Through Technology Act, EETT, as part of NCLB, Congress recognized that Federal leadership and investment is needed to serve as a catalyst for State and local education initiatives aimed at school innovation and improved student achievement. EETT has shown to be effective, particularly in my home State of New Mexico. As you know, many schools often do not have access to learning resources that enable their students to gain an academic background with the technological skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college or the modern workplace. Through EETT, programs such as the Online Teaching and Learning Opportunities Year 2, have become bright spots of opportunity in some of our Nation's most isolated communities and have brought technical training, professional development and advanced technology resources to teachers and students. Notwithstanding this record of success, it is critical that states such as New Mexico have the opportunity to further advance the use of learning technologies to deliver innovative instruction and curriculum.

To this end, the ATTAIN Act has three main objectives. First, to ensure that through technology every student has access to individualized, rigorous, and relevant learning to meet the goals of NCLB and to prepare all students for the 21st century. Second, to build upon and increase the use of evidence-based and innovative systemic school redesign that centers around technology. And finally, to provide meaningful professional development around technology that leads to changes in teaching and curriculum and improves student technology literacy.

The future of our students' success depends on the quality of their educational experience. I want to thank Senators Burr, Kennedy, Hatch, and Murray for their leadership and commitment to improving education in this country. They remain tireless advocates for our Nation's students, and I am pleased to be working with them on this legislation as we begin reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act.

This legislation is an integral step in advancing State and local learning technologies for millions of students across the country, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, today, the Senate can be very proud of a very significant accomplishment for the enjoyment and protection of wilderness areas, historical sites, national parks, forests, trails and scenic rivers. Collectively, this is one of the most sweeping conservation bills the Senate has passed in many years.

This bill has been through many twists and turns over the last year. But today's successful vote could not have been possible without the tenacity and dedication of the Majority Leader.

I thank the majority leader for his steadfast support and dedication to seeing that these important public land priorities become law.

There are a number my bills in this omnibus lands package that I would like to speak to.

First, the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act. This bill will create a National Park Service trail to celebrate the remarkable geologic history of the Pacific Northwest region. This bill has enjoyed regional, bipartisan support. I would like to thank Senators Murray, Wyden, Crapo, and my former colleagues Senators Smith and Craig for working with me on this legislation.

There are too many people to thank by name but I want to acknowledge the dedication of the Ice Age Floods Institute, particularly its President, Gary Kleinknecht, who has worked tirelessly to educate our country on the significance of the Ice Age Floods Geologic Trail.

In many ways, the members of the Institute serve as the proteges of people like University of Washington professor J. Harlan Bretz and USGS geologist Joseph Pardee, who fought to make credible their hypothesis about the historic existence of the Ice Age Floods.

This is a wonderful day for many communities, scientists, and Ice Age Floods enthusiasts throughout the Pacific Northwest, and for tourism and geologic education.

The Ice Age Floods Institute has promoted the development of an Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail for over 12 years. With the growing interest and enthusiasm for this concept, this Geologic Trail is a long time coming. The story of the Ice Age Floods is a truly amazing story of the forces of nature and their impact on our lives.

When geologists first saw the vast Columbia Basin in eastern Washington, they recognized that glaciers and flowing water had played a large part in shaping the extraordinary landscape, with its canyons, buttes, dry cataracts, boulder fields, and gravel bars.

During the last Ice Age, some 13,000 to 18,000 years ago, an ice cap covered almost all of Canada and extended down across much of the Pacific Northwest. In Idaho, a 2,000-foot-high glacier backed water up in western Montana until it formed Glacial Lake Missoula, totaling 530 cubic miles or more than Lakes Erie and Ontario combined.

When Glacial Lake Missoula deepened enough, the sheer force of the backed up water undermined the glacial ice dam, and the ice give way in a cracking explosion. The huge lake was released all at once.

When the dam broke, a towering mass of water and ice was released and swept across parts of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon on its way to the ocean.

The peak rate of flow was ten times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world. The huge lake may have emptied in as little as 2 or 3 days.

Geologists at the University of Washington counted 89 floods without reaching bottom, leading to present-day estimates of up to 100 catastrophic water releases.

The glacial ice dam would break, sparking cataclysmic floods, fresh ice would eventually flow from Canada to once more create an ice dam and Lake Missoula, and the cycle would be repeated every 50 years or so. It ended only with the melting of the continental ice cap.

These epic floods fundamentally changed the geography and way of life in the Pacific Northwest. The coulees, buttes, boulder fields, lakes, ridges and gravel bars they left behind still define the unique landscape of our State and our region today.

These floods are a remarkable part of our natural heritage. They have profoundly affected the geography and ways of life in the region but have remained largely unknown to the general public.

The legacy of the floods includes not only stark scabland and dramatic dry coulees and cataracts, but also exceptionally fertile, productive farmland, and significant wetlands and aquifers.

Creating a National Park Service trail to recognize and celebrate how these floods literally shaped the face of our state will provide an unparalleled educational resource for Washingtonians and visitors from across the country.

It will also spur economic development and create jobs in local communities across eastern and central Washington.

I appreciate the Senate's attention to this bill that will help educate and interpret one of the largest flooding events known to science.

To date, more than 30 entities spanning State and local governments, chambers of commerce, and other civic and community organization support creation of the trail concept.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act. This hill would transfer an acre and a half of Forest Service land to the Snoqualmie Pass fire district to help them build a new fire station.

I specifically thank the fire district commissioner Chris Caviezel for working so hard on behalf of the people at Snoqualmie Pass and providing top rate emergency services at one of the most traveled mountain passes in the country.

During our recent winter storms, which brought several feet of snow, following by pounding rain and massive land slides at the Pass, Chris has been on the front lines providing tireless and dedicated round the clock public service to keep Snoqualmie Pass safe.

The Snoqualmie Pass Fire Department serves a portion of two counties on both sides of the Cascade Mountains along Interstate 90, a community of 350 full-time residents that peaks to 1,500 during the ski season.

Additionally, the ski area estimates 20,000 patrons on a busy weekend, and the Department of Transportation estimates that up to 60,000 vehicles travel through the fire district on a busy day, making it the busiest mountain highway in the country.

This area is also the major transportation corridor for goods and services between eastern and western Washington. The all-volunteer fire department averages over 300 calls a year with about a 10 percent annual increase in call volumes, which is more than triple the amount of calls a typical all-volunteer fire department would respond to in a year.

Eighty-four percent of those incidents are for nontax paying residents. Consequently, the fire department has the characteristics of a large city with the limited resources of a small community.

In recent years, this area has been the scene of major winter snowstorms, multi-vehicle accidents, and even avalanches.

The fire district is often the first responder to incidents in the area, which is prone to rock slides and avalanches and it is not uncommon for this community to be isolated for hours or even days at a time.

Several thousand people can be stranded at the pass during those periods when the Pass is closed and while the Department of Transportation works quickly to get the roads back open, it can be very taxing on local resources.

For decades, the fire district has been leasing its current site from the Forest Service. They operate out of an aging building that was not designed to be a fire station.

Through their hard work and dedication, they have served their community ably despite this building's many shortcomings. However, with traffic on the rise and the need for emergency services in the area growing, the fire district needs to move to a true fire station.

The fire district has identified a nearby site that would better serve the public safety needs at the pass. This location would provide easy access to the interstate in either direction, reducing emergency response times.

The parcel is on Forest Service property, immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange, between a frontage road and the interstate itself. The parcel was formerly a disposal site during construction of the freeway and is now a gravel lot.

It is my understanding that there are offers of support to construct a new fire station from State and local officials, and to mitigate any effects of construction, and I support those efforts.

I appreciate the efforts of Senator Murray and my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to review this issue and bring this bill forward. I look forward to continuing to work with the community at the pass and my colleagues to improve public safety in the area.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the Pacific Northwest trail a national scenic trail.

The Pacific Northwest is home to some of the most pristine and breathtaking scenery this country has to offer--from vast patches of forest and steep, snow capped mountain ranges to sandy beaches, rocky ocean coast, and green pastures.

The Pacific Northwest Trail, zigzagging from the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast, offers all of these spectacular views. The Pacific Northwest Trail, running from the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast, is 1,200 miles long and ranks among the most scenic trails in the world.

This carefully chosen path runs through the Rocky Mountains, Selkirk Mountains, Pasayten Wilderness, North Cascades, Olympic Mountains, and Wilderness Coast. From beginning to end it passes through three States, crosses three national parks, and winds through seven national forests.

And designating the Pacific Northwest trail a national scenic trail will give it the proper recognition, bring benefits to neighboring rural communities, and promote its protection, development, and maintenance.

In 1980, the National Park Service and the Forest Service completed a feasibility study of the proposed Pacific Northwest trail. And the study concluded that the Pacific Northwest trail has the scenic and recreational qualities needed for designation as a national scenic trail.

Today, approximately 950 miles of the Pacific Northwest trail are completed and provide significant outdoor recreational experiences to citizens and visitors of the United States.

With more recognition and more people from all over the country ``putting on their hiking boots,'' the trail will receive more eligibility for grants funding and increased attention, which in turn will result in increased use and more economic activity in rural areas.

National scenic trails provide recreation, conservation, and enjoyment of significant scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities. The Pacific Northwest trail is a national prize and should be recognized as such.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my wildland firefighter safety legislation. This legislation will improve accountability and transparency in wildland firefighter safety training programs. Wildland firefighting and the safety of wildland firefighters is vitally important to our brave men and women who battle these blazes, and for the communities that depend on them.

When wildfires do occur we rely on courageous men and women to protect our communities and natural resources. Every summer, we send thousands of brave firefighters into harm's way to protect our Nation's rural communities and public lands.

Of course, fighting fires is inherently dangerous. But we must not abide preventable deaths: We must not lose firefighters simply because rules are broken, policies are ignored, and no one is held accountable.

Six years ago, Washington State suffered a horrible tragedy. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, during the second worst drought in Washington history, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control and four courageous firefighters died. Sadly, subsequent investigations revealed that they didn't have to die. The Forest Service has said the tragedy ``could have been prevented.''

Since then, the courage of the Thirtymile families, standing up and demanding change, has had a positive impact on the safety of our wildland firefighters. But we must do much more.

Through training and certification we can lower the risk to the brave men and women who protect our forests and communities. It's critical that Congress is actively engaged to ensure this happens.

An inspector general's report released in March 2006 found problems in the Forest Service's oversight of contracting firefighting crews. Hundreds are contracted by the Forest Service and State agencies every year to fight fires. Roughly one-third of the records it sampled showed that fire fighters' qualification standards had not been met. Too many have been dispatched to fight fires without the necessary preparation.

This is not new. A 2003 Seattle Times report cited an internal Forest Service memo identifying the lack of accountability in the contract firefighting program. A 2004 GAO report found that insufficiently trained contract crews hampered firefighting efforts. And a 2004 IG audit found that at the time the Forest Service could not monitor the certification of more than 80 percent of its own firefighters. That is unacceptable.

This legislation is a very modest yet important proposal. The Senate has already passed it once as an amendment to the 2003 healthy forests legislation, but sadly, it was not included in the conference version of the bill.

It is clear: this bill's provisions are still a necessary tool to ensure that Congress and Federal wildland firefighting agencies are as proactive as possible in protecting the lives of wildland firefighters.

First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety and Transparency Act requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds they spend on firefighter safety and training. Congress and taxpayers deserve to know whether and how Federal funds are being spent to ensure the safety of firefighters.

Improved accountability means improved safety: I hope the Forest Service will agree to track its funds as part of the administration's annual budget request.

Second, my legislation requires the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on their departments' safety and training programs. We need to monitor Federal firefighting agencies and ensure commitments to reform are being acted upon. An annual check-in on safety programs from Congress is essential to making that happen.

Finally, my bill would require the Forest Service to ensure that private firefighting crews working under federal contracts receive training consistent with their Federal counterparts. This is critical not only to protect those private crews but also to safeguard the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the contractors on the fire line.

And so we have an obligation to protect and prepare the brave firefighters we send into harm's way. I look forward to working with my House colleagues on approving this legislation.

All of this could not have been accomplished without the strong support and hard work and dedication of the majority leader and I thank the leader for successfully moving these priorities.

Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation and willingness to work with me of the Senator from New Mexico. He has been a gentleman throughout. We have always had conversations; we just haven't agreed on what we have done. It has been a pleasure to work with him.

Here is a 1,300-page bill. People are going to say a lot of this has been around for a long time, that it doesn't need any debate, that it certainly should not be amended, but it is 1,300 pages. The CBO has refused to score this one. The last one they scored was between $6 and $8 billion. This is somewhere between $10 and $12 billion, especially when we take the outyears beyond 10 years out of it. So here we sit with a 1,300-page bill that has 45 blatant earmarks in it with no ability to amend.

Since July 16, save one time in September, the minority has not been allowed to offer an amendment on any bill. In 180 days, we have had one amendment. No amendments could be offered. It was announced that cloture would be filed prior to even this vote so that we are going to cut off debate. We could have finished this bill last Friday with four or five amendments. We offered 12 amendments and the thought was that we shouldn't.

My concern is, is there reason to hope for change? A lot of my colleagues on my side of the aisle have things that are important to them in the bill. The question the American people ought to be asking is, with 165 bills, 1,300 pages, is now the time for us to set in motion to take an additional 2.2 million acres out of energy production and limit energy exposure to about 5 or 6 million more acres, and raise the total number of wilderness acres to 2 million greater than that we have in total development in the country? How long ago was it we had $4-a-gallon gasoline? Do we not think that is going to come back?

So on process grounds, for the ability to amend or at least have a vote on an amendment to see whether we think we

ought to be long range in our thinking, I have no doubt President-elect Obama wants to see change, he wants to see change here, he has given our country renewed hope, but the first thing out of the box will be our same old habits.

For a good portion of this bill, there is nothing wrong. The chairman knows there are a large number of bills in this bill to which I do not have any objection. But I certainly have some objection to us tying our hand behind our back on energy in the future, which we will do in tremendous ways. My colleagues from Wyoming, and their plans for protecting a very pristine wild area, want to do a good thing, but it can be done better and still preserve tremendous amounts of oil and natural gas in this country.

So we are here today for the first time in 40 years on a new weekend of a first session--the first time in 40 years--and we are going to use it to force through a 1,300-page, $10 billion bill with $915 million in mandatory spending--at a minimum because we did not score it past that; it is going to go about $3 billion total above that--without a single amendment being allowed to debate and vote on.

As I said, it has been 120 days since the last amendment, 180 days since the last two amendments the minority has been allowed to offer as an amendment to a bill. When you count Republican and Democratic Senators throughout the country, you have 156 million people represented by Republicans. Yet they are shut off from having an amendment on the floor of the Senate--the greatest deliberative body in the world--from having the ability to amend. That is not change.

The other problem is our priorities are wrong. We presently have a $9.6 billion backlog in our national parks. They are hurting. The backlog since this time last year has grown by $400 million. With this bill, we are going to load down the National Park Service with spending, administrative fees, doing all sorts of important things. The Clinton birthplace, one which today is run through private funds, we are going to ask the American taxpayer to now pay for it. We are going to spend $3.5 million to help St. Augustine, FL, have a birthday party 6 years from now. That cannot be our priority. It cannot be.

But what we have done is we have put together a bill so we can build a broad basis of consensus to pass it, with everybody holding their nose on everything except on their own thing. Everybody would admit this is not a priority for this country at this time. As a matter of fact, if we were really doing what we should be doing, we should be working on getting out of the economic mess we are in rather than creating additional barriers and consequences from the actions we are going to take with this bill.

When you think about the national parks and you think about the visitor center in Hawaii with the USS Arizona that is sinking--and in a couple years we are not even going to be able to honor that tremendous site because we do not have and will not have put the funds there to take care of the problems--how is that a priority? Mr. President, 1,117 Americans died on the USS Arizona, and the Senate sits today to spend $10 billion on a large number of things that are not a priority and do not have anything to do with the heritage of sacrifice that so proudly and visibly is demonstrated by that memorial.

The Grand Canyon National Park has a $299 million backlog. Trails are closed because we cannot maintain them. The National Mall, in this very city, has a $700 million backlog in maintenance. Without even considering those things and putting them in priority--one of the things I love about Barack Obama is he gets it that you have to do the long-term things and you have to have a priority and you have to be transparent as you go about that so the American people can make a judgement on us. Yet, without a single effort to prioritize spending or honor commitment to our national resources, we are about to add to the burden 10 new heritage areas; 4 new units to the National Park Service; 14 studies to create and expand more National Park Service; 80 wilderness designations, which are an additional 2.2 million acres of Federal land--the Federal Government owns 660 million acres right now; it is the largest expansion in wilderness areas in the last 25 years-- 92 wild and scenic river designations affecting 1,100 miles of shoreline, and every one of those designations will markedly impact our attempts at some sort of energy independence. You cannot deny that it will have an impact. It will have an impact. It will make it much more difficult, even with clean technology and even with alternative energy, to bring that energy to the American people.

Another significant component of this bill is it massively threatens property rights in this country. Over 100 different property rights organizations are in opposition to this bill, and for good reason. Because even though several of the bills in here prohibit the use of eminent domain, the vast majority of them do not, and several recommend that eminent domain be used to accomplish their purpose. The Government owns 1 out of 3 acres in the U.S. and 1 out of 2 acres in the West. Eminent domain, whether it be from wilderness areas, heritage areas, national wild and scenic rivers, national trails, will have a major impact on anybody living close or in somewhat proximity to any of these new designations because, in fact, they are impacted, even outside of it. In testimony before the Energy Committee, it was stated by the Park Service and several others that, in fact, they will use that to lessen the effect and impact on these new designations.

Let me outline some of the other authorizations we are making in this bill. I know my colleagues disagree with me on authorizing versus what they mean on appropriations, but the fact is, if you read the press releases of Members of this body, when we authorize, they tell the people at home we are going to spend it.

We are going to estimate $1 billion for a water project in California that is 84 years old that will never accomplish what it is supposed to and will have a major impact on 10,000 agricultural entities and impact over $2 billion worth of commerce--$2 billion in commerce--and that $1 billion is just the start of annual mandatory expenditures in the future.

There is $5 million--and I know the Acting President pro tempore is very interested in this, but we have to ask the question--to create a way to limit the impact of wolves on our cattle ranchers in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. We created it. Is that a priority for us right now, to compensate ranchers who lose cattle to wild wolves? Should that be where we are spending our money right now, especially when everybody will agree at the end of this next year, on full accounting, at the end of the next fiscal year, we are going to be close to a $1.8 trillion deficit? Should we annually spend that money? Should we create another Federal program that is going to dole out money--not that maybe we should not do that, but is now the time to do it? Is now the time to put it in the row of saying: Here is where we are going to spend our money.

There is $250,000 to study whether Alexander Hamilton's boyhood home in Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, should be designated as a new national park. Should we spend that money now? Once we authorize that, that is going to come through the National Park Service and they are going to expend the money. They are going to do what Congress tells them to do.

There is $12 or $14 million for a new garden for our arboretum to make sure we have taken care of orchids. We should probably do that at some point in time, but is now the time to do that?

We have 100 environmental groups that think we should not challenge this road through the wilderness in Alaska to one city when we already have an alternate method of transportation. Yet we are going to do that in this bill because we have put it together. Everybody holds their nose and votes.

We are going to authorize the expenditure of money to discover old shipwrecks. We should be doing that now? That is a priority for the Congress and the country in the condition in which we find ourselves?

I believe many things in this bill, this 1,300 pages, we ought to do. But if you went through and polled the average American on everything in this bill, what they would say is: It is probably not worth it for me to get what my State wants and give on all these other things.

We are going to lose 300 million barrels of proven oil reserves. There is no

question about that. The data used by the U.S. Geological Survey is old data. They admitted it is old data. We are going to lose energy, the access to it. We are going to lose the ability to access future energy reserves. But, most of all, what we are going to do is we are going to disappoint the American people because things have not changed. What is a priority for us here in terms of political benefit at home is going to trump doing what is in the best interest, in the long-term interest of the country.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I don't know where to begin. In the last few moments, we have heard the following quotes: fully supported by those who have bills in this Omnibus bill. President-elect Obama says we need to work hard on earmarks. There are 45 earmarks in this bill. I know, I don't want to embarrass anybody. The fact is that most of us don't like the earmarks that are in the bill but are willing to tolerate the earmarks that are in the bill to get something that is good for us at home.

I believe we are at the ultimate tipping point in this country. I believe if we don't make drastic changes over the next year and a half, that 2012 will see the default of the U.S. Government on its bills. I honestly believe that. There are a lot of economists who agree with me on that point.

How do we then, if, in fact, any aspect of that is true, begin to start changing our direction where we start working on the issues that are a priority for America?

I have no doubt that there are key, significant things that need to get done that are in this bill, and a lot of them I am not opposed to. But I will tell you, I am always going to be opposed to wasting money. Another man's waste is somebody else's gold. But you cannot defend the directed earmarks in this bill in any way, shape, or form when we are doing such things that are so foolish, and the American people laugh at us and say: Why would you spend $3.5 million for a birthday party 6 years from now or why would you

even authorize it in a time when nobody will disagree we are going to be close to a $1.8 trillion deficit when we finish up in September 2009. Nobody is going to disagree with that point. We know the structural deficit is $1.2 billion. We know we are going to spend $400 billion of stimulus. And we know we are going to steal $167 million from Social Security. Instead of us working on Social Security and trying to straighten it out, we are sitting here passing a parochial- based bill that in the long run for the country as a whole does not solve the major problems it faces. That is what it comes down to.

I know I won't come anywhere close to winning this vote, but every time in the future, as long as I am a Senator, we are going to take the time to debate. It is going to be painful, but we are going to debate it because the American people deserve to know what we are doing. And if it continues that the minority party in the greatest deliberative body in the world gets no amendments, then we are probably not going to do anything. There has been one amendment since July 16 in this body for a member of the minority that represents over half of the population in this country. This is not the greatest deliberative body in the world. This is the greatest chokehold body in the world.

We ought to have the right to offer amendments. If they are defeated, fine. What are we afraid of? We could have had the amendments done. We could have voted this bill on Friday. We could have had a time agreement and we wouldn't be here today or we could have been here actually doing something that is of massive importance to our long-term future. But we chose the politically expedient route, the politically expedient direction to the detriment of the future of this country.

There is a difference in thinking about the short term and the long term. We cannot ignore the short term, but it cannot be a priority anymore. It cannot be a priority. The long term has to be the priority. Our survival has to be the priority, not a political survival, not a parochial survival, but the very survival of this country.

So when we talk about what we are going to spend and how we are going to do it and we ignore the big issues that are in front of us because we are going to spend the time on the small issues, the country is getting the Senate it deserves.

It is time for us to refocus on the important issues in this country, and that is not our next election.

I yield back my time.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2009. This bill provides economic empowerment and educational opportunities for working families by helping bank the unbanked and increasing access to financial literacy opportunities. It will also encourage the use of mainstream financial institutions for working families that need small loans. I thank my cosponsors, Senators Schumer, Inouye, and Lieberman.

Too many Americans lack basic financial literacy. Americans of all ages and backgrounds face increasingly complex financial decisions as members of the nation's workforce, managers of their families' resources, and voting citizens. Many find these decisions confusing and frustrating because they lack the tools necessary that would enable them to make wise, personal choices about their finances.

Without a sufficient understanding of economics and personal finance, individuals will not be able to appropriately manage their finances, effectively evaluate credit opportunities, successfully invest for long-term financial goals in an increasingly complex marketplace, or be able to cope with difficult financial situations. Unfortunately, today too many working families are struggling as they are confronted with increases in energy and food costs or the loss of a job.

We must work toward improving education, consumer protections, and empowering individuals and families through economic and financial literacy in order to build stronger families, businesses, and communities. The bill that I am introducing today would help to educate, empower and protect consumers.

Millions of working families do not have a bank or credit union account. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, and send remittances. Many of the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to have their earnings diminished by reliance on these high-cost and often predatory financial services. Among those families who make up the bottom 20 percent of earners, one in four does not have a transaction account according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. Indeed, the unbanked are often among the most vulnerable. More than 15 percent of families headed by a single parent are unbanked. The unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses making it difficult for these individuals to better their finances.

My bill authorizes grants intended to help low- and moderate-income unbanked individuals establish bank or credit union accounts. Providing access to a bank or credit union account can empower families with tremendous financial opportunities. An account at a bank or credit union provides consumers with alternatives to rapid refund loans, check cashing services, and high cost remittances. In addition, bank and credit union accounts provide access to saving and borrowing services.

Low- and moderate-income individuals are often challenged with a number of barriers that limit their ability to open and maintain accounts. Regular checking accounts may be too costly for some consumers unable to maintain minimum balances or unable to afford monthly fees. Poor credit histories may also hinder their ability to open accounts. By providing Federal resources for product development, administration, outreach, and financial education, banks and credit unions will be better able to reach out and bank the unbanked.

The second grant program authorized by my legislation provides consumers with a lower cost, short term alternative to payday loans. More needs to be done to encourage mainstream financial service providers to develop affordable small loan products. My legislation will help support the development of affordable credit products at bank and credit unions. Working families would be better off by going to their credit unions and banks, mainstream financial services providers, than payday loan shops. Payday loans are cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loans often have triple digit interest rates that range from 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break.

There is a great need for working families to have access to affordable small loans. My legislation would encourage banks and credit unions to develop payday loan alternatives. Consumers who apply for these loans would be provided with financial literacy and educational opportunities. Loans extended to consumers under the grant would be subject to the annual percentage rate promulgated by the National Credit Union Administration's, Loan Interest Rates. Several credit unions have developed similar products.

I will work to enact this legislation so vital to empowering our citizens. In our current, modern, complex economy, not having a bank or credit union

account severely hinders the ability of families to improve their financial condition or help them navigate difficult financial circumstances. Instead of borrowing money from payday lenders at outrageous fees, we need to encourage people to utilize their credit unions and banks for affordable small loans. Banks and credit unions have the ability to make the lives of working families better by helping them save,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create a program within the Department of Veterans Affairs for family caregivers. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Burr, the Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Tester, Senator Burns, and Senator Rockefeller, former Chairman of the Committee.

Some veterans returning from the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as previous conflicts, suffer from disabilities that prevent them from being fully independent. This is a sad fact of war. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to provide for several improvements in health care for veterans by supporting the family members who care for them.

The challenges faced by family caregivers are well known to us. We have been working on this issue for nearly two years. Provisions that then-Senator Clinton included in a health care omnibus bill reported by the Committee last Congress would have provided for pilot programs to serve caregivers. We have since learned much more about the role family members play in caring for injured veterans, and the needs of family caregivers. I think we are now beyond the scope of that original pilot program and I believe that a full-fledged permanent program is needed in VA.

First, it is well known that the involvement of family members in the provision of health care dramatically improves speed and success of recovery. This bill will give family members the resources needed to be involved in the care for their loved one. Second, many disabled veterans are not able to complete some tasks of daily living on their own, but do not require care in an institution. Allowing a veteran to remain in the home, while having family members meet the veteran's needs, will vastly improve quality of life for the veteran.

Caregivers, who are members of a veteran's family, often put their lives on hold in order to provide care for the injured or disabled veteran at home. In some instances, these caregivers are unable to maintain regular jobs because of the time consumed in providing sufficient care to the veteran. This has the compound effect of decreasing household income, and possibly preventing the caregiver from keeping health insurance. This legislation would help alleviate these problems so as to allow the caregiver to focus entirely on caring for the veteran.

This bill includes provisions for training and certifying family caregivers or personal care attendants. It would provide for mental health counseling, health care eligibility, a living stipend, and other critical services to support these caregivers. Additionally, this bill would make improvements to the services VA provides to family members who must travel to take the veteran to a VA facility to receive treatment.

I look forward to working with all of our colleagues to pass this much needed legislation. I especially thank Senators Burr and Rockefeller for cosponsoring this bill. I would also like to thank the dedicated members of the Wounded Warrior Project and Paralyzed Veterans of America for their tireless efforts in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend Senator Voinovich as we introduce the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 to formalize Federal Executive Boards, FEBs, in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

President Kennedy issued a Directive in 1961 creating FEBs to allow the heads of Federal agencies outside of Washington, DC to come together to address local issues in their Federal communities. There are now 28 Boards in 20 States, including Hawaii. Because they have never been authorized in legislation, FEBs have no institutionalized structure; each has its own operating structure. Some have an executive director, while some have no permanent staff at all. They also do not receive specific appropriations. As a result, FEBs must cobble together voluntary funding from participating agencies.

The Office of Personnel Management oversees the mission and activities of FEBs. Part of FEBs' mission is to offer agencies outside of Washington, DC an opportunity to share information, collaborate to address shared concerns, discuss management and administrative challenges, and come together as a Federal community. Each Board sets its own specific priorities and activities based on local concerns and the leadership in a given area.

Additionally, FEBs' mission is to play a critical support role in coordinating emergency preparedness and response efforts for a given area. The Honolulu-Pacific Federal Executive Board regularly hosts and participates in preparedness exercises in Hawaii and the Pacific Rim. When the Interstate 35 West Bridge collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota on August 1, 2007, the Executive Director of the Minnesota FEB helped disseminate critical information to over 100 Federal agencies and coordinate with the State and local emergency response network. FEBs have shared information with each other to assist in preparing for large events as well. For example, the Boston FEB used their experience with the Democratic National Convention in 2004 to help the Denver and Minnesota FEBs prepare for the National Party Conventions in 2008.

At a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia on September 28, 2007, which I chaired, it was clear that FEBs lack of formal structure hinders their critical support role in emergency preparedness and response. At that hearing, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, testified that FEBs have no clear role in national emergency planning, no framework to operate, no accountability in performing their duties, and no funding to carry out their missions. Additionally, FEB Executive Directors from around the country testified about the frustrations of operating without stable funding or a clear structure.

Since the hearing, FEBs have been included in FEMA's National Response Framework, and OPM and FEMA have signed a memorandum of understanding, MOU, giving FEBs a formal role in emergency preparedness and response. The Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 would implement other recommendations made by GAO and the representatives from FEBs at the 2007 hearing. More specifically, the bill would formalize the role of Federal Executive Boards, which would include interagency collaboration and Federal agency emergency preparedness and response outside of Washington, DC; establish a process for establishing new FEBs; require OPM to establish performance standards for

FEBs; specify a funding formula, which OPM will administer, for FEBs based on the number of employees in a Federal agency in a given area; and authorize staffing levels for each FEB to have at least an Executive Director and one support staff member.

Eighty-five percent of the Federal workforce is employed outside of the Washington, DC area. We spend billions of dollars preparing the National Capital Region for emergencies, but we must focus more on Federal Government agency emergency preparedness and response outside of the Washington area. This legislation will address that pressing need. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to restore Clean Water Act protections for the same waters that were covered by the Act prior to two recent divisive U.S. Supreme Court decisions. I want to thank Senators Boxer, Cardin, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Merkley, Reed, Sanders, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply and agricultural and industrial uses, and available for wildlife and fish habitat has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of Government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment.

We must remain committed to the Clean Water Act of 1972, and to that end, Congress must enact legislation. Every day that Congress fails to act, more and more rivers, streams, wetlands and other waters that have long

been protected by the Clean Water Act are being stripped of their Clean Water Act protections and being polluted or destroyed altogether. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 20,000 determinations have been made since the court decisions on whether specific water bodies are covered by the act. Congress should not delay action until protections are stripped from more water bodies throughout the country. The EPA estimates that the court decisions could ultimately impact over half the stream miles and 20 percent of wetlands in the lower 48 States. Lost protections for these waters means the drinking water sources for over 110 million Americans are in jeopardy of pollution.

The Clean Water Restoration Act must be enacted to restore historical protections, using a surgical fix that reaffirms protections for the same categories of waters identified in the over three-decade-old EPA regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.''

This is a serious problem, demanding serious debate and action. If we do not act, we will be allowing the Clean Water Act to be rolled back. That would mean increased uncertainty, confusion, litigation, and permitting delays resulting from the court decisions and subsequent agency guidelines. It also would pose a very real threat to Clean Water Act protections for public water supplies, industrial and agriculture uses, fish and wildlife, and recreation.

I am pleased to lead the effort to protect the Clean Water Act in the Senate, and to have support from a range of interested parties, including former EPA Administrators from both Republican and Democratic administrations; governors; attorneys general; State agencies; professional societies and associations; labor and business professionals and unions; farming organizations; and over 400 hunting, fishing, recreational, and conservation organizations.

In response to suggestions I received last Congress, I made several revisions to the bill to make Congressional intent very clear.

My bill, the Clean Water Restoration Act, would continue to protect only those waters historically protected by the Clean Water Act prior to the Supreme Court decisions. This is the crux of my bill, Section 4. In 1972, Congress granted Clean Water Act protections to ``navigable waters'' and broadly defined those as ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas'', in stark contrast to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, which had only provided protections for the commercially navigable waters. Since the 1970s, EPA and Corps regulations, 40 CFR 122.2 and 33 CFR 328.3, have properly established the scope of ``waters of the United States'' to be protected, including all intrastate and interstate rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. My bill simply takes the longstanding, existing regulatory definition for ``waters of the United States'' and puts it into law, in lieu of defining ``navigable waters'' as ``waters of the United States,'' as the Act does now. This surgical fix is necessary because the Supreme Court used the word ``navigable'' to create a more narrow definition for ``waters of the United States'' than the definition used for over 30 years. The Court did not, however, limit protections more drastically to only ``navigable-in-fact'' and continuously flowing waters as some interests have called for. This might have been the law in 1899 when the Rivers and Harbors Act focused on commercial navigation, but it would be entirely inappropriate for the modern day clean water protections provided by the Clean Water Act of 1972.

My bill also asserts appropriate constitutional authority to protect the Nation's waters. Despite claims to the contrary, Congress has broad constitutional authority, including under the Commerce Clause, Property Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact laws protecting our nation's water quality. To prevent future courts from narrowly applying Congress's constitutional authority, my bill includes the phrase ``activities affecting those waters.''

My bill also maintains existing exemptions for farming, silviculture, ranching, and other activities, and leaves unchanged the activities that require a permit. The bill only ensures that the same types of waters covered before the Supreme Court decisions continue to be protected and does not affect the activities that require permits. In short, if you have not needed a permit for the last thirty-five years for an activity, you will not need one when this bill is enacted.

Importantly, in 1977, when the Act was modified, a significant compromise was reached to exempt farming, silviculture, and forestry activities from the Act. I stand by this understanding, and just to be sure, the Clean Water Restoration Act explicitly states that the Act's existing exemptions are maintained. As stated in the Act and left unchanged by my bill, agricultural activities are largely exempt from the Clean Water Act [the main permitting programs affecting agriculture address point-source discharge, Section 402, not non-point, and the dredging and filling of waters, Section 404. The following agricultural activities are exempt: normal farming activities (which casts a wide net for plowing, cultivating, harvesting, conservation practices, etc.), agriculture run-off/stormwater discharges, return flows from irrigation, maintenance and construction of farm roads, farm and stock ponds, and irrigation ditches, and maintenance of drainage ditches. There are additional EPA regulatory exemptions for prior converted cropland, and wastewater treatment systems, including treatment lagoons and ponds. Again, my bill does not affect these exemptions and the findings make Congressional intent very clear in this regard.

In short, my bill will allow those waters always protected by the Clean Water Act to continue to receive basic protections. I appreciate the depth and breadth of support for reaffirming the Clean Water Act of 1972 and importantly, rejecting efforts to roll back the law.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness.

I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of Southern Utah.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah and view firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the appropriate benchmark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah.

Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. Last Congress, a provision was air-dropped into a bill considered by the Senate--without having been considered by the House or the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that designated less than 45 percent of the wilderness quality lands included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act for Washington County, Utah. Furthermore, the public lands package omitted a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing omnibus parks legislation that contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.''

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hiking and sightseeing to hunting.

Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the U.S. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.