Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the appointment of Patricia Millett to the DC Circuit. The DC Circuit is an 11-member appellate court that hears some of the greatest and most serious administrative appeals in this country. Most of them are complicated, somewhat convoluted, and they do take serious expertise.

The court is an 11-member court. It currently has eight members. Three of the eight are women, and there are three vacancies on the court. Patricia Millett has been nominated by the President to fill one of those vacancies. What is interesting about this debate is that no one questions her qualifications or her temperament. She graduated summa cum laude from the University of Illinois in 1985 and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1988. Even Senator Cruz from Texas has pointed out how superbly qualified she is. Yet there is a good chance that there will not be the votes to allow us to proceed to a vote on her qualifications and therefore confirm the nomination.

I wish to state some of her qualifications. She clerked for Judge Thomas Tang on the Ninth Circuit in Phoenix, AZ, for 2 years. She worked in the Solicitor General's office for 11 years, in the Justice Department's civil Appellate Section for 4 years. She leads the Supreme Court and appellate practice at the law firm Akin Gump. She has argued 32 cases in the Supreme Court, placing her in the top 10 of all attorneys from 2000 to 2012. She has also argued dozens of cases in other appellate courts.

She is known as a superb appellate lawyer. She is known as someone with sterling qualifications, and she has received the unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the ABA--the highest rating the ABA gives. She has received numerous awards from the Department of Justice and strong support across the aisle, including from all three Solicitors General who served in the Bush administration. She is not only an outstanding lawyer, she is also an exceptional person with a work ethic, a morality, and a history of faithful service that is truly admirable.

She is the mother of two children, David and Elizabeth. She earned a black belt in Tae Kwon Do after taking classes with her husband and their children. I am not sure how important that is, but I assume she is physically very fit.

She is a military spouse. Her husband Bob served in the Navy and the Navy Reserve until his retirement in 2012, and he was deployed to Kuwait in 2004.

Anyone who has read the Bars and Stripes article on her cannot but look at this woman and say she is the model American woman. Yet we may not even be able to vote on her today.

During that time, Patricia was also one of so many military spouses who shouldered the burden of parenting while her husband was overseas. She understands the sacrifices military families make to keep our country safe. ``Pattie did the job of two parents while Bob was away. . . . During Bob's nine-month deployment [to Kuwait], Pattie was still working at the Solicitor General's office and handling a heavy Supreme Court caseload,'' which is very special if one thinks about what it means. ``She argued one Supreme Court case and briefed five more while juggling her solo-parenting duties.'' According to this article, Tom Goldstein, a distinguished appellate practitioner and the founder of the popular scotus Web site, said ``Through it all, he never saw Pattie complain about these sacrifices for her country.''

She has also made a long-time commitment to work on behalf of the homeless. The Bars and Stripes article says:

The project most near and dear to Pattie's heart is

Mondloch House, a group of homeless shelters and individuals

that Pattie has been involved with for many years. Each week,

Pattie coordinates fruit and vegetable deliveries . . . to

make sure the shelters have fresh produce.

Judge Thomas Ambro of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said it best:

Pattie is a really good human being. And, as everyone

knows, she's in the first rank of appellate practitioners in

this country. She combines talent, hard work, judgment, and

focus; she's the complete package.

The question is, Why is there opposition to this nomination? Some on the Republican side have said the DC Circuit, which today has eight judges and three vacancies, doesn't need any new judges. They said President Obama is trying to pack the court. I disagree. Only 7 or 8 years ago my Republican colleagues were arguing to confirm President Bush's nominees to fill vacancies on the 9th seat, the 10th seat, and the 11th seat on the DC Circuit. They even threatened to invoke the nuclear option to fill these seats. The caseload isn't much different than it was then. In fact, it is greater in some measures today. The number of pending appeals per active judge on the DC Circuit is greater than the number when all four of President Bush's DC Circuit nominees were confirmed. In addition, while the raw filings per active judge are lower on the DC Circuit than some other circuits, there is good reason for that. The DC Circuit's caseload is different because of the substantial docket of complex administrative agency appeals.

In fact, statistics published by the Judicial Conference of the United States show that--without counting immigration appeals--43 percent of DC Circuit cases were administrative appeals. The average in all other circuits combined is only 1.7 percent. That is a huge difference.

If you look at the published opinions from the first six months of this year, the DC Circuit's published cases took just as long--and in many cases longer--than did the published decisions of many other circuits. The median time from filing to disposition is 11.8 months--28 percent above average among the circuits.

And, many of those DC Circuit cases involved highly complex administrative appeals with important questions of Federal law and regulation.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote about this in a 2006 law review article called What Makes the DC Circuit Different? He cited the Court's jurisdiction to review decisions of numerous important agencies, such as the FCC, the EPA, the NLRB, the FTC, and the FAA. And he wrote: ``Whatever combination of letters you can put together, it is likely that jurisdiction to review that agency's decision is vested in the Circuit.''

And, as former DC Circuit Judge Patricia Wald wrote in the Washington Post, ``These cases can require thousands of hours of preparation by the judges, often consuming days of argument, involving hundreds of parties and interveners, and necessitating dozens of briefs and thousands of pages of record--all of which culminates in lengthy, technically intricate legal opinions.''

So, the caseload does support the confirmation of new judges to the DC Circuit.

I would also like to take a moment to address this notion of ``court packing,'' a term that originated with a plan by President Franklin Roosevelt to authorize new seats on the Supreme Court when he was not getting decisions he favored.

This is not about creating new seats. This is about filling seats that exist, seats that have been authorized by Congress for many years, seats that the Judicial Conference continues to recommend be filled, and seats that my Republican colleagues pushed to fill not so many years ago. This is not ``court packing.''

Now, I remember how the DC Circuit looked after President Bush's last appointee was confirmed in 2006. The Court had seven Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees. Other circuits were similarly lopsided as well. Some might see that as packing the courts.

But I do not see it that way. A President must do his or her job making nominations to ensure that the judicial business of the American people gets done over time, long after that President leaves office. That is how our system works.

I supported two of President Bush's DC Circuit nominees, John Roberts and Thomas Griffith, and I supported cloture on a third, Brett Kavanaugh. I supported other controversial Bush circuit court nominees, sometimes to the chagrin of many on my own side. I did so because I believed those nominees were qualified and could be fair. I believe very deeply that the judiciary is too important to play partisan games with. That is exactly what is going on. Why should I continue, as a member of the Judiciary Committee with the second most seniority, when the administration changes, to step out and support any new Republican's nominees? I have done it in the past. I hoped to break this deadlock of partisanship. I had hoped we could vote when a nominee is qualified regardless of party. This nominee, if a motion to close off debate is not granted, shows me that the atmosphere is such that this can never be the case and that I, as someone on the Judiciary Committee who has been willing to cross party lines to vote for a qualified nominee, should cease and desist in this regard. That is the message of this nominee to me.

Think of this woman and her history: Army wife, mother of two, appellate lawyer, Solicitor General's office, and the tenth greatest number of Supreme Court appearances in the last 12 years. She is going to be denied, and no one has cast any blemish on her academic ability or her moral ethic. So the only thing I am left with is intense partisanship.

Please, let there be some Republicans who want to change the nature of this place and begin that change with the recognition that we have a superior woman. In a country where the majority of people are women, the number of women on this court is in the minority, and there is a need for bright, informed, legal talent. This woman is one of them. I hope she will survive cloture.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from Bars and Stripes be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to commemorate one of our nation's greatest heroes, Neil Armstrong, by re-designating the Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center.

The legislation will also rename the Western Aeronautical Test Range at Edwards Air Force Base as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range, as a tribute to Dr. Dryden's enduring legacy.

There are few men in history who have made such substantial contributions to our understanding of aeronautics and our solar system.

Neil Armstrong took the most important steps in the history of mankind when he stepped off Apollo 11.

Dr. Dryden shaped the principles and policies that led to the development of the nation's first high speed aircraft.

Their work in the Antelope Valley, outside Los Angeles, helped create one of our nation's most productive high-skilled manufacturing hubs. Their legacy remains today, and it is fitting that their names are attached to these outstanding facilities.

Dr. Hugh Dryden was one of our Nation's first and most prominent scholars in the fields of high speed aeronautics and aerodynamics.

Dr. Dryden began his distinguished career at the Bureau of Standards and quickly rose to become the Associate Director by 1934.

During World War II, Dr. Dryden dedicated his considerable talents to serving armed forces as a scientific advisor, working on aeronautical matters and guided missiles. For his work on these issues, Dr. Dryden received the Medal of Freedom from the Army in 1946 and Presidential Certificate of Merit in 1948--two of our nation's highest honors for civilian service.

Following the war, Hugh Dryden became the Director of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, NACA. Eventually, when the advisory committee was formalized in 1958 and became the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, Dr. Dryden served as its first Deputy Director.

Neil Armstrong is another man that inspired Americans to look to the skies. He may have been born in Ohio, but his life's work was done in California.

In his early years he was stationed in San Diego as a Naval Aviator. Although he left the state to pursue an undergraduate degree, he returned shortly thereafter to become a test pilot at Edwards Air Force Base.

As a NASA test pilot, Armstrong flew more than 200 different models of aircraft. His experience included work with jets, helicopters, rockets and gliders, and he became one of the best known pilots of the X-15 test plane.

Even before he became an astronaut, Armstrong reached unbelievable heights and speeds. While working with the X-15 from November 1960 to July 1962, he reached a top altitude of 207,500 feet and a top speed of 3,989 mph.

Neil Armstrong logged an incredible 2,400 flight hours as a test pilot at Dryden Flight Research Center before setting his sights even higher.

In 1962, Neil Armstrong became an Astronaut.

His career as an Astronaut began with Gemini 8 in 1966. The mission began with a landmark success--Neil Armstrong and his partner David Scott successfully docked their Gemini capsule with the Agena satellite in orbit. It was the first time two spacecraft linked up in space.

However, shortly after the docking, the spacecraft began to spin out of control. After the spacecraft separated, Gemini and its astronauts were rolling at a revolution per second. The violent revolutions threatened the vision and consciousness of Armstrong and Scott, and so Armstrong made the controversial decision to abort the mission. Gemini 8 splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean safely, but only part of its mission had been accomplished.

As a veteran astronaut, Armstrong was an obvious choice for the Apollo missions.

His first assignment was Apollo 11; it was the fifth manned Apollo mission and the first manned landing on the lunar surface. Accompanying Armstrong on the mission were Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins--both accomplished astronauts in their own right.

The Apollo 11 crew launched atop a Saturn V rocket from Cape Canaveral on July 16, 1969. It took more than four days for the crew to reach the lunar surface. Armstrong and Aldrin approached the lunar surface while Collins manned the command vehicle in orbit.

The goal was to find a safe landing zone, which proved more difficult than expected. With only 25 seconds of fuel remaining, the ``Eagle'' landed on July 20, 1969, at the Sea of Tranquility.

As he stepped off Apollo 11, Armstrong uttered his famous words, ``That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.''

Armstrong and Aldrin spent two and a half hours on the lunar surface. They took photographs, inspected the condition of the lander, and planted the American Flag to commemorate their incredible achievement.

It was the first and last time Armstrong would visit the moon. Shortly after Apollo 11's safe return to Earth, Armstrong announced that he did not intend to fly in space again.

But his time in public life was not quite finished. Armstrong toured the world as a celebrity on the ``Giant Leap'' tour. He visited the Soviet Union to meet with the Premier and joined Bob Hope on a USO tour in Vietnam.

Upon his return, Armstrong completed his Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Southern California.

He worked briefly for the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, and served as Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics at NASA.

In 1971, he returned to Ohio to teach the next generation of engineers at the University of Cincinnati. By the end of his career, Armstrong had been decorated by 17 countries and received many notable honors, including: the Presidential Medal of Freedom; the Congressional Gold Medal; the Congressional Space Medal of Honor; the Explorers Club Medal; the Robert H. Goddard Memorial Trophy; the NASA Distinguished Service Medal; the Harmon International Aviation Trophy; the Royal Geographic Society's Gold Medal; the Federation Aeronautique Internationale's Gold Space Medal; the American Astronautical Society Flight Achievement Award; the Robert J. Collier Trophy; the AIAA Astronautics Award; the Octave Chanute Award; and the John J. Montgomery Award.

His long list of accolades demonstrates just how incredible and inspirational Armstrong was, not only for California and our nation, but around the world as well.

Tragically, we lost Neil A. Armstrong on August 25 last year. But his legacy will live on and continue to inspire the next generation of engineers, scientists, and astronauts.

In a fitting tribute, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said that: ``As long as there are history books, Neil Armstrong will be included in them, remembered for taking humankind's first small step on a world beyond our own.''

Neil Armstrong's work, career, and legacy have inspired many accomplishments and discoveries beyond his own personal achievements. It is only fitting that the Dryden Flight Research Center, which is located at the base where his career quite literally took off, be renamed in his honor.

This is a simple bill that will help to appropriately pay tribute to two individuals who have helped shape and define the space and aeronautical industries. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to re-designate the Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center and the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to commemorate one of our nation's greatest heroes, Neil Armstrong, by re-designating the Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center.

The legislation will also rename the Western Aeronautical Test Range at Edwards Air Force Base as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range, as a tribute to Dr. Dryden's enduring legacy.

There are few men in history who have made such substantial contributions to our understanding of aeronautics and our solar system.

Neil Armstrong took the most important steps in the history of mankind when he stepped off Apollo 11.

Dr. Dryden shaped the principles and policies that led to the development of the nation's first high speed aircraft.

Their work in the Antelope Valley, outside Los Angeles, helped create one of our nation's most productive high-skilled manufacturing hubs. Their legacy remains today, and it is fitting that their names are attached to these outstanding facilities.

Dr. Hugh Dryden was one of our Nation's first and most prominent scholars in the fields of high speed aeronautics and aerodynamics.

Dr. Dryden began his distinguished career at the Bureau of Standards and quickly rose to become the Associate Director by 1934.

During World War II, Dr. Dryden dedicated his considerable talents to serving armed forces as a scientific advisor, working on aeronautical matters and guided missiles. For his work on these issues, Dr. Dryden received the Medal of Freedom from the Army in 1946 and Presidential Certificate of Merit in 1948--two of our nation's highest honors for civilian service.

Following the war, Hugh Dryden became the Director of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, NACA. Eventually, when the advisory committee was formalized in 1958 and became the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, Dr. Dryden served as its first Deputy Director.

Neil Armstrong is another man that inspired Americans to look to the skies. He may have been born in Ohio, but his life's work was done in California.

In his early years he was stationed in San Diego as a Naval Aviator. Although he left the state to pursue an undergraduate degree, he returned shortly thereafter to become a test pilot at Edwards Air Force Base.

As a NASA test pilot, Armstrong flew more than 200 different models of aircraft. His experience included work with jets, helicopters, rockets and gliders, and he became one of the best known pilots of the X-15 test plane.

Even before he became an astronaut, Armstrong reached unbelievable heights and speeds. While working with the X-15 from November 1960 to July 1962, he reached a top altitude of 207,500 feet and a top speed of 3,989 mph.

Neil Armstrong logged an incredible 2,400 flight hours as a test pilot at Dryden Flight Research Center before setting his sights even higher.

In 1962, Neil Armstrong became an Astronaut.

His career as an Astronaut began with Gemini 8 in 1966. The mission began with a landmark success--Neil Armstrong and his partner David Scott successfully docked their Gemini capsule with the Agena satellite in orbit. It was the first time two spacecraft linked up in space.

However, shortly after the docking, the spacecraft began to spin out of control. After the spacecraft separated, Gemini and its astronauts were rolling at a revolution per second. The violent revolutions threatened the vision and consciousness of Armstrong and Scott, and so Armstrong made the controversial decision to abort the mission. Gemini 8 splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean safely, but only part of its mission had been accomplished.

As a veteran astronaut, Armstrong was an obvious choice for the Apollo missions.

His first assignment was Apollo 11; it was the fifth manned Apollo mission and the first manned landing on the lunar surface. Accompanying Armstrong on the mission were Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins--both accomplished astronauts in their own right.

The Apollo 11 crew launched atop a Saturn V rocket from Cape Canaveral on July 16, 1969. It took more than four days for the crew to reach the lunar surface. Armstrong and Aldrin approached the lunar surface while Collins manned the command vehicle in orbit.

The goal was to find a safe landing zone, which proved more difficult than expected. With only 25 seconds of fuel remaining, the ``Eagle'' landed on July 20, 1969, at the Sea of Tranquility.

As he stepped off Apollo 11, Armstrong uttered his famous words, ``That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.''

Armstrong and Aldrin spent two and a half hours on the lunar surface. They took photographs, inspected the condition of the lander, and planted the American Flag to commemorate their incredible achievement.

It was the first and last time Armstrong would visit the moon. Shortly after Apollo 11's safe return to Earth, Armstrong announced that he did not intend to fly in space again.

But his time in public life was not quite finished. Armstrong toured the world as a celebrity on the ``Giant Leap'' tour. He visited the Soviet Union to meet with the Premier and joined Bob Hope on a USO tour in Vietnam.

Upon his return, Armstrong completed his Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Southern California.

He worked briefly for the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, and served as Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics at NASA.

In 1971, he returned to Ohio to teach the next generation of engineers at the University of Cincinnati. By the end of his career, Armstrong had been decorated by 17 countries and received many notable honors, including: the Presidential Medal of Freedom; the Congressional Gold Medal; the Congressional Space Medal of Honor; the Explorers Club Medal; the Robert H. Goddard Memorial Trophy; the NASA Distinguished Service Medal; the Harmon International Aviation Trophy; the Royal Geographic Society's Gold Medal; the Federation Aeronautique Internationale's Gold Space Medal; the American Astronautical Society Flight Achievement Award; the Robert J. Collier Trophy; the AIAA Astronautics Award; the Octave Chanute Award; and the John J. Montgomery Award.

His long list of accolades demonstrates just how incredible and inspirational Armstrong was, not only for California and our nation, but around the world as well.

Tragically, we lost Neil A. Armstrong on August 25 last year. But his legacy will live on and continue to inspire the next generation of engineers, scientists, and astronauts.

In a fitting tribute, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said that: ``As long as there are history books, Neil Armstrong will be included in them, remembered for taking humankind's first small step on a world beyond our own.''

Neil Armstrong's work, career, and legacy have inspired many accomplishments and discoveries beyond his own personal achievements. It is only fitting that the Dryden Flight Research Center, which is located at the base where his career quite literally took off, be renamed in his honor.

This is a simple bill that will help to appropriately pay tribute to two individuals who have helped shape and define the space and aeronautical industries. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to re-designate the Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center and the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range.

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

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I rise in strong support of efforts being made across the country to reduce prescription drug abuse as part of National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month. In California, and throughout the country, the misuse and abuse of prescription and over the counter drugs is a significant problem. While the consequences are tragic and profound, they are also preventable.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, prescription drug abuse is our Nation's fastest-growing drug problem. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that over the past decade, the non-medical use of prescription drugs among persons 12 years or older rose from 1.9 million in 2002 to 11.1 million in 2011. The 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimates that the abuse of prescription medications such as pain killers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives is second only to marijuana, the No. 1 abused drug in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control have classified prescription drug abuse as an epidemic.

To combat the epidemic of prescription drug and over the counter medicine abuse, many community anti-drug coalitions are working to raise awareness about the negative consequences associated with the misuse of these drugs.

The North Coastal Prevention Coalition in California is just one example of a coalition pushing back against this problem. Together with San Diego County's Prescription Drug Task Force, the Coalition has worked to create county-wide Pain Prescribing Guidelines. They have helped facilitate National Take Back Days during which individuals are able to turn over unused prescription drugs. They also developed and disseminated a brochure on ``Safe Pain Prescribing'' to emergency room physicians.

I would like to acknowledge the critical efforts of the North Coastal Prevention Coalition and other anti-drug coalitions throughout the country in raising awareness about and combating the misuse of prescription medications. By designating October 2013 as National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month, Americans are able to reaffirm our national, state and local level commitment to living healthy, drug-free lives.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I am not part of this group of 14, I believe it is, but I wish to thank them. I know a little bit about how hard it is to try to pull something together in an emerging situation, and they have done it. I see Susan and Amy and Lisa here on the floor, three Senators who played a major role in this effort. I wish to thank them for taking the time, having the courage, and putting forward the ideas they did. I also wish to thank the leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, because I think their coming together essentially averted what I saw as a potential catastrophe.

Although there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, I think we are in the home stretch. I think what we see is both a continuing resolution and the debt limit being extended, albeit not for long. Coming over here somebody stopped me and said: Well, we will be right back here in 3 or 4 months. Our challenge is to make that not so.

I also wish to thank Senator Cruz, with whom I have had occasions to tangle, but he has said that he will not stand in the way of the vote. To me that is very important, because nobody knows what really will happen if we do not pass the debt ceiling in a timely way. In a way it is a big lesson in itself: Let us not go there again, and let us use this 3- to 4-month period in a wise and willing way to sit down, as the group of 14 did, and work out issues before we are right back from where we came.

I think another part of the agreement that is very good is that it allows the Budget Committee to go ahead and conference. Senator Murray sits next to me. After her 20 attempts to move this body to conference, all of which failed, it looks as though now it will happen. Here is what that means. That means we will have a budget for next year, from which the appropriations allocations will be drawn very quickly, and then our bills can be brought into conformance. I happen to chair one of the appropriations subcommittees, and that is the committee that includes the modernization of our warheads, the Department of Energy, as well as the Army Corp of Engineers. Beginning tomorrow, seven big labs were going to begin to shut down: Los Alamos, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley; as well as our nuclear program reactors were being shut down and put in safe conditions. Thirty thousand contract employees were going to lose their work, and the contract says they cannot be reimbursed for any day that is not worked. So that presented a particular special situation.

In the time I have been here, the Senate has become a very different body, and maybe now is not a bad time to say that. We used to be able to do much more along the lines of what the group of 14 has done. But I think scar tissue has built up in this house. I think it has built up in this house for one reason, and that is the prodigious use of cloture--a significant change because a majority body has been turned into a supermajority body. What do I mean by that? What I mean by that is everything, albeit but the simplest thing, has to have 60 votes. We had a clean debt resolution and cloture, and we did not have 60 votes even to debate the issue on the floor.

That has never been what the history of this body has shown. It has never been one of the reasons why I wanted to join this body. I have always felt that this body was sort of the prime of political officeholders--not the bottom but the top--and has always shown a willingness as to how this democratic process can work, by people sitting down together, understanding that our two-party system demands compromise to be able to make any progress at all. What I have found is that is less and less available to those of us who want to problem solve, who want to sit down and work out issues.

So I look forward to more efforts such as this effort that just took place, and I would very much like to join this esteemed new group of Senators for the future, because we cannot be here again in 4 months.

I was surprised--and I don't quite know what to do about it--but what I find is that people in the House too, who have come here with a very small number of votes, believe they so know what is best for this Nation, above anybody else, they are willing to do whatever they need to do to get their way. That is just not the way these bodies have traditionally worked. Now, that hasn't worked so far.

I think what is before us, which is a very simple 3-, 4-month advance of a continuing resolution, of the debt limit, verification of income, and the ability of the Budget Committee to go back to work, really signals that this next 3 to 4 months are so important to do what we need to do to restore comity to this body and the other body. Just think if we can find points of agreement in 3 to 4 months and then go ahead and regularly extend the debt limit for its full length of time, do away with the continuing resolution. It has been 3 or 4 years with no budget, and it has to stop.

So I am hopeful, with the leadership that now appears to have come together between Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell, that these months can really be dedicated to a bringing together of both sides around problem solving. All I can do is pledge myself to do my utmost to help us get there. So this is just one step on the road.

Again, there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. So I hope this is going to pass this body today, pass the House, and that we go out with a resoluteness to come back another day and work together to solve what are some very major problems before us.

So thank you very much. I yield the floor.

As modified by the Senator from Indiana.

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

I come to the floor this afternoon as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in order to speak about the effect the government shutdown starting to have on the community and what effect it will have if the shutdown continues.

Let me give the most important figure up front. Across the intelligence communities, 72 percent of the civilian workforce is being furloughed. This means that with the exception of a few intelligence agencies that have a significant number of military personnel, the lights are being turned off and the majority of the people who produce our intelligence, analyze that intelligence, and provide warning of terrorist attacks or advise policymakers of major national security events will be prevented from doing their jobs. Simply stated, this is unacceptable. The failure of this Congress to perform its most basic functions means that our country is at heightened risk of terrorist attack.

Intelligence provides this Nation with its first line of defense because long before a threat makes it to our shores, the men and women in our intelligence community learn about it, sound the warnings, and often take the steps to neutralize that threat. Before the President or the Secretary of State makes decisions on U.N. Security Council resolutions, such as a resolution to end Syria's chemical weapons program, they review the intelligence and they seek the advice of intelligence analysts.

Finding Osama bin Laden in a house in Abbottabad and removing a bomb from an Al Qaeda operative in Yemen aren't things that just happen. They require the dedicated work of a huge array of professionals. Good intelligence requires the following: CIA officers on the ground and around the world meeting with sources; technical wizards who collect signals and imagery information; engineers who put together the systems to bring the information back to Washington and who convert the ones and zeroes of computer code into meaningful, actionable intelligence. Today, 72 percent of the civilian workforce will not be doing these jobs. Our shutdown is the biggest gift we could possibly give our enemies.

I understand and I support continuing to pay our military men and women, operating both at home and abroad, including tens of thousands still deployed to Afghanistan. By furloughing our intelligence workforce, we put our uniformed men and women at risk as they, too, rely on the intelligence agencies to tell them where the next assault may take place or where the next IED is hidden.

We have Ambassadors in threatened capitals. I can guarantee that our Ambassadors in Kabul and Baghdad and Sanaa and Islamabad rely on their intelligence briefers and the tactical intelligence support to their security teams as much as they rely on the marines who guard front gates.

I met earlier this spring with Ambassador Anne Patterson in Cairo. I saw the gates and walls of our modern Embassy that had been overrun by the same crowds protesting down the street in Tahrir Square. I met with the CIA, NSA, and other intelligence officers who give the Ambassador and her team warning when the extremists are looking to try to attack our Embassy again.

Some of these intelligence professionals will obviously remain on duty and are absolutely essential, but by furloughing the majority of the intelligence civilian workforce they rely on, we are preventing them from effectively doing their job.

I spoke yesterday with Director James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence. At my request, he sent me a short report on how the shutdown will affect the largest intelligence agencies. In addition to the 72 percent overall figure, his report lists how the shutdown will cripple the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to include the National Counterterrorism Center.

Every single agency I listed will lose the majority of its civilian workforce. Many of them don't have a sizable military component that is exempt from the shutdown. The numbers are still classified, but any Senator who wants to see how our failure to fund the government is harming the intelligence community is welcome to find out and read this report. It is in the intelligence office on the second floor of Hart. The intelligence agencies at the Departments of State, Treasury, Energy, and Homeland Security are hit even worse.

I wholly regret that we are in this situation. I regret that across the country national parks are closed and Federal safety inspectors are sidelined. For 4 years we have squeezed the discretionary appropriations levels to the point that every part of the Federal Government has had to cut back and make do with less. What we are doing now puts American lives at risk. It is an abdication of congressional responsibility.

I wanted to come to this floor to make clear to every Member of this body that what we have done directly damages our national security.

I also would like to take the opportunity to speak on some of the cutbacks that are in process in the area of energy and water.

Since 2001 I have served as chairman of three different Appropriations subcommittees: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, the Interior Department, and today the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Over the years I helped make a lot of tough choices on which programs to fund, which not to fund, et cetera, but never have things been as bad as they are today. The cuts we are making to our appropriations bills under sequestration are strangling programs that must be funded. These are programs that are vital to our country, vital to public safety, and programs that promise to deliver the next breakthroughs in energy research.

I will speak about some of the negative effects a shutdown and continued sequester would have on my subcommittee.

The agency within my subcommittee that may have the most direct impact on the public is the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps safeguards our dams, our levees, and our drinking water. It keeps our harbors open for cargo ships, and it maintains more than 4,000 recreation sites. Most people don't know that. Simply put, a government shutdown would mean the termination of a wide range of Army Corps of Engineers activities.

Let me mention flood control for a moment. Work is stopping on virtually all construction projects, studies, and activities related to flood control and navigation across this country. These projects protect tens of millions of Americans. A shutdown may mean the Corps stops work on improving dam safety projects, including the dam at California's Isabella Lake, which is the dam most at risk of failure in our State.

Halting these projects endangers citizens and ultimately increases the cost to complete this work. What is more, these projects actually reduce overall costs to the Federal Government. Damage prevented by the Corps' projects--this is only damage prevented--exceeds $25 billion a year. It is indeed a big deal.

Other Corps projects interrupted by the shutdown includes the strengthening of levees and flood walls to reduce the risk of loss of life and economic loss from flooding and coastal storms.

Work could stop on improvements to flood protection levees along the Mississippi River, levees that experienced record flood levels in 2011.

Projects in Boston, Kansas City, and Seattle could be suspended. Even worse, these construction delays would come at a time when severe storms are causing damage with greater frequency.

Even dam safety projects could be affected by a shutdown.

One example is California's Folsom Dam, where the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation are working to increase dam safety. A shutdown would likely cause the Corps and Reclamation to suspend contract activities, delaying this vital project.

The Folsom Dam is a major component of the Central Valley Project, which provides clean water to more than 20 million Californians, and should not be put at risk by a government shutdown.

A shutdown will also have dramatic impacts on water-borne commerce.

More than 2.3 billion tons of cargo moves through our marine transportation system. Improvements to channels, harbors and waterways ensure this vital traffic flows without pause.

Projects at Oakland Harbor in California, Savannah Harbor in Georgia, and Charleston Harbor in South Carolina could be impacted by the shutdown, meaning higher construction and transportation costs.

The country's vast system of inland waterways could also suffer from the shutdown.

More than 600 million tons of cargo move through our inland waterways on commercial ships. A shutdown means this cargo could be slowed, and the use of locks would likely not be available at all to recreational boaters.

While facilities on lakes that combine flood control and hydropower should continue to operate because of safety issues, hydropower operations will likely be curtailed.

This means 353 hydropower units operated by the Corps--which provide roughly one-quarter of the country's hydropower--would operate at reduced capacity. This would cut into the $1.5 billion in payments the units generate each year.

There are also major permitting and operational impacts that will be immediately noticeable.

Processing of regulatory permits under the Clean Water Act, which the Corps handles, will be suspended.

In a typical year, the Corps processes more than 80,000 permit actions. This means anyone from an individual building a dock to a community planning a major development would not be able to move forward because they won't be able to secure a permit.

The Corps will also be unable to provide enforcement actions on existing permitted activities, which could harm sensitive environmental or aquatic resources.

Another visible effect will be the shuttering of recreation areas.

The Corps of Engineers is the largest provider of outdoor recreation among all federal agencies. They maintain more than 4,200 recreation sites at 422 projects in 43 States, with more than 370 million visits each year.

Those visitors spend more than $18 billion annually and support 350,000 full-time or part-time jobs. All this will be impacted by a government shutdown.

The Department of Energy could also face severe limitations under a shutdown.

Research grants to national labs and universities could be suspended. These grants fund important clean energy challenges related to biofuels, supercomputing, and materials research.

The output of world-class science facilities on cutting edge research and product development may be significantly reduced. With U.S. leadership in science threatened by China, Japan and Europe, now is not the time to suspend major scientific research.

Regarding the national security missions of the National Nuclear Security Administration, a government shutdown may delay important nuclear modernization activities.

A government shutdown may disrupt and delay efforts to replace aging components in every single nuclear weapon in the stockpile. For example, delays in replacing aging components in the W76 submarine-- launched warhead--which makes up more than 50 percent of the Nation's nuclear deterrent--would have serious impacts to the Navy's nuclear deterrence mission.

Upgrades to aging infrastructure related to uranium, plutonium and high explosives capabilities would also be delayed. Delays of just days can add millions of dollars to a project's bottom line.

A government shutdown may also delay the design of a new nuclear reactor for the Ohio-class submarine. A shutdown may also delay refueling one of only three training nuclear reactors for sailors, which is critical for supplying sufficient numbers of sailors to man the U.S. submarine fleet.

Lastly, on this matter, the shutdown will delay and increase costs to clean up and remediate nuclear contamination at former nuclear weapons and nuclear energy research sites. These activities should be completed as quickly as possible to protect human health.

Finally, Madam President, I just wanted to say a couple of things about the much-beleaguered health care plan and what is happening so far.

During the first 3 hours today, the Federal health care Web site-- healthcare.gov--with information about exchanges across the country logged 1 million visitors. As of 9:30 this morning, in Kentucky, the health exchange had 24,000 visitors and processed more than 1,000 applications.

I am anxious to provide the west coast numbers, although not able at this time due to the 3-hour time delay.

There were 2 million visits to New York's health exchange during the first 2 hours of the launched site. Even at 11:30, Connecticut had 10,000 visitors and 22 people enrolled.

Let me just end with this one story. Paula Thornhill, a mother of seven who lives in Virginia, was the first to apply for coverage today in her county, which is Prince William. She is quoted as saying: ``I am relieved that they did come out with this affordable health care. I am relieved.''

So far so good today, and I am hopeful that this tyranny of the minority will end shortly.

I thank the Senator from Louisiana, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, since 2001 I have served as chairman on three different appropriations subcommittees.

I chaired subcommittees on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, the Interior Department, and today the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.

Over the years I made a lot of tough choices on which programs to fund and which programs not to fund. But never have things been as bad as they are today. The cuts that we are making to our appropriations bills under sequestration are strangling programs that must be funded. Programs that are vital to our economy, vital to public safety, and programs that promise to deliver the next breakthroughs in energy research.

To compound the problem, we are now just a few days away from a government shutdown that has the potential to devastate our economic recovery and shake the confidence in our government to get anything done.

I would like to speak today about the negative effects a shutdown and continued sequester would have on my subcommittee.

The agency within my subcommittee that may have the most direct impact on the public is the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Corps safeguards our dams, our levees and our drinking water, it keeps our harbors open for cargo ships, and it maintain more than 4,000 recreation sites. Simply put, a government shutdown would mean the termination of a wide range of vital Corps activities.

Work would stop on virtually all construction projects, studies and activities related to flood control and navigation across the country. These important projects protect tens of millions of Americans.

A shutdown would mean the Corps stops work on improving dam safety projects including the dam at California's Isabella Lake, the dam most at-risk of failure in the State. Halting these projects would endanger citizens and ultimately increase the cost to complete this vital work. What's more, these projects actually reduce overall costs to the federal government. Damage prevented by Corps projects exceeds $25 billion per year. Other Corps projects interrupted by a shutdown include strengthening levees and floodwalls to reduce the risk of loss of life and economic loss from flooding and coastal storms. Work would stop on improvements to flood protection levees along the Mississippi River, levees that experienced record flood levels in 2011. Projects in Boston, Kansas City, and Seattle would be suspended. Even worse, these construction delays would come at a time when severe storms are causing damage with greater frequency.

Even dam safety projects would be affected by a shutdown. One example is California's Folsom Dam, where the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation are working to increase dam safety. A shutdown would likely cause the Corps and Reclamation to suspend contract activities, delaying this vital project. The Folsom Dam is a major component of the Central Valley Project, which provides clean water to more than 20 million Californians, and should not be put at risk by a government shutdown.

A shutdown will also have dramatic impacts on water-borne commerce. More than 2.3 billion tons of cargo moves through our marine transportation system. Improvements to channels, harbors and waterways ensure that this vital traffic flows without pause.

Projects at Oakland Harbor in California, Savannah Harbor in Georgia, and Charleston Harbor in South Carolina would be impacted by a shutdown, meaning higher construction and transportation costs.

The country's vast system of inland waterways would also suffer from a shutdown. More than 600 million tons of cargo move through our inland waterways on commercial ships. A shutdown would mean this cargo would be dramatically slowed, and the use of locks would likely not be available at all to recreational boaters. While facilities on lakes that combine flood control and hydropower would continue to operate because of safety issues, hydropower operations would likely be curtailed. This means 353 hydropower units operated by the Corps--which provide roughly one-quarter of the country's hydropower--would operate at reduced capacity. This would cut into the $1.5 billion in payments the units generate each year.

There are also major permitting and operational impacts that would be immediately noticeable. Processing of regulatory permits under the Clean Water Act, which the Corps handles, would be immediately suspended. In a typical year, the Corps processes more than 80,000 permit actions. This means anyone from an individual building a dock to a community planning a major development would not be able to move forward because they won't be able to secure a permit. The Corps would also be unable to provide enforcement actions on existing permitted activities, which could harm sensitive environmental or aquatic resources.

Another visible effect would be the shuttering of recreation areas. The Corps of Engineers is the largest provider of outdoor recreation among all Federal agencies. They maintain more than 4,200 recreation sites at 422 projects in 43 states, with more than 370 million visits each year. Those visitors spend more than $18 billion annually and support 350,000 full-time or part-time jobs. All would be suspended by a government shutdown.

The Department of Energy would also face severe limitations under a shutdown. Research grants to national labs and universities would be suspended. These grants fund important clean energy challenges related to biofuels, supercomputing, and materials research. The output of world-class science facilities on cutting edge research and product development may be significantly reduced. With U.S. leadership in science threatened by China, Japan and Europe, now is not the time to suspend major scientific research.

Regarding the national security missions of the National Nuclear Security Administration, a government shutdown may delay important nuclear modernization activities. A government shutdown may disrupt and delay efforts to replace aging components in every single nuclear weapon in the stockpile. For example, delays in replacing aging components in the W76 submarine-launched warhead--which makes up more than 50 percent of the Nation's nuclear deterrent--would have serious impacts to the Navy's nuclear deterrence mission. Upgrades to aging infrastructure related to uranium, plutonium and high explosives capabilities would also be delayed. Delays of just days can add millions of dollars to a project's bottom line.

A government shutdown may also delay the design of a new nuclear reactor for the Ohio-class submarine. A shutdown may also delay refueling one of only three training nuclear reactors for sailors, which is critical for supplying sufficient numbers of sailors to man the U.S. submarine fleet.

Finally, a government shutdown will delay and increase costs to clean up and remediate nuclear contamination at former nuclear weapons and nuclear energy research sites. These activities should be completed as quickly as possible to protect human health.

I have laid out only a taste of the effects of a government shutdown. What I cannot begin to convey is the harm to millions of families who would be out of work or whose work would be curtailed because of canceled projects across the country.

This is only one of 12 subcommittees. A government shutdown would be folly, and we must prevent it from happening.

Before I close, I would like to touch on another threat to the agencies funded through my subcommittee, and that is the dangerous and ongoing cuts forced on us by the sequester.

With Congress focused on this immediate threat, we risk losing sight of the even more dangerous and long-term consequences of sequestration. Once again, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides a fine example of the choices--and dangers--that we face. The Senate bill funds the Corps of Engineers at $5.3 billion.

The House bill, based on sequester levels of funding, would slash that by $596 million. This would take money from vital flood control, ecosystem restoration and navigation projects. The House also would not approve a single new study or project, further delaying vital flood protection and navigation needs. The sequester would also jeopardize such vital projects as harbor maintenance and dredging, putting a crimp on billions of dollars in cargo that moves through our coasts. The House sequester level also slashes $136 million from the Bureau of Reclamation's budget, 12 percent lower than the Senate level.

One example of what the sequester would cut: The Senate bill directs funds to the WaterSmart Program and the Recycled Water Program, both of which increase the efficiency of water use in the West. With record- breaking droughts, farmers are desperately in need of more water, but the sequester would dry up these programs.

The Senate would also restore funding arbitrarily cut by the House from restoration programs such as the San Joaquin River Restoration in California. This joint Federal-State-local program was the result of a settlement that ended 17 years of litigation. Defunding the program could force the project back into the courtroom.

The House funding level also further weakens U.S. scientific leadership and efforts to improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers through the Department of Energy. The House would cut funds for the Office of Sciences by $500 million, the cutting edge work of ARPA-E by $329 million, and efficiency and renewable energy programs by $1.4 billion.

While Europe and Asia invest heavily in renewable energy and basic research, the House funding under sequester would cut in half our investments in renewable energy development and by 10% investments in basic research.

The government shutdown is a manufactured crisis and it is dangerous. The continuation of the sequester--while less immediate--is arguably even more dangerous.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly in the House, will join with Democrats to keep our government operating at responsible levels. We need to make those tough choices, we need to keep the government open and we must repeal sequester.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Good afternoon, Madam President.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 25 minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I rise to speak on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and the decision that is before the Senate on how to respond to such inhumanity. I also come to the floor with the hope that the use of military force will not prove necessary and that the proposal to place Syria's chemical weapons program under United Nations control will, in fact, be successful.

Last night, in my view, the President delivered a strong, straightforward speech that directly outlined the current situation in Syria. He asked that a vote by the Congress to authorize military force against the Asad regime be delayed so that a strategy could be developed with Russia and the United Nations Security Council that would eliminate Syria's deadly chemical weapons program. I believe this is the appropriate path forward, and I appreciate very much the majority leader's holding off on bringing this resolution

for a vote so that negotiations can continue. Here in the Senate, there are discussions going on about how to amend the resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee to provide time for diplomacy.

I would also like to take a minute to give Russia credit for bringing forward this plan for a negotiated solution to the conflict. I disagree with the Senator from Texas. As the Russian Ambassador described to me on Monday of this week, he said Russia is sincere, wants to see a United Nations resolution, and supports the Geneva II process which would accompany a negotiated settlement to Syria's civil war. Based on my conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, I believe Russia's goal is now, in fact, to eliminate these weapons, and I would point out that is also our goal.

So I very much hope that the path to settlement--although complicated, no doubt, but if well-intentioned by all participants, it can be accomplished, and I deeply believe that. If the United Nations Security Council can agree on a resolution to put this proposal into practice, it would put the world's imprimatur on an important plan to safeguard and then to destroy Syria's chemical weapons program.

Russia's responsibility to get this done is enormous, and they must move with all deliberate speed. I think Russia and Syria must understand that the only way to forestall a U.S. strike on Syria is for there to be a good-faith agreement and process underway to put all of Syria's chemical weapons--including munitions, delivery systems, and chemicals themselves--under international control for eventual demolition.

Syria's chemical weapons program is maintained and stored across Syria in more than three dozen sites. There are indications that Syria currently has chemical weapons loaded and ready for immediate use in bombs, artillery, and rockets and already loaded on planes and helicopters. All of it needs to be inventoried, collected, and then destroyed as soon as possible if the effort is to succeed. This will be a large and complicated process, and the agreement may take some time to put in place. But if it can be done, we should take the time to get it done right. At the same time, we cannot allow there to be so much delay and hesitation, as has characterized some arms control efforts in the past.

It is clear to me that the United States is moving quickly already. Tomorrow Secretary Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet in Geneva to discuss the specifics of how to move forward.

I cannot stress enough the importance of this process. Not only is it a possible solution to the specter of future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and a way to ensure that extremist elements of the opposition do not gain control of these weapons, but it also sets an important precedent for the United Nations to act to resolve conflict before there is large military confrontation.

But it should be clear by now that the Asad regime has repeatedly used chemical weapons. So I would like to speak as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and lay out some of the unclassified intelligence that shows the regime was indeed behind this largest use of chemical weapons in more than two decades. The unclassified assessment is based on classified intelligence we have seen on the Intelligence Committee and it has been available to all Senators. So here is the case.

The intelligence community assesses today, with ``high confidence,'' that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons--specifically sarin--in the Damascus suburbs in the early morning of August 21. This assessment is supported by all 16 of our intelligence agencies as well as other countries, including the United Kingdom and France.

The Obama administration has publicly laid out its case at an unclassified level, and I have carefully reviewed the classified information that supports those findings.

First, there is intelligence indicating that the Asad regime-- specifically its military and the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center, which manages its chemical weapons program--has used chemical weapons roughly a dozen times over the past year.

On June 13, 2 months before this latest attack, the administration stated that it had completed a review of all available intelligence and had concluded that the intelligence community had ``high confidence'' that the Asad regime used chemical weapons, ``including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times.'' This followed similar assessments by France, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Turkey earlier this year. In some of these cases the regime may have been testing its delivery vehicles or various amounts of chemical agents. Some were small-scale tactical uses against the opposition. Perhaps Asad was just trying to find out how the world would react to his use of chemical weapons.

It has been more than a year since top intelligence officials learned of Syrian preparations to use sarin in large quantities. Since then, at numerous other briefings and hearings, the Intelligence Committee has followed this issue closely. On September 11, 2012--exactly a year ago--while protests against our Embassy in Cairo were underway and the attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi was imminent, I was again briefed on the administration's plans should Asad conduct such an attack.

So the attack on August 21 in Damascus was not a first-time use, rather it was a major escalation in the regime's willingness to employ weapons long held as anathema by almost the entire world population.

Let me lay out the intelligence case that the Asad regime used chemical weapons on August 21. Much of this is described in a four-page August 30 unclassified document entitled ``U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.''

I ask unanimous consent that the document be printed in the Record.

We know that 3 days before the attack of August 21, Syrian officials involved in the preparation and use of chemical weapons and associated with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center were ``preparing chemical munitions'' in the Damascus suburb of Adra. That is according to the intelligence community.

The intelligence specifically relates to an area in Adra that the regime has used for mixing chemical weapons, including sarin. The Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating and present there from August 18 to the early morning of August 21, and finished their work shortly before the attack began.

Some of the intelligence collected on the preparations for the attack is highly sensitive. So the details of the Syrian actions cannot be described publicly without jeopardizing our ability to collect this kind of intelligence in the future. But in numerous classified briefings over the past 2 weeks, Members of Congress have been provided with additional detail on the names of the officials involved and the stream of human signals and geospatial intelligence that indicates that regime was preparing to use chemical weapons. So we actually have names.

It is from the specificity of this intelligence reporting that the intelligence community has drawn its high level of confidence that the regime was behind the use of chemical weapons. The strike began in the early morning hours on Wednesday, August 21. It is beyond doubt that large amounts of artillery and rockets were launched from regime- controlled territory in Damascus and rained down on the opposition- controlled areas of the Damascus suburbs. There is satellite imagery actually showing this, as well as thousands of firsthand accounts that began showing up on social media sites at around 2:30 a.m.

The barrage continued for 5 days, though the use of chemical weapons appears to have been deliberately suspended by the regime after the first few hours. Since the attack, physical samples from the area have been analyzed. The intelligence community assesses with high confidence that ``laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals revealed exposure to Sarin.''

More than 100 videos were posted online showing the effects of the chemical weapons on hundreds of men, women and, most troubling, sleeping children who were dead or showing the

signs of exposure to the nerve agent. At my request, the intelligence community compiled a representative sample of 13 videos which have been corroborated and verified. According to the intelligence community, ``At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at general times and locations described in the footage.''

These videos clearly show the suffering and death caused by these weapons. The intelligence committee has posted these videos on our Web site, www.intelligence.senate.gov. I would urge all Americans to look at this. They are absolutely horrendous and should shock the conscience of all humanity.

The videos show the physical manifestations of a nerve agent attack: foaming mouth, pinpointed and constricted pupils, convulsions, gasping for breath, all happening as the nervous system begins to shut down.

One video shows a lifeless toddler receiving emergency respiratory assistance. Another shows a young boy struggling to breathe, gasping while his eyes are swollen shut and covered in mucous. A third heinous video shows rows and rows of bodies lined up in an improvised morgue. Another shows a man foaming at the mouth and convulsing, both indications of sarin exposure. It goes on and on.

Last night, the President urged all Americans to watch these videos to see how hideous the use of these chemicals actually is. Seeing these images firsthand makes clear why chemical weapons have been banned and why Asad must be prevented from using them again.

What truly affected me was a video I saw of a little Syrian girl with long dark hair who was wearing pajamas. The little girl looked just like my daughter at that age--same hair, same pajamas, same innocence, except the little Syrian girl was lifeless. She had died from exposure to sarin, a chemical the world has essentially outlawed. For me, watching the videos shows the abhorrence of chemical weapons. It shows why we must do something. Fired into densely populated areas such as cities, they have an indiscriminate effect, killing everyone in their path and causing suffering and eventual death to others nearby.

We have evidence that the chemical attack was premeditated and planned as part of the regime's heinous tactics against the rebels. Specifically, there is intelligence that Syrian regime personnel were prepared with gas masks for its people in the area, so it could clear these areas in the Damascus suburbs that were attacked in order to wrest control from the opposition. Additional intelligence collected following the attacks includes communications from regime officials that confirms their knowledge that chemical weapons were used.

Let me repeat that. Additional intelligence following the attack includes communications from regime officials that confirms their knowledge that chemical weapons were used. The official unclassified intelligence assessment distributed by the administration states: ``We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.'' On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to ``cease operations.'' This is specific evidence.

To sum up the intelligence case, I have no doubt the regime ordered the use of chemical weapons on August 21. I also have no doubt the use of these weapons by the military and under the guidance of Syria's chemical weapons team, Branch 450, operates under the command and control of the regime, under the ultimate leadership and responsibility of President Asad.

Let me move now from the intelligence case of Syria's use of sarin on August 21 to the question before the Senate of how to respond. As I said in the beginning, it would be my strong hope that the United States and Russia can come to an agreement with other U.N. Security Council members on a way to resolve this situation peacefully.

Not only is a peaceful solution preferred to the use of force, but if Syria's chemical weapons program, including all of its precursors, chemicals, equipment, delivery systems, and loaded bombs, can be put in the custody of the United Nations for its eventual destruction, that would provide a much stronger protection against future use.

It also sets an important precedent for the future for the world to settle other disputes of this nature. I have urged the Obama administration to take all possible steps to make this proposal work. I appreciate the President's decision to ask us to delay any use-of-force resolution so diplomacy can be given a chance. However, the Senate may still face a resolution to authorize the use of force in the event that all diplomatic options fail. Many of my colleagues have noted that the threat of force has helped push forward the diplomatic option.

The Asad regime has clearly used chemical weapons to gas its own people. I believe it will most likely do so again, unless it is confronted with a major condemnation by the world. That now is beginning to happen.

The regime has escalated its attacks from small scale ones that killed 6 or 8 to 10 people with sarin to an attack that killed more than 1,000. We know the regime has munitions that could kill tens of thousands of Syrians in Aleppo or Homs. If the world does not respond now, we bear the responsibility if a larger tragedy happens later.

Of course, it is not only Syria who is looking at preparing and using weapons long banned by the international community. Iran is watching intently what the world will do in Syria and will apply the lessons it learns to its current development of nuclear weapons.

North Korea, which has refrained from using both the nuclear weapons it has and the chemical weapons stockpile that actually dwarfs that of Syria, may well use the Asad example to fire on South Korea. Remember, we have 28,000-plus troops right over the border of the DMZ, within a half hour.

More generally, countries around the world will see the United States as a paper tiger if it promises to take action but fails to do so. Former Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, whom I have great respect for, who worked in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said exactly that when he came out in support on the resolution for use of force against Syria.

Gates said this:

I strongly urge the Congress, both Democrats and

Republicans, to approve the President's request for

authorization to use force. Whatever one's views on the

current United States policy towards Syria, failure by

Congress to approve the request would, in my view, have

profoundly negative and dangerous consequences for the United

States, not just in the Middle East, but around the world

both now and in the future.

I strongly believe the major powers in the world have a responsibility to take action when a country not only slaughters 100,000 of its own citizens, makes millions homeless within Syria, and makes millions into refugees in Turkey and Jordan, but especially when it is willing to use weapons against them that have been banned as an affront to all humanity because they are outlawed by a treaty joined by 189 nations representing 98 percent of the world's population.

If the United Nations does not act in such cases, I believe it becomes irrelevant. If nothing is done to stop this use of chemical weapons, they will be used in future conflicts. I am confident of that.

American servicemen in World War I were gassed with their allied partners. In our briefings over the past week, the military has made clear to us that if we allow the prohibition on chemical weapons use to erode, our men and women in uniform may again suffer from these weapons on the battlefield.

Chemical weapons are not like conventional weapons. Consider for a moment how sarin, for example, can kill so indiscriminately. The closer you are to the release, such as from a mortar or an artillery shell, the more certain you are to death. It spreads over a wide geographic area. It can shift from one neighborhood to another if the wind shifts.

During World War I, chemical weapons, primarily chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas were used by both sides of the war. They caused an estimated 100,000 fatalities and 1.3 million injuries, 1,462 American soldiers were killed, and 72,807 were injured by chemical weapons, which represented one-

third of all U.S. casualties during World War I.

Since World War I, not a single U.S. soldier has died in battle from exposure to chemical weapons. However, according to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, ``since World War I, chemical weapons have caused more than 1 million casualties globally.''

During World War II, Nazi Germany used carbon monoxide and pesticides such as Zyklon B in gas chambers during the Holocaust, killing an estimated 3 million people.

An additional document will be printed in the Record that details the history and uses of chemical weapons around the world since World War

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Collins, to introduce the Child Care Infant Mortality Act. This is bipartisan legislation that would allow states participating in the Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, to use part of this funding for child safety training.

Currently, states participating in Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, are required to set aside at least 4 percent of funds to improve the quality of the programs offered in their states. Our bill would simply ensure that strategies to enhance child safety, including disseminating information related to prevention strategies for sudden unexpected infant death, are included in as an allowable use of funds.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, half of the approximately 4,500 SUID cases in the United States are entirely preventable with effective training and implementation of correct sleep practices. It is estimated that child care settings account for 20 percent of all SUID fatalities in the United States. Life-saving sleep strategies, first aid and CPR are successful in preventing infant death and are easily implementable; yet training is not currently an allowable use of funds under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act.

Nationally, over 4,500 infants die suddenly with no immediate obvious cause every year. These deaths are not highly publicized by the media because of the severe pain it causes families. A large percentage of child care providers are unaware of the risks of sleep associated infant deaths until they come face-to-face with a death of a child under their care. The more aware providers are of safe sleep practices, the more likely they are to follow suggested guidelines. In particular, posting safe-sleep practices and offering required training can further cut the number of infants we lose every year to sudden unexpected infant death. Beyond safe sleep practices, child care provider training in CPR and first aid will allow providers to identify and address potentially harmful situations for infants.

The Child Care Infant Mortality Prevention Act of 2013 expands the list of allowable uses for CCDBG funding to permit states to use this funding on activities to improve child care quality. Our bill would also require the Secretary to update and make widely available- training, instructional materials, and other information on safe sleep practices and other sudden unexpected infant death prevention strategies.

I am proud that Senator Susan Collins has joined me as an original cosponsor of this bill.

It is essential that this issue is addressed by building upon the existing structure and capacity of the networks of Child Care providers participating in the Child Care and Development Block Grant. It is critical that we work to ensure that child safety is a primary goal of the block grant, and that appropriate and adequate training on safe sleep practices, first aid, and CPR are included in the training regimen promoted by this Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Collins, to introduce the Child Care Infant Mortality Act. This is bipartisan legislation that would allow states participating in the Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, to use part of this funding for child safety training.

Currently, states participating in Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, are required to set aside at least 4 percent of funds to improve the quality of the programs offered in their states. Our bill would simply ensure that strategies to enhance child safety, including disseminating information related to prevention strategies for sudden unexpected infant death, are included in as an allowable use of funds.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, half of the approximately 4,500 SUID cases in the United States are entirely preventable with effective training and implementation of correct sleep practices. It is estimated that child care settings account for 20 percent of all SUID fatalities in the United States. Life-saving sleep strategies, first aid and CPR are successful in preventing infant death and are easily implementable; yet training is not currently an allowable use of funds under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act.

Nationally, over 4,500 infants die suddenly with no immediate obvious cause every year. These deaths are not highly publicized by the media because of the severe pain it causes families. A large percentage of child care providers are unaware of the risks of sleep associated infant deaths until they come face-to-face with a death of a child under their care. The more aware providers are of safe sleep practices, the more likely they are to follow suggested guidelines. In particular, posting safe-sleep practices and offering required training can further cut the number of infants we lose every year to sudden unexpected infant death. Beyond safe sleep practices, child care provider training in CPR and first aid will allow providers to identify and address potentially harmful situations for infants.

The Child Care Infant Mortality Prevention Act of 2013 expands the list of allowable uses for CCDBG funding to permit states to use this funding on activities to improve child care quality. Our bill would also require the Secretary to update and make widely available- training, instructional materials, and other information on safe sleep practices and other sudden unexpected infant death prevention strategies.

I am proud that Senator Susan Collins has joined me as an original cosponsor of this bill.

It is essential that this issue is addressed by building upon the existing structure and capacity of the networks of Child Care providers participating in the Child Care and Development Block Grant. It is critical that we work to ensure that child safety is a primary goal of the block grant, and that appropriate and adequate training on safe sleep practices, first aid, and CPR are included in the training regimen promoted by this Act.

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

Mr. President, Chairman Murray, and Senator Boxer, I rise to discuss with you the importance of funding for the Surface Transportation Board in this legislation, as well as the funding that Chairman Murray has provided to the Federal Railroad Administration to continue to administer its grant awards.

As you know, opponents of California's high-speed rail project are attempting to use the Federal permitting process in order to prevent the Nation's first high-speed rail project from moving forward and succeeding.

The Surface Transportation Board funding will provide the resources necessary to continue the Board's efforts to permit the growth of passenger rail projects in the United States. The funding in the bill for the Federal Railroad Administration will ensure that this agency is able to monitor and administer the grants it already awarded.

I also would like to thank Chairman Murray and Chairman Mikulski for your explanation.

I am deeply alarmed by attempts in the other body of Congress to prohibit the Department of Transportation and the Surface Transportation Board from completing their permitting and oversight responsibly.

These attempts violate the spirit of federalism. The California high- speed rail project was approved by California's voters on the ballot, the legislature has enacted enabling legislation, and the Governor supports it.

While some may not like this type of transportation investment, it is the choice that my State has made for their future, and the Federal Government should respect those decisions.

Furthermore, I strongly believe the Federal permitting process should not be used as a tool to obstruct and delay major infrastructure investments of our States.

Permitting infrastructure in California is a notoriously thorough, long, and comprehensive process. In the years California has analyzed this one project, China has built thousands of miles of high-speed rail.

But this year, in an attempt to stymie the project, opponents of California's plan forced the Surface Transportation Board--an agency dedicated to protecting fair competition in freight rail--to assert Federal jurisdiction over California's high-speed rail project.

This new layer of Federal permitting is duplicative of the thorough 5-year-long review performed by the Federal Railroad Administration. Nonetheless, State and Federal entities complied with this extraneous requirement. However, now opponents are working vigorously to stall the actions at the Surface Transportation Board that will allow construction to finally begin in earnest.

Fortunately, the Surface Transportation Board exists to facilitate the growth of rail in the United States--not to impede it. As long as the Board acts quickly within its statutory authority, it will not impede California's decisions.

Thank you, Chairman Murray, for ensuring that California will not be left holding the bag, which is not a fair way for the Federal Government to treat the States. Were an appropriations bill to prevent the Federal Government from honoring its grant commitments, it would set a dangerous precedent. I am concerned that it would undermine the competitive process.

Mr. President, I rise today to again discuss the need to restore and protect Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. Her alpine beauty has drawn and inspired people for centuries: artists and poets, John Muir and Mark Twain, and countless millions the world over.

As a girl, I went to Lake Tahoe to ride horses through the woods, to swim in the clear blue waters and to bike around the magnificent Basin.

For over 16 years, representatives from different ends of the political spectrum have come together to Keep Tahoe Blue.

The challenges are great. Climate change and drought have created a persistent threat from catastrophic wildfire. Sedimentation and pollution threaten water quality and the lake's treasured clarity. And invasive species threaten the economy of the region.

The time to act is now, and the federal government must take a leading role--78 percent of the land surrounding Lake Tahoe is public land, primarily the Eldorado, Toiyabe and Tahoe National Forests.

That is why today I am reintroducing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2013, which is co-sponsored by Senators Harry Reid, Dean Heller and Barbara Boxer.

The bill would continue the Federal commitment at Lake Tahoe by authorizing $415 million over ten years to improve water clarity, reduce the threat of catastrophic fire, combat invasive species, and restore and protect the environment in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Specifically, it would do the following:

Provide $243 million over 10 years for the highest priority restoration projects, according to scientific data. The legislation authorizes at least $138 million for stormwater management and watershed restoration projects scientifically determined to be the most effective ways to improve water clarity.

This bill also requires prioritized ranking of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $80 million for State and local agencies to implement these projects with costs being split evenly between the Federal agencies and non-federal partners.

Eligible projects must demonstrate their cost effectiveness, stakeholder support, ability to leverage non-federal contributions and meet environmental improvement goals.

Implementation of priority projects will improve water quality, forest health, air quality and fish and wildlife habitat around Lake Tahoe.

Authorizes $135 million over ten years to reduce the threat of wildfire in Lake Tahoe. These funds will finance hazardous fuels reduction projects including grants to local fire agencies, who must contribute at least 25 percent of project costs.

The bill also authorizes important restoration work related to the devastating 2007 Angora fire, which destroyed 242 residences and 67 commercial structures. Fuels treatment on Washoe Tribal lands, wildfire prevention planning, and improvements to

local water district infrastructure to fight wildfires that reach urban areas are eligible for grant funding.

The bill also creates incentives for local communities to have dedicated funding for defensible space inspections and enforcement.

Protecting Lake Tahoe from the threat of quagga mussels and other invasive aquatic species. Protecting Lake Tahoe from the threat of quagga mussels and other invasive aquatic species is a major priority because of the serious threats posed to Lake Tahoe.

University of California, Davis and University of Nevada, Reno scientists report that they have found up to 3,000 Asian clams per square meter at spots between Zephyr Point and Elk Point in Lake Tahoe. The spreading Asian clam population could put sharp shells and rotting algae on the Lake's beaches and help spread other invasive species such as quagga mussels.

The bill would authorize $30 million for watercraft inspections and removal of existing invasive species. It would require all watercraft to be inspected and decontaminated if they are determined to be a risk to the lake.

These invasive species threats are serious. For example, one quagga or zebra mussel can lay 1 million eggs in a year. This means that a single boat carrying quagga could devastate the lake's biology, local infrastructure, and the local economy.

The threat to Lake Tahoe cannot be overstated. In 2007 quagga mussels were discovered in Lake Mead. In the 6 years since, there population has swelled exponentially. Today there are more than 3 trillion. The infestation is probably irreversible.

There is good news. There is promising news on this front. Scientists have begun testing a new strategy by placing long rubber mats across the bottom of Lake Tahoe to cut off the oxygen to the Asian clams. Early research suggests that these mats were very effective at killing the clams. We continue to learn from this important research about how best to manage invasive species.

We can fight off these invaders. But it will require drive and imagination and the help authorized within this bill.

Supports reintroduction of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The legislation authorizes $20 million over 10 years for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. The Lahontan Cutthroat Trout is an iconic species that has an important historic legacy in Lake Tahoe.

When John C. Fremont first explored the Truckee River in January of 1844, he called it the Salmon Trout River because he found the Pyramid Lake Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The trout relied on the Truckee River and its tributaries for their spawning runs in spring, traveling up the entire river's length as far as Lake Tahoe and Donner Lake, where they used the cool, pristine waters and clean gravel beds to lay their eggs. But dams, pollution and overfishing caused the demise of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout.

Lake Tahoe is one of the historic 11 lakes where Lahontan Cutthroat Trout flourished in the past, and it's a critical part of the strategy to recover the species.

Funds scientific research. The legislation authorizes $30 million over ten years for scientific programs and research which will produce information on long-term trends in the Basin and inform the most cost- effective projects.

Prohibiting mining operations in the Tahoe Basin. This legislation would prohibit new mining operations in the Basin, ensuring that the fragile watershed and Lake Tahoe's water clarity are not threatened by pollution from mining operations.

Increases accountability and oversight. Every project funded by this legislation will have monitoring and assessment to determine the most cost-effective projects and best management practices for future projects.

The legislation also requires the Chair of the Federal Partnership to work with the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and regional and state agencies, to prepare an annual report to Congress detailing the status of all projects undertaken, including project scope, budget and justification and overall expenditures and accomplishments.

This will ensure that Congress can have oversight on the progress of environmental restoration in Lake Tahoe.

Provides for public outreach and education. The Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will implement new public outreach and education programs including encouraging Basin residents and visitors to implement defensible space, conducting best management practices for water quality and preventing the introduction and proliferation of invasive species. In addition, the legislation requires signage on federally financed projects to improve public awareness of restoration efforts.

Allows for increased efficiency in the management of public land. Under this legislation, the Forest Service would have increased flexibility to exchange land with state agencies which will allow for more cost-efficient management of public land. There is currently a checkerboard pattern of ownership in some areas of the Basin.

Under this new authority, the Forest Service could exchange land with the California Tahoe Conservancy and the California Department of Parks and Recreation of approximately equal value without going through a lengthy process to assess the land.

For example, if there are several plots of Forest Service land that surround or are adjacent to Tahoe Conservancy or California State Parks land, the state could transfer that land to the Forest Service so that it can be managed more efficiently.

This legislation is needed because the ``Jewel of the Sierra'' is in big trouble. If we don't act now, we could lose Lake Tahoe, lose it with stunning speed, to several devastating threats.

Anyone doubting that climate change poses a severe threat to Lake Tahoe should read an alarming recent report by the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center.

It was written for the U.S. Forest Service by scientists who have devoted their professional careers to studying Lake Tahoe. And it paints a distinctly bleak picture of the future for the ``Jewel of the Sierra.''

Among its findings are the Tahoe Basin's regional snowpack could decline by as much as 60 percent in the next century, with increased floods likely by 2050 and prolonged droughts by 2100.

Even ``under the most optimistic projections,'' average snowpack in the Sierra Nevada around Tahoe will decline by 40 to 60 percent by 2100, according to the report.

This would likely bankrupt Tahoe's ski industry, threaten the water supply of Reno and other communities, and degrade the lake's fabled water clarity. It is devastating.

According to the UC Davis report, an all-out attack on pollution and sedimentation may be the lake's last best hope.

Geoff Schladow, director of the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center and one of the report's authors, noted the need to restore short-term water quality in Lake Tahoe--while there's still time to do it.

``Reducing the load of external nutrients entering the lake in the coming decades may be the only possible mitigation measure to reduce the impact of climate change on lake clarity . . . ,'' the report said.

Without such an effort, the ``internal loading of nutrients'' could fundamentally change the lake and fuel algal growth, creating a downward spiral in water quality and clarity.

Water clarity is one of the central problems the legislation would address.

Pollution and sedimentation have threatened Lake Tahoe's water clarity for years now. In 1968, the first year UC Davis scientists made measurements using a device called a Secchi disk, clarity was measured at an average depth of 102.4 feet. Clarity declined over the next three decades, hitting a low of 64 feet in 1997.

There has been some improvement in this decade. Last year scientists recorded average clarity at 75.3 feet--the clearest readings in a decade. But it is a fragile gain. Sedimentation and stormwater runoff pose a persistent threat.

Climate change has already made itself apparent at Lake Tahoe. It makes the basin dry and tinder-hot, raising the risks of catastrophic wildfire. Daily air temperatures have increased 4 degrees since 1911. Snow has

declined as a fraction of total precipitation, from an average of 52 percent in 1910 to just 36 percent in recent years.

Climate change has caused Lake Tahoe's surface water temperature to rise over 2 degrees in 44 years. That means the cyclical deep-water mixing of the lake's waters will occur less frequently, and this could significantly disrupt Lake Tahoe's ecosystem.

This legislation is intended to address these problems.

Last year, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out the bill favorably, but there was not enough time for a floor vote. It is my hope that this legislation can move through committee quickly and be passed later this year.

A lot of good work has been done. But there's a lot more work to do, and time is running out.

Mark Twain called Lake Tahoe ``the fairest picture the whole world affords.'' We must not be the generation who lets this picture fall into ruin. We must rise to the challenge, and do all we can to preserve this ``noble sheet of water.''

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

Mr. President, I rise today to again discuss the need to restore and protect Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. Her alpine beauty has drawn and inspired people for centuries: artists and poets, John Muir and Mark Twain, and countless millions the world over.

As a girl, I went to Lake Tahoe to ride horses through the woods, to swim in the clear blue waters and to bike around the magnificent Basin.

For over 16 years, representatives from different ends of the political spectrum have come together to Keep Tahoe Blue.

The challenges are great. Climate change and drought have created a persistent threat from catastrophic wildfire. Sedimentation and pollution threaten water quality and the lake's treasured clarity. And invasive species threaten the economy of the region.

The time to act is now, and the federal government must take a leading role--78 percent of the land surrounding Lake Tahoe is public land, primarily the Eldorado, Toiyabe and Tahoe National Forests.

That is why today I am reintroducing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2013, which is co-sponsored by Senators Harry Reid, Dean Heller and Barbara Boxer.

The bill would continue the Federal commitment at Lake Tahoe by authorizing $415 million over ten years to improve water clarity, reduce the threat of catastrophic fire, combat invasive species, and restore and protect the environment in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Specifically, it would do the following:

Provide $243 million over 10 years for the highest priority restoration projects, according to scientific data. The legislation authorizes at least $138 million for stormwater management and watershed restoration projects scientifically determined to be the most effective ways to improve water clarity.

This bill also requires prioritized ranking of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $80 million for State and local agencies to implement these projects with costs being split evenly between the Federal agencies and non-federal partners.

Eligible projects must demonstrate their cost effectiveness, stakeholder support, ability to leverage non-federal contributions and meet environmental improvement goals.

Implementation of priority projects will improve water quality, forest health, air quality and fish and wildlife habitat around Lake Tahoe.

Authorizes $135 million over ten years to reduce the threat of wildfire in Lake Tahoe. These funds will finance hazardous fuels reduction projects including grants to local fire agencies, who must contribute at least 25 percent of project costs.

The bill also authorizes important restoration work related to the devastating 2007 Angora fire, which destroyed 242 residences and 67 commercial structures. Fuels treatment on Washoe Tribal lands, wildfire prevention planning, and improvements to

local water district infrastructure to fight wildfires that reach urban areas are eligible for grant funding.

The bill also creates incentives for local communities to have dedicated funding for defensible space inspections and enforcement.

Protecting Lake Tahoe from the threat of quagga mussels and other invasive aquatic species. Protecting Lake Tahoe from the threat of quagga mussels and other invasive aquatic species is a major priority because of the serious threats posed to Lake Tahoe.

University of California, Davis and University of Nevada, Reno scientists report that they have found up to 3,000 Asian clams per square meter at spots between Zephyr Point and Elk Point in Lake Tahoe. The spreading Asian clam population could put sharp shells and rotting algae on the Lake's beaches and help spread other invasive species such as quagga mussels.

The bill would authorize $30 million for watercraft inspections and removal of existing invasive species. It would require all watercraft to be inspected and decontaminated if they are determined to be a risk to the lake.

These invasive species threats are serious. For example, one quagga or zebra mussel can lay 1 million eggs in a year. This means that a single boat carrying quagga could devastate the lake's biology, local infrastructure, and the local economy.

The threat to Lake Tahoe cannot be overstated. In 2007 quagga mussels were discovered in Lake Mead. In the 6 years since, there population has swelled exponentially. Today there are more than 3 trillion. The infestation is probably irreversible.

There is good news. There is promising news on this front. Scientists have begun testing a new strategy by placing long rubber mats across the bottom of Lake Tahoe to cut off the oxygen to the Asian clams. Early research suggests that these mats were very effective at killing the clams. We continue to learn from this important research about how best to manage invasive species.

We can fight off these invaders. But it will require drive and imagination and the help authorized within this bill.

Supports reintroduction of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The legislation authorizes $20 million over 10 years for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. The Lahontan Cutthroat Trout is an iconic species that has an important historic legacy in Lake Tahoe.

When John C. Fremont first explored the Truckee River in January of 1844, he called it the Salmon Trout River because he found the Pyramid Lake Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The trout relied on the Truckee River and its tributaries for their spawning runs in spring, traveling up the entire river's length as far as Lake Tahoe and Donner Lake, where they used the cool, pristine waters and clean gravel beds to lay their eggs. But dams, pollution and overfishing caused the demise of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout.

Lake Tahoe is one of the historic 11 lakes where Lahontan Cutthroat Trout flourished in the past, and it's a critical part of the strategy to recover the species.

Funds scientific research. The legislation authorizes $30 million over ten years for scientific programs and research which will produce information on long-term trends in the Basin and inform the most cost- effective projects.

Prohibiting mining operations in the Tahoe Basin. This legislation would prohibit new mining operations in the Basin, ensuring that the fragile watershed and Lake Tahoe's water clarity are not threatened by pollution from mining operations.

Increases accountability and oversight. Every project funded by this legislation will have monitoring and assessment to determine the most cost-effective projects and best management practices for future projects.

The legislation also requires the Chair of the Federal Partnership to work with the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and regional and state agencies, to prepare an annual report to Congress detailing the status of all projects undertaken, including project scope, budget and justification and overall expenditures and accomplishments.

This will ensure that Congress can have oversight on the progress of environmental restoration in Lake Tahoe.

Provides for public outreach and education. The Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will implement new public outreach and education programs including encouraging Basin residents and visitors to implement defensible space, conducting best management practices for water quality and preventing the introduction and proliferation of invasive species. In addition, the legislation requires signage on federally financed projects to improve public awareness of restoration efforts.

Allows for increased efficiency in the management of public land. Under this legislation, the Forest Service would have increased flexibility to exchange land with state agencies which will allow for more cost-efficient management of public land. There is currently a checkerboard pattern of ownership in some areas of the Basin.

Under this new authority, the Forest Service could exchange land with the California Tahoe Conservancy and the California Department of Parks and Recreation of approximately equal value without going through a lengthy process to assess the land.

For example, if there are several plots of Forest Service land that surround or are adjacent to Tahoe Conservancy or California State Parks land, the state could transfer that land to the Forest Service so that it can be managed more efficiently.

This legislation is needed because the ``Jewel of the Sierra'' is in big trouble. If we don't act now, we could lose Lake Tahoe, lose it with stunning speed, to several devastating threats.

Anyone doubting that climate change poses a severe threat to Lake Tahoe should read an alarming recent report by the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center.

It was written for the U.S. Forest Service by scientists who have devoted their professional careers to studying Lake Tahoe. And it paints a distinctly bleak picture of the future for the ``Jewel of the Sierra.''

Among its findings are the Tahoe Basin's regional snowpack could decline by as much as 60 percent in the next century, with increased floods likely by 2050 and prolonged droughts by 2100.

Even ``under the most optimistic projections,'' average snowpack in the Sierra Nevada around Tahoe will decline by 40 to 60 percent by 2100, according to the report.

This would likely bankrupt Tahoe's ski industry, threaten the water supply of Reno and other communities, and degrade the lake's fabled water clarity. It is devastating.

According to the UC Davis report, an all-out attack on pollution and sedimentation may be the lake's last best hope.

Geoff Schladow, director of the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center and one of the report's authors, noted the need to restore short-term water quality in Lake Tahoe--while there's still time to do it.

``Reducing the load of external nutrients entering the lake in the coming decades may be the only possible mitigation measure to reduce the impact of climate change on lake clarity . . . ,'' the report said.

Without such an effort, the ``internal loading of nutrients'' could fundamentally change the lake and fuel algal growth, creating a downward spiral in water quality and clarity.

Water clarity is one of the central problems the legislation would address.

Pollution and sedimentation have threatened Lake Tahoe's water clarity for years now. In 1968, the first year UC Davis scientists made measurements using a device called a Secchi disk, clarity was measured at an average depth of 102.4 feet. Clarity declined over the next three decades, hitting a low of 64 feet in 1997.

There has been some improvement in this decade. Last year scientists recorded average clarity at 75.3 feet--the clearest readings in a decade. But it is a fragile gain. Sedimentation and stormwater runoff pose a persistent threat.

Climate change has already made itself apparent at Lake Tahoe. It makes the basin dry and tinder-hot, raising the risks of catastrophic wildfire. Daily air temperatures have increased 4 degrees since 1911. Snow has

declined as a fraction of total precipitation, from an average of 52 percent in 1910 to just 36 percent in recent years.

Climate change has caused Lake Tahoe's surface water temperature to rise over 2 degrees in 44 years. That means the cyclical deep-water mixing of the lake's waters will occur less frequently, and this could significantly disrupt Lake Tahoe's ecosystem.

This legislation is intended to address these problems.

Last year, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out the bill favorably, but there was not enough time for a floor vote. It is my hope that this legislation can move through committee quickly and be passed later this year.

A lot of good work has been done. But there's a lot more work to do, and time is running out.

Mark Twain called Lake Tahoe ``the fairest picture the whole world affords.'' We must not be the generation who lets this picture fall into ruin. We must rise to the challenge, and do all we can to preserve this ``noble sheet of water.''

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering Tony West's nomination to be Associate Attorney General of the United States today. I have a great deal of respect for Tony. As a fellow Californian, I know he will serve the position of Associate Attorney General with distinction.

The role of the Associate Attorney General--the third-highest ranking position at the Department--is to help lead the Justice Department and to oversee the Department's civil units, such as the Civil Division, Antitrust Division, and Tax Division, as well as the Office of Justice Programs, which provides grants, including to State and local law enforcement.

Mr. West's qualifications for this position are unquestionable. He has served as Acting Associate Attorney General since March 2012. He also spent 3 years as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division, so he is no stranger to the responsibilities and demands of leadership in the Justice Department.

From 2001 to 2009, Mr. West was a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP, where he represented major corporations in securities litigation, antitrust cases, and white-collar criminal defense.

From 1994 to 1999, he served as assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of California for 5 years. He prosecuted high-tech crimes, bank robberies, fraud schemes, and sexual exploitation offenses.

He received his bachelor's degree from Harvard University and later earned his law degree at Stanford Law School, where he was president of the Stanford Law Review.

Simply put, Tony West brings a great deal of experience in Justice Department leadership, private practice, and criminal prosecution to this position.

I am confident he will do an outstanding job, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.