Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2009. This bill would close a loophole that currently exists in Federal law by prohibiting the possession of cell phones and other wireless devices by prisoners in Federal facilities.

Currently, cell phones found in prisons are not specifically defined as contraband material. As a result, guards and inmates found smuggling or in possession of a cell phone in a Federal prison are rarely punished.

This bill would close this loophole by defining cell phones as contraband material under Federal law. As a result, any person smuggling or in possession of a cell phone could potentially serve up to a year in prison.

A cell phone should never be in the hands of a prisoner. The presence of these cell phones poses a grave safety concern for staff, inmates, and the public. We know that inmates use these phones to conduct criminal business outside of prison walls, including directing gang hits, controlling drug trafficking operations and even conducting credit card fraud. Corrections departments across the country are reporting a sharp increase in the number of cell phones being smuggled into prison facilities.

In May, California Inspector General David Shaw released a report on inmate cell phone use in California state prisons. The report found that cell phone seizures have increased tenfold in two years--from 261 in 2006 to 2,811 in 2008. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, cell phone and electronic communication device possession, ``is one of the most significant problems facing the Department today.''

So far this year, authorities have discovered over 4,000 cell phones among inmates in California prisons. There are presumably thousands more that were not discovered. Smugglers receive hundreds of dollars for each cell phone and more money if the cell phone contains a camera.

Staff members who smuggle cell phones for inmates often receive more in compensation for the contraband phones than they do from their paychecks. The California Inspector General's report on inmate cell phone use found that inmates pay $500 to $1,000 per cell phone and noted that one corrupt correctional officer received approximately $150,000 in 1 year to smuggle cell phones to inmates.

The cell phone problem is not limited to California. Maryland, Kansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas are just some of the states that have reported serious incidents coordinated by an inmate with a cell phone.

In Maryland, an inmate used a cell phone from jail to order the assassination of a witness testifying against him.

In Tennessee, a corrections officer was killed as a result of an inmate using a cell phone to plan an escape.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Dora Schriro told my office, and I agree that cell phones in prison are ``a more serious threat than drugs or other contraband.''

The problem in our Nation's Federal prisons is no better. In 2008, the Federal Bureau of Prisons confiscated 1,519 phones from Federal prison camps and 255 cell phones from secure Federal institutions. I expect that these numbers will continue to increase unless we take proactive steps to stop the problem.

In July, I became a cosponsor of the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009, authored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. This bill would enable state and Federal prisons to petition the Federal Communications Commission and request to operate a wireless jamming device to block inmates from using cell phones to conduct criminal business from inside prison walls. Before granting permission, the FCC would have to first determine whether the jammer would interfere with emergency or public safety communications outside of the prison walls.

If enacted, the bill will provide another necessary tool in the effort to ensure that the growing problem of cell phones in prison does not turn into an epidemic. It is my hope that this will serve as a strong deterrent to those who would profit from smuggling cell phones and other wireless devices into our Federal prisons.

Our Federal prisons house some of the most dangerous criminals in our Nation. Cell phones allow prisoners to traffic drugs and carry out murders from within our prisons and that is unacceptable.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

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

Madam President, I rise to oppose the Barrasso amendment No. 2567, which would ban funding to the CIA's new Center on Climate Change and National Security. I make these remarks as chairman of the Intelligence Committee and one who strongly supports the new Climate Change center at the CIA.

The Center on Climate Change and National Security that the CIA recently established is fully consistent with the intelligence community's mission of protecting the United States.

It is important to note what the Center will not do. It will not do the science of climate change. It will not make judgments about how or whether the climate is changing. It will not make judgments about why the climate is changing. That work will be done where it belongs, with the scientific community.

The Center will have three tasks. One, it will continue the decade- long program of declassifying imagery for passage to climate change scientists.

Let me give you an example of some of that imagery. It is here on my right, as shown in these photographs. This is Barrow, AK. This is Barrow. This is the Chukchi Sea. As shown here, this is July of 2006. In this picture, this is that same area in July of 2007. You see the decomposition of the ice. They point out its variation by time and, therefore, you can track the impact of the change brought about by global warming from our satellites. So our satellites are used to measure and predict change.

Here is another one. This is the Beaufort Sea in August of 2001. You see the melt ponds in the center, and you see the ice. You see it here--winter in August of 2007. This is from a satellite.

The third one is much more difficult to see, but it is the Bering Glacier in Alaska. Here it is in May of 2005. Here are the big chunks that have broken off. Here they are there. As shown here, this is another satellite photo of the Bering Glacier in Alaska.

The second task of the CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security will be to assess the plans and intentions of other countries, and it will help the administration design verification regimes for any climate change treaties so policymakers can negotiate from a position of strength. This is, in fact, a traditional role for the intelligence community on a wide range of foreign policy issues.

Thirdly, the Center on Climate Change and National Security will assess the national security implications of climate change, which many experts believe will be significant. This will include assessing the national security implications of increased competition for resources, population shifts, water shortages, changes in crop yields, and the spread of climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria.

This is the work that the IC is better positioned than anyone else in the government to do and where CIA's contacts in the academic and think tank communities will pay big dividends.

On September 25, the CIA announced it was going to launch this new center and tackle the devastating long-term challenges that climate change might present to our Nation's security. In other words, this will give the intelligence community the opportunity to collect information and predict how change is going to affect certain countries--the movement of populations, the devastation of crops, the disappearance of water supplies--to be able to anticipate what impact that will have on the Nation's policy and on our national security.

I have no doubt climate changes are going to have an impact on our Nation's security. I also have no doubt our satellites can give us a very positive--meaning in the sense of crisp and delineated--view of these changes as our satellites track climate change across the years.

I believe very strongly the Center on Climate Change is warranted. I believe it will produce intelligence dividends for the Nation, and I believe it is entirely appropriate. Therefore, I would oppose the Barrasso amendment, which would effectively eliminate this new center.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Javier Lopez-Urenda and his wife, Maria Leticia Arenas. Mr. Lopez-Urenda and his wife are Mexican nationals living in Fremont, California, and the loving parents of three U.S. citizen children, Bryan, age 16, Ashley, age 12, and Nancy, age 6.

I have decided to introduce this private bill to ensure that this family stays together because they have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to each other and the greater community in the Bay area. I believe Mr. Lopez-Urenda and Ms. Arenas merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Javier Lopez-Urenda was born in Michoacan, Mexico. When he was 19 years old, his father was stabbed and murdered while working as a cab driver. In 1990, at the age of 23, Mr. Lopez-Urenda came to the United States to find a higher paying job to support his extended family. Leticia Arenas came to the U.S. at the age of 17 after her mother died of cancer. Mr. Lopez-Urenda and Ms. Arenas have now been living in the U.S.for almost 20 years.

Mr. Lopez-Urenda is the sole financial provider for his wife and three U.S. citizen children and owns his own home. For over 17 years, Mr. Lopez-Urenda has worked at Full Bloom Baking Company, a commercial bakery in San Mateo, California, and was the second employee that they hired. With Mr. Lopez-Urenda's help, the company grew to one of the largest commercial bakeries in the Bay Area, which currently employs approximately 385 people in the bay area.

Full Bloom Baking Company has stated:

Javier is critical to the operation of our business. . . .

He holds a tremendous amount of `institutional knowledge'

that can never be replaced. He mentors and develops Team

members, conducts training classes, and has deep

understanding of complex industrial baking equipment and is

an expert on how to produce wonderful artisan quality

products from the intricate interactions of formula, people

and equipment.

Mr. Lopez-Urenda's coworkers have also written to me about his value to the company. Coleen Donnelly writes:

I am lucky enough to have worked with Javier briefly at the

bakery he helped build from the ground up. I always knew he

was in the room before I saw him. His presence is such a

positive force. He has the natural ability to manage and lead

people and make it all seem like play, not work. Without

Javier at the bakery, the lives of hundreds of people will

change.

With the encouragement of his employer, Mr. Lopez-Urenda sought legal advice in 1996 in an attempt to legalize his status. However, the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, IIRIRA, eliminated his ability to apply for suspension of deportation.

Mr. Lopez-Urenda also attempted to legalize through his employer, but the labor certification remained unadjudicated for nearly three years. Once the Department of Labor granted his labor certification, Mr. Lopez-Urenda could have legalized his status but for the fact that his removal case had already been resolved against him due to the change in law.

When the Ninth Circuit Court denied his appeal, the Court acknowledged the compelling circumstances of Mr. Lopez-Urenda's case. The court stated:

We are not unmindful of the unique and extremely

sympathetic circumstances of this case. By all accounts,

Petitioner has been an exemplary father, employee, and member

of his local community. If he were to be deported, he would

be separated from his wife, three U.S. citizen children, and

the life he has worked so hard to build over the past

seventeen years. In light of the unfortunate sequence of

events leading up this juncture and Petitioner's positive

contributions to society, Petition may very well be deserving

of prosecutorial grace.

Unfortunately, Mr. Lopez-Urenda faces deportation today despite his sympathetic circumstances and the significant positive contributions that he and his family have made to society.

These contributions to the San Mateo and Fremont communities have truly been exceptional. He is an active volunteer for the Women's Foundation of California, Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation, the Saint Patrick Proto Cathedral Parish, the American Red Cross, and just last year he was one of the key organizers of the California AIDS Ride.

Ms. Arenas has also volunteered in the community as a religious school teacher at Our Lady of the Rosary Church, a health promoter at the Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center, and a sexual assault counselor at Bay Area Woman Against Rape.

My office has received 46 letters of support on behalf of this family staying together in the community that they have helped build. Below are a few notable excerpts from the letters I have received reflecting the impact of this family on the community:

Patricia W. Change, CEO of Feed the Hunger Foundation, former President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, and a prior San Francisco Commissioner and U.S. Commissioner writes:

Mr. Urenda has always operated with the highest integrity.

Asking Mr. Urenda to leave the United States would deprive

his children of their father, an upstanding resident of the

country. It would deprive the community of an active

participant, leader, and volunteer.

The Bay Area Women Against Rape indicates that Leticia has been ``successful, available, [and] committed to the cause of breaking the silence of sexual abuse in our community.''

Judy Patrick, President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, writes:

Javier Urenda is fulfilling tremendous needs within his

community. He is a model participant in this society.

Christine Bozzini, a friend and former coworker of Mr. Lopez-Urenda, writes:

Javier strives to create a meaningful and rewarding life

with his children, focusing on supporting them in their

studies, as well as a variety of athletic pursuits and

personal interests. For example, over the last few years he

has taken great pride in traveling to various U.S. monuments

in order to teach his children about the birth of their

country.

One of the other compelling reasons for permitting these parents to remain in the United States is the impact that deportation would have on their three U.S. citizen minor children, Bryan, Ashley, and Nancy.

All too often, U.S. citizen children face the loss of a parent through deportation. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country.

A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP for the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--the deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children.

Mr. John Arthur Balano, Head Coach and Faculty Instructor at the City College of San Francisco, has known Mr. Lopez-Urenda through his volunteer work at Washington High School in Fremont, California. He has stated that Mr. Lopez-Urenda ``actively participates in the daily life of his children. Be it school, domestic, or extra-curricular activities, socialization and citizenship, Javier is always furthering their growth.''

In addition, Ms. Marlene Davis, the Principal of Patterson Elementary School, where two of the Lopez-Urenda children currently attend, has written me, stating that:

Mr. Lopez-Urenda and his wife are very involved in their

children's lives and school work. If they were not, the

children would not be doing as well as they are. I think

without his presence, the children would definitely fare very

poorly indeed both because of the psychological shock of

having their father taken away but also academically because

their mother would not be as available and one half of their

scholastic support would be missing. . . . This would be a

terrible strategy which could be avoided if the children are

able to remain in the same stable environment with two loving

and supportive parents who are committed to their children's

success.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today on behalf of Mr. Lopea-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas will enable this family to continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to each other and their extensive community in Fremont, California.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this private bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Javier Lopez-Urenda and his wife, Maria Leticia Arenas. Mr. Lopez-Urenda and his wife are Mexican nationals living in Fremont, California, and the loving parents of three U.S. citizen children, Bryan, age 16, Ashley, age 12, and Nancy, age 6.

I have decided to introduce this private bill to ensure that this family stays together because they have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to each other and the greater community in the Bay area. I believe Mr. Lopez-Urenda and Ms. Arenas merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Javier Lopez-Urenda was born in Michoacan, Mexico. When he was 19 years old, his father was stabbed and murdered while working as a cab driver. In 1990, at the age of 23, Mr. Lopez-Urenda came to the United States to find a higher paying job to support his extended family. Leticia Arenas came to the U.S. at the age of 17 after her mother died of cancer. Mr. Lopez-Urenda and Ms. Arenas have now been living in the U.S.for almost 20 years.

Mr. Lopez-Urenda is the sole financial provider for his wife and three U.S. citizen children and owns his own home. For over 17 years, Mr. Lopez-Urenda has worked at Full Bloom Baking Company, a commercial bakery in San Mateo, California, and was the second employee that they hired. With Mr. Lopez-Urenda's help, the company grew to one of the largest commercial bakeries in the Bay Area, which currently employs approximately 385 people in the bay area.

Full Bloom Baking Company has stated:

Javier is critical to the operation of our business. . . .

He holds a tremendous amount of `institutional knowledge'

that can never be replaced. He mentors and develops Team

members, conducts training classes, and has deep

understanding of complex industrial baking equipment and is

an expert on how to produce wonderful artisan quality

products from the intricate interactions of formula, people

and equipment.

Mr. Lopez-Urenda's coworkers have also written to me about his value to the company. Coleen Donnelly writes:

I am lucky enough to have worked with Javier briefly at the

bakery he helped build from the ground up. I always knew he

was in the room before I saw him. His presence is such a

positive force. He has the natural ability to manage and lead

people and make it all seem like play, not work. Without

Javier at the bakery, the lives of hundreds of people will

change.

With the encouragement of his employer, Mr. Lopez-Urenda sought legal advice in 1996 in an attempt to legalize his status. However, the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, IIRIRA, eliminated his ability to apply for suspension of deportation.

Mr. Lopez-Urenda also attempted to legalize through his employer, but the labor certification remained unadjudicated for nearly three years. Once the Department of Labor granted his labor certification, Mr. Lopez-Urenda could have legalized his status but for the fact that his removal case had already been resolved against him due to the change in law.

When the Ninth Circuit Court denied his appeal, the Court acknowledged the compelling circumstances of Mr. Lopez-Urenda's case. The court stated:

We are not unmindful of the unique and extremely

sympathetic circumstances of this case. By all accounts,

Petitioner has been an exemplary father, employee, and member

of his local community. If he were to be deported, he would

be separated from his wife, three U.S. citizen children, and

the life he has worked so hard to build over the past

seventeen years. In light of the unfortunate sequence of

events leading up this juncture and Petitioner's positive

contributions to society, Petition may very well be deserving

of prosecutorial grace.

Unfortunately, Mr. Lopez-Urenda faces deportation today despite his sympathetic circumstances and the significant positive contributions that he and his family have made to society.

These contributions to the San Mateo and Fremont communities have truly been exceptional. He is an active volunteer for the Women's Foundation of California, Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation, the Saint Patrick Proto Cathedral Parish, the American Red Cross, and just last year he was one of the key organizers of the California AIDS Ride.

Ms. Arenas has also volunteered in the community as a religious school teacher at Our Lady of the Rosary Church, a health promoter at the Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center, and a sexual assault counselor at Bay Area Woman Against Rape.

My office has received 46 letters of support on behalf of this family staying together in the community that they have helped build. Below are a few notable excerpts from the letters I have received reflecting the impact of this family on the community:

Patricia W. Change, CEO of Feed the Hunger Foundation, former President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, and a prior San Francisco Commissioner and U.S. Commissioner writes:

Mr. Urenda has always operated with the highest integrity.

Asking Mr. Urenda to leave the United States would deprive

his children of their father, an upstanding resident of the

country. It would deprive the community of an active

participant, leader, and volunteer.

The Bay Area Women Against Rape indicates that Leticia has been ``successful, available, [and] committed to the cause of breaking the silence of sexual abuse in our community.''

Judy Patrick, President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, writes:

Javier Urenda is fulfilling tremendous needs within his

community. He is a model participant in this society.

Christine Bozzini, a friend and former coworker of Mr. Lopez-Urenda, writes:

Javier strives to create a meaningful and rewarding life

with his children, focusing on supporting them in their

studies, as well as a variety of athletic pursuits and

personal interests. For example, over the last few years he

has taken great pride in traveling to various U.S. monuments

in order to teach his children about the birth of their

country.

One of the other compelling reasons for permitting these parents to remain in the United States is the impact that deportation would have on their three U.S. citizen minor children, Bryan, Ashley, and Nancy.

All too often, U.S. citizen children face the loss of a parent through deportation. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country.

A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP for the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--the deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children.

Mr. John Arthur Balano, Head Coach and Faculty Instructor at the City College of San Francisco, has known Mr. Lopez-Urenda through his volunteer work at Washington High School in Fremont, California. He has stated that Mr. Lopez-Urenda ``actively participates in the daily life of his children. Be it school, domestic, or extra-curricular activities, socialization and citizenship, Javier is always furthering their growth.''

In addition, Ms. Marlene Davis, the Principal of Patterson Elementary School, where two of the Lopez-Urenda children currently attend, has written me, stating that:

Mr. Lopez-Urenda and his wife are very involved in their

children's lives and school work. If they were not, the

children would not be doing as well as they are. I think

without his presence, the children would definitely fare very

poorly indeed both because of the psychological shock of

having their father taken away but also academically because

their mother would not be as available and one half of their

scholastic support would be missing. . . . This would be a

terrible strategy which could be avoided if the children are

able to remain in the same stable environment with two loving

and supportive parents who are committed to their children's

success.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today on behalf of Mr. Lopea-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas will enable this family to continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to each other and their extensive community in Fremont, California.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this private bill.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor essentially to oppose the McCain amendment to the Defense appropriations bill, which would stop production of the C-17 Globemaster III Airlifter.

The McCain amendment would cut funding approved by the Appropriations Committee to maintain an important national asset in the C-17 program.

Without the inclusion of this funding, the production line would begin to shut down this year, and the last plane would roll off the line in mid 2011, as opposed to mid 2012 if these additional 10 planes, which are in the Defense bill, are, in fact, funded.

I believe the funding is important, and the risk of losing the production line without filling the C-17 need is real. The concern is timing. If this amendment passes, suppliers will be notified within months that their contracts have been terminated. It will become virtually impossible to restart production.

By then it will be too late to take into account the impending Quadrennial Defense Review, the QDR, and a Mobility Capabilities Requirement Study which will assess whether, in fact, we truly have enough C-17s in the fleet. It is my view that failure to fund this aircraft would be a tremendous blow to the future readiness of the military.

Now, why do I say that? The C-17 has been essential to our combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as humanitarian missions worldwide.

It is the most flexible and versatile transport in the U.S. military today and the only one capable of flying troops and cargo directly from air bases here to the front lines of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Even more important is what the C-17 carries on the way back from the front line. It is a vital component of aeromedical evacuations of our troops to Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

Finally, it should not be forgotten that the C-17 contributes to peacekeeping and humanitarian relief missions worldwide. It has become a welcome site to victims of the tsunamis in Asia and the victims of hurricanes along the gulf coast. But that alone is not enough to justify it. Simply put, as former Air Force Chief of Staff, GEN Mike Moseley, has said: ``The C-17 is worth its weight in gold.''

With so many capabilities and so many complimentary things said about it, it is no surprise the Air Force has been ``flying the wings off the

Mr. President, as part of the unanimous consent agreement entered into this morning by the leader, a managers' package of amendments to the Interior bill is in order.

I would like to proceed to that business now because of yesterday's filing deadline for all first-degree amendments. Each of these amendments which constitute the managers' package have been filed at the desk.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and that the following amendments be called up and considered en bloc, and where modifications are noted, that those modifications be agreed to: Bingaman amendment No. 2492; Risch amendment No. 2501; Carper amendment No. 2505; Roberts amendment No. 2509; Feinstein amendment No. 2518; Feinstein amendment No. 2519; Feingold amendment No. 2522; Whitehouse amendment No. 2534, as modified; Bingaman amendment No. 2491, as modified; Schumer/Durbin amendment No. 2495; Tester/Crapo amendment No. 2507; and, Bingaman amendment No. 2493, as modified.

Let me make one note with respect to Carper amendment No. 2505. The amendment being included in the managers' package is very similar to pending Carper amendment No. 2456. But the version we are adopting now is the version that has been agreed to by both

sides. At the proper time, then, I believe we will be in a position to withdraw the pending Carper amendment No. 2456.

In order to comply with Senate rule XLIV, which requires Members to certify that they have no financial interest in congressionally designated spending items, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record financial disclosure letters associated with amendments Nos. 2501 and 2518.

Mr. President, all of these amendments have been cleared on both sides, and I believe we are in a position to voice vote the package.

Before voting, through, I would yield to my distinguished ranking member for any comments he may wish to make.

I ask for a voice vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, finally, the amendment would send the wrong signal to the rest of the world about the Senate's intentions on climate change. It would suggest that we want to ignore the clear imperative to act, despite the efforts of the administration to motivate the international community in advance of the Copenhagen summit.

There is some concern also about small emitters. EPA is not planning to regulate small emitters. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has clearly stated on several occasions that the agency will not regulate small emitters. She said it in her confirmation hearings, she said it again at Senate budget hearings, and she reiterated that comment when she appeared before the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on EPA's fiscal year 2010 budget just a few months ago.

In fact, Administrator Jackson has sent a draft deregulatory rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review which would establish clearly that all but the very largest sources of greenhouse gas will be preemptively exempted from the stationary source permitting requirements in the Clean Air Act.

She has no intention of regulating small sources that emit under 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide or any small farm.

Mr. President, 25,000 metric tons is a very high threshold. According to EPA, it is equivalent to the emissions from burning 131 trainloads of coal per year--these would be exempted--or burning 2.8 million gallons of gasoline annually.

The 25,000-ton threshold would exempt every small source, focusing only on 13,000 of the largest emitters in the United States.

Let me say that again. The 25,000-ton threshold which EPA intends to proceed with, and which my side-by-side amendment would have had as one of the two criteria, would exempt every small source, focusing only on the 13,000 largest emitters in the United States.

EPA intends to only regulate the largest facilities, and these facilities are, almost without exception, already regulated under the Clean Air Act for emissions of other pollutants such as soot, smog- forming nitrous oxides, or acid-rain-inducing sulfur dioxide.

Let me now explain why the Murkowski Amendment would impact the joint EPA-Department of Transportation rulemaking on automobile greenhouse gas emissions.

This rulemaking is of critical importance, and the regulation implementing this law was negotiated by the White House in cooperation with automakers, the States, and labor.

But according to a letter I received from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson last night, the impact of the Murkowski amendment ``would be to make it impossible for the EPA to promulgate the light-duty vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions standards that the agency proposed on September 15, 2009.''

She writes:

Because of the way the Clean Air Act is written,

promulgation of the proposed light-duty vehicle rule will

automatically make carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to

regulation under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources, as

well as for light-duty vehicles. The only way that EPA could

comply with the prohibition in Senator Murkowski's amendment

would be to not promulgate the light-duty vehicle standards.

These standards are something Senator Snowe and I have worked on for at least 7 years now, beginning with the SUV loophole and ending with the bill that became law, would be totally undermined. By undermining the negotiated agreement between States, the amendment would also likely result in States moving forward with their own tailpipe emissions standards.

As I indicated before, in 2002 California enacted a landmark law to reduce tailpipe emissions standards by 30 percent for all new sedans, trucks, and SUVs by 2016.

I also stated that 14 other States--namely, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia--have adopted or announced their intention to adopt California's greenhouse gas emissions controls.

The amendment would have been a major roadblock in efforts to improve fuel economy standards for vehicles.

I don't think we can bury our head in the sand when it comes to climate change.

I would like to conclude by reminding my colleagues that it makes no sense at this particular point in time to put on the floor a major amendment which well could have devastated both the EPA and any effort to get to cap-and-trade legislation when, in fact, the EPW Committee is struggling to write a comprehensive bill which has an opportunity to pass this body.

Again I say, if people do not want the Clean Air Act prevailing, then the only way you can do that is with a cap-and-trade bill. That is the way the committee of this body is proceeding. I believe it is the correct way.

I believe our Nation is in serious jeopardy, as is the rest of planet Earth, with global warming. I believe it is real. Just this week, the Journal Nature published a new paper that found rapid deterioration of the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. Yesterday on this floor, I showed the deterioration in the Arctic. I showed the deterioration in Greenland. I showed the deterioration in the Chukchi Sea. I showed the deterioration off Barrow, AK. It is happening all over the world.

The Flat Earth Society cannot prevail. I think there is a real danger signal out there for planet Earth. We know we cannot reverse it. We know that greenhouse gases do not dissipate and go away after a period of time in the atmosphere. We now know these gases that began during the Industrial Revolution are still present in the atmosphere, and we know that the Earth is not immutable, that it can change. We look at other planets and we see that they have changed over the millennia. What we do here to protect our planet Earth for the next generations is so key and critical.

This discussion has to be joined in an appropriate way, and an appropriate way is when a cap-and-trade bill is produced by the Environment and Public Works Committee and the chairman of that committee is on this floor and the bill is open for amendments and there is a free flow of debate and discussion.

I believe the science is real. I pointed out yesterday we have a project in intelligence whereby the satellites are tracking deterioration in the ice shelves of the world. I hope to present more of that information when there is a bill on the Senate floor.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Administrator Lisa Jackson's letter.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. Over the past several weeks we have seen issues raised with increasing frequency and volume around the use of the word ``czar'' by the Obama administration.

I do believe it is unfair to suggest that the White House has a climate czar directing EPA's actions behind the scenes. I do not believe that is true. Effectively, the title ``czar,'' as we all know, does not exist. The current Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate is there to serve as an adviser to the President and to Administrator Jackson on energy and environmental issues. She also coordinates the work of multiple Cabinet level agencies on one of President Obama's key policy priorities--clean energy and jobs that are essential for long-term economic growth.

In a way, this is becoming quite political because it is not unusual for a President to have high-level staff members in the White House who help to coordinate policy issues that touch a number of Federal agencies. We have heard a lot about it. What we do not hear is that President Bush had 47 such advisers for other issues. We Democrats did not make a huge issue about it. So I have a hard time understanding, with all of the concern over climate change and the rapidity with which it is moving, that a Special Assistant to the President who was head of the EPA during the Clinton administration is somebody who is spurious. She is steeped in this. She can give the President good advice. He wants her to be an assistant. So I do not understand quite why she is being picked on.

I still believe the day-to-day work of protecting the environment is very much driven by Administrator Jackson and the EPA staff. I have met with the Administrator. I spoke with her on the phone this morning. I read into the Record a letter she wrote yesterday. She is very much hands-on. So I think all of the energy going into these attacks ought to be put into perspective, and that perspective is that the former President of the United States had 47 special assistants. We didn't make a big deal of it. So I do not understand why this one position is now taken and an amendment is there to eliminate it.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Vitter amendment.

I yield the floor.

Perhaps I can engage the Senator from Louisiana. Candidly, I do not understand the wording of the amendment. Let me read it. You have read it, and I appreciate that. It does not make sense to me. Here is how it reads.

None of the funds made available by this Act may be

obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded

by this Act--

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

and lead--

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

by Senate-confirmed appointees, implementing policies of the

Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.

I don't know what that means on its face.

Mr. President, Carol Brown's title is not czar, it is Assistant to the President. The President has chosen to appoint an assistant to assist him in evaluating, I assume, various issues pertaining to climate change. It is a complicated subject. She has experience. She has been in government. She has served as head of a department. But the actual policies come over the signature of the Administrator of the EPA.

What you are saying is, essentially, then, the President cannot have any special assistant for the purpose of coordination, asking questions, informing, helping produce--it does not make sense to me. I think on its face it is not clear.

If I may, I would like to respond to that. Let me give an example. The CIA is headed by a Senate-confirmed Director, Leon Panetta. He carries on policies from the National Security Council led by General Jones, a nonconfirmed official. Does the Senator from Louisiana believe that the National Security Adviser to the President should not have any role in intelligence and national security matters? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

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

Mr. President, I withdraw that request.

I object.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Louisiana wishes to speak in morning business, which is fine. I wonder if I could make one brief announcement. Members are interested in bringing this bill to a conclusion. There are a number of amendments that were listed in the consent order. I ask that Members come to the floor to call up their amendments shortly. Senator Coburn has a number, Senator Reid, Senator Collins. Senator Ensign has a motion to recommit. If these Members could come to the floor and call up their amendments, it would be appreciated. We would be able to, hopefully, conclude the bill.

I certainly will.

The Senator has an hour.

I think directly following Senator Landrieu.

Mr. President, if I may, if the Senator would be good enough to mention the subject of the amendment as he reads the number, it would be appreciated. We could keep it straight that way.

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

Mr. President, with respect to amendment No. 2511, Senator Coburn and I have come to an agreement. Therefore, there is no need for me to offer a second degree.

I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment No. 2511 be modified with the changes at the desk, and that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I would be happy to do the same thing. If I may, Senator Coburn's amendment No. 2463, he and I have come to an agreement.

I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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

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

Thank you, Madam President.

Amendment No. 2483

Madam President, regretfully, I have to oppose this amendment. The fact is, we would lose opportunities to conserve valuable lands because within national parks there are inholdings, and inholdings, when they become available--these are private properties that people own--the Federal Government buys them and adds to the public land. Let me name a few: In Georgia, I am told the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area would be involved; in many States, Civil War battlefield sites; in Ohio, the Cuyahoga Valley National Park; in the State of Washington, Mount Rainier, Olympic, and San Juan National Parks; in Texas, Big Thicket National Preserve; in Indiana, the Hoosier National Forest; in Utah, Dixie National Forest; in South Dakota, the Black Hills National Forest.

The point I wish to make is, on occasion, there are families who have large land holdings, and these are valuable, pristine land holdings. Their first preference might be to have the Federal Government buy these lands to hold them for the future and to conserve the lands. If the Federal Government can't do that, the lands go on the market, generally, for the highest and best use. With some of our prized and treasured possessions, that is not the way to go.

I will oppose this amendment. I am sure it will be in line for a vote.

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

Madam President, when we did the stimulus, we put in the maximum amount that the departments could use for maintenance and rehabilitation. I have the breakdown. It is hard to add it all up quickly, but I can give some idea. Bureau of Land Management deferred maintenance, $35 million; recreation maintenance, 25; trail maintenance, 20; abandoned mine site remediation, $30 million; habitat restoration, 25. It goes on. I recall as we did this, what we were told by our staffs is that was the maximum amount these departments could absorb in the length of time covered by the stimulus. I will leave my colleagues with that.

I appreciate that, but I cannot accept that. We believe the Land and Water Conservation Fund is working as it is supposed to. If anything, it has been underfunded. This bill proposes to appropriate $420 million of the $900 million that is authorized. That is less than 50 percent. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, we believe, is extraordinarily important. We would try to get it higher if we could, but we cannot.

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

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

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

Madam President, this modification, which has been agreed to on both sides, allows the Secretary of the Interior to make $200,000 available for preservation of the Martin Luther King papers. It is an amendment offered by Senator Isakson. I fully support the amendment.

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, in the interest of moving things along--Members are impatient. We have been on this bill for a long time. We wish to conclude. It is my understanding both sides are agreeable to take the Dorgan amendment No. 2441, so I ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I withdraw my prior request and I ask unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock tonight, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments and motion to recommit remaining in order to H.R. 2996, the Interior Appropriations Act, and in the following order:

The Vitter amendment, No. 2549; the Ensign motion to recommit; the Coburn amendment No. 2482; the Coburn amendment No. 2483; and the Reid amendment No. 2531; that the remaining provisions of the previous order are still in effect.

Mr. President, I yield back the time remaining on the Vitter amendment No. 2549, and I move to table it. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote. I am going to move to table at the appropriate time. If we adopt the Ensign motion, we cut Park Service dollars, Indian health dollars, particularly water infrastructure. Mr. President, $2.5 billion in this bill is for sewer grants; $1.8 billion is for fire suppression. It is the first time we have met the fire suppression need fully so that they do not have to take from other accounts to fight fires.

I move to table the motion to recommit.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

The Senator is correct. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

A corollary part of this is Dorgan amendment No. 2441, which also moves along with this. So we are prepared to accept Dorgan No. 2441 as well.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we oppose this amendment. We oppose it because it takes $420 million out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We oppose it because the committee in the stimulus bill put in as many dollars as these departments could absorb in the period of time for maintenance.

I move to table. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I yield back all time on the Reid amendment. It has been cleared on both sides. I ask for its adoption by unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I rise to provide additional clarification regarding a congressionally directed spending items included in the fiscal year 2010 Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. At Senator Reid's request, the committee included $100,000 for the U.S. Forest Service to fund trail improvements in Nevada. It is my understanding that Senator Reid intended those funds to be used for improvements for the Tahoe Rim Trail, to be conducted through a partnership with the Tahoe Rim Trail Association. Due to a clerical error, the project is not listed correctly in the committee report, and I would like to ensure that the Record clearly reflects Senator Reid's intended use for these funds. Through the chair, I would like to ask my colleague from Nevada, the distinguished majority leader, if my understanding of his intent is correct?

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his clarification and I look forward to working with him to support his project as we move through the annual appropriations process.

FUNDING RCAPs

I thank the Senator for his comments on this. I appreciate the difficulties faced by rural communities in gaining and maintaining access to adequate drinking water. I also know well the good work of the RCAPs in assisting those communities. As we move into conference on this legislation I look forward to working with my colleague to see if we can maintain funding for this important program.

White Nose Syndrome

I thank Senator Lautenberg. Our offices have worked together on efforts to provide funding to fight WNS, and I share his concerns about this issue.

I agree with the Senator. We must tackle this issue head-on and make sure all stakeholders are working together to combat this challenge.

As I mentioned earlier, I share the Senator's concerns and agree that we need to focus more attention and resources on WNS. I commit to work in conference to increase funding for this disease as called for in his amendment.

Clean Automotive Technology

The Senator is correct. The President's budget proposed $18.975 million for the Climate Protection Program, and that is the same amount proposed in this bill. The House of Representatives approved $20.575 million.

I appreciate the Senator from Michigan bringing this to my attention and I assure him that I will keep his suggestions in mind as this bill progresses.

I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from New York.

I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this to my attention and I will certainly look into this matter during conference negotiations.

Before you call the roll, I just want to thank the distinguished ranking member. A lot of cooperation went into this bill or it would have taken a lot longer.

I thank particularly the staff: Peter Kiefhaber, Virginia James, Scott Dalzell, Rachael Taylor, Chris Watkins; on the Republican side, Lee Fonnesbeck, Rachelle Schroeder, and Rebecca Benn. We thank you very much.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Inhofe amendment No. 2445 be in order.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, today I rise to submit, along with Senators Rockefeller, Gillibrand, Carper, Mikulski, Lieberman, Collins, Reid, Levin, Bennett, Snowe, Landrieu, Hatch, Bayh, and Voinovich, a resolution supporting National Cyber Security Awareness Month, which will be held next month.

We in the Congress are trying to make cybersecurity a priority issue, but much work remains to be done. A critical first step is to raise awareness and public understanding of the cyber threat and steps that can be taken to improve cybersecurity. This is true across Government and private industry, but the Government should play a leadership role.

Each year for the last 5 years, the National Cyber Security Alliance, the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center, the Department of Homeland Security, and other organizations working to improve cybersecurity in the U.S. have designated October as National Cyber Security Awareness Month.

Today, I am submitting a resolution to officially designate National Cyber Security Awareness Month again this October.

The goal is to educate and empower Internet users to take simple steps to safeguard themselves from the latest online threats and respond to cyber crime and to bring Federal agencies, businesses, educational institutions, and other organizations together to encourage development and implementation of cybersecurity best practices.

Cybersecurity is a serious national security and economic security challenge of great complexity, deserving of increased attention from the Congress. As the Senate prepares to consider important cybersecurity legislation to provide new authorities and clarify privacy and legal issues, a few cyber-related observations and concerns can be mentioned now.

First, I am troubled by the lack of situational awareness on the opportunities, activities, and identities of cyber thieves or potential attackers on U.S. information networks. This is a serious weakness and a source of frustration for those responsible for oversight and strategic decision-making. Unfortunately, it will not be easy to remedy this because there are disincentives to report cyber intrusions and vulnerabilities in the U.S. Government and private sector. This must change. It must change quickly so that cybersecurity leaders can make well-informed decisions and respond to problems in real time.

Next, it is clear that cybersecurity activities must be conducted with strong congressional oversight that will demand thorough Executive branch planning before billions of dollars are authorized and appropriated. In addition, there must be a rigorous analysis of the government's use of legal authorities for national cybersecurity missions that preserve the reasonable privacy expectations of Americans. The government's role must be well-defined as its activities involving the Internet evolve. I appreciate the White House's effort to be transparent and open with Congress on this issue this year, and have high expectations for continued healthy cooperation.

We need to have those entities with cybersecurity responsibilities collaborating across the Government. That means homeland security, intelligence, military, foreign policy, law enforcement, and other components involved in cybersecurity must be working together. The President has begun, through his cybersecurity review earlier this year, to provide a clear vision, strategic direction, and effective integration of the wide range of cybersecurity activities. However, more progress in this area is needed.

I was pleased when President Obama made a major address on cybersecurity at the end of May, but that strong first step has been followed by a four-month delay in appointing a White House cybersecurity coordinator. Until this position is filled, it will be difficult to have effective leadership and coordination on governmental cybersecurity efforts.

The Federal Government's communication strategy concerning cybersecurity must be improved as well. There should be a new plan on the best way to communicate the national cybersecurity policy to the public. Though some elements must be classified, it is important that the American people understand the Government's basic role in helping to secure information networks. The general rules and expectations for Government involvement, and how these may affect privacy, must be clearly explained.

In addition, the Government must consider that effective cybersecurity inside the U.S. will require stronger diplomatic efforts and an international agreement on what will and will not be tolerated in cyberspace. An international framework on cyber warfare, much like international conventions on traditional warfare, is needed to govern this rapidly growing field.

I also believe there should be a significant emphasis on long-term issues such as cyber research and development, recruiting cyber experts into government, and cyber education and training. In particular, recent studies sponsored by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have concluded that the Intelligence Community must dramatically increase funding for research and development in order for our cyber defenses to be effective in the future.

The online world is moving quickly, with cutting-edge technology expertise spread across the globe, and the U.S. cannot presume a clear- cut technology advantage as it has in other areas of national security. I recommend a balanced portfolio approach that includes a nationally coordinated program of long-term, high-risk research aimed at revolutionary breakthroughs, sustained even when faced with near-term budget pressures. I strongly support a rebalancing of the Federal Government's Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative budget to address these concerns.

Finally, as a step beyond the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative's focus on securing Federal Government information networks, I am highly concerned about protecting the U.S. critical infrastructure. For example, the country's electric power grid, communications systems, and financial infrastructure are all critical to our way of life yet unacceptably vulnerable to cyber attack. The Government and the private sector must work together to share more effectively cyber threat and vulnerability information, and the administration and

the Congress must work together to determine the best mix of mandates, incentives, and other tools to improve critical infrastructure security.

Fortunately, there is an increasing level of interest and debate on cybersecurity issues in Congress and around the country. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, has invested significant time assessing the cyber threat to our country and potential Government responses through the following initiatives: scores of personal meetings and staff briefings with government, private sector, academic, and nonprofit thought-leaders; six cyber hearings in the last 2 years; four 6-month studies by the Committee's Technical Advisory Group; a new, balanced oversight system for federal government cybersecurity programs, as proposed in the fiscal year 2010 intelligence authorization bill; and regular outreach to other congressional committees.

I want to thank my distinguished colleagues, Senators Rockefeller, Gillibrand, Carper, Mikulski, Lieberman, Collins, Reid, Levin, Bennett, Snowe, Landrieu, Hatch, Voinovich, and Bayh, for cosponsoring this resolution and for their leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with them and other members of Congress to improve our cybersecurity in the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 24, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 24, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Emergency Economic Stabilization Act: One year later.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 24, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 24 2009, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 24, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 24, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Getting to Better Government: Focusing on Performance''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs's Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 24, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Review of U.S. Diplomatic Readiness: Addressing the Staffing and Foreign Language Challenges Facing the Foreign Service.''

Mr. President, the floor is now open for amendments to the Interior bill. I hope Senators will come to the floor if they have an amendment. The filing deadline is 1 o'clock this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of my delights has been to work with the distinguished ranking member. I think anyone who was listening to this does see his erudition and knowledge on this particular subject. So I would like to thank him and commend him for his remarks. Senator Alexander is correct. If we are going to address global warming, all of the options have to

be on the table and we have to rethink and relook at nuclear power as being a viable alternative as a clean fuel.

What has surprised me today is that so many people do not believe we face an emergency. So I have spent quite a bit of time trying to go back and look at global warming, look at books written by scientists, talk with people who have knowledge, who have expertise. And I have come to the conclusion that, unfortunately, it is real, that it is happening, and that it is substantially impacting our Earth. So since there is no one on the floor of the Senate wishing to offer an amendment--and I would be very happy to cease and desist should there be someone on the floor wishing to offer an amendment--I would like to say a few words about what I see happening kind of as, not a contretemps to what the Senator said but as a supporter of what he has said.

I think the science, as I said, is overwhelming. Our climate is changing. The Earth's climate has, in fact, warmed by 1.1 to 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit since the industrial revolution. People look at this and say: Oh, that is not very much. In fact, it is very much, and it changes the dynamic. It impacts species. It kills some. It diminishes the carbon sink of the ocean. It does a number of things. But let me read to you something that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned in 2007.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Observational

evidence from all continents and most oceans show that many

natural systems are being affected by regional climate

change.

So I just pulled a few charts, and I would like to put them up and show them to you, which is the evidence of the change in our climate.

This is the Greenland Ice Sheet. The year is 1979. Since 1979, 30 percent of the ice sheet has melted. Here is Greenland in 1979, both the rust color as well as the interior. Here it is in 2007.

The source is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. So this is an actual rendering. It is pretty clear how much has melted. Here is the Arctic at the end of the 2007 ice melt. The sea ice cover was 23 percent smaller than it was in 2005 and 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to the year 2000.

So here is the whole Arctic ice sheet. We now know the Northwest Passage is open and is open for the first time in history all during the year. You can see in 2005 the Arctic went all of the way out. 2007, here it is. The source of this is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

These are a couple of satellite photos from intelligence. We have large satellites in the air. They have photographed, as part of a project, some of the melt. This happens to be the Beaufort Sea, both in August of 2001 and 2007.

This site near the edge of the ice pack in summer as shown here has ponds of melted water forming on the surface. These dark pools absorb more of the summertime solar radiation than does the surrounding ice, enhancing melting.

So observations of sea ice conditions reveal considerable year-to- year variability. But these images display the variability with regard to the amount of melting and are an example of the long-term sequential record needed to support and understand this dynamic system. So pond coverage, monitored over time, contributes to the estimate. But this is the Beaufort Sea in 2001, and here it is in 2007. The dark is all open water. I think it is pretty clear.

This other satellite photo is of Barrow, AK. Here we see the Chukchi Sea in 2006, and it is pretty clear. Here it is in July of 2007, as photographed by a U.S. satellite. What they say is sea ice forms along the coast in the winter and generally melts or is breaking away by mid- July. Observation of sea ice reveals considerable year-to-year variability.

This is similar to the other one, but I think this really shows the difference in satellite photographs, and there is a project to continue from the atmosphere to prove the change in the ice map and the breakup of ice masses. So we know Greenland is melting at an extraordinary pace.

This week NOAA's National Climatic Data Center announced that the world's ocean surface temperature this summer was the warmest ever recorded. These records date back to 1880.

In the Arctic, researchers have found that the widely

documented summer shrinking which I have just showed you

again resulted in the first ever opening of the Northwest

Passage.

In 2007, the winter thickness of that sea ice diminished by a record 19 percent in one winter, and scientists fear if the glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland melt at the same time, sea levels could rise by 20 feet. People say: Oh, that cannot possibly happen. I tell my constituents when they come: If you live near a beach in California, imagine what happens if the worldwide sea levels move up by 20 feet? In fact, some of this movement is already being felt in some of the Southern Pacific Islands, with people even making arrangements to move from those islands.

In California we have seen a dramatic increase in catastrophic wildfires. I have spoken about that on the Senate floor. I have spoken about it to my ranking member. We have spoken about it in committee. We believe this bill meets the challenge because for the first time it funds the fire suppression needs of the Forest Service.

But in the last 5 years, wildfires have burned more than 10,000 homes in California alone. Scientists now are predicting a 70- to 90-percent diminution of the Sierra snow pack. This is important because the Sierra Nevada Mountains provide the water for most of California. As a matter of fact, it provides the water for two-thirds of the State. That water could be lost due to climate change. At the same time annual rainfalls are decreasing, and the State's forests are burning up like never before. Here is the point: Can this warming be stopped? I have read a lot about it. I have talked to many people. I have talked to scientists I respect very much. What they tell me is it cannot be diminished, but it might be able to be controlled.

The reason for this is that carbon released into the atmosphere does not dissipate. It has remained in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. So as carbon begins to pile up in the atmosphere, it creates the warming, and it also creates the potential catastrophe.

So what do we do? We need to begin by reducing emissions of carbon, and that is pretty clear now. I have seen no serious science that diminishes this at this point in time. Instead, what they tell me is that we need to reduce emissions by 65 to 80 percent below 1990 levels, and all by the middle of this century.

That translates to a goal of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So I think, as Senator Alexander alluded to, there is no single policy we can implement to curb our Nation's emissions, no silver bullet. Rather, we need all the tools available, and this includes laws designed to protect the public from dangerous air pollution like the Clean Air Act.

Global warming is real. It is happening today. It is being charted by our satellites. It is being charted by our scientists. It is being charted by those of us in this body, and I think the real key is if we are ready to admit that fact and take the action to make the necessary conversion.

The Senator from Tennessee just spoke, I think eloquently, about the merits of nuclear power. I am one who believed originally that the human element and the waste element was such that it was not a viable alternative source. I no longer believe that. I think it is a viable alternative source, if we can fix the permit process that enables state-of-the-art nuclear technology to be built in a relatively short period of time.

The yield from a nuclear plant, as we know, of clean energy is very large indeed. So that is a positive thing. We are debating now the placement of solar facilities: where they should go, how big they should be, and this is cutting edge for us. We have talked about it. I have indicated my concern about projects that are too big, like 20 square miles in pristine areas of the California desert that we have been trying to protect with public funds over time.

We have learned that the largest solar facilities are perhaps 250 megawatts. So if you have them way up to 800, 1,000, this is without precedent. So we need to discuss if this is wise. If so, where should they be? What is the upside? What is the downside? Do they require new transmission corridors or are our existing transmission corridors adequate?

So I think these are the kinds of discussions that are most fruitful, how we

deal with the present circumstances. I hope that more Members of this body recognize it is only a question of time.

I remember the days when there was never a funnel cloud off the coast of California. Now people report that they see funnel clouds off the coast of California. Of course, one of the results of global warming is volatility increases of weather patterns. Raindrops are bigger, more volatile. Hurricanes, tornadoes are more volatile. We have to begin to deal with that.

There are people who believe the Earth is immutable, that the Earth will not change. Again, as I go back and read the literature and go back 255 million years, what is posited is that there was effectively one land mass on Earth and, geologically, that can be shown today. Yet various events have broken up the land masses. Volcanic activity that produces some of the greatest mountain ranges in the world also is believed to be responsible for the separation of the continents millions of years ago. I don't know, but this is much of what we see as we read some of the scientific material.

I do not believe the Earth is immutable. That is what has been so interesting about foraging into Mars to try to see if Mars ever, in fact, had water on it. Time is infinite. Therefore, one never knows when the planet Earth was born, what it was like when it was born, how it has changed over the millennia. One thing we know in the instant of this millennia we share, we have a problem, and we have to solve it.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee for bringing to the debate what is a valuable alternative source of energy that should be continued, just as wind, just as solar, just as biofuels, and just as moving away from the internal combustion engine into hydrogen, electricity, those things which can guarantee our future.

The one thing that is frightening about all this is we will not do it fast enough and we will not do it in a way that is able to stop the climate change which is now taking place, halt it. We can't reverse it but halt it. The time has come for the United States to take a leadership role. We have a big conference at the end of the year, which we have briefly discussed, where nations will come together and where they will look at the United States and say: You are the wealthiest country on Earth. You have 5 percent of the population, but you use 25 percent of the energy. Therefore, you have an obligation to lead. Certainly, the Chinese will believe this, although, as the Senator has pointed out, the Chinese have rapidly overtaken the United States in their release of global warming gases. But certainly India looks to us as well. So China, India, the big developing countries that so impact the release of global warming gases, it is very important that our President stand tall, that the United States stands tall and that we are willing to offer real leadership to the world.

Whether this happens remains a cipher, but I very much hope and pray it does.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his remarks. I am happy to make this small addition.

Once again, Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, for his comments. I agree with him.

The floor is open. We are going back and forth using the time, but I don't want Members to believe that if they come to the floor to offer an amendment, we will not promptly hear their amendment. The floor is open. So, please, if you have an amendment, come to the floor. The filing deadline is in 36 minutes. Hopefully, we will know what we are facing in about 36 minutes. We would like to move this bill and move on to Defense appropriations.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

That is correct, through the Chair. There is a disagreement with the Senator from Louisiana and there is a hold on anything coming before this body.

The Senator can certainly talk about his amendments.

That is correct.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:15 p.m. be for debate with respect to the Vitter motion to recommit and McCaskill amendment No. 2514, with the time divided as follows: 5 minutes each, Senators Feinstein, Alexander, Vitter, and McCaskill or their designees, with no amendments in order to the motion or the amendment prior to the vote in relation thereto; that prior to the second vote there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled; that once this consent is granted, the majority manager be recognized to call up the McCaskill amendment; further, that the votes occur in the order listed.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2514.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill. This amendment would eliminate 16 congressionally directed spending items in the National Park Service's Save America's Treasures Program. I would like to say what these are: in Alabama, Swayne Hall, Talladega; in California, Mission Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara; in Florida, Freedom Tower, Miami; Iowa, Des Moines Art Center, Des Moines; Kansas, Colonial Fox Theater, Pittsburgh; Michigan, Big Sable Lighthouse, Luddington; Madison County Courthouse, Mississippi; Mississippi, Medgar Evers site, Jackson; Nevada, the Lincoln County Courthouse, Pioche; New York, the Strand Theater, Plattsburgh; New York, the Richard Olmstead Complex, Buffalo; Oregon,

the Wallowa County Courthouse, Enterprise; Rhode Island, the Warwick City Hall, Warwick; the State Theater, Sioux Falls, SD; the Blount Mansion, Knoxville, TN, and the Capitol Theater, Wheeling, WV.

Those are the 16 that would be eliminated.

The underlying argument is that this bill continues business as usual when it comes to earmarking funds, and this is hardly the case. The Senate leadership and the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee have built on the reforms established by the last Congress when it comes to congressionally directed spending. To offer more opportunity for public scrutiny of Member requests, Members are now required to post detailed information concerning their earmark requests on their official Web sites at the time the request is made. Each Senator must explain the purpose of the earmark and why it is a valuable use of taxpayer funds.

A list of every congressionally directed spending item in this bill has been on the Internet for public scrutiny since June 17, 2009, when it was first marked up by the Interior Subcommittee. For every congressionally directed spending item contained in this bill, the Senator has certified that he or she or his or her immediate family has no financial interest in the item requested. These letters of certification are available to the public on the Internet.

These reforms are not the status quo. They represent significant improvements in the transparency and accountability for the spending decisions contained in the various appropriations measures being brought before this body.

Let me now explain the process used to evaluate these specific Save America's Treasures earmarks. As Senator Alexander and I have reviewed each of the 128 funding requests the Interior Subcommittee has received, we applied the same criteria that has been applied for the past 10 years and that has been codified in the program's authorization. When we did that, only 16 projects passed muster.

For example, if the project received funding in the past it was ineligible for a grant this year. If the project was a building and the building was not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, then it was ineligible for a grant this year. If the local authorities did not have the required one-to-one matching funding in hand, then it was ineligible for a grant this year.

Then, even if the project cleared those hurdles, we still set aside those requests that were not considered the highest priority by the requesting Members.

When that process was complete, what we ended up with were the 16 very good and credible projects that I have just read. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the McCaskill amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.

Mr. President, I believe there is a time agreement so I cannot move to table at this time. I withdraw my motion to table.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is 2 minutes equally divided on the Vitter motion to recommit. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1\1/2\ minutes on the amendment.

I have no objection to equal time.

Mr. President, I oppose this motion to recommit because it would prevent the Obama administration from presenting its oil and gas development plan in favor of a draft plan issued by the Bush administration on its last business day in office. The amendment would overturn Interior Secretary Salazar's decision to extend the public comment period over a 5-year plan for oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf by 180 days. The amendment would make the last-minute Bush draft binding. The Bush plan only allowed for a 60-day deadline for public comment. That is not enough time. The Interior Department received 350,000 public comments during the extended comment period. The Department should not be prevented from studying these comments and proposing the best plan it can.

In addition, there is currently insufficient data on available resources for the Atlantic seaboard where the Bush plan would extend drilling.

We should not make decisions to sell off taxpayer resources based on old information.

Mr. President, I move to table the motion to recommit and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, regrettably, I wish to speak against the amendment. There has been a rigorous vetting process of these projects. We looked at 128 requests. Only 16 of those passed muster. Earlier, I outlined the criteria which were strictly observed in selecting these projects. I outlined what the projects are. We applied the same criteria that is in the law. These are all excellent projects. I urge my colleagues to support the committee bill and oppose this amendment.

I move to table the McCaskill amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have to vacate the Chamber at 5:30 p.m. so the room can be swept for the ceremony. I know Senator Ensign wishes to speak. I have stated to him that he could speak, so I would like to have the floor open to him to speak for the remaining time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2009, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Defense Contract Audit Agency: Who Is Responsible for Reform?''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act: Ensuring Liberty and Security.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1035 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that a Bingaman amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to H. Con. Res. 59.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 41, which was introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 282, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.