Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009. This important legislation, which is cosponsored by Senators Hutchison, Durbin, and Feinstein, is aimed at addressing drug-related violence in Mexico by reducing the number of weapons that are illegally smuggled into the country.

The ongoing violence in Mexico is having a devastating impact on the country. In 2008, more than 5,300 people were killed in Mexico--this is double the number in the previous year. During this last year, there were over 1,600 deaths just in Ciudad Juarez. Drug traffickers are warring with each other, assassinations of police and government officials are commonplace, lawyers and journalists have been killed, and many innocent civilians have been caught up in the crossfire.

Border communities within the United States are also being directly impacted. Many of the people living in this region have strong family ties to Mexico and the violence makes it difficult to visit loved ones. U.S. border hospitals have had to provide medical care to the wounded under armed guard. And in New Mexico, we had to briefly shut down the Columbus Port of Entry due to gun battles in the Mexican border town of Palomas and provide police escorts to school buses passing through the area. At one point this last year, the entire police force in Palomas resigned due to threats by drug traffickers and the Chief of Police fled to the United States to seek asylum.

Besides the horrific human toll this violence is having on communities throughout Mexico, it also impacts the overall economy of the border region. Everyday thousands of people travel back and forth between the United States and Mexico for business and pleasure. This flow of people and goods is an essential aspect of maintaining healthy economic activity on both sides of the border. However, the current security situation is hampering bilateral trade, new business ventures, and tourism. In these tough economic times, the violence exacerbates an already bad economic environment.

The United States has taken some important steps to help Mexico fight drug traffickers, such as increasing bilateral cooperation and providing substantial financial assistance as part of the Merida initiative. However, there is much more that we can be doing to help quell this violence. One key area where more can and should be done is with regard to stopping the flow of weapons being smuggled into Mexico from the United States.

According to the ATF, about 90 percent of the weapons confiscated in Mexico come from sources within the United States because firearms are much more readily accessible in the United States than in Mexico. These weapons are the so-called ``tools of the trade'' for narco-traffickers. They are the means by which cartels maintain control over drug corridors and the instrument they use to execute their scheme of violence and intimidation.

In the four U.S. border States there are about 6,600 licensed gun dealers. The vast majority of these dealers act in accordance with the law, but drug gangs exploit the availability of weapons in the region to supply cartels on the Mexican side of the border with illegal high- powered weapons.

The ATF has a very successful initiative in place to combat southbound illicit weapons trafficking, know as Project Gunrunner, but they need more resources to adequately tackle the problem.

The Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act would provide these much needed resources. Specially, this legislation would authorize $30 million over 2 years to expand Project Gunrunner teams in the border region and $19 million to assign agents to U.S. consulates in Mexico to assist Mexican law enforcement with smuggling investigations.

I would also like to make it clear that nothing in this bill limits the sale of firearms or places any additional restrictions on licensed dealers. This effort is only focused on enhancing the investigative capabilities of the ATF with regard to arms trafficking in order to weed out the bad actors and to ensure that weapons aren't being illegally smuggled across the border.

The United States has traditionally focused on enhancing efforts to prevent illegal narcotics from being smuggled into the county. While we obviously need to dedicate resources toward this end, we also should be taking a comprehensive approach that recognizes that the northbound flow of narcotics is dependent on the southbound flow of weapons and currency. Denying traffickers the proceeds of drug sales and the ability to heavily arm their cartels is essential in reducing the drug flow into the United States.

It is insufficient to simply rely on Mexican authorities to stop the flow of guns going into their country. Drug trafficking is a transnational threat and the solution must involve sustained cooperation between the United States and Mexico. We must do more on our side of the border to disrupt weapons smuggling if we are going to be successful in combating drug cartels.

Instability and violence in Mexico is taking a toll on communities on both sides of the border. I strongly believe that this is an issue that deserves more attention, and I hope my colleagues will support this bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise with co-sponsors Senators Leahy, Lieberman, and Cardin to introduce and ask your support for the Children's Health Equity and Technical Amendment Act.

Since the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, in 1997, a group of States that expanded coverage to children in Medicaid prior to the enactment of SCHIP has been unfairly penalized for that expansion. States are not allowed to use the enhanced matching rate available to other States for children at similar levels of poverty under the act. As a result, a child in the States of New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania, because they were grandfathered in the original act or in Iowa, Montana, or a number of other States at 134 percent of poverty is eligible for an enhanced matching rate in SCHIP but that has not been the case for States such as New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and a number of others, including Connecticut, Tennessee, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Maryland.

As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of SCHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage of the majority of uninsured children in their states.''

For 6 years, our group of States has sought to have this inequity addressed. Early in 2003, I introduced the Children's Health Equity Act of 2003 with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Ms. Cantwell and we worked successfully to get a compromise worked out for inclusion in S. 312 by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee. This compromise extended expiring SCHIP allotments only for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 in order to meet budgetary caps.

The compromise allowed States to be able to use up to 20 percent of our State's SCHIP allotments to pay for Medicaid eligible children at 150 percent of poverty that were part of our State's expansions prior to the enactment of SCHIP. That language was maintained in conference and included in H.R. 2854 that was signed by the President as Public Law 108-74. Unfortunately, a slight change was made in the conference language that excluded New Mexico and Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode Island and needed specific changes so an additional bill was passed, H.R. 3288, and signed into law as Public Law 108-107, on November 17, 2003. This second bill included language from legislation that I introduced with Senator Domenici, S. 1547, to address the problem caused to New Mexico by the conference committee's change. Unfortunately, one major problem with the compromise was that it must be periodically reauthorized. Most recently, this authority was renewed through fiscal year 2007 in Section 201(b) of the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-482. Without future authority, the inequity would continue with SCHIP allotments.

This legislation would address that problem and ensure that all future allotments give these 11 States the flexibility to use our SCHIP allotments to pay for health care services of children. In order to bring these requirements in-line with those of other States, it would also lower the threshold at which New Mexico and other effected States could utilize the funds from 150 percent of the Federal poverty level to 125 percent.

There is strong bipartisan support for addressing this inequity. Legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress in both H.R. 3584 by Republican Representative Barton, and 141 co-sponsors, and S. 2086 by Senator Trent Lott and other Republican leadership to expand the category of children eligible through this correction to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level.

This rather technical issue has real and negative consequences in States such as New Mexico. In fact, due to the SCHIP inequity, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from SCHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its Federal SCHIP allocations.

This legislation would correct this problem.

The bill does not take money from other States' SCHIP allotments. It simply allows our States to spend our States' specific SCHIP allotments from the Federal Government on our uninsured children--just as other States across the country are doing.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009. This important legislation, which is cosponsored by Senators Hutchison, Durbin, and Feinstein, is aimed at addressing drug-related violence in Mexico by reducing the number of weapons that are illegally smuggled into the country.

The ongoing violence in Mexico is having a devastating impact on the country. In 2008, more than 5,300 people were killed in Mexico--this is double the number in the previous year. During this last year, there were over 1,600 deaths just in Ciudad Juarez. Drug traffickers are warring with each other, assassinations of police and government officials are commonplace, lawyers and journalists have been killed, and many innocent civilians have been caught up in the crossfire.

Border communities within the United States are also being directly impacted. Many of the people living in this region have strong family ties to Mexico and the violence makes it difficult to visit loved ones. U.S. border hospitals have had to provide medical care to the wounded under armed guard. And in New Mexico, we had to briefly shut down the Columbus Port of Entry due to gun battles in the Mexican border town of Palomas and provide police escorts to school buses passing through the area. At one point this last year, the entire police force in Palomas resigned due to threats by drug traffickers and the Chief of Police fled to the United States to seek asylum.

Besides the horrific human toll this violence is having on communities throughout Mexico, it also impacts the overall economy of the border region. Everyday thousands of people travel back and forth between the United States and Mexico for business and pleasure. This flow of people and goods is an essential aspect of maintaining healthy economic activity on both sides of the border. However, the current security situation is hampering bilateral trade, new business ventures, and tourism. In these tough economic times, the violence exacerbates an already bad economic environment.

The United States has taken some important steps to help Mexico fight drug traffickers, such as increasing bilateral cooperation and providing substantial financial assistance as part of the Merida initiative. However, there is much more that we can be doing to help quell this violence. One key area where more can and should be done is with regard to stopping the flow of weapons being smuggled into Mexico from the United States.

According to the ATF, about 90 percent of the weapons confiscated in Mexico come from sources within the United States because firearms are much more readily accessible in the United States than in Mexico. These weapons are the so-called ``tools of the trade'' for narco-traffickers. They are the means by which cartels maintain control over drug corridors and the instrument they use to execute their scheme of violence and intimidation.

In the four U.S. border States there are about 6,600 licensed gun dealers. The vast majority of these dealers act in accordance with the law, but drug gangs exploit the availability of weapons in the region to supply cartels on the Mexican side of the border with illegal high- powered weapons.

The ATF has a very successful initiative in place to combat southbound illicit weapons trafficking, know as Project Gunrunner, but they need more resources to adequately tackle the problem.

The Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act would provide these much needed resources. Specially, this legislation would authorize $30 million over 2 years to expand Project Gunrunner teams in the border region and $19 million to assign agents to U.S. consulates in Mexico to assist Mexican law enforcement with smuggling investigations.

I would also like to make it clear that nothing in this bill limits the sale of firearms or places any additional restrictions on licensed dealers. This effort is only focused on enhancing the investigative capabilities of the ATF with regard to arms trafficking in order to weed out the bad actors and to ensure that weapons aren't being illegally smuggled across the border.

The United States has traditionally focused on enhancing efforts to prevent illegal narcotics from being smuggled into the county. While we obviously need to dedicate resources toward this end, we also should be taking a comprehensive approach that recognizes that the northbound flow of narcotics is dependent on the southbound flow of weapons and currency. Denying traffickers the proceeds of drug sales and the ability to heavily arm their cartels is essential in reducing the drug flow into the United States.

It is insufficient to simply rely on Mexican authorities to stop the flow of guns going into their country. Drug trafficking is a transnational threat and the solution must involve sustained cooperation between the United States and Mexico. We must do more on our side of the border to disrupt weapons smuggling if we are going to be successful in combating drug cartels.

Instability and violence in Mexico is taking a toll on communities on both sides of the border. I strongly believe that this is an issue that deserves more attention, and I hope my colleagues will support this bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I yield myself 9 minutes of that time. If the Acting President pro tempore would alert me when the 9 minutes is up, I would appreciate it.

Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will vote on whether to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 22, the Omnibus Public Lands Act. This is a package of over 160 bills that primarily consists of public land, national park, and water development bills that were reported last Congress by our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Consideration of these bills has been delayed for a long period, and I strongly support moving forward expeditiously with this package, beginning this afternoon with this vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill.

The package has been developed on a bipartisan basis. First, it was developed in consultation with Senator Domenici, who at the time was the ranking member of the Energy Committee, and this year it has been developed in consultation with Senator Murkowski, who is expected to have that same position once our committee assignments are finalized.

As developed last Congress, this package includes roughly an even number of bills sponsored by Democrats and Republicans or by a combination of both. Although the package of bills was introduced just a few days ago, for purposes of transparency the entire text of this legislation was put on the Web site for the Energy Committee, which is energy.senate.gov, for anyone to review. It has been there now for several days. However, the history of the 160 bills that are incorporated in this legislation goes back much further.

Last Congress, almost 500 bills were referred to the Energy Committee, about half of which dealt with public land and water resource issues. Over the course of the last Congress, the committee held over 40 public hearings on those bills. They were marked up over the course of five separate business meetings. Up until the past few years, once a committee had approved a group of bills of this type-- especially when that approval was unanimous, as was the case in most all of the legislation being considered--the bills would be taken up and passed by the Senate by unanimous consent. As everyone is aware, we are no longer able to move bills in that fashion in the Senate.

Some of my colleagues may remember that the Senate took up and passed a different package of public land bills last year in an effort to send as many bills to the President as possible and to do the work that needed doing out of our committee. That package included only the bills that had been passed already by the House of Representatives. It was my intent at that time--and I stated that it was--to bring to the Senate the Senate-introduced bills shortly thereafter--the ones that had passed our committee.

Unfortunately, the time demands in the Senate did not allow that to happen, so we are now trying to do the work of the last Congress in the first few days of this Congress. In my view, it is time to pass these bills and move on.

Some have suggested these bills are not a priority and not deserving of the Senate's time. I disagree strongly. Many of the bills in this package resolve major land and water policy issues that have been contested for many years and, in some cases, for decades. Ask any Senator who has spent years working through these issues. Ask Senator Wyden about the Mount Hood wilderness bill or Senator Crapo about the Owyhee Canyonlands bill or Senator Bennett about his Washington County lands bills or the Navajo Indian Water Settlement Act, on which I worked hard and on which my colleague, Senator Udall, has worked hard in his previous service in the House of Representatives.

While the individual bills in the package were initially developed at the local level, the combination of these 160 bills reflects possibly the most significant conservation legislation passed by the Senate in the past decade. This Omnibus Public Lands Management Act will result in the addition of over 2 million new acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System. It will establish three new units of the National Park System. It will enlarge more than a dozen existing areas, establish a new national monument, and three new national conservation areas could be administered by the BLM. It adds over 1,000 miles to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, one of the largest additions to that system ever achieved. It will add four new trails to the National Trails System, a combined addition of over 2,800 miles of new trails. In addition to addressing important public land issues, S. 22 also includes 30 provisions that will help address water resource issues across the country and particularly in the West.

A few minutes ago I referred to the importance of the Navajo Indian Water Rights Settlement in the State of New Mexico. There is no more important legislation to the Navajo people than this legislation. The unfortunate reality is that nearly 40 percent of Navajo people today live below the poverty line and have no ready access to drinking water. We need to solve that problem. This legislation takes a major step in solving that problem. This is a high priority for my State of New Mexico, and for that reason I strongly support it.

Equally important, the bill includes numerous provisions to improve Federal land management and to help local communities throughout the West. The bill will establish a forest landscape restoration program to promote collaborative landscape restoration to reduce fire risks and fire costs.

Most of the newly designated wilderness areas are located in Western States. I understand and support the need to maintain a robust energy development program. The latest information we have from the Geological Survey is there are not 300 million barrels of oil per day being put at risk in this legislation; in fact, it is less than 5 million. So those figures are just erroneous from all that we have seen.

Action on this bill has been delayed for a very long time. In my view, it is time for the Senate to recognize the importance of the individual efforts Senators have made in trying to put forward legislation important to their States. The national significance of this bill is clear. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to invoke cloture on the bill.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I know Senator Crapo had asked for 4 minutes. Let me yield the remaining 11

minutes to my colleague, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, and she can divide that among the other Members as she chooses.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Gauthier, who is a National Park Service fellow working on the staff of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted floor privileges today and for the remainder of the Senate's consideration of S. 22.

Mr. President, I wish to speak a few minutes in support of the motion to proceed to S. 22, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act.

S. 22, which I introduced earlier this week, is a collection of over 160 bills. Primarily, they are bills that came out of our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The question before us is whether the Senate should proceed to consider the bill. I strongly believe we should, and that is the vote the majority leader has scheduled us to have on Sunday.

Although S. 22 itself is a new bill, the individual pieces of legislation contained in it and incorporated in it are not. This package includes 159 bills which were considered by our committee during the previous Congress. Several of the bills in the package have even been considered in one or more Congresses prior to the previous Congress.

Let me make the obvious point that needs to be understood by everyone paying attention to this issue. This is not a partisan bill. The bills in this package have been developed on a bipartisan basis. Last year, we developed this legislation hand in hand with Senator Domenici, who was at that time the ranking member of the Energy Committee. This year, we have worked with Senator Murkowski, who is taking over as the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to develop this legislation.

Almost all of the bills that were reported from our committee were reported on a unanimous vote. In cases where there was not a unanimous vote, we have made further modifications in some of those bills in an effort to address remaining concerns.

Collectively, the legislation that is before us or that we are going to vote on whether to proceed to is one of the most sweeping conservation laws that has been considered by the Senate in recent years. It will designate over 2 million acres of wilderness in nine different States. It will establish three new units of the National Park System, a new national monument, and three new national conservation areas. It will codify the Save America's Treasures and Preserve America historic preservation programs.

In addition, it will designate over 1,000 miles of new additions to the national wild and scenic river system, including several hundred miles in Wyoming that are dedicated to our late friend and colleague, Craig Thomas, and will help protect 1.2 million acres of the Wyoming range. This is in large part due to the leadership of Senator Barrasso, who is on the Senate floor and intends to speak following my remarks.

The bill designates four new national scenic or national historic trails, enlarges the boundaries of several existing units of the National Park System, and establishes 10 new national heritage areas. It establishes in law the Bureau of Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System and the collection of national monuments and conservation areas that are administered by the BLM.

The package is not just about new designations. The bill authorizes numerous land exchanges and conveyances to help local communities throughout the West. It includes several provisions to improve land management, such as the Forest Landscape Restoration Act which will facilitate collaborative landscape-scale restoration to help reduce fire risk and fire costs and provide new forest product jobs.

Another example which is in my home State of New Mexico, the bill will reauthorize the Rio Puerco Management Committee. This committee has become one of the most effective collaborative land management efforts in the Southwest which, for more than 10 years, has helped to facilitate the restoration of the highly degraded Rio Puerco watershed, which is a major tributary leading into the Rio Grande.

This package incorporates 30 separate bills that, taken in their entirety, will have an unprecedented positive impact in helping address critical water resource needs on both the local and national level. It authorizes a range of studies to assist several communities conduct indepth reviews of local water supplies and evaluate the best ways to meet their future water challenges.

There are also approximately 18 specific authorizations for local and regional projects that enhance water use efficiencies, that address infrastructure that is in disrepair, that provide a sustainable supply of water to rural communities, and conserve water to promote environmental health and alleviate conflicts that arise under the Endangered Species Act.

The overall understanding of our critical water resources, including the impact of climate change on our water resources, is also promoted by provisions in this legislation.

Finally, I note that the bill will reduce the workload of water lawyers in the West by ratifying three extremely important water settlements in the States of California, Nevada, and New Mexico. These settlements, involving Indian tribes, agricultural and municipal water users, environmental interests, and the applicable States themselves, will resolve decades old litigation in a manner that is consistent with Federal responsibilities and with the broad support of diverse interests in each of these situations.

As most who are familiar with the history of western water can attest, it is a near impossible task to bring competing interests together to agree on long-term solutions. That has been achieved in this bill, and this bill ensures that the Federal Government will be a full partner to help implement reasonable solutions to complex water issues.

I think it is important to note the lengthy public process associated with many of the individual bills in this package. Many of these land and water bills began as an effort by local citizens to resolve important resource issues within their States. In many cases, local working groups were formed and discussion took place over a period of years, before a local consensus developed.

Following all of that, many of these proposals then spent additional years under consideration in Congress, often with further negotiations and modifications. In my opinion, this is exactly the way the legislative process should work, and this process reflects why there is such strong local support for many of these provisions.

Based on the action of our committee last Congress, there is also strong bipartisan support in the Senate for the bills in this package. I commend the majority leader for his commitment to pass this bill in such a timely manner, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed and, following that, passage of the legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 does not contain any limited tax benefits, limited tariff benefits, or congressionally directed spending items, as those terms are defined in rule XLIV.

Rule XLIV broadly defines the term ``congressionally directed spending item'' to include `` a provision . . . included primarily at the request of a Senator . . . authorizing . . . a specific amount of discretionary budget authority . . . for . . . expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula- driven or competitive award process.''

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 is a collection of over 150 public land bills that were reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during the 110th Congress, for which we have not been able to get unanimous consent to take up and pass during the 110th Congress. I have included them in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to facilitate their early consideration in the new Congress, and not ``primarily at the request of a Senator.''

Nevertheless, even though no Senator has specifically requested me to include a congressionally directed spending item in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, in the interest of furthering the transparency and accountability of the legislative process, I have posted on the Web site of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources a complete list of all provisions in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 that authorize a specific amount of spending authority that is targeted to a specific State or locality, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process. The list includes the name of the principal sponsors of the Senate bills in the 110th Congress that have been incorporated in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act.

In addition, I have added several other non-public-land measures from the 110th Congress at the request of the majority leader. Most of these provisions were included in the Advancing America's Priorities Act--S. 3297--in the 110th Congress. They include: the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, subtitle B of title I of S. 3297; four parts of subtitle B, relating to oceans, of title V of S. 3297; and title VII of S. 3297, relating to the authorization of a greenhouse facility for the Smithsonian Institution. These provisions were determined not to constitute ``congressionally directed spending items'' in the Advancing Amercia's Priorities Act. See 153 Cong. Rec. S7509-7510, July 26, 2008.

In addition, I have added the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act, H.R. 1907 in the 110th Congress, and the Smithsonian Institution Facilities Authorization Act of 2008, H.R. 6627 in the 110th Congress, at the request of the majority leader. The grant program established under Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act, section 12507 in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, does not constitute a congressionally directed spending item because the funds are to be allocated through a competitive grant process. The authorizations in the Smithsonian Institution Facilities Authorization Act, sections 15101 and 15102 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, do not appear to constitute congressionally directed spending items because they were requested by the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and because they originated in the House of Representatives, where the committees of jurisdiction determined they did not constitute congressional earmarks. See H. Rept. 110-842, part 1, at 5, 2008, Committee on House Administration, and H. Rept. 110-282, part 2, at 4, 2008, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Finally, I have added the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement Act, H.R. 5293 in the 110th Congress, at the request of the majority leader. This act ratifies a water rights settlement among the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, individual water users, and the State of Nevada. Section 8 of H.R. 5293, section 10807 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, creates two trust funds to settle the legal claims of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes against the United States for compromising tribal water rights and failing to maintain the Duck Valley Indian Irrigation Project. They do not appear to constitute congressionally directed spending items because they were included to settle pending legal claims rather than ``primarily at the request of a Senator,'' and because they originated in the House of Representatives, where the committee of jurisdiction determined that they did not constitute congressional earmarks. See H. Rept. 110-815 at 11, 2008, Committee on Natural Resources.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, January 8, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on current energy security challenges.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 13, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Steven Chu to be Secretary of Energy.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Ken Salazar to be Secretary of the Interior.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Last night, Alice King, one of New Mexico's most respected and best loved citizens, died as a result of a stroke. This is a tremendous loss to our State, and certainly to her husband, former Governor Bruce King, and her sons Bill and Gary and all of the family.

Anyone who has lived in New Mexico for any amount of time in recent decades has actually felt they were a part of the King family in a way. Republicans and Democrats alike, ranchers or lawyers or pipefitters or schoolchildren, the Kings knew virtually everyone in our State, and nearly everyone in the State felt they knew the Kings. Certainly our State has benefited from the decades of public service the many members of the family have given, led by Bruce and Alice. He was the Governor of our State three times in three different decades and by his side always was his partner Alice. He was at her side last night.

She was always more than just the Governor's wife. She was a leader in our State on children's issues. She was the force behind the creation of a cabinet level department, the Department of Children, Youth and Families. A vigorous, tireless, undaunted advocate for children, she lifted them and their issues to the top of our State's list of priorities, and she was their champion.

New Mexico has lost an invaluable citizen, one whose accomplishments are part of our history and part of our future. She was a great person, a great friend to many people, including my wife Anne and me. We join the King family in grieving the loss of this wonderful woman and remembering her with appreciation and love.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 10, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding investments in clean energy and natural resources projects and programs to create green jobs and to stimulate the economy.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Rosemarie [email protected]

For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 5360, Scott Miller at (202) 224-5488, or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. President, a strong and independent judiciary is essential to the administration of justice in our country.

It is my understanding that the Senate has been unable to clear bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Reid and McConnell which would repeal the requirement that Congress specially authorize a cost- of-living increase each year for the Federal judiciary. Repealing this provision, which is known as section 140, would in essence ensure that Federal judges are treated in the same manner as Members of Congress regarding salary adjustments.

I am disappointed that this bipartisan effort is being blocked, but I am pleased that the Senate is expected to pass another measure, which I have cosponsored, that would provide a cost-of-living increase to judges for at least the next year. Without this fix, Members of Congress will receive a COLA increase in January along with most of the Federal workforce, but not the judiciary. I don't see any reasonable justification for giving Members of Congress and the Federal workforce a cost-of-living increase and denying the judiciary a similar adjustment.

There are ongoing discussions about the extent we should provide for an overall increase in judicial compensation, but the issue we are discussing today isn't about making major adjustments to judicial salaries. I support reforming judicial salaries, and I hope the next Congress will be able to pass legislation to this end, but in the meantime I believe it is important that we don't deny the judiciary a reasonable cost-of-living increase.

Leaving the judiciary behind would be wrongheaded and shortsighted. By denying these dedicated public servants adequate compensation, we are making it more difficult to attract and retain judges of the highest caliber.

I would also like to note my appreciation for the majority leader's efforts to address this issue. Although attempts to repeal section 140 have stalled at this point, I know Senator Reid, along with Senator Leahy, are committed to ensuring that we maintain a strong judiciary and to enacting necessary reforms. I will continue to do everything I can to support these efforts.

Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership on this issue and for his heartfelt and very well- articulated statement about the reasons why we need to amend this agreement before we proceed any further. I strongly agree with him, and I am honored to join with him in proposing an amendment that will improve the agreement that is coming to the Senate floor tonight for consideration.

The bill we are dealing with tonight seeks to obtain expedited approval of

the United States-India nuclear cooperation agreement. The agreement was the result of a bill we passed into law 2 years ago--nearly 2 years ago--that exempted India from the very export controls that were placed into the Atomic Energy Act as a result of India's decision to detonate a nuclear weapon in 1974--with United States-supplied technology, I would point out.

Let me be clear: I do believe it is time that we as a nation did more to reach out to India in areas such as energy and high technology. The President deserves credit for recognizing that the India of the 1960s and 1970s is not the India of today. India is a great leader in technology and needs to be an ally of our country on a great many issues, but I cannot support the proposed agreement before us today in the form we are being presented.

By modifying our nonproliferation laws for India, and just for India, and in a circumstance where India has not signed the nonproliferation treaty, not only are we sending the wrong signal to Iran, which is a signatory and desires to have its own nuclear program, but we are also sending the wrong signal to North Korea, to Pakistan, and to Israel. Those three countries are not signatories to the nonproliferation treaty, and they have detonated nuclear weapons. So approval of the agreement as it is now presented makes it difficult for us to justify our nonproliferation policies to the world at large, and in particular it makes it very difficult for us to justify them to other nonproliferation treaty signatories, such as South Africa, Brazil, and Taiwan, which have foresworn their nuclear weapons program as part of signing up for the nonproliferation treaty.

The net result of approving the agreement as proposed today is that we are making India a de facto weapon state without them having to sign the nonproliferation treaty. India gets to have their cake and to eat it too. They obtain nuclear weapon state status but, by not signing the NPT, they do not have to adhere to its fundamental article VI requirement that nuclear weapon states shall ``pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race.''

The amendment Senator Dorgan and I are offering seeks to make several improvements to the underlying bill that relate to the question of what happens if India again decides to detonate a nuclear weapon. The first section, developed by Senator Dorgan, states simply that the United States will not conduct trade in nuclear technology with India if they detonate a nuclear weapon. That is sensible policy. It is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act, which cuts off trade in nuclear technology if states such as India detonate a nuclear device.

The second part of the amendment, which I have added to the combined amendment, requires the President to certify to Congress that the United States-supplied technology is not what has enabled India to go forward with detonation of a nuclear weapon.

Let me explain why this is important. India detonated five nuclear weapons in 1998 without the aid of advanced technology supplied by other nations. The reason is because the 45-nation group that is called the Nuclear Suppliers Group, or NSG, developed a consensus that they would not ship to India sensitive nuclear technology. As a result of the bill we passed 2 years ago, this Nuclear Suppliers Group has now approved the export of sensitive nuclear technology to India. It is entirely conceivable that India may want to improve their nuclear weapons now that they have access to advanced technology from this Nuclear Suppliers Group.

The certification we provide for in this amendment would force the President to ensure ahead of time that appropriate export controls are in place to begin with. It is one of the strictest conditions Congress can place on a President, but it can be met. We routinely require end- use monitoring of sensitive technologies that we export to other countries. Embassy personnel inspect their purported destination to make sure they are not used for illicit purposes. Certification, as we provide for in this amendment, also places pressure on the President to work with the IAEA to ensure that the safeguards applied to Indian facilities are effective so the exported technology does not make its way into their weapons program. It seems to me that the President should place this level of scrutiny on our nuclear exports to India.

Let me put up a chart to make the point I am trying to make with this part of the amendment. This chart tries to make the distinction between--that is reflected in the underlying agreement we are going to be voting on--between the parts of India's nuclear program that are safeguarded--and that is, to be specific, 14 nuclear reactors and 1 fuel reprocessing plant--and then the parts of India's nuclear program that are not subject to any safeguards--and that is substantially more. That is eight power reactors, a fast breeder program, and its entire military program, which consists of two plutonium reprocessing plants, two uranium enrichment plants, and two heavy water plutonium production reactors.

The underlying agreement we are voting on contemplates that all the nonsafeguarded parts of the nuclear weapons program in India will be supplied only with domestically produced fuel. The safeguarded parts are the parts that can be supplied with imported uranium fuel. So the theory is we can take great consolation in knowing that nothing we are sending to India is, in fact, affecting the nonsafeguarded part of their nuclear program.

Now, around here, I don't know if you would call this a Chinese firewall or what you would call it--this yellow line that separates the safeguarded from the nonsafeguarded parts of the nuclear weapons program--but the truth is, under this agreement and the way it now stands, it is virtually impossible for us to be assured, in any credible way, that what is being provided in the way of technologies or fuel to India for its nuclear program is, in fact, being kept just for the safeguarded part.

Obviously, the other point is, as to the fuel, it is all fungible. If, in fact, we are providing imported uranium fuel that can be used for safeguarded reactors, there is no reason why the domestically produced fuel can't be used for the nonsafeguarded reactors.

It is, in my view, vitally important that we try to make some amendment to ensure that there is some degree of scrutiny over what is, in fact, occurring there, and that is the second part of the amendment I referred to--the net result of improving this. By modifying our nonproliferation laws for India, which has not signed the nonproliferation treaty, it is clear we are making an exception that will cause great difficulty in our ability to encourage other countries to comply with the nonproliferation treaty.

The third part of the amendment we are offering requires that if India tests a nuclear weapon, we will not enable other countries to further India's nuclear program. This is called the third-party problem; whereby, we enable other countries to help India's nuclear program. If India detonates a nuclear weapon, the President, under our amendment, would have to recommend to Congress what export control authorities can be used so our exports to other nuclear suppliers do not end up helping India's program. The President, of course, would have a wide array of such authorities to apply--from end-use monitoring of the technologies that were supplied to outright prohibition on providing any of these technologies.

The United States and India, obviously, have deep and important ties. Many of our leading citizens have ancestry in India. Many of our leading citizens in our high-tech community were originally born in India. They have greatly contributed to the strength of our Nation. We owe them a great debt of gratitude, and we honor them as we raise questions about this agreement.

We need to draw a line in the sand in certain areas. The area of nonproliferation, and the nonproliferation treaty in particular, is one such area where we do need to maintain black and white distinctions, given the terrible consequence we face if a nuclear detonation were to occur, either on our soil or on the soil of any other nation.

The amendment Senator Dorgan and I are offering that will be voted on this evening places clear and unambiguous requirements on the President, should India detonate another nuclear weapon. I think that is the least we should

do in our consideration of this very important agreement. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I do call up amendment No. 5683.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1424, a bill whose two components represent an important investment in America's economy and whose passage is critical for ensuring our Nation's long-term prosperity. First, the bill includes the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which will ``provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States.'' Second, the bill incorporates the Senate substitute to H.R. 6049, which extends tax incentives addressing our country's most pressing challenges.

I have previously come to the floor, on several occasions, to explain why we must commit to passing the ``tax extenders'' legislation. And I was glad that on September 23, this Chamber approved H.R. 6049 on a 93 to 2 vote. In particular, the bill contains a robust package of tax incentives for clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives that I, and many of my colleagues, have worked for since the beginning of this Congress. These incentives will enable us to become a more energy efficient nation, wean us off our dependence on fossil fuels, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I continue to support the extenders bill, and I hope that including the extenders bill in the package that will soon come before us will increase the likelihood that the extenders will become law. But I will focus my remarks today on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

While we can dispute the causes, there is no denying that our country is facing a credit crisis. Paralyzed by illiquid loans on their books, banks of all sizes and in all corners of our country have demonstrated reluctance to make loans to businesses, individuals, and other financial institutions. The fallout has been especially apparent on Wall Street, where we have witnessed the collapse or near-collapse of 3 of the 5 independent U.S. investment banks, alongside the failure or near-failure of many additional institutions that play a central role in our Nation's financial services infrastructure. But let's be clear: The pain extends far beyond Wall Street.

With lending frozen, Americans are challenged in obtaining financing for the most important transactions they undertake. The so-called TED spread, which reflects lending willingness among banks, has reached its highest level in 25 years. When banks charge one another high premiums, those costs are ultimately borne by those who seek to borrow. And as mortgage lending remains tight, fewer Americans are able to purchase homes. Similarly, the approval rate for auto loans has fallen from 83 percent last year to a mere 63 percent this year. More than 25 major lenders have either cut back in private lending to students or have cut off student lending altogether. And nearly 3 in 4 small business owners say they are having trouble finding loans. Without loans, many of these businesses will be unable to expand; others will fail.

So, too, are our States, counties, and cities feeling the impact, as they face skyrocketing costs to issue the bonds that pay for day-to-day operations and capital projects. And I note with great concern the credit crunch's impact on the Nation's utility infrastructure. Our public and private utility companies rely heavily on debt to finance infrastructure enhancements, but the volume of bond issuances by utilities fell 50 percent in the last quarter and 25 percent year-over- year. Being unable to obtain financing inhibits U.S. utility companies from providing low-cost and reliable electricity, water, and gas to the Nation's businesses and households.

Like my colleagues, I have heard from many who are concerned by the prospect of a Government intervention in the credit markets. But I have also heard from people across New Mexico about the tremendous pressures they are facing because of this crisis. In Ruidoso, a rural community more than 2,000 miles from Wall Street, the credit crunch left the municipal school district with just one bidder for a $3 million bond issue. Unable to delay the school repairs and expansions that these bonds will finance, the school board was forced last month to sell the bonds at far less than it would have received just weeks earlier. In Carlsbad, the Community Foundation's endowment has declined significantly with the stock market, prompting the Foundation to announce that it may scale back grant awards and scholarships. In northwestern New Mexico, along our States border with Arizona, the Navajo Nation's Budget and Finance Committee is now meeting to identify which projects to cut because of financial losses directly tied to the credit

crisis. And in the capital city of Santa Fe, Lehman Brothers' failure has forced the Transportation Department to refinance bonds for highway construction. The refinanced terms will cost our State an additional $78,000 annually in debt service payments.

Failing to address the lack of available credit threatens to create a downward spiral that will cripple our Nation's economy. Without access to credit, businesses cannot stay afloat and grow. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified last week, without a rescue plan, the country stands to lose an additional 3.5 million jobs over the next 6 months. And if we do not pass this legislation, we are sure to see further declines in our Nation's capital markets, impacting everything from families' college savings plans to workers' 401(k)s and pensions to university and hospital endowments. Finally, we need to act to prevent our entire financial services sector from suffering major disruption. The sector's gross liabilities have climbed from 21 percent of GDP in 1980 to 116 percent last year, much of which is owed from one bank to another. This, says the Financial Times' Martin Wolf, means that absent swift action to restore liquidity, ``collapse will follow.''

These challenges come at a time when America is hardly in the position to weather a storm. To take just a few indicators: One in eleven mortgages is delinquent or in foreclosure; credit card defaults have increased by 15 percent from 2001; the Nation has lost more than 600,000 jobs this year; and more than half of our States have moved to cut spending, use reserves, or raise revenues to address funding shortfalls.

Based on this evidence, I have concluded that Congress faces an imperative to act. Of course, in doing so, we must be responsive and politically realistic. The plan before us today does not represent the best possible solution--but it is a responsive and politically realistic one.

I did not feel the same about Secretary Paulson's initial plan, which he released on September 21. I had read his 3-page proposal to suggest that the Secretary was asking for what amounted to a $700 billion blank check, and I would have voted against that proposal. Fortunately, Congressional leaders have significantly enhanced the Secretary's 3- page proposal. I applaud the Chairmen of the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committee for stepping in to move us in the direction of greater transparency, oversight, and protection for the American taxpayer. And I appreciate my colleagues who led the negotiations--particularly Senators Dodd and Gregg--for developing a bipartisan compromise that I could support.

First, the plan minimizes risks to taxpayers, a critical priority given our dangerously high national debt of nearly $10 trillion. As CBO Director Peter Orszag has testified, the ultimate cost of the plan will be far less than $700 billion, for the simple reason that the Government will be able to sell the assets it acquires. But we cannot be sure the cost is zero, and that is why I have conditioned my support on ensuring that the Treasury receive equity in firms that benefit from an infusion of public funds. I applaud the inclusion of such a provision in this bill, as well as a requirement that the President propose legislation to recover any anticipated losses.

Second, we have added significant oversight and reporting requirements, including a Congressional oversight panel; audits by the comptroller general; and the appointment of an inspector general for the program. I have great respect for the Treasury Secretary, but feel that no single individual should ever be entrusted with such a herculean undertaking without oversight.

Third, participating companies would be required to limit executive compensation. Like so many Americans, I am troubled by reports of executives who walk away from failed financial service firms with stratospheric paychecks. This bill begins to address that justifiable concern.

We cannot afford to sit by idly and let this crisis take a further toll on the economy. But we also must be realistic about the limitations of this legislation: It is a band-aid intended to stop the bleeding. It will not address the inadequate regulatory framework that allowed this crisis to develop, and Congress must commit to enacting comprehensive reforms that will ensure we never again find ourselves in such a precarious position.

Mr. President, there are over 150 public land bills on the Senate calendar that have been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during the 110th Congress, for which we have not been able to get unanimous consent to take up and pass. In an effort to try to facilitate their consideration by the Senate in the limited time remaining in this session, I have assembled them into a single amendment, SA 5662, to the Monongahela National Forest Wilderness Bill, H.R. 5151. I filed the amendment last Friday, September 26, and it has been printed in the Record at S9731-S9840.

Paragraph 4 of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate provides that

If during consideration of a bill, . . . a Senator proposes

an amendment containing a congressionally directed spending

item . . . , which was not included in the bill . . . as

placed on the calendar or as reported by any committee . . .

, then as soon as practicable, the Senator shall ensure that

a list of such items . . . is printed in the Congressional

Record.

The term ``congressionally directed spending item'' is broadly defined to include

a provision . . . included primarily at the request of a

Senator . . . authorizing . . . a specific amount of

discretionary budget authority . . . for . . . expenditure

with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State,

locality or Congressional district, other than through a

statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive

award process.

Although no Senator has specifically requested me to include a congressionally directed spending item in SA 5662, in the interest of furthering the transparency and accountability of the legislative process, I have posted a list of the specific authorizations in SA 5662 on the Web site of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The list includes the name of the principal sponsors of the Senate bills that have been incorporated in the amendment.

In the hope that the Senate might yet be able to consider this important amendment before we adjourn, I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record in accordance with rule XVIV.

Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to highlight a provision in this continuing resolution that is before us to provide mandatory funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program, which we passed in last year's energy bill, EISA. As one of the principal authors of the provision, I am happy to see the program moving forward and particularly pleased to see the guidance in the resolution that will press the Department of Energy to move forward quickly to get the program up and running. There is great potential in bringing these new advanced technology vehicles to market and we can't let difficulties in obtaining financing for manufacturing facilities derail our efforts.

As we conferred on the program almost a year ago, it was clear there were credit problems for both the large manufacturers and the smaller start-ups and component suppliers, particularly as it related to getting financing for the most cutting edge technologies such as batteries for electric-drive vehicles. Now that credit markets have tightened further, the need is even more acute. I hope that with this funding the Department can move quickly to produce regulations to implement the program and particularly to move forward with loans to component manufacturers, including battery manufacturers such as A123 Systems and other key suppliers that will be imperative to bringing forward plug-in vehicles in the coming years. Several of these smaller, important component suppliers have been participating in the Department loan guarantee program but have yet to complete their journey through that process. In fact, it was their difficulty in acquiring guarantees for this critical enabling technology that was a significant motivation for creating the loan program in last year's bill. I hope the Department can apply some of the lessons learned in the loan guarantee program, and perhaps some of the data submitted by these companies, to move this loan program forward quickly and effectively.

Finally, I have been told there may be some confusion about the terms of the loans as the provision creating the loan program references the ``activities'' that are the subject of a grant program also authorized in the same section of EISA. The grant program is limited to 30 percent of the costs of a facility. This is a fairly typical cost share for grant programs. Some have raised a question as to whether this 30 percent cap should also apply to the loan program. That is not the way I read the language of the law and was certainly not our intent in writing the provision. Moreover, I would argue that it would dramatically limit the effectiveness of the program as it would require companies to go to tight credit markets for 70 percent of their financing, precisely the problem we were seeking to remedy with the creation of the loan program. While I don't expect the Department of Energy to take this limited view of the program, I wanted to go on record here to help alleviate any confusion that may exist. I look forward to working with the Department to aid them in getting this program up and running.