Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I presided over the last hour and listened to the speeches about this important Serve America Act, and I felt compelled to rise and express my strong support for the legislation as well.

I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I want to particularly thank my colleagues--Senators Kennedy, Hatch, Mikulski, and Enzi--for working in a bipartisan manner to bring this important legislation to the Senate floor.

During these challenging times, we forget that every day millions of volunteers give their time and energy to help others and to make their communities more livable. Thousands of recent college graduates help educate young people in poor and rural schools through the Teach for America program. Millions of men and women join together to build affordable homes or improve health services for those in need throughout America through the AmeriCorps program. Tens of thousands of seniors are foster grandparents to our young people or companions to those who need help with everyday tasks through the Senior Corps program.

These volunteers, as we have been hearing most of this afternoon, are the best of what our country has to offer and the very essence of the American spirit. By working together to pass this bill, we are doing honor to their commitment to civic engagement and public service.

Service to community and country is something that has been an important part of my life. Prior to my career in politics, I served as the executive director of the Colorado Outward Bound School. Outward Bound provides participants with opportunities to test themselves--both physically and mentally--by confronting obstacles and surviving the elements. At the same time, the school teaches participants to rely on each other for support, assistance, and to work better as a team to meet all the challenges that Mother Nature can throw at you.

As part of the Outward Bound program, we considered it important to promote volunteering because we believed it helped strengthen our communities.

Voluntarism also enables young people to develop personal confidence and self-respect, to avoid the temptation to utilize violence to settle differences by instead learning skills and helping others.

I also had the opportunity to work in the House of Representatives with my fellow House Member Tom Udall, where we introduced legislation to promote volunteer efforts on our public lands. The goal of our piece of legislation called the SERVE Act was to enhance the stewardship of the natural and cultural resources for the millions of people who visit them for recreation and education every year.

We also worked together to give the Peace Corps the resources to expand their ranks. After more than 40 years, the Peace Corps remains one of the most admired and successful initiatives ever put in place. The Peace Corps offers an avenue to better understand other cultures and to do a better job of promoting an understanding of American values by citizens abroad.

Many Coloradans have dedicated themselves to community and national service. For example, Colorado has one of the highest levels of recruitment of Peace Corps volunteers nationwide, including my mother, who served in the Peace Corps in Nepal from the age of 56 to 61.

So we have a great volunteer spirit in this country, and we can do more to expand the opportunities for people who would like to give their time to help others in our communities. The bill before us today, the Serve America Act, does that by building on the very strong foundation built by AmeriCorps and other service programs.

Let me discuss a couple of the important elements of this important piece of legislation.

First, it establishes the Youth Engagement Zone to Strengthen Communities program and the Campus of Service program. By engaging high school students and out-of-school youth in community opportunities, we can instill a spirit of service in our young people that will stay with them for a lifetime.

Secondly, the Campus of Service program recognizes colleges and universities with outstanding service-learning programs, and provides resources to support students who want to pursue careers in public service. So many adults who work in Government, nonprofits, and other public service careers got started because of opportunities they had when they were in school. This program will expand the options available to students, so more young people can find rewarding volunteer experiences, and so we can increase the number of young people who want to pursue careers in public service.

Third, the bill creates a set of focused corps: the Education Corps, the Healthy Futures Corps, the Clean Energy Futures Corps, the Veterans Corps, and the Opportunity Corps.

I wish to take a minute to address one, the Clean Energy Futures Corps. In this program, the participants would do a variety of jobs to help make our communities more energy efficient and to preserve our country's natural beauty. These volunteers might help weatherize low- income households to help residents save money or to help clean and improve parks, trails, and rivers.

I was fortunate I was born into a family with a long tradition of working to protect our country's majestic public lands so future generations could enjoy the spectacular scenery and outdoor recreation activities we appreciate today. So I am pleased that Senators Kennedy, Hatch, Mikulski, and Enzi included preserving our national treasures as a core principle of the Clean Energy Futures Corps.

I am also very pleased the corps will encourage energy efficiency and weatherization efforts. Energy efficiency must play a key role in helping us use energy in a more responsible and sustainable way. If you think about it, the most affordable kilowatt of energy is the one that is not used. This is important, especially for families struggling to get by each week. Energy efficiency and weatherization efforts will help ensure these families do not have to choose between paying their heating bill and putting food on their table.

Community service enriches everyone who participates--those who are being helped and those who are offering their service. Volunteers can change a neighbor's life or transform our entire country.

I support the mission of this bill. I commend President Obama as the driving force in promoting service opportunities for Americans of all ages.

Mr. President, as I conclude, I want to offer some additional remarks that amplify what my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, said in response to our good friend from South Carolina.

The Senator from South Carolina came to the floor and expressed his concerns about this important legislation. He suggested that civil society is everything government is not. Well, with all due respect to my friend from South Carolina, I could not disagree more. I think civil society and government are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Founders designed our formal democratic government systems based on what they learned in the civil society of the early days of our country.

Lincoln--probably our greatest President, the founder of the Republican Party--if I can paraphrase him--said: What we cannot do alone, we do together in self-government to accomplish.

There is an increasing demand clearly in our society that Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Hatch have heard and want to tap into. Senator Isakson was on the floor earlier talking about creating an infrastructure of volunteers that this bill would so importantly promote. He talked about that the corps' participants are only paid stipends and small, cover-your-expenses salaries. So this is not an expensive program for the benefits that are generated.

The Senator from Utah talked about how this is the best of the liberal and conservative philosophies combined. The Senator from South Carolina talked about the great French historian de Tocqueville who identified this

wonderful spirit in America of voluntarism way back in the 1820s and suggested somehow that could only be pursued through what he called the civil society. Well, that spirit is unique to America, I believe, and it is alive and well, and it can be promoted by civil society, by private society, as well as by this private-public partnership that is envisioned in this important legislation.

In closing, I cannot help but think of my friend, a mentor, a leader, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who, in expressing the lessons he had learned in his life, talked about why he joined the military. And he put it simply. He said in order to build his self-respect, he wanted to dedicate himself to a cause greater than his own self-interest. That is what this important legislation will do, and it will allow millions of Americans to have that opportunity, to dedicate themselves to causes greater than their own self-interests.

I urge swift passage so we can go to work.

Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I express my strong support for the bipartisan omnibus lands package, HR 146, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly in a floor vote. I thank Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski for working across the aisle to put together this major piece of natural resources legislation. As many of our colleagues have noted, this legislation represents the largest public lands package in decades. Most importantly, this lands package represents a major victory for the people--and the lands--of Colorado.

There is much in this bill to highlight. All of the areas that are slated for protection under this legislation are deserving of such designation.

I have personally visited many of these places that we took action to preserve--places like Longs Peak, a mountain over 14,000 feet that looms over the great plains above Denver; the dramatic red rock canyons where water plunges to the Gunnison River from the Dominguez Canyons; and trails that climb up the steep rocky slopes of Colorado's northern Front Range looking out over the expanse of prairie that reaches to the eastern horizon.

These lands represent a variety of landscapes and natural attributes. They typify the diversity of our Nation, and their dramatic environments inspire visitors and give them a sense that anything is possible.

The connection we have to our natural landscapes and other equally important provisions--such as providing a funding mechanism for a water conduit that will help provide clean water to help enhance the productivity of farms and ranches along the lower Arkansas River-- underscore why this bill is so important and worthy of our support. The areas and vital resources that are protected in this bill will help ensure a vibrant and healthy environment and thereby provide a solid foundation for a healthy and vibrant economy. This bill is not just about the special places it encompasses it is about us and our values. It deserves our support.

Specifically for Coloradans, this package will help preserve and protect majestic public landscapes in Colorado and help provide needed water supplies to communities and farmers on Colorado's productive Eastern Plains. These are issues on which I have worked for many years in the U.S. House of Representatives and now in the Senate. On behalf of the people of Colorado, I am proud that the following provisions will likely become law in the coming days.

First, the bill includes the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act of 2009. This legislation will help protect the water supply for the Arkansas River Valley's communities and productive agricultural lands by advancing the construction of the long-planned Arkansas Valley Conduit. The depressed economic status of southeastern Colorado made it a difficult financial undertaking for the region, a challenge that continues

today. This bill will help see this facility become a reality and help the farming and ranching communities in the valley continue to produce needed food for the state and Nation.

Second, the Colorado Northern Front Range Study Act included in the package will help Coloradans protect the scenic Front Range mountain backdrop in the northern Denver-metro area and the region just west of Rocky Flats.

Rising from the Great Plains, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains provides a scenic mountain backdrop to many communities in the Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado. This mountain backdrop, which includes much of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, is an important aesthetic and economic asset for adjoining communities. It is also part of our unique culture, having beckoned settlers westward before exposing them to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West that helped define the region. The pioneers' independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day.

Yet rapid population growth is increasing recreational use of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and adding pressure to develop other lands within and adjacent to that national forest. The bill directs the U.S. Forest Service to study the ownership patterns of the lands comprising the Front Range mountain backdrop and identify areas that are open and may be at risk of development. Additionally, it directs the Forest Service to recommend to Congress how these lands might be protected and how the Federal Government could help local communities and residents to achieve that goal.

Third, the bill includes the National Trails System Willing Seller Authority Act. This act will change the current law prohibiting people who own land associated with several units of the trail system from selling those lands to the Federal Government. Because of this act, people who want to sell land for inclusion in certain units of the National Trails System will be able to do so.

Our national trails are a national treasure, and I have enjoyed them for my whole life. We should allow property owners to sell their land along these trails to the Federal Government to be part of our public lands legacy. But we must make clear that these land sales are from willing sellers.

Finally, this legislation includes the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act. This provision will designate nearly 250,000 acres of Rocky Mountain National Park as wilderness. The provision will guarantee the backcountry of Rocky Mountain National Park will be managed so that future generations will experience the park as we know it today. The legislation will also allow the National Park Service to continue its important efforts to battle the devastating bark beetle infestation and to engage in necessary wildfire mitigation efforts and emergency response actions.

The wilderness designation in this bill will cover some 94 percent of the park including Longs Peak and other major mountains along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams.

Examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of Rocky Mountain National Park are included in the wilderness that will be designated by this bill. At the same time, the wilderness boundaries have been drawn so as to allow continued access for the use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, and privately owned land.

In conclusion, the passage of this bill in the Senate and House will mark the culmination of many years of work by a number of Coloradans, and I look forward to it becoming law.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to revise the 1986 law dealing with use of National Forests for ski areas in order to reflect current ways those areas are used and to provide clear authority for the Forest Service to allow additional recreational uses of those areas.

I have long thought it is in the national interest to encourage Americans to engage in outdoor recreational activities that can contribute to their health and well-being, and that National Forest lands, including ski areas, can play a role by providing opportunities for such activities.

My interest in the subject was heightened last year when representatives of the National Ski Areas Association brought to my attention the fact that the National Forest Ski Areas Permit Act of 1986. This law speaks only to ``nordic and alpine skiing'' and does not reflect the full spectrum of snowsports for which ski areas are now used. They described this problem as the absence of clear authority for the Forest Service to permit use of ski areas for other summer, seasonal, or year-round outdoor recreational activities and facilities in support of those activities.

To better understand the matter, I sent a letter asking the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment whether current law could be clearer on those points. Under Secretary Mark Rey replied that the 1986 legislation indeed did not address those matters and that, if requested, the USDA ``would be happy to work with you to amend'' the law to provide the Forest Service with clear authority regarding such activities and facilities.

I did request and receive technical suggestions from the Forest Service, and have considered their input as well as suggestions from the National Ski Areas Association and other interested parties in developing the bill that I introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives last year.

Today, I am introducing this bill in the Senate.

The bill intentionally uses a number of terms and phrases based on the terminology of the Forest Service's regulations, manual, or other official documents because those terms and phrases are familiar not only to the Forest Service but also to permittees and others with an interest in the management of the National Forests. Thus, as used in the bill the term ``developed

recreation'' means recreation that occurs at an area which has been improved or developed for that purpose--such as camping in constructed campgrounds or developed opportunities for off-highway-vehicle use as well as downhill skiing. Similarly, the term ``natural-resource-based recreation'' is intended to have the same meaning as when used in the Forest Service manual 2300, Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management.

It also should be noted that the bill deals only with the 1986 National Forest Ski Areas Act, and would not in any way affect any other law applicable to management of the National Forests or any permits issued under any of those laws.

Ski area permits under the 1986 law do give their holders a priority with respect to commercial use of the lands subject to the permits, but they do not preclude general use of those lands by the public for compatible, non-commercial uses, and the bill would not change that. In fact, the bill does not affect the status, the duration, or any other provision of any permit already issued under the 1986 law, nor does it provide for any new permits. Instead, it makes clear that the Forest Service is authorized--but not required--to allow a current or future holder of a permit under the 1986 law to provide opportunities for additional developed recreational activities, and to place associated facilities, on the lands covered by that permit if the specified requirements are met and if the Forest Service decides it would appropriate for that to occur.

And it would not affect any existing or future permit related to use of lands that are not subject to ski area permits under the 1986 law or in any way reduce or otherwise modify the extent to which the Forest Service can allow any particular use on any of those lands outside ski areas.

This is a narrowly-targeted bill that I think can be valuable regarding an important aspect of the management of the National Forests and in facilitating the provision of additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities on the parts of those lands that are subject to permits under the 1986 law.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to revise the 1986 law dealing with use of National Forests for ski areas in order to reflect current ways those areas are used and to provide clear authority for the Forest Service to allow additional recreational uses of those areas.

I have long thought it is in the national interest to encourage Americans to engage in outdoor recreational activities that can contribute to their health and well-being, and that National Forest lands, including ski areas, can play a role by providing opportunities for such activities.

My interest in the subject was heightened last year when representatives of the National Ski Areas Association brought to my attention the fact that the National Forest Ski Areas Permit Act of 1986. This law speaks only to ``nordic and alpine skiing'' and does not reflect the full spectrum of snowsports for which ski areas are now used. They described this problem as the absence of clear authority for the Forest Service to permit use of ski areas for other summer, seasonal, or year-round outdoor recreational activities and facilities in support of those activities.

To better understand the matter, I sent a letter asking the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment whether current law could be clearer on those points. Under Secretary Mark Rey replied that the 1986 legislation indeed did not address those matters and that, if requested, the USDA ``would be happy to work with you to amend'' the law to provide the Forest Service with clear authority regarding such activities and facilities.

I did request and receive technical suggestions from the Forest Service, and have considered their input as well as suggestions from the National Ski Areas Association and other interested parties in developing the bill that I introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives last year.

Today, I am introducing this bill in the Senate.

The bill intentionally uses a number of terms and phrases based on the terminology of the Forest Service's regulations, manual, or other official documents because those terms and phrases are familiar not only to the Forest Service but also to permittees and others with an interest in the management of the National Forests. Thus, as used in the bill the term ``developed

recreation'' means recreation that occurs at an area which has been improved or developed for that purpose--such as camping in constructed campgrounds or developed opportunities for off-highway-vehicle use as well as downhill skiing. Similarly, the term ``natural-resource-based recreation'' is intended to have the same meaning as when used in the Forest Service manual 2300, Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management.

It also should be noted that the bill deals only with the 1986 National Forest Ski Areas Act, and would not in any way affect any other law applicable to management of the National Forests or any permits issued under any of those laws.

Ski area permits under the 1986 law do give their holders a priority with respect to commercial use of the lands subject to the permits, but they do not preclude general use of those lands by the public for compatible, non-commercial uses, and the bill would not change that. In fact, the bill does not affect the status, the duration, or any other provision of any permit already issued under the 1986 law, nor does it provide for any new permits. Instead, it makes clear that the Forest Service is authorized--but not required--to allow a current or future holder of a permit under the 1986 law to provide opportunities for additional developed recreational activities, and to place associated facilities, on the lands covered by that permit if the specified requirements are met and if the Forest Service decides it would appropriate for that to occur.

And it would not affect any existing or future permit related to use of lands that are not subject to ski area permits under the 1986 law or in any way reduce or otherwise modify the extent to which the Forest Service can allow any particular use on any of those lands outside ski areas.

This is a narrowly-targeted bill that I think can be valuable regarding an important aspect of the management of the National Forests and in facilitating the provision of additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities on the parts of those lands that are subject to permits under the 1986 law.

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

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

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the bipartisan bill introduced earlier this week by my colleague Senator Bingaman, called the Federal Land Assistance Management Enhancement Act, or the FLAME Act, S. 561. Senator Bingaman was joined by my colleagues: Senators Murkowski, Boxer, Cantwell, Johnson, Murray, Tester, Tom Udall, and Wyden as cosponsors. I wish to add my support as a cosponsor as well.

Like many States from coast to coast, my home State of Colorado features expansive areas of wildland that are increasingly at risk of wildfire. Periods of drought continue to raise the possibility of wildfires in America, while in Colorado and throughout the mountain West, the epidemic of bark beetle infestation has compounded our risk of wildfire. In 2008, more than 5.1 million acres of land nationwide burned, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. In 2006 and 2007, more than 9 million acres burned, and more than 8 million acres burned in 2004 and 2005. The costs associated with these fires are large and increasing. To a large degree, these costs occur because fires are encroaching ever closer to our communities. These fires require more aggressive suppression efforts because of the risks to lives and property.

But unfortunately, the Federal lands agencies--especially the Forest Service--do not have the resources they need to fight these fires. They must resort to raiding funds from other important programs within these agencies, such as trails and road maintenance, recreation management and, especially important, preventive fuels treatment that could help reduce fires, or at least lessen their severity and costs when the wildfires occur.

For example: last year, the Forest Service had $1.2 billion budgeted for fire suppression, but the agency had to transfer at least $400 million from other programs when that funding fell short. In August of last year, Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell sent out an interagency memo asking the staff to find ways to come up with extra money. The extra money being sent off to these accounts forced the closure of some recreation areas, caused some contract obligations to go unmet, and canceled construction, research, and natural resource work.

Later, Congress approved $610 million for the Forest Service in emergency Federal firefighting funding, restoring some of those transfers. Nonetheless, that work had gone undone when it was necessary for it to be done.

Making matters worse is the fact that the Forest Service budget has historically declined overall. The Department of Interior and Forest Service each maintain multibillion dollar deferred maintenance backlogs and are having to scale back some of their services. As is often pointed out, the Forest Service now dedicates upwards of half of its entire budget for emergency fire suppression activities.

We can't keep funding firefighting efforts in this manner. We have to find a better approach, so we do not continue to borrow money intended for other important missions. Also, we must move forward with efforts that allow us to reduce wildfire threats at the front end.

The FLAME Act would do just that. It would set up a separate fund that agencies can draw upon to augment firefighting costs. In so doing, we can help the agencies avoid drawing down funds in other programs and provide additional funds when we face an especially intense and expensive fire season. I strongly support the creation of a Federal fund designated solely for catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities, which is what this bill does.

Equally important, in my view, is a provision in the FLAME Act calling for comprehensive wildland fire management strategies to best allocate fire management resources, assess risk levels for communities, and prioritize fuel reduction projects.

For many of my constituents--as in the State of the Presiding officer, New York, as well--Federal and State wildlands are Colorado's greatest attribute, providing all manner of outdoor recreation and awe- inspiring scenes of nature. Yet those same forested lands hold the potential for tragedy, as the threat of lost life and property due to wildfire grows. We currently employ a largely reactive wait-and-see approach to catastrophic wildland fires. The FLAME Act will help us shift to a more effective and proactive approach. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan approach.

Again, I thank Senator Bingaman for introducing this legislation. I look forward to working with him and our colleagues to bring this bill before the full Senate and press for its final passage.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCaskill-Udall resolution on earmark reform, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation so ably authored by my colleague, Senator McCaskill. I have appreciated the opportunity to work with her in developing this bill, which is designed to strengthen transparency and accountability in the way Congress authorizes and appropriates Federal dollars.

If there was ever a time in our history when we needed to reassure the American people that Congress understands the need for reform and integrity in the process of authorizing and appropriating Federal funds, it is now. It is today. As our economy continues a deep slide into recession, we have found it necessary to stimulate recovery with historic levels of public spending.

Now, the American people expect us to act with speed but not haste. They also expect Federal spending will reflect critical national priorities and broader public purpose. Most of all, they expect Congress to pass funding bills in ways that ensure wise use of taxpayer dollars.

Those are the purposes of this legislation. It is not just about preventing the abuse of so-called congressional earmarks, it is, rather, about reassuring the American people that their dollars and the debt future generations will incur as a result of our spending will be debated in the sunshine of public scrutiny.

In short, this bill is about restoring integrity to a legislative process that has, for a number of reasons, gone off track. It is about restoring public confidence in the legislative branch. Now, I say this without casting any aspersions on the motive of my colleagues in this institution or my former colleagues in the other body. Most of us have sought earmarks for our States and our districts because of a sincere desire to help our constituents and support worthy projects.

Along the way, however, the public has lost confidence in the integrity of this process. Although there have been too many ``bridges to nowhere,'' the problem is as much about the process that yields these earmarks. They are tucked into spending bills without an opportunity to debate or consider their merits or even their true authors.

This bill brings important reform to the earmark process. First, it requires that all earmarks be included in the text of bills rather than a separate ``statement of managers'' that is not technically part of the bill text. Previously legislation allows Senators to strip out earmarks from bill text only, not from the statement of managers.

This reform will result in greater transparency because it will make it possible for any earmark to be stripped out of the bill. Second, the bill requires that all earmarks requested by a Senator be posted on a Senator's Web site within 48 hours after the request. It also requires committees to post on their Web sites all information that Senators are required to submit about an earmark request, including the name of the proposed recipient, the location, purpose, and financial certification from Senators certifying they have no financial interest in that project and all within 48 hours of receiving that request.

This reform, in short, offers a check against the information that Senators post on their own Web sites and provides fuller transparency by requiring this information to be compiled in a central location. Citizens know how to use the Web, and it has increasingly become a watchdog tool for Government. Instead of shrinking from it, I believe we should embrace this technology to inform our constituents and, yes, invite their comment and even criticism.

Third, this bill prohibits earmarks from private or nonprofit entities. By limiting earmark requests to the public sector, we avoid the risk of inadvertently helping a campaign donor or mixing a private gain with a public purpose. An earmark to help our communities ought to be community based and community supported. There ought to be a public benefit that is recognized in a way that is accountable to public decisionmakers.

Fourth, this bill prevents earmarks from mysteriously surfacing in conference negotiations on authorization bills. Previous legislation already prohibits this air dropping of earmarks in conference negotiations on appropriations bills, but this reform would broaden that proposition to include authorization bills, which are often considered to be blueprints for the annual funding bills.

Let me be clear. I admire the hard work of our committee chairs and their staffs, and my experience in both Chambers has led me to the conclusion that great effort is made to ensure integrity and accountability in spending bills. Important, and often very complex bills, can be undermined in the public eye when individual earmarks are not carefully scrutinized. We can all agree that it often takes only one bad apple to spoil even the best barrel, and this provision is designed to keep out the bad apples.

Fifth, the bill requires that all appropriations and authorization conference reports be electronically searchable at least 48 hours before they can be considered by the full Senate. This reform will help the public and Congress identify earmarks that were added during the conference in appropriations bills that can be thousands of pages long.

In conclusion, I believe we can begin the important work of restoring public confidence in the way Congress legislates if we continue on the path we began in 2007, with earmark and ethics reform. This bill closes loopholes in the law we passed in 2007, and strengthens accountability, transparency, and integrity.

Now, there are some who would argue for abolishing all earmarks, including those supporting governmental entities. I have to tell you, I think that may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At a time of economic crisis, I believe it is important for Senators to have the tools that can direct Federal funding to job-creating projects in their home States.

For those of us who are not fortunate enough to be appropriators, the opportunity to offer carefully considered earmarks is important. I have not come to the conclusion that all earmarks are bad; in fact, it is the process of their consideration and inclusion that needs reform.

Along with a constitutional line item veto and other reform measures, I believe that, in fact I know, we can construct a path of reform that is both fiscally responsible and in keeping with the highest ethical standards.

Mr. President, I am joined by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Bennet from Colorado.

Next week, several thousand city and town leaders from across the country will visit us in Washington, DC, to discuss the major issues of the day. They will be gathered under the auspices of the National League of Cities, NLC, whose president is one of our distinguished mayors--Northglenn, CO, Mayor Kathleen Novak.

Senator Bennet and I will have the honor of meeting with Mayor Novak and a group of other Colorado municipal leaders working through NLC and the Colorado Municipal League.

I want to take this opportunity to recognize Mayor Kathleen Novak. Mayor Novak was elected to Northglenn's City Council on July 11, 1991, after years of serving the community. She was elected mayor in November 2001 and then reelected in November 2005, serving two 4-year terms.

It was Mayor Novak's interest in planning for the city's future that led the city council to develop goals and adopt a strategic plan to help guide the city into the future. Each year, the Northglenn City Council identifies critical issues that can impact and shape Northglenn's future and develops an action agenda to prioritize and address these pressing issues. This has allowed the city to make tremendous progress on many fronts throughout the mayor's term in elected office.

Over the years, Novak helped continue to provide the top-notch services that residents have grown to appreciate while balancing the community's transportation and infrastructure needs through upgrades to the city's infrastructure and facilities. While Mayor Novak was in office, Northglenn built a new wastewater treatment facility and a new maintenance and operations facility and self-funded the 112th Avenue Overpass to make traveling from east to west easier for the city's residents. Northglenn was the first city in Colorado to promote water conservation efforts such as instituting a lottery system whereby city residents could secure free high-efficiency water features for their homes. Through these efforts, the city expects to save 20-25 acre-feet of water annually and thereby save the city and its citizens money from the conserved water.

Northglenn also applies biosolids from water treatment to fertilize farms in Weld County. Through such applications, the city grew, harvested, and sold 2,500 tons of crops. Since recycling conserves precious natural resources, over the past 9 years, the city has been heating two shop buildings with used motor oil that residents have placed at the curb for recycling.

In 2008, Mayor Novak's interest in reconnecting government to all age groups led the city to be the first in the State to be named a Playful City USA by KABOOM, as unique offerings of play continued to take shape in Northglenn. Early in Novak's tenure, Northglenn received America's Crown Community Award by American City and County Magazine for the rehabilitation and redesign of Webster Lake and E.B. Rains Jr. Memorial Park. The park included an innovative concept of providing unique opportunities of play for all--Northglenn's Sensory Playground. The playground offers children with a range of disabilities the opportunity to experience play and exceeds the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement of 50 percent accessibility by providing nearly 100 percent accessibility for people who use wheelchairs.

Most recently, the renovation of the Croke Reservoir Nature Area earned the city the 2009 Colorado American Public Works Association Award for Engineering and Construction Management for medium-sized communities. The project included stabilization of the eastern shoreline, removal of sediment to improve fishery and wildlife habitat, and improvements to stormwater detention in the area.

Throughout her service, Mayor Kathleen Novak has worked hard to ensure that the city of Northglenn maintains its high quality of life. Last December, in recognition of her efforts, Mayor Novak was unanimously elected by her national peers to serve as the president of the National League of Cities, the voice of municipal government in this country. Senator Bennet and I thank Mayor Novak for her leadership and dedication to Northglenn, CO, and to the Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, today we will pass an economic recovery bill designed to create and save jobs. There are many reasons our economy is in trouble. One can point to the housing bubble and bust, failure to properly regulate financial markets, two wars that we have not paid for, and a global credit crunch. But whatever the causes for our economic crisis, a common thread running through the fabric of our economy is energy. I believe that a decade of shortsighted energy policies and missed opportunities has contributed to the economic crisis we face today.

I also believe a way out of this crisis can be found if we develop a smart energy policy. That is what I want to talk about today.

Investments in energy technology, energy conservation, and sustainable energy will be an important part of the path to economic recovery. We need to get on that path soon. One way we can move forward is to pass legislation establishing a national renewable electricity standard, which is known as an RES. This week, I am joining Senator Tom Udall from New Mexico in introducing such a bill.

Establishing a national renewable electricity standard is a goal I have been striving to achieve for many years. In 1997, as a Colorado State legislator, I introduced several bills designed to advance renewable energy, including a State renewable portfolio standard. While my bills were voted down in committee and never reached the full House floor, my work in the Colorado House laid a path for action.

In 2004, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I traveled across Colorado with our then-State House Speaker, Republican Lola Spradley, campaigning for the Nation's first statewide RES ballot measure.

Despite well-publicized objections from Colorado's electricity providers, Colorado voters approved amendment 37, which required 10 percent renewable energy production for our State by the year 2015. After we easily reached that goal within a few years, the Colorado legislature increased this RES to 20 percent by the year 2020, this time with the support of those very electricity providers who opposed the measure initially because they came to realize the bottom line benefits of utilizing renewable sources of energy.

I have continued this work at the Federal level since being elected to the House of Representatives. In 2003, again along with my cousin Tom Udall, I introduced a bill to create a national RES. This bill became the basis for a measure we passed out of the House in 2007. This measure would have created an RES of 15 percent by the year 2020 for our entire Nation.

Unfortunately, this amendment did not make it through the Senate. It failed by one vote and was not included in the 2007 Energy bill. But now thankfully, under the leadership of Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, and with the growing support of a number of new Senators, we will have opportunities in this Congress to again pursue a national RES.

Early this week, Chairman Bingaman held a hearing on his draft language for an RES of 20 percent by the year 2020. I would like to thank Chairman Bingaman for holding this important hearing and for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him to get a strong bill through the committee, through both Houses of Congress, and to the President's desk.

My desire to win this fight and to help the chairman is why I joined with Senator Tom Udall to introduce this Udall-Udall RES bill that would require 25 percent of our electricity produced from renewable energy sources by 2025. RES is important for many reasons. As demand for energy continues to grow in this country, we need to make sure we continue to have affordable and reliable electricity supplies.

As demand for energy continues to grow in this country, we need to make sure that we continue to have affordable and reliable supplies. And, most importantly, as we move to more competition in the delivery of electricity, we must make sure consumers and the environment are protected. So it makes sense to put incentives in place to ensure that less polluting and environmentally responsible sources of energy can find their way into the marketplace. That is what a renewable electricity standard, or RES, would help to do.

Not least, our bill would reduce air pollution from dirty fossil fuel powerplants that threaten public health and our climate.

But this bill is also about addressing two of the greatest challenges facing our country--national security and economic growth. With almost all of the new electricity generation during the last decade fueled by natural gas, our domestic supply cannot sustain our needs.

Just think, Iran, Russia, and Qatar together hold 58 percent of the world's natural gas reserves. As demand for power continues to grow, we should not be forced to rely on these unstable regions to sustain our economy, nor do we have to.

The best way to decrease our vulnerability and dependence on foreign energy sources is to diversify our energy portfolio.

Half of the States in our great Union have already figured this out and have made the commitment to producing a percentage of their electricity using renewable energy.

But all of our States will benefit from a national standard, which will lower natural gas costs nationwide, create new economies of scale in manufacturing and installation, and offer greater predictability to long-term investors. By reducing the cost of new clean technologies and making them more available, as a national RES would do, it would help restrain natural gas price increases.

This bill will spur economic development with billions of dollars in new capital investment and new tax revenues for local communities, as well as millions of dollars in new lease payments for farmers and rural landowners.

For those not yet convinced of the benefits of an RES, I would ask them to look at what has happened in Colorado. Vestas, a major wind turbine supplier, identified our State RES as a determining factor in locating 2,500 jobs in Colorado for its wind turbine manufacturing headquarters. Additionally, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has estimated that just the solar component of the RES has brought 1,500 new solar jobs to Colorado.

Now, Mr. President, some have argued that a national RES would burden some regions of the country at the expense of other regions. I would argue the opposite. A national RES would, in fact, create public benefits for all.

The bill's definition of ``renewables'' is broad, including biomass such as cellulosic organic materials; plant or algal matter from agricultural crops, crop byproducts, or landscape waste; gasified animal waste and landfill gas, otherwise known as biogas; and all kinds of crop-based liquid fuels. The definition includes incremental hydropower; solar and solar water heating; wind; ocean, ocean thermal, and tidal; geothermal; and distributed generation. Every State has one or more of these resources.

Further, the argument that the Southeast would be disadvantaged by a national RES--that the Southeast has no renewable resources--has been shown to be inaccurate. In fact, the Southeast is one of the regions of the country that would see the most benefit from this proposal. According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, the technology that does best under a national RES is biomass. Already, 2,500 megawatts of generation come from biomass in the Southeast, and much of the waste from pulp and paper mills has yet to be used for generating electricity.

In summary, a national renewable electricity standard will reduce harmful air and water pollution, provide a sustainable, secure energy supply now,

and create new investment, income and jobs in communities all over our country. That is why I look forward to working closely with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure the adoption of a national renewable electricity standard.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as part of the debate on the the American Economic Recovery Act, I filed amendment No. 248, which addresses development and management concerns for the Republican River, a river that runs through Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska and is part of the South Platte River Basin. This bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by Senator Bennet.

This amendment was filed to address an issue in Colorado under the purview of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, BOR, in the same way that the drafters of the bill permitted funding for Arizona and California. If funding under the bill to the BOR can be directed to address concerns in California and Arizona and not be considered an earmark, then similarly, this direction to benefit the South Platte River Basin should not be considered an earmark.

As you know, the language of the bill suggests that $50 million of the funds provided in the bill may be transferred to the U.S. Department of the Interior for programs, projects and activities authorized by the Central Utah Project Completion Act--titles II-V of Public Law 102-575; $50 million of the funds provided under this heading may be used for programs, projects, and activities authorized by the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act, Public Law 108-361.

In this case, I feel it is important as the senior Senator for Colorado to insist that additional funding for the Bureau of Reclamation for important job-creating projects in the West ought to be handled in an evenhanded way.

Mr. President, I rise today with full and humble appreciation for the critical scrutiny a Senator's maiden speech usually attracts. I am also aware of the somewhat forgotten tradition here in which freshmen Senators took some considerable time before throwing caution to the wind, opening their mouths, and hoping to enlighten their wiser and more experienced colleagues. That tradition like many others has eroded over time, such that in recent years freshmen Senators have taken to the floor early and often. I hope my words today will not encourage a revival of the older tradition.

I am also aware that many new Senators use the occasion of their first speech to introduce a specific bill or to

speak at length about pending legislation. I hope to do something different today. I will not speak about specific legislation, but I will speak about this moment in our country's history, the perils we face, and my sincere hope that we will address the critical issues of our time in a new way, with less rancor and with a shared commitment to bridge the partisan divide that has characterized so much of our recent political experience.

We have inaugurated a new President and a new administration, and a new Congress is taking shape. These developments represent a fresh start, a new start, one in which every American, regardless of party or political affiliation, can rejoice because if there were ever a time when our country hungered for a fresh start, it is here and it is now.

The American people are impatient with politics, and with good reason. Our country is facing significant peril. More of our fellow citizens are losing their jobs and their homes. Credit is drying up. Businesses, large and small, are cutting back. Americans have seen the value of their college and retirement savings plans reduced dramatically. We may be facing the most significant and difficult economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

This has put me in mind of a great and courageous predecessor, Senator Edward Costigan, who served here, from Colorado, from 1931 to 1937, the very depths of the Great Depression. I have reverence for Senator Costigan because he was born of the progressive tradition of the West--a tradition the Udall family has participated in over many generations. Senator Costigan is largely remembered for his effort to pass an antilynching law at a time when people of color were under a constant threat of mob violence. He was also a champion of economic reform.

I found it interesting that Senator Costigan, in this Chamber in 1932, spoke on behalf of a stimulus bill--which was then called a relief bill--using words that are eerily relevant 76 years later. Arguing for the bill, Senator Costigan said:

One almost despairs of the ability of America's industrial

and political generals to save America in its present crisis.

. . .

Thankfully, we have not reached a point of economic collapse anything like that which occurred when Senator Costigan spoke. But Americans who have lost their jobs or their savings know this crisis is every bit as real and every bit as devastating.

This current crisis is made worse by our continued addiction to oil and our dangerous dependence on foreign oil in particular. While the global market price of oil and gasoline dropped remarkably from record highs of last year, no one should be under any illusion that this price slide will continue. Continued instability in the Middle East, combined with ever-increasing demand in China, in India, and other global markets, will inevitably mean that the price of oil will rise. We have not seen the end of the energy crisis that crippled our economy last summer. We did survive the first wave of this energy tsunami, but we must prepare for the waves to come.

This economic crisis is also made more perilous by the fact that our country is still engaged in two unfinished wars. Mr. President, 150,000 of our best and bravest are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Army has been stretched to the breaking point, and our national security depends on implementing a new strategy that includes rebuilding our defense capability.

Elsewhere in the world, in North Korea, in Gaza, in the winding alleys of Pakistan, in the shadowy corridors of power in Iran, we face threats from new enemies, the risks of widening conflict, and the gravest danger of all in the new century--the potential for a nuclear weapon to fall into the hands of terrorists.

David Sanger points out in his compelling book, ``The Inheritance,'' that America's response to 9/11 has not been without strategic error. America's position in the world, military and economic, has been weakened at the very moment we need to lead the world.

This list of challenges is daunting, and it does not include other pressing problems bearing down on us, such as the escalating cost of health care, a Federal budget deficit that threatens to wash away the foundation for our children's economic future, illusive solvency for key programs such as Medicare and Social Security, a broken immigration system, and mounting evidence that global climate change is threatening our natural environment.

In addition to losing influence on the world stage and struggling to restore a wrecked economy, in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, we may also have a third war on our hands--this one with Mother Nature. If Mother Nature fails, our list of challenges will seem small by comparison.

The question, then, before us is, Will this be a moment of anxiety or optimism? In truth, I believe it is both. The challenges we face are among the most significant ever faced by a new President and Congress.

Although I join the Senate as a proud western Democrat, buoyed by the success my party enjoyed in the last election, I think it would be a terrible mistake to see the challenge of this moment in purely partisan terms. The problems we face are not Democratic or Republican problems, they are American problems, and they will only be met by American solutions. Much lipservice is given to the idea of bipartisanship and the notion of working across the aisle. Frankly, I have to tell you, I think it is cynicism to breathe life and action into these words that hamstring us.

Like many of you, I was serving in the Congress on 9/11. That tragedy awakened a deep spirit, a deep spirit of shared purpose. I call it the spirit of 9/11, in the best sense of that term. I want to invoke it here, not to use it as a patriotic bludgeon but to remind us how it felt to know our country had been attacked and that we were united in our response and in our resolve. If there were ever a time when we needed to recapture that spirit of 9/11, it is now. Surely we do not need another tragedy to unite us in that common response and resolve. We need only look ahead at the deep challenges we face.

I am comforted by our history. A reading of our history shows that we have been through worse. We have endured a terrible Civil War, two world wars, and an economic catastrophe of far greater dimension. With each successive American generation, we have worked to cleanse the Nation from the stain of slavery, bigotry, and racial prejudice. With each successive generation, we have grown wiser, more enlightened, and more prosperous. We have seen the great middle class lifted and engaged in building the strongest and most creative economy the world has ever seen. So if history is our guide, I know we will meet the challenge of this moment.

As a son of the West, I am also proud of our special history. Of course, every region of America has a story to tell and a contribution to make to the whole. Among many qualities in the West, we particularly treasure independence and we have little time for brooding pessimism. The great western writer Wallace Stegner put it best when he wrote about the people he called ``stickers,'' those who settled the West against all odds and obstacles. He called them stickers because they were not quitters and they did not leave the scene of a challenge. They stuck to the land because of their spirit, their courage, and their hopes for a better community in which to raise their children--and, to be honest, because they were too doggone ornery to give up.

We are a country of stickers, and now it is up to the 111th Congress to be stickers too. The American people have vested their hopes and aspirations in us, to serve them well in the institutions of democracy we call the Congress.

As I close, I want to return to my predecessor in this seat, Senator Edward Costigan, and his long fight against the evil of lynching. In a speech on this subject in 1935, he expressed the hope that partisan and sectional division would give way to a true common purpose. He said:

Ours is truly at last a new South, a new North, a new East,

and a new West, unitedly building a new America of common

humanity, guarded by just and ever more equal laws.

Senator Costigan was calling for a new way of looking at the political challenge in his day, one that looked toward a uniting purpose. We have a similar calling today. We may often divide as Republicans and Democrats on

what we think is best for our country. Debate is good. We should encourage a vigorous exchange of ideas and not fear disagreement. But we ought always, always to strive for a common purpose.

I wish to express my deep thanks to my fell Coloradans who have given me the opportunity and honor to represent them here at this challenging and important time in our history.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to strongly support my friend and colleague, Senator Ken Salazar, as President-elect Obama's choice to lead the Department of the Interior.

For reasons I will explain shortly, I believe this man--a fifth generation son of the West whose ancestors settled Santa Fe before America gained independence--is uniquely qualified and experienced to lead the U.S. Department of the Interior.

I am very proud to have served the State of Colorado with him. He is an outstanding public servant and he will make an outstanding Secretary of the Interior.

Our colleagues in the Senate are well aware of Senator Salazar's excellent record of leadership here--he has worked across the aisle and with diverse stakeholders on many issues ranging from health care to national security.

As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Ken has worked to extend critical renewable energy tax credits, protect our natural resources and encourage environmentally responsible development of domestic energy sources. I've been proud to work with him on a wide range of issues, including protection of our public lands and water resources in Colorado. I'm especially proud of our work together to pass legislation that allowed a lovely older woman, Betty Dick, to pass her final days in peace on land she treasured at the Rocky Mountain National Park.

Ken, I think Betty would be proud of you today too.

Even before his time in the Senate, Ken has been a recognized leader in the West. As a farmer and rancher, Ken has always had a close relationship with the land and with rural communities. He has spoken eloquently about what he calls ``the forgotten America'' and he has been a steadfast champion of the land, water and people of the West.

As the executive director of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources, Ken used his unique background and experience to protect the environment and Colorado's communities, educate youth about our natural resources, and defend Colorado's water.

He helped create Great Outdoors Colorado, GOCO, and led it to become one of the most successful land conservation programs in the country.

While serving as Colorado's Attorney General, Ken worked to make our communities safer and address gang violence. He also led efforts to preserve open space during his two terms as Attorney General, where he was well-known as a champion of the natural environment.

Ken will bring his rural values--hard work, honesty, and integrity-- to the Department of Interior and help address the many challenges facing this Department. From addressing Interior's ethical lapses to tackling our country's lack of transmission infrastructure, Ken will work hard to put the Department of the Interior back on the right track.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Senator Salazar's family and, in particular, his mother, Emma. Like her sons, she is a remarkable Coloradan. I had the opportunity to visit her at the Salazar ranch, Los Rincones, last year.

And if her son, Ken, demonstrates the same indomitable spirit, strength of character and wisdom of his mother--and I believe he will he should be an outstanding Secretary of the Interior.

I urge my colleagues to swiftly confirm Senator Salazar as the Secretary of the Interior.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights today with my friend and colleague, Senator Charles Schumer. We are introducing this bill today as a way to add some commonsense rules to the laws governing the issuance of credit cards.

Commonsense rules are important at a time when many Americans are hurting and taking on more debt, even as credit card companies are making record profits. I hear often from hard-working, honest Coloradans who are asking only to be treated fairly by the credit card industry, whose deceptive practices have plagued consumers for years.

We need to act to bring greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards every day. I have heard from constituents across Colorado, asking me to help even the playing field on this issue.

They benefit from the widespread availability of consumer credit, and their use of that credit has been important to our economy. In fact, for many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. It is something that many people need to use to pay for their everyday needs. For them, it is a necessity.

Of course, another word for credit is debt, and credit card debt has increased considerably in recent years. Overall, during the last decade, total credit card debt rose by about 70 percent, and this clearly has an effect on consumers.

Some polls have reported that about 70 percent of surveyed families said the quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of their debts, and young people are more worried about going deeply into debt than about a terrorist attack.

Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness and an erosion of financial responsibility. That was one of the main arguments advanced in support of the recent changes in the bankruptcy laws.

But while there was something to that argument, it was not the whole story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone. Instead of just focusing on borrowers, Congress should also do more to promote responsibility by those who provide the credit, and one place to start is with credit card companies.

That is the reason I have been working to make some commonsense changes in the rules for credit card companies.

I first introduced a bill to do that back in 2006, and reintroduced it again the following year. I am proud it won the support of an array of consumer groups as well as cosponsors from congressional districts across the country.

Last year, the House passed H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, a bill I introduced with Representative Carolyn Maloney, that includes many provisions based on my legislation.

The bill I am introducing today with Senator Schumer is almost identical to the House-passed bill. It includes protection against arbitrary interest rate increases. It will prevent cardholders who pay on time from being unfairly penalized. It will bar excessive fees and will require more fairness in the way payments are handled. And it will prohibit the use of ``universal default'' clauses--provisions that allow card issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit card account if there has been any change for the worse in the cardholder's credit score--even if the change is unrelated to the credit card account.

The passage of this legislation is made more urgent by our Nation's worsening financial crisis. I will work with Members of both parties to make these commonsense reforms and even the playing field for credit card consumers in Colorado and throughout the country.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights today with my friend and colleague, Senator Charles Schumer. We are introducing this bill today as a way to add some commonsense rules to the laws governing the issuance of credit cards.

Commonsense rules are important at a time when many Americans are hurting and taking on more debt, even as credit card companies are making record profits. I hear often from hard-working, honest Coloradans who are asking only to be treated fairly by the credit card industry, whose deceptive practices have plagued consumers for years.

We need to act to bring greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards every day. I have heard from constituents across Colorado, asking me to help even the playing field on this issue.

They benefit from the widespread availability of consumer credit, and their use of that credit has been important to our economy. In fact, for many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. It is something that many people need to use to pay for their everyday needs. For them, it is a necessity.

Of course, another word for credit is debt, and credit card debt has increased considerably in recent years. Overall, during the last decade, total credit card debt rose by about 70 percent, and this clearly has an effect on consumers.

Some polls have reported that about 70 percent of surveyed families said the quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of their debts, and young people are more worried about going deeply into debt than about a terrorist attack.

Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness and an erosion of financial responsibility. That was one of the main arguments advanced in support of the recent changes in the bankruptcy laws.

But while there was something to that argument, it was not the whole story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone. Instead of just focusing on borrowers, Congress should also do more to promote responsibility by those who provide the credit, and one place to start is with credit card companies.

That is the reason I have been working to make some commonsense changes in the rules for credit card companies.

I first introduced a bill to do that back in 2006, and reintroduced it again the following year. I am proud it won the support of an array of consumer groups as well as cosponsors from congressional districts across the country.

Last year, the House passed H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, a bill I introduced with Representative Carolyn Maloney, that includes many provisions based on my legislation.

The bill I am introducing today with Senator Schumer is almost identical to the House-passed bill. It includes protection against arbitrary interest rate increases. It will prevent cardholders who pay on time from being unfairly penalized. It will bar excessive fees and will require more fairness in the way payments are handled. And it will prohibit the use of ``universal default'' clauses--provisions that allow card issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit card account if there has been any change for the worse in the cardholder's credit score--even if the change is unrelated to the credit card account.

The passage of this legislation is made more urgent by our Nation's worsening financial crisis. I will work with Members of both parties to make these commonsense reforms and even the playing field for credit card consumers in Colorado and throughout the country.

Mr. President, today I am introducing four bills, S. 187, S. 188, S. 189, S. 190, that will preserve and protect majestic public landscapes in Colorado and help provide needed water supplies to communities and farmers on Colorado's productive Eastern Plains. These bills were introduced in the last session of Congress, where they each had hearings and one passed the U.S. House of Representatives. I hope that we can work together to move these bills in this Congress and see them signed into law.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of all four bills be included in the Record and be printed alongside these remarks.

The first bill is the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act of 2009. This bill will help protect the water supply for the Arkansas River Valley's communities and its productive agricultural lands by advancing the construction of the long-planned Arkansas Valley Conduit. The bill will restructure the cost-share provisions of the project and is similar to legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar and introduced yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives by Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey.

The Arkansas Valley Conduit, a proposed 130-mile water delivery system from the Pueblo Dam to communities throughout the Arkansas River Valley, was originally authorized in 1962 as part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas, Fry-Ark, project. Unfortunately, the authorization did not include a Federal-local cost-share provision necessary to cover the estimated $300 million in construction costs, and local communities-- especially those in southern Colorado--do not have the resources to shoulder all of the costs. The project has thus remained unfinished for over 4 years.

The bill will provide for a 65-35 Federal-local cost-share for completion of the project, with revenues from so-called ``excess- capacity'' contracts for water storage in other Fry-Ark project facilities being used to fund the majority of the local contribution. This approach is the result of close collaboration between community stakeholders and the Colorado congressional delegation and will ensure communities in the Arkansas River Valley can finance their portion of the project without incurring unbearable financial burdens.

Moreover, the bill will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to move forward with the construction of the Conduit. The depressed economic status of southeastern Colorado made it a difficult financial undertaking for the region, a challenge that continues today. This bill will help see this facility become a reality and thereby help the farming and ranching communities in the valley continue to produce needed food and fiber for the state and Nation.

The second bill I am introducing today is the Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act. I introduced similar bills in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 107th, 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses. In previous Congresses, the bill passed the House and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee but did not receive final action.

The bill is intended to help local communities identify ways to protect the Front Range Mountain Backdrop in the northern Denver-metro area and the region just west of Rocky Flats. The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest includes much of the land in this backdrop area, but there are other lands involved as well.

Rising dramatically from the Great Plains, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains provides a scenic mountain backdrop to many communities in the Denver metropolitan area and elsewhere in Colorado. The portion of the range within and adjacent to the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest also includes a diverse array of wildlife habitats and provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation. The open-space character of this mountain backdrop is an important aesthetic and economic asset for adjoining communities, making them attractive locations for homes and businesses. But rapid population growth in the northern Front Range area of Colorado is increasing recreational use of the Arapaho- Roosevelt National Forest and is also increasing pressure for development of other lands within and adjacent to that national forest.

We can see the effects of rapid population growth throughout Colorado and especially along the Front Range. Homes and shopping centers are sprawling through valleys and along highways that feed into the Front Range. This development then spreads out along the ridges and mountaintops that make up the backdrop. We are in danger of losing to development many of the qualities that have helped attract new residents to Colorado. So, it is important to better understand what steps might be taken to avoid or lessen that risk--and this bill is designed to help us do just that.

Already, local governments and other entities have provided important protection for portions of this mountain backdrop, especially in the northern Denver-metro area. However, some portions of the backdrop in this part of Colorado remain unprotected and are at risk of losing their open-space qualities. This bill acknowledges the good work of the local communities in preserving open space along the backdrop and aims to assist further efforts along the same lines.

The bill directs the U.S. Forest Service to study the ownership patterns of the lands comprising the Front Range mountain backdrop, identify areas that are at risk, and recommend to Congress how these lands might be protected and how the Federal Government could help local communities and residents to achieve that goal. Importantly, I note that the bill does not interfere with the power of local authorities regarding land use planning or infringe on private property rights. Instead, it will bring the land protection experience of the Forest Service

to the table to assist local efforts to protect areas that comprise the backdrop. The bill envisions that to the extent the Forest Service should be involved with Federal lands, it will work in collaboration with local communities, the state and private parties.

I strongly believe it is in the national interest for the Federal Government to assist local communities to identify ways to protect the mounatin backdrop in this part of Colorado. The backdrop beckoned settlers westward and presented an imposing impediment to their forward progress that suggested similar challenges ahead. This first exposure to the harshness and humbling majesty of the Rocky Mountain West helped define a region. The pioneers' independent spirit and respect for nature still lives with us to this day. We need to work to preserve it by protecting the mountain backdrop as a cultural and natural heritage for ourselves and generations to come.

The third bill I am introducing today--the National Trails System Willing Seller Act--will allow people who want to sell land for inclusion in certain units of the National Trails System to do so. Current law prohibits people who own land associated with several units of the trail system from selling those lands to the Federal Government for inclusion in those units. This bill will allow such sales to happen.

This legislation is identical to bills introduced in previous Congresses by my former Republican colleagues from Colorado, Representatives Beauprez and McInnis. The Trail System units covered by the bill are the Oregon National Historic Trail, the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, the Iditarod National Historic Trail, the North County National Scenic Trail, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail.

Our national trails are a national treasure, and we should allow people who own land along these trails to sell that land to the Federal Government to be part of our public lands legacy. But it is important to make clear that these land sales are from willing sellers, which is what this bill will do. This bill makes a small but important adjustment to current law, and I think it deserves the support of all Members of the Senate.

The final bill I am introducing today is the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, which will designate nearly 250,000 acres of Rocky Mountain National Park as wilderness. I introduced this bill in the 110th Congress as a member of the House of Representatives. It was cosponsored in the Senate by my colleague Senator Ken Salazar, and eventually by the Colorado Congressional delegation. Over a period of months, we worked together to develop this bipartisan legislation that will provide important protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country. This is a public lands policy goal that goes back to the 1960s, and is long overdue.

This bill is consistent with the Colorado Congressional delegation's efforts in the last Congress to strike a balance in protecting the park and the water users who rely on the Grand River Ditch. This carefully negotiated language met the needs of those users, but questions have been raised about the particular way that liability and water use issues were addressed in the delegation bill. Specifically, there have been questions about how these provisions work in the context of the Park Resources Protection Act. While I am confident that my bill addresses these liability concerns, I appreciate the recent efforts by Senator Salazar to offer a slightly different approach that provides a path to a widely-shared goal that has broad support in Colorado.

The wilderness designation in this bill for the park will cover some 94 percent of the park, including Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up the splendor of the park are included in the wilderness that will be designated by this bill. At the same time, the wilderness boundaries have been drawn so as to allow continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, and areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park management and visitor services. In addition, specific provisions are included to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water facilities.

The lands designated as wilderness will become part of the National Wilderness Preservation System that was established by the Wilderness Act and will be managed in accordance with that Act and the provisions of the bill. The bill's provisions amplify this by specifying that--no new reclamation projects will be allowed in the wilderness area; nothing in the bill will create a ``buffer zone'' around the wilderness and non-wilderness activities visible or audible from within the wilderness will not be prohibited; the National Park Service can act to control fire, insects, and diseases, including use of mechanical tools within the wilderness; and nothing in the bill will reduce or restrict the current authority of the National Park Service to manage the Park's lands and resources.

The bill is similar to measures previously introduced by my predecessor in the House of Representatives, Representative David Skaggs, as well as other bills introduced before that, and legislation I introduced in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. However, it does include a number of adjustments and refinements that reflect discussion within the Colorado delegation in Congress and with interested parties in Colorado.

Like H.R. 2334 of the 110th Congress, the new bill includes wilderness designation of more than 700 acres in the Twin Sisters area south of Estes Park. These lands were acquired by the United States and made part of the park after submission to Congress of the original wilderness recommendation for the park in the 1970s, and so were not included in that recommendation. They are lands of a wilderness character, and their designation will not conflict with any current uses. On the west side, the town of Grand Lake and Grand County requested that about 650 acres inward from the park boundary around the town be omitted from the wilderness designation in order to allow the park to respond to potential forest fire threats. As was the case previously, this bill accommodates that request.

Also like that previous measure, the bill responds to the request of the Town of Grand Lake, Grand County and the Headwaters Trails Alliance, a group composed of local communities in Grand County that seeks to establish opportunities for mountain biking, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association to omit from wilderness designation an area along the western park boundary, running south along Lake Granby from the town to the park's southern boundary. This will allow the National Park Service to retain the option of authorizing construction of a possible future mountain bike route within this part of the park. Similarly, the bill expands the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area by 1,000 acres in the area south of the park and north of Lake Granby. The lands involved are currently managed as part of the Arapaho National Recreation Area, which is accordingly reduced by about 1,000 acres.

As did the previous bill, this bill includes a section that authorizes the National Park Service to lease an 11-acre property, the Leiffer tract, that was donated to the National Park Service in 1977. Located outside the park's boundaries, it has two buildings, including a house that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Park Service would like to have the option of leasing it, but current law allows leasing only for ``property administered . . . as part of the National Park System,'' and this property does not qualify. The bill allows the Park Service to lease the property as if it were located inside or contiguous to the park.

Also like previous measures, the bill addresses the question of possible impacts on water rights--something that can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness areas. It reflects the legal

reality that it has long been recognized under the laws of the United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive Federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national park itself. And it reflects the geographic reality that the park sits astride the continental divide, meaning there is no higher land around from which streams flow into the park, and thus there is no possibility of any diversion of water occurring upstream from the park. In recognition of these legal and practical realities, the bill includes a finding that because the park already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any additional reservation or appropriation of such right, and an explicit disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation.

As I mentioned, there are also provisions in this bill that deal with the Grand River Ditch, created before Rocky Mountain National Park was established and partly located within the park. The owners of the ditch are currently working to conclude an agreement with the National Park Service with respect to operation and maintenance of the portion of the ditch within the park, and the bill provides that after conclusion of this agreement the strict liability standard of the Park Resources Protection Act which now applies to any damage to park resources will not apply so long as the ditch is operated and maintained in accordance with the agreement. The owners of the ditch remain liable for damage to park resources caused by negligence or intentional acts, and the bill specifies that it will not limit or otherwise affect the liability of any individual or entity for damages to, loss of, or injury to any park resource resulting from any cause of event occurring before the bill's enactment. In addition, the bill specifies that its enactment will not restrict or otherwise affect any activity relating to the monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of the ditch that was authorized or approved by the National Park Service as of the date of the bill's enactment. The bill also provides that use of water transported by the ditch for a main purpose or main purposes other than irrigation will not terminate or adversely affect the ditch's right-of- way.

The matters dealt with in this bill have a long history. The wilderness designations are based on National Park Service recommendations presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. That they have not been acted on before this reflects the difficult history of wilderness legislation. One Colorado statewide wilderness bill was enacted in 1980, but it took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a second statewide national forest wilderness bill. Since then, action has been completed on bills designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge portion of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area, and the James Peak area of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

We now need to continue making progress by providing wilderness designations for other deserving lands in Colorado, including lands that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain National Park that are dealt with in this bill.

Lands covered by the bill are currently being managed to protect their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, but will make it clear that within the designated areas, there will never be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that interfere with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the mountains. This is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As nearby land development and alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's landscape. Further, the park's popularity demands definitive and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for development within the park. While only about one tenth the size of Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park sees nearly the same number of visitors each year. At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue improvements to park roads and visitor facilities.

In summary, the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act will protect some of our Nation's finest wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any existing opportunity for new water development. It is bipartisan and will affirm the commitment of all Coloradans to preserving the features that make our State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think it deserves prompt enactment.

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