Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Processed Food Safety Act. When enacted, this bill will make one very important principle clear: It is the producer's responsibility to produce safe food, it is not the consumer's responsibility to make their food safe. This legislation gives food producers and anyone else who modifies our food two options: they can take an additional ``kill-step'' to eliminate all verifiable traces of pathogens within each ingredient they have added to the product, or they can certify to the Secretary of Agriculture that each of the ingredients used to make our food contains no verifiable traces of pathogens. One would think that this is common sense. Wouldn't any company producing or modifying our food take the time, and the care, to make sure that their product was safe for us to eat? Unfortunately not. Today, more than 100 years after the publishing of Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle,'' much of our food is still produced by companies that put their profits over the health of their customers. On any given week I can open up the newspaper and find another heartbreaking story about the serious health effects of food-borne illnesses from tainted products. Anyone who visits the Web sites of the USDA or the FDA can see that recalls are not a rare occurrence. In the last month the USDA has recalled: Roast beef in Iowa due to the presence of undeclared allergens; canned soup in Pennsylvania due to the undeclared presence of egg in the product; beef tongues in Nebraska and Wisconsin because of improperly removed tonsils, which, when consumed, increase the risk of contracting Mad Cow Disease; and hundreds of thousands of pounds of ground beef in California, New York, and Massachusetts due to the presence of E. coli 0157--the deadliest strain of this common pathogen. The FDA this month has recalled: Dove ice cream bars in 19 States including California for the undeclared presence of peanuts, a potentially deadly allergen; Jelly Belly Jelly Beans were also recalled due to the presence of peanuts and peanut butter in their product; apple and carrot pouches in California that may contain a spore that can lead to botulism; vegetarian spring rolls in Maine, which were found to have meat products. The uninspected meat could have contained any number of food-borne pathogens; pre-made sandwiches in North Carolina due to concerns about the presence of Listeria. These bacteria can cause serious illness, pregnancy complications and even death; salted herring in New York because of the possible presence of the spore that can lead to botulism; and dried plums in Texas, found to contain traces of lead. Simply put, the state of our food supply is alarming. And without serious reform and leadership from this Congress, things will not get any better. That is why today I am introducing the Processed Food Safety Act. As I said, this bill will require companies that process any kind of food, from ground beef to frozen pot pies, to test their finished products and their ingredients to make sure that they are safe to eat and pathogen free. I mentioned ground beef and frozen pot pies, two very different items, because both of these seemingly unrelated products have been the subject of two recent exposes in the New York Times. On October 4, 2009, writer Michael Moss highlighted the disturbing realities in the ground beef industry, at each step in the process. He found slaughterhouses don't take time to properly remove intestines and fecal matter which then contaminate meat with E. coli. These slaughterhouses then sell to grinders who agree not to test their product for contaminants. Meat grinders purchase scraps from a variety of slaughterhouses across the country and across the globe. They then combine their scraps in a way that makes it virtually impossible to trace back their ingredients for public health purposes. Federal agencies offer regulations and guidance, but they fail to compel the industry to comply with their safety standards. Each individual oversight is a problem, but together, they represent a clear, systematic failure of the overall food safety system. This story makes it abundantly clear that the companies producing our ground beef spend more time worrying about how to avoid testing for pathogens than they spend trying to make their products safe. The New York Times ran another story on May 15 that highlights serious concerns about frozen chicken pot pies. The newspaper discovered that ConAgra, a frozen food giant which produced and sold over 100 million pot pies last year, decided to make consumers responsible for killing pathogens in their products instead of taking the responsibility themselves. As consumers, we expect that producers of these frozen meals have properly cleaned and washed their ingredients before repackaging them for sale. We expect that these frozen entrees are ready for consumption--just ``heat and eat,'' the popular advertising motto tells us. However, as this story points out, companies have actually tried to shift this burden to the consumer by requiring very specific, often burdensome cooking instructions which require the use of a meat thermometer to test the temperature of a product in several different places. What is even more shocking is that the authors found that it was virtually impossible to meet the cooking specifications put on the box by ConAgra. On the outside of the box, the cooking instructions state that the product must reach 160 degrees in several places as tested by a meat thermometer, before the product is safe to eat. However the New York Times found that even after using a higher power microwave than recommended by ConAgra, and cooking the product for an additional 1 minute and 30 seconds, 30 percent longer than recommended, parts of the pot pie did not reach the temperature recommended by ConAgra to kill pathogens within their product. When asked if a sample of their product that was cooked above and beyond their recommendations was safe to eat even though it did not reach the recommended temperature, the company conceded that it was not safe for human consumption. Other frozen food products from Nestle, Swanson, and Hungry-Man were also tested to see if their cooking directions were clear, simple, and adequate. Not surprisingly, the New York Times found that their tests on these products yielded similar results. Increasingly, food producers are using consumer cooking instructions as a method to deflect responsibility for the safety of their product. These companies effectively said that it was up to the consumer to kill potentially deadly doses of E. coli and Salmonella in their frozen meals. Under current law, food producers are allowed to get away with this. That is why I am introducing the Processed Food Safety Act. The bill will dean up the food industry by: amending the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale of any processed poultry, meat or FDA-regulated food that has not undergone a pathogen reduction treatment or been certified to be virtually pathogen free; doing away with loopholes in current laws that allow for producers to add coloring, synthetic flavorings and spices to their products without informing the consumer; and banning the sale of food that has not undergone these rigorous inspections and safety procedures. The Processed Food Safety Enhancement Act will force companies to produce safe foods. And, it will let consumers know that their health is more important than the financial interests of the food industry. Some may argue that this bill will be too expensive, because the inspections and tests required by this bill may raise the cost of food. I believe that these concerns are short-sighted. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that food- borne illnesses sicken up to 76 million people, cause 325,000 hospital visits, and cause more than 5,000 deaths each year. The CDC estimates that these illnesses annually cost American taxpayers up to $6 billion. By another metric, the USDA food-borne illness cost calculator estimates that Salmonella cost the United States $2.6 billion in 2008, and E. coli 0157 cost $478 million. By implementing more rigorous safety standards for our food, the Processed Food Safety Act may actually result in a substantial cost savings to the average American consumer. But that misses the point. This bill, and this problem cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Food-borne illnesses kill up to 5,000 people every year. In this day and age, this is simply unacceptable. We cannot let this go on. Food producers must be held responsible for the safety of their products. In the early 1900s Congress acted forcefully to prohibit the most egregious violations in food production. Today, 104 years after ``The Jungle'' was published, it is time for Congress to again take up this important fight. The Processed Food Safety Act puts the responsibility for food safety back where it belongs. This legislation protects consumers and keeps our food safe. I am proud to introduce this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this important, commonsense bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Processed Food Safety Act. When enacted, this bill will make one very important principle clear: It is the producer's responsibility to produce safe food, it is not the consumer's responsibility to make their food safe. This legislation gives food producers and anyone else who modifies our food two options: they can take an additional ``kill-step'' to eliminate all verifiable traces of pathogens within each ingredient they have added to the product, or they can certify to the Secretary of Agriculture that each of the ingredients used to make our food contains no verifiable traces of pathogens. One would think that this is common sense. Wouldn't any company producing or modifying our food take the time, and the care, to make sure that their product was safe for us to eat? Unfortunately not. Today, more than 100 years after the publishing of Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle,'' much of our food is still produced by companies that put their profits over the health of their customers. On any given week I can open up the newspaper and find another heartbreaking story about the serious health effects of food-borne illnesses from tainted products. Anyone who visits the Web sites of the USDA or the FDA can see that recalls are not a rare occurrence. In the last month the USDA has recalled: Roast beef in Iowa due to the presence of undeclared allergens; canned soup in Pennsylvania due to the undeclared presence of egg in the product; beef tongues in Nebraska and Wisconsin because of improperly removed tonsils, which, when consumed, increase the risk of contracting Mad Cow Disease; and hundreds of thousands of pounds of ground beef in California, New York, and Massachusetts due to the presence of E. coli 0157--the deadliest strain of this common pathogen. The FDA this month has recalled: Dove ice cream bars in 19 States including California for the undeclared presence of peanuts, a potentially deadly allergen; Jelly Belly Jelly Beans were also recalled due to the presence of peanuts and peanut butter in their product; apple and carrot pouches in California that may contain a spore that can lead to botulism; vegetarian spring rolls in Maine, which were found to have meat products. The uninspected meat could have contained any number of food-borne pathogens; pre-made sandwiches in North Carolina due to concerns about the presence of Listeria. These bacteria can cause serious illness, pregnancy complications and even death; salted herring in New York because of the possible presence of the spore that can lead to botulism; and dried plums in Texas, found to contain traces of lead. Simply put, the state of our food supply is alarming. And without serious reform and leadership from this Congress, things will not get any better. That is why today I am introducing the Processed Food Safety Act. As I said, this bill will require companies that process any kind of food, from ground beef to frozen pot pies, to test their finished products and their ingredients to make sure that they are safe to eat and pathogen free. I mentioned ground beef and frozen pot pies, two very different items, because both of these seemingly unrelated products have been the subject of two recent exposes in the New York Times. On October 4, 2009, writer Michael Moss highlighted the disturbing realities in the ground beef industry, at each step in the process. He found slaughterhouses don't take time to properly remove intestines and fecal matter which then contaminate meat with E. coli. These slaughterhouses then sell to grinders who agree not to test their product for contaminants. Meat grinders purchase scraps from a variety of slaughterhouses across the country and across the globe. They then combine their scraps in a way that makes it virtually impossible to trace back their ingredients for public health purposes. Federal agencies offer regulations and guidance, but they fail to compel the industry to comply with their safety standards. Each individual oversight is a problem, but together, they represent a clear, systematic failure of the overall food safety system. This story makes it abundantly clear that the companies producing our ground beef spend more time worrying about how to avoid testing for pathogens than they spend trying to make their products safe. The New York Times ran another story on May 15 that highlights serious concerns about frozen chicken pot pies. The newspaper discovered that ConAgra, a frozen food giant which produced and sold over 100 million pot pies last year, decided to make consumers responsible for killing pathogens in their products instead of taking the responsibility themselves. As consumers, we expect that producers of these frozen meals have properly cleaned and washed their ingredients before repackaging them for sale. We expect that these frozen entrees are ready for consumption--just ``heat and eat,'' the popular advertising motto tells us. However, as this story points out, companies have actually tried to shift this burden to the consumer by requiring very specific, often burdensome cooking instructions which require the use of a meat thermometer to test the temperature of a product in several different places. What is even more shocking is that the authors found that it was virtually impossible to meet the cooking specifications put on the box by ConAgra. On the outside of the box, the cooking instructions state that the product must reach 160 degrees in several places as tested by a meat thermometer, before the product is safe to eat. However the New York Times found that even after using a higher power microwave than recommended by ConAgra, and cooking the product for an additional 1 minute and 30 seconds, 30 percent longer than recommended, parts of the pot pie did not reach the temperature recommended by ConAgra to kill pathogens within their product. When asked if a sample of their product that was cooked above and beyond their recommendations was safe to eat even though it did not reach the recommended temperature, the company conceded that it was not safe for human consumption. Other frozen food products from Nestle, Swanson, and Hungry-Man were also tested to see if their cooking directions were clear, simple, and adequate. Not surprisingly, the New York Times found that their tests on these products yielded similar results. Increasingly, food producers are using consumer cooking instructions as a method to deflect responsibility for the safety of their product. These companies effectively said that it was up to the consumer to kill potentially deadly doses of E. coli and Salmonella in their frozen meals. Under current law, food producers are allowed to get away with this. That is why I am introducing the Processed Food Safety Act. The bill will dean up the food industry by: amending the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale of any processed poultry, meat or FDA-regulated food that has not undergone a pathogen reduction treatment or been certified to be virtually pathogen free; doing away with loopholes in current laws that allow for producers to add coloring, synthetic flavorings and spices to their products without informing the consumer; and banning the sale of food that has not undergone these rigorous inspections and safety procedures. The Processed Food Safety Enhancement Act will force companies to produce safe foods. And, it will let consumers know that their health is more important than the financial interests of the food industry. Some may argue that this bill will be too expensive, because the inspections and tests required by this bill may raise the cost of food. I believe that these concerns are short-sighted. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that food- borne illnesses sicken up to 76 million people, cause 325,000 hospital visits, and cause more than 5,000 deaths each year. The CDC estimates that these illnesses annually cost American taxpayers up to $6 billion. By another metric, the USDA food-borne illness cost calculator estimates that Salmonella cost the United States $2.6 billion in 2008, and E. coli 0157 cost $478 million. By implementing more rigorous safety standards for our food, the Processed Food Safety Act may actually result in a substantial cost savings to the average American consumer. But that misses the point. This bill, and this problem cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Food-borne illnesses kill up to 5,000 people every year. In this day and age, this is simply unacceptable. We cannot let this go on. Food producers must be held responsible for the safety of their products. In the early 1900s Congress acted forcefully to prohibit the most egregious violations in food production. Today, 104 years after ``The Jungle'' was published, it is time for Congress to again take up this important fight. The Processed Food Safety Act puts the responsibility for food safety back where it belongs. This legislation protects consumers and keeps our food safe. I am proud to introduce this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this important, commonsense bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I join my colleagues today in congratulating Senator Robert C. Byrd on reaching yet another milestone in a long and very distinguished career. Today, Senator Byrd has served 20,774 days--that is 56 years and 10\1/2\ months in Congress--making him the longest serving Member in U.S. history. Senator Byrd has attended 18,582 Senate rollcall votes. He cast his first votes in the Senate, in January 1959, when Dwight Eisenhower was President. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson were among his Senate colleagues. And Hawaii was not yet a State. He has served in the Senate longer than 10 of his current colleagues and President Obama have been alive--Bob Casey, Jr., Amy Klobuchar, Blanche Lincoln, John Thune, David Vitter, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich, Michael Bennet, Kirsten Gillibrand and George LeMieux. He has been elected to the Senate an unprecedented nine times, and has served alongside 11 U.S. Presidents. Senator Byrd has seen great changes in these past 56 years. Yet he has never lost sight of where he came from. He grew up in poverty among the coalfields of Southern West Virginia. His adoptive parents early on instilled in him a strong work ethic. He was a butcher, a gas station attendant, a grocery store clerk, and a shipyard welder before winning a seat to the West Virginia State Legislature and eventually being elected to Congress. Senator Byrd earned a law degree from American University in 1963-- the only person to have ever begun and completed law school while serving in Congress. The ``Almanac of American Politics'' has said that Senator Byrd ``may come closer to the kind of senator the Founding Fathers had in mind than any other.'' I wholeheartedly agree. And so he has set the standard for all of us to follow. We, of course, all know him as a great orator with a love of language. His speeches on this floor often quote poetry and the classics--Roman historian Titus Livius is a favorite. Senator Byrd is a man of conviction. He always speaks his mind. He never minces words. He is our fiercest defender of the U.S. Constitution--in fact, he carries a pocket version of this dynamic document wherever he goes. There is no one who has loved this institution so dearly. He adores it so much he has authored four volumes about the history of the U.S. Senate. In a speech he gave earlier this year when he marked 50 years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Byrd said: ``The Senate has served our country so well because great and courageous Senators have always been willing to stay the course and keep the faith. And the Senate will continue to do so as long as there are members who understand the Senate's constitutional role and who zealously guard its powers.'' He of course leads this list. Yet Senator Byrd's highest priority has always been serving the constituents of his beloved Mountain State. As a longtime chairman and member of the Senate Appropriations Committee he has sent home millions of dollars in needed Federal funds for economic renewal and infrastructure projects. These monies have gone to build highways, dams, educational and health institutions, and Federal agency offices throughout West Virginia. He has long been a strong proponent of education. The valedictorian of his high school class, Senator Byrd has fought for teaching of ``traditional American history'' in the Nation's public school system. It is an issue true and dear to my heart as well. Today, thanks to Senator Byrd, the Department of Education awards millions of dollars each year in grants to fund training programs to improve the skills of history teachers. Senator Byrd's love of the Senate and of his fellow West Virginians knows no bounds. It is exceeded only by the love of his beloved wife Erma who passed away 3 years ago. In a statement this week marking his own milestone, Senator Byrd said ``I know that she is looking down from the heavens, smiling at me and saying congratulations my dear Robert but don't let it go to your head.'' I have had the privilege of working on the Appropriations Committee while Senator Byrd was chairman. There has been no one who has been more faithful to the Constitution, to the goals and rules of the Senate, or has served this body more honorably. I consider myself lucky to have served alongside this great statesman for 17 years. Again, congratulations Senator Byrd. You are a true American Patriot.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Mr. David C. Gompert to be the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence and urge my colleagues to support this nomination. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence unanimously approved Mr. Gompert's nomination by voice vote on October 29. The Principal Deputy DNI is an extremely important position that has two main responsibilities: 1: to assist the DNI, and 2: to act on behalf of the DNI in his absence or due to a vacancy in the position. The Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has made clear to me and to the committee his strong desire to have Mr. Gompert in place to carry out his duties. In fact, Director Blair's predecessor, Admiral Mike McConnell, told the Committee when he was in office that carrying out the DNI function requires a strong and able deputy, and that a lengthy vacancy in the PD-DNI positions was a major problem during his tenure. Mr. Gompert has made clear that he will assist Director Blair by serving as the lead intelligence official in many policymaking areas, including the numerous National Security Council meetings in which intelligence assessments play a key role. He will also have an important role to play in assuring that the National Intelligence Program, which was recently disclosed to account for $49.8 billion in fiscal year 2009, is managed well and provides to the American public the intelligence capability required to keep the nation safe and its policymakers well informed. Especially given Mr. Gompert's role in the private sector, the committee will look to him to import and insist on strong management practices to reign in troubled acquisitions, improve information sharing, and help run our intelligence apparatus as a true community and not just a collection of agencies. If confirmed, Mr. Gompert will be the third principal deputy DNI since Congress created the position in 2004. As I mentioned previously, the position has been unfilled for much of the time, so I am pleased that the President has nominated Mr. Gompert and I am also pleased he will be confirmed quickly. Mr. Gompert was nominated by President Obama on August 6, 2009--the day before Congress broke for the August Recess. After going through the pre-hearing procedures, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a confirmation hearing on the nomination on October 13, 2009. As part of the confirmation process, Mr. Gompert was asked to complete a committee questionnaire, pre-hearing questions, and post-hearing questions for the record. The answers provided by Mr. Gompert have all been posted to our committee website. From my meeting with Mr. Gompert and based on his answers to the questions put to him by members of the Intelligence Committee, I can say that Mr. Gompert has proven that he will be an excellent addition to help the Office of the Director of National Intelligence carry out all of its important responsibilities and to make continued reforms. His responses to our questions have been thoughtful and thorough. Mr. Gompert has almost 40 years of experience as a national security professional and information technology company executive. He has also served as a national security analyst in senior White House and State Department positions. Most recently, Mr. Gompert has worked in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence--ODNI--on a short-term assignment to evaluate how the ODNI's mission managers are working in practice. In that informal role, Mr. Gompert worked to identify what additional measures can be taken to facilitate mission management and other forms of cross- agency teaming of analysts and intelligence collectors. Before his service at the ODNI, Mr. Gompert was a Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation. Prior to this he was Distinguished Research Professor at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National Defense University. In 2003 he was a senior advisor for National Security and Defense to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. He has also been on the faculty of the RAND Pardee Graduate School, the United States Naval Academy, and the National Defense University. Mr. Gompert served as President of RAND Europe from 2000 to 2003, during which period he was on the RAND Europe Executive Board and the chairman of RAND Europe-UK. He was vice president of RAND and director of the National Defense Research Institute from 1993 to 2000. From 1990 to 1993, Mr. Gompert served as special assistant to President George H. W. Bush and senior director for Europe and Eurasia on the National Security Council staff. He has held a number of positions at the State Department, including deputy to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, 1982-83; deputy assistant secretary for European Affairs, 1981-82; deputy director of the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, 1977-81; and special assistant to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, 1973-75. Mr. Gompert worked as an executive in the private sector from 1983- 1990, when he held executive positions at Unisys and at AT&T. At Unisys, 1989-90, he was president of the Systems Management Group and vice president for Strategic Planning and Corporate Development. At AT&T, 1983-1989, he was vice president, civil sales and programs, and director of international market planning. Mr. Gompert holds a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from the United States Naval Academy and a Master of Public Affairs degree from the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. In sum, Mr. Gompert will be an asset to the Intelligence Community because he has worked at the intersection of intelligence and policy for much of his career. His background has provided good management experience and a unique perspective on how to address the challenges lying ahead for the Intelligence Community. I look forward to the Senate approving Mr. Gompert's nomination and I yield the Floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. Her alpine beauty has drawn and inspired people for centuries: artists and poets, John Muir and Mark Twain, and countless millions the world over. But the ``Jewel of the Sierra'' is in big trouble. If we don't act now, we could lose Lake Tahoe--lose it with stunning speed--to several devastating threats. Invasive species, such as the quagga mussel, could decimate the lake, much as it has Lake Mead. Just one quagga mussel attached to a boat could lay 1 million eggs. An infestation would devastate the lake. It would ruin its biology, foul its beaches, deliver a body blow to the regional economy. It would turn this ``noble sheet of clear water,'' as Twain put it, into just another dull, gray, polluted body of water. We must get a stranglehold on invasive species before they get a stranglehold on the lake. Catastrophic wildfires could spiral out of control and consume the basin. The Angora Fire of 2007 destroyed 242 homes and scorched 3,100 acres. It was just a wakeup call. Today, 25 percent of the basin's forests are marred by dead, downed or dying trees. These fuels-- combined with hot, tinder-dry conditions--threaten explosive wildfires that could incinerate the basin. We must make their removal a top priority. Pollution and sedimentation threaten Lake Tahoe's fabled water clarity. In 1968, the first year UC Davis scientists made measurements using a device called a Secchi disk, clarity was measured at an average depth of 102.4 feet. Clarity declined over the next three decades, hitting a low of 64 feet in 1997. We have seen improvements in this decade. This year scientists recorded average clarity at 69.6 feet-- roughly within the range of the past 8 years. Scientists say the rate of decline in Lake Tahoe's clarity has slowed. I believe we can build on this. But the gains could easily be reversed if we are not diligent. Climate change is real and adding to all these problems. It leaves the basin hot and tinder-dry, and vulnerable to wildfires. The lake's surface water temperature has risen 1.5 degrees in 38 years. That means the cyclical deep-water mixing of the lake's waters will occur less frequently, and this could significantly disrupt Lake Tahoe's ecosystem. We must face facts--we could lose Lake Tahoe. So it is with a real sense of urgency that today I join with Majority Leader Reid as he introduces sweeping legislation to attack these threats. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2009 is also cosponsored by Senators Ensign and Boxer. Representative Dean Heller of Nevada is introducing a companion in the House of Representatives. This legislation would authorize $415 million over 8 years to mount a robust attack against these threats. Against invasive species. Against catastrophic wildfires. Against the sedimentation and pollution that could forever ruin Lake Tahoe's crystal waters. With this legislation we can rise to the challenges presented by all these threats, and build upon the gains set in motion by the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000. Bottom line--this bill will help ensure the protection and preservation of Lake Tahoe, now and for future generations. Now, to see where we are headed, it's important to review where we have been. So I would like to touch on the work that's been done so far at Lake Tahoe, work that sets the foundation for the effort that lies ahead. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 set in motion a partnership between the Federal Government, the States of California and Nevada, local governments and organizations, and the private sector. All were brought together with a common purpose--to save Lake Tahoe. I am proud to have been an original sponsor, along with Senators Reid and Boxer, and then-Senator Dick Bryan. This legislation set in motion investments that have enabled us to get a foothold. These investments included $424 million by the Federal Government, $612 million by the State of California, $87 million by the State of Nevada, $59 million by local governments and $249 million by the private sector. It financed more than 300 projects under the Environmental Improvement Program, a combined Federal, State, local, and private- sector partnership to restore Lake Tahoe. One hundred eighty three more projects are in progress. We have seen improvements across the board: Water Clarity: Stormwater, erosion-control, and road improvement projects enabled us to begin to tackle the problem of sedimentation and pollution, which enters the lake and degrades its fragile water clarity. This includes improvements to 429 miles of roadways and restoring 739 acres of wetlands. As I noted a moment ago, we have seen gains in water clarity in this decade, and this year's average clarity was 69.6 feet. Scientists report that the rate of decline has slowed. But these gains could easily be reversed if we don't continue and broaden our efforts to keep sediments out of the lake. Catastrophic Wildfires: One-fourth of the forests of the Tahoe Basin are comprised of dead, downed, and dying trees. Combined with hot, tinder-dry conditions, they can feed massive wildfires that could destroy the basin. Removal of these hazardous fuels has been a priority. The Fire Safe Councils and the local Fire Departments have done good work. They deserve our continued support, and with this legislation, they will get it. As with efforts on water clarity, efforts to clear the forests of hazardous fuels, and to institute sensible fire-safe practices must be continued. So far, hazardous fuels reduction treatment has occurred on 33,549 acres, including 12,256 acres treated since 2006. In the next 8 years, we plan on treating 68,000 additional acres. Stream Restoration and Wildlife Habitat Improvement: So far more than 13,927 acres of wildlife habitat have been improved and 800 acres of Stream Environment Zones restored. This includes restoration of the Upper Truckee Watershed to reduce the flow of sedimentation into the lake, and reintroduction of the Tahoe Yellow Cress, a plant that grows no place else on Earth. Much work has been done. Much work lies ahead. It must be done, because the old threats are still there. And new ones--such as the quagga mussel--have arisen. The bill introduced today by Senator Reid is essential to continuing the good work done to date, and to meeting the threats facing the lake today. It would authorize $415 million over 8 years to improve water clarity, reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire, and restore the environment. Specifically, it would do the following: The bill provides $248 million over 8 years for the highest priority restoration projects, according to scientific data. The legislation authorizes at least $72 million for stormwater management and watershed restoration projects scientifically determined to be the most effective ways to improve water clarity. This bill also requires prioritized ranking of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $136 million for state and local agencies to implement these projects. Now-- and this is an important point--this legislation would direct investments to where it is needed most. For example, today we know the major sources of stormwater runoff that send sedimentation into the lake, degrading water clarity. So the monies would go to specific projects addressing California State roads, source of 23 percent of urban particle loads; the city of Lake Tahoe, CA, 22 percent; Washoe County, Nevada, 17 percent; and so forth. In this bill, these stormwater projects are targeted to the areas of greatest concern. Priority projects will improve water quality, forest health, air quality and fish and wildlife habitat around Lake Tahoe. In addition, projects that benefit low-income neighborhoods are encouraged. The bill authorizes $136 million over 8 years to reduce the threat of wildfire in Lake Tahoe. This would finance hazardous fuels reduction projects, at $17 million per year, including grants to local fire agencies. It provides the Forest Service up to $10 million for fuels projects that have multiple environmental benefits, with an emphasis in restoring Stream Environment Zones. This is critical because, again, these streams feed into the lake, and form a critical link in the ecosystem. We need to pay attention to these stream zones if we hope to restore water clarity. The bill also creates incentives for local communities to have dedicated funding for defensible space inspections and enforcement. This bill protects Lake Tahoe from the threat of quagga mussels and other invasive aquatic species. Quagga mussels pose a very serious threat to Lake Tahoe, a threat made more intractable because these mussels have been shown to survive in cold waters. And this summer UC scientists reported that they found up to 3,000 Asian clams per square meter at spots between Zephyr Point and Elk Point in Lake Tahoe. The spreading Asian clam population could put sharp shells and rotting algae on the lake's beaches and help spread other invasive species such as quagga mussels. The bill would authorize $20 million for watercraft inspections and removal of existing invasive species. It would also prohibit watercraft that have had contact with quagga or zebra mussel-infested waters from entering waters in the Tahoe Basin. As I noted earlier, one quagga or zebra mussel can lay 1 million eggs in a year. This means that a single boat carrying quagga could devastate the lake's biology, local infrastructure, and the local economy. The damage that could be inflicted at Lake Tahoe by a quagga infestation has been estimated in the tens of millions of dollars annually. The threat to Lake Tahoe cannot be overstated. There were no quagga mussels in Lake Mead 3 years ago. Today there are more than 3 trillion. The infestation is probably irreversible. Quagga mussels attach themselves to underwater structures and clog water intake pipes, canals, aqueducts and dams. They degrade water quality and can alter the taste and smell of drinking water. They can devastate aquatic ecosystems by consuming large amounts of microscopic plants, leaving little or nothing for native fish and other aquatic species. They are a very real threat. But the fix need not be drastic. Only about 1.5 percent of boats that have been inspected in Lake Tahoe would be prohibited from entering the lake, according to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The bill would also require that all watercraft be inspected and decontaminated to prevent the introduction of invasive aquatic species. Watercraft last launched in Lake Tahoe would be exempted. The Secretary of the Interior can modify these regulations if scientific information leads to new technologies or techniques that would be no less effective than current measures. And there's good news. There's promising news on this front. This week, scientists reported that under proper conditions, plastic ``bottom barriers'' laid on top of clam beds can kill all Asian clams living there within 28 days. We can fight off these invaders. But it will require drive and imagination--and the help authorized within this bill. The bill supports reintroduction of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The legislation authorizes $20 million over 8 years for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. The Lahontan Cutthroat Trout is an iconic species that has an important historic legacy in Lake Tahoe. When John C. Fremont first explored the Truckee River in January of 1844, he called it the Salmon Trout River because he found the Pyramid Lake Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The trout relied on the Truckee River and its tributaries for their spawning runs in spring, traveling up the entire river's length as far as Lake Tahoe and Donner Lake, where they used the cool, pristine waters and clean gravel beds to lay their eggs. But dams, pollution and overfishing caused the demise of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. Lake Tahoe is one of the historic 11 lakes where Lahontan Cutthroat Trout flourished in the past, and it's a critical part of the strategy to recover the species. The bill funds scientific research. The legislation authorizes $30 million over 8 years for scientific programs and research which will produce information on long-term trends in the basin and inform the most cost-effective projects. The bill prohibits mining operations in the Tahoe Basin. The legislation would prevent the start of any mining operations in the basin, ensuring that the fragile watershed, and Lake Tahoe's water clarity, are not threatened by pollution from mining operations. The bill increases accountability and oversight. Every project funded by this legislation will have monitoring and assessment to determine the most cost-effective projects and best management practices for future projects. The legislation also requires the Chair of the Federal Partnership to work with the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and regional and state agencies, to prepare an annual report to Congress detailing the status of all projects undertaken, including project scope, budget and justification and overall expenditures and accomplishments. This will ensure that Congress can have oversight on the progress of environmental restoration in Lake Tahoe. The bill provides for public outreach and education. The Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will implement new public outreach and education programs including encouraging basin residents and visitors to implement defensible space, conducting best management practices for water quality and preventing the introduction and proliferation of invasive species. In addition, the legislation requires signage on federally financed projects to improve public awareness of restoration efforts. The bill allows for increased efficiency in the management of public land. Under this legislation, the Forest Service would have increased flexibility to exchange land with State agencies which will allow for more cost-efficient management of public land. There is currently a checkerboard pattern of ownership in some areas of the basin. Under this new authority, the Forest Service could exchange land with the California Tahoe Conservancy of approximately equal value without going through a lengthy process to assess the land. For example, if there are several plots of Forest Service land that surround or are adjacent to Tahoe Conservancy land, the Tahoe Conservancy could transfer that land to the Forest Service so that it can be managed more efficiently. Finally, it is important to note that this bill would increase accountability and oversight. All projects funded by this legislation would be monitored and assessed to ensure cost-effectiveness. The bill would also require annual reports to Congress detailing the status of all projects--including expenditures and accomplishments. Scientific data will be used to inform every aspect of this legislation. It will help us refine and adjust our restoration programs and ensure that we fund only the highest priority projects. Let there be no doubt: Lake Tahoe is in grave danger. Grave danger from catastrophic wildfires. Grave danger from invasive species. Grave danger from sedimentation and pollution that threaten to dull her crystal waters. Mark Twain called Lake Tahoe ``the fairest picture the whole world affords.'' Mr. President, we must not be the generation that lets this picture fall into ruin. We must rise to the challenge, and do all we can to preserve the ``Jewel of the Sierra.'' This legislation will do exactly that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2009. I want to thank my cosponsors--Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, and Senator Graham--for working with me on this important legislation. The salaries of our Federal judges are eroding in their real buying power over time. This bill would solve that problem. Over the past 30 years, pay for Federal judges has declined dramatically. Since 1969, the inflation-adjusted salaries of Federal judges have dropped by 24 percent, even as other Federal workers have received an average salary increase of 18 percent. The way the pay system works now, Federal judges are at a stark disadvantage each year for receiving a cost-of-living adjustment to keep their salaries in pace with inflation. While most Federal civilian employees receive an automatic cost-of-living adjustment, Federal judges do not. Instead, they currently receive an adjustment only if Congress passes a special law and also provides an adjustment for itself. Judicial salaries should not be ensnared in Congressional-pay politics. Judges should simply be on the same system that other Federal employees are. That is what this bill would do. It would repeal ``Section 140,'' which currently requires Congress to pass a special law each year in order for judges to receive a cost-of- living adjustment; and it would provide judges with an automatic, annual cost-of-living adjustment under the same General Schedule used for other Federal civilian employees. In other words, the bill would simply put Federal judges on an even playing field. Why is this important? The drop in real pay for Federal judges has created what Chief Justice John Roberts has called ``a Constitutional crisis.'' More and more judges are being forced to leave the bench for financial reasons during what should be the peak years of their judicial careers. Recently, the Federal court for the Central District of California lost a U.S. District Judge, Stephen Larson, after only 4 years of service. Larson had been a public servant for over a decade and said that because of his large family, he was finally faced with an impossible choice: He could either continue serving the public as a judge, or he could retire from the bench in order to be able to afford a college education for his children. Judge Larson's story is not an anomaly. The Federal bench has lost 103 judges since 1990, 80 percent of whom ended up taking other, usually higher-paying, positions in the private sector. The problem is especially acute in high-cost states like California. In California, State court judges have higher salaries than Federal Article III judges. The rate at which our Federal courts are losing judges has increased by 24 percent since the 1990s, even as caseloads have gone up and the replacement process has slowed down. Departures like Judge Larson's are only half the problem. As former Federal judge and former Representative Abner Mikva has pointed out, a primary effect of the erosion of judicial salaries is to discourage our Nation's most talented lawyers from joining the bench in the first place. In 1969, the salary of a Federal district court judge was about 20 percent higher than the salary of a top law school dean and about 30 percent higher than that of a senior law professor at a top law school. Today, judges make only two-thirds the salary of similarly credentialed law professors, and half the pay of deans. In many cases, judges make less than first-year associates fresh out of law school. The bill that I am introducing today does not say that Federal judges should make as much as law firm partners or law school deans. It simply says that Federal judges should not be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis other Federal employees in getting a cost-of-living adjustment each year. It simply ensures that the salary Congress intended judges to receive will keep pace with inflation. Congress has already delayed action on this issue for too long. Our Nation now risks losing both our most experienced judges and the next generation of talented jurists. As early as 2003, the nonpartisan National Commission on the Public Service, also known as the Volcker Commission, concluded that ``the lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for the diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.'' I believe that the legislation that I am introducing today with Senators Hatch, Leahy, and Graham is a straightforward solution. It is not a raise. It is simply an assurance that judges will not have to jump through special hoops or rely on the politics of Congressional pay in order to get the cost-of-living adjustment received by other Federal employees. I do not believe that judges should expect to make the kind of salaries available to partners at private law firms. The rewards of public service are of a different kind. But we must ensure that judicial service remains a viable option for the most talented members of the bar. Basic fairness requires that judges' salaries not diminish over time. It is time to provide these critical public servants with a fair pay system that will guarantee the future health of the judiciary. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. Her alpine beauty has drawn and inspired people for centuries: artists and poets, John Muir and Mark Twain, and countless millions the world over. But the ``Jewel of the Sierra'' is in big trouble. If we don't act now, we could lose Lake Tahoe--lose it with stunning speed--to several devastating threats. Invasive species, such as the quagga mussel, could decimate the lake, much as it has Lake Mead. Just one quagga mussel attached to a boat could lay 1 million eggs. An infestation would devastate the lake. It would ruin its biology, foul its beaches, deliver a body blow to the regional economy. It would turn this ``noble sheet of clear water,'' as Twain put it, into just another dull, gray, polluted body of water. We must get a stranglehold on invasive species before they get a stranglehold on the lake. Catastrophic wildfires could spiral out of control and consume the basin. The Angora Fire of 2007 destroyed 242 homes and scorched 3,100 acres. It was just a wakeup call. Today, 25 percent of the basin's forests are marred by dead, downed or dying trees. These fuels-- combined with hot, tinder-dry conditions--threaten explosive wildfires that could incinerate the basin. We must make their removal a top priority. Pollution and sedimentation threaten Lake Tahoe's fabled water clarity. In 1968, the first year UC Davis scientists made measurements using a device called a Secchi disk, clarity was measured at an average depth of 102.4 feet. Clarity declined over the next three decades, hitting a low of 64 feet in 1997. We have seen improvements in this decade. This year scientists recorded average clarity at 69.6 feet-- roughly within the range of the past 8 years. Scientists say the rate of decline in Lake Tahoe's clarity has slowed. I believe we can build on this. But the gains could easily be reversed if we are not diligent. Climate change is real and adding to all these problems. It leaves the basin hot and tinder-dry, and vulnerable to wildfires. The lake's surface water temperature has risen 1.5 degrees in 38 years. That means the cyclical deep-water mixing of the lake's waters will occur less frequently, and this could significantly disrupt Lake Tahoe's ecosystem. We must face facts--we could lose Lake Tahoe. So it is with a real sense of urgency that today I join with Majority Leader Reid as he introduces sweeping legislation to attack these threats. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2009 is also cosponsored by Senators Ensign and Boxer. Representative Dean Heller of Nevada is introducing a companion in the House of Representatives. This legislation would authorize $415 million over 8 years to mount a robust attack against these threats. Against invasive species. Against catastrophic wildfires. Against the sedimentation and pollution that could forever ruin Lake Tahoe's crystal waters. With this legislation we can rise to the challenges presented by all these threats, and build upon the gains set in motion by the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000. Bottom line--this bill will help ensure the protection and preservation of Lake Tahoe, now and for future generations. Now, to see where we are headed, it's important to review where we have been. So I would like to touch on the work that's been done so far at Lake Tahoe, work that sets the foundation for the effort that lies ahead. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 set in motion a partnership between the Federal Government, the States of California and Nevada, local governments and organizations, and the private sector. All were brought together with a common purpose--to save Lake Tahoe. I am proud to have been an original sponsor, along with Senators Reid and Boxer, and then-Senator Dick Bryan. This legislation set in motion investments that have enabled us to get a foothold. These investments included $424 million by the Federal Government, $612 million by the State of California, $87 million by the State of Nevada, $59 million by local governments and $249 million by the private sector. It financed more than 300 projects under the Environmental Improvement Program, a combined Federal, State, local, and private- sector partnership to restore Lake Tahoe. One hundred eighty three more projects are in progress. We have seen improvements across the board: Water Clarity: Stormwater, erosion-control, and road improvement projects enabled us to begin to tackle the problem of sedimentation and pollution, which enters the lake and degrades its fragile water clarity. This includes improvements to 429 miles of roadways and restoring 739 acres of wetlands. As I noted a moment ago, we have seen gains in water clarity in this decade, and this year's average clarity was 69.6 feet. Scientists report that the rate of decline has slowed. But these gains could easily be reversed if we don't continue and broaden our efforts to keep sediments out of the lake. Catastrophic Wildfires: One-fourth of the forests of the Tahoe Basin are comprised of dead, downed, and dying trees. Combined with hot, tinder-dry conditions, they can feed massive wildfires that could destroy the basin. Removal of these hazardous fuels has been a priority. The Fire Safe Councils and the local Fire Departments have done good work. They deserve our continued support, and with this legislation, they will get it. As with efforts on water clarity, efforts to clear the forests of hazardous fuels, and to institute sensible fire-safe practices must be continued. So far, hazardous fuels reduction treatment has occurred on 33,549 acres, including 12,256 acres treated since 2006. In the next 8 years, we plan on treating 68,000 additional acres. Stream Restoration and Wildlife Habitat Improvement: So far more than 13,927 acres of wildlife habitat have been improved and 800 acres of Stream Environment Zones restored. This includes restoration of the Upper Truckee Watershed to reduce the flow of sedimentation into the lake, and reintroduction of the Tahoe Yellow Cress, a plant that grows no place else on Earth. Much work has been done. Much work lies ahead. It must be done, because the old threats are still there. And new ones--such as the quagga mussel--have arisen. The bill introduced today by Senator Reid is essential to continuing the good work done to date, and to meeting the threats facing the lake today. It would authorize $415 million over 8 years to improve water clarity, reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire, and restore the environment. Specifically, it would do the following: The bill provides $248 million over 8 years for the highest priority restoration projects, according to scientific data. The legislation authorizes at least $72 million for stormwater management and watershed restoration projects scientifically determined to be the most effective ways to improve water clarity. This bill also requires prioritized ranking of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $136 million for state and local agencies to implement these projects. Now-- and this is an important point--this legislation would direct investments to where it is needed most. For example, today we know the major sources of stormwater runoff that send sedimentation into the lake, degrading water clarity. So the monies would go to specific projects addressing California State roads, source of 23 percent of urban particle loads; the city of Lake Tahoe, CA, 22 percent; Washoe County, Nevada, 17 percent; and so forth. In this bill, these stormwater projects are targeted to the areas of greatest concern. Priority projects will improve water quality, forest health, air quality and fish and wildlife habitat around Lake Tahoe. In addition, projects that benefit low-income neighborhoods are encouraged. The bill authorizes $136 million over 8 years to reduce the threat of wildfire in Lake Tahoe. This would finance hazardous fuels reduction projects, at $17 million per year, including grants to local fire agencies. It provides the Forest Service up to $10 million for fuels projects that have multiple environmental benefits, with an emphasis in restoring Stream Environment Zones. This is critical because, again, these streams feed into the lake, and form a critical link in the ecosystem. We need to pay attention to these stream zones if we hope to restore water clarity. The bill also creates incentives for local communities to have dedicated funding for defensible space inspections and enforcement. This bill protects Lake Tahoe from the threat of quagga mussels and other invasive aquatic species. Quagga mussels pose a very serious threat to Lake Tahoe, a threat made more intractable because these mussels have been shown to survive in cold waters. And this summer UC scientists reported that they found up to 3,000 Asian clams per square meter at spots between Zephyr Point and Elk Point in Lake Tahoe. The spreading Asian clam population could put sharp shells and rotting algae on the lake's beaches and help spread other invasive species such as quagga mussels. The bill would authorize $20 million for watercraft inspections and removal of existing invasive species. It would also prohibit watercraft that have had contact with quagga or zebra mussel-infested waters from entering waters in the Tahoe Basin. As I noted earlier, one quagga or zebra mussel can lay 1 million eggs in a year. This means that a single boat carrying quagga could devastate the lake's biology, local infrastructure, and the local economy. The damage that could be inflicted at Lake Tahoe by a quagga infestation has been estimated in the tens of millions of dollars annually. The threat to Lake Tahoe cannot be overstated. There were no quagga mussels in Lake Mead 3 years ago. Today there are more than 3 trillion. The infestation is probably irreversible. Quagga mussels attach themselves to underwater structures and clog water intake pipes, canals, aqueducts and dams. They degrade water quality and can alter the taste and smell of drinking water. They can devastate aquatic ecosystems by consuming large amounts of microscopic plants, leaving little or nothing for native fish and other aquatic species. They are a very real threat. But the fix need not be drastic. Only about 1.5 percent of boats that have been inspected in Lake Tahoe would be prohibited from entering the lake, according to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The bill would also require that all watercraft be inspected and decontaminated to prevent the introduction of invasive aquatic species. Watercraft last launched in Lake Tahoe would be exempted. The Secretary of the Interior can modify these regulations if scientific information leads to new technologies or techniques that would be no less effective than current measures. And there's good news. There's promising news on this front. This week, scientists reported that under proper conditions, plastic ``bottom barriers'' laid on top of clam beds can kill all Asian clams living there within 28 days. We can fight off these invaders. But it will require drive and imagination--and the help authorized within this bill. The bill supports reintroduction of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The legislation authorizes $20 million over 8 years for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. The Lahontan Cutthroat Trout is an iconic species that has an important historic legacy in Lake Tahoe. When John C. Fremont first explored the Truckee River in January of 1844, he called it the Salmon Trout River because he found the Pyramid Lake Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The trout relied on the Truckee River and its tributaries for their spawning runs in spring, traveling up the entire river's length as far as Lake Tahoe and Donner Lake, where they used the cool, pristine waters and clean gravel beds to lay their eggs. But dams, pollution and overfishing caused the demise of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. Lake Tahoe is one of the historic 11 lakes where Lahontan Cutthroat Trout flourished in the past, and it's a critical part of the strategy to recover the species. The bill funds scientific research. The legislation authorizes $30 million over 8 years for scientific programs and research which will produce information on long-term trends in the basin and inform the most cost-effective projects. The bill prohibits mining operations in the Tahoe Basin. The legislation would prevent the start of any mining operations in the basin, ensuring that the fragile watershed, and Lake Tahoe's water clarity, are not threatened by pollution from mining operations. The bill increases accountability and oversight. Every project funded by this legislation will have monitoring and assessment to determine the most cost-effective projects and best management practices for future projects. The legislation also requires the Chair of the Federal Partnership to work with the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and regional and state agencies, to prepare an annual report to Congress detailing the status of all projects undertaken, including project scope, budget and justification and overall expenditures and accomplishments. This will ensure that Congress can have oversight on the progress of environmental restoration in Lake Tahoe. The bill provides for public outreach and education. The Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will implement new public outreach and education programs including encouraging basin residents and visitors to implement defensible space, conducting best management practices for water quality and preventing the introduction and proliferation of invasive species. In addition, the legislation requires signage on federally financed projects to improve public awareness of restoration efforts. The bill allows for increased efficiency in the management of public land. Under this legislation, the Forest Service would have increased flexibility to exchange land with State agencies which will allow for more cost-efficient management of public land. There is currently a checkerboard pattern of ownership in some areas of the basin. Under this new authority, the Forest Service could exchange land with the California Tahoe Conservancy of approximately equal value without going through a lengthy process to assess the land. For example, if there are several plots of Forest Service land that surround or are adjacent to Tahoe Conservancy land, the Tahoe Conservancy could transfer that land to the Forest Service so that it can be managed more efficiently. Finally, it is important to note that this bill would increase accountability and oversight. All projects funded by this legislation would be monitored and assessed to ensure cost-effectiveness. The bill would also require annual reports to Congress detailing the status of all projects--including expenditures and accomplishments. Scientific data will be used to inform every aspect of this legislation. It will help us refine and adjust our restoration programs and ensure that we fund only the highest priority projects. Let there be no doubt: Lake Tahoe is in grave danger. Grave danger from catastrophic wildfires. Grave danger from invasive species. Grave danger from sedimentation and pollution that threaten to dull her crystal waters. Mark Twain called Lake Tahoe ``the fairest picture the whole world affords.'' Mr. President, we must not be the generation that lets this picture fall into ruin. We must rise to the challenge, and do all we can to preserve the ``Jewel of the Sierra.'' This legislation will do exactly that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2009. I want to thank my cosponsors--Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, and Senator Graham--for working with me on this important legislation. The salaries of our Federal judges are eroding in their real buying power over time. This bill would solve that problem. Over the past 30 years, pay for Federal judges has declined dramatically. Since 1969, the inflation-adjusted salaries of Federal judges have dropped by 24 percent, even as other Federal workers have received an average salary increase of 18 percent. The way the pay system works now, Federal judges are at a stark disadvantage each year for receiving a cost-of-living adjustment to keep their salaries in pace with inflation. While most Federal civilian employees receive an automatic cost-of-living adjustment, Federal judges do not. Instead, they currently receive an adjustment only if Congress passes a special law and also provides an adjustment for itself. Judicial salaries should not be ensnared in Congressional-pay politics. Judges should simply be on the same system that other Federal employees are. That is what this bill would do. It would repeal ``Section 140,'' which currently requires Congress to pass a special law each year in order for judges to receive a cost-of- living adjustment; and it would provide judges with an automatic, annual cost-of-living adjustment under the same General Schedule used for other Federal civilian employees. In other words, the bill would simply put Federal judges on an even playing field. Why is this important? The drop in real pay for Federal judges has created what Chief Justice John Roberts has called ``a Constitutional crisis.'' More and more judges are being forced to leave the bench for financial reasons during what should be the peak years of their judicial careers. Recently, the Federal court for the Central District of California lost a U.S. District Judge, Stephen Larson, after only 4 years of service. Larson had been a public servant for over a decade and said that because of his large family, he was finally faced with an impossible choice: He could either continue serving the public as a judge, or he could retire from the bench in order to be able to afford a college education for his children. Judge Larson's story is not an anomaly. The Federal bench has lost 103 judges since 1990, 80 percent of whom ended up taking other, usually higher-paying, positions in the private sector. The problem is especially acute in high-cost states like California. In California, State court judges have higher salaries than Federal Article III judges. The rate at which our Federal courts are losing judges has increased by 24 percent since the 1990s, even as caseloads have gone up and the replacement process has slowed down. Departures like Judge Larson's are only half the problem. As former Federal judge and former Representative Abner Mikva has pointed out, a primary effect of the erosion of judicial salaries is to discourage our Nation's most talented lawyers from joining the bench in the first place. In 1969, the salary of a Federal district court judge was about 20 percent higher than the salary of a top law school dean and about 30 percent higher than that of a senior law professor at a top law school. Today, judges make only two-thirds the salary of similarly credentialed law professors, and half the pay of deans. In many cases, judges make less than first-year associates fresh out of law school. The bill that I am introducing today does not say that Federal judges should make as much as law firm partners or law school deans. It simply says that Federal judges should not be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis other Federal employees in getting a cost-of-living adjustment each year. It simply ensures that the salary Congress intended judges to receive will keep pace with inflation. Congress has already delayed action on this issue for too long. Our Nation now risks losing both our most experienced judges and the next generation of talented jurists. As early as 2003, the nonpartisan National Commission on the Public Service, also known as the Volcker Commission, concluded that ``the lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for the diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.'' I believe that the legislation that I am introducing today with Senators Hatch, Leahy, and Graham is a straightforward solution. It is not a raise. It is simply an assurance that judges will not have to jump through special hoops or rely on the politics of Congressional pay in order to get the cost-of-living adjustment received by other Federal employees. I do not believe that judges should expect to make the kind of salaries available to partners at private law firms. The rewards of public service are of a different kind. But we must ensure that judicial service remains a viable option for the most talented members of the bar. Basic fairness requires that judges' salaries not diminish over time. It is time to provide these critical public servants with a fair pay system that will guarantee the future health of the judiciary. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, since most people have some form of health insurance, I decided, after many calls from constituents who have said to me: I can't afford a 20-percent increase in my medical health insurance premium; I had a 10-percent one last year, I began to look into the history of the medical insurance industry in America. I have come to the floor to discuss the current state of the private, publicly owned, for-profit health insurance industry and the ways this system must be changed during health care reform. Bottom line: Our country is the biggest health care spender in the world. In return, we get very average results. It wasn't always this way in America. I wish, for a moment, to briefly review the history of health insurance in our country. Because understanding its development and its transition to the for-profit, commercial health insurance model is actually critical to this debate. The story began to take shape about 90 years ago. There were very few health insurance plans before the 1920s. As a matter of fact, there was not much in the way of medical services to insure. Options for medical care were primitive by today's standards. In 1900, the average American spent $5 each year on health care-related expenses. This amounts to roughly $100 in today's dollars. Health insurance was not necessary because the cost of care was low. Over 90 percent of medical expenses were paid out of pocket. Most patients were treated in their homes, and medical technology and treatment options were very limited. The earliest private health insurance plans in the United States were fairly basic agreements, primarily sponsored through employers or unions. Employers deducted funds from participating workers' salaries and contracted with local physicians for treatment. During the 1920s, medical technology was advancing and the treatment of acute illnesses shifted from homes to hospitals. But on the heels of the Great Depression, an increasing number of Americans were unable to afford medical services, which were becoming more costly. In 1929, the Baylor University Hospital developed a plan to guarantee affordable treatment options for patients while ensuring a steady stream of revenue for the hospital. According to author Paul Starr, the Baylor plan provided up to 21 days of hospital care and certain services to 1,500 local teachers in Dallas, TX, for $6 a year or 50 cents a month, if we can believe it. A hospital official promoting the plan at the time said: We spend a dollar or so at a time for cosmetics and do not notice the high cost. The ribbon-counter clerk can pay 50 cents, 75 cents or $1 a month, yet it would take about 20 years to set aside [enough money for] a large hospital bill. The Baylor plan proved popular and was soon expanded. It served as the foundation for what would become Blue Cross, the first example of a major, nonprofit medical insurance provider. Throughout the 1930s, the number of Blue Cross plans grew and enrollments expanded. By 1937, 1 million subscribers were covered. In response to the lack of coverage by Blue Cross for physician services, in 1939, the precursor to Blue Shield, called the California Physicians Service, was developed. This plan reimbursed physicians for the cost of services based on negotiated payment schedules. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 1945, nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans had expanded to cover 19 million subscribers nationally in most States. These nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans dominated the health insurance industry. At this same moment, Congress was reviewing the matter of insurance regulation, generally. In 1945, after significant lobbying by the industry, the McCarran- Ferguson Act was enacted. By passing this law, the Federal Government committed to a hands-off approach to insurance regulation, generally, including the regulation of for-profit, commercial health insurance companies. This is where things began to change. The McCarran-Ferguson Act gave States, not the Federal Government, primary responsibility for overseeing the insurance business. It meant, as a practical matter, that whether insurance companies would be regulated forcefully or with little care would be left up to individual insurance commissioners in each of the 50 States. Additionally, the McCarran-Ferguson Act included a specific antitrust exemption for the business of medical insurance. As a result, practices such as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation, prohibited by Federal law in every other industry, were left up to the States and their enforcement mechanisms. If insurance companies colluded to raise prices above competitive levels, Federal officials would not and could not investigate or intervene. All regulation was up to the States and, in fact, very little regulation has taken place. During World War II, for-profit, employer-based health insurance plans expanded rapidly and took a firm hold in our country. Due to price and wage controls, employers competed for workers by offering health insurance benefits. In 1944, the unemployment rate was 2 percent. Additionally, unions were able to collectively bargain health insurance benefits and employer contributions for health insurance which were excluded from a worker's taxable income. By the 1950s, for- profit commercial health insurers, such as Aetna and the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, known now as CIGNA, became very active. Then things started to change. The market share of Blue Cross and Blue Shield was significantly reduced in many parts of the country. As of 1953, commercial insurers provided hospital insurance to 29 percent of Americans versus Blue Cross's 27 percent. The widespread entry of commercial insurance into the health insurance market had a dramatic impact. First, the commercial health insurers did not operate under the same rate restrictions as Blue Cross. Second, Blue Cross premium rates were based on the average cost of medical services in a defined geographic area or community. Commercial insurers, on the other hand, calculated premiums based upon the claims of particular groups or individuals and adjusted these premiums each year depending on their health status. This also allowed commercial insurers to evaluate coverage on an individual rather than use the community rating system of Blue Cross. Therefore, commercial insurers were able to underbid Blue Cross for firms with very healthy workers who were cheaper to insure. Right then and there, we begin to see the skewing of the system away from a community rate toward an individual assessment; whereby companies could cherry-pick only the healthiest and, therefore, make more money. The loss of these healthier groups then raised average costs among the remaining employees, placing Blue Cross at a competitive disadvantage with commercial insurers. This competition from commercial insurers eventually resulted in Blue Cross changing the way its premiums were calculated. The single, community-wide premium pricing model was replaced in favor of the commercial approach. This shift toward charging premiums based on claims of particular groups or individuals changed the nature of competition in the health insurance market. Insurers could reduce costs by shifting risk and recruiting employers with healthier workers, and they did. Furthermore, because they could choose whom to insure, many large, for-profit commercial insurers left the individual market altogether in favor of large-scale employers because they carried lower operating costs. Where does that leave us today? Today we have a health insurance industry where the first and foremost goal is to maximize profits for shareholders and CEOs, not to cover patients who have fallen ill or to compensate doctors and hospitals for their services. It is an industry that is increasingly concentrated and where Americans are paying more to receive less. Here is the bottom line: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in the last 9 years, American families have seen their health insurance premiums more than double, while benefits have been getting worse and the industry has been growing less competitive. A snapshot of the American health insurance industry today presents an alarming picture. As of 2007, just two carriers--WellPoint and UnitedHealth Group--had gained control of 36 percent of the national market for commercial health insurance. Both these companies had more than doubled since 2000. Since 1998, there have been more than 400 mergers--that is in 11 years--400 mergers of health insurance companies, as larger carriers have purchased, absorbed, and enveloped smaller competitors. In 2004 and 2005 alone, this industry had 28 mergers, valued at more than $53 billion. That is more merger activity in health insurance than in the 8 previous years combined. Today, according to a study by the American Medical Association, more than 94 percent of American health insurance markets are highly concentrated under U.S. Department of Justice guidelines. This means these companies could raise premiums or reduce benefits with little fear that consumers will end their contracts and move to a more competitive carrier. In 10 States--Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming, these 10 States--two health insurance companies control 80 percent or more of the State market. So 10 States, 2 health insurance companies control more than 80 percent of the statewide market. In my State of California--nearly 40 million people--just two companies--WellPoint and Kaiser Permanente--control more than 58 percent of the market. The market presence of these two companies is up a combined 14 percent in 1 year. Let me repeat that. The market presence of two companies in California is up 14 percent in 1 year. When you look at specific health markets, the situation is even worse. In 2007, the two largest health insurance companies in Bakersfield, CA, controlled 76 percent of the market there. In Salinas, the top two controlled 65 percent. In Los Angeles, the top two carriers controlled 51 percent of the market. This is a huge market. It is a 12- million-person market, and two companies control over half of that insurance market. The American Medical Association described it this way: The United States is headed toward a system dominated by a few publicly traded companies that operate in the interest of shareholders and not primarily in the interest of patients. I think that is a very sobering statement. The effects of this market concentration are being felt by consumers and families. They are being felt by American businesses. They are being felt by doctors and health care providers. Premiums are skyrocketing for employers and for individuals trying to buy health insurance. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, since 1999, the average health insurance premium has more than doubled, rising 119 percent. That is an increase of four times the national wage growth over the same period and more than four times the rate of inflation. So it is ``open sesame.'' This is an amazing factor. Between 1999 and 2007, the average American worker saw his wages increase 29 percent. His insurance premiums rose more than 120 percent during that same period. This is how disproportionate it is, and it is wrong. For some people, this means their employer is paying more and struggling more to stay in business. For some, it means they are personally paying more and struggling to make ends meet. For some, it means they have been forced to join the ever-growing group of 47 million Americans who simply cannot afford health insurance coverage today. While premiums are going up, there is no evidence coverage is improving. We have heard countless stories from consumers about the way insurers are cutting costs and saving money by denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, rescinding care when people fall ill and haggling administratively over coverage and benefits. These stories come from health care providers too. When just a few companies control the market, physicians and hospitals have fewer places to turn when they believe they are not being reimbursed fairly. Just as American families and their employers have fewer choices for purchasing insurance, health care providers have less bargaining power over reimbursement rates. The net result is, consumers and health care providers are losing out, while health insurance companies and their shareholders are bringing in record profits. According to Health Care for America Now, between 2000 and 2007, profits at the 10 largest publicly traded health insurance companies soared up 428 percent, from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $12.9 billion in 2007. The CEOs of these companies took in record earnings. In 2007, these 10 CEOs made a combined $118.6 million. The CEO of CIGNA took home $25.8 million. The CEO of Aetna took home $23 million. The CEO of UnitedHealth took home $13.2 million. The CEO of WellPoint took home $9.1 million. This history, and this failed market, is a uniquely American story. I recently read ``The Healing of America'' by T.R. Reid. He is a former Washington Post journalist who has a bum shoulder. So he decided he would go from country to country and go to doctors in that country, examine their health care sector, see what would help him, what they recommended, and it is a very interesting book. He writes about the health care systems of the countries he visits. A few things are clear. First, as Reid says: The United States is the only developed country that relies on profit-making health insurance companies to pay for essential and elective care. So in every country that has health care reform--the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Germany, Canada--the United States is the only one that allows this open, ribald, for-profit health insurance industry that we do in this country. Profit-seeking motives do influence insurance companies. Today, insurance companies have a financial reason to deny coverage to people who may actually get sick, so they exclude people with even the most minor preexisting conditions. Secondly, if you get sick, insurance companies will comb through past records to find a reason to retroactively deny coverage. This means people lose their health coverage when they need it the most. In other nations, with not-for-profit insurance, there is no motivation for companies to engage in these practices. Everyone is covered regardless of his or her health history. This allows risk to be effectively spread across the entire population. Other countries accomplish this with employer responsibility and an individual requirement to become part of the insurance system. A few examples: In Germany, most people enroll in sickness funds, with premiums split between workers and employers. Only the very wealthy can opt out to buy separate insurance. In Switzerland, everyone must purchase basic, nonprofit insurance. Companies can only make a profit on the extra benefits they sell, such as for cosmetic surgery or a private room in a hospital, but not by providing basic coverage. In France, everyone is enrolled in one of several large health insurance funds, which are closely regulated by the federal government. In the United Kingdom, everyone is automatically covered by the National Health Service. Americans like to criticize other nations' systems as bureaucratic. But in truth, it is our system that is wasteful and inefficient. Many other countries are able to deliver better health care for lower prices than we do currently. I wish to point this out. As T.R. Reid points out, our system, with for-profit insurance and medical underwriting, has some of the highest administrative costs in the world because, in the United States, roughly 20 percent of every premium dollar is spent on administration. This includes advertising, profits, and paperwork--20 percent goes to this. Let's compare this: Canada, on the other hand, spends about 6 percent. France spends about 5 percent. One of France's advantages comes from an electronic form, a personal health record. It is called the Carte Vitale. Here is a picture of it I have in the Chamber. I had actually asked some of my family, newly returned from living in France for a long time, if they would send me their actual Carte Vitale, which I have seen. Unfortunately, they have not arrived. But, as shown in this picture, this is what they look like. As shown on this part of the picture, this is a small chip. In this chip is the entire medical history of a patient--every shot received, every diagnosis made, everything about the patient. So the patient goes in for a physician's visit, which costs about $27 in France today, and the doctor takes the Carte Vitale, puts it into his computer, and the entire background of the individual pops up. Let's say he prescribes certain medication. That then goes into this small chip. Every French citizen over the age of 15 carries a Carte Vitale, which has taken the place of the walls of paper records we see at our physicians' offices in this country. Also, this system allows French physicians to bill automatically for the care they provide without paperwork or bureaucracy. The Carte Vitale has helped the French achieve what many consider to be the world's best health care system. As we have seen, other industrialized nations spend less on administrative costs. They have nonprofit insurance. They use employers and individual responsibility to provide basic health care to everyone. This structure does, by independent analysis, provide better results because, whatever the indicator, the United States lags behind the rest of the industrialized world. This is painful, but I believe we have to look at it. According to the World Health Organization, France leads the world in overall system performance, followed by Italy. America is 37th. These are the top health care systems: France, Italy--and, as you can see, the rest. We are No. 37. In avoidable mortality, which measures a system's effectiveness in caring for people who contract a potentially serious medical condition, again, France tops the list, again, followed by Japan. The United States is 15th. The United States lags other developed nations in infant mortality. Here it is, as shown on this chart. This is according to the Commonwealth Fund. The leader is Japan, with 3 deaths per 1,000 births. We are No. 22 on that list. This is surprising because you would think, particularly with infant mortality, we would be a real leader, but we are not. To summarize, I think action is needed. Other countries are far from perfect, and I am not saying anything other than that. But these lessons show that high-quality health care can be delivered for less than we currently spend. Our system of relying on for-profit medical insurance, I believe, is broken. We are spending more for worse results than the rest of the world. That is what I hope to show. That is why it is essential that we take action, and take action now. I basically believe the medical insurance industry should be nonprofit, not profit-making. There is no way a health reform plan will work when it is implemented by an industry that seeks to return money to shareholders instead of using that money to provide health care. This is difficult to accomplish today, but there are a number of steps that can be taken in this direction. The first is to repeal the antitrust exemption. I believe we must take strong action to stop illegal, anti-competitive activity in the industry. The Justice Department currently has authority to review certain health insurance mergers. But although almost 400 health insurance mergers took place during the past administration, the Department brought challenges to only two of those mergers. Even those that were challenged were later allowed to proceed with relatively minor adjustments. When a dominant market player tries to subsume a smaller competitor, the Justice Department should review the acquisition carefully to ensure that consumers, employers, and health care providers still have bargaining power. We should also repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies. This exception is a relic of the past, and it has no current justification. The Justice Department should be able to investigate and sue health insurance companies when they engage in price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocation. These kinds of collusive activities are not fair play. They are not allowed in other industries, and they should not be allowed in this one. I also believe a public option is an essential piece of any effort. It will provide robust, nonprofit competition for an industry that is broken and profit-ridden. In concentrated markets, the public option will provide consumers with real choice. Remember, the largest market in America is the Los Angeles market, and a majority of that market is controlled by two health insurance companies. Because it will not attempt to make a profit, the public option will not turn anyone away. It may be able to charge lower premiums because its goal will be to provide health care coverage, not to return profits to shareholders. Whether it is opt-in or opt-out, States that strongly object to providing nonprofit competition to residents should have the opportunity not to participate. But make no mistake; the public option alone will not solve our Nation's problem with health care. It will be available to a relatively few Americans at first. Only those who will purchase insurance in newly created exchanges will have the opportunity to buy it. But I believe it is a building block as we work to construct a new system. In addition to creating a public option, we must put health insurance companies on a path toward more responsible behavior. That is why I am proposing a Federal medical insurance rate authority. My proposal for a medical insurance rate authority builds on the successful and well-accepted model of utility commissions. Throughout this country, providers of gas, water, and electricity need to justify any proposed rate increase. This is required because the services they provide--water, gas, and power--are considered necessities for life. Well, are they more a necessity for life than health insurance? I don't think so. Health insurance should be no different. Access to affordable medical care is certainly a necessity of life. Under my proposal, the Federal Government would be required to establish a medical insurance rate authority which would oversee premiums charged by the for-profit medical insurance industry. Premium increases above a certain threshold would need to be approved. The medical insurance rate authority would conduct basic oversight insuring that premium funds are spent on medical care and not for profit or overhead. These safeguards will ensure that the health insurance industry does not continue their pattern of astronomic premium increases. It is fair for the price of insurance to reflect the actual price of medical care, but it is not fair for insurance companies to increase their profits while Americans pay higher and higher premiums. It has taken many decades for our health system to evolve and break down as it has, and we cannot expect to fix it overnight. We need to remember what health insurance originally was in this country, nonprofit; and what it is around the world, nonprofit; and a way to ensure that people can get basic care to stay healthy and they are protected from financial ruin when they get sick. I believe strongly this must be the underlying goal of any health reform the Senate approves this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of sources be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Before he does, Madam President----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. The Senator from Tennessee is the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I alert the Senate that time is running on the bill. It is 2 hours, equally divided. Let me ask the Parliamentarian this question: How much time remains on the Interior appropriations bill, and how much time has the Republican side used to this moment?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Just so you know.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am very pleased to be at this moment. I join with my distinguished colleague, Senator Alexander, as we begin consideration of the conference report on the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This is the first year Senator Alexander and I have worked together as chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I am happy to say it has been a very good experience. We consulted on several occasions and worked through several different issues as we crafted the original Senate bill and then again as we went to conference with the House, which I must say was a difficult conference. As a result, though, I think we have produced a bill that is fair, balanced, and workable. I personally thank him for all his work and cooperation. The Interior conference report totals $32.2 billion in nonemergency discretionary spending. That amount is $4.6 billion above the equivalent 2009 level but $60 million below the President's request. It is consistent with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. As everybody knows, each appropriations subcommittee receives an amount within which they must produce an appropriations bill. We met our allocation. The problem was, the allocation for the House committee was $200 million bigger than our allocation. Then with some other items the House put in which raised it about $300 million, it was very difficult to reconcile the two bills. I will not go through each and every line item, but I would like to emphasize the great strides we have been able to make in five specific areas: water and sewer infrastructure; wildfire suppression and prevention of fire on public lands; bolstering our public land management agencies; investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and helping the most vulnerable in Indian country. First, this conference report provides $3.6 billion for water and sewer infrastructure projects. That is a very significant increase over last year's level of $1.6 billion. In fact, this is the largest single commitment of funds that has ever been provided in an annual appropriations bill for these necessary and very basic infrastructure projects. And as you will hear, we are infrastructure short in this Nation. I am a former mayor. I remember the day before bottled water. I remember the day when you could drink water right out of the tap. What we have seen is a deterioration in this infrastructure all throughout this great country. And when you factor in the $6 billion that was included in the stimulus, we are providing nearly $10 billion this calendar year to our State and local water authorities. That is a major investment, and one I believe both of us are very pleased to have achieved. Senator Alexander was a Governor, I was a mayor, and we know the importance of water and sewers. This money will allow our State and local water authorities to begin to tackle 1,479 wastewater and drinking water projects across this Nation. For those of you who might not be aware, the Environmental Protection Agency, which administers these grants, has estimated that over a 20- year period our communities will need to spend over $660 billion for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure repair and renovation. Obviously, we can't provide that level of funding during tough budgetary times. But what we were able to provide will go a long way toward helping our communities tackle their crumbling infrastructure and provide their residents with more reliable and cleaner water. Secondly, the bill provides $1.8 billion for wild land fire suppression activities--a very big deal. It is very important that we are providing that level of funding because that is the amount that was actually spent, on average, in each of the last 3 fiscal years. The problem is it wasn't budgeted for. So these big roaring fires take place and then everybody has to scramble to transfer funds to be able not only to fight the fires but to replace the money. The conference report includes critical firefighting budget reform as part of the FLAME Act of 2009, which was championed by Senator Bingaman. This act will help create a dedicated, steady, predictable funding stream for wildfire suppression activities. As part of the $1.8 billion provided for fire suppression, the bill contains $474 million for the FLAME Fund reserve accounts for the Forest Service and Department of Interior. These FLAME Funds have been established to cover the costs of large or complex wildfire events and as a reserve when amounts of firefighting funds from the agencies' regular fire appropriations accounts are exhausted. So it is a reserve fund for big fires, of which we are having plenty in the West. In addition to fully funding fire suppression, the conference report also includes $110 million in grants to help States fund their own firefighting and fuels reduction efforts. That is a 22-percent increase over the 2009 level. It provides $556 million for hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal lands nationwide. That is a 7-percent increase over last year. These funds together will allow the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to treat 3\1/2\ million acres of fire-prone Federal lands. One of the things we know is that the past policy of suppressing fires--letting everything grow until they become a combustible mix that burns hotter, heavier, and longer--has to change. So to work these lands, to manage these lands, to remove hazardous fuels, is a real effort to protect our forests and our wild lands. Third, the bill shores up our public land management agencies by providing a total of $6 billion for basic operations and backlog maintenance at our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and on Bureau of Land Management lands. For too long we have neglected these agencies and forced program cuts on them by underfunding the fixed costs they incur this year. That is not done this year. Both the ranking member and I are very proud of that. Included in these funds are $2.3 billion for basic operations of 391 national parks, an increase of $130 million. I think all of us would agree that our national parks are the crown jewels of this Nation. People go there by the tens of millions. For many, it is the only vacation they have. For most, it is a revelation of the amazing beauty of this great country. These monies will allow the Park Service to continue utilizing the 3,000 seasonal employees who have made a real difference in the condition and enjoyment of our parks. Additional maintenance personnel, law enforcement officers, park rangers will all be brought back as a way of enhancing the visitor experience now and preparing our parks for the centennial in 2016. In particular, I want to point out that the funding being provided in this bill will allow the Park Service to continue the drug eradication program started last year. This is a huge problem. In our vast national parks, Mexican nationals have come in. They are armed, they are dangerous, and they essentially grow acres upon acres of marijuana and then protect that marijuana. It is a real problem. So task forces have been put together--state, Federal, and local--to go into these parks and essentially roust the growers and arrest them. This effort isn't limited to the Park Service. Included in the $1.56 billion that this bill provides for operations of the national forests is a new $10 million increase for the Forest Service's law enforcement program. These funds mean that the service will be able to hire up to 50 new law enforcement officers to battle the epidemic of marijuana in our parks and on public lands. Fourth, the bill increases the protection and conservation of sensitive lands by providing $450 million through the Land and Water Conservation Fund--and that is an important fund for all of us-- consisting of $278 million set aside for the four Federal land management agencies for conservation of sensitive lands that provide habitat to wildlife and recreation to visitors; $76 million for conservation easements through the forest legacy program; $56 million for acquisitions associated with habitat conservation plans; and $40 million for State grants through the Park Service's State assistance program. Finally, the bill helps some of the most vulnerable among us by providing a total of $6.7 billion for the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That is an 11-percent increase over the 2009 level and includes increases of $471 million in direct health care services; $81 million in K-12 and college education programs; and $58 million in law enforcement programs, which will allow for additional police officer staffing on streets and in detention centers. With these funds, more than 10,000 additional doctor visits will take place that would otherwise not happen. This means additional well baby care to prevent problems before they happen. It means additional alcohol and substance abuse treatment, which is truly a plague in Indian country. It means additional public health nursing visits to those in the rural areas. Funding provided through the Bureau of Indian Affairs will improve programs and infrastructure at the Bureau's 183 schools. Interestingly enough, the $81 million increase in education programs will allow the Bureau to substantially increase the number of schools that meet the adequate yearly progress goals spelled out in the No Child Left Behind Act. For the first time, nearly half of all schools will meet this milestone. Half. That is very good. Additional funding for law enforcement programs will allow the Bureau to increase staffing throughout Indian country. The bill makes a major increase in funds for repair and rehabilitation of detention facilities, and funds will allow the Bureau to repair several local facilities so that officers spend less time in transit and more time on the streets. Let me speak of some of the problem areas. The first one was Davis- Bacon. Davis-Bacon is prevailing rate standards for, in this case, water and sewer projects. The second area is emission control requirements for the Great Lakes. And third is restrictions on the reporting of emissions from, of all things, manure management systems. Let me speak about Davis-Bacon. The House put in their bill a permanent extension of Davis-Bacon. That was clearly a problem. Therefore, the agreement--and thanks to the ranking member--was that the bill simply would contain a 1-year extension. In other words, Davis-Bacon would be included for water and sewer infrastructure for the fiscal year 2010. We compromised on that. I have always supported Davis-Bacon. I believe that prevailing rates should apply to these programs. But I also believe this is very much a necessary compromise, and it will serve as a bridge to allow the House and Senate authorizing committees--which is, after all, the proper place for this--to enact the necessary legislation. The conference report also includes language that would exempt 13 steamships on the Great Lakes from certain marine fuel requirements. This was language that was included at the insistence of the House. Frankly, it was not my preference to include this language, but I understand Members from the Great Lakes States are very concerned about the economic impact of pending EPA emission control regulations on these 13 older ships. After substantial negotiation and discussion with EPA, we have crafted a narrowly tailored compromise that recognizes these concerns in report language but will not impact air quality in California or any other seaboard city, or interfere with the ability of EPA to negotiate international controls on emissions from other oceangoing vessels. I must say, this is a very important thing to California. In the L.A. port area--this is the area where 40 percent of all of the Nation's container ships come in--there is a real and growing asthma problem. Being able to regulate these ships is critical to pollution. Not only that, the L.A. basin is one of the two worst nonattainment areas in the Nation and in a few years will have sanctions on them because they cannot meet attainment standards. Therefore, being able to improve the emissions on these ships is important. Third, the conference report includes language proposed by the House that exempts all manure management systems from reporting greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA for 1 year. I believe the Senate version, which requires 90 of the Nation's largest factory farms to report on their greenhouse gas emissions while protecting family farmers from reporting, was a better approach. But in the interest of moving this bill we had to agree to the House language. There is, however, one important point that must be made. The language contained in the conference report will still allow EPA to implement its underlying reporting rule and get good data on greenhouse gas emissions from nonagricultural sectors of the economy. Finally, let me mention the CR, contained in division B of this conference agreement. As Members know, the current CR expires at midnight on Friday, which is why it is critical that we pass this conference report and get it to the White House to be signed into law. Without passage of the CR, the government shuts down. It is that simple. And no one believes this is an option. When the Social Security checks don't go out, Medicare and everything else stops, it is a real problem. As agreed to by the House and Senate leadership--not the ranking member and I, but the House and Senate leadership--this new CR will provide funding through December 18. That should allow enough time for the remaining appropriations bills to be completed--we hope. All in all, this is a good bill. It is the product of a lot of hard work by Members in both the Senate and the House. I sincerely hope we could adopt what has been agreed to by the House and get this bill to the President. I again thank my distinguished colleague from Tennessee for his cooperation and his work on this bill. Without him it would not have happened. So I thank him very much and it is now his turn.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I move to waive the relevant provisions of rule XXVIII. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Can the Chair state when the vote on the motion to waive will occur this evening?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time remains?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My understanding is that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is here if you have no objection, Mr. Ranking Member.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes of our time to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from North Dakota, and tell him that misery loves company because in California we had a similar situation with the Point Reyes National Seashore Park, where there were growing numbers of whitetail deer, and the Park Service proceeded to do a somewhat similar thing, shoot them, and I believe in helicopters shoot them. All the residents got very upset because this is not an isolated community, and they began to call, and we worked out a solution--to use contraception, actually, to cull the herd. But I do not know whether that is going to work. I think the Senator pointed out a good situation where the Park Service has to be more sensitive when it does some of these things. I thank the Senator for the efforts he has made--and successful ones.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator, thank you. I appreciated his work. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, pursuant to rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, all congressionally directed spending items contained in the Interior appropriations conference report are to be disclosed. The Statement of Managers that accompanies this conference report does, in fact, contain tables which disclose the required information. In an effort, however, to go well beyond the letter of the rule and provide an additional level of transparency, I would like to include in the Record supplemental information that will serve as further clarification with respect to some of these items. Because of the way the information is presented at the request of the House of Representatives, the full amount of funding specified for a particular project could, to some, be difficult to discern in those instances where the item of congressionally directed spending is in addition to the amount contained in the President's budget request. The list of items that I will place in the Record will make it easier for Members to make the distinction between what was in the President's budget and what is subject to disclosure under the rules of the Senate. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following material be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I think we can wrap this up. I see no other Senators on the Democratic side, so I yield back our time. Madam President, if I may, I wish to take a moment to thank the staff for their work. On the Democratic side: Peter Kiefhaber, Virginia James, Scott Dalzell, Rachael Taylor, and Chris Watkins. On the minority staff: Leif Fonnesbeck, Rebecca Benn, and Rachelle Schroeder. Everybody worked together. It was a very special effort and I thank them very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.