Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I compliment the Senator from Ohio.

When he was Governor of Ohio, he had the reputation of being the most knowledgeable person on air issues. Of course, the primary concern we had at that time was that we had a crisis in energy, and the one thing that had to be in the mix to resolve that crisis was to do something with nuclear power. There is nobody who has carried that banner more forcefully than the Senator from Ohio. I appreciate our joint efforts to make that happen. I believe we will be successful with the number of applications that are there right now and the progress that has been made.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as the ranking member and previously the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I understand we are actually the committee of jurisdiction over a lot of the energy concerns we have in this country. It is a real crisis. I know there are other things happening now that people are focused on, but this is certainly something the Presiding Officer is aware of, given the committees on which he is serving. When it comes to developing a comprehensive energy policy in the United States, we are faced with a stark contrast. We can develop and produce domestic supplies of reliable and affordable energy that will help jump-start our economy, create high-paying jobs, and bring down energy costs on consumers, all while making our Nation less dependent on foreign energy supplies, or we can implement policies designed to drive up the costs of energy on American families, shift jobs overseas, and deepen this recession.

For the sake of our economy, our energy security, and environmental goals, I choose the ``all of the above'' approach.

I sit and listen to people who say we want to do something about our dependence on foreign countries for our ability to run this machine called America. At the same time, they are against coal, they are against oil, they are against gas, they are against nuclear. Those are the things that are there, the technology is there and we can use them. But they are looking somehow into the future and saying there has to be some green solution. I am the first one to say, when the technology is there, I am going to be right there with them. It is not there yet.

Over the next several weeks, I am planning to speak on the floor several times about the benefits of nuclear energy and my proposals for reinvigorating that industry. Today, I will discuss how nuclear will help put Americans back to work and move our economy forward as well as focus on the regulatory challenges facing new nuclear construction and what I plan to do to help nuclear energy play an increasing role in meeting our energy needs.

One of the problems we have had is we have had several colleagues coming down, talking about why nuclear is good and why we should do it, but they have not addressed the barriers there and the bureaucratic problems we have right now.

The need to grow our domestic energy supply is clear. The Energy Information Administration projects that our demand for electricity will increase 26 percent by the year 2030, requiring 260 gigawatts of new electricity generation. Every source will need to grow to produce more energy to meet that demand. Curtis Frasier, the executive vice president of Shell America Gas & Power, was recently quoted in Greenwire, warning that the recession could be masking a global energy shortage.

He said:

When the economy returns, we're going to be back to the

energy crisis.

He said:

Nothing has been done to solve that crisis. We've got a

huge mountain to climb.

This is a very significant chart. It shows electricity growth is linked to the American economy. Mr. Frasier voices real concern. As you can see, this graph shows the total energy and shows the GDP. The GDP is the blue line going up and the electricity use and the total energy are lines that go right along with it. In fact, when it flattens out, such as it did in 1990 for about a 3-year period, all three flattened out at the same time. The same thing is true up here when it flattened out during 2005. So we see there is that linkage there, and it is a very real one.

This is not your father's nuclear industry. Today's nuclear industry has demonstrated marked improvement in safety, reliability, and costs since the late 1980s. The industry also has proved that safety and reliable performance are closely linked.

We have a chart here, ``Improved Safety Yields Better Performance.'' If you look at the two lines, we are talking about the line that would be the capacity factor, and this line, the red line, would be significant events. Significant events are things that are problems. We all remember significant events in nuclear energy. The press always highlights these and tries to make us believe this is a dangerous form when it is, in fact, not dangerous. The significant events have been going down. It is hard to see there. It goes from 1988 all up to the present year and it goes down as the capacity factor is going up. This is an indicator of the results, that the industry has dramatically increased its capacity by 45 percent and has operated roughly 90 percent of the time in the last 5 years. This improved performance is demonstrating that nuclear is both safe and reliable. It has made nuclear energy more affordable.

We have another chart that is the ``U.S. Electricity Production Costs.'' Nuclear energy generates nearly 20 percent of the energy that powers our economy and has the lowest production cost compared to other sources. You can see by the chart, not only has nuclear energy had the lowest production costs for the last 7 years, its production cost is very stable and not vulnerable to the price fluctuations here shown by the other resources.

These lines here represent nuclear and coal. They go along pretty much the same. However, if you look at fluctuations in gas and in petroleum, you can see they are moving. This is something that is very significant.

I might mention, even though we only are using 22 percent of our energy

coming from nuclear, countries such as France and other countries are doing 80 percent. That is what we are going to get to. We are going to try to do something to increase our nuclear capacity. Not only will nuclear energy give a boost to our economy by providing safe, reliable, and affordable electricity, it will also produce new jobs. Mark Ayers, the President of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, has described his union's relationship with the industry. He said--and this is the unions I am quoting now:

We will be there with you to help pursue the adoption of a

diverse American energy portfolio that places a high priority

on the reemergence of nuclear power.

Why is Mr. Ayers so supportive of nuclear energy? He knows the number of high-quality jobs that just one new nuclear plant would provide. It would be 1,400 to 1,800 jobs during construction for each new plant; 400 to 700 permanent jobs when the plant begins operating, with salaries 36 percent higher than the local average. It would provide 400 to 700 additional jobs providing goods and services.

It is a huge boost for the economy and for the labor unions, so we have their strong support. Clearly, increased development of nuclear energy would strongly benefit our economy by providing energy and putting Americans back to work. However, right now investors in new nuclear plants face political and regulatory risks. The capital investors still remember the cost overruns experienced during the construction of our existing fleet of plants, caused in part by a cumbersome licensing process. The licensing process has been revised but has, as yet, to be fully tested. The risk of licensing delays may be lower, but the potential consequences of regulatory delays remain significant.

This chart shows the locations of the potential new nuclear plants. On September 25 of 2007, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission filed an application to build and operate a plant near Bay City, TX. That was the first application for a new plant that the NRC has received in 34 years. Since then, 16 more applications have been filed for a total of 26 new nuclear reactors.

Let's stop and think about that. We are talking about 2007.

I ask unanimous consent I be given an additional 5 minutes of time.

That is, since 2007, we have been able to do that. We did nothing for 34 years, and now we have 16 more applications on file which would be for 26 nuclear reactors. Some applications cover more than one reactor. These efforts to develop new plants are critical to meeting our energy needs, and I am committed to doing what I can to help build these new plants.

One of the most significant factors contributing to this revitalization is the NRC's transformation over the last 12 years. In 1997, Republicans were the majority. I was the chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which had jurisdiction over nuclear energy. At that time, we had not had an oversight hearing in some 12 years, and I tell you, you cannot let a bureaucracy continue to operate without any oversight, so we started having oversight hearings. We gave targets that they had to do certain things by certain dates. As a result of that, they are now coming along and doing a good job.

This chart shows where the 16 applications are, so people can find their own State and see what it would do to the economy of their own State. Unfortunately, we don't have any in my State of Oklahoma. I wish we did and perhaps we will be able to in the future.

The next chart is the ``Applications Under Review By NRC.'' It is a little bit complicated, so I am not going to be using this chart. If anyone wants to know where the status is and what the companies are that have made the applications, certainly we have that information for them.

Despite significant efforts on the part of the NRC staff, this process has not unfolded as smoothly as it should. Schedules are not as detailed or transparent as they should be, and detailed schedules are a critical tool for managing such a large and complex process and to ensure it is thorough, efficient, and timely. Schedules are publicly available for safety evaluation reports and environmental impact statements but not for hearings or Commission consideration, which will ultimately determine when the license is actually issued.

At this time, there appears to be no information readily available regarding any of the actual dates that any of the new plant licenses will be issued. The absence of any specific schedules for issuing licenses seems to indicate a failure of the agency to properly plan and schedule its work, a failure to share such information, or both. This situation is troubling. How could a utility prepare for construction without a firm date when it can expect--be expected to receive their license?

These are huge investments we are talking about. There has to be predictability. How can an investor judge the risk of a project without being able to evaluate progress in the regulatory process? Both licensees and their potential investors would greatly benefit from the increased certainty.

I commend the Commission and staff for the level of effort that is reflected in existing schedules. However, I believe the Commission should pursue these remaining steps. It should require hearing boards to produce and to follow detailed schedules that reflect lessons learned during the review of the LES National Enrichment Facility in New Mexico. We would consider the recommendations we have there.

I firmly believe proper planning, detailed schedules, and the Commission engagement will foster more thorough, consistent, organized, and efficient efforts to issue new plants licenses.

I take my oversight role as the ranking member of the EPW Committee very seriously and will work to ensure that the NRC continues to build on the improvements made since I initiated oversight back in 1997. I intend to increase my focus on this and other licensing issues, including monthly progress reports on licensing activity and regular meetings with Chairman Jaczko. In our committee, we have Democrats and Republicans very supportive of this effort to expand our capability in nuclear energy.

My hope is to see that the NRC issues the first new license before the end of 2011 and eight more by 2013. Given construction estimates of 4 to 5 years, the first 2 reactors could be operational in 2016, with 14 more potentially in operation by the year 2018. Sixteen new reactors would be a good start to rejuvenating an industry that has been stagnant for 34 years. I believe these reactors can revitalize our economy and meet the growing demand for energy. I also agree with labor unions that are excited about the prospect of new jobs and what it will do for low-cost energy for America.

I look forward to the future. I plan to host a roundtable to highlight progress toward advanced design and to stay on board. Back in 1997, we hadn't had an oversight hearing in 12 years at that time, and we will make sure we don't repeat that mistake.

A lot has been done to prepare for nuclear construction, but a lot remains to be done. Whether the industry will succeed in building new plants will greatly depend upon President Obama's leadership. I am disappointed that the administration seems to send mixed signals regarding its support for nuclear energy. Last month in Prague, the President said:

We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of

our efforts to combat climate change and to advance peace and

opportunity for all people.

Yet just this month his budget contained language terminating the Yucca Mountain program before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could even do its review--30 years of research and $7.7 billion down the drain, purely for political reasons. It is unthinkable that could happen, but it has happened.

In addition, President Obama recently appointed, as Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Joe Wellinghoff, who stated his belief that we won't need any more nuclear plants ever. This isn't right, and it is totally inconsistent.

These mixed messages will soon become clear. President Obama has recently designated a new Chairman of the NRC and is expected to propose two additional nominees soon. Time will tell whether the NRC is an effective and efficient regulator.

In his Senate confirmation hearing, DOE Secretary Steven Chu said:

Nuclear power . . . is going to be an important part of the

energy mix. It is 20 percent of our electricity generated

today, but it is 70 percent of the carbon-free portion of

electricity today. And it is baseload. So I think it is very

important that we push ahead.

For that reason and every other reason, for the economy and for the environment and for our ability to provide our own energy in this country and lower our reliance upon foreign countries, I believe we need to move forward rapidly. We intend to do so with nuclear energy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true American hero, Army Sergeant Schuyler Patch of Owasso, OK, who died on February 24, 2009 serving our Nation in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Schuyler was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 106th Cavalry Regiment, 33rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, in the Illinois National Guard, based out of Kewanee, IL.

Schuyler enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in March 2005, and volunteered to deploy in 2006 to Afghanistan. In November 2007, he transferred to the Illinois Army National Guard and volunteered a second time to deploy to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He was killed alongside four of his fellow Soldiers, when their vehicle was hit by an IED while on a joint patrol with the Afghan National Security Forces. Schuyler leaves behind his father John Patch of Illinois and mother Colleen Stevens of Owasso, Oklahoma. He also leaves behind a sister, Amber Patch and two brothers, Garrett and Seth Patch.

Schuyler was a selfless and courageous Soldier committed to this country and its freedom. His mother, Colleen, said that he died doing what he loved to do; making a difference in the world. She also expressed his love and care for the Afghan children while he was in Afghanistan. Schuyler's sister, Amber said, ``He loved everything about the Army and he believed in everything he was doing over there.'' His aunt, Julie Morland said, ``We are all very proud of him for even going over the first time and then volunteering to go over. It takes a special person to even join the Guard in the first place. To go there and fight as a volunteer, it takes a special person.''

On Schuyler's online Guest Book, I read through some of the things said about his life and character.

Schuyler's cousin wrote, ``Schuyler was not only brave, he was caring and never afraid to show his love for family and friends. A hello was never complete until he gave those he loved a hug . . . the world will be a sadder place without this fun loving, vibrant, kind, generous young man who always made me smile.''

Another friend wrote, ``He was a great guy and no one that ever knew

him will ever forget him. He is sadly missed and that smile of his will never be forgotten.'' Schuyler's mom Colleen also talked about his incredibly warm smile that will be forever in her mind.

A fellow soldier wrote, ``I was proud to have served with [Patch] in Afghanistan in 2006-2007. He was a good guy and liked to make the best of the situation.''

A friend wrote, ``We will all miss him and we all love him very much. He was the kind of guy who could cheer you up on your worst day and the most outgoing person I'll ever know. Thank you Schuyler for all the great memories we had and thank you so much for serving to protect all of us. I love you.''

Captain Jon Prain, a National Guard chaplain who spoke at his funeral, summed up Schuyler's life well when he said, ``He heard freedom's call. He paid freedom's price, so that we all might enjoy the benefits of freedom . . . He was, and always shall be, an American soldier.''

Schuyler lived a life of love for his family, friends, and country. He will be remembered by many for his contagious smile and warm, affectionate personality. I am honored to pay tribute to this true American hero who volunteered to go into the fight and gave the ultimate sacrifice by giving up his life for our freedom.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I do not think I will object--I did not hear the request the Senator made. Will the Senator repeat it, please.

Mr. President, that 6 minutes would be immediately prior to Senator Inouye's closing; is that right?

I do not object. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I wish to inquire how much time we have before the Senator from Hawaii wraps it up.

Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that on February 2, I was in Guantanamo Bay. It was one of several trips I have made down there. I wish to suggest that one of the trips I made was right after 9/11. At that time, I did quite a bit of research to try to understand why people have this obsession about closing Guantanamo. I looked at the resources down there, and I couldn't figure it out. That was several years ago. Now, as recently as 2 months ago, I still have a hard time figuring that out.

I wish to suggest to my colleagues--and I have been listening to some of those who are objecting to the action we are about to take today-- there cannot be a case at all that there are human rights abuses in Guantanamo Bay.

Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, went down there just a short while ago. He came back, and he witnessed the same thing I did--he was down there about the same time--that during the recent visit, the military detention facilities at Gitmo meet the highest international standards and are in conformity with article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

Then, on February 20, a short time after that, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Walsh went down and issued a detailed report following a 2-week review. I go down for 1 day at a time; he was down there for 2 whole weeks with a whole team. The team conducted multiple announced and unannounced inspections of all of the camps, in daylight and at nighttime, keeping in mind that there are six different levels of security down there, which is a resource we can't find in any of our other installations to which we have access. Anyway, they talked to all of the detainees in the yards and everyone else, and they found that their conditions were in conformity with article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

So this shouldn't even be controversial. This is something on which we all agree.

I would suggest that we don't have any cases where people are being neglected. Right now, they have better health care than they have ever had before. There is a medical practitioner, a doctor, a nurse, for every two detainees there. There is even a lawyer for each detainee who is there. From their own statements to me, these individuals are eating better, living better than they have at any other time of their lives.

The big problem is, if we did close it, we would have to do something with these people. I heard one of the Senators who is on the opposite side of this issue say a few minutes ago: Well, that is fine because right now they are disposing of them.

They have only, in the last 3 months, found one place. It has dropped down from 241 to 240. If that is a success story, I am not sure I understand what success is.

The bottom line is, there are things down there that we can't replicate anywhere else, and they are being well cared for.

One thing that hasn't been talked about enough is the existence of the expeditionary legal complex that is in Gitmo. This took 12 months to build. It cost $12 million. This is where they can have tribunals.

One of the things people say is: Well, they can be put into our justice system.

We can't do that because these are detainees, and tribunals have a different set of procedures they use and it has to be a special type of a court that is set up. We do have that provision down there. We do have that court that is set up. We are in the process of trying these people.

So if you don't do this, there are a couple of choices--only three choices--on getting rid of these people. One is, you either leave them there and try them and try to adjudicate them or you can send them out someplace. Well, we have already tried that. Countries won't receive these people, and I can't blame them. The third choice would be to somehow have them intermingled into our system here, set up in some 17, as they suggested, places for them. So none of the options are good, but this is one resource that has served America well. We have had it since 1903.

I would ask my good friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, if he knows of any deal that America has that is better than this. It is $4,000 a year. That is all it costs. So it is a resource we need to keep, we have to keep.

The only argument I hear against it is: Oh, the Europeans don't want them. Where are the Europeans? I am getting a little bit tired of having them dictate what we do in the United States. What if they came forward and said: You have to close the Everglades tomorrow. Would we roll over and close the Everglades? No, we wouldn't. So I think there are a lot of options out there, and this is the best option.

Quite frankly, I go a lot further than this amendment. I think we need to keep this resource open. It has served us well in the past, and it should serve us well in the future. I urge my colleagues to support the Inouye-Inhofe amendment.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I am a little confused as to where we are. I have an amendment I do want filed. It is amendment No. 1132 at the desk right now. I say to the senior Senator from Hawaii that it is essentially the same thing as the wording of an amendment he will be bringing up.

My request of the Senator--and I cleared this with the Senator from Mississippi--is that I be the first cosponsor on his amendment so that it would be the Inouye-Inhofe amendment.

Mr. President, I can clarify this. I had sent my amendment to the desk, which we don't plan to take up, but I wanted it filed because we have a number of cosponsors who, I am sure, will want to join me in cosponsoring the Inouye amendment, since it is the same amendment.

Amendment No. 1133

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.

First of all, I heard the dialogue going back and forth on the amendment and the positions taken several times in statements made, and there are several people in this Chamber who want to close Guantanamo Bay.

Let me make it very clear: I have never had any intentions of wanting to close it. I keep asking: What would be the reason someone would want to close an asset that we have that can't be replaced anywhere else? My feeling was since there was no answer to that, and since this is one of the few good deals, I say to both the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee: Have you ever had a better deal than this?

It costs us $4,000 a month, the same price it cost us back in 1903, and it is a great $200 million facility. It has facilities to try these cases. They have the expeditionary legal complex there,

which they don't have anyplace else. So if you close that down, you couldn't have the tribunals. Somehow they might end up being--I am talking about the terrorists--in our court system, in which case the rules of evidence are different.

So for any number of reasons, and because everyone who goes down there--and I am talking about even Al-Jazeera the media goes down and comes back and shakes their heads and wonders why we would want to close it.

So I want to go on record that I want to go further than just not funding Guantanamo, but also what we are going to be doing with some 245 detainees. Hopefully, we can end this discussion about closing an asset that has served us very well for a number of years.

So I wholeheartedly support the Inouye amendment, which is the same language I had in my amendment. I think that will pretty much accomplish what I wish to accomplish.

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

Mr. President, let me do this, if it is all right with the Senator from Hawaii. There are apparently several people wanting to come down and speak on this bill, and I think Senator Durbin is going to be coming down. So while we are waiting, instead of sitting in a quorum call, let me mention that on my bill we had Senators Barrasso, Brownback, DeMint, Johanns, Roberts, Thune, Vitter, Sessions, Cornyn, Coburn, Hutchison, and Bennett, I believe, who all wanted to be or were cosponsors of my amendment.

Since this is the same amendment, they also requested that--some of them wanted to come down and speak on behalf of this amendment. So if it is acceptable, we could wait until they get down here. Until they do, I wish to perhaps elaborate a little bit more about what is existing there right now in terms of any problems.

A lot of times people are talking about maybe this is perceived by Europeans, or somebody else, to be an institution that sometimes is perhaps guilty of or accused of torturing detainees. Let me assure my colleagues that has never happened. There has never been a case of waterboarding.

Most of the people who have come back--including Eric Holder, the Attorney General--came back with a report that the conditions and the circumstances under which these detainees exist are probably better than any of our Federal courts. Right now, there is one doctor for every two detainees, and they are giving them treatments they never had before. I have been down there numerous times only to find out that their treatment--the food they are eating and all of that--is actually better than they had at any other time during their lifetimes.

So it is very difficult to look at a suggestion such as this. Seeing where this, to me, is the only place in the world where they actually are set up to handle these types of detainees, the suggestion was made that perhaps they wanted to--they were looking for 17 places in the continental United States to put these detainees. My view at that time was that we would end up having 17 targets for terrorism.

One of those places they suggested was in my State of Oklahoma at Fort Sill. So I went down to Fort Sill to look at the detainee facility there. Sergeant Major Carter, who is in charge of it, said to me: Senator, why in the world would they close down Guantanamo?

She said: I have been there on two different tours and there is no place that can handle detainees better. Besides that, there is a court system there where they can actually conduct tribunals, and there certainly is not in Fort Sill, OK.

So in support of what we are doing with this amendment, some 27 States now have expressed themselves that they don't want to have these detainees, any of them, in their States. We are talking about State legislatures. So that is over half of the State legislatures that are saying they wouldn't want to do that.

So I think if we have an asset, if we have something that is working, we are in a position to keep detainees there. Some of them have to be there for a long period of time. The only choice would be to keep them there or to try them. If you try them and there is no way of disposing of them after the trial, they would have to go back.

Right now, of the 245 detainees, there are 170 of them whose countries would not take them back. So you have to ask the question: What would we do with them?

So the bottom line is this: It is a state-of-the-art prison. People are treated right. They have proper medical care. They have better food than most of them have ever had before. Besides that, some of these are the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed-type of individuals whom we want to be sure don't get in the wrong court system where something could happen to them.

So of the 240 detainees now, 27 are members of al-Qaida's leadership cadre, 95 lower level al-Qaida operatives, 9 members of Taliban's leadership cadre, 92 foreign fighters--that is 38 percent of all of them--and 12 Taliban fighters and operatives. These people are tough guys. We are going to have to do something with them. So I do support the Inouye-Inhofe amendment.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. President, since there is some time, I ask unanimous consent that I be acknowledged as in morning business for whatever time I shall consume.

Mr. President, there are several things toward the end of the week that I was wanting to elaborate a little bit on. They are kind of unrelated subjects, but we do not get this opportunity very often.

The whole idea of Guantanamo Bay is something that I know a lot of people have talked about. I was very proud at the inauguration when our new President, President Obama, gave a lot of statements that were, I thought, logical, and, frankly, a speech that I could very well have made--not as eloquently as he but from a content perspective.

He said, in relationship to the problem of Gitmo, or Guantanamo Bay, that, yes, we want to close that. However, we first must figure out what we are going to do with the detainees, recognizing that there are 245 detainees, recognizing further that there will be more as there is an escalation in activity in Afghanistan and that there is no place else to put these people.

I felt pretty satisfied at that time that this great American resource we have called Guantanamo Bay is something we need to keep. It is one of the few good deals the Government has. We have had it since 1903. It is a resource unlike anything else, not only in our holdings but anyplace in the world. It is a place where we have actually built a courtroom that will handle tribunals, that will handle cases with rules of evidence that would fit tribunals as opposed to our court system. I felt pretty comfortable knowing there is nothing that can be done with the 245 detainees. Many are very dangerous terrorists.

Since that time, he has changed his position. Now he is saying we will close it regardless. He has already closed the courtroom. This facility took 12 months to build. It cost $12 million. There is nothing else quite like it. If we are going to ever adjudicate these individuals, bring them to trial, we have to put them someplace. One of the alternatives would be our court system. Obviously, that is not a good idea. Most thinking people realize it is not a good idea because, the rules of evidence being different from what they are in a normal criminal case, most likely we would not get convictions. What happens when you don't get convictions? You turn people loose. If there is anything we don't want, it is terrorists being turned loose. The politics of that is such that people who want to close Guantanamo Bay are backing away from that issue, but they are still talking about closing it.

I have had occasion to be down there several times. The last time I was there, I used a new technology that I didn't understand too well: YouTube. I did a program down there from Guantanamo. I commented at that time: Here we are with about six levels of security for six levels of detainees. There is no place else like it where we can do something like this.

In terms of how they are treated, I have had them say, with a translator, that it is probably the best food they have ever had in their lives. There is one medical practitioner--in most cases, a doctor--for each two detainees. Where else will you find that? There are procedures that are offered to the detainees that they would never have offered anywhere else. For instance, when they offered a colonoscopy, which was described to the detainees in terms of what it entailed, they decided they didn't want it. Nonetheless, these were things that were offered in the way of health care.

In the case of torture, there has never been a documented case of waterboarding or any severe torture taking place there. I can remember the week after 9/11, when we had immediately a few people in there. I went down and found that our own troops who were stationed down there were not treated as well as the detainees.

Even if that were not true, there is no other place that we can put them. There has been a proposal that there are some 17 detention installations in the United States that would be suitable for these people. One of them happens to be Fort Sill, which happens to be in Oklahoma. I went to Fort Sill and talked to a young lady there who is a sergeant major. This is in Lawton, OK. I talked to her about this. She said: Senator, I have to ask you a question. Why is it that everyone is so concerned about closing Guantanamo Bay? This facility here is not nearly as suitable for detainees.

Then she went on to explain why this separation of people and of classes of security problems. She said: Besides that, I spent 2 years-- this is Sergeant Major Carter, stationed at Fort Sill--at Guantanamo Bay. That facility is better than any Federal facility we have.

Why is it we are so bent, just because of some ugly rumors that are not true about treatment of detainees, on closing a resource we have had and we are still paying $4,000 a year for, as we have been ever since 1903? You don't get many bargains like that in government. Anyway, they seem to be concerned about doing that.

I believe public pressure is going to come around on our side and common sense will prevail and we will not close that resource. We will need it in the future. We need it today. We have needed it in the past. It has served us well.

As this moves along, I hope the public knows there are several of us who are going to make sure we do not do anything that is going to allow some of these detainees to be floating around in the continental United States. If we are inclined to do this program where we put them in some 17 installations, we will have 17 magnets for terrorism in the United States. That is not going to happen.

The First One Hundred Days

I also wish to talk about the striking similarities between what is happening today and what happened back in 1993.

The first 100 days of President Obama's administration will be remembered for its unprecedented level of new Federal spending--no question about that; no Democrat or Republican can deny that--and the return to big government. This, together with his advocacy of far-left, liberal causes--everything from abortion rights, to gun control, to universal health care--will put him on a track to repeat the performance of 1993, when a very attractive, young Bill Clinton entered the Oval Office under the banner of change. After Americans realized that his so-called change was simply an extremely leftwing position, the American people revolted and put Republicans back in charge of Congress. If President Obama continues down this path, I would not be surprised to see that happen again in 2010.

Nothing is more indicative of the stark contrast between conservatives and liberals than the massive Government spending spree now underway in Washington. In his first year in office, Bill Clinton put forward what was then the largest budget to date in our history. It was $1.5 trillion. It included domestic spending of some $123 billion.

Now in this 100th day of President Obama's administration, the Senate is poised to vote on what would become the largest budget to date. This budget, which highlights his priorities, is the most radical and partisan budget we have ever seen. It includes $4.4 trillion in additional deficits and $3.5 trillion in total spending. Let's compare that to 1993. I was down on the floor complaining about a $1.5 trillion budget. This is a $3.5 trillion budget.

When I go back to Oklahoma, sometimes I come to the conclusion that there aren't any normal people in Washington, because they ask the question: Senator, how can we afford all this spending when we had a stimulus bill of $789 billion, increasing debt by $1.8 trillion in the first year, and a $3.5 trillion budget? Where is the money going to come from?

Here I am, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, and I can't answer the question. We do have choices. We can borrow. We can print it. It will have to be a combination of the above. We know all of the very damaging effects: $1 trillion in taxes on individuals and businesses, a $634 billion downpayment for government-run health insurance. There is another similarity. Remember, in 1993 it was called Hillary health care. The concept was the Government can run a health care system better than people can. I always invite people who believe that to go spend some time in some of the hospitals up north; the Mayo Clinic and some others come to mind. See the number of people who are there who came over from Canada because they couldn't get treatment. Maybe their age was right above the federal guideline for a particular type of procedure, and they could no longer do it. Again, the similarities are so similar, 1993 and what is happening today. Then, of course, we had the Wall Street bailout and all of that.

I am very concerned about the direction this administration has proposed to take us. Anyone who works hard, plays by the rules, pays taxes, drives a car, turns on the lights, saves, invests, donates to charity, or plans to be successful should also be concerned.

Defense cuts--I probably am more concerned about this than most Members. I am the second ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I have watched what is going on. To me, it is deplorable.

I happened to be in Afghanistan when Secretary Gates came out with Obama's defense cuts. They tried to claim they are not defense cuts. They are. It is just that they are talking about the DOD appropriations bill versus all the other funding sources that have been used before.

The best evidence that they are cuts is what has happened to our platforms. Right now, the F-22 is the only platform we have that is fifth-generation maturity. This is something he is stopping right now. We were originally supposed to have 750 F-22s. Now we will stop at 187. At the same time, you have China with its J-12, Russia with its SU series, a fifth-generation airplane. That is going to put us in a position where it will hurt and hurt bad.

The same thing is true with the Future Combat Systems. We have been working on that for 8 years now since Shinseki helped to start it. It is the first transition in ground capability in at least 50 years. This is something we have been working on so that we don't send our kids into battle against countries that might have a better artillery piece and better equipment than we. He axed that program.

How long has it been since we started working with the Parliament of Poland and the Czech Republic to get them to let us put a radar system in the Czech Republic and interceptor capability in Poland so that when Iran gets the capability of sending a nuclear missile over to western Europe or the eastern United States, we would have the ability to shoot it down? It didn't happen. The Parliaments that had to be politically pretty strong to agree to do that. Now they are sitting back and finding out that they are talking about axing that program too.

The airborne laser is the closest thing we have to knocking down a missile in the boost phase. We were coming along with that program. They axed that program too.

I am very concerned about what happens and what has happened in this budget to our capability of defending ourselves. Then I go back to 1993. That is exactly what happened back then. If we look at the 8 years of the Clinton administration, we cut military spending from what would be just a straight line by $412 billion in that period. Of course, we ended up cutting our military by about 40 percent over that period.

The bottom line is, all these programs were cut. I happened to be in Afghanistan when that happened. We did a report from over there. We could see the Bradleys driving by and the helicopters taking off, the bad weather, soldiers coming back from patrols and turning on the tube and finding out President Obama is going to gut the military. It is totally unacceptable. But that is the same thing that happened in 1993. It is deja vu all over again.

Gun control is the same. We see now that they are going to try to get us to sign on to a treaty that is called CIFTA, a treaty in the Western Hemisphere where we will all get together and we will allow Central America and Mexico and South America and Canada to determine what gun manufacturers can do. It is the first major step to gun control, in violation of second amendment rights. People care about that. It is exactly what happened with Bill Clinton in 1993.

Energy taxes--back when Bill Clinton was doing it, it was called the Btu tax. That stands for British thermal unit. It was a massive tax increase on energy and very similar to what they are trying to do right now--which, incidentally, I have no doubt we will stop them from being able to do--the cap-and-trade tax. One thing about the cap-and-trade tax, that is something that is not just a one-shot deal like the stimulus bill. That is every year. It would be somewhere around $350 billion a year in taxes on the American people, a regressive tax because it is a tax on energy. People with lower incomes spend a larger percentage of their expendable income on that kind of energy than rich people do.

We are not going to let that happen. I tell all my friends, we have been fighting that battle now for 8 years,

and it is over. We are not going to let that happen in America. But that is what Bill Clinton tried to do in 1993. It is the same thing all over again.

We went through the same thing on abortion. I think personally there is no mission more important than standing up for the sanctity of human life. Here again, President Obama, like President Clinton, quickly moved to appease pro-abortion advocates.

Just a few days ago, the Senate confirmed Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services. As Governor of Kansas since 2002, she has a clear record of supporting abortion and policies that I believe impact the health and safety of women and parental rights. Again, it is abortion. Either you are for it or against it. But this is one of the strong pro-abortion positions in 1993 that now we are getting again out of this administration.

So when you look at this, I cannot help but think that all the signs are there, that we are seeing the same thing now that we saw back in 1993. I believe we are going to be positioned to keep a lot of these things from happening, No. 1, and No. 2, let's remember what happened in 1993. Young, attractive Bill Clinton went in as President of the United States, and he had the House and he had the Senate, and he had it all just as President Obama has it all. He has the House and the Senate. Therefore, it is not someone else's fault for all these programs. Consequently, we had a major turnover in the 1994 election. Republicans took over the House and the Senate. So I just warn my liberal friends from the other side of the aisle, be real careful. Watch what you are doing because it could very well happen again.

EPA'S Endangerment Finding

Mr. President, I do have something that is a little heavier lifting subject. I am the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. When the Republicans were in the majority, I was chairman of it.

Something is happening right now, and something happened Tuesday morning. I want to make sure everybody understands, as this week is coming to an end, that on April 17, the administration set in motion a ticking timebomb with its release of a proposed endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. This proposal finds--this, incidentally, is what all the scientists do not agree with--this proposal finds that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public health and welfare and therefore must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

This is interesting because they first tried to pass cap and trade. They know there are not the votes for it. There are in the House. Speaker Pelosi pretty much gets anything she wants through. It is a simple majority vote over there. Over here, it would take 60 votes to pass that massive tax increase, and we are not going to do it because they do not have more than 34, maybe 35 votes, and it takes 60 votes. But, nonetheless, since they cannot do it, they decided to do it under the Clean Air Act and do it through regulation so it could be done from the White House. This so-called endangerment finding sets the clock ticking on a vast array of regulations and taxes, with little or no political debate or congressional control.

On May 12, we learned of a White House document. This is significant. We did not know it was there. I want to credit our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee--the minority side--for finding this document. It is a White House document marked ``privileged and confidential.'' It was buried deep within the docket of the proposed rule. It outlines some of the very same concerns shared by me and many of my colleagues, including Senator Barrasso. I could not be here for that Tuesday morning meeting, and he was good enough to take this memo and expose it and did an excellent job of it.

Keep in mind, we are talking about their proposal for new taxes, new regulations--all these things they want to go through with because they cannot legislatively pass a cap-and-trade--or cap-and-tax, as some call it--proposal.

The document we found--allegedly a compilation of concerns from unnamed officials within the White House, or the administration, as part of an interagency review of the proposed regulation--raises some questions, very serious criticisms of the endangerment proposal. Chief among them are questions raised about the link between the EPA's scientific argument for endangerment and its political summary.

I am going to quote from it. I have three quotes. Keep in mind, this came from the administration. This report says:

The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle,

but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about

basic facts surrounding greenhouse gases seems to stretch the

precautionary principle to providing for regulation in the

face of unprecedented uncertainty.

In other words, what they are saying there is that the science is not there; we do not know yet; we know there are a lot of problems with this, and we should not be rushing into it. This came from the White House. I am glad we found it.

Here is a further quote. Additionally, it says:

There is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on

``harm'' from substances that have no demonstrated direct

health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, and

that available scientific data that purports to conclusively

establish the nature and the extent of the adverse public

health and welfare effects are almost exclusively from non-

EPA sources.

Again, this is not me talking, this is a quote from the White House in a buried document we fortunately--but surprisingly--did find.

You can ask: What source is the EPA relying on if it is going to go through all this? That source is the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is where it all started. It was the United Nations that started this whole issue of greenhouse gases, of CO2, anthropogenic gases, and methane causing global warming. When you look at their ``Fourth Assessment Report'', which, as I have documented before many times in speeches on this Senate floor, is a political and not a science-based body, it has no accountability here in the United States.

You keep hearing people say: What about the NAS, the National Academy of Sciences? What about them? They are scientists.

The reports they give are not from the NAS, they are from the political review or the summary for policymakers, which is a political document, not another document.

In addition, this White House memo also warns of a cascade of unintended regulatory consequences if the endangerment finding is finalized. It states--and again, I am quoting from this report:

Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the

Clean Air Act--

That is what they want to do, regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act--

for the first time is likely to have serious economic

consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S.

economy, including small business and small communities.

This report talks about the small businesses, the small communities, churches, other groups that are going to be adversely affected by this. Again, this is a document that came out of the White House.

Now, for one thing, I am glad to know we are not alone with our concerns and that several in the Obama administration share views similar to ours on the endangerment finding. I am hopeful more will come forward.

So what was the administration's official response to the release of this memo? Well, it depended on whom you asked. One source in the Obama administration chose to again blame it on the Bush administration, stating it was written by a holdover appointed by George W. Bush. However, earlier in the day, Peter Orszag, who heads the White House budget office, where the memo apparently came from, stated that the quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which the OMB simply ``collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the interagency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration.'' Well, it is fine to say this, but that is where it came from. It came from the administration. It is very fortunate we found it.

It begs the question: Does this document reflect one rogue leftover Bush appointee, who, based on followup news

reports, actually appears to be a Democrat or does it reflect a more systematic summary of comments from various agencies that have serious concerns with the proposed finding, as Orszag suggested? I am hoping someone from the administration will come forth with a consistent response.

In either case, I welcome the comments as an open and honest discussion of the potential costs, benefits, and legal justifications for such a finding.

Regardless of the Supreme Court decision, the EPA has the discretion to carefully weight the science and the causes and effects in its determination of endangerment, and, despite recent claims by administration officials, it is under no court order to find in the affirmative that such greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare or cause or contribute to air pollution.

If we are going to have a debate on this issue, let's have it here in Congress, where the American people deserve an open and honest discussion about the costs and alleged benefits, about the effectiveness of such policies and what it will mean to the consumers who ultimately pay the bill. As I said before, it is going to be the poorer Americans who pay the larger percentage of their incomes who are going to be punished.

By the way, we had the debate here. In the House, they have never had the debate because it has never come up as an issue. Here we had the debate during the ratification debate on the Kyoto treaty. And we had the McCain-Lieberman bill, the Warner-Lieberman bill, the Boxer--there is another bill that came up just in the last year. So we have had the debate, a full and open debate, and we are going to have to debate this issue because there is an effort to try to do through regulation what they cannot do through open debate in the process on the floor.

The administration, and this EPA in particular, has claimed they will usher in a new era of transparency. In April, Administrator Jackson issued a sweeping memo to all EPA employees committing the agency to an unprecedented level of transparency. I applaud her for it. She told me this in my office. We also found that she made this statement in a private memo to Members. So she is being very honest in what her effort is. I have a feeling a lot of this stuff is happening, and she is not even aware of it.

She says--and this is a quote; this is beautiful:

The success of our environmental efforts depends on earning

and maintaining the trust of the public we serve. The

American people will not trust us to protect their health or

their environment if they do not trust us to be transparent

and inclusive in our decision-making. To earn this trust, we

must conduct business with the public openly and fairly.

Again, this is Lisa Jackson, the new Administrator of the EPA. I applaud her for saying this.

This requires not only that EPA remain open and accessible

to those representing all points of view, but also that EPA

offices responsible for decisions take affirmative steps to

solicit the views of those who will be affected by these

decisions.

She went on to say at her confirmation hearing--not only did she reaffirm this statement, but she said she would be responsive to us on the minority side, the same as she would be to the majority, and I believe that.

Certainly, the allegations in this White House memo make one question whether the EPA is open and accessible to all points of view. For one thing, it was marked ``privileged and confidential,'' which tells me that perhaps they knew about it, but then they did not want to use it and they did not want people to find out about it. Nonetheless, the document speaks for itself.

My colleagues may criticize the Bush administration for how it handled the endangerment finding, but at least they did not try to bury or hide these types of comments when it proposed its advance notice of proposed rulemaking last summer. I know a lot of this sounds a little confusing. This is a process you go through, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. In fact, the previous administration; that is, the Bush administration, went so far as to lay all of these comments out in public view so all sides could be represented. If this latest action is any indication of how the EPA has begun to operate, then the American public should have serious reason to be concerned.

On this CO2 endangerment issue--potentially the largest and most sweeping regulatory effort ever to be proposed--transparency should be a cornerstone of every agency action. Opinions from all sides, pro and con--and certainly from all other agencies--should be weighed equally and fairly and, just as important, openly, in full view of the American people. The American people deserve to know all sides, all costs, and all benefits. This thing is so costly, and with the questionable benefits, this is that much more important.

Because of these issues, I am hopeful the Administrator will commit to a determination on endangerment that would be based on the record of the scientific data and empirical evidence rather than political or other nonscientific considerations. It is of the utmost importance that regulatory matters of this scope and magnitude be based on the most objective, balanced scientific and empirical data.

While I am still hopeful that ultimately Congress or the agency will decide to take this option off the table, a full on-the-record examination during any endangerment rulemaking should be a minimum requirement of transparency.

But the administration has essentially politicized the issue by presenting policymakers with a false choice. The choice is to use an outdated, ill-equipped, and economically disastrous option under the Clean Air Act or pick another bad option--cap and trade--that commits us to requirements for unaffordable technology and would certainly be the largest consistent annual tax increase in the history of America. This isn't going to happen.

I would repeat we are fortunate in that we have had this debate, and each time we have the debate, there are more and more people who come down and say: Well, I didn't know it was going to cost that much money. Back in the original Kyoto days, it appeared that a majority of the people, in fact, in the Senate would support that type of an approach.

By the way, I have to say this: The Kyoto treaty was one thing. That is a treaty that affects the whole world, a lot of developed nations and some undeveloped nations. It was something you signed onto and everyone signs onto and everyone agrees to. Since that didn't happen-- and even if you are one of those individuals who believes that anthropogenic gases, CO2, and methane are causing global warming--if you believe it, which isn't true, but if you did believe it--then does it make sense for us to pass something unilaterally in the Senate, making us less competitive than the rest of the world? What is going to happen to our manufacturing base? What is left of it is going to end up in places such as China, India, and Mexico, where they don't have these emission requirements. What is going to happen then? There will be a net increase in CO2.

Back to the memo, and I will conclude with this. I have to repeat what the memo says. This was a memo that was advice to the process from the White House.

The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle,

but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about

basic facts surrounding greenhouse gases would seem to

stretch the precautionary principle to providing for

regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty.

In other words, it is uncertain.

Further, it states:

There is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on

harm from substances that have no demonstrated direct health

effects such as respiratory or toxic effects, and that

available scientific data that purports to conclusively

establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health

and welfare effects are almost exclusively from non-EPA

sources.

That is an admission.

Finally:

Making the decision--

Which I hope we will not make the decision to do, but we will oppose that decision--

to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act for the

first time is likely to have serious economic consequences

for regulated entities throughout the United States economy,

including small businesses and small communities.

In other words, nobody wins. Nobody wins.

So with that, I would say there is this effort that what they cannot do

legislatively they want to do through regulations, and we are not going to allow that to happen.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to speak on the nomination of David Hayes to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior. The Department of Interior has made some key decisions in the past few months that I think warrant special attention and discussion before we vote on this nominee. I also want to note that several issues surrounding this nominee fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve as ranking member. As Deputy Secretary at the Department of Interior, Mr. Hayes would oversee the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, a law that the EPW Committee oversees.

As chairman of the EPW Committee for 4 years, and now in my third year as ranking member, I have worked a considerable amount with the Department of Interior, specifically the Fish and Wildlife Service, and its implementation of the Endangered Species Act. As ranking member, one of my roles is to exercise rigid oversight of executive branch actions under EPW jurisdiction. In the past, I have seen many good things come from the Department of Interior, such as the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, which conserves habitat by leveraging Federal funds through voluntary private landowner participation, as well as the delisting of the Bald Eagle, showing what good the ESA can accomplish. However, recent actions to reverse rules related to ESA have bothered me.

Through my role as ranking member on the EPW Committee, I have become concerned with the possibility of the ESA being used as a backdoor for greenhouse gas regulation following the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species. In April, I joined other Senators in a letter to Commerce Secretary Locke urging him not to reverse regulations preventing the Endangered Species Act from regulating carbon dioxide. Now as we move to debate the David Hayes nomination this week, we must again carefully consider the motives of this administration in using the Endangered Species Act. ESA should be used as a tool for protecting truly threatened and endangered species, not for controlling the emissions of greenhouse gases from potentially every source, big or small, in America.

Two weeks ago, I voted for Tom Strickland to become the new Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, after he was reported out of our committee. As with David Hayes, I took issue with the nomination of Assistant Secretary Strickland, raising questions concerning the administration's decision to reverse rules on the listing of the polar bear and modifications to the section 7 consultation process. Thankfully, just last week, Assistant Secretary Strickland and Secretary Salazar upheld the polar bear rule. While the decision by Interior to retain this rule shows good judgment by this administration, potential lawsuits by radical environmental groups still threaten to undermine the original intent of the Endangered Species Act.

What is most troublesome, however, is the decision by Interior to overturn the section 7 consultation rule in complete disregard of the Administrative Procedures Act. That is in direct contrast to President Obama's commitment to transparency and public process. Moreover, revoking this rule forces Federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service for each new Federal action that may result in the emission of greenhouse gases. Under the ESA, a Federal action agency is required to initiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service if it determines that the effects of its action are anticipated to result in the ``take''--including potential harm--of any listed species, or the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. This includes actions the agency takes itself, actions that are federally funded, as well as the issuance of a Federal permit or license for a private party.

The final rule as published last December exempted from consultation actions which are ``manifested through global processes and (i) cannot be reliably predicted or measured at the scale of a listed species' current range, or (ii) would result at most in an extremely small, insignificant impact on a listed species or critical habitat, or (iii) are such that the potential risk of harm to a listed species or critical habitat is remote.'' Unfortunately, after Interior's recent decision to reverse this rule, Federal agencies are again subjected to consulting Fish and Wildlife Services in these areas. This is a very costly process, which would cover any number of highway and construction projects, including, among others, those under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Senator Murkowski, the ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, has made her position very clear on Mr. Hayes by placing a hold on his nomination until her questions to Secretary Salazar are fully answered. The Department, and environmental groups, could manipulate the Endangered Species Act and the polar bear listing for purposes never intended by Congress. Moreover, repealing regulations without public hearings or public comment is a bad way to start an administration, as it signals to the public

that its views on important regulatory matters are irrelevant. It is my hope that Mr. Hayes will fully explain his position on these important issues, and that the Department of Interior will practice openness and transparency, as President Obama has promised, by including the views of stakeholders and the public when it makes decisions.

Madam President, I wish to honor the men and women who have dedicated their lives to caring for others through the nursing profession. As you may know, National Nurses' Week is celebrated from May 6 through 12. Nurses play a crucial role in our health care system. The need for attention to detail, medical expertise, time management, critical thinking, and compassion shape a vocation that is more than a career. Professional nurses make enduring investments in their patients' lives.

Nursing is the largest health care occupation, with over 2.5 million nurses nationwide. In my State of Oklahoma, there are over 25,000 registered nurses alone. Nurses are found in a wide variety of settings, including hospitals, doctors' offices, schools, nursing homes, community clinics, and even the battlefield. Nurses do more than treat wounds and assist doctors. They help us all, regardless of age or standing, from the tiniest premature baby to the senior who has a life full of memories. They comfort those in pain, ease children's fears, educate students, attend deliveries, and offer assurance to worried parents. Nurses are trained to take care of the whole patient, sick or healthy.

It is no coincidence that the last day of National Nurses' Week, May 12, is also the birthday of Florence Nightingale, the founder of the modern nursing profession. Her work set an example of commitment to patients that can be seen and felt even today. The skill, dedication, and strength of our nurses are too often overlooked. Quality of life has increased for many Oklahomans, myself included, as a result of a nurse's actions and care. Nursing is among the noblest professions.

Madam President, I ask that you join me today in honoring nurses both in Oklahoma and all across the Nation.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, my amendment was one of the eight

amendments agreed to. I will be brief. I wish to get on record as to what it is I am trying to do.

First of all, though, I think my name may be on there as a cosponsor; if not, I ask unanimous consent that I be added at this time.

Mr. President, section 2094 of the bill requires the Secretary to submit written certification if a program is not terminated that states the acquisition program is essential to the national security, that no alternatives meet the joint military requirement, the new estimates are reasonable, and the management structure is adequate to manage and control the program acquisition cost. I concur with the certification process, but no similar requirement is there for the termination of an acquisition program. That is an area in which oversight is required and information critical as we continue to improve the acquisition process, which I believe this legislation will do.

My amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a written report explaining the reasons for terminating the program, alternatives considered to address any problems in the program, and the course of action the Department of Defense plans to pursue to meet continuing joint military requirements intended to be met by the program being canceled. This report will provide Congress with historical documentation of the terminated or failed programs and why they are terminated.

Essentially, the language of the amendment is simply the requirement that if a program is terminated, submit to Congress a written report setting forth three things: One, an explanation of the reason for terminating the program; two, the alternatives considered to address any problems in the program; three, the course the Department plans to pursue to meet any continuing joint military requirements otherwise intended to be met by the program.

In other words, it makes the same requirement on terminated programs as others. This has already been adopted en bloc, and I have no motion to make.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I would like to introduce two pieces of legislation that I believe are of great importance to the unity of the American people--the National Language Act, S. 992, and the English Language Unity Act, S. 991.

The National Language Act recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language and makes English the national language of the U.S. Government, a status in law it has not had before, and calls on government to preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language. It clarifies that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English, unless required by statutory law, recognizing decades of unbroken court opinions that civil rights laws protecting against national origin discrimination do not create rights to Government services and materials in languages other than English. This is especially important considering the Office of Management and Budget has estimated that the annual cost of providing multilingual assistance required by Clinton Executive Order 13166 is $1-$2 billion annually.

The National Language Act is an attempt to legislate a common sense language policy that a nation of immigrants needs one national language. Our Nation was settled by a group of people with a common vision. When members of our society cannot speak a common language, individuals miss out on many opportunities to advance in society and achieve the American Dream. By establishing that there is no entitlement to receive documents or services in languages other than English, we set the precedent that English is a common to us all in the public forum of Government.

The Language Unity Act of 2009, the second piece of legislation that I am introducing today, incorporates all the ideas of the National Language Act, and requires the establishment of a uniform language requirement for naturalization and sets the framework for uniform testing of English language ability for candidates for naturalization.

I want to empower new immigrants coming to our Nation by helping them understand and become successful in their new home. I believe that one of the most important ways immigrants can achieve success is by learning English.

There is enormous popular support for English as the National Language, according to polling that has taken place over the last few years. In polling reported only a few days ago, 86 percent of Oklahomans favor making English the official language; 87 percent of Americans support making English the official language of the U.S.; 77 percent of Hispanics believe English should be the official language of government operations; 82 percent of Americans support legislation that would require the Federal Government to conduct business solely in English; 74 percent of Americans support all election ballots and other government documents be printed in English. This polling data refers to making English an official language of the U.S., or further creating an affirmative responsibility on the part of Government to conduct its operations in English.

My colleagues who have followed this debate will remember that the National Language Act of 2009 is identical to S. 2715, legislation I introduced in the 110th Congress. Most importantly, this language is identical to the English amendments I authored which passed the Senate in 2007 as Senate Amendment 1151, and in 2006 as Senate Amendment 4064, each being part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of each respective Congress. Senate Amendment 1151 was agreed to in the Senate by a vote of 64-33. Senate Amendment 4064 was agreed to in the Senate by a vote of 62-35. As you can see, there is widespread and bipartisan support for legislation that empowers this nation's immigrants to learn English,

I am especially pleased to be introducing these bills today because just hours ago in my home State the Oklahoma State Legislature passed a joint resolution in support of English as the official language. This resolution, which passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote of 89 to 8 and the Senate by a vote of 44 to 2, will allow the people of Oklahoma to vote on a statewide ballot for a constitutional amendment to make English the official language of Oklahoma. I am encouraged by the State Legislature's tireless efforts to affirm the importance of English as the unifying language in our society. I hope that the U.S. Congress will follow their lead and let the voice of the people be heard--a voice that overwhelmingly supports English as the official language.

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

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

Mr. President, today I would like to introduce two pieces of legislation that I believe are of great importance to the unity of the American people--the National Language Act, S. 992, and the English Language Unity Act, S. 991.

The National Language Act recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language and makes English the national language of the U.S. Government, a status in law it has not had before, and calls on government to preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language. It clarifies that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English, unless required by statutory law, recognizing decades of unbroken court opinions that civil rights laws protecting against national origin discrimination do not create rights to Government services and materials in languages other than English. This is especially important considering the Office of Management and Budget has estimated that the annual cost of providing multilingual assistance required by Clinton Executive Order 13166 is $1-$2 billion annually.

The National Language Act is an attempt to legislate a common sense language policy that a nation of immigrants needs one national language. Our Nation was settled by a group of people with a common vision. When members of our society cannot speak a common language, individuals miss out on many opportunities to advance in society and achieve the American Dream. By establishing that there is no entitlement to receive documents or services in languages other than English, we set the precedent that English is a common to us all in the public forum of Government.

The Language Unity Act of 2009, the second piece of legislation that I am introducing today, incorporates all the ideas of the National Language Act, and requires the establishment of a uniform language requirement for naturalization and sets the framework for uniform testing of English language ability for candidates for naturalization.

I want to empower new immigrants coming to our Nation by helping them understand and become successful in their new home. I believe that one of the most important ways immigrants can achieve success is by learning English.

There is enormous popular support for English as the National Language, according to polling that has taken place over the last few years. In polling reported only a few days ago, 86 percent of Oklahomans favor making English the official language; 87 percent of Americans support making English the official language of the U.S.; 77 percent of Hispanics believe English should be the official language of government operations; 82 percent of Americans support legislation that would require the Federal Government to conduct business solely in English; 74 percent of Americans support all election ballots and other government documents be printed in English. This polling data refers to making English an official language of the U.S., or further creating an affirmative responsibility on the part of Government to conduct its operations in English.

My colleagues who have followed this debate will remember that the National Language Act of 2009 is identical to S. 2715, legislation I introduced in the 110th Congress. Most importantly, this language is identical to the English amendments I authored which passed the Senate in 2007 as Senate Amendment 1151, and in 2006 as Senate Amendment 4064, each being part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of each respective Congress. Senate Amendment 1151 was agreed to in the Senate by a vote of 64-33. Senate Amendment 4064 was agreed to in the Senate by a vote of 62-35. As you can see, there is widespread and bipartisan support for legislation that empowers this nation's immigrants to learn English,

I am especially pleased to be introducing these bills today because just hours ago in my home State the Oklahoma State Legislature passed a joint resolution in support of English as the official language. This resolution, which passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote of 89 to 8 and the Senate by a vote of 44 to 2, will allow the people of Oklahoma to vote on a statewide ballot for a constitutional amendment to make English the official language of Oklahoma. I am encouraged by the State Legislature's tireless efforts to affirm the importance of English as the unifying language in our society. I hope that the U.S. Congress will follow their lead and let the voice of the people be heard--a voice that overwhelmingly supports English as the official language.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be considered speaking in morning business for as much time as I consume.

Mr. President, I am on the floor to express some concerns I have concerning Guantanamo Bay and the efforts of some people, for no reason that I can understand, who want to close it. However, before doing that, another matter is happening right now.

On Friday of last week, the administration set in motion a ticking timebomb with its release of an endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. The ruling proposes that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public health and welfare, and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act.

This so-called endangerment finding sets the clock ticking on a vast array of regulations and taxes on small businesses throughout America that would be devastating. They claim, at least for now, to attempt to organize the chaos by limiting it to motor vehicles, which is a bad enough option considering the state of the auto industry to which we are all so sensitive with what is happening. Any attempt to stretch the Clean Air Act to regulate these gases illustrates a kind of game of Russian roulette this administration is playing with the American economy. We start with the auto industry. I can assure you, it is not going to end up there.

They are presenting policymakers with a false choice: Using an outdated, ill-equipped, economically disastrous option under the Clean Air Act or, to pick another bad option, cap and trade.

What they are saying is we are either going to find this endangerment finding, which will allow us to go ahead under the Clean Air Act provisions of 1970, or we are going to then start something that would be almost the same thing as cap and trade, except it will be done through the Executive and it will be done through the Clean Air Act amendments so we will have no control of it, in terms of doing it through legislation. As you know, there are several cap-and-trade schemes that are up there.

Last Friday, a week ago today, the Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, commented on this false choice. I agree with them. I will be quoting now from the Wall Street Journal, a week ago today. They said:

Still, why confine the rule only to cars and trucks? By the

EPA's own logic, it shouldn't matter where carbon emissions

come from. Carbon from a car's tailpipe is the same as carbon

from a coal-fired power plant. And transportation is

responsible for only 28 percent of U.S. emissions, versus 34

percent for electricity generation. Ms. Jackson is clearly

trying to limit the immediate economic impact of her ruling,

so as not to ignite too great a business or consumer

backlash.

But her half-measure is also too clever by half. By finding

carbon a public danger, she is inviting lawsuits from

environmental lobbies demanding that EPA regulate all carbon

sources. Massachusetts and two other states have already sued

in federal court to force the EPA to create a NAAQS for

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Tom Strickland--and to raise concerns about recent actions taken by the Department of Interior relating to the Endangered Species Act.

As Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at the Department of Interior, this position is responsible for overseeing many important programs. Most notable to me as ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, are the management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

When Mr. Strickland came before our committee for a hearing on his nomination in March, Congress had just passed the Omnibus appropriations bill that contained a mandate to revise and reissue ESA rules concerning the listing of the polar bear and modifications to the section 7 consultation process. This action allowed the Departments of Commerce and Interior to reverse rules without the usual requirements for public input and allowances for legal objections under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Now today, as we debate the nomination of Mr. Strickland on the floor, the administration has already reversed the section 7 consultation rule in complete disregard of the APA and is poised to reverse both rules without the usual review process promised by President Obama's commitment to transparency and public process. Unfortunately, Congress and the administration's bold decision to willfully set aside rules protecting public input and transparency are in direct contrast to the majority's constant complaints to the last administration about the lack of process. Moreover, the revision of these rules was done without respect to a bipartisan letter to the Department of Commerce that I signed with Senators Murkowski, Begich, and Hutchison urging the use of an open process complying with the APA and all laws governing the withdrawal of Federal regulations.

What troubles me further is the potential use of the Endangered Species Act as a tool to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. While some environmentalists would love to see the ESA used to regulate greenhouse gases, the ESA was never intended to set a climate change policy, but rather it is a tool only to protect endangered species. However, the listing of the polar bear last year as a threatened species has opened the door to the possible use of the ESA for disastrous carbon controls. That is why in December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service jointly adopted a final rule that revises the regulations governing the consultation obligations of federal agencies under section 7 of the ESA and regulations providing for protections against the ``take'' of the polar bear. These rules were adopted through the normal rulemaking process and took into consideration nearly 235,000 public comments.

Under the ESA, a Federal action agency is required to initiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service if it determines that the effects of its action are anticipated to result in the ``take''--including potential harm--of any listed species, or the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. This includes actions the agency takes itself, actions that are federally funded, as well as the issuance of a Federal permit or license for a private party.

A key element of the final section 7 rule is its conclusion that it ``is not an appropriate or effective mechanism to assess individual Federal actions as they relate to global issues such as global climate change and global warming.'' The final rule then exempts from consultation actions which are ``manifested through global processes and (i) cannot be reliably predicted or measured at the scale of a listed species' current range, or (ii) would result at most in an extremely small, insignificant impact on a listed species or critical habitat, or (iii) are such that the potential risk of harm to a listed species or critical habitat is remote.''

Likewise, the final 4(d) rule for the polar bear provides that certain activities do not constitute a prohibited ``take'' of the polar bear. Specifically, the final rule states that the take prohibition does not apply to any incidental taking of polar bears within the United States, except for incidental taking caused by activities within the polar bear's current range. Like the section 7 rule, the preamble to the final 4(d) rule maintains that ``[t]here is currently no way to determine how the emissions from a specific action both influence climate change and then subsequently affect listed species, including polar bears.'' Accordingly, the preamble to the final rule provides that section 7 consultation is not required solely because a Federal action's greenhouse gas emissions may contribute to global climate change.

In regards to Assistant Secretary Designate Strickland, I am happy he stated in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that he does not believe the ESA was intended or designed to regulate greenhouse gases or climate change. However, in his response to questions submitted by me after his confirmation hearing in the EPW Committee, I am troubled that Mr. Strickland did not fully address if he would set aside the APA or ensure an open public process in regards to revising the polar bear and consultation rules. It is my hope, that if confirmed by the Senate today, that Mr. Strickland will allow for the transparency and open public process expected of our government in reviewing the polar bear rule.

I plan on voting to confirm Mr. Strickland today to become the next Assistant Secretary at the Department of Interior. The Fish and Wildlife Service does a great deal of good, and I believe that Tom Strickland will do a good job, but I urge him to heed the call for an open and transparent governing process and to use the Endangered Species Act only for what it was created to do: to protect endangered species, not regulate greenhouse gases.