Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill I have introduced called the Clean Air Protection Act.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has stated that she believes the Clean Air Act was not specifically designed to address greenhouse gases. She also says using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change raises serious concerns.

I agree with her completely. So then what was the EPA's response to the problem? Well, they developed a tailored interpretation of the Clean Air Act where they ignore certain provisions of the law. This tailored interpretation is actually called the tailoring rule. The tailoring rule is EPA's attempt to limit the scope of the Clean Air Act--limit it to only those businesses that emit 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases. That is 100 times more than the amount of emissions that are currently allowed by law.

Saying that the EPA will only limit emissions from large businesses is not allowed under the current law--the Clean Air Act. So if you are going to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for American businesses, you have to use the standard that Congress has set out in the act. The EPA's approach is not legal, and I can tell you it will be challenged in court.

I alerted EPA Administrator Jackson and the EPA Assistant Administrator Regina McCarthy that special interest groups are scheming to sue the EPA. Suits will be filed if the EPA does not follow the Clean Air Act limits--sue them to capture hospitals, farms, nursing homes, commercial buildings, and any other small emitters of greenhouse gases.

I put a hold on Regina McCarthy at the time she was the nominee to be the Assistant Administrator of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation. I did this because of my concern about lawsuits if the EPA attempted to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. I wanted to know what the EPA's solution to the problem would be. When asked about potential lawsuits, Regina McCarthy said that she will--

. . . request that I be informed if any such notice is

filed with regard to a small source, and I will follow up

with potential litigants.

That is the EPA's solution, to sit down over a cup of coffee and ask lawyers for special interest groups not to sue. Groups know the law. They know what it says. The EPA Administrator is opening the door to environmentalists and other activists to file suit--to sue to run small businesses into the ground. Up to 1.2 million hospitals, farms, nursing homes, commercial buildings, and other small emitters could be bankrupt. The net result of all of this will be jobs lost. According to the Heritage Foundation, job losses are estimated to reach 800,000.

The solution to this problem is not to have government officials go around asking litigants not to sue; the solution is to pass legislation that takes this regulatory ticking timebomb off the table for good. That is why I have introduced legislation to fix the problem. The bill, S. 1622--the Clean Air Protection Act--takes the Clean Air Act out of the business of regulating climate change. My legislation allows car and truck regulations under the Clean Air Act to move forward, while stopping the regulation of stationary sources, such as small businesses, hospitals, farms, and nursing homes.

Given the introduction of the tailoring rule by the EPA, Congress should pass S. 1622, the Clean Air Protection Act, without delay, pass it before the regulatory ticking timebomb goes off.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join Senator Enzi today on the floor to share with our colleagues the profound sorrow that is felt all across the State of Wyoming today as we mourn the death of a western American icon and a former Member of this body, the Senate.

Cliff Hansen, Senator, Wyoming Governor, died last night, October 20, at home at his ranch in Jackson Hole, WY. He was 97 years old. He was at the time of his death the oldest living former Member of the Senate, a career and a life that spanned nearly a century of American history. But it wasn't the length of time he spent on this Earth that makes his life so unique and so meaningful to all of us who knew him and who respected him. It would be difficult to tell the story of Wyoming without also describing the life and the time of Cliff Hansen. They are intertwined, a pioneer State and its patriarch.

If it is true, as many people say, that Wyoming is what America was, Cliff Hansen is the independent spirit, the rugged cowboy who made her great. My wife Bobbi and I wish to offer our deepest condolences to the Hansen and the Mead families, to his beloved Martha, especially, his wife, as Senator Enzi said, of over 75 years. Just last month they celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary. She was with him to the end.

Cliff Hansen is a legendary Wyoming figure, but to his family he was a dedicated husband, father, a special grandfather and great- grandfather, and someone who will be terribly missed.

He was born October 16, 1912. Prior to graduating from the University of Wyoming, he worked for his parents on a cattle ranch in Teton County. It was there we can presume that Cliff Hansen learned the manner and the skills that would take him from Wyoming to Washington and back.

In 1962, Hansen was elected Governor of Wyoming. He served for 4 years. He believed he could do more for the people of Wyoming in Washington than he could in Cheyenne. So he then ran and won a seat in the Senate and was reelected by an overwhelming margin in 1972.

These simple dates hardly tell the story. Cliff Hansen was Wyoming's John Wayne--a proud, commonsense cowboy who spoke to the hearts and the minds of a great State.

As we have the opportunity to reflect more on Governor Hansen's passing, to hear, as well, from his family, there will be much more to say and remember about his extraordinary legacy. But today, on the news of his passing to the Kingdom of Heaven--a phrase he used with great reverence--I want to make sure his friends and his colleagues know that God accepts home a great man today.

To his wife Martha, his son Pete Hansen, his grandsons Matt and Brad and their families, his granddaughter Muffy, the Nation, and Wyoming send you our heartfelt condolences. We hope you and your family are comforted by his strength of character, his convictions, and his grace as a truly great man.

I speak today for thousands--for tens of thousands--of people who knew and who loved Cliff Hansen--all that he stood for, all that he today represents that is good about our Nation, the West, and Cliff's beloved Wyoming.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to speak about the conference report we are currently discussing, but I want to first take a second to commend the Senator from Delaware for his fine effort over these many months to continue to call to the attention of America wonderful people who have committed their life to make the lives of other Americans better. He has done a wonderful job, and this is just one more example of both the Senator's job of bringing the news to all of America but also the story of a wonderful individual who has committed his life to improving our great Nation.

Madam President, I would like to spend a moment thanking the Senators from North Dakota and from Utah for their hard work on this bill we are currently considering. It represents a truly bipartisan effort. The energy investments in this bill will foster technological innovations and will harness the creativity and hard work of the American people. I believe it will help us move forward on clean coal technology. It will also promote energy efficiency and accelerate research into renewable energy.

I want to highlight one issue in particular, if I could, and it deals with our domestic uranium production. The uranium industry provides good-paying jobs across the country, and certainly good-paying jobs in Wyoming. A strong uranium workforce is essential to expanding America's nuclear energy capacity. Uranium production means American jobs and American energy.

In August, the Department of Energy proposed transferring-- transferring--a significant amount of uranium to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. The uranium transfer was designed and intended to pay for an environmental cleanup at a facility in Portsmouth, OH.

This is a laudable goal. Unfortunately, the proposal of the Department of Energy would have serious unintended consequences. The proposed transfer would flood the uranium market, artificially forcing down spot prices for uranium, and create significant uncertainty in the marketplace. This action would have a devastating impact on domestic uranium mining. It would cost plenty of jobs in my home State of Wyoming but also jobs all across the United States. It would undercut an integral part of America's energy portfolio.

The Department's plan, in my opinion, is shortsighted and lacks common sense. Why create jobs in one State by killing jobs in another State? The environmental cleanup can be accomplished without hurting jobs in Wyoming and elsewhere.

The conferees recognized the problems with the proposal of the Department of Energy. The conference report directs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the Department's management of its excess uranium supplies. The bill increases funding for the Portsmouth facility and the cleanup. These steps provide the opportunity to address the necessary environmental cleanup issue without causing the collateral damage in other States.

So I thank the Senators from North Dakota and Utah for their work to address this problem. The Department of Energy should rethink its uranium transfer proposal. By working within the framework of the Excess Uranium Management Plan, the Department can get maximum value for its uranium and fund the cleanup of Portsmouth without hurting jobs--good jobs--in other States.

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

Mr. President, in this chamber we have witnessed incredibly moving eulogies and remembrances of our departed colleague Senator Edward Kennedy. Obituaries in national and international newspapers convey the historic milestones of his life that none could forget, as well as more personal stories of the man that fewer knew.

So much has been said and written since Senator Kennedy's death August 25, 2009. Many of these stories paint the picture of his family, his life, his accomplishments, his legacy all of it extraordinary. Many of us are students of history. Indeed Senator Kennedy lived history.

I am reminded of the recollections of one of my predecessors as U.S. Senator for Wyoming, and a dear friend of Senator Kennedy, Senator Al Simpson. In an interview from 1997 given to the Institute of International Studies at the University of California as part of their ``Conversation of History'' project, Senator Simpson was asked: Who was the finest legislator he had ever worked with? Senator Simpson replied:

The finest legislator I ever worked with was Ted Kennedy.

He had a magnificent staff, he even had a parliamentarian on

that staff of his. So when you were in the legislative arena

and you were bringing your lunch and staying late, you wanted

to get Ted on your side or at least use some of his

expertise. I would go to him sometimes early on and say look,

you'll have to trust me, what the hell do I do right now to

move this bill? Boy I'll tell you he had ways to do it and as

you can see he uses those skills on issues in which I was

totally on the other side. I can't remember them all there

were so many. We were never on the same side. But he is a

legislator.

And so he was. He was a quintessential legislator. There is no question about that.

Most of those who have so eloquently written and spoken since his death knew the Senator much better than I Presidents, Senators, world leaders, and other dignitaries, members of his family and friends back in New England. They recall the Senator all of us in the Senate knew, even if only briefly a kind, caring, passionate, and deliberate figure.

Others have detailed his accomplishments they are legendary and lasting. What can I add to these recollections?

I was neither a close friend, confidante, nor legislative partner to Senator Kennedy. I was a new Senator from Wyoming when I first met him. But the story I have, I would like to share, as it is meaningful and illustrates his larger than life personality in the U.S. Senate.

On June 25, 2007, I was sworn in to the U.S. Senate. Senator Kennedy was one of a handful of Democrats in the Chamber. As you would expect, I had a lot of family members in the gallery. Later, they joined me along with Malcolm Wallop, former U.S. Senator for Wyoming, and Senator Mike Enzi in a reception off this floor.

As I was walking up the center aisle to leave the Chamber, there was a booming voice that reverberated through the Chamber. ``Senator, Senator!'' I was new. I had been a U.S. Senator at that point for all of 60 seconds, so I ignored the calls. At that moment a hand grabbed my shoulder, I turned and heard this booming voice again ``Hi, I'm Ted Kennedy.'' Senator Kennedy through his voice and his presence knew how to get your attention.

All of those who came to see me sworn in--family, friends from Wyoming--they heard it too and we all broke out laughing. ``Senator Kennedy, we know who you are.''

Senator Kennedy began to tell me stories of his life and about his visits to Wyoming. He spoke about a trip to Rock Springs, WY, when his brother John was running for President. He spoke of Wyoming casting the votes to secure the nomination for John.

He told me about the people he had met--members of the Wyoming Democrat Party at the time--relationships he had built nearly 50 years ago. He named one after another as if he was reading from text. It was a stunning moment to watch Senator Kennedy recall places, events, and people in my home State from 1960.

At my welcoming reception he took personal time with my son Peter and my daughter Emma, both in college. He said to them, ``So you're the brother and you're the sister--you know I had some brothers.'' He talked about John and Robert and Joe. A living history lesson. He invited them up to his office to show them pictures and other memorabilia.

In his office in the Russell Building he must have spent half an hour with Peter and Emma going over pictures of his father Joe, mother Rose, and the Kennedy kids. He shared letters, notes from history.

I think he enjoyed it nearly as much as we did. He beamed when he spoke about his family.

Senator Kennedy leaves behind an astonishing legislative record of accomplishment. He achieved his goals to a degree that perhaps no other Senator in history has. As a public servant, he has few equals.

But he was so much more. Ted also leaves us with the memory of the man--the memory of his kindness and grace, his humility.

Books will detail Ted Kennedy's legislative victories. His moments in history. I will remember the moments he took to warmly and unexpectedly welcome this new Senator and touch the lives of my family that day as well.

To Vicki, we extend our family's sympathy and hope the coming days are filled with more love, God's grace and strength to go on. Bobbi and I wish the Kennedy family our best and our prayers are with you.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit for the Record a letter I received from the mayor of Evanston, WY, William Davis.

Evanston is a wonderful community located in the Bear River Valley of southwest Wyoming. The town was founded in the 1800's during construction of the First Transcontinental Railroad. Today, over 11,000 people call Evanston home.

Mayor Davis wrote to me last week. He wanted me to know that individuals and communities across Wyoming are feeling the impact of America's current economic times. This does not come as a surprise. What I found of particular interest in Mayor Davis' letter was his observations regarding the primary factor driving our economy: Americans' anxiety about the future.

Like Mayor Davis, I hear regularly from the people of Wyoming who are concerned about the future of our country. They are anxious about the changes being proposed in Washington. They are concerned about losing control over their own lives to Federal bureaucracies. They are angry about the financial train wreck called the Federal deficit that is picking up steam and headed their way.

Mr. President, the mayor's sentiments are shared by thousands of people across Wyoming. I would ask that his letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It prevents the Central Intelligence Agency from using any funds from the fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill to create or operate a center on climate change and national security.

To me, this center is redundant to activity already conducted by the CIA and other Federal agencies. There is no reason to create an additional center to do work already being done.

We don't need to duplicate the work of others. Leave the task of gathering and analyzing climate change information to the agencies that do that work. Let them pass that information on to the analysts at the CIA to incorporate it into their assessments.

The experts at the CIA should focus work on foreign intelligence gathering to prevent the next terrorist attack. That is what they are trained and equipped to do.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

I ask the pending business be set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment, No. 2567, and make it pending.

Mr. President, on September 25 the Central Intelligence Agency announced the creation of the CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security. I am proposing an amendment today to the fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill that would prevent funds in this bill from going to that center. The CIA is responsible for gathering foreign intelligence information for the United States. We have threats from around the world. The most immediate of these threats is the prevention of future terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. I do not believe that creating a Center on Climate Change is going to prevent one terrorist attack.

Why is this administration having our intelligence officials, the men and the women who protect this country, have these men and women staff and operate a climate change center? The creation of this center appears to elevate the issue of climate change to the level of terrorism and foreign espionage.

To me, this raises a number of questions. The CIA always claims to have scarce resources and competing priorities. What are the costs going to be of creating this new climate center? Isn't there a more efficient way to achieve the same results using existing resources? Why can't the CIA get this information through traditional channels, such as the State Department officials in the field, the EPA, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, and other Federal agencies?

How does the CIA get information about other issues--world hunger, disease, financial markets--to make their decisions? Do they have centers for all of these issues as well? Is this center going to make demands on the current CIA bureaucracy? Will they use existing personnel? Will they hire new people? Will necessary personnel have tasking authority?

Tasking authority means the ability to take satellites off of watching terrorists and having them instead watching arctic ice sheets. Will someone sitting in a dark room watching satellite video of northern Afghanistan now be sitting in a dark room watching polar ice caps?

The priorities seem to be out of focus. I believe the Senate should support this amendment and bring the focus back in line with America's national security interests. The CIA has an important job to do. It must not be distracted by being forced to deal with climate change.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew

Julson, of Senator DeMint's staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of the debate on H.R. 3326.

It seems to me the people of Wyoming have those very concerns, as does the Governor of Wyoming.

I served in the Wyoming State Senate for 5 years, and we know that one of the largest budgets is Medicaid, the aid we give to people in need of health care. But it is almost the same as what we are paying for K-12 education. In Wyoming, we sure do not want to pay for what is happening in the majority leader's home State.

I was home yesterday. Yesterday morning, getting on the plane to come back from Wyoming--I go home every weekend. I was at the Wyoming football game, where we won, we beat the University of Nevada Las Vegas, the leader's home State. That was another great day for Wyoming football.

But when you go to a game like that in Wyoming, a lot of people come up to you and ask you questions. One of the questions that came up this past weekend was: Have you read the bill? What is in it? What is it going to cost? People of Wyoming say: Am I going to be able to read it? How do I read the bill? Is it going to be on the Internet? Will I be able to see it?

To try to explain: There is no bill. There is this concept paper. I have it here. It is called the chairman's mark. It is the concept paper of 220 pages. You look at this, this is not even in legislative language yet. So you are going to be asked to vote on legislation, not just a concept paper.

Absolutely. In my practice for 25 years in Casper, WY, I took care of a lot of people on Medicaid. I took care of anybody who needed to see me.

But you are right. Across the board, there are many people on Medicaid who do not--are not able to see a doctor. The number you quoted is exactly the one I have.

I have an article that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

This as also from the Wall Street Journal from September 27, called: ``Max's Mad Mandate.'' The first paragraph says: One reason this Finance Committee bill allegedly pays for itself is because it will break all 50 State budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid.

It says: They are going to expand Medicaid. The Senator was a Governor. The Senator had to deal with this in Tennessee: Using Medicare to cover everyone up to at least 133 percent of the Federal poverty level, that will add some 11 million new people to the Medicaid rolls, which is not going to help, if currently, as the article goes on, about 40 percent of U.S. physicians will not accept Medicaid at all.

That is why the National Governors Association is furious with this huge expansion of Medicaid. It quotes the Governor of Vermont, who says: Unlike the Federal Government, States cannot print money. Many of us, such as Wyoming, live within our budgets. We live within our means. We balance the budget every year. For Washington, in its effort to take over health care in the country, to force the States to pay for it, in what is, to me, a trickery or a financial gimmick, to say they can make the books balance, is not a favor to the American people.

That is why people at home ask me every weekend: Can I read the bill? Have you read the bill? Can I read the bill? What is it going to cost? It ultimately gets down to people are very worried about a government takeover, very worried that at a time we are spending all this money as a nation, against my wishes, another trillion dollars for kind of an experiment that is going to fund a lot of it through Medicare. We have not even gotten into the discussion of Medicaid.

It is the reason that, No. 1, we should read the bill. It is the reason we should make sure the people all across the country have a chance to read the bill. The people of Wyoming want to read the bill. It is the reason we need some time for those people from all our home districts to get back to us.

As I say, all around Wyoming, the wisdom does not come from Washington, the wisdom comes from America, from your State and my State and the other States. I want those people to be able to read the bill, come up with better ideas or suggestions, and a lot of times folks at home will see what I call unintended consequences, something that is in the bill that you say: Well, I had not thought about that.

We have the hospitals across Wyoming, those people want to read it. The doctors, the nurses, the physicians assistants, and the patients, the people who are mostly going to be affected by this, they want to know what is in the bill, which is why I say that is the reason to put it on the Internet. People can read it ahead of time and then let them have time to comment back to us.

Well, you will be adding to the deficit. That is why seniors all across this country have great concerns about what is being proposed.

I am saying: Who is opposed to this? The No. 1 group is seniors, by 2 to 1. Seniors are opposed to what is happening because they know this is going to be paid for out of their own Medicare.

Just 10 or 15 minutes ago, we heard the majority leader on the floor of this Senate say--and I wrote it down. He said, talking about his plan, he said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is what he said.

But you and I both know there are 11 million Americans, seniors in this country, on Medicare Advantage, which is a program set to help people in cities and people in rural communities. They have both in Tennessee. We sure have the rural communities in Wyoming.

It says they cannot keep that if they like it--or 11 million, it is double the number on it in the last couple years because it is so popular, because it actually does what Medicare itself does not do, works with prevention, works with coordinated care. That is what our seniors want. That is why seniors across the country are so opposed to this.

I heard that in Wyoming this past weekend. People who depend upon Medicare are rightly suspicious, very suspicious about this program. As they try to learn more about it, what they learn is that it is going to cut Medicare. They are learning it is going to increase taxes. They are learning it will limit what they have in terms of choices for their health care.

For all Americans, if you ask: What do you think, is this going to cost more or less, they think it is going to cost more. When I ask people at townhall meetings: Do you think you will have better or worse care, the show of hands is that they will have worse care. Americans don't want to pay more and get less. People want value for their money.

People who depend on Medicare are rightly more suspicious than other folks because of the impact this is going to have on them. They understand $500 billion is going to be cut from their health care.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 2471.

On Friday, September 11, the Washington Times ran a front-page story on an issue titled ``Forest Fire Aid Allotted to DC, Western States Feel Burned.''

That is about right. The story talks about the U.S. Forest Service plans to spend $2.8 million of wildland fire management funds in the District of Columbia. This is ridiculous, it is outrageous, and we should not stand for it.

Mr. President, just to read the first paragraph:

Even with forest fires raging out west, the U.S. Forest

Service this week announced it will spend nearly $2.8 million

of forest firefighting money in Washington--a city with no

national forests and where the last major fire was probably

lit by British troops in 1814.

The article continued:

The vast majority of the money--$2.7 million--is going to

Washington Parks & People, which sponsors park festivals and

refurbishes urban parks in the Washington area.

Mr. President, in Wyoming, we have over 9 million acres of national forest land. There are seven national forests in our State. We face many management challenges in those forests. The agency struggles to meet its basic responsibilities. Over 1 million acres are infested with mountain pine beetle in Wyoming. That is just one species of beetle--a species that has killed over 1 million acres of trees. The devastation stretches well beyond the horizon in many places. And where the beetle infestation is at its worst--in the Medicine-Bow National Forest--the affected acres have doubled between 2007 and 2008. The problem is severe. It is growing exponentially, and we are facing extreme risk of wildland fire in Wyoming.

So when the U.S. Forest Service recommended $500 million and received that amount of money for Wildland Fire Management in the stimulus package, one would think maybe the agency would use those funds to combat threats to forest health in its lands nationwide. One would think that maybe we would see some real results on the ground in Wyoming and in the State of Colorado. Instead, Wyoming was awarded zero dollars in the first round of U.S. Forest Service projects under the stimulus, and only after the congressional delegation and the Governor of Wyoming appealed to the Department of Agriculture were funds awarded for forest projects in Wyoming. Meanwhile, the agency wants to spend $2.8 million on wildland fire in Washington, DC?

The people and forest communities in my State deserve better, and the people of America demand better. Wyoming boasts incredible wildlife populations, unique ecosystems, and breathtaking views. Over half the land in Wyoming is public land. One can see rangelands, alpine forests, glacial basins, and desert landscapes in Wyoming. We host millions of visitors every year who will enjoy Wyoming's wilderness.

The District of Columbia is not under threat of wildland fire. In fact, the government's National Interagency Fire Center defines what qualifies as a wildland fire--and DC does not qualify. Clearly, the District should not receive wildland fire management funds. The U.S. Forest Service should not spend vital funds for wildfire fighting and for prevention in Washington, DC.

I have introduced this amendment with a number of other Senators from the West. Senator Kyl and Senator Ensign and Senator McCain are cosponsoring, and we want to make sure the U.S. Forest Service is not wasting management opportunities. We will not stand by and watch our State's burn when resources are available to prevent that, and I would ask all Senators to support this amendment.

Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business and call up amendment No. 2471.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator Alexander for their gracious reception and acceptance of this amendment in the Chamber with that resounding voice vote in support of the amendment.

Amendment No. 2472

Mr. President, I also filed amendment No. 2472, and I wish to speak on that amendment at this time.

I am not at this point.

Mr. President, I have serious concerns about the recent Interior Secretarial Order No. 3289. This order will incorporate climate change into all decisionmaking at the Department of the Interior.

Although I commend the Secretary for attempting to address this issue, I have concerns that we are getting the cart before the horse. Congress has not passed a climate change bill. Yet sweeping regulations are being proposed by the Secretary of the Interior. These regulations put into question the future and past land management agreements regarding oil and gas development, renewable energy development, recreational use, and wildlife protection.

Under these rules, a dark cloud is placed over all existing agreements regarding these activities. In addition, all pending decisions regarding both energy development and recreational use will also be put on hold indefinitely. All this will occur through regulations that did not have the approval or the consent of the American people.

I would ask my colleagues, no matter where they stand on the issue of climate change, to vote for this amendment. We need to get the order right. First, a climate change bill that has the public's approval; then after that is voted upon, and if approved, let the regulatory process at the agency level begin. That is what my colleagues are voting on if they vote for this amendment.

So I urge adoption of the amendment at the point when it is called up.

Amendment No. 2473

Mr. President, I also filed amendment No. 2473, and I will also speak on that at this time. That amendment would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding from going into effect until the EPA grants the petition of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to have an on-the-record, trial-like hearing on the scientific data behind the EPA's endangerment finding.

The chamber petitioned the EPA for a trial-like hearing on the scientific data behind the endangerment finding before an administrative judge or EPA official. The chamber stated in their petition that:

An endangerment finding would give rise to the most far-

reaching rulemaking in American history. Before embarking on

that long, costly process, the EPA ought to do everything

possible to assure the American people of the ultimate

scientific accuracy of its decision.

The on-the-record proceeding would be a great opportunity for EPA to ensure transparency. This administration claims to be the most transparent administration in history. What better opportunity to demonstrate this by authorizing the chamber's petition. The administrative proceeding is allowed by law. It will be a short on-the- record proceeding. To deny this request is an admission by the EPA that their work on endangerment can't stand scrutiny. This should be a concern for all Americans at this point.

Amendment No. 2474

Mr. President, I would like to move on to another amendment which I have filed--amendment No. 2474--and I will speak on it at this point.

This amendment would require the Environmental Protection Agency inspector general to complete an investigation into the treatment of Dr. Alan Carlin by his superiors at the Environmental Protection Agency. Under this amendment, the endangerment finding could not proceed until the investigation is completed.

Dr. Alan Carlin and a colleague prepared a 98-page analysis arguing that the EPA should ``take another look'' at the EPA's scientific data behind the endangerment finding that carbon dioxide is a threat to public health. According to a report by Kimberly Strassel with the Wall Street Journal, a senior EPA official suppressed this detailed account of the most up-to-date science on climate change.

These reports raise serious questions about the process behind and the substance of the EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public

health and welfare. On August 21, Inside Washington Publishers reported that the EPA is considering scrapping the National Center for Environmental Economics' role in scientific analysis. Well, this would essentially eliminate the EPA office that Dr. Carlin has worked in for years.

In an editorial in the Washington Times, the paper stated:

This attempt to marginalize a true whistleblower smacks of

insincerity . . . and . . . its implications for economic and

environmental policy are dangerous.

This is an administration that claims to put a premium on transparency and openness. Their actions to date have demonstrated neither. My colleague, Senator Thune, has requested an inspector general's investigation into this matter. I believe the investigation should be conducted and completed before the EPA proceeds further with endangerment.

So, Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business and call up amendment No. 2474.

Mr. President, I am very concerned by what I am seeing today. My effort in offering this amendment is to promote transparency and good government. Dr. Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA, wrote a report critical of the EPA's process behind the endangerment finding. He said the EPA relied solely on outside sources for their science. He also pointed out that the scientific data they are relying on is 3 years old.

The EPA tried to quash his report. Dr. Carlin's boss warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether. He was told:

With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to

move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to

spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers,

no research etcetera, at least until we see what EPA is going

to do with climate.

Mr. Carlin was ordered not to have any direct communication with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on that very topic. To not even allow the Senate to have a vote to decide whether to investigate this matter looks like political expediency. It is wrong and it should concern all of those who claim to care about transparency.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a great man is being honored by the Salvation Army in Casper, WY. Tom Walsh is a patriot, a teacher, a leader, and a friend. It is fitting that the Salvation Army has bestowed upon him this year's Others Award. It is the highest award the local Salvation Army unit bestows for outstanding contributions and impacts in the community.

Born and raised in Thermopolis, WY, Tom attended the University of Wyoming and ultimately received a doctorate from the University of Colorado. How fortunate we are that Tom and his wife Rita chose Casper as the place to live, work, and raise their family.

When one looks around the Casper community, Tom's influence is obvious. He served as mayor and on the Casper City Council. The Casper Chamber of Commerce also benefited from his guidance. Our world-famous drum and bugle corps, the Casper Troopers, have been the recipients of his time, talent, and generosity. The list goes on and on.

Tom had a distinguished career in the Wyoming Legislature. He was effective in passing legislation to improve our community and our State, particularly in the areas of education, county libraries, tort reform, community colleges, and substance abuse. Some of the efforts he is most proud of include the Business Ready Communities Program and the Veterans Property Tax Exemption Program. Tom resigned his service as a State representative due to his battle with leukemia--a battle he is fighting with distinction and tenacity.

Though Tom's great achievements are numerous, I know he is particularly proud of his role as an Army Reserve ambassador. In this position, Tom provided extraordinary support to our soldiers and their families while stationed on the frontlines in the global war on terrorism. Tom went far above the duties of an Army Reserve ambassador. He used his position as a State legislator to successfully sponsor a bill to make it easier for Wyoming families to cope while their breadwinner is off to war. The bill created a $5 million trust fund, used to help qualifying families with special financial needs. The bill that passed into Wyoming law during the 57th Wyoming Legislature demonstrates the public's concern for and commitment to our Reserve members and their families as they adjust to the new reality of modern war. For his efforts, he received the Patrick Henry Award from the National Guard Association.

Mr. President, join me in sending our congratulations and thanks to Tom Walsh. Receiving the Others Award from the Casper Salvation Army is a fitting tribute to this fine American.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Craig Thomas Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 2008.

Shortly before Craig Thomas passed away, he introduced legislation, S. 1281, to protect the Snake River headwaters. His goal was to designate hundreds of miles of river in northwest Wyoming as wild and scenic. At the time, Senator Thomas stated that this designation would be a ``badge of honor'' for these rivers.

On May 15, 2007, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on S. 1281. Senator Thomas invited Jack Dennis, a world renowned fly fisherman, to testify in support of the bill.

During his testimony Jack Dennis eloquently made the case for wild and scenic designation stating ``Without hesitation, the rivers and streams of the Snake River Headwaters are the most stunningly beautiful in the world.'' Jack further testified that ``To walk these rivers and hear the music of the rivers, to see beavers swimming out of the lodge, to watch an elk come down to the river to drink at sunrise--these rivers touch all our souls.''

On Sunday, August 9, 2009, I will be participating in a community event in Jackson Hole, WY, to officially designate the Snake River headwaters as wild and scenic. I will be joining Susan Thomas, Jack Dennis, and hundreds of grassroots organizations and individuals who never gave up.

Like so many others, the river touched Craig's soul. This coming Sunday, we will finish the task Craig Thomas started. It is a remarkable accomplishment--388 miles of river dedicated as wild and scenic, 388 miles of pristine water that will be protected for the enjoyment of future generations.

What an honor indeed.

Mr. President. I wish today to talk about a special group of people who live and work with us, side by side in our hometowns across America. The terrible days of the Second World War produced an entire generation of men and women who answered the call to duty to defend freedom and defeat tyranny in far off lands across both oceans. They left their homes and families, endured great trials, and gave so much of themselves for so many of us in the most difficult of circumstances.

These brave men and women served in our Nation's darkest hour. And then they came back home. They went back to work, to school, bought homes, raised families, and continued to build our Nation. Today they are our friends and neighbors, our parents and grandparents, our fellow Americans. And we owe them such a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Mr. President, on August 15, 2009, the State of Wyoming will dedicate its World War II Memorial at the Wyoming Veterans Memorial Park in Cody, WY. And I am honored to be here on the floor of the Senate to personally give thanks to the many men and women and their families who made such great sacrifices on our behalf during the terrible days of World War II.

The memorial being dedicated and the ceremony itself required a major commitment on the part of those who worked to successfully complete the project. This includes veterans, their families, friends, admirers, and all of the people of Wyoming whose hard work and generous contributions made this memorial possible.

The Wyoming World War II Memorial is a fitting tribute to all those of the Greatest Generation who gave so much for our country. It is because of them that we all live our lives in freedom and are able to exercise the rights guaranteed to us in our Constitution every day. We are the grateful beneficiaries of their sacrifices.

My father was a veteran of World War II. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge. My wife Bobbi's father was in both World War II and Korea. My dad always told me that I should thank

God every day that I live in America and how fortunate I was. He was right. This is the greatest country on Earth. And it is because of the brave actions of so many of our fellow countrymen.

The Wyoming Congressional delegation had the privilege of greeting a group of Wyoming's World War II veterans on the National Mall this spring. They made the Wyoming Honor Flight trip to Washington from Wyoming to visit the World War II Memorial. Wyoming's World War II veterans are heroes in every sense of the word. They quite literally saved the world. Let Wyoming's new memorial be a monument of our endless thanks for all they have secured for us. All of Wyoming, and indeed America, says thank you.

Mr. President, I have three criteria in evaluating an individual to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. First, select the best candidate for the job. Second, the Justice must be impartial and allow the facts and Constitution to speak. Third, a Justice's responsibility is to apply the law not to write it.

I have reviewed Judge Sotomayor's record, and I met with her to learn more about her. I want to take a moment to share my thoughts on Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

Judge Sotomayor has a compelling life story. She was raised in public housing projects in the Bronx. She was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at age 8. Her father died when she was 9, and she was subsequently raised by her mother. Judge Sotomayor graduated valedictorian of Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx. She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton. She earned her juris doctorate from Yale Law School, where she was editor of the Yale Law Review. After graduating from law school, Judge Sotomayor worked as an assistant district attorney in New York City for 5 years. She then worked in private practice for 7 years.

In 1991, Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the Federal bench by President George Herbert Walker Bush. In 1998, President Clinton nominated her to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where she currently sits.

I believe Judge Sotomayor has the legal experience and the skills to be considered for the Supreme Court. During the confirmation process, questions were raised about her ability to make decisions on the facts presented not on events and facts that became ingrained during her life. Judges must be impartial and allow the facts and the Constitution to speak not their personal experience. For America's judicial system to work, judges must always remain impartial.

At her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor stated that her judicial philosophy is ``fidelity to the law.'' This is in contrast to her extensive commentary over the past 15 years, a commentary that emphasizes personal experience over impartiality in a judge's decisionmaking. The contrast is especially troubling when a judge, as was the situation in the case of Ricci v. DeStaphano, fails to articulate the reasons for the decision.

In the Ricci case, the firefighters case, an exam was used as part of the promotion process. The exam consisted of a written test as well as an oral test. It was prepared by Industrial Organizational Solutions, a professional testing firm. The test measured individual knowledge, individual skills, and individual abilities related to the specific position being filled.

The highest scores on the written exam were achieved overwhelmingly by White firefighters. After the results were posted, the city of New Haven, CT, did not like the results and decided at that point to not use the exam. Several officers sued. They sued the city for taking this action.

Who were the officers who sued? One was Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff. He was a career firefighter. He is dyslexic. To study, he hired and paid someone to read the recommended study books onto an audio tape so he could listen to the tapes. He studied up to 13 hours a day. He gave up a second job, time with his family.

Lt Ben Vargas was another officer who sued and testified at Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. He also has a career as a firefighter. He grew up in Fair Haven, which is a neighborhood of New Haven. His father was a factory worker. His family spoke Spanish at home, making school a challenge for him. He is the father of three boys. One of the reasons he joined the lawsuit:

I want them [my three sons] to have a fair shake, to get a

job on their merits.

The district court ruled against the firefighters. Judge Sotomayor's court upheld the lower court ruling dismissing the case. Judge Sotomayor's court issued a one-paragraph opinion summarily dismissing the appeal. Her court failed to cite any precedents for this decision.

In June of 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor's opinion. The Supreme Court stated:

The City made its employment decision because of race. The

City rejected the test results solely because the higher

scoring candidates were white.

The Supreme Court went on to say:

The process was open and fair. The problem of course is

that after the tests were completed, the raw racial results

became the predominant rationale for the City's refusal to

certify the results.

The Supreme Court's 34-page majority opinion, fully analyzing the facts and the legal issues, stands in stark contrast to the one- paragraph ruling by Judge Sotomayor. The lack of a detailed explanation by the judge's court on an issue that the Supreme Court said was not settled law is one I find troubling. More importantly, it raises doubt, fairly or unfairly, as to why Judge Sotomayor's court ruled the way it did. Through her own words, Judge Sotomayor's ability to completely disown personal beliefs and biases to reach a decision is in question.

I have additional concerns about the principles Judge Sotomayor will apply in deciding future cases involving important issues such as the second amendment. In a 2009 second amendment case decided by Judge Sotomayor's court, her court ruled that the second amendment did not apply to the States. The court cited Supreme Court cases from the 1800s as precedent. But Judge Sotomayor's court went further. They ruled that the second amendment right is not a fundamental right, thereby allowing

States and local authorities broad powers to deny individuals the right to bear arms. The court's ruling that the second amendment right is not a fundamental right can't be reconciled with recent decisions on other courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2008 case, was asked to decide whether the District of Columbia could deny its citizens rights afforded to them under the second amendment. In its ruling, which was issued before Judge Sotomayor's 2009 decision, the Supreme Court said the second amendment confers an individual's right to keep and bear arms. The Court rightfully overturned the laws of the District of Columbia that denied citizens of the District the right to own a firearm.

In a 2009 ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court concluded that the series of 19th century Supreme Court cases cited by Judge Sotomayor were not controlling on the issue of whether the second amendment establishes a fundamental right. The Ninth Circuit Court concluded the Constitution did confer that right. The court ruled that the second amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right of the people, and it is to be protected.

Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, will receive a lifetime seat on the highest Court of the land. Her decisions may impact Americans and America for generations to come. Every American has the right to know what standard Judge Sotomayor will apply in judging future cases-- fidelity to the law, as she stated in the hearings or, as she has stated in the past: ``My experience will affect the facts I choose to see.''

The Senate should know with absolute certainty the standard that Judge Sotomayor will use before confirming her to the Supreme Court. Without having that certainty, I am unable to support her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the impact of cap and trade legislation on American agriculture.

Mr. President, the House and Senate Western Caucuses yesterday hosted a hearing entitled, Cap and Trade: Impact on Jobs in the West and the Nation. Jim Magagna, the Executive Vice President of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association testified at the Hearing.

I want to thank Jim for all he has done for agriculture in Wyoming. I also ask unanimous consent that his statement from yesterday's hearing be printed in the Record.