Department Of The Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, is the Senator calling up that amendment?

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source