John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the recent decision by AIG to pay out $165 million in bonuses. In a year when Main Street has suffered dearly, it is disappointing to see that the culture of greed on Wall Street continues to prevail. Every American ought to be outraged. Every person who has ever paid taxes ought to be outraged by AIG's decision to pay out such bonuses. I returned from Wyoming this morning, and in the airport and on the plane, this is the topic people are talking about--taxpayers who are expecting value for their hard-earned taxpayer dollars, people who are asking about accountability, and people who are asking about oversight, saying: What in the world is going on back there in New York and in Washington? While I understand that AIG has contractual obligations to fulfill, they also have an obligation to the American taxpayer, who now holds nearly 80 percent of the ownership of AIG stock. To date, AIG has received nearly $175 billion in taxpayer assistance. Similar to any publicly traded company, AIG must be accountable to shareholders, and the shareholders here are the American people. This money was intended to serve as a liferaft to keep the company afloat. It was never intended to reward AIG employees for the trouble they have caused for our economy. It is insulting to all taxpayers to see that their hard-earned money is being spent to save a company that doesn't appear to be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to save itself. Unfortunately, the same irresponsible behavior that got AIG into this mess appears likely to keep them there. They say it is a contract, but if the American public owns 80 percent of the stock, the American taxpayers are the owners. Therefore, I say, show us these contracts that allow for this sort of retention bonus. The American public, the taxpayers, have a right to expect to see each and every one of these contracts. You may say: Why is it the Treasury didn't demand that these contracts be renegotiated when we sent that first pile of money to AIG last year, the $85 billion? The people of America get it, and now they say: Who is watching this? There has been a response letter written from the AIG CEO--the chairman and CEO--talking about this contractual agreement, this decision to pay these kinds of bonuses. He talks about his commitment to the future. He says: AIG hereby commits to use best efforts to reduce expected 2009 retention payments by at least--listen to this--30 percent. They are going to use their best efforts, so 2009 bonus payments are reduced by at least 30 percent. Are we still talking about $100 million in bonus payments for a company we continue to bail out? Any American taxpayer who reads that has to be offended by this approach to say we are going to pay bonuses again in 2009. He goes on to say in his letter that they cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and to staff the AIG business if the employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury. Arbitrary? Continued? Bring it out there and let the owners of the company--the American people-- make that decision. The American public will say they want accountability, oversight, and they want value for their taxpayer dollars. It is not what the American taxpayers are getting today from AIG. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 637 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to talk a minute, if I could, on my amendment. Imagine you run a small company, a small, independent oil-and-gas operation in Wyoming, and you have about a dozen people you employ-- people who are getting good benefits, people who have health insurance, people who have retirement benefits--and you are applying for a permit to explore for energy. As a result, people are going to be put to work, your business is going to grow, and the economy of your community is going to prosper. Well, the success of your business strategy relies on the Government, unfortunately. It relies on the Government to process your application and to provide you with a response--is it OK to explore or is it not OK? The law says the Government has to let you know in 30 days up or down, yes or no, is it OK. Well, you have 30 days to get geared up. You are waiting for your response. Now, Mr. President, when you put in that application, you also had to send in $4,000--$4,000 for each well. So if you are applying to do 10, that is $40,000, but you know you are going to get your response in 30 days. Well, the calendar proceeds and the clock winds down and you begin checking your mail every day. Nothing arrives. Each day for 30 days you check your mail. Nothing. You have called the agency but no permit. They say they are deferring a decision. Another 30 days passes. Nothing. You wait another 90 days and still no permit. You have paid your $4,000 but no permit. Half a year has passed--as has happened to many people in Wyoming-- and what do you have? Nothing. You have sent in $4,000, you have waited 6 months, the Government has promised you an answer in 30 days, and you have nothing--not a yes, not a no, nothing. That is the situation that small business owners in my State are facing every day. It is a sad state of affairs when the Government can't meet its own deadline. Meanwhile, the backlog of these permits at the Bureau of Land Management continues to grow. As of February 14 of this year, in the field office in Buffalo, WY, Johnson County, the Bureau of Land Management has over 2,600 applications for permits that are still pending--2,609 permits still pending. For those applications in Buffalo, WY, Washington has collected $4,000 per permit. That is over $10 million. The energy producers in Wyoming continue to wait for an answer. America's independent producers drill and manage 90 percent of America's wells. They produce 82 percent of America's natural gas and 62 percent of American oil. There are approximately 5,000 of these independent producers in the United States, and on average they have about a dozen employees. These are small businesses. These small business men and women create jobs in the United States. These folks are entrepreneurs whose hard work and innovative skills are integral to meeting our Nation's energy needs. The fees to apply for a permit place an especially heavy burden on small independent producers without any tangible benefit whatsoever. Congress should be focused on promoting job growth not on imposing additional fees on U.S. energy investment and production. Unfortunately, the fee is just the beginning of what these independent producers are facing. The administration has already moved to restrict oil-and-gas exploration and development in the United States. The administration is proposing more fees, more taxes, and more restrictions on these activities. None of this will make the United States more energy independent. None of the administration's proposals will make the Federal Government operate more efficiently. I have talked to a number of these folks who are in this business, and they tell me if the money that was collected from this application fee--this $4,000 per permit--were actually used to hire more people to help process the permits, then they could actually understand there is some purpose in this fee, that it is being used to help with studying this, looking at this, getting more people to work through these 2,600 applications for permits, for which they still have no answer. Unfortunately, that is still not the case. The fee doesn't go to the Bureau of Land Management to reduce the permit backlog. It doesn't go to hire more people to look at these permits, to say if we should give them a yes or a no. At the very least, all of the revenue should be spent on reducing this permit backlog so that the Government can keep its word to let people know in 30 days yes or no, up or down. Instead, this money is going into the Washington black hole. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We should not be rewarding the inefficiency of Washington and the way this Government is currently working. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge National Peace Corps Week and the many U.S. Peace Corps volunteers serving across the globe. There are currently 22 U.S. Peace Corps volunteers from Wyoming who are serving around the world. These men and women have joined a unique organization of people who are willing to make a personal commitment to lend a helping hand to those in the world who are less fortunate than us. These Americans often live and work in challenging areas as they partner with their local counterparts to aid development. Peace Corps volunteers have made significant contributions assisting people to improve health care services, create business opportunities, promote education, and develop resources. Many people in the world today are suffering from political unrest, natural disasters, disease, and a lack of economic opportunities. I commend all the Peace Corps volunteers who leave behind the comforts of home to live in different areas of the world and work to make the world a better place. The Peace Corps volunteers' reputation as ambassadors of good-will demonstrates the ability of individuals to make a difference in our world. As they work alongside people from different nations, these volunteers have the opportunity to represent America and the values that we hold dear. Additionally, our volunteers' knowledge of the unique challenges people face gives us insight into developing better relations with other countries. I applaud their efforts and dedication. I would like to recognize the men and women from Wyoming who are currently serving as U.S. Peace Corps volunteers: Lisa J. Balland, serving in Uganda; Thomas P. Burian, serving in Capre Verde; Bria M. Chimenti, serving in Tonga; Jenna M. Dillion, serving in Senegal; Heather Dixon, serving in Gambia; Seth H. Edmunds, serving in Fiji; Sagar L. Gondalia, serving in Kazakhstan; Larry R. Hanson, serving in Fiji; Daniel J. Healy, serving in Ukriane; Sarah D. Hunt, serving in Romania; Kevin U. Malatesta, serving in Armenia; Joshuah C. Marshall, serving in Morocco; Kathryn D. Mcmillan, serving in Costa Rica; Korie C. Merrill, serving in Togo; Jennifer D. Moore, serving in Nambia; Maggie K. Moran, serving in Romania; Michael O. Nielsen, serving in Malawi; Kelly M. Olenyik, serving in Malawi; Brandon J. Perkins, serving in Burkina Faso; Michael S. Quinn, serving in Kazakhstan; Garrett C. Schiche, serving in Thailand; and Brian M. Steen, serving in Kyrgyzstan.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, like my colleague from Utah, I too wish I had something I could vote for, something I believe would stimulate the economy, would get the job done. But on this package, based on its size, based on its magnitude, and based on what I believe are fundamental flaws in it, like my colleague, I will also need to vote no. The other day I was on a local radio station in Casper, WY, KTWO, ``Brian Scott in the Morning.'' Brian said: How do we know, how are we going to judge the success or failure of this bill? And I said, because this is statewide in Wyoming: Ultimately the people of America will judge the success or failure of this bill. If the people believe the Government is working for them, then it is going to be a success. But if, on the other hand, the people of America believe they are working for the Government because of the debt and they feel burdened by this package through increased taxes, through inflation, through less buying power, through more Government regulations, then people will judge this a failure. I want it to work. I want something that is going to make a difference in the lives of the people of Wyoming and the people of America. Brian then specifically said: How will it work? How is the program actually going to work? That is where I have to turn to the headlines and the sort of things Senator Bennett was talking about because I don't think anyone knows. The Members of this body don't know. The Members of the House don't know. The program is much too big. As Alice Rivlin, the former adviser to Senator Bill Clinton said, we should go with something half the size. Take a look and do the emergency spending now, and then let these other programs, whether it is energy, environment, education, health care--let's discuss those in a deliberate manner. But the headlines from the Washington Post say, ``Trim to Stimulus Carves Into Goals For Job Creation.'' Are we not trying to create jobs? Isn't that what this is supposed to be all about? Not these backed-up projects people have had as their pet projects for years. Another headline, same page: ``Despite Pledges, Package Has Some Pork.'' ``Sifting Through Details of the Deal,'' as the Members of this body are still waiting for the copies to come to the floor. Investors Business Daily: ``Stimulus Bill Funds Programs Deemed `Ineffective' by [Office of Management and Budget].'' Page 1 headline: ``Stimulus Bill Funds Programs Deemed `Ineffective' by the [Office of Management and Budget].'' Then why are those programs still here? That was yesterday's Investors Business Daily. Today's headline: ``$789.5 Bill Stimulus Coming, But Will It Revive Economy?'' We are going to spend all of this money, and every dollar we spend that does not actually work to contribute to reviving the economy is an extra dollar our children and their children are going to owe to foreign nations because we did not have the self-control to limit our spending now. And then the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, the big question: ``Next Challenge on Stimulus: Spending All That Money.'' Senator Bennett talked about a very expensive proposal that is going to be spent, and the Wall Street Journal said it would probably take them about 8 years. By then, this economy is going to have changed dramatically. This ``Next Challenge on Stimulus: Spending All That Money'' talks about the Department of Energy. What does it have to say? [Department of Energy] is going to have to dramatically change how it does business if it hopes to push all this money out the door. . . .They are going to need more people, more oversight and more freedom to waive regulations. If they are going to spend all this money in a timely manner, because that is what this program is supposed to be--timely, temporary, and targeted--if they are going to be able to spend this money in a timely manner, they are going to have to waive regulations. We will see how they do. This is the Department of Energy that has a history of delays and of letting costs spiral during the delay process. And that is today's Wall Street Journal. Is there waste in this program? Absolutely. I think the people of Wyoming get it right. I have had telephone townhall meetings. I have been home every weekend for the past three weekends. But the Powell Tribune in Powell, WY, has a headline that says: ``Stimulus: Take time to get it right.'' If you live in Powell, WY, and you write for the paper in Powell, WY, you are not one to ever want to quote the New York Times. Yet in this editorial they do. They talk about the New York Times. They said: A New York Times editorial said, ``A bill that is merely better than nothing won't be nearly good enough.'' ``A bill that is merely better than nothing won't be good enough. The economy is too fragile. And the numbers are too huge.'' What I think we should do is people should, once the bills get to their desks, pack them up, take them home with them, read them on the plane, read them in the car, read them on the train, read them as they go home, and then talk with people about what is in the bill, and then come back and vote on it. Then I think this Senate and the House would know what the people of America would say. Take the time to get it right. This bill is too big. It spends too much. The cost is too great. The risk is too high. And for somebody from Wyoming, it seems to me as though we are firing all our bullets at once, spending close to $1 trillion on a package that we don't know whether it is going to work, and if additional help is needed, we will have run out of ammunition. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, I think they did not focus where they should have put the focus, which is where we got into the problem in the first place and that was housing. I believe this body said unanimously we need to fix housing first, and we put in a significant amount of money: a $15,000 tax credit, tax relief for people who buy a house, to get the economy moving in the area that got us into the problem in the first place. Then--while we have not seen the bill yet--that has been stripped away, I understand, in this new compromise between the House and the Senate, and they have taken billions out of it, to a very small number, where it is $8,000 for certain, limited numbers of first-time home buyers. So there is a significant decrease in dealing with housing. But there is money in for all sorts of other things that will not effectively help our economy, and that is what I have trouble with. I am looking for something I can support, can vote for. President Clinton's economic adviser, Alice Rivlin, said there should be something much smaller, something that is targeted at the problem. Because, to me, this seems rushed. We are making rushed judgments on energy, education, health care that, to me, do not belong in a stimulus package. We should be focused on what got us into the problem in the first place. That, to me, is housing. So we can go on about other problems I see with this legislation. People all say to me: Hey, how are you going to judge success? I say: Well, the American people are going to judge success. They will be the ones to decide whether this will be a successful program. If people believe things are working and the Government is working for them, then terrific. But if the people of America feel the burden of this whole package--the burden is on them with inflation, with increased taxes, with less buying power, with more Government rules--well, then, the people of America will judge this to not be a successful package. But whether it is throwing water on a fire or breaking the piggy bank, the people of Wyoming think of this as we are using so much money, we are shooting all our bullets at once, and we are not going to have any ammunition left over if we have to come after this again.

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, Mr. President, that is my biggest concern. I make a point of getting home to Wyoming every weekend. I have been to Wyoming just last weekend and the weekend before that and the weekend before that and this is what the people of Wyoming want to know. Is this money going to be well spent? Are they going to get value for their taxpayer dollars? Similar to the other Members of this body, I have not yet seen a copy of the final proposal. But I think the answer, from what I see of the little snippets, is the value is not there for taxpayers. In today's Investor's Business Daily there is a front-page story, and the headline is ``Stimulus Bill Funds Programs Deemed `Ineffective' by OMB''--the Office of Management and Budget. Stimulus bill funds programs deemed ineffective. Well, if they are going to be ineffective at stimulating the economy, my question is: Why are they in a stimulus bill? The people at home get it right. This past Saturday I was at a Boys & Girls Clubs function. We had 700 people trying to help our Positive Place For Kids in the community, and many of them talked to me about this and said: We want to help. We want a program that will succeed. We need a program that will help our Nation and will help our economy. But they say, every dollar you put into this that is not really targeted and timely--and then, of course, temporary--every dollar that is spent that is not stimulating the economy is an extra dollar we or our kids or our grandkids are going to owe to people from around the world--owe to the Chinese, owe to others--and that is not the way to have a strong economy for our Nation.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the modifications of the amendment by Senator Boxer. The Boxer amendment rightly states that we should try to expedite NEPA. I appreciate the improvements she has made to that. My amendment, which I urge Members to support, is amendment No. 326, offered by Senators Enzi and Vitter and Crapo and Risch and Bennett and Roberts as well as myself. The amendment is a practical, moderate solution to a real problem, as every school, road, bridge or dam funded under this bill will require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Congressional Budget Office and countless business leaders agree we must address NEPA in this legislation. My amendment would not waive NEPA, it would only require that it be completed in 9 months. I appreciate Senator Boxer's efforts to do this in an expeditious way. This amendment goes further and says 9 months. If projects are truly shovel ready, this should be no problem. This amendment prevents bureaucratic delays and will put people to work. I am asking my colleagues to vote in favor of amendment No. 326 and I would appreciate a voice vote.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 326.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the bill we are looking at today represents a massive Federal investment. It will provide Federal funds for a host of activities at State and local levels. This would be a new experience for many of our States. The requirements set forth for Federal involvement have caused some State and local officials to take pause. But in the West, we have already learned the lessons of Federal involvement. In my State of Wyoming, we deal with the Federal Government in the day-to-day operations of our land, of our businesses and of our communities. More than 45 percent of the land in Wyoming is federally owned. The Federal Government has introduced major predators into our landscape. The Federal Government controls most of our dams, lakes, and reservoirs. The Federal Government manages the irrigation and grazing for agriculture production. We depend on Federal managers to access Federal lands for hunting and fishing. Living with this heavy Federal involvement in Wyoming, we struggle every day to cut red tape and to get work done. I urge the Members of the Senate to seriously consider the experience of the people of Wyoming. We in Congress need to face the realities of our Federal system. Bureaucratic delays impact everyday life in Wyoming. Unless we seriously consider legislative alternatives, delays will affect many of the projects proposed for funding through this piece of legislation we are considering. The vast majority of the projects proposed for this funding are subject to environmental laws. These laws provide for measured, thoughtful decisionmaking. They allow public involvement in our Government, but they are not built for speed. Virtually every school to be built, every road, and every bridge in this legislation would require documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act, called NEPA. From my Wyoming experience, NEPA reviews can take years--not weeks, not months but years. Even after NEPA documentation is finalized, activist groups can file appeals and litigation and hold up projects for many years to come. To address this pressing need, I am proposing an amendment today numbered 326, along with several colleagues, to provide for a streamlined process of approval. The amendment would require that NEPA be completed in 9 months. We require that administrative appeals be combined for expedient consideration. Once the administrative remedies are exhausted, judicial review is available in the Federal Court of Appeals right here in Washington, DC. This provides a single, clear system to review decisions and provide a fair ruling. A host of experts have called for Congress to face the reality of NEPA during this stimulus package debate. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in their January 28 letter to the Senate, gave recommendations for ``actions that could accelerate spending.'' NEPA is the very first point they offered. CBO wrote that Congress should consider ``waiving requirements for environmental and judicial reviews.'' CBO is not alone. Governor Schwarzenegger of California, a very moderate Governor, listed waiving NEPA as a priority for his State to succeed with stimulus funding. He wrote that Congress should ``waive or greatly streamline NEPA requirements,'' in order to speed delivery of the projects. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest group of businesses in the Nation, called for NEPA reform. These are exactly the people we expect to lift us out of the recession. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce feels that this amendment is necessary for the stimulus package to succeed. The knowledgeable, moderate, hard working people of America are calling on Congress to make this improvement to the stimulus legislation. In fact, some of them are calling for us to go further than this amendment would go. This amendment is not a waiver of NEPA responsibility. Rather, it requires that NEPA documentation be timely and effective. If bureaucratic delays stand in the way of project completion, it provides for the project to go forward. This amendment is a practical middle ground. I urge Members of the Senate to support it. This amendment will make the aims of this legislation possible. The Federal Government should not stand in the way of people trying to help out and to help us out of the recession. Community projects should be reviewed quickly and allowed to go forward after a reasonable time. This amendment would prevent bureaucratic delays. Approval of the amendment will allow our transportation, our public land management, and construction goals to be met on time. If the aim of H.R. 1 is to provide quick, efficient funding for projects that will stimulate our economy, we must approve this amendment. If projects are truly shovel ready, if our partners in the agencies, States and local governments have done their homework, they won't depend on this amendment. But by approving this amendment, we will guarantee that no Federal bureaucrat sitting in Washington can waste time and money on endless paperwork. Frankly, I believe this kind of requirement should be available to all of us who struggle with bureaucratic delays in the Federal Government. I will explain a few of the difficulties we face in Wyoming with Federal delays and bureaucratic red tape. I am sure my fellow cosponsors of the amendment have similar stories. I hope my colleagues will heed our cautionary tales. In the Medicine Bow National Forest, we have watched millions of acres of forest die year after year. Bark beetles have infested our pine trees. They spread quickly and leave behind stands of dense, dry timber waiting to burn. We see entire mountain ranges of standing dead timber. This is a health problem, a safety problem for our communities in and around the forest. The Forest Service recognizes the importance of moving quickly to reduce wildfire risk and remove the hazardous fuels. Yet it takes nearly 2 years to plan and review a single project, 2 years before we can even begin work on the projects. Most of that time is consumed by analysis and review in order to reach NEPA compliance. This is a clear example where red tape and bureaucratic requirements are failing the people of Wyoming. These same policies will fail the people of America if we do not include a process of expedited NEPA regulations in this legislation. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes also face delays due to red tape that the Federal Government imposes on transactions involving Indian lands. Almost every proposal to lease or develop the surface minerals, timber, water, and other resources located on Indian land is subject to approval by a Federal official. However, that official's decision cannot be made until the NEPA review and documentation requirements have been fulfilled. The lengthy paperwork must be completed regardless of what the Indian tribe or the landowner wants and regardless of the tribe or the landowner's participation in negotiating the transaction. Those review and documentation requirements take time, even when the process goes smoothly. If there is a court challenge to the NEPA review, the process can be dragged on for many months or even years. The challenge of complying with NEPA has its own impacts on the human environment in the case of Indian lands. It makes Indian lands less attractive to prospective investors and developers, and it can lead to substantial delays and considerable uncertainty. I am not saying that NEPA has no benefits and that it is all bad. But as we consider this stimulus bill, we in Congress must be honest with ourselves. We must face the fact that NEPA compliance may create significant delays in the spending contemplated by this bill. That should not happen. We should make it clear that NEPA will not be available as a mechanism to block or substantially delay a project authorized by this legislation. With that in mind, I hope Members of the Senate will support this amendment. We know in Wyoming that delay and red tape are part of every Federal project. If Washington is serious about implementing massive Federal investment in local communities, we must ask ourselves the same questions being asked by our constituents: How do we make the process effective? How do we harness the most resources in the least amount of time? How can we best serve the people? If you consider the on-the-ground realities of Federal projects, you see the necessity of this amendment. We need to put an end to bureaucratic delays. We must allow our communities to move forward with projects in a reasonable timeframe. We should allow the public to dispute Federal decisions, but we should limit unending lawsuits and delays. These are improvements that will vastly improve the effectiveness of Federal funding and allow truly shovel-ready projects to proceed without delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 326.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I will work on that with Senator Boxer.

Mr. BARRASSO. I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 189 on behalf of Senator DeMint.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of a true Wyoming gentleman, a public servant, a veteran, a father to five girls, and--I am privileged to say--a friend. Kearsley Harrison Roberts, better known to us as Harry Roberts of Kaycee, WY, died today, January 28, 2009, in Vero Beach, FL. Harry Roberts was really a renaissance man, the kind of which are the lore of Western legends. He was a Yale-educated sheep rancher, a Navy veteran of ``the greatest generation,'' an expert in public education--successfully elected statewide as Superintendent of Wyoming's public schools, a leader in Wyoming economic policy, and most of all he was a caring father. I think we can imagine what brought him the most joy his family and of course, his five spirited daughters Mandy, Joan, Sheila, Ginny, and Susan. Harry led quite a ranch crew. Picture five girls growing up on the Wyoming wildlands in the same area where Butch Cassidy and the Hole in the Wall Gang stowed rustled livestock and outran the law. This was north central Wyoming, Barnum, a small community near Kaycee where to this day more rodeo cowboys than any one town in the West call home. They call this part of Johnson County, WY, Outlaw Country, and after an eastern education, it inspired one western soul to work a sheep ranch for the love of the Wyoming way of life. Harry Roberts found home and heart on this ranch, and today, I like to think of him back on his range, with the great western sky warming his big, signature smile. Wyoming's Harry Roberts was the genuine Wyoming gentleman. He was also the proud father-in-law to this body's beloved former colleague, U.S. Senator Craig Thomas. Harry's daughter Susan Roberts Thomas married Craig Thomas and the two were inseparable in life. Susan, I speak for so many here in this Chamber and for all of Wyoming when I say our thoughts and prayers are with you today and with your entire family. We grieve, as we did for Craig, the natural end of a purposeful life. We recall a man who served his State, his country, and his family selflessly. And we say, we remember Harry, as we do Craig, because of what he did and how he did it always with distinction and with honor. Harry is and always will be a proud and patriotic member of the ``greatest generation.'' In fact he was what sailors call a ``plank owner.'' At that time, a ``plank owner'' referred to an individual who was a member of the crew of a ship when that ship was placed in commission. As part of the vessel decommissioning and disposal process, the Navy formerly removed a small portion of the deck as a traditional reminder of the time when ``wooden walls and iron men'' were a key part of the Navy. In Harry's case, it was a boat--a submarine in fact. After his military service Harry worked and lived in Wyoming, eventually running for superintendent of Public Instruction in 1967. Harry was known as a reformer of course and someone who cared deeply for Wyoming children. In 1970, in one of the closest races in Wyoming's history, Harry lost a race for Wyoming's lone U.S. House race losing by only 608 votes to Teno Roncalio. Harry was a leader in our State on issues that went well beyond education. He served as director of the Wyoming Heritage Foundation and counted many successes during an especially exciting and challenging time in our State's history. It was at the Heritage Foundation that my wife, then Bobbi Brown, first met Harry and learned so much under his guidance for several years. Harry personified the Wyoming Heritage Foundation's mission for a strong, prosperous, diverse and sustained economy for the citizens of Wyoming. His goals and initiative are felt to this day. More recently after his retirement, he returned to Washington often to visit his daughter Susan and to see his son-in-law Craig Thomas. Susan became a teacher of course, following in the footsteps of her father who held the profession so highly. It was in May of 2004 that Senator Thomas hosted a very special reception along with Vice President Cheney here in Washington. Craig invited Harry and his fellow ``plank owners'' to be recognized along with the dedication of the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall. It was a special occasion to acknowledge and pay tribute to the duty, sacrifices, and valor of all the members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in World War II. And it was also for Harry and his fellow sailors. I have talked to several folks who were there that day. I know the pride that Susan and Craig felt for their father, for his service, and for his example. I will end now with the Navy Hymn, a song and a benediction that Harry would have heard often at sea in service to our country. I will recite the first and last verse. Eternal Father, Strong to save, Whose arm hath bound the restless wave, Who bid'st the mighty Ocean deep Its own appointed limits keep; O hear us when we cry to thee, for those in peril on the sea. O Trinity of love and power! Our brethren shield in danger's hour; From rock and tempest, fire and foe, Protect them where-so-ever they go; Thus evermore shall rise to Thee, Glad hymns of praise from land and sea.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is a privilege today, and really a joy, to rise to join in the celebration of Senator Mitch McConnell and his many terrific years of service to this country and to the people of the State of Kentucky. For those folks who watch from the gallery or watch at home, I will tell you what you see is what you get. He is kind, he is thoughtful, he is calm, he is patient, but I will also tell you he is persistent. You could not have a better friend in the Senate or in this life than Mitch McConnell or his wonderful wife Elaine. We have heard a bit about the history of Kentucky, we have heard a bit about Wendell Ford, but when you put this into historical perspective and you do the searches and you see who the top names are in Kentucky when it comes to politics, the names that come up are Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln--because he was born in Kentucky--and Mitch McConnell. Now, Henry Clay was the greatest of the Old Senate Chamber. People who watched the swearing in of the Senators earlier this month saw Senators taking their oath in this Chamber but also going back for a reenactment in the Old Senate Chamber. In that Old Senate Chamber the names were Clay, Calhoun, and Webster. When one of them would rise to speak--and people would come from all around--they would say: Clay is up, Calhoun is up, Webster is up, and people would run. Well, today, the running occurs when people say: Mitch is on the phone; Mitch is calling. You want to know: How can I help? What are his ideas? You know they are good for the country. Henry Clay was called the great compromiser. He was called the great pacifier. Those names were given to him because of his ability to bring others to agreement. The exact same thing can be said of Mitch McConnell in this, the new Senate Chamber. Now, Mr. President, we left that Old Senate Chamber in 1859 and moved to this beautiful Chamber, and this marks the 150th year of that move. There is actually a little booklet, the ``United States Senate Chamber 1859-2009,'' and it talks about when we left and made the procession. We have heard about some previous Kentucky Senators, but the Senator who gave the speech when we left that Senate Chamber in 1859 was also from Kentucky. It was Senator John Crittenden, and some of his comments are in this booklet. Well, I will tell you, in the new Senate Chamber, since 1859--now 150 years--Mitch McConnell truly and clearly is the man of the Senate. Just like Henry Clay, he came from humble beginnings. We talk about humble beginnings, but few people know that Mitch McConnell, at the age of 2, had polio. He was nursed back to health by his mother, who helped teach him how to walk and then how to run. It is through her hard work and his dedication and his persistence that he has become the man we know today. In early November of this past year, George Will wrote an article praising Senator McConnell, but he quoted Abraham Lincoln, when he wrote: I hope to have God on my side but I must have Kentucky. I will tell you, Mr. President, for those of us on this side of the aisle, we must have Mitch McConnell. The Senate would just not be the Senate. We have been blessed time after time after time that the people of Kentucky have seen fit to send Mitch McConnell back to the Senate. In his speech when the Senate moved from the Old Senate Chamber to the new Senate Chamber, Senator Crittenden said: Senators are the representatives of the States of this mighty union. No matter under what sky we may sit; no matter what dome may cover us; the great patriotic spirit of the Senate of the United States will be there and I have an abiding confidence that it will never fail in the performance of its duty. Well, Mr. President, this applies to Senator McConnell because his great patriotic spirit will always be here, and those who know him have an abiding confidence that he will never fail in the performance of his duty. Mr. President, Senator McConnell is a champion. He is a champion for Kentucky and he is a champion for America; for a stronger America, a better America, a safer America, and an America where any boy or girl can, through hard work and persistence, grow up to be a leader of this great Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, these figures, particularly the estimated gas reserves, are still not a small amount, but they are significantly lower than the previously stated estimates and much smaller in size and in scope relative to other known gas reserves in the area of western Wyoming. Currently, in this area, there are 4,300 producing oil and gas wells in the three counties that are touched by this legislation. There is a proposal being considered for up to 4,339 additional wells that would not be affected by this legislation. There is production currently taking place in the Wyoming Range that will not be stopped by this legislation. The people of Wyoming are doing their part to keep America's energy flowing. We in Wyoming are the largest net exporter of energy in the United States. We support development of our coal, of uranium, of oil, of gas, and of renewable resources--the electricity from wind. We have never been a State that has said: Not in my back yard. We are No. 1 in coal production in the country, we are No. 1 in uranium production in the country for nuclear power, and we are No. 2 in the country in production of onshore natural gas. The people of Wyoming continue to do their part. We also recognize, through 119 years of statehood, that there must be a balance, a balance between helping the Nation meet its energy needs and maintaining the quality of life the people of Wyoming have come to enjoy. The Wyoming Range Withdrawal Act has bipartisan support throughout the State of Wyoming. The Governor of Wyoming, Governor Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, came to Washington to testify at a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and he spoke in favor of the bill. My colleague in the Senate, Senator Mike Enzi, is a cosponsor of the bill. It truly is a bipartisan measure. The Wyoming Range Withdrawal Act strikes the proper balance. I have come to the Senate floor today to put this bill in context with what is occurring on the ground in Wyoming, as well as what is occurring under the ground. My goal is to provide an accurate and a complete picture for the Senate and, much more importantly, for the American people. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Hon. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 27, 2008, and your request for U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) oil and gas resource information regarding the Wyoming Range Withdrawal Area (WRWA), outlined in S. 2229. Based on the map your staff provided, the withdrawal area encompasses parts of two geological provinces assessed by the USGS--the Southwestern Wyoming Province and the Wyoming Thrust Belt Province. The USGS conducts assessments of the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the entire geologically defined province. To approximate the amount of the estimated resources underlying the proposed withdrawal area, we placed the map provided to us into a geographic information system (GIS), calculated the amount of WRWA area that overlaps the assessment units we had analyzed and assessed in the two geologic provinces, and calculated the percentage geographic area that the WRWA represents of each assessment unit. We then calculated a first approximation of the potential undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in this region by taking the mean estimates of each resource category and multiplying by the percent geographic area of each assessment unit. Results are as follows: Mean oil potential in the WRWA is 5 million barrels. Mean natural gas potential is 1.5 trillion cubic feet. Mean natural gas liquids potential is 60 million barrels. Please note that these GIS-analyzed estimates can only be considered approximations, for the following reasons: (1) The map provided to us of the WRWA was a general outline and therefore subject to error when calculating the geographic extent of the assessment units relative to the WRWA; and (2) a homogeneous distribution of oil and gas resources was assumed across each entire assessment unit. For an overview of USGS mean estimates for undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas resources for geologic provinces within in the United States and their relative sizes, please see the map at http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/ data/noga00/natl/graphic/2007/total_gas_mean_07.pdf Please let us know if you have any further questions or we can be of further help. Sincerely, Mark D. Myers, Director.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.